View Full Version : Miscellaneous News Items
DrSmellThis
09-28-2005, 02:17 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280150sep28,1,3686073.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctr
ack=1&cset=true (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280150sep28,1,3686073.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1
&cset=true)
We're talking about Rumsfeld's own secret Pentagon intel agency. So why did they let a
known terrorist into the U.S., and allow him to train to take off an airplane?
Did they not even have him under
surveillance?
belgareth
09-28-2005, 02:25 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280150sep28,1,3686073.story?co
ll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280150sep28,1,3686073.story?coll=ch
i-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)
We're talking about Rumsfeld's own secret Pentagon intel agency. So
why did they let a known terrorist into the U.S., and allow him to train to take off an airplane?
Did they not
even have him under surveillance?
Would you mind posting the article? The link requires a log in.
DrSmellThis
09-28-2005, 02:29 PM
Atta known to Pentagon before 9/11
By John Crewdson and Andrew Zajac
Washington Bureau
Published September 28, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Four years after the nation's deadliest terror attack, evidence is
accumulating that a super-secret Pentagon intelligence unit identified the organizer of the Sept. 11 hijackings,
Mohamed Atta, as an Al Qaeda operative months before he entered the U.S.
The many investigations of Sept. 11,
2001, have turned up a half-dozen instances in which government agencies possessed information that might have led
investigators to some part of the terrorist plot, although in most cases not in time to stop it.
But none of
those leads likely would have taken them directly to Atta, the Egyptian architecture student who moved to the U.S.
from Germany to take flying lessons and later served as Al Qaeda's U.S. field commander for the attacks.
Had
the FBI been alerted to what the Pentagon purportedly knew in early 2000, Atta's name could have been put on a list
that would have tagged him as someone to be watched the moment he stepped off a plane in Newark, N.J., in June of
that year.
Physical and electronic surveillance of Atta, who lived openly in Florida for more than a year, and
who acquired a driver's license and even an FAA pilot's license in his true name, might well have made it possible
for the FBI to expose the Sept. 11 plot before the fact.
Atta is presumed to have been at the controls of
American Airlines Flight 11 when it struck the north tower of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
The FBI
has reviewed the voluminous records of its extensive Sept. 11 investigation and can find no mention of Atta before
Sept. 11, a senior FBI official said. If the Pentagon knew about Atta in 2000 and failed to tell the FBI, the
official said, "It could be a problem."
Anthony Shaffer, a civilian Pentagon employee, says he was asked in the
summer of 2000 by a Navy captain, Scott Phillpott, to arrange a meeting between the FBI and representatives of the
Pentagon intelligence program, code-named Able/Danger.
But he said the meeting was canceled after Pentagon
lawyers concluded that information on suspected Al Qaeda operatives with ties to the U.S. might violate Pentagon
prohibitions on retaining information on "U.S. persons," a term that includes U.S. citizens and permanent resident
aliens.
Information unearthed
The Washington-based FBI agent who was Shaffer's liaison has recalled, in
interviews with her superiors, that Shaffer told her his group had unearthed important information on suspected Al
Qaeda operatives with links to the U.S., but without mentioning Atta's name.
When Shaffer, who is also a
lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, asked to whom at the FBI that information should be communicated, the agent
gave him the name and phone number of an official at FBI headquarters, according to the senior FBI official.
Shaffer explained in a telephone interview that although Able/Danger never had knowledge of Atta's whereabouts, it
had linked him and several other Al Qaeda suspects to an Egyptian terrorist, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who had been
linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and later was convicted for conspiring to attack the U.S. Atta arrived
in the U.S. some seven years after that bombing. But Shaffer and his attorney, Mark Zaid, emphasize that Able/Danger
never knew where Atta was, only that he was connected to Abdel-Rahman and Al Qaeda.
"Not to say they were
physically here, but the data led us to believe there was some activity related to the original World Trade Center
bombing that these guys were somehow affiliated with," Shaffer said.
Asked by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at a hearing last week whether Atta, who lived for 15 months in Florida
under a temporary student visa, was a "U.S. person," a senior Pentagon official answered, "No, he was not."
The
official, William Dugan, was asked why the Pentagon had not given the Able/Danger data to the FBI.
"We're a lot
smarter now than we were in 1999 and 2000," replied Dugan, who testified that the Pentagon instead destroyed the
huge volume of material gathered by Able/Danger, which was disbanded in late 2000.
Erik Kleinsmith, a former
Army major who worked with Able/Danger, testified at the hearing that he continued to wonder whether, if Able/Danger
"had not been shut down, [whether] we would have been able to assist the United States in some way" to prevent the
Sept. 11 attacks.
Zaid, who also represents James D. Smith, a private contractor employed by the Pentagon to
work on Able/Danger, said that until last summer Smith had on his office wall a copy of a chart of Al Qaeda
suspects, produced more than a year before Sept. 11, that had Atta's name and photograph.
"He showed it to
anybody who came by--`Look what we had,'" Zaid testified. "And he would just shake his head, `What if, what if,
what if....'"
Specter sharply criticized the Pentagon for refusing to allow Shaffer, Phillpott, Smith and
others who recall seeing the chart to appear and answer the committee's questions.
"It looks to me as if it
could be obstruction of the committee's activities," the senator said.
Specter added that he was especially
"dismayed and frustrated" by the committee's inability to hear from Shaffer and Phillpott, whom he described as
"two brave military officers [who] have risked their careers to come forward and tell America the truth."
Pentagon to permit testimony
Following the hearing, Specter announced that the Pentagon had agreed to allow
Shaffer, Phillpott and three other witnesses to testify in public next month, though a Specter aide said Tuesday
that the Pentagon now insisted the hearings be closed.
The Defense Department initiated its own investigation of
Able/Danger's activities several weeks ago. After more than 80 interviews with Pentagon personnel, investigators
reported that two individuals in addition to Shaffer, Phillpott and Smith recalled seeing the Atta chart before
Sept. 11.
Kleinsmith, who is no longer affiliated with the Pentagon, testified that he was ordered by a Defense
Department lawyer to comply with Pentagon regulations by destroying the Able/Danger data. He said he did not
remember seeing Atta's name or photo on the materials he destroyed, but that he believed Shaffer, Phillpott and the
three other employees "implicitly when they say they do."
Shaffer said that before Sept. 11 neither he nor
anyone else associated with Able/Danger attached any special significance to Atta, or to any of the other Al Qaeda
suspects the intelligence effort had unearthed.
Nor would they have had reason to. In early 2000, when Shaffer
said he first saw Able/Danger charts identifying suspected Al Qaeda members with links to the U.S., Atta and two
other Sept. 11 hijack pilots, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, were living and studying in Hamburg, Germany.
"I
was the one that carried the charts down to Tampa, to Capt. Phillpott," then Able/Danger's operations officer,
Shaffer said.
Able/Danger was an experiment in a new kind of warfare, known as "information warfare" or
"information dominance." One of the program's missions was to see whether Al Qaeda cells around the world could be
identified by sifting huge quantities of publicly available data, a relatively new technique called "data
mining."
The data miners used complex software programs, with names like Spire, Parentage and Starlight, that
mimic the thought patterns in the human brain while parsing countless bits of information from every available
source to find relationships and patterns that otherwise would be invisible.
Over its 18-month lifetime,
Able/Danger gathered an immense amount of data, the equivalent, Specter said, of one-quarter of the contents of the
Library of Congress.
Although data mining can be a powerful technique, there is a danger that false connections
will be made along the lines of "six degrees of separation," the popular theory that any two people on Earth can be
linked through their relationships to no more than six other people.
Data points matched
The Atta-Al Qaeda
connection, Shaffer said, was made by Smith, who then worked for a Pentagon contractor named Orion Scientific.
Atta's photo, Shaffer said, was obtained by Smith from someone in California who had connections to "a foreign
source" who monitored radical mosques in Europe.
"J.D. Smith took eight data points that were common to the
original World Trade Center bombers in 1993," with whom Abdel-Rahman had been associated, Shaffer said. "From those
eight data points, he matched the profile."
Atta, whose full name was Mohammed El-Amir Awad el Sayid Atta,
called himself Mohamed el-Amir while living in Germany, and thus would not have been readily identifiable as
"Mohamed Atta."
He switched to the surname Atta as he prepared to move to the U.S., according to German police
documents. A Senate aide said Specter was negotiating with the Defense Department over the conditions under which
Shaffer and the other Pentagon witnesses would be permitted to appear before the Judiciary Committee and answer the
senators' questions.
"I think the Department of Defense owes the American people an answer about what went on
here," Specter declared.
Clues pieced together in years following attacks
Post-Sept. 11 investigations have
revealed instances that seem, in hindsight, to have been chances for the CIA or FBI to thwart the attacks.
1.
MAY 1998
HIJACK WARNING
- In September 2005 it was revealed that the independent
commission that
investigated the Sept. 11 attacks found that the
Federal Aviation Administration had been warned as early as
1998 that Al Qaeda "might try to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark." The FAA viewed this
possibility as "unlikely" and a "last resort," the report said.
2. JAN. 15, 2000
THE CIA AND FBI
-
Investigations into Sept. 11 paid much attention to the CIA's failure to tell the FBI that one of the Sept. 11
hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar, had apparently moved to the U.S., where he was taking flying lessons with another
hijacker, Nawaf al-Hazmi, in San Diego.
3. JAN. 31, 2000
DUBAI ARREST
- One of the most promising leads
came from Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, where in January 2000 authorities detained Sept. 11 hijack pilot Ziad
Jarrah as he was returning to Hamburg from a twomonth sojourn with Mohamed Atta and fellow hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi
in Osama bin Laden's Afghan training camps.
It was during those two months that bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed decided that Atta and his friends were the ideal candidates to conduct the operation, according to the
Sept. 11 commission report.
As Jarrah was questioned by the Dubai airport police, he knew the general outlines
of the plot, though the date and targets would not be decided for more than a year.
According to a senior UAE
official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, while Jarrah was in custody the Dubai police informed
the American Embassy that a young Lebanese student had been detained on his way back to Europe from Afghanistan. The
embassy contact, the official said, asked that Jarrah be arrested.
When the Dubai police explained they had no
grounds for an arrest, the embassy contact replied that the police should let Jarrah go.
Jarrah flew from Dubai
to Amsterdam and then to Hamburg, where he reconnected with Atta, al-Shehhi and Ramzi Binalshibh.
U.S. officials
dispute the UAE official's account, saying they never learned of the Jarrah airport stop until Sept. 18, 2001.
4. JULY 5, 2001
THE "PHOENIX MEMO"
- What has become known as "the Phoenix memo" was written in July 2001
by an FBI agent in that city who took notice of the number of Middle Eastern students enrolling in Arizona flight
schools and wondered whether some of them might be terrorists.
The agent suggested the FBI compile visa
information on foreigners applying to flight schools, although such an effort would have missed the Sept. 11
hijackers, who had graduated from flight school months before.
5. AUG. 15, 2001
MOUSSAOUI'S ARREST
-
Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested on immigration charges in Minneapolis three weeks before Sept. 11 after he raised
the suspicions of a flight school instructor by paying for his lessons in cash and demanding to learn to fly a
Boeing 747.
When Minneapolis FBI agents asked FBI headquarters in Washington for permission to see what was on
Moussaoui's laptop, they were denied. In fact, Moussaoui had been sent to the U.S. by Al Qaeda to undergo flight
training, and aides to bin Laden had arranged for Moussaoui to receive at least $15,000, according to the Sept. 11
commission report.
When the laptop was finally searched in the wake of Sept. 11, it contained nothing linking
Moussaoui to the plot.
6. SEPT. 10, 2001
SATELLITE CALLS
- Investigators have made much of two satellite
telephone calls between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, monitored and recorded the day before the hijackings by the
U.S. National Security Agency.
In one conversation, a party in Afghanistan announces that "The match begins
tomorrow." In the second conversation, a different person warns that "Tomorrow is zero hour."
The conversations,
in Arabic, weren't translated by the NSA until Sept. 12, but were probably too general to have led investigators to
the plot.
InternationalPlayboy
09-28-2005, 02:52 PM
Would you mind posting the article? The link requires a log in.
When coming across
a site that requires registration but is otherwise free, such as the Chicago Tribune and other major newspaper
sites, try http://www.bugmenot.com for an anonymous login username and password. I learned about that
site from http://obscurestore.typepad.com/, "The Obscure Store and Reading Room."
belgareth
09-28-2005, 02:58 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280150sep28,1,3686073.story?co
ll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280150sep28,1,3686073.story?coll=ch
i-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)
We're talking about Rumsfeld's own secret Pentagon intel agency. So
why did they let a known terrorist into the U.S., and allow him to train to take off an airplane?
Did they not
even have him under surveillance?
Thanks Doc.
The real question is why the FBI was not notified of
his presence. The CIA and NSA are not allowed to mount operations withing the US (Yeah, I have my doubts too but
let's stick to the story line :) ). They do have an obligation to notify agencies responsible for security within
the borders of potential probelms. I'd think an Al Queda operative would qualify as a problem.
belgareth
09-28-2005, 03:15 PM
My memory is failing me,
wasn't Rumsfield appointed by Bush?
DrSmellThis
09-28-2005, 08:58 PM
Yes. I hope Bush doesn't "find out" Rumsfeld was
responsible for that. He'd be sure to get promoted.
You're right that the main specific responsibility was to
notify the FBI. I should have been clearer about where I was coming from with those questions:
The context to
that specific responsibility is a collective responsibility, as U.S. security and intelligence professionals, to
stop the known terrorist from coming here and planning a terrorist attack under everyone's nose. Someone has to be
responsible for that, and if everyone is only responsible for their specific task within that, no one is.
I'm
tired of a government where no one is responsible for anything, because everything has multiple parts;
and everyone is only responsible for "their part" of something. (Obvious examples in today's news are the Katrina
mess, and prisoner tortures; but there are countless others.).
Even if the "buck" is supposed to stop at
someone's desk, they will blame those lower down the chain; claiming they couldn't possibly have controlled or
managed all the details and people.
It's "ghost responsibility." It theoretically exists somewhere, but you
can't see it, feel it, or put your finger on it. (Digital music is like this too, but I don't want to digress.
:))
It's part of the machine era, where a machine is only the sum of its parts. People are both machines, and
parts of a larger machine with no human identity. No machine or mechanistic process can have responsibility.
Examples include the corporation, the "pheromone-determined relationship"; (a slight stretch but the same
underlying idea, with the mechanism being biological) and the assembly line. It plays into our misguided faith in
mechanism.
One result of this foolish mindset is that only gullible and cowardly peons are held
responsible (enjoy your hard time, Lindy). Another is that efforts to "put a soul in the machine" are labelled crazy
conspiracy theories, etc.
You can cheat to win, by taking advantage of this foolishness, if you're a
thug.
Your defense is to identify with the machine, to masquerade as a mechanism; and that frees you to engage in
actual conspiracy with impunity. Do more choose to conspire more often, given all that freedom and immunity? You
bet! Just look around you. Or read today's news.
Though the solution might not be to have everyone be held
equally and absolutely responsibile for everything in which they have a part, there is a middle ground on which
people can take responsibility for the big picture, and are held responsible for taking that responsibility.
People are typically punished for trying to take responsibility like this in the system we now have (e.g.,
Ambassador Joe Wilson, the many fired CIA "whistle blowers", my own job history, though I'd rather be Joe Wilson
than Lindy Englund ;)). Mechanisms are not allowed to think, after all. But only by allowing and expecting this
mindfulness can we add some soul to the machine, and protect ourselves from thugs who will use the machine to do us
in.
In this anti-mechanistic light, I suspect that the FBI wasn't told of that obvious, unmistakeable,
unforgettable danger because someone with power didn't want the FBI to know, and those without as
much power were either too gullible, or too afraid to push it. Legalism aside, to assume mere incompetence with this
situation is to grant an irrational benefit of the doubt, not to avoid paranoia.
The implications are not
pretty, unfortunately.
We know there was Administrative pressure from the start to divert attention and intel
resources away from Al Queda, to facilitate invading Iraq -- a project that would be well served by building a
special, secret intelligence agency with no congressional oversight, as Rumsfeld did, under Bush's
direction.
That is about the least conspiratorial interpretation possible for a rational person, though
not the only one I have in mind (Hint: PNAC. I'll leave it at that.). This restrained interpretation
nonetheless implies that no one in this administration ever gave a rat's ass about our safety and security -- only
the security of their power agenda. The blatant, omni-arrogant appointment of ruthless power broker Karl Rove to
head the Katrina reconstruction and award the contracts to cronies supports that thesis neatly. This "machine,"
masterfully exploited as a weapon against innocents by thugs, has no soul by design, not by mere political
default.
I trust that explains my original questions.
belgareth
09-29-2005, 06:13 AM
That's what I thought.
Obviously this has been going on for some time as Atta came to the US prior to the Bush regime and Rumsfield
building his organization. It sounds to me like we need to consider the entire intelligence organization not simply
blame the existing power structure and/or political party. It goes right back to my strong belief that the
government structure we have, regardless of elected leadership, is fatally flawed. I will not disagree that it is a
mechanism ruled by thugs but the evidence seems to indicate that other thugs were at work during previous
administrations.
What you describe is in part scapegoat-ism. The whistle-blowers who should be protected are
getting hung while others, the leaders, are not being held responsible. Certainly, if Englund is guilty she should
be punished. How about the officers running the detention center, why are they not being held responsible for the
actions of their subordinates? Why is Rove not being punished for his crimes? There's a whole long list that goes
back many years but it all boils down to accountability. Regardless of politics, personal opinions or party
affiliation, if a person is responsible for something, hold them 100% responsible. If a person commits a crime or
allows one to be committed, apply the same laws across the board. No other standard can be applied and still
honestly expect a just system.
belgareth
09-29-2005, 06:35 AM
According to the
email, this beast was caught roaming the streets of New Orleans. They claim it was looking to eat people/bodies
found there. I'm a bit sceptical because they claim the army killed it. If so, where's the blood? Where are the
bullet holes? No visible signs of trauma. I know how a man with an M16 would deal with a monster that size. The
vehicle does not have a license plate that I can see either. Make your own decision about it. It's an impressive
beast anyway. 21 feet long and 4,500 pounds.
belgareth
09-29-2005, 06:40 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050929/ap_on_
fe_st/santa_compensated (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050929/ap_on_fe_st/santa_compensated)
DrSmellThis
09-30-2005, 11:13 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050929/D8CTVTI04.h
tml (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050929/D8CTVTI04.html)
DrSmellThis
09-30-2005, 11:31 AM
Republicans See Signs That Pentagon Is Evading Oversight
By Douglas Jehl / Washington Post (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29intel.html)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - Republican members of Congress say there are signs that the Defense Department may be
carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress and the new
director of national intelligence.
The warnings are an unusually public signal of some Republican lawmakers'
concern about overreaching by the Pentagon, where top officials have been jockeying with the new intelligence chief,
John D. Negroponte, for primacy in intelligence operations. The lawmakers said they believed that some intelligence
activities, involving possible propaganda efforts and highly technological initiatives, might be masked as so-called
special access programs, the details of which are highly classified.
"We see indications that the D.O.D. is
trying to create parallel functions to what is going on in intelligence, but is calling it something else,"
Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an
interview.
Mr. Hoekstra said he believed that the purpose might be to obscure the extent of Pentagon
intelligence activities and to keep them outside Mr. Negroponte's designated orbit.
Even under the new
structure headed by Mr. Negroponte, the Pentagon's activities are widely understood to make up about 80 percent of
an annual intelligence budget whose details remain classified but that is widely understood to total about $80
billion a year. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon is understood to have carried out a major expansion of its
intelligence programs, including human spying efforts by Special Operations Forces and an arm of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, whose missions have expanded into areas traditionally the purview of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been pressing Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of
defense for intelligence, for more information about the Pentagon's human spying. But the concerns now being voiced
by Mr. Hoekstra and others appear to extend more broadly.
In the interview, Mr. Hoekstra declined to be
specific, citing concerns about classification and the general sensitivity of the issue. But as an indication of the
committee's sentiments, another Republican lawmaker cited an unclassified report issued by the committee in June,
which said the panel believed that "it does not have full visibility over some defense intelligence programs" that
do not clearly fall under particular budget categories.
The report said the committee believed that "individual
services may have intelligence or intelligence-related programs such as science and technology projects or
information operations programs related to defense intelligence that are embedded in other service budget line
items, precluding sufficient visibility for program oversight."
"Information operations" is a military term
used to describe activities including electronic warfare, psychological operations and counterpropaganda
initiatives.
A version of the intelligence authorization bill that was passed by the House this summer calls on
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in consultation with Mr. Negroponte, to provide Congress with "a comprehensive
inventory of Department of Defense intelligence and intelligence-related programs and projects." Those who would
receive such a report would include the House Intelligence Committee, its Senate counterpart and the armed services
committees in both chambers of Congress.
As part of the intelligence overhaul that Congress ordered last year,
Mr. Negroponte, as director of national intelligence, is supposed to oversee 15 intelligence agencies whose
activities fall under a budget category known as the National Intelligence Program. Mr. Negroponte has less
authority over programs that fall under another category, the Military Intelligence Program, which are intended to
provide tactical and strategic support to military commanders.
But the concern expressed by Mr. Hoekstra and
others is focused on a third category of programs involving intelligence activity but not labeled as such, and
included within the budgets of the individual military services.
"Greater transparency into these programs and
projects will enhance Congressional oversight and permit identification of potentially duplicative programs in other
services," the committee said in its recent report, issued in June to accompany the intelligence authorization act
for the fiscal year 2006.
In the interview, Mr. Hoekstra said the committee had been told that the Pentagon was
creating parallel structures "so they don't have to deal with the D.N.I.," the abbreviation for the new
intelligence chief.
A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Christopher Conway, declined to comment on the issue,
referring questions to Mr. Negroponte's office. A spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, Carl Kropf, described coordination
between Mr. Negroponte's office and the Pentagon as "excellent" on budget issues.
"Successfully integrating
D.O.D.-unique intelligence programs and missions into the National Intelligence Program requires full transparency,"
Mr. Kropf said. "Such transparency exists today."
belgareth
10-02-2005, 08:59 AM
Seattle Considers Ban on Lap Dances By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Sun Oct 2, 7:23 AM ET
SEATTLE - Strippers who venture too near the laps of their
dollar-bill-waving patrons have exposed an unexpected prudish streak in this West Coast bastion of tolerance and
liberalism.
Fearing a rash of new cabarets after a federal judge
struck down the city's 17-year moratorium on new strip clubs, the City Council is planning to vote Monday to impose
some of the strictest adult-entertainment regulations of any big city in the
country.
No lap dances. No placing dollar bills in a dancer's
G-string. And the clubs must have what one council member likens to "Fred Meyer" lighting, a reference to the
department store chain.
"It's wiping out an entire industry in
Seattle," said Gilbert Levy, a lawyer for Rick's gentleman's club.
Seattle's queasiness over naked dancing contradicts its usual freewill attitude, which traces its roots to
the days when the city had a thriving business separating gold prospectors from their gold at local brothels and
saloons. Anti-war demonstrations are routine here, a gay population has thrived for nearly a century, and residents
voted two years ago to make enforcing marijuana laws the police department's lowest
priority.
"Seattle had always had that reputation for being a
wide-open town, so it's an almost-normal kind of Seattle controversy — what is sin?" said local historian David
Wilma, comparing the strip club dilemma to the early 20th century debate over whether to regulate the gambling dens
and brothels that permeated Seattle's Pioneer Square district. "One hundred years ago, it wasn't about public
health. It was about what is offensive."
Between 1986 and 1988, the
number of cabarets in Seattle jumped from two to seven. Concerned residents persuaded the city to impose a 180-day
moratorium, to keep the number where it was while officials studied the social effects of the clubs and whether
zoning regulations were needed.
Over the next two decades, the City
Council repeatedly extended the moratorium as a way of avoiding the politically sensitive issue of deciding in which
neighborhoods to allow strip clubs. The number of cabarets in the city fell to four. By contrast, Atlanta has
roughly three dozen.
Last year, a man who hoped to open a club
downtown sued. U.S. District Judge James Robart sided with him last month, ruling the moratorium an unconstitutional
restraint on free speech. The city could wind up paying the man millions of dollars in
damages.
In anticipation of the ruling, however, Democratic Mayor
Greg Nickels came up with rules designed to make it easier to police strip clubs and to discourage new clubs from
opening. The rules include requiring dancers to keep 4 feet from customers, barring the use of private rooms,
barring customers from giving money directly to entertainers, and increasing the minimum lighting — think
parking-garage brightness.
The rules would also make the entertainers
employees of a club instead of private contractors, which the city believes will make it easier to go after club
owners when violations occur. In Seattle, most dancers pay about $150 per shift for the privilege of dancing in the
club, and keep what they make in fees and tips.
Several suburban
communities around Seattle already have the 4-foot rule, one reason clubs seek to open in Seattle, Nickels argues.
The regulations "are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
Seattle," he wrote in a letter to City Council. Some council members say the regulations may go too far, but the
measure appears to have enough support.
Technically, the city already
bans "touching" between a dancer and customer, but city officials dispute whether that means sexual touching or all
touching. At any rate, they say it's impossible to enforce and completely ignored in the
clubs.
"How do you know there's no touching unless you're one of
the participants?" said Mel McDonald, the city official charged with strip club regulation. "It's dark in there.
You don't know whether they're half-an-inch away or not. With the 4-foot rule, it's a lot less subjective. Our
vice people can enforce it without buying a dance."
City Council
meetings to consider the rules have drawn protests from more than 100 of the city's 554 licensed dancers, many
toting young children. Tiffiny Neatrour, a 24-year-old dancer at Sands Showgirls, said she wouldn't be able to
afford to support her two daughters, ages 1 and 5, without the $400-$600 a day she makes — almost all of it from lap
dances. While she's working, her mom or sister helps babysit.
"I
don't know why they're bothering. We're not doing prostitution in there, at all," Neatrour said. "I'd be making
a lot more money if I was. If they want to go after prostitution why don't they go after the escort
services?"
City Council member Richard McIver, whose Finance
Committee has held hearings on the regulations, said he is concerned about the effect the regulations could have on
the dancers, but "I'm not an employment counselor." He supports the rules because police and city officials have
testified that they are needed to regulate the clubs and cut down on alleged "secondary effects" such as
prostitution.
Last year, about 197,000 people visited the city's
clubs, not including the Lusty Lady peep show, generating $79,000 in admissions taxes. But one of McIver's aides,
Paul Elliott, said the general public doesn't seem terribly interested in the debate. The council has received
about three dozen letters and e-mails concerning the new rules, most of them opposed to the regulations.
"We get more e-mails about putting synthetic turf on the Lowell
Heights playfield," Elliot said.
DrSmellThis
10-02-2005, 01:45 PM
Anywhere you have
libertarianism you have backlash by the control freak cultures. But the northwest U.S. is a land of opposites. You
also have a lot of fundamentalism out here, despite the greater openmindedness.
Oregon is a bit more libertarian
than Washington. All their strippers are going to be coming down I5 to Portland now! :twisted:
There are already
more strip clubs here per capita than anywhere in the U.S. My favorite is stripper Karaoke. You can sing Johnny Cash
in a black suit and bowtie while strippers accompany you. Killer!
Netghost56
10-02-2005, 01:56 PM
Lucky for you. The nearest
strip place here is Hot Springs, which has a bunch.
I think there's supposed to be on in Texarkana, but I doubt
its worth visiting.
belgareth
10-03-2005, 06:25 AM
Anywhere you
have libertarianism you have backlash by the control freak cultures. But the northwest U.S. is a land of opposites.
You also have a lot of fundamentalism out here, despite the greater openmindedness.
Oregon is a bit more
libertarian than Washington. All their strippers are going to be coming down I5 to Portland now! :twisted:
There
are already more strip clubs here per capita than anywhere in the U.S. My favorite is stripper Karaoke. You can sing
Johnny Cash in a black suit and bowtie while strippers accompany you. Killer!
In my experience I find that
anywhere you have people you have the control freak culture. Some people just have to try to force others to do what
they think is best for them.
DrSmellThis
10-03-2005, 12:35 PM
In my
experience I find that anywhere you have people you have the control freak culture. One could say,
correctly, that anywhere you have people, you have any and every human quality exhibited. So it's hard to
understand this as a reply, other than as expressing a vague sense of disagreement.
belgareth
10-03-2005, 01:22 PM
One could
say, correctly, that anywhere you have people, you have any and every human quality exhibited. So it's hard to
understand this as a reply, other than as expressing a vague sense of disagreement.
You said "Anywhere you
have libertarianism" I was simply observing that the tendancy is far from being restricted or associated with
libertarianism. Though my post was from plain amussement and not politically motivated I suspect that most people
view Seattle as a bastion of liberals and democrats rather than libertarians. At least that is the way the vote
typically swings in elections. As a point of fact, the article even mentions liberalism. Was there some point to the
remark about libertarians?
DrSmellThis
10-03-2005, 02:06 PM
You said
"Anywhere you have libertarianism" I was simply observing that the tendancy is far from being restricted or
associated with libertarianism. Though my post was from plain amussement and not politically motivated I suspect
that most people view Seattle as a bastion of liberals and democrats rather than libertarians. At least that is the
way the vote typically swings in elections. Was there some point to the remark about libertarians?The point
was made in the post, and I see no need to defend anything. But I will attempt to clarify the apparent
misunderstanding.
Since you bristle when people stereotype Texans in the forum, it should be easy for you to
hear that your implicit characterization of Northwesterners as "liberals" is a bit simplistic. A lot of people would
tell you that libertarianism (this concept is in no way limited to "Civil Libertarians") is a palapable way of life
out here, both in terms of law and culture, and that this obvious cultural tendency influences many political
persuasions, across all party lines. There is a general independent streak that, for example, caused political
mavericks and party misfits Kucinich and Nader to base their recent presidential campaigns out of this area, rather
than in a simply Democratic state (many Dems hate Nader). There is also an obvious rebel attitude in State politics
that gives the Feds headaches, on a regular basis, no matter the party affiliation. I think it's fair to say that
this culture is more intense in Oregon, but is still present in Washington.
It shouldn't be a stretch to imagine
that when a community of people tend to express and tolerate a wider range of freedoms overtly, as is the case with
a libertarian culture, there'd be some who would be made more uncomfortable than otherwise and actively seek to
squash that expression to protect their own emotions. Just as I said, there would tend be a backlash by the control
freak culture, as people's control issues are triggered.
In fact this is what I have observed. For example, you
have more gay culture here than most places, but also a more active anti gay culture than would be typical (Google
"Lon Mabon" for a good example).
belgareth
10-03-2005, 02:39 PM
Doc,
Implicit
characterization? Huh? Who asked you to defend anything? I certainly didn't.
I did not characterize the
Northwesterners as liberals. We seem to be talking ninety degrees to one another. You characterized them as
libertarian, or at least that is what I think you said. Is it incorrect? The article characterized them as liberals
in the first paragraph. My only comment that could be considered pointing that direction was in my most recent post
when I observed that the vote in that area tends to be liberal/democratic. That is no more than an observable fact,
you are welcome to check out for yourself. I'd be very interested to learn more about the libertarian culture in
Seattle or the surrounding area, it's frankly news to me but I haven't paid a lot of attention to the subcultures
in that area. Do you have references I could follow up?
For the rest, It's still true that no matter where you
go or the political bias of the area, there is always a subset, usually a minority, who insist on telling others how
to live. Unfortunately, here in the bible belt they seem to be a rather large minority. I suspect it has something
to do with spending too much time in the hot sun without a hat on. :) California was pretty badly that way too, I'm
not sure what to blame it on there. Maybe mercury in their drinking water, that would explain a lot.:POKE:
I am
still rather surprised and somewhat amused to learn that an area long considered by most the country as very liberal
(you are welcome to check that out as well) would have such a silly attitude towards something so (From my point of
view) harmless. Here, they are trying hard to shut down the flesh palaces but it isn't surprising considering their
rather narrow minded, southern baptist viewpoint on such things. Didn't I at one point post an article about the
lady that was arrested for selling vibrators near here? Many people here actually thought it was the right thing to
do!:frustrate
DrSmellThis
10-03-2005, 03:00 PM
You are welcome to "check out"
whether or not we are liberals and/or have libertarian tendencies out here.
Readers can verify that the other
question about liberals and libertarians was addressed.
belgareth
10-05-2005, 07:45 AM
Doc, I'm curious, are you
saying you are a libertarian?
DrSmellThis
10-05-2005, 09:50 AM
One reason I live out here is
that facet of Northwest culture. It's like the adventurers, free spirits, misfits, and pioneers hid themselves away
in the farthest corner of the country. We don't want people from California or anywhere else moving here, so we
tell everyone how rainy it is. (a sign once posted on the border: "Welcome to Oregon. Now buh-bye!")
I think
it's great, for example, that Oregon has no sales tax, and medical MJ; that it opted out of the FBI
"anti-terrorism" task force; that you can walk barechested through downtown as a woman, :D that it often tells the
Feds to f_ck off (under Clinton too). We do things differently out here (a popular mainstram bumper sticker: "Keep
Oregon weird").
But I hope you of all people are not thinking that "libertarian" = Civil Libetarian. On the
other hand, someone could have a misconception about my "political" philosophy, based on how certain issues have
been approached.
belgareth
10-05-2005, 10:33 AM
But I hope
you of all people are not thinking that "libertarian" = Civil Libetarian. On the other hand, someone could have a
misconception about my "political" philosophy, based on how certain issues have been approached.
That's
why I asked, to avoid any misunderstanding.
DrSmellThis
10-05-2005, 11:11 AM
I do get the spellings mixed
up: "Libertarian" versus "libetarian"? All I know is I'm not a party member, and wouldn't want to be.
Politics
is a strange thing. There really isn't any perfect -- or even clearly good -- political party or system; if you
listen to eveybody's argument, and then look around you. Why?
Humanity works through life stories and history,
not simplistic political platforms. We learn, struggle and we grow. We are where we are. So politics, to be
successful, to match the creatures it serves, needs to be cultural "teliography" -- history told into the future,
and based in where each of us is now. You could call this idea "narrative politics".
Part of this idea is that
every political improvement is based on, and presumes, a change in consciousness. Politics are a fun house mirror of
the people's consciousness.
A political story, unlike an abstract platform, can capture shifts in consciousness
in real time. The consciousness isn't reduced to the abstract conclusion of the story.
We can expand our
consciousness, but are limited by it. Consciousness in history changes like a Rubik's Cube from Hell, so it ain't
easy. It's a chess match played against ourselves, the unachievable object being to elimenate the game and the
competition.
We both know all this and don't. If the process were clear, acknowledged, and deliberate, we could
take more control of our own future history. We could also better understand our own lives, and political
beliefs.
OK. I can hear the Belgareth mind ticking, "But what is the practical solution, what actions are we
going to take?"
But there is no good, simplistic platform for what to do about taxes, welfare, or foreign policy.
If you tried to make one, and were honest with yourself, you might discover that everything depends on various
situations some people are now in, and where we all want to go. So just let it go.
The only politics that can
wrap itself around this state of affairs is a story, a narrative. That means the story rules, and the political
platform can only be discerned upon reflection on this story. We look for common stories of the people, and common
themes. The platform is based on those themes, as they fit with the future history told by the policy maker, who
also has a personal life story he or she wants others to relate to. There is no policy or law that cannot be told as
a compelling story, one that fits in with the bigger stories.
So there is no principle, like "small government".
If government were magically and suddenly made very small, and say, public assitance or other functions were
elimenated, it would be a mega-disaster, and many abstract principles are like this. This is just a simple example,
where the principle is bad by definition because it is not in form of a story.
Or instead of having a tax
platform, like "flat tax for everybody, 20%", you would have a big story that included a tax story within it, by
virtue of the big story. The tax story would have many moments in it, like any other story. Neither raising or
cutting any particular tax could be interpreted, necessarily, as reflecting a "big taxes" or "small taxes"
principle. The coherence and understandability comes from the quality of the story, not the "simplicity" of the
principle. (BTW, remember all the rants on black and white thinking, about how proud fools are, about how simplistic
they are? It all goes together. I continually define what I mean by "holistic", by writing holistic things like
this.)
All such political principles are let go for the time being, as they are divisive and simplistic. We
instead have a shared awareness of ourselves, and imagined life for ourselves and others. Under this idea, you might
need small government for time/place/function X, but big government for Y, and no government for Z.
Political
"principles" are slave to the story if they are to function at all: "we have to help this person in this situation,
working with their self understanding, and this is how we are going to make it work".
The challenge is to tell a
coherent story about the big picture that fits with all the individual stories of people and policies. It is a
political method. That is where the effort goes. It is the hard road, and demands rigorous professionalism
from its practitioners, the politicians.
We might seem to do some of that now, but it's actually pretty
chaotic. The process is only narrative by accident (you can't make people not be storytellers...), not by design
(...so you may as well accept it). So instead of a tax story, you have a bloated, nonsensical, ineffective tax code,
made of countless fragments patched together with snot, boogers, manure and duct tape. As a story, it
sucks.
It's about having a political methodology, one that transcends your platform or affiliation. The story is
the method.
By making it all coherent, deliberate, clear, and acknowledged, we might finally function as one
self-aware mind, in a particular place, going somewhere. For example, you'd have to systematically collect
people's stories, identify themes, and constantly recheck those themes for current validity. The same goes for
foreign relations. We should be collecting stories from Iraqis.
The apparent "problem" with implementing this
here is that we have a constitution and established systematic way of doing things, so there is little room for big
picture thinking. But that is just another way to say, "we are here, now". That is indeed part of the story that
needs to be told.
belgareth
10-06-2005, 09:46 AM
Excellent answer, Doc. Thank
you. However, by the same token, don't simplify my beliefs either. They are considerably more complex than labels
can be made to fit. There is much in your belief I believe as well though we are looking at the problem differently
thus are coming to somewhat different conclussions. Not bad, just different.
Is my mental ticking so loud that
you can hear me from 2/3 of the way across the country? Hummm, should have that adjusted, maybe it needs
lubrication? :) But you are correctly implying that I am thinking about how to address the issues, what to do about
it, how can it be fixed. Simply put, our single biggest problem is our government. It is too large, saps too much of
the resources and is a heavy burden on each and every person in this country. The mistaken mentality that we work
for and are beholden to the government for every need is all-pervasive when the reality is exactly the opposite.
Personal responsibility and human dignity are the keys to a truly progressive future in a fair and just society.
So there is no principle, like "small government". If government were magically and suddenly
made very small, and say, public assitance or other functions were elimenated, it would be a mega-disaster, and many
abstract principles are like this. This is just a simple example, where the principle is bad by definition because
it is not in form of a story.
You apparently misunderstand my position and have forgotten things I've
said. Government cannot magically be made suddenly small and you cannot simply eliminate most functions. That would
result in uncounted horrors to make the worst war scenerio seem like a summer stroll. I never claimed otherwise. On
the other hand, government programs are in part designed to create dependency on them. Lets look at the welfare
system as a prime example but not the only one by far. It is incidently one of the things I think Bill Clinton did
right but did not take far enough.
For many years, generations, welfare was structured so you could not easily
transition from welfare to gainful employment and nothing was done to help people or encourage them to do so. If you
were on welfare and started earning money you were immediately penalized. Obtaining any type of job trianing was a
major pain in the rear end. If you got through job trainiing and found a job you were immediately dumped out of the
system. There was no transition. The fear of the unknown was too great for many people and the lack of incentive
made matters worse. As a result we have generations of people who have never supported themselves, have never earned
a living and who have virtually no self esteem, they don't know that they can stand on their own two feet and be
productive. All they know how to do is be dependent on government largess.
Alternatively, if a person is on
welfare, offer them choices. You can take job training and we will help you by making it easy to get involved in it.
We'll put a roof over your head, feed you, clothe and care for your children. In return, you must make an honest
effort to learn a marketable skill. Once you've done that, we will help you obtain subsidised work that will in
time lead to non-subsidised work. A certain precentage of top performers will be offered jobs within the system
performing all the needed administrative work rather than hire from the general labor pool. If you prefer not to go
through job training you can always perform less skilled tasks within the system such as providing child care and
housekeeping services to those who are in job training or working, etc. No problem, it's your choice to make.
The third option? We are of course, not going to let you starve. You see that big, brick building over there?
Yeah, that's the one. It's called a dorm. You get a bed to sleep on, three meals a day though they may not be
exactly what you want they are wholesome, a dispensary in case you get ill, we'll even issue you clothing and
provide laundry services. Oh, did I mention the kids? Yes, of course. The school bus stops outside at 7:45, be sure
they are on it. Money? What for? You have everything you need to live. Oh, you want cigarettes, alcohol, drugs or
play around cash! Sorry, the first three are forbidden here in the first place. In the second, they are luxuries
which we do not provide. Still want them? Not a problem, see the first two options above.
Harsh? Not at all!
Each and every person is given every opportunity and nobody is required to go hungry. Sure, there are all sorts of
details and exceptions to work out. I could write a book on it and still not cover it all. The important part is
that over a period of years it would reduce a branch of government down to a manageable size while giving back to
whole generations of people their self esteem.
The same can be applied to every portion of the government. It
all starts with education. Today's school system does not teach people to think, it does not teach people to act as
a part of the society. Start when a child is young, pre-kindergarten, make them think about what they do and why
they do it. Hold them accountable for themselves from day one. Teach them that they are part of a society and are
responsible for their actions within that society. Then teach them why. Teach them facts but teach them how to use
those facts to the best interest of everybody involved. Teach them that they only recieve what they earn and teach
them why they should help others.
This has gone rather long and only covers one small portion of a very big
picture. My big picture is an integrated one where all the pieces work together and there is none of today's us and
them propaganda. The rich are not evil for achieving and the poor are not lazy and worthless. Each and every person
is expected to achieve to their ability and will be justly rewarded for their achievements.
DrSmellThis
10-06-2005, 01:20 PM
I actually didn't mean to
imply anything about your personal politics there, but was just using you as a hypothetical example to make a point!
Sorry if it came across in another way. Thanks for playing!
I especially liked how you put your reply in a sort
of narrative form. In that form I found lots of things I could agree with. You are on the right track with that
method, IMHO. We all need to listen to each others stories, tell more and more coherent stories, and look for
commonalities.
I agree government is too big in general (despite claims that I talked about wanting to raise
taxes in a PM, when I said I'd never just come out and say that in some blanket fashion. Maybe we could please let
that one go for good now, to be in present reality, or else find the PM, thanks? :)). Curiously, Republicans gained
power by people like Gingrich talking about small government (OK, that and stealing elections). But if anything
Republicans have talked about small government, while making it grow hugely bigger every year. By comparison,
Clinton and Democrats have seemed to me to believe in smaller government these days, if you go by what actually
happens overall. (This is one of the things I hate about calling anyone left of center or talking progressive values
a "tax and spend liberal" or "liberal". Anyhow...)
I've always thought there's a way to do everything cheaper,
redefine the roles of the branches of government, etc. (I once worked in DC as a useless government beurocrat,
evaluating Reagan's block grant program for mental health, which was in the spirit of shifting things to states. I
wrote a nice, long government report for NIMH, summarizing the program's performance for all 50 states and
suggesting changes, that no one read!) I also believe that people want a way out and a hand up, to be active in
their own lives; not just to hang out on welfare. By the same token there are people who are poor for very good
reasons, and it isn't easy or even possible for every person to make it, even if they try to do everything the
right way, without help of various kinds and degrees.
Ultimately you just want everyone fulfilling their
potentials, to make society rich in real terms. Everyone has something they can contribute. This merits a lot of
attention and effort on all our parts.
As I've said, government spending is way more about priorities, and
values -- or more accurately, the story that expresses those -- than it is the amount of dollars spent.
Cuts in
spending these days are often penny wise/pound foolish -- for instance transferring health care/mental health
care/substance abuse care to the emergency rooms and prisons due to program cuts, or cutting out prevention. The
fools think they're saving money, because they haven't put the whole story together. Only with a coherent story,
top to bottom, can spending can be wise, effective and efficient. This is where progressive, holistic thinking is so
valuable, in the storytelling.
belgareth
10-06-2005, 01:39 PM
Ok, you call it a story, I call
it a system but we mean much the same thing. Fair enough.
Sorry to insist Doc, but at one time you did make that
statement. Unfortunately, I'm a fairly prolifiic writer and have to clean out my email box often. I imagine you
have a similar problem. It isn't worth the effort of rehashing it so I'll drop it now.
Personally, I strongly
think both major parties are at best liars and fools and at worst incompetent, self serving thieves. I can't think
of a single member of either that I would allow into my home unless I was well armed and had time to watch them
around my valuables, daughters and dog. Even then I'd be reluctant as I really hate to waste ammunition and getting
rid of dead bodies is so much trouble. :rofl:
In another email we agreed about the spending cuts, makes no
sense whatsoever. All it really does is move the debt to a later date and enlarge it through repairing damage rather
than prevention. As you say, penny wise and pound foolish.
Of course I want everybody fulfilling their potential,
that's a big part of human dignity. A person who has their ability to do for themselves taken away from them has no
self respect. In my world vision human dignity is one of the most important points. Even my efforts here to help
others revolve around helping them to help themselves in most cases. To paraphrase a cliche "I do not believe in
handouts, only in giving a hand."
DrSmellThis
10-06-2005, 02:10 PM
And I am sorry to insist that
you misinterpret/take out of context/misremember! :) But thanks for dropping it! T'ain't worth the effort, when I
say so many other things you could throw in my face without dispute. There's no shortage, and in general I don't
mind being confronted with my stuff at all, as it's a healthy challenge to increase integrity. It can even be fun
playing the fool from time to time! So I wish I could see what I wrote.
It makes sense that an engineer would
talk system and a psychologist story. ;) The relation between story and system is interesting. A system is like a
precipitate of a story, a reflection of it, but the story still rules the system, like the programmer the program.
But yeah we are talking something mutually compatible and consistent there.
belgareth
10-06-2005, 02:13 PM
As an addendum about dignity
I'd like to add a story.
Many years ago when I was in college I worked in a resturant. There was a man who washed
dishes there who had held the job for 5-6 years already. He was mentally retarded and lived in a group home. He rode
his bicycle to work every day, was always early and always stayed late. He wasn't bright enough to hold any kind of
a conversation but he was very proud of himself. His work area was always clean and well ordered, he never left the
job undone. He once told me that he was the only person in his group home who didn't take a dime from the state, he
supported himself and was very proud of that fact. For all I know he may still be washing dishes there. It wasn't
the job so much as the pride at doing for himself that took him to work every day. The guy had a ton of dignity.
No matter their limitations each of us has something we can do for ourselves or to help others. It is part of us
to want to do and when that is taken away it leaves a void deep inside. Many resort to drugs and alcohol to try to
fill that void, it doesn't work. Let's stop rejecting those, stop paying them off and forgetting them. Let's give
them the opportunities they deserve to make their way in this world under their own steam.
DrSmellThis
10-06-2005, 02:23 PM
That is a true success story.
Many of the programs I've seen, and some I've been a part of, that work well, help people do just those kinds of
things. He may have had quite a bit of support from others to be able to do that, but was able to contribute to his
potential. Heart warming.
belgareth
10-07-2005, 06:22 AM
The point is that our society
is failing the majority of 'handicapped' people by not helping them to become more self sufficient resulting in
more government and greater burden on society as a whole. I believe that the majority would rather do something than
nothing, given the opportunity, no matter what their limitations are.
Netghost56
10-07-2005, 08:09 AM
That's true. Rehabilitation
services is one of the most underfunded places I know of.
We had to practically beg them for our equipment, and
they're constantly stiffing us on our hearing aids.
DrSmellThis
10-08-2005, 02:50 PM
The point is
that our society is failing the majority of 'handicapped' people by not helping them to become more self
sufficient resulting in more government and greater burden on society as a whole. I believe that the majority would
rather do something than nothing, given the opportunity, no matter what their limitations are.Absolutely.
That's how you know something is sick and wrong. Pretty much everyone wants to do something, unless they are very
ill.
An interesting idea would be to develop some kinds of job rehab services based on giving people a chance to
do what they'd want to do, when they can't find anyone to hire them to do it. You creatively fit jobs to people
rather than vice versa, and actually provide the work environments and business support for various type of work.
The theory is that what people naturally would want to do is potentially valuable to society. I realize it might be
a bit naive, but I wonder. I bet something along those lines could work.
Netghost56
10-08-2005, 03:59 PM
An
interesting idea would be to develop some kinds of job rehab services based on giving people a chance to do what
they'd want to do, when they can't find anyone to hire them to do it. You creatively fit jobs to people rather
than vice versa, and actually provide the work environments and business support for various type of
work...
They do that already. Arkansas Rehabilitation Services does, at least. They assigned me a career
specialist that's supposed to help get me a job. She's sent several job offers my way, and though she doesn't
keep in contact, she lets me know when a job is available in the area where we want to move to.
...The theory is that what people naturally would want to do is potentially valuable to
society. I realize it might be a bit naive, but I wonder. I bet something along those lines could work.
I
always thought I could change the world, I guess lots of people do. It's something to hope for.
DrSmellThis
10-09-2005, 12:54 PM
I wasn't referring to finding jobs for people, but rather to creating jobs to match people's
interests and talents -- an organization that would specialize in getting a contribution from people who had
struggled to find a way to contribute on their own, and need extra assistance.
You look at who you have, and
make the system both match that and be flexible. The particular structure the organization would assume for a "job"
would depend entirely on a sub group of customers it was serving.
It would have a number of structures ready to
go, based mostly on patterns their target market tended to exhibit, and a certain cutting edge ability to develop
work structures on the fly, based partially on at least three sources; including a theory of the "work
characters" people exhibit, generic organizational categories; and specific interest/talent content areas that need
support in a particular community.
Regarding funding, it would be partially government assisted; based on
increases to GDP and/or decreases in needed assistance; due to not working previously. That portion would be
investment, not handout. Another part would be fee for service, based on the organization taking a percentage of
income to provide generic or model organizational services. A third part might perhaps be charitable contributions.
The charter of the non-profit corporation would be renewable, based on demonstrated ability to serve a target
community.
So in short, the service would be to provide custom, model work and organizational services of
all kinds; work structures; for people who don't quite "fit the mold", and are not well-served by temp agencies and
typical rehab and employment services.
It would take full advantage of advances in technology, that make virtual
work structures possible to construct; especially the internet, and software development advances.
If you need an
example from industry, it would partially be like taking the idea behind Mountain West Communications --the "virtual
generic warehouse" that helps Bruce -- to the nth degree times ten! But services would not be limited to
warehousing, as with Mountain West.
Services would include almost anything you could imagine, from office space
and support, to marketing, to secretarial, to actuarial, to labor, to data mangement, to customer service, to tech
support, to product development, to purchasing, to sales, to managerial! You would have different departments, like
a university. You would also have different scales on which these areas were supported for particular individuals,
from a simple piece of software, to simple human support, to a desk and a phone, on up.
To the extent possible,
the different parts of the organization and "job structures" would be made to work together and support one another.
A goal would be to work as closely as possible with communities to keep this virtual work community from
supplanting natural community structures. This is because traditional communities have done this sort of thing in
the past through knowing its members and how to make use of them. But traditional communities have been supplanted
by corporate and industrial communities. So we have to restore some of the functionality society has lost through
losing its communities.
Does that make sense? The market is systematically excluding a lot of good,
talented, interested people (e.g., people with ADD that aren't well-organized, people who don't specialize), and
this would be easier than changing the nature of 21st century capitalist institutions (a goal I also support, of
course). This would be designed to assist those who had slipped through the many holes in the nets offered by modern
capitalist institutions.
It would acknowledge that the responsibility is not all on the individual to fit
into society, but is also equally on society to serve individuals; and not just corporate profits.
We as
society have abandoned the individual for the corporation to our own detriment, and yet there are some who want to
put it all on the individual to sink or swim. But we sink or swim together, ultimately. We all pay for any
individual not fulfilling their potential, and there is ultimately no way to avoid that, no matter how
selfish/callous you are! It is self defeating for society to put the responsibility all on individuals! We are all
made poorer. If individuals could already be doing it without society's help, they would, by and large. People do
love to work!
The benefit of acknowledging this responsibility is a truly richer life for us all, based on the
benefits the extra achievement of human potential would provide to us all. This is simply a logical solution to this
big picture state of affairs; and another example of holistic thinking.
Mtnjim
10-10-2005, 10:34 AM
"Fearing a rash of new cabarets after a federal judge struck down the city's 17-year moratorium on new strip
clubs, the City Council is planning to vote Monday to impose some of the strictest adult-entertainment regulations
of any big city in the country."
They've never been to San Diego!!:hammer:
belgareth
10-10-2005, 10:45 AM
Absolutely.
That's how you know something is sick and wrong. Pretty much everyone wants to do something, unless they are very
ill.
That, the absence of everyday courtesies and general apathy towards the society are all signs of
a sick society. The fact that most don't see these as an issue just makes it worse.
DrSmellThis
10-10-2005, 12:54 PM
Mutual alienation
("a-lie-nation") seems to be a common theme underneath everything you are referring to. Alienation in our
culture grew out of the industrial revolution, as people were forced away from their communities and families to
work. We got into the habit of seeing everyone as separate, as strangers that are not to be trusted or cared about.
Now corporations run our governments and communities. People have the impression that societal systems are
self-serving, and at odds with regular people. What our nation does, such as invade non-threatenng countries,
becomes more and more cut off from any kind of collective consciousness of the people. We withdraw even more and
care even less about society. Funny how so much can be traced back to corporatism (a central, essential component of
fascism). You are correct that too few recognize the issue.
The alienation extends to the relationship between
citizens and government, then; such as between citizens and the military. I see good indirect reasons for
supporting a draft, such as noted, but bad direct reasons for doing so, given the lack of moral integrity or
necessity behind our military actions. The violence, death and suffering are unimaginable.
That makes for a
problem. Implementing a draft is clearly the wrong thing to do by some of our most treasured moral values; and yet
might well lead to the best consequences, ultimately.
The situation is irreduceably ugly, with our young people
ultimately just refusing to fight by not enlisting. That refusal leads to more suffering among our current troops,
and an inability to accomplish military goals. They have good, even morally impeccable, reasons for refusing to
participate. How do we respond to that?
I would personally resist if I were drafted at this time, unless there
was some clear purpose I could, in good conscience, get behind. I'd do my time in prison, or leave. Maybe provoking
that resistance is the true goal and value of a draft. In the mean time you are destroying the souls of a lot of
young men and women, and enabling our government to better accomplish destructive ends around the world, destroying
the lives of so many others.
No one should ever have to be in a position to make this kind of horrific choice,
whether you are a draftee or not. One issue is the need to clarify responsibility for this ugly problem. In response
to this insanity, foist upon us by our government, people are going to make whatever choices and conclusions they
are going to make; none of which can ever completely make sense. So we all suffer from a mental illness of sorts.
It's crazy-making.
Remember what happened to enlistment immediately following 9-11? Does anybody here think
people wouldn't want to defend their county if we were attacked, or defend it if they knew defending each other was
what they were doing?
So what do you do? Do you have a draft in a country where the military is used for mayhem?
Does that result in in the government having to answer to the people, or in the government having more power to
destroy humans for nothing? Does it make us more honest, or make the price of living here the destruction of your
soul?
belgareth
10-10-2005, 01:35 PM
Rather than say refusing to
fight I'd say refusing to serve. Fighting is not necessarily and important part of serving, there are many other
ways one can serve their country. Even the act of voting is serving in its own way. Our society is becoming more
narcissistic by the year. More and more people are tending towards the attitude of "What's in it for me?" and
looking less at how they can help others. Koolking made a point of that recently. Young people are less and less
inclined to see that they need to contribute to their society to make it work.
Look at so many of the posts in
the pheromone forum. The gist is all too often "How can I manipulate somebody into fulfilling my wants?" There is
very little asking how to maintain a good relationship with others. Once they get laid they couldn't care less
about the other person, or so it sounds from their posts.
The source may well be the influence of corporate
culture, I don't know because I've never explored that area. My guess is that there are likely many contributing
factors. The real question (Uh oh, here goes Bel's wanting to take things apart and make them work again :rofl: )
how do we address it? I could make a good argument that this country is sick and dying. Can it and should it be
cured?
DrSmellThis
10-10-2005, 02:13 PM
Oops, I just realized I'm not
in the "draft" thread. Here I thought I was tying everything back in to the topic! Shitth! That long winded post was
for nothing! :D
***
Can and should it be cured? It needs to be cured, probably, because it's not going away,
and will continue to be a problem. This plot of land we're on will always be here, there will always be people
living on it; and this country will remain a force for the forseeable, distant future. It can be cured from the
inside or outside, or both.
It cannot be cured right now, however. It's not time for it to happen. Only the
groundwork can be laid. You have to read history into the future accurately and think clearly. It will not happen
overnight or painlessly. It probably starts with raising consciousness, integrity for the sake of power/clarity, and
community action.
In the meantime, we also need leaders who think the bigger thoughts, communicate the thoughts,
and act according to the thoughts. Dennis Kucinich is the only major politician I've heard do anything close to
this in recent years. The level of his consciousness goes far beyond the others, from where I sit. I met him here at
an Earth Day celebration, and would be happy to have him over for dinner anytime, from what I know so far.
Leadership helps define collective consciousness as much as it does anything.
Consciousness drives
everything else. Most don't realize this. We must look at this factor, not just whether policies A, B, and C
are "conservative" or "liberal" for them. Policies are accidental to consciousness and a bigger understanding. It's
not about effective policies, per se, because the bigger consciousness will lead to more effective policies
in the long run; and because the best policies change with circumstances. Whatever the specifics of those policies,
wisdom will eventually recognize the best way and balance things out. Policies are details. Again, most of us do not
understand this, IMHO.
We can also make the patient more comfortable while fighting the long illness.
In the
mean time, we need to raise consciousness and act locally to implement the consciousness. I'm also tempted to get
off the corporate grid completely, so as not to support it. My friends and I are talking of forming a community.
The whole survival thing is difficult too, since the work you do is an implementation of your integrity and
values. People are challenged here like never before.
Some might find it necessary to leave. Much depends on who
you are as an individual person. No one path fits everyone. I've tended to hang in the middle of Babylon and take
sort of a warrior path, but I'm getting a little old for that any more. I want some peace, love and joy in my own
life. I hope that's not selfish. I hope peace starts at home.
Mtnjim
10-10-2005, 02:35 PM
"In the mean time, we need to raise
consciousness and act locally to implement the consciousness. I'm also tempted to get off the corporate grid
completely, so as not to support it. My friends and I are talking of forming a community."
Shades of the late
'60's and early '70's!!!
Reminds me of my youth. But, then again, sometimes even
some of the best (http://www.wavygravy.net/) "sell out"!!
belgareth
10-10-2005, 02:40 PM
While it is true that people
will continue to live on this plot of land I can't agree that the country is here for the forseeable future. I
don't know that it is going away either but there are some serious cracks in it that are being swept under the rug
instead of being addressed. Examples are the fights over prescription medication imports, the right to die, medical
marijuana, immigration and so on. States are begining to pull away from federal authority on dozens of small issues.
There are some real issues here. But that is still another topic that should be addressed elsewher or maybe in its
own thread.
Mtnjim
10-10-2005, 02:44 PM
... States are
begining to pull away from federal authority on dozens of small issues. There are some real issues here. But that is
still another topic that should be addressed elsewher or maybe in its own thread.
Not to mention the
environment!! (http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/1006/p01s04-uspo.html)
DrSmellThis
10-10-2005, 03:07 PM
While it is
true that people will continue to live on this plot of land I can't agree that the country is here for the
forseeable future. I don't know that it is going away either but there are some serious cracks in it that are being
swept under the rug instead of being addressed. Examples are the fights over prescription medication imports, the
right to die, medical marijuana, immigration and so on. States are begining to pull away from federal authority on
dozens of small issues. There are some real issues here. But that is still another topic that should be addressed
elsewher or maybe in its own thread.I think it's great the States are doing that. This week Oregon's right
to die is being challenged in the Supreme Court, for example. We rebel against the feds more than any other state, I
think. :)
Maybe you're right about cracks in the armor. It all depends on what happens politically. If every
leaderhip was like the Bush crime family, national destruction would be assured eventually. The obscentity of it is
ultimately just too unacceptable to everyone here and in the rest of the world. Since you have seemed to me to
believe all politicians are essentially alike (similar to my father's current belief, but correct me if I'm wrong
to characterize you this way), I could see how you might think that.
belgareth
10-10-2005, 03:13 PM
Start with a piece of
misinformation that has been propogated for many years. They say power corrupts. I say power attracts the corrupt.
Thus, any person aspiring to high office should be considered suspect until proven otherwise. As yet, not one has
been shown to be free of corruption. That so far has applied to both politics and corporate structure.
Mtnjim
10-10-2005, 03:29 PM
As the man said:
"Suppose you
were an idiot ...
And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself."
--Mark Twain
DrSmellThis
10-10-2005, 03:32 PM
Random thoughts: I'm not
denying your thesis, Bel, but... you don't believe power can corrupt as well? Could both be true? Are leaders by
nature corrupt? Does leadership attract corruption too? Is literally no one that is a natual leader or who is drawn
to leadership free of corruption? Could you define corruption then? How much is due to it being harder to get
elected without dirty tricks? Is it possible to refine your thesis to account for all of this? We might have more
options if it's not so black and white. Is there anything in your own tendency toward leadership that is corrupt?
(question to provoke insight only -- no obligation to answer). Is there any danger in self fulfilling prophecy in
looking at power as corrupt? Can we teach a better leadership? Can we learn to support a differnt kind of leader? I
certainly agree you don't just immediately trust someone running for office.
Netghost56
10-10-2005, 04:16 PM
Hollywood is a good example
of "power corrupts", I think. Most actors come from a less than luxurious life when they start out. but after
several years of fame and high living, they get this "diva" attitude and you end up with these riders like they have
on the smoking gun website.
belgareth
10-10-2005, 06:53 PM
Random
thoughts: I'm not denying your thesis, Bel, but... you don't believe power can corrupt as well? Could both be
true? Are leaders by nature corrupt? Does leadership attract corruption too? Is literally no one that is a natual
leader or who is drawn to leadership free of corruption? Could you define corruption then? How much is due to it
being harder to get elected without dirty tricks? Is it possible to refine your thesis to account for all of this?
We might have more options if it's not so black and white. Is there anything in your own tendency toward leadership
that is corrupt? (question to provoke insight only -- no obligation to answer). Is there any danger in self
fulfilling prophecy in looking at power as corrupt? Can we teach a better leadership? Can we learn to support a
differnt kind of leader? I certainly agree you don't just immediately trust someone running for office.
You, of all people should know better than to even think my thoughts are black and white. There are innumerable
layers of complexity but the basic assumption holds true in the vast majority of cases.
You missed the point,
those who seek high office should be suspect until proven otherwise, those who have it thrust upon them are not
necessarily corrupt but can be corrupted by power and should be watched. I challenge you to name a single holder of
high office who was not corrupt. You hit it on the money though, without corruption could they have reached high
office? I doubt it.
Am I a leader? A natural leader? Both are questionable. I do what I do and I am good at it
so have always risen to the top. Does that make me a (natural) leader? I don't think so. Does leadership imply
corruption? It has the potential for corruption but I think it falls under the second group above, it was thrust
upon them. A natural leader leads only because others decide to follow. As demonstrated by the last several
presidents, high office does not have to entail leadership. So we must define leading as that through coercion as
opposed to that done through willingness. Obviously if you decided to not follow the government's rules you would
have a few problems with the force that would be brought to bear against you. I think big guys with guns qualifies
as coercion
You would have to define corruption to decide if I am corrupt. Would I ruin somebody because he/she
disagreed with me? Never! Would I use my high office to gain sexual favors? Never did but don't have too many
problems keeping an active sex life and never have. Take full advantage of the money and other benefits that comes
with it? You bet your a.. I have and continue to do so! Would I use whatever power at my disposal to stomp on
somebody that gave me good reason, say attacked me? Do you really need me to answer that? So, by some definitions I
am corrupt. I can accept that.
Hollywood is a good example of "power corrupts", I think.
Most actors come from a less than luxurious life when they start out. but after several years of fame and high
living, they get this "diva" attitude and you end up with these riders like they have on the smoking gun
website.
You are assuming they had no corruption befoe they became stars. Do you believe that they had
no wild plans or idas before they became stars?
Netghost56
10-10-2005, 08:00 PM
You are
assuming they had no corruption befoe they became stars. Do you believe that they had no wild plans or idas before
they became stars?
Perhaps some do. But many simply forget that they were once waiters, cabbies,
secretaries, etc. And they develop this air of superiority, which you know I'm against.
Actors are driven,
motivated people. But they're also emotionally fragile. When they get to the point where they demand more than they
deserve, I would consider them corrupted by power.
Power, control, and money are the three temptations of
corruption, IMO.
DrSmellThis
10-10-2005, 09:03 PM
Thanks for your answers and
honesty, Bel. I was just trying to get more thoughts thrown into the mix. I'm probably the guy who would take the
blowjob from Monica, like Bill, if I was in a bad marriage and desperate. But maybe not, since I love the potential
of building trust. But sex is my biggest weakness, though I have turned it down plenty of times to keep my
integrity, including when I was in a troubled relationship. I think having all sexual activity forbidden to me
outside marriage, growing up Catholic, led me to choose to rebel. Power doesn't much interest me. Teaching, the
"father role", and some other kinds of basic leadership do, but not leadership per se, unless secondary to whatever
I'm doing. Most of my interests and likes in people are simple, humble, and low rent. That's not to say I might
not be attracted by the prospect of easy money. I'd turn an awful lot of it down to keep my integrity, to be sure.
But would I be perfect? I don't know. Possibly not. As president, I would try to admit mistakes and make up for
them whenever possible, to an unprecedented level. I'd be very conscious of the effect that alone might well have
on history. I'd seek to innovate in being able to exhibit such humility in such a way as to not ruin my ability to
lead, by being strong and self-assured in my honesty. We badly need a president to do this!
I think we're all
corrupt, but I do think its possible to have someone who is basically genuine and well-intentioned in the
presidency. Basic integrity is important too. Maybe Lincoln, Ford, Ike, Ben Franklin (of course, not a president),
and Carter were examples. I don't know that much about the history of political corruption, unfortunately. Maybe
you do. I just know that the point is not whether you can point out some shortcomings of character or bad
decisions.
If people would stop focusing on stupid moral rules and just look at basic intentions, integrity, and
good heartedness, we'd be better off. I also think that it is important to admit our corruption and to seek to
improve our integrity in all directions and at all depths. That is what I liked about Carter. He at least admitted
some of his faults with humility. He told a great, humble story about sneaking into the nude circus peep shows as a
kid. He also admitted to lusting after women in the famous Playboy interview, while he was a sitting
president.
Growing up Catholic, studying ethics, and an interest in growth taught me a lot about being a flawed
human being over the decades. It is possible to have an integrity that goes a little deeper than your lack of
integrity, if that makes sense. Arrogance or unrepentance about one's corruption would be an obstacle toward
achieving that deeper integrity. That deeper integrity is achievable for everyone. I'd look for that in a leader,
and would be willing to forgive a lot of BS for that. Mother Teresa once denied she was good (of course, to her only
God is good, so it's more of a theological point). That might be taking it a bit too far, since humans can be
gentle with themselves, but you get the point.
The main thing I think that would help is to strip the Presidency
and other political positions of all the fringe bennies of power that are possible to be stripped, to help attract a
better caliber of person. They should have thought of that when drafting the constitution. Campaign financing needs
to be reformed also, to very strict standards. It confuses me that we haven't voted something like all that
in.
We also need to roll back all the legal power enjoyed by corporations. They have way more rights as
"artificial persons" than actual real people.
Then we need to vote the best we can, work to raise consciousness,
live our integrity, stay in our hearts, support a few things, fight for some things we believe in, and let history
take its course.
belgareth
10-11-2005, 03:52 AM
Ah, we've finally hit the core
of my thoughts...the constitution. While it was a good document for it's time, it could not be expected to be
completely valid for situations they could not have possibly forseen. In my little fantasy world I see re-writing
the constitution to take power away fom the government and return it to the people, where it belongs. You mention
corporations but the instant government loses the power to order our lives so do corporations.
Take a few
minutes to think about it. What would you say? Personally, I would turn it into a negative document by listing the
thousands of things the government is not allowed to do. What are the absolute necessarry funtions of government?
How would you restrict our government to those functions?
You know I am not religious so am not constrainted by
the terms of any religion. Rather, I operate under a set of guidelines that are intended to allow me to live a just
life in peace. Many of the considerations of religion are sloughed off, IMO, allowing me a better, more rational
life. But it is also more demanding because I cannot go back to a higher power and ask forgiveness. I have to live
with the responsibility of my actions.
That also means the traditional marraige vows mean nothing to me. By my
understanding religion forbids sexual relationsips outside of wedlock. However, if you do have those relationships
you can ask for forgiveness and recieve it. Under the terms I live by there is nobody to ask to forgive me. I have
to deal with myself on it and I am much less forgiving about such things than the christian god is. That doesn't
give me the right to judge another, only myself.
DrSmellThis
10-14-2005, 03:57 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/14/poll.rude.ap/index.html
InternationalPlayboy
10-17-2005, 05:49 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/14/poll.rude.ap/index.html
Thanks for
that link. I was just lamenting this weekend on how society's manners have gone so far downhill.
DrSmellThis
10-20-2005, 03:07 AM
So let's see if I have this straight: Both Bush's right hand man and Cheney's right hand man appear
to have cooperated in conspiring then outing a CIA agent, a teasonous act in itself; in an attempt to cover up lying
to Congress and the American people to start a war, so they could steal Iraq's oil and line the pockets of their
corporate exec friends; like from Halliburton, where the vice president is a stockholder and still draws a paycheck?
We know they already knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, since they made up all the intelligence,
and since every weapons expert said there were no weapons, until they made the weapons inspectors leave Iraq. But
they were so worried about finding the weapons at any cost -- the ones they told us they knew exactly where they
were -- that Cheney signed orders that enabled the prisoners to be tortured with dogs and other techniques?
This
was at the same time they said they were going to "win the hearts and minds of Iraqis", and that Iraq was going to
welcome us with roses as liberators? And meanwhile 100,000 Iraqis and 3000 Americans lost their lives so we could
have all this oil and pay only $3 a gallon for gas?
They were able to do this because they used 9/11 as their
"Pearl Harbor", and because Bush was spending his political capital from the presidential election they appear to
have stolen (according to the Conyers Report)?
Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden is running free in Pakistan, even though
we "have a very good idea" where he
is?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/PO
LITICS/10/20/cia.leak.investigation.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/20/cia.leak.investigation.ap/index.html)
DrSmellThis
10-20-2005, 06:52 AM
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357109p-304302c.h
tml (http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357109p-304302c.html)
Mtnjim
10-20-2005, 09:53 AM
So let's see if
I have this straight: Both Bush's right hand man and Cheney's right hand man appear to have cooperated in
conspiring then outing a CIA agent, a teasonous act in itself; in an attempt to cover up lying to Congress and the
American people to start a war...
Yep!! That about sums it up!!
DrSmellThis
10-20-2005, 02:27 PM
This is the highest ranking administration official to speak out yet, I
think. I can't wait to hear the rest of what he has to
say.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-
40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html)
DrSmellThis
10-20-2005, 02:40 PM
According to this article, it looks like Bush was long ago
peeved Rove conducted his political hit man duties (his role in the White House Iraq Group) on Ambassador Wilson's
wife in a sloppy
manner:
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p
-304312c.html (http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html)
DrSmellThis
10-20-2005, 03:18 PM
And for my sixth post of the
day, a moving film (Music by Pink Floyd):
http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/Movies/2000A/2000.html
DrSmellThis
10-24-2005, 12:43 PM
Too bad he doesn't have a wife in the CIA! -- DST
October 24, 2005
Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges
By
RICHARD W. STEVENSON (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=RICHARD%20W.%20STEVENSON&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newes
t&ac=RICHARD%20W.%20STEVENSON&inline=nyt-per)
and
DAVID JOHNSTON (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID%20JOHNSTON&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAV
ID%20JOHNSTON&inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - With a decision expected this week on
possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to
pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an
overzealous prosecutor.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, is expected to announce by the
end of the week whether he will seek indictments against White House officials in a decision that is likely to be a
defining moment of President Bush's second term. The case has put many in the White House on edge.
Karl
Rove (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/karl_rove/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President
Dick
Cheney's (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) chief of staff, have been advised that they are in serious legal jeopardy. Other officials could
also face charges in connection with the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer in 2003.
On
Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Republican of
Martha
Stewart (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/texas/index.html?inline=nyt-geo"
]Texas[/url], speaking on the NBC news program "Meet the Press," compared the leak investigation with the
case of
[url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/martha_stewart/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and her stock sale, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said
about something that wasn't a crime."
Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "that if there is going to be an
indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where
they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation
was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."
President Bush said several weeks ago that Mr. Fitzgerald
had handled the case in "a very dignified way," making it more difficult for Republicans to portray him
negatively.
But allies of the White House have quietly been circulating talking points in recent days among
Republicans sympathetic to the administration, seeking to help them make the case that bringing charges like perjury
mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case, one Republican with close ties to the White House said Sunday.
Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing
politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works.
Some Republicans have also been
reprising a theme that was often sounded by Democrats during the investigations into President
Bill
Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per), that special prosecutors and independent counsels lack accountability and too often pursue cases
until they find someone to charge.
Congressional Republicans have also been signaling that they want to put some
distance between their agenda and the White House's potential legal and political woes, seeking to cast the leak
case as an inside-the-Beltway phenomenon of little interest to most voters.
"I think we just need to stick
to our knitting on the topics and the subjects the American people care about," Senator Sam Brownback,
Republican of
Kansas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/kansas/index.html?inline=nyt-geo
), said on "Fox News Sunday."
The case, which traces back to an effort by the White House
to rebut criticism of its use of intelligence to justify the invasion of
Iraq[
/url], has grown into a crisis for the administration that has the potential to shape the remainder of Mr. Bush's
second term. Democrats signaled Sunday that they would use the inquiry to help weave a broader tapestry portraying
the Republican Party as corrupt and the White House as dishonest with the American people.
"We know that
the president wasn't truthful with us when he sent us to Iraq,"
[url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/howard_dean/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]Howard
Dean (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said on "This Week" on ABC. "What got
Rove and Libby in trouble was because they were attacking, which the Republicans always do, attacking somebody who
criticized them and disagreed with them. They make the attacks personal. They go over the line."
Beyond
introducing a Web site for his office last week, Mr. Fitzgerald has given no public hints of what, if any, action he
might take. Whatever he decides, he is expected to make an announcement before Friday, the final day of the term of
his grand jury. In the past, the grand jury has met on Wednesdays and Fridays.
His silence has left much of
official Washington and nearly everyone who works at or with the White House in a state of high anxiety. That has
been compounded by the widespread belief that there are aspects of the case beyond those directly involving Mr. Rove
and Mr. Libby that remain all but unknown outside of Mr. Fitzgerald's office. Among them is the mystery of who
first provided the C.I.A. officer's identity to the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who published it on July
14, 2003.
The negative effects on Mr. Bush's presidency if his senior aides were indicted, said James A.
Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington,
would be as great as the positive effects of Mr. Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"This
is the most important turning point for his administration in terms of turning down and losing support," Mr.
Thurber said.
A weakened White House, he said, could lead to further infighting among the conservatives who
provide most of Mr. Bush's legislative, grass-roots and financial support, and could leave the administration with
even less political clout to sway Democrats in Republican-leaning states to back Mr. Bush's agenda.
Republicans
acknowledged the problems facing the White House but said Mr. Bush would ultimately be judged on whether he produced
results in addressing the issues of most concern to the American people.
"If you look at poll numbers and
things like that, we face challenges," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. But
even in the last few months, he said, the White House has made "tremendous long-term progress" on a
variety of fronts.
He cited the referendum on a constitution in Iraq, signs that the economy remains strong and
what he characterized as evidence that Mr. Bush's signature education legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act, is
producing measurable results.
Mr. Fitzgerald has been focused on whether there was an illegal effort at the
White House to undermine the credibility of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who became a critic of the
administration's Iraq policy by his dismissive comments over the possibility that Baghdad had sought to buy uranium
fuel from
Nige
r (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/niger/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).
The prosecutor has sought to determine if the effort against Mr. Wilson involved the intentional
identification of his wife, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has tried to find out whether Bush officials violated the
law that protects the identities of undercover officers like Ms. Wilson or sought to impede the inquiry by
misleading investigators or providing false information about their actions.
Mtnjim
10-24-2005, 05:51 PM
THE
BUSINESS CLIMATE HOAX
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
President Bush just can't leave bad enough
alone.
With the Gulf Coast physically battered by Hurricane Katrina, the
president's reconstruction plan is on
track to do further harm to a
region that was poor and maldeveloped even before the hurricane struck.
The core
of his proposal is the creation of a Gulf Opportunity Zone that
would provide massive depreciation and tax benefits
to firms investing
in new plant and machinery in the region. Translation: giant subsidies
for oil companies and
casinos.
Hurricane Wilma is on the way to Florida. Tropical Storm Alpha is
brewing in the Caribbean. Scientists
say a combination of natural
hurricane cycles and global warming very likely mean we are going to see
more, and
more intense hurricanes over the next many years. So, Katrina
reconstruction is not likely to be the last major
clean-up and recovery
effort during the next decade-plus.
How does a tax giveaway plan for big business end up
as the centerpiece
of the president's reconstruction plan?
It's easy enough to say the administration never
misses an opportunity
to cut taxes and do favors for its big business backers. And that's
true. It's also easy
enough to point to the influence of right-wing
think tanks like the Heritage Foundation in designing
the
administration's plan. And there's no disputing that, either.
But something more is going on, too -- a
decades-long effort to promote
the idea that cities and states (and nations, for that matter) will best
develop by
cutting taxes and providing subsidies to big business.
Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First and
author of The
Great American Job Scam (Berrett-Koehler Press, 2005), shows that these
policies are not only
unjust, they are unwise.
In The Great American Job Scam, LeRoy, whose organization has led the
way in trying to
counter the business climate ideology, provides case
study after case study of corporate rip-offs of communities
and states.
One example is Marriott's leveraging of a threat to locate its
headquarters in Virginia to extract
more than $50 million in gifts from
Maryland -- even though the company had already decided to build its
new
headquarters in Maryland, where it was already located. Another is Dell
Computer's finagling of a roughly
$250 million subsidy package from
North Carolina -- as an incentive to invest $100 million to $115 million
in the
state. The Louisiana Coalition for Tax Justice found that, over
the course of the 1980s, Louisiana granted $2.5
billion in property tax
exemptions, nearly a billion of which would have gone to schools in the
state.
States
and cities do not get much in return for these donations to the
corporate coffer, which is part of what makes them
so flawed as
development policy. LeRoy shows how blind faith, bad negotiating and
illusory promises leave local
and state government officials with little
or no guarantee that new and permanent jobs will be created.
But
it's not just that they get manipulated. LeRoy's key point is that
business does not invest because of the tax
breaks they are able to
extract. Location decisions are driven by access to suppliers and
customers, labor costs
and skills, transportation facilities and costs,
the cost of utilities, land or rent costs and, not so
incidentally, the
whim of executives. Tax rates make almost no difference in location
decisions. So generous tax
breaks will rarely attract investments that
would not otherwise have been made.
Crudely put, in the case of
Katrina reconstruction, oil and
petrochemical companies are not going to locate or rebuild in the Gulf
area
because of tax breaks. They build there because there is oil there.
Perhaps most enlightening in LeRoy's book is
his explanation of the site
location consulting industry, which has driven the competition among
states and cities
for investments.
A single firm, Fantus Factory Locating Service, played a key role in
developing the business
climate ideology. By 1977, it had claimed to
assist with more than 4,000 corporate relocations. Fantus is now
an
affiliate of the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche.
Fantus, and the other players in the small field of
advising
corporations on how to shift locations and blackmail cities into
lavishing them with tax breaks and
subsidies, realized their business
had created another market niche: advising cities and states on how to
make
themselves attractive to investors. Thus they work both sides of
the street -- instructing the corporate
extortionists, and advising
governments on how to make themselves appear desirable to the
extortionists.
There's not a lot of subtlety in the business. In March 2004, the
national director of Ernst &
Young's Business Incentive Practice and a
former Boeing official led a workshop at a trade association
of
corporate officers handling government relations. Their powerpoint
presentation was leaked. Its title: "Turning
Your State Government
Relations Department from a Money Pit into a Cash Cow."
The combination of windfall
subsidies for big business and low wages for
workers represents the "low-road" of economic development, LeRoy
says.
It leaves communities poorer and more vulnerable. Louisiana and
Mississippi have long traveled that road.
It's not unrelated to why they
were so poor before Katrina hit.
Mtnjim
10-25-2005, 09:28 AM
U.S. NEWS/HARVARD/BP BAN REPORTERS FROM FIRST AMENDMENT ROOM
By Russell Mokhiber and
Robert Weissman
This morning, at the National Press Club, U.S. News and World Report
held a press event to
announce the release of its list of "America's
Best Leaders 2005."
The event was co-sponsored by the Center for
Public Leadership at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
And it was paid for by the
oil giant BP.
We saw a notice of the event on the National Press Club's web site.
At the appointed time, we
went over to the First Amendment Lounge to
attend the event.
C-Span was covering it (Brian Lamb was chosen as
one of the "best
leaders" -- as was Roger Ailes of Fox News, Thomas Friedman of the New
York Times, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of
State Colin Powell, among others.)
So, we show up at the door to
attend and are met by James Long, the man
who organized the event for U.S. News and World Report.
Long tells us
that we are not allowed into the press briefing.
Why not?
"Well, on all the notices, it said RSVP," Long said.
"And you didn't RSVP."
We didn't see anything about RSVP. But okay, we'll RSVP now.
"No, you won't," Long
said. "You are not allowed in."
We're members of the National Press Club.
And we understand the policy of the
Press Club -- he who rents the room
rules.
So, if BP and Harvard University and U.S. News and World Report rent
the
room, they decide who attends.
But the question is why?
Why, when all the press in the world were allowed
in, were we not?
Well, it has to do with the last U.S. News and World Report event we
attended at the Press
Club, earlier this month.
It was titled, "Corporate America and Congress: Has Sarbanes-Oxley
Restored Investor
Confidence?"
And in an article published two weeks ago in Corporate Crime Reporter,
we described how that event
was paid for by Altria.
Altria?
A tobacco company paying for a conference on social responsibility?
That's
what we wanted to know.
The panelists at the Altria/U.S. News & World Report event were Senator
Chuck Hagel
(R-Nebraska), William J. McDonough, the chairman of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), John J.
Castellini,
president of the Business Roundtable, and Alyssa Machold Ellsworth,
managing director of the Council
of Institutional Investors.
During the question-and-answer session, we stood up and asked the
following
question:
"Senator Hagel said transparency is critical. What's the deal exactly
between U.S. News & World
Report and Altria? What are the details of the
sponsorship? Members of the social responsibility community refuse
to
invest in tobacco companies. Did you find it a little odd that a panel
on corporate responsibility is being
sponsored by a tobacco company?"
Nobody found it odd.
We pointed out in that article that a group of public
health advocates
at the University of California San Francisco have set up a web site
--
www.altriameanstobacco.com -- that documents that in fact the company
changed its name from Phillip
Morris to Altria "to hide the taint of
tobacco and attempt to restore a corporate image brought low by decades
of
deception and death."
We also made the point that "not too long ago, it would have been
considered improper for
a major news organization to team up with a
major tobacco company to sponsor a forum on corporate
social
responsibility -- after all, tobacco companies are in the business of
killing off their customers."
This
apparently did not please Mort Zuckerman and the other "leaders" at
U.S. News and World Report.
And with
today's "leadership" event being broadcast on C-Span, you
wouldn't want any pesky questions about how is it that
an oil giant with
a shady history on the north slope of Alaska is funding a press event
co-sponsored by U.S. News
and World Report and Harvard University.
And so, U.S. News and World Report, and Harvard University and
BP,
decided that the best way was to bar those who would ask impolitic
questions from the First Amendment
Room.
How can we celebrate a list of leaders that includes Rice, Powell,
Friedman and Ailes -- a foursome who
helped lead the country into a
disastrous war of aggression -- defined by former Supreme Court Justice
and
Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson as "the supreme international
crime" -- a war of aggression that has cost close
to 2,000 young
American lives and untold thousands of Iraqi civilian lives?
And how can U.S. News and Harvard --
BP we can understand -- be
complicit in barring reporters from an open press event from the First
Amendment Room
at the National Press Club -- solely because those
reporters were destined to ask questions that might embarrass
the people
sponsoring the event?
It is this kind of arrogance that has led the American people to turn on
their
leaders -- according to a poll released today by U.S. News, 64
percent of Americans believe leaders today are
corrupted by power and 62
percent believe they are primarily looking for monetary enrichment --
including those
that were celebrated today in the First Amendment Room.
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 01:50 PM
h
ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401734.html?referrer=emailarticle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401734.html?referrer=emailarticle)
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 01:58 PM
http://www.washingtonpo
st.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html)
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 02:07 PM
Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A.
Officer, Notes Show
By David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson and Douglas Jehl /
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24cnd-leak.html?emc=eta1)
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the
C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity
became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.
Notes of the previously undisclosed
conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a
federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers
said.
The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle
of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the
administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.
Lawyers said the
notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made
public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.
Mr.
Libby’s notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the
director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they
contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that
her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who
discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status.
It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby,
both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her
link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his
conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an
illegal effort to impede the inquiry.
White House officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr.
Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby’s legal status.
Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to
decide whether to bring charges in the case by Friday when the term of the grand jury expires. Mr. Libby and Karl
Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment, lawyers involved in the case have
said. It is not publicly known whether other officials may be charged.
The notes help explain the legal
difficulties facing Mr. Libby. Lawyers in the case said Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that he had first
heard from journalists that Ms. Wilson may have had a role in dispatching her husband on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission
to Africa in 2002 in search of evidence that Iraq had acquired nuclear material there for its weapons program.
But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald’s possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson — who
is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame — from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony
suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr.
Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said.
The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the
name of Mr. Wilson’s wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed
by the C.I.A. and that she may have helped arrange her husband’s trip.
Some lawyers in the case have said Mr.
Fitzgerald may face obstacles in bringing a false statement charge against Mr. Libby. They said it could be
difficult to prove that he intentionally sought to mislead the grand jury. Lawyers involved in the case said they
have no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering charging Mr. Cheney with wrongdoing. Mr. Cheney was
interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald
about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.
But the evidence of Mr.
Cheney’s direct involvement in the effort to learn more about Mr. Wilson is sure to intensify the political pressure
on the White House in a week of high anxiety among Republicans about the potential for the case to deal a sharp blow
to Mr. Bush’s presidency.
Mr. Tenet was not available for comment on Monday night. But another former senior
intelligence official said that Mr. Tenet had been interviewed by the special prosecutor and his staff in early
2004, and never appeared before the grand jury. Mr. Tenet has not talked since then to the prosecutors, the former
official said.
The former official said he strongly doubted that the White House learned about Ms. Plame from
Mr. Tenet.
On Monday, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby both attended a cabinet meeting with Mr. Bush as the White House
continued trying to portray business as usual. But the assumption among White House officials is that anyone who is
indicted will step aside.
On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, the
Washington Post published a front page story reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to the
Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The story did not name
the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about
Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union
address.
An earlier anonymous reference to Mr. Wilson and his mission to Africa had appeared in a column by
Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on May 6, 2003. Mr. Wilson went public with his conclusion that the White
House had "twisted" the intelligence about Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material on July 6, 2003, in an Op-Ed article
in The New York Times. The note written by Mr. Libby will be a key piece of evidence in a false statement case
against Mr. Libby if Mr. Fitzgerald decides to pursue it, according to lawyers in the case. It also explains why Mr.
Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked with Mr.
Libby.
The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and
his wife. Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine, in his account of a deposition on the subject, wrote that he asked Mr.
Libby whether he had even heard that Ms. Wilson had a role in sending her husband to Africa. According to Mr.
Cooper, Mr. Libby did not use Ms. Wilson’s name but replied, "Yeah, I’ve heard that too."
In her testimony to
the grand jury, Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times said that Mr. Libby sought from the start of her
three conversations with him to "insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson’s charges."
Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions
about Mr. Cheney, Ms. Miller said. "He asked for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had
approved of his interview with me or was aware of them. The answer was no."
In addition to Mr. Cooper and Ms.
Miller, Mr. Fitzgerald is known to have interviewed three other journalists who spoke with Mr. Libby during June and
July 2003. They were Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, and Tim Russert of NBC News. Mr. Pincus
and Mr. Kessler have said that Mr. Libby did not Mr. Wilson’s wife with them in their conversations during the
period. Mr. Russert, in a statement, has declined to say exactly what he discussed with Mr. Libby, but said he first
learned the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife in the column by Mr. Novak, which appeared on July 14, 2003.
belgareth
10-25-2005, 02:20 PM
From what I have heard, the
biggest question is whether or not outing a CIA spook is illegal in this situation. The morality is another issue,
everybody knows what I think of the morality in our capitol, but what I am concerned with now is the legal aspects.
Once that is cleared up, I think the lady has legal recourse for civil action against whoever actually did this.
I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be. Anybody here know something about that aspect?
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 03:01 PM
It's possible to get away
with doing something illegal. So phrasing the question as "was it illegal?" can be deceptive. (For example, if
someone kills a person in cold blood but gets off on a technicality, was killing the person in cold blood
therefore legal?)
I'm not a lawyer, but have heard the legal aspects discussed fairly often over the
past months. The way I understand it, outing a CIA agent "knowingly" and "deliberately" is hard to prove, because
the law is written so the standards of proof for this are very high. That is to prevent someone from being convicted
of treason and hung for accidentally letting something slip, or letting something slip you didn't know wasn't
public knowledge (neither issue of which is realistically in question here, BTW).
There is a difference between
asking whether a particular illegal event occured, and whether a particular individual will be successfully
prosecuted. The act of outing this kind of agent deliberately and knowingly is absolutely illegal and treasonous,
assuming such an act occured. Further, it is almost inconceivable that the act didn't occur, and the motivation for
it seems clear, from every account.
But will every aspect of being "knowing" and "deliberate" be proven for a
particular defendant? That depends on the talent of the prosecutor and the available evidence. Proving anything
psychological, like knowingness and deliberateness, is notoriously difficult. Obviously, the guilty parties have had
all the time and means in the world to destroy evidence, and have the best representation money can buy. Therefore a
lot will hang on who is willing to talk, etc. These people calculated these acts after much deliberation, and must
have felt felt they would get away with it. The question is how stupid they were or were not, versus how smart the
special prosecutor is.
Conspiracy, perjury, and some other related charges surrounding the incident aren't so
hard to prove, however; hence the speculation that these are the kinds of charges that will ultimately stick. It
looks virtually certain that somebody, likely multiple parties, will be indicted. That is itself
remarkable.
Republicans will of course argue that perjury is no big deal, for example, even though that is what
they impeached Clinton for. But we needn't let spin about legal technicalities let us lose sight of what is
happening in our country. If they all get off, my disgust and outrage will not be less. Politicians have never been
easy to prosecute. It is big news whenever one gets caught on anything.
belgareth
10-25-2005, 03:41 PM
It's
possible to get away with doing something illegal. So phrasing the question as "was it illegal?" can be deceptive.
(For example, if someone kills a person in cold blood but gets off on a technicality, was killing the person in cold
blood therefore legal?)
Of course it wasn't legal. They still did something illegal. That's
sophistry.
I'm not a lawyer, but have heard the legal aspects discussed fairly often over
the past months. The way I understand it, outing a CIA agent "knowingly" and "deliberately" is hard to prove,
because the law is written so the standards of proof for this are very high. That is to prevent someone from being
convicted of treason and hung for accidentally letting something slip, or letting something slip you didn't know
wasn't public knowledge (neither issue of which is realistically in question here, BTW).
I've heard
several versions from several people. Some of those people are lawyers and even they don't agree on whether or not
it was actually illegal. That's why I asked the question.
Accidently letting something slip is a poor example
as people are regularly charged for accidents. A person with TS or above clearance is expected to know better than
to "Let something slip" That is not an excuse. I clearly remember the lectures back in the military when I had a
clearance.
Everything is in question until proven otherwise in a court of law. The guy investigating it is a
very good man and not in anybody's pocket, give him a chance to do his job. I'm not going to convict anybody at
any time based on what I read anywhere. Anything else is wrong
There is a difference between
asking whether a particular illegal event occured, and whether a particular individual will be successfully
prosecuted. The act of outing this kind of agent deliberately and knowingly is absolutely illegal and treasonous,
assuming such an act occured. Further, it is almost inconceivable that the act didn't occur, and the motivation for
it seems clear, from every account.
Sorry to disagree but you don't know that and neither do I. Even
legal experts aren't sure if it was an illegal act, certainly not sure enough to try to prosecute. Even the guy
investigating still isn't sure and he is wel known for his fairness and skill.
But will
every aspect of being "knowing" and "deliberate" be proven for a particular defendant? Is it therefore technically
"illegal"? That depends on the talent of the prosecutor and the available evidence. Proving anything psychological,
like knowingness and deliberateness, is notoriously difficult. Obviously, the guilty parties have had all the time
and means in the world to destroy evidence, and have the best representation money can buy. Therefore a lot will
hang on who is willing to talk, etc.
Conspiracy, perjury, and some other related charges aren't hard to prove,
however, hence the speculation that these are the kinds of charges that willp stick
I already addressed
that so won't repeat myself.
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 04:07 PM
As I've explained, phrasing
it as about whether the acts were illegal can be deceptive. But if you think it's not, please post articles that
can explain why. I havent heard the legal experts you have, apparently, and would love to see a coherent, balanced
legal argument.
What I said obviously wasn't "sophistry", since it was an appropriate case example in support of
establishing a necessary logical distinction, a distinction missing from much of the spin, the lack of which results
in misunderstanding. Someone not understanding or agreeing with this does not equal someone else's "sophistry".
Please think more carefully before throwing around vague, negative labels that are unlikely to reflect on their
target.
No one is not letting prosecutors do their job by posting information people deserve to know. I tried to
clear a related misunderstanding up in the past in detail, by distinguishing "legal" from "personal" responsibility.
If we could be bothered only by those specific things specific politicians have been convicted of, if our beliefs
about the political world were determined entirely by legal status, we would virtually never have the right to be
bothered by politicians. I choose to give the law its due, and yet have my beliefs function independently from it.
belgareth
10-25-2005, 04:22 PM
As I clearly said, I have heard
both, that it is legal and illegal. Maybe it isn't clear that when I said heard I really meant heard, as in
conversation with other people, some of whom were lawyers. And as I also said, the legal experts, lawyers, disagree
on the legality. I don't claim to be an expert and phrased it as a question for somebody that might have some
expertise in that area. Last I knew your expertise was not in the legal field. Without meaning offense I feel that
the opinions of practicing lawyers carries more weight than your opinion on legal matters. And as I said, they
disagree.
Yes, anybody who says that a person who committed cold blooded murder but was let off on a
technicality did not commit a crime is using sophistry. Are you taking it I meant your statement? If so, you
misunderstood the statement.
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 04:50 PM
Yes, I misunderstood your
intended meaning. I thought about "giving you the benefit of the doubt" exactly per your explanation, but then
reread it a few times and thought the other reference was clearly implied. Damn words. Sorry about that, as you
didn't intend for it to come out that way.
I remain interested. I agree my legal opinion doesn't matter much,
but I had more detail on the relevant legal issues than you posted, and decided to share what I read about it. I've
not read a single coherent argument that nothing they did was illegal, even the outing part. Almost everyone is
predicting the prosecutor will bring charges of some kind by early next week. I've only heard it put something like
the way I related it, especially as regards questions of treason, which may be different from whether it is illegal
in other ways (hence your lecture from military training?). I'd be happy to be shown a more accurate analysis.
belgareth
10-25-2005, 05:07 PM
Yes, I
misunderstood your intended meaning. I thought about "giving you the benefit of the doubt" exactly per your
explanation, but then reread it a few times and thought the other reference was clearly implied. Damn words. Sorry
about that, as you didn't intend for it to come out that way.
I thought that might be the case. No
problem.
I remain interested. I agree my legal opinion doesn't matter much, but I had more
detail on the relevant legal issues than you posted, and decided to share what I read about it. I've not read a
single legal argument that nothing they did was illegal, even the outing part. Almost everyone is predicting the
prosecutor will bring charges of some kind by early next week. I've only heard it put something like the way I
related it, especially as regards questions of treason, which may be different from whether it is illegal in other
ways (hence your lecture from military training?). I'd be happy to be shown a more accurate analysis.
I've had a lot of detail too. Did you know that one of the best cures for insomnia is reading legal analysis?
:)
There are several lawyers in one of the groups I meet with. A couple of them are criminal lawyers although
that may be an oxymoron. In any event, the topic has come up several times and my impression, based on the vehemence
of their discussions, I'd say it is a pretty hotly contested issue among that profession.
I'd love to hear a
solid analysis from both perspectives since it seems there is a lot of debate on the subject. Even charges being
filed don't really prove anything, only the final results can prove much and what that proves isn't necessarily
justice.
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 05:43 PM
You've got that right.
Whether the legal process brings justice is another matter. I do wish the law could be applied evenly across the
board; but I guess not in this universe, where money and power is a ticket to wickedness.
Not to imply anything
about everyone from a particular party, but were they Republican lawyers? ;) I think this is a hotly contested
political issue. The hard part is that lawyers are not only extremely specialized any more; they will often will say
any damn thing to further their agenda, so its hard to believe any of them.
I bet some better analysis will
become available in the coming few weeks. I still predict the issue will be more a matter of provability than
legality, per se.
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 05:55 PM
This is the official site of
Fiitzgerald's investigation. There is very little yet posted there, but no doubt there soon will
be:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/
belgareth
10-25-2005, 06:00 PM
I think we all wish that about
the law. Perhaps if there were fewer laws there would be fewer loopholes for lawyers to slide cases out through. It
isn't even always the rich that get off because of the flaws in the system. Regardless of that, under our current
constitution, unless and untl somebody is proven guilty in a court of law they are innocent.
In Texas? A
democratic lawyer? Surely you jest. Actually, believe it or not the majority of this state's government is
democrats and has been quite a while. But I honestly don't know about the ones who were arguing as I keep a lot of
my personal opinions about the government to myself in my real life. At guess I'd say that they probably were both
republican because the make up of that group is pretty firmly so.
Under the constitution it's the same thing,
isn't it?
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 06:29 PM
No one here wants to send
anyone to jail without a trial.
Just to show you what kind of man I am, here's a page that gives a Republican
analysis of the Plame leak, etc. ;) I found it to be interesting reading, and like the amount of detail. To be sure,
I've heard another side, and points that were pretty much ignored here. But at least you know it's not unfair to
Republicans. Maybe someone else can post another
side.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/category/us_politics/valerie_plame_affair/
belgareth
10-25-2005, 07:42 PM
All I want is a fair trial, no
more or less. We all know that depending on which rag you read each person is either guilty as sin or free from sin.
Over all, I've found the best bet is to ignore the analysts because they all are biased. I asked before about guilt
and innocence and the scenerio of if he is innocent. I've also advocated for the full penalty of law depending on
what is proven. Are you going to advocate for nailing the prosecuter if it is demonstrated that he is misusing his
authority for political purposes? I am! That is not proven either but is a possibility.
Let's just say that I
am an equal opportunity sceptic, I doubt all positions equally and most especially when it looks like it could be
politically motivated.
belgareth
10-25-2005, 07:46 PM
Public Giving Gov't, Business Lower Marks By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON –
The public's view of the government has eroded over the past year
and its view of business corporations is now at the lowest level in two decades.
The public's rating for the federal government has fallen from 59
percent favorable last year to 45 percent now, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the
Press. The favorable view of business corporations is also at 45 percent.
When dissatisfaction with national conditions is running high "people tend to be critical of institutions such
as the government, the Congress, and have rising discontent with business corporations, especially oil companies,"
said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. Only 20 percent of people said they have a favorable view of
oil companies — down from 32 percent in 2001.
The federal government
needs the public's trust to operate and businesses need the goodwill of customers, Kohut
said.
The public's view of the Department of Defense has dropped
from 76 percent favorable in 1997 to 56 percent during an unpopular war in Iraq. Even the view of the U.S.
military has dropped slightly, from 87 percent favorable to 82 percent now.
The political parties have slipped with the public, as well. Republicans are now viewed unfavorably by 49
percent and favorably by 42 percent. Despite the GOP's falling popularity, Democrats have not gained ground and are
seen favorably by 49 percent, down slightly from 53 percent last year.
Two institutions that have not slipped with the public are the news media, viewed positively by 52 percent,
and the Supreme Court, 62 percent.
The poll of 2,006 adults was taken
Oct. 12-24 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, larger for
subgroups.
DrSmellThis
10-25-2005, 07:55 PM
All I want is
a fair trial, no more or less. We all know that depending on which rag you read each person is either guilty as sin
or free from sin. Over all, I've found the best bet is to ignore the analysts because they all are biased. I asked
before about guilt and innocence and the scenerio of if he is innocent. I've also advocated for the full penalty of
law depending on what is proven. Are you going to advocate for nailing the prosecuter if it is demonstrated that he
is misusing his authority for political purposes? I am! That is not proven either but is a possibility.
Let's
just say that I am an equal opportunity sceptic, I doubt all positions equally and most especially when it looks
like it could be politically motivated. If a prosecutor is unprofessional, that hurts everybody.
belgareth
10-25-2005, 07:58 PM
If a
prosecutor is unprofessional, that hurts everybody.
Unprofessional is one thing and you are right that
it hurts everybody. I am asking about what should be done if he is intentionally using his office for political
purposes, if he is bringing false charges in an attempt to discredit or undermine another person or party. In my
eyes that is also a form of treason but that's very subjective.
DrSmellThis
10-26-2005, 03:48 AM
Any time you pervert Democracy
it is subtle treason, ethically, if you are a purist -- which you and I tend to be moreso than average. But you're
correct it is subjective how one determines that. Among the most egregious perversions is election fraud. That's
pretty treasonous.
It went without saying that if a prosecutor breaks laws they are liable as any one else; since
I expect them to be professional -- a stricter standard than simply keeping it legal. If they are legal but
egregiously unprofessional, they should lose their professions. For lesser offenses they should be disciplined and
lose their position on a case.
Curiously, the larger challenge to the justice system is primarily about
the possibility of over-zealous prosecutors to political spin masters, it seems. In the last administration the spin
was about Kenneth Starr, who was prosecuting Clinton for lying about having an affair, IIRC. But in general, our
whole system goes on trial, and should; any time it is stretched to its limit, in attempting to hold power
accountable. We should learn a lot through all of this, just as we did with Watergate.
Mtnjim
10-27-2005, 09:16 AM
Looks like he'll have to
try again:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/miers.nominations/index.html
Mtnjim
10-27-2005, 11:48 AM
From the "Risks" newsletter, a
publication of the Association for Computer Machinery (ACM):
Subject: Printer steganography (Mike
Musgrove)
Many color printers (Xerox, HP, etc.) add barely visible yellow dots that
encode printer serial
numbers and time stamps (down to the minute).
Intended primarily to combat counterfeiters, the purportedly
"secret"
steganographic code in color printer copies has now been decoded by four
people at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. (The encoding is
straightforward, and includes no encryption.) There are of course
various
slippery-slope privacy issues. [Source: Mike Musgrove, Sleuths Crack
Tracking Code Discovered in Color
Printers, *The Washington Post*, 19 Oct
2005, D01;
PGN-ed]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801663.html
[Also
noted by Amos Shapir, who suggests you look at the eff site, which
nicely documents the encoding:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/
PGN]
Mtnjim
10-27-2005, 11:56 AM
This is for anyone living in Massachusetts:
Subject: Mileage sign errors
Excerpt
from
http:/
/www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/10/16/state_rejects_somerville_i_93_lane_shift/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/10/16/state_rejects_somerville_i_93_lane_shift/)
We finally have an
answer about how those new state mileage signs got so
terribly messed up. And the blame is being placed on Bill
Gates.
MassHighway admitted that the state had found 19 legends on the new signs
with significant errors in
mileage. That's 12 percent of the 164 new signs
in the $1.05 million contract.
According to the contractor,
some of the distances were calculated using
Microsoft's Streets & Trips software. According to Microsoft, the
software
without a GPS hookup costs $39.95. This contractor was paid $130,000 by the
state.
Apparently the
contractor had tried to use Mapquest, but found it
unreliable.:hammer:
Excerpt
from
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/25/in_chelsea_pedalers_celebrate_the_bus/
One
sign on Interstate 93 north, near Exit 45 in Andover, reported that
Manchester, N.H. was 42 miles away, although
the actual distance is just a
bit more than 28 miles. Another sign on Route 128/95 in Needham reported
that
Wellesley is 7 miles away. The actual distance is slightly less than 3
miles. A sign on Route 3 north in Braintree
listed the distance to I-93 as 5
miles when the distance by odometer was 3 miles.
DrSmellThis
10-27-2005, 05:07 PM
Looks like
he'll have to try
again:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/
10/27/miers.nominations/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/miers.nominations/index.html)Does anyone think the next nominee will be any better?
belgareth
10-27-2005, 08:39 PM
I found it interesting that the
republicans gave her at least as much trouble for her more moderate views than the dems gave her.
Mtnjim
10-28-2005, 08:48 AM
Does anyone
think the next nominee will be any better?
From "W"??
Be serious!!
Perhaps this was his try at "I'm
trying to put a moderate in" before he puts who he really wants in?? The next one could very well be much worse!
DrSmellThis
10-28-2005, 02:09 PM
I found it
interesting that the republicans gave her at least as much trouble for her more moderate views than the dems gave
her.I think it was all about the Republican reaction. Dems saw her mainly as pro-corporation -- "not good,
but what can you do?"
It is interesting, because it really highlights what the right wing expect. They will
settle for nothing other than an anti-human rights, government-in-control-of-our-lives, theocratic idealogue. A wee
bit perfectionist, aren't they?
DrSmellThis
10-28-2005, 02:23 PM
...but just the tip of the
iceberg.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/
28/leak.probe/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/index.html)
Netghost56
10-28-2005, 08:05 PM
Conservatives feel betrayed by Bush Analysis: Conservative base, feeling betrayed by selection of
Miers, lashed out at Bush
Harriett Miers' 25-day odyssey as a Supreme Court nominee exposed a serious rift
between President Bush and his conservative base, posing a surprising challenge as he tries to emerge from his
presidency's darkest days.
In choosing Miers, a nominee with no judicial track record but a long history of
personal loyalty, Bush essentially told conservatives: "Trust me.''
They didn't.
At a time
when Bush's popularity has sunk to its lowest level, he must find a way to mollify his conservative, and
traditionally most reliable, supporters at the same time he reaches out to moderates as he pursues the war in Iraq,
Social Security reform, tax simplification and other priorities of his second term.
In Democratic enclaves such
as Northern California, many liberals find Bush's policies so deplorable that they assume their ideological
counterparts on the right adore him. The Miers saga revealed a more complicated and tenuous relationship.
Critics who have blamed Bush for ignoring the political center since his contested victory in 2000 got a crash
course in what happens to a Republican president who does not please the right on a matter as important as the
Supreme Court.
Conservatives expressed more disdain for Bush's agenda and more contempt for his leadership in
the past month than they had in the first 56 months of his presidency combined. They questioned his integrity and
intellectual capacity and jeered his handlers for the way they disparaged their complaints, much as Democrats have
done for the past four years.
Many suspect Miers' abrupt departure on the eve of possible indictments against
top administration officials in the CIA leak probe was a timely effort by the White House to make amends with its
base. Some on the left decried it as capitulation.
Yet even if Bush delivers his base an unabashed conservative
ideologue to replace Miers, many of the harsh words uttered since he nominated her on Oct. 3 will be hard to take
back.
"(Bush) has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing
approaches to construing the Constitution,'' conservative columnist George Will wrote on Oct. 5. "The president
has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution.''
On the day Miers was nominated,
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, wrote: "It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that
President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. ... What are the prospects for a strong Bush
second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are
demoralized?''
And just last week, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union wrote: "We've
swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because we've believed that he and those around him are
themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We've been there for him
because we've considered ourselves part of his team. No more.''
Conservative contempt for Bush, though far
from universal, extends to matters far beyond the Miers' nomination. Many on the right are deeply upset by the huge
expansion of government spending and rise in the national debt. Others are opposed to the entanglement in Iraq, the
Patriot Act, the expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs and Bush's signing into law of the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance measure.
"The fact is, from the beginning there have been a number of things
that conservatives have been either leery of, or upset with, the way the Bush administration has proceeded,''
Keene said Thursday.
"It was the promise to move the Supreme Court decidedly to the right that motivated many
conservatives to vote in record numbers in the 2004 election," he said.
"The Bush folks told conservatives
explicitly, maybe you don't like the spending, maybe you disagree with our foreign policy or the war in Iraq, or
the Patriot Act, but this is about the Supreme Court. This is what George Bush said he was going to do, to get
someone in the mold of (justices Antonin) Scalia and (Clarence) Thomas.''
When Bush nominated Miers, Keene
said conservatives felt betrayed just as they had a generation earlier, when Bush's father agreed to raise taxes
after declaring during the campaign: "Read my lips, no new taxes.''
"You never completely repair
it,'' Keene said. "They've got a lot of fence-mending to do.''
Bush now confronts an opening on
the court with the same seemingly impossible task he faced when the summer began: fulfilling his pledge to
conservatives to move the court to the right while fulfilling his promise to be a uniter, not a divider.
Senate
Democrats, none of whom had said they had planned to vote for Miers, decried her withdrawal Thursday as a
capitulation to the right.
"Not a single Republican senator called for Harriet Miers' withdrawal,'' said
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "It was the very extreme wing of the president's party ... that brought about the
withdrawal. If the president continues to listen to that extreme wing on judicial nominations or everything else, it
can only spell trouble for his presidency and for America.''
It is not Democrats, who long ago abandoned
Bush, whom the president needs to worry about. Bush's drop in popularity over the past several months -- about four
in 10 Americans say they approve of the job he is doing as president -- is largely due to mounting frustration among
Republicans and independents.
His agenda is in trouble if he cannot find votes among centrist Democrats and
independents. His agenda is dead if he cannot find enthusiasm among his conservative
base.
------
http://www.propagand
amatrix.com/articles/october2005/281005betrayed.htm (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/october2005/281005betrayed.htm)
Netghost56
10-28-2005, 08:09 PM
Public has
had it with both parties
Battleground poll reveals Americans disillusioned with government
A just-released political survey by George Washington University contains bad news for
Democrats and Republicans because it lays bare a public seemingly disenfranchised with both major parties.
The Battleground poll – unique for its
inclusion of top Democrat and Republican pollsters – shows a definite slide in support for President Bush and the
GOP. But the survey contains little good news for Democrats as a viable alternative.
The poll found just 44 percent of the public is satisfied
with President Bush's job performance – a figure well below his two-term average but still slightly higher than
other recent polls showing his approval at all-time lows.
"The mounting casualties of American troops in Iraq, the higher gas prices certainly put a
dampening on any of the good news about the economy, and you had the surfacing scandals with Republicans in the
House, the Senate and the White House, potential scandals," said GOP pollster Ed Goeas.
While a Republican retreat in the polls normally means good
news for Democrats, there is little evidence Americans are enamored with the opposition party, survey results
indicate. On a host of issues – Iraq, homeland security, the economy – Democrats don't fare much better, the poll
indicated.
"There is a real void right
now in terms of what the alternative is. And right now, Democrats suffer from the fact that Americans are
disillusioned and distrustful of government in general," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told Voice Of America.
"They tend to be feeling more negative about the Republicans, but not particularly positive about the Democrats."
Goeas believes Democrats' inability to
capitalize on Republican weakness is actually encouraging.
"But the Democrats, whether you look at the image of the Democratic Party, whether you look
at Democrats in Congress, not only did not gain anything, they actually had their negatives go up some during this
period of time," he told VOA.
And, the
survey noted, Republicans continue to hold an edge in the public's eye on issues related to taxes and terrorism.
Democrats, meanwhile, fare better with health care, jobs and education.
The mid-October poll surveyed 1,000 registered likely voters nationwide. It has a
margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
--------
http://www.worldne
tdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47084 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47084)
DrSmellThis
10-29-2005, 08:49 PM
Indictment Gives Glimpse Into
a Secretive Operation By Douglas Jehl /
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/politics/30indict.html?pagewanted=print)
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - Over a seven-week period in the spring of 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney's suite in the Old
Executive Office Building appears to have served as the nerve center of an effort to gather and spread word about
Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, a C.I.A. operative.
I. Lewis Libby Jr., the vice president's chief of staff,
is the only aide to Mr. Cheney who has been charged with a crime. But the indictment alleges that Mr. Cheney himself
and others in the office took part in discussions about the origins of a trip by Mr. Wilson to Niger in 2002; about
the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson; and whether the information could be shared with reporters, in the period
before it was made public in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.
The indictment identifies the other
officials only by their titles, but it clearly asserts that others involved in the discussion involved David
Addington, Mr. Cheney's counsel; John Hannah, deputy national security adviser; and Catherine Martin, then Mr.
Cheney's press secretary.
Mr. Grossman, Mr. Hannah, Mr. Addington and Ms. Martin have all declined to comment,
citing legal advice. The fact that they were not named in the indictment suggests that they will not be charged, but
all can expect to be called as witnesses in any trial of Mr. Libby, setting up a spectacle that could be unpleasant
for the administration.
That Mr. Cheney and his office sparred with the C.I.A. before the invasion of Iraq has
never been a secret. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby made repeated trips to C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., in the
months before the American invasion in March 2003, and Mr. Libby was often on the phone with senior C.I.A. officials
to challenge the agency's intelligence reports on Iraq. A principal focus, former intelligence officials say, was
the question of whether Al Qaeda had had a close, collaborative relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraqi
government, an argument advanced publicly by Mr. Cheney but rejected by the C.I.A. intelligence analysts.
The
antipathy felt by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby toward Mr. Wilson, in the aftermath of the invasion, has also long been
known. But the events spelled out in the 22-page indictment suggest a far more active, earlier effort by the vice
president's office to gather information about him and his wife.
The indictment provides a rare glimpse inside
a vice presidential operation that, under Mr. Cheney, has been extraordinary both for its power and its secrecy. It
tracks a period in the spring of 2003, at a time when the American failure to find illicit weapons in Iraq meant
that the administration's rationale for war was beginning to unravel, and when early reports about Mr. Wilson's
2002 trip, which had not yet identified him by name, raised questions about whether the White House should have
known just how weak its case been, particularly involving Iraq and nuclear weapons.
By any measure, the
indictment suggests that Mr. Libby and others went to unusual lengths to gather information about Mr. Wilson and his
trip. An initial request on May 29, 2003, from Mr. Libby to Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political
affairs, led Mr. Grossman to request a classified memo from Carl Ford, the director of the State Department's
intelligence bureau, and later for Mr. Grossman to orally brief Mr. Libby on its contents.
Later requests
appear to have prompted C.I.A. officials to fax classified information to Mr. Cheney's office about Mr. Wilson's
trip, on June 9. Mr. Cheney himself is alleged to have shared details about the nature of Ms. Wilson's job with Mr.
Libby, on June 12. The indictment says that Mr. Libby first shared information about Mr. Wilson's trip with a
reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, on June 23; but it also describes discussions involving Mr. Libby,
Mr. Addington, Mr. Hannah, Ms. Martin and White House officials, about whether the information could be shared with
reporters.
Among the discussions, the indictment says, were one on June 23, 2005, in which Mr. Libby is said to
have told Mr. Hannah that there could be complications at the C.I.A. if information about Mr. Wilson's trip was
shared publicly. It is also not clear how Mr. Cheney may have learned "from the C.I.A." that Ms. Wilson worked in
the agency's counterproliferation division, a fact that meant she was part of the C.I.A.'s clandestine service,
and that she might well be working undercover.
Lawyers in the case say that notes taken by Mr. Libby indicate
that detail was provided to Mr. Cheney by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, but several
former intelligence officials say they do not believe that Mr. Tenet was the source of the information.
Many
questions remain unanswered in the indictment. The special counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, said that Ms. Wilson's
affiliation with the C.I.A. had been classified, but he did not assert that Mr. Libby knew that she had covert
status, something the prosecutor would have had to prove to support a charge under the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act.
It is not clear, for example, what guidance, if any, Mr. Cheney gave to Mr. Libby about whether
or how to share information about Mr. Wilson's trip with reporters. Among their discussions, lawyers in the case
have said, was one on July 11, 2003, on a trip to Norfolk, Va., that preceded by a day what two reporters, Ms.
Miller and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, have said were conversations in which Mr. Libby mentioned Mr. Wilson's
wife.
Beyond Mr. Cheney's office, some of the government officials involved in the discussions have yet to be
identified. It is not clear from the indictment, for example, who faxed the "classified information from the C.I.A."
about Mr. Wilson's trip to the vice president's office on June 9, or which "senior C.I.A. officer" provided
further information to Mr. Libby on June 11.
Another question is whether Mr. Libby made appropriate use of the
briefings provided to him by the C.I.A., a privilege afforded to only eight or nine other members of the Bush
administration. The indictment says that Mr. Libby complained to a C.I.A. briefer on June 14 that C.I.A. officials
were making comments critical of the Bush administration, and that he mentioned, among other things, "Joe Wilson"
and "Valerie Wilson" in the context of Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger. Also still unclear is how Ms. Martin, the press
secretary, may have learned in June or early July that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. The indictment says
that Ms. Martin learned the information from "another government official" and shared that information with Mr.
Libby.
Mr. Grossman, who served under Colin L. Powell, left the government in January and is now a private
consultant. Mr. Addington, still Mr. Cheney's counsel, has been a major participant in debates within the
administration about the treatment of suspected terrorists, including questions surrounding interrogation rules, and
whether those held at the American facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should face military tribunals. Mr. Hannah, a
Middle East specialist, was a main liaison between the vice president's office and Ahmad Chalabi, who as an Iraqi
exile was a major force in urging the administration toward war.
Mr. Hannah and Mr. Libby were also the main
authors of a 48-page draft speech prepared in January 2003 that was intended to make the administration's case for
war in Iraq before the United Nations. The draft was provided to Mr. Powell, in advance of his speech to the
Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, but most of its contents were cast aside by Mr. Powell and Mr. Tenet, who during
several days of review at C.I.A. headquarters rejected many claims related to Iraq, its weapons program and
terrorism as exaggerated and unwarranted.
It has long been understood that Mr. Libby, Mr. Cheney and others
felt hostility toward Mr. Wilson by July 6, 2003, the day the former ambassador emerged publicly, in an Op-Ed
article in The New York Times and an appearance on "Meet the Press," to describe his trip to Niger and to criticize
the administration.
Mr. Wilson suggested that he had taken the trip at the behest of Mr. Cheney's office, and
that the office had been briefed on his findings. Neither assertion was strictly accurate (the C.I.A. had dispatched
Mr. Wilson on its own, after questions from Mr. Cheney about a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger; and his
findings, briefed orally to the agency, were never shared with Mr. Cheney's office). After Mr. Wilson's public
appearance, the White House worked aggressively to challenge his statements.
But the indictment shows that,
within Mr. Cheney's office, the pushback against Mr. Wilson began far earlier, at a time when the only news
accounts about his trip had referred to him only as a "former ambassador." Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times
wrote about Mr. Wilson on May 6, 2003, without naming him. But the timeline spelled out in the indictment suggests
that it was a second round of news media inquiries, this time from Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, whose
article appeared on June 12, that set Mr. Libby and the vice president's office on the path toward digging out the
information that is now at the heart of the case against Mr. Libby.
DrSmellThis
10-30-2005, 04:23 PM
http://www.washingto
npost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102900549_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102900549_pf.html)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/
washington/articles/2005/10/29/despite_urging_calm_for_libby_cheney_may_face_fire storm_too?mode=PF
I just
love that Bush said he was as anxious as anyone to find out who "leaked" the identity of the CIA officer; but gee,
he says, there are just an awful lot of people in this big administration, and it could be anyone!!
Now the information turns out to have come from Vice President Cheney, and Bush's other closest
colleague, Rove.
Isn't it funny, how when you're President, treason to cover up conquering a non-threatening
nation can be meticulously coordinated right under your nose, over a period of months, by your two closest
associates and you don't even know it? Kinda like a suprise birthday party? :rofl:
DrSmellThis
11-01-2005, 12:43 PM
[url="http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html"]http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html[/u
rl]
It looks as if the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans" may have been the culprit in the yellowcake
forgeries.
The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department employees would explain the
viciousness of the attack on Valerie Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the New
York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was little public interest into something much bigger.
I hope everyone is noticing by now that, together with the Downing Street Minutes and related sources, a
very clear big picture is emerging.
Here, it's about breaking every national and international law to conquer a
non-threatening country for economic gain by a few; with no regard for the scores of thousands dead; and no regard
for the national security of the United States.
This goes beyond "corruption". It's not corruption of
something at all, in fact. It is blatant organized crime, through and through. Everything revolves around the
crime, around power and money at any "cost", or regardless of cost to our citizenry and the world. Notice that all
other government functions/agencies, like FEMA and the Pentagon, have been relegated to trivial formalities, whose
only true function is simply loyality to the administration and their corporate friends (hence no appointments
except cronies). Even going after Bin Laden was a trivial going through the motions, with no goal to succeed. With
the Plame outing, they took down a huge, undercover U.S. intelligence network, not just one CIA officer. CIA sources
indicate multiple intelligence personnel have already died because of it. It will take decades to get our intel
credibility back abroad, and we are already at increased risk.
It's all a front.
Even the Christian
fundamentalists have been duped by appearances, as they just found out with the Harriet Meiers nomination. The same
goes for conservatives, who penned the above linked article. People are just beginning to realize that this has
nothing to do with "those damn liberal conspiracy nut jobs."
Massive murder, destruction and chaos are just
normal, taken for granted, methods of doing business; just like in the Mafia.
There is no way to fathom the
national shame we have incurred.
belgareth
11-01-2005, 01:53 PM
Panel Recommends Major Tax Law Overhaul By MARY DALRYMPLE, AP Tax Writer
Tue Nov 1,
WASHINGTON - Chosen to find a simpler way to tax the nation, a presidential panel on Tuesday recommended two
designs that would rewrite virtually every tax law for individuals and businesses.
Treasury Secretary John Snow called the proposals "bold
recommendations" but he did not indicate what ideas the administration would
embrace.
"Now it's up to us," Snow said. The Treasury Department
will "take the report, review it carefully, understand the implications and use the report as a starting point for
recommendations that we will make to the president," he said.
Under
the panel's plan, most deductions, credits and other tax breaks would be eliminated along with much of the
paperwork and equations that baffle taxpayers under a drastically simplified income
tax.
Many, including the nine members of the presidential commission,
have said key recommendations will be unpopular.
"The effort to
reform the tax code is noble in its purpose, but it requires political willpower," the group said Tuesday in a
letter to Snow. "Many stand waiting to defend their breaks, deductions and loopholes, and to defeat our
efforts."
Members of the panel urged taxpayers and lawmakers to look
at the whole plan, not just individual components.
Asked whether the
administration could build support for a tax plan that contained some controversial ideas, Snow said, "I happen to
believe — it may be naive, but I don't think so — that good ideas ultimately
prevail."
The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform spent
most of the year studying tax designs, including consumption taxes like a national retail sales tax. President
Bush tasked the group with finding simpler and more economically productive ideas for
taxation.
The commission wrapped up its work last month, and its
ideas immediately attracted criticism — some from those who wanted to see more change and some from those who felt
the changes went too far.
Drawing particular criticism, the panel
determined that tax breaks for homeownership be changed to spread their benefits to more middle-income
families.
The panel would convert the home mortgage interest
deduction into a credit equal to 15 percent of mortgage interest paid. The $1 million limit on mortgages eligible
for the tax break would shrink to the average regional price of housing, ranging from $227,000 to
$412,000.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley,
R-Iowa, said that idea is bound to be politically unpopular. "But it's important to have a comprehensive starting
point that will get everyone talking and thinking," he said.
In
another major change, taxpayers could purchase health insurance using untaxed money up to the amount of the average
premium, about $5,000 for an individual and $11,500 for a family, a change that caps currently unlimited breaks but
would create a new tax break for those who do not get health insurance through
work.
Both plans would tax rates on individuals and
businesses.
Under one plan, individuals would pay no tax on dividends
paid by U.S. companies and exclude 75 percent of their capital gains from taxation. Under the second plan, all
investment income would be taxed at 15 percent.
Both proposals would
abolish the alternative minimum tax, a levy originally drafted to prevent wealthy individuals from escaping taxation
but increasingly reaching into the middle class. They also would eliminate federal deductions and credits for
mortgage interest, state and local taxes and education, among others.
The advisory commission would replace those withdrawn tax breaks with simpler benefits, including three
savings plans that supplant more than a dozen provisions currently available for retirement, medical expenses and
education.
Bush set certain limits on the panel, requiring that the
new plans collect roughly as much tax money as the government collects now.
The proposals also had to retain the progressive system that taxes wealthier taxpayers at higher rates
than poorer individuals and families. They were also required to recognize "the importance of homeownership and
charity in American society."
The panel rejected frequently touted
ideas to impose taxes on consumption, like a retail sales tax.
Instead, the group chose to use one recommendation to push for major simplification of the current income tax
system. Its second recommendation makes changes for businesses that shift the nation's tax system toward indirect
tax on consumption.
The changes allow every taxpayer to use a
simpler tax form, less then half the length of the current Form 1040. Snow said that would also cutting in half the
number of taxpayers who need to hire a professional tax preparer.
The tax-writing House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees pledged to take a close look at the
recommendations.
___
On the Net:
President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform:
http://www.taxreformpanel.gov
DrSmellThis
11-01-2005, 08:13 PM
Democrats close Senate to
push war probe
Deal struck to advance investigation on prewar intelligence
WASHINGTON (CNN) --
Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session Tuesday to pressure the Republican majority into completing an
investigation of the intelligence underpinning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Democrats demanded that Intelligence
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts move forward on a promised investigation into how Bush administration officials
handled prewar intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons programs.
The probe would be a follow-up to the July
2004 Intelligence Committee report that blamed a "series of failures" by the CIA and other intelligence agencies for
the mistaken belief among U.S. policymakers that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
programs. (Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intelligence/index.html))
The
Senate reopened about two hours later, after members agreed to appoint a bipartisan group of senators to assess the
progress of the "Phase 2" probe, the office of Majority Leader Bill Frist said.
(See video on Democratic move -- 3:05 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27/video/politics/2005/11/01/henry.senate.closed.sess
ion.cnn%27%29;))
The three Republicans and three Democrats are to
report back to Senate leaders by November 14.
Democrats accused Roberts of stalling the probe into how
administration officials handled the intelligence used to sell Congress and the public on invading Iraq.
Roberts, a Kansas Republican, said the closed session was "not needed, not necessary and, in my personal opinion,
was a stunt."
The closed session was punctuated by acrimonious broadsides in the Capitol hallways.
Frist
said Democrats had "hijacked" the Senate, and Democrats threatened to close the chamber each day until Republicans
agreed to move forward with the investigation.
"This is an affront to me personally," said Frist, a Tennessee
Republican. "This is an affront to our leadership. It is an affront to the United States of America, and it is
wrong."
[So it's an affront to the American people for anyone to question the actions of government; but
not to lie to the American people into fighting and dying in a war for narcissistic reasons. This lecture on ethics
is coming from one of our most "corrupt" politicians. -- DST]
Frist said Senate Rule 21 -- which requires
everyone but senators and a few aides to clear the chamber until a majority votes to reopen -- had been invoked only
rarely and with "mutual conversation" between the leaders of both parties.
Democratic leader Harry Reid said the
surprise move was necessary to overcome Republican efforts to "obstruct" a full investigation of how the Bush
administration led the United States into war.
"There's nothing more important to a Congress or a president
than war," the Nevada Democrat said. "I think the American people are entitled to know how we got there. That's
what this is all about."
There was no immediate reaction from the White House.
Reid said the GOP leadership
in Congress has "repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what
happened and why."
He said he had "zero regret" about the move: "The American people had a victory today."
Rule 21 has been invoked 53 times since 1929, according to the Congressional Research Service.
It was invoked
six times during the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton for senators to organize the proceedings and
deliberate on his eventual acquittal.
Roberts: Probe in progress
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the
intelligence committee's ranking Democrat and vice chairman, said the Democratic maneuver was necessary for
Americans to learn who was accountable for the way prewar intelligence was used.
"Everything is about
accountability to the American people, accountability of the executive branch ... [and] accountability of the
oversight of the Congress," Rockefeller said.
He said the committee's Republican majority has refused to
request documents from the White House about how the Bush administration crafted arguments for the invasion.
"What disturbs me the most is the majority has been willing, in this senator's judgment, to take orders from this
administration when it comes to limiting the scope of appropriate, authorized and necessary oversight
investigations," Rockefeller said.
Roberts said his committee has been working on the Phase 2 investigation
since May and "we have what we think is a pretty good report." He said the committee will take up the matter next
week.
"However long it takes, working in good faith, we will look into Phase 2 and see what we can do and finish
that product," Roberts said.
Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat on the panel, expressed his doubts.
"Assurances have been made for months that progress is being made," Levin said. "We have not seen any evidence of
it."
Democrats last year had pushed for the second part of the panel's inquiry to be completed before the
November 2004 elections.
Democratic Whip Richard Durbin said last week's indictment of Vice President Dick
Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on perjury and obstruction of justice charges showed how the Bush
administration reacts to criticism.
Libby is accused of lying to investigators and a grand jury probing the
disclosure of the identity of a CIA officer whose husband had challenged a key assertion in the administration's
case for war.
"It's a question about whether or not anyone in this administration in any way misused or
distorted intelligence," Durbin said. He said senators "owe the American people some straight answers."
Durbin,
an Illinois Democrat, denied his party was trying to stall Senate action on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
He said work on Alito's nomination was still going on, and he was scheduled to meet with the nominee on
Wednesday.
Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, a Republican member of the Intelligence Committee, said Democratic
complaints against Roberts were "terribly unfair and unfounded."
Bond said the panel's 2004 report found no
indication that the mistaken assumptions about Iraq's weapons programs were the result of political pressure.
"Even after they signed on to that, they contend that somehow this intelligence was misused," he said.
Responding to that argument, Durbin told CNN, "This is a different question: Once they received the intelligence,
did members of the administration accurately and honestly portray it to the American people?"
CNN's Ted
Barrett contributed to this report.
belgareth
11-02-2005, 11:52 AM
Nominee Has Some Unexpected Supporters By David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein Times Staff Writers
Wed Nov 2, 2005
WASHINGTON — Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quickly branded a hard-core
conservative after President Bush announced his nomination, but a surprising number of liberal-leaning judges
and ex-clerks say they support his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Those who have worked alongside him say he was neither an ideologue nor a judge with an agenda, conservative
or otherwise. They caution against attaching a label to Alito.
Kate
Pringle, a New York lawyer who worked last year on Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record)'s presidential
campaign, describes herself as a left-leaning Democrat and a big fan of
Alito's.
She worked for him as a law clerk in 1994, and said she was
troubled by the initial reaction to his nomination. "He was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays
attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense; his opinions
don't demonstrate an ideological slant," she said.
Jeff Wasserstein,
a Washington lawyer who clerked for Alito in 1998, echoes her view.
"I am a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate — but Judge Alito was
not interested in the ideology of his clerks," he said. "He didn't decide cases based on ideology, and his record
was not extremely conservative."
As an example, he cited a case in
which police in Pennsylvania sent out a bulletin that called for the arrest of a black man in a black sports car.
Police stopped such a vehicle and found a gun, but Alito voted to overturn the man's conviction, saying that that
general identification did not amount to probable cause.
"This was a
classic case of 'driving while black,' " Wasserstein said, referring to the complaint that black motorists are
targeted by police. Though Alito "was a former prosecutor, he was very fair and open-minded in looking at cases and
applying the law," Wasserstein said.
It is not unusual for former law
clerks to have fond recollections of the judge they worked for. And it is common for judges to speak respectfully of
their colleagues. But for a judge being portrayed by the right and left as a hard-right conservative, Alito's
enthusiastic backing by liberal associates is striking.
Former
federal Judge Timothy K. Lewis said that when he joined the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, he consulted
his mentor, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. The late Higginbotham, a legendary liberal and a scholar of U.S. racial
history, was the only other black judge on the Philadelphia-based court at the time.
"As he was going down the roster of colleagues, he got to Sam Alito.
I expressed some concern about [him] being so conservative. He said, 'No, no. Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit
with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is
intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue,' " Higginbotham said, according to
Lewis.
"I really was surprised to hear that, but my experience with
him on the 3rd Circuit bore that out," added Lewis, who had a liberal record during his seven years on the bench.
"Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a 'home run.' He
is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial
deference."
In January 1998, Alito, joined by Judge Lewis, ruled that
a Pennsylvania police officer had no probable cause to stop a black man driving a sports car after a rash of
robberies in which two black males allegedly fled in a different type of sports car. The driver, Jesse Kithcart, was
indicted for being a felon in possession of a gun, which police discovered when they patted him down after his car
was stopped. After a trial judge refused to suppress the search, Kithcart pleaded guilty but reserved his right to
appeal.
"Armed with information that two black males driving a black
sports car were believed to have committed three robberies in the area some relatively short time earlier," the
police officer "could not justifiably arrest any African-American man who happened to drive by in any type of black
sports car," Alito wrote. He said the trial judge had erred in concluding that the police had probable cause that
extended to the weapons charge because Kithcart had not been involved in the
robberies.
Alito and Lewis sent the case back to the trial judge for
new hearings on whether the search was legal. The third judge in the case, Theodore A. McKee, said he would have
gone even further.
"Just as this record fails to establish" that the
officer "had probable cause to arrest any black male who happened to drive by in a black sports car, it also fails
to establish reasonable suspicion to justify stopping any and all such cars that happened to contain a black male,"
wrote Judge McKee. He said he would have thrown out the search without further
proceedings.
Judge Edward R. Becker, former chief judge of the 3rd
Circuit, said he also was surprised to see Alito labeled as a reliable
conservative.
"I found him to be a guy who approached every case with
an open mind. I never found him to have an agenda," he said. "I suppose the best example of that is in the area of
criminal procedure. He was a former U.S. attorney, but he never came to a case with a bias in favor of the
prosecution. If there was an error in the trial, or a flawed search, he would vote to reverse," Becker said.
Some of his former clerks say they were drawn to Alito because of
his reputation as a careful judge who closely followed the text of the law.
Clark Lombardi, now a law professor at the University of Washington, became a clerk for Alito in 1999.
"I grew up in New York City, and I'm a political independent. But I
liked Judge Alito because he was a judicial conservative, someone who believed in judicial restraint and was
committed to textualism," he said. "His approach leads to conservative results in some cases and progressive results
in other cases. In my opinion, he is a fantastic jurist and a good guy."
Some of Alito's former Yale Law School classmates who describe themselves as Democrats say they expect they
will not always agree with his rulings if he joins the Supreme Court. But they say he is the best they could have
hoped for from among Bush's potential nominees.
"Sam is very smart,
and he is unquestionably conservative," said Washington lawyer Mark I. Levy, who served in the Justice Department
during the Carter and Clinton administrations. "But he is open-minded and fair. And he thinks about cases as a
lawyer and a judge. He is really very different from [Justice Antonin] Scalia. If he is going to be like anyone on
the court now, it will be John Roberts," the new chief justice.
Joel
Friedman teaches labor and employment law at Tulane University Law School, but is temporarily at the University of
Pittsburgh because of Tulane's shutdown following Hurricane Katrina.
"Ideology aside, I think he is a terrific guy, a terrific choice," said Friedman, a Yale classmate of
Alito's. "He is not Harriet Miers; he has unimpeachable credentials. He may disagree with me on many legal issues —
I am a Democrat; I didn't vote for Bush. I would not prefer any of the people Bush has appointed up until now.
"The question is, is this guy [Alito] going to be motivated by the
end and find a means to get to the end, or is he going to reach an end through thoughtful analysis of all relevant
factors? In my judgment, Sam will be the latter."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[fon
t=Times New Roman]Savage reported from Washington and Weinstein from Los Angeles[/font]
Mtnjim
11-02-2005, 03:47 PM
And from the ACLU:
Dear Friend,
The ACLU participates in more cases before the Supreme Court than anyone besides the U.S.
government itself.
Every time we step into that courtroom, fundamental freedoms are on the line. That will
certainly be true later this month when ACLU attorney Jennifer Dalven, Deputy Director of our Reproductive Freedom
Project, will step before the Justices of the Supreme Court to argue Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New
England.
With a decision in the Ayotte case, the Supreme Court could revoke the long-established principle that
abortion restrictions must include exceptions to protect a woman's health. This is the first abortion-related case
to reach the Court in five years -- and it will probably be the last time the ACLU argues a case before Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.
Justice O'Connor has provided more than a swing vote on the Court. She has been a
moderating voice on critical civil liberties issues ranging from race to religion to reproductive freedom. We cannot
know for certain how Judge Alito would vote in Ayotte or any other case, but there is no question that this
nomination calls into question the delicate balance that Justice O'Connor has helped to shape and preserve.
For
example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold a state law provision that required women to
notify their husbands before having an abortion. Justice O'Connor joined with a majority of the court in rejecting
his position. In addition, Judge Alito has been more willing to support state-sponsored religious displays than
Justice O'Connor. And he has written several dissenting opinions on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that, if
accepted, would have not only made it more difficult for victims of discrimination to prevail in bringing a suit,
but would have made it more difficult for them to even get their case to a jury.
Other troubling positions in
Judge Alito's record includes:
Upholding the strip search of a mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though
the warrant allowing the search did not name either of them.
Holding that Congress does not have the power under
the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows.
Holding that Congress did
not have authority to require state employers to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Make no mistake
about it. As the Senate considers the Alito nomination, we are at a pivotal moment in our nation's history. The
Bush Administration is claiming unprecedented national security powers, reproductive rights are in jeopardy, the
teaching of evolution is under attack, and we continue to struggle with a legacy of discrimination.
The Supreme
Court's role as the ultimate safeguard of our constitutional liberties has never been more critical. With that
stark reality in mind, the ACLU will, in the weeks ahead, compile a complete report on Judge Alito's civil
liberties record, including the good and the bad. And, with your help, we will make sure each and every Senator
understands that record and acts on his or her obligation to protect the Supreme Court's vital position in our
constitutional democracy.
We'll be counting on your support every step of the way.
Sincerely,
Anthony D.
Romero
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union
Netghost56
11-02-2005, 05:23 PM
I have a proposal that I
think would satisfy people on both sides of the abortion issue. But people are so polarized about it I decided to
keep my mouth shut.
Mtnjim
11-02-2005, 06:32 PM
I have a proposal
that I think would satisfy people on both sides of the abortion issue. But people are so polarized about it I
decided to keep my mouth shut.
Uhm!!
"If you're against abortion, don't have one"???
belgareth
11-02-2005, 09:01 PM
Uhm!!
"If
you're against abortion, don't have one"???
Isn't that a bit too rational for our society? They'd
much rather spend their time forcing others to act in accordance with their beliefs.
belgareth
11-03-2005, 05:51 AM
The ACLU is kind of in the same
catagory with me as the major religions. They can and do do some good but they can and do do immeasurable harm too.
The position stated by the ACLU is a really good example of why I don't trust them. Poorly reasoned at best.
And from the ACLU:
Dear Friend,
The ACLU participates in more cases before the
Supreme Court than anyone besides the U.S. government itself.
Every time we step into that courtroom,
fundamental freedoms are on the line. That will certainly be true later this month when ACLU attorney Jennifer
Dalven, Deputy Director of our Reproductive Freedom Project, will step before the Justices of the Supreme Court to
argue Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
With a decision in the Ayotte case, the Supreme
Court could revoke the long-established principle that abortion restrictions must include exceptions to protect a
woman's health. This is the first abortion-related case to reach the Court in five years -- and it will probably be
the last time the ACLU argues a case before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Justice O'Connor has provided more
than a swing vote on the Court. She has been a moderating voice on critical civil liberties issues ranging from race
to religion to reproductive freedom. We cannot know for certain how Judge Alito would vote in Ayotte or any other
case, but there is no question that this nomination calls into question the delicate balance that Justice O'Connor
has helped to shape and preserve.
For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold a
state law provision that required women to notify their husbands before having an abortion. Justice O'Connor joined
with a majority of the court in rejecting his position. In addition, Judge Alito has been more willing to support
state-sponsored religious displays than Justice O'Connor. And he has written several dissenting opinions on the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals that, if accepted, would have not only made it more difficult for victims of
discrimination to prevail in bringing a suit, but would have made it more difficult for them to even get their case
to a jury.
Other troubling positions in Judge Alito's record includes:
Upholding the strip search of a
mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though the warrant allowing the search did not name either of
them.
Holding that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and
possession of machine guns at gun shows.
Holding that Congress did not have authority to require state employers to
comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Make no mistake about it. As the Senate considers the Alito
nomination, we are at a pivotal moment in our nation's history. The Bush Administration is claiming unprecedented
national security powers, reproductive rights are in jeopardy, the teaching of evolution is under attack, and we
continue to struggle with a legacy of discrimination.
The Supreme Court's role as the ultimate safeguard of our
constitutional liberties has never been more critical. With that stark reality in mind, the ACLU will, in the weeks
ahead, compile a complete report on Judge Alito's civil liberties record, including the good and the bad. And, with
your help, we will make sure each and every Senator understands that record and acts on his or her obligation to
protect the Supreme Court's vital position in our constitutional democracy.
We'll be counting on your support
every step of the way.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties
Union
Mtnjim
11-03-2005, 10:08 AM
Isn't that a bit
too rational for our society? ...
Ya, you're right, I forgot!!:hammer:
Mtnjim
11-03-2005, 10:10 AM
The ACLU is kind
of in the same catagory with me as the major religions. They can and do do some good but they can and do do
immeasurable harm too. ...
Absolutely!!!
I remember one time when they defended some wingnut Nazis
right to hold a march. They came right out and said that they found the Nazis to be abhorent, but that they did have
the right to hold their march.
I admire that they will stand on principle, even when they don't agree with who
they are defending.
belgareth
11-03-2005, 03:47 PM
I hear a lot of hyperbole about how the republicans are only out to
help big business, are screwing the little guy, etc. In my opinion it is politically motivated propaganda with
little basis in fact. As you can see, the Supreme court ruled against the individual in favor of of
government/business interests. Here we see where the conservatives, including King W himself, are backing the
individual but nowhere is there anything about democratic participation either for or against. I wonder why. I have
several thoughts on this issue. One is that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to make laws, it is their job
to interpret them without an agenda. Clearly they have failed at that many times but this in one of the most
egregious. The other is that, while I agree in principle that Bush and company are generally awful, they are not the
all consuming evil so many make them out to be. As with anybody and everybody, there are many sides to the
picture.
Belgareth
*************************************************
House to Vote on Eminent Domain Measure By JIM ABRAMS,
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Charging that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society, the sanctity of the
home, the House considered a bill to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers.
The bill, headed toward easy passage with bipartisan support
Thursday, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force
homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.
The Supreme
Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private
development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property, civil rights,
farm and religious groups that said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." That language
provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public
use.
The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut
city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial
use.
With this "infamous" decision, said Rep. Phil Gingrey (news,
bio, voting record), R-Ga., "homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and
threatened by the government wrecking ball."
Added the House's No. 3
Republican, Rep. Deborah Pryce (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio: "For a country founded on property rights, this
is a terrible blow."
The legislation is the latest, and most
far-reaching, of several congressional responses to the court ruling. The House previously passed a measure to bar
federal transportation money from going for improvements on land seized for private development. The Senate approved
an amendment to a transportation spending bill applying similar restrictions.
About half the states are also considering changes in their laws to prevent takings for private
use.
The Bush administration, backing the House bill, said in a
statement that "private property rights are the bedrock of the nation's economy and enjoy constitutionally
protected status. They should also receive an appropriate level of protection by the federal
government."
The House bill would cut off for two years all federal
economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for property. It
also would bar the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic
development.
"By subjecting all projects to penalties, we are
removing a loophole that localities can exploit by playing a 'shell game' with projects," said Rep. Henry Bonilla
(news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a chief sponsor.
The House, by a
voice vote, approved Gingrey's proposal to bar states or localities in pursuit of more tax money from exercising
eminent domain over nonprofit or tax-exempt religious organizations. Churches, he said, "should not have to fear
because God does not pay enough in taxes."
Eminent domain, the right
of government to take property for public use, is typically used for projects that benefit an entire community, such
as highways, airports or schools.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who
wrote the majority opinion in Kelo, said in an August speech that the ruling was legally correct because the high
court has "always allowed local policymakers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public
goals."
Several lawmakers who opposed the House bill said eminent
domain has long been used by local governments for economic development projects such as the Inner Harbor in
Baltimore and the cleaning up of Times Square in New York. The District of Columbia is expected to use eminent
domain to secure land for a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals.
DrSmellThis
11-03-2005, 08:04 PM
Ownership, property, and the
"ownership society" are conservative issues. It is not suprising that Bush would play to his conservative base here.
Supporting ownership rights cannot be construed necessarily as concern for the "little guy", however. It turns
out in this case that it often is, as with cases we have examined in the forum recently. Generally, the rights
involved in ownership are consistent with Democratic capitalism, and necessary to respect, in context.
But
ownership rights are not best seen as black and white absolutes, IMO. (e.g., "What's mine is mine. End of story.")
Absolute ownership rights are also consistent with fascism, wherein ownership is like a religion. Corporatism is
strongly related to an extreme view of ownership. Once, again, if you want to see any political/philosophical/moral
principle turn destructive, just make it a black and white absolute. I believe Bush and Family take the concepts of
property rights and ownership too far, in some ways.
This in no way implies any one position on eminent domain.
This issue crosses party lines for multiple reasons. Progressives are also interested in helping individuals
keep their houses. There is a middle path in thinking about ownership.
Also, a great many progressives are
sympathetic to traditional conservative (e.g., fiscal, right to religious views) issues, even the most radical ones.
In no way are conservatives bad or "evil". Unfortunately for them, traditional Republicans and conservatives are
getting screwed by current leadership.
For my part, I avoid the word "evil" when referring to the present
administraton, preferring concrete, descriptive, evidence-based terms; like "destructive", instead.
There are
positive, constructive, genuine, ethical people in politics on both sides of the aisle, in my opinion. They just
don't carry enough weight to rule the process.
belgareth
11-04-2005, 07:00 AM
I see nothing so far, other
than what has been in the press, that you could possibly call evidence. Since I do not regard the press as a
reliable source of information, and I do regard all forms of news organizations as biased sensationalists, I find
the press of little value other than as a starting point to research issues, something I have encouraged others to
do many times. If and when the allegations you mention reach a legal venue I will put stock in the decisions of that
legal venue as that is the standard set by the constitution to determine a person's guilt or innocence. While not
perfect, it is a far better meduim than the press to base opinions on. If and until any person is convicted, under
law and constitutionally, they are innocent.
On the other hand, I find actions to be important and that is what
I was commenting on. At this time, there is nothing to indicate the liberals or progressives are helping to protect
the individual from local government abuse in this instance. Before I'll form a stronger opinion on the matter
I'll look at voting records to see who really supported this highly important issue. If you want to regard that as
a conservative issue that's fine. To me, taking one's home away from them for commercial or government gain is
wrong under almost any conditions and has nothing to do with any political leaning.
As for King W's White
House, in my personal opinion, the lot of them are crooks. However, their support of individual property rights is
the right thing to do. I am willing to see they grey in the current administration's behavoir. Under my 'Black and
White' philosophy, I hold a person responsible for their actions The other side of the coin requires I give them
credit where due instead of looking for reasons to fault them. Everybody, no matter who they are or what their
political leanings has a wide range of traits across a spectrum from what I call good to what I call bad.
Doubtless there are some people in government that are honest and well meaning. In my opinion they are in a small
and suppressed minority. Some of them may even be headed in the direction I think is the right path. Others are well
meaning and dangerous fools who can do a lot of damage to our society. Unfortunately, since the course we follow and
what is the right thing to do is subjective, we often will disagree on who is who. That's fine by me as I don't
ask you or anybody else to agree with me. However, I will continue to mistrust any and all people involved in
politics until they not only prove their honesty but demonstrate that they are on a path I believe is a good one for
society. Oh...yes, I do consider honesty to be a black and white issue in this respect.
A curiousity though,
when you mention ownership you sound as if you disagree with ownership. Am I misunderstanding your position on
that?
belgareth
11-04-2005, 09:10 AM
Payrolls Expand in Oct.; Jobless Rate Dips By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON - America's payrolls grew by a rather tepid 56,000 in
October, a sign that the nation's job market is slowly regaining its footing after the beating administered to the
Gulf Coast area by Hurricane Katrina. The unemployment rate dipped to 5 percent of the labor force.
The latest snapshot released by the Labor Department on Friday
offered fresh insights into the impact of Katrina, the most costly natural disaster in U.S.
history.
Importantly, job losses in September turned out to be just
8,000, according to revised figures. That was smaller than the 35,000 decline in jobs that was reported a month ago,
suggesting the damage to the job market from Katrina wasn't as terrible as many had feared. Still, the storm was
certainly felt: The drop in payrolls in September was the first nationwide employment decline in two
years.
The unemployment rate, meanwhile, edged down to 5 percent in
October as some people opted to leave the civilian labor force for any number of reasons. The jobless rate in
September had crept up to 5.1 percent.
"The United States' economy
is strong. It's healthy," President Bush proclaimed Friday while attending the Summit of the Americas in
Argentina.
On Wall Street, stocks edged higher. The Dow Jones
industrials were up 9 points in morning trading.
Mark Zandi, chief
economist at Economy.com, said: "the economy has weathered these storms about as gracefully as could be
expected."
The payroll gain of 56,000 in October disappointed
economists. Before the release of the report, they were predicting that around 100,000 were created during the
month.
"Hiring was cautious in October," observed Carl Tannenbaum,
chief economist at LaSalle Bank. "Aside from companies not being able to operate because of the hurricanes, many
businesses might have been in a state of suspense as they assessed damage to their operations and to the economy
that might have resulted from these storms."
Another disappointment:
job gains in August turned out to be 148,000, according to revised figures. That was down from the more robust
increase of 211,000 previously reported.
An inflation barometer tied
to the report picked up strongly.
Workers' average hourly earnings
rose to $16.27 in October, representing a 0.5 percent increase from September. Economists were calling for a 0.2
percent rise. Wage gains are good for workers but a rapid pickup can lead economists to fret about inflation. The
0.5 percent increase was the largest since February 2003 when hourly earnings rose by the same
amount.
More worried about the prospects of inflation heating up,
rather than a serious slowdown in the economy, Fed policy-makers on Tuesday bumped up a key interest rate to its
highest level in more than four years to keep a lid on prices. More rate increases are
expected.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, appearing
before Congress on Thursday, said fallout from a trio of late-summer and fall hurricanes should be temporary and
that the expansion remains firmly planted.
Katrina, Rita and Wilma
are likely to "exert a drag" on employment and production in the short term and may aggravate inflation pressures,
he said. "But the economic fundamentals remain firm, and the U.S. economy appears to retain important forward
momentum," Greenspan said in his most extensive remarks thus far on the impact of the
storms.
The Fed chairman is retiring in late January after 18 years
at the helm of the monetary policy-making body.
For October, "job
growth in the remainder of the country (outside the hurricane zone) appeared to be below trend," said Kathleen
Utgoff, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "It is possible, of course, that employment growth for the
nation could have been held down by indirect effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for example, because of their
impact on gas prices," she said.
Retailing and leisure and
hospitality were among the areas of business that cut jobs in October. Those losses, however, were blunted by gain
in construction, manufacturing, professional and business services, and in education and health services.
The latest jobs picture comes as Bush is confronted with sagging job
ratings.
President Bush's job approval is at the lowest level of
his presidency.
A new AP-Ipsos poll showed Bush's approval rating
dipped to 37 percent, compared with 39 percent just a month ago.
Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coat on Aug. 29. Rita barreled into the region on Sept. 24. Those storms
battered crucial oil and gas facilities, choked off commerce and destroyed businesses. Wilma, which hit on Oct. 24,
caused widespread power outages and property damage across Florida.
While Katrina had a visible impact on employment, Rita's bite was minimal, the Labor Department said.
The figures released on Friday don't capture the impact of Wilma because the employment information was collected
before the hurricane hit.
tim929
11-04-2005, 01:06 PM
Ya know...some day...court cases
will simply be decided by two guys named Ted and Earl flipping a coin and rendering a verdict.
DrSmellThis
11-04-2005, 02:09 PM
I see nothing
so far, other than what has been in the press, that you could possibly call evidence. Since I do not regard the
press as a reliable source of information, and I do regard all forms of news organizations as biased
sensationalists, I find the press of little value other than as a starting point to research issues, something I
have encouraged others to do many times. If and when the allegations you mention reach a legal venue I will put
stock in the decisions of that legal venue as that is the standard set by the constitution to determine a person's
guilt or innocence. While not perfect, it is a far better meduim than the press to base opinions on. If and until
any person is convicted, under law and constitutionally, they are innocent.
On the other hand, I find actions to
be important and that is what I was commenting on. At this time, there is nothing to indicate the liberals or
progressives are helping to protect the individual from local government abuse in this instance. Before I'll form a
stronger opinion on the matter I'll look at voting records to see who really supported this highly important issue.
If you want to regard that as a conservative issue that's fine. To me, taking one's home away from them for
commercial or government gain is wrong under almost any conditions and has nothing to do with any political
leaning.
As for King W's White House, in my personal opinion, the lot of them are crooks. However, their
support of individual property rights is the right thing to do. I am willing to see they grey in the current
administration's behavoir. Under my 'Black and White' philosophy, I hold a person responsible for their actions
The other side of the coin requires I give them credit where due instead of looking for reasons to fault them.
Everybody, no matter who they are or what their political leanings has a wide range of traits across a spectrum from
what I call good to what I call bad.
Doubtless there are some people in government that are honest and well
meaning. In my opinion they are in a small and suppressed minority. Some of them may even be headed in the direction
I think is the right path. Others are well meaning and dangerous fools who can do a lot of damage to our society.
Unfortunately, since the course we follow and what is the right thing to do is subjective, we often will disagree on
who is who. That's fine by me as I don't ask you or anybody else to agree with me. However, I will continue to
mistrust any and all people involved in politics until they not only prove their honesty but demonstrate that they
are on a path I believe is a good one for society. Oh...yes, I do consider honesty to be a black and white issue in
this respect.
A curiousity though, when you mention ownership you sound as if you disagree with ownership. Am I
misunderstanding your position on that?To me relying on the courts to tell us whether politicians and their
foreign policies have done anything immoral or destructive would be just as crazy as getting it all off of Fox news.
That is not the proper role of courts, which is to determine legal guilt and innocence for the purpose of
penalization and other legal actions -- not to determine human thought. The sum total of what courts will ever be
able to tell us about the world is virtually nothing, except on a few extremely discreet questions about a few
extremely discreet instances. I am supposed to think nothing immoral has ever occured in society unless everyone has
been convicted of it? My girlfriend cheats on me, but I can't get mad unless she's been convicted in court?
Realistically, there is not a single corrupt politician in our government that will ever have all their corruption
thoroughly addressed by the legal system. Therefore I am to conclude there is no corruption anywhere in government.
Give to the courts the things that belong to the courts. That's not to say using the courts to the max as a
source of information isn't wise. It's partly to say that courts are not our only source of information.
To me
Republican propaganda, and to a lesser extent politician-speak in general, is full of legalism. I'm not a big fan
of legalism as a life philosophy (another oft-heard version of legalism: "as long as it's legal, it's OK to
do"). It's obvious that Rove and Libby did something unethical to me and most Americans. And yet neither Bush,
Scott McCllellan nor Cheney will apologize, accept responsibility, or express dismay. They keep using the cheap
excuse that no one has been convicted of a crime yet, so therefore they are all doing a great job. I don't buy that
logic.
All I've been doing for the past few years is uncovering evidence of this administration's
destructiveness (e.g., that we are fighting an unjust war based on real lies in which real people are really dying),
and everything I've read and heard points to the same conclusion. I don't know how to respond to the notion that
there is "no evidence" of our current regime's destructiveness. Maybe Bush doesn't exist at all. Now there's a
comforting thought. :)
So "honesty" is black and white? Do you know anyone who is perfectly honest? That has a
perfect grasp of the truth? That knows themselves perfectly to even tell the truth to themselves? Are all statements
even clearly true or clearly false? Is there ever a case where being dishonest, even the slightest little bit, might
be the best thing to do?
Black and white thinking is now, and will always be, a harmful disorder of thinking.
It's sort of like "concept arrogance". To promote it is dangerous, frankly. If I could eradicate it and accomplish
nothing else, my life would have been well-spent beyond my wildest dreams. They'd have to put me in the bible. The
elimenation of terrorism and intolerance would be just grains of sand in the total benefits.
An example of black
and white thinking would be to interpret my statement that there should be some limits to ownership as indicating
even a possibility that I am against ownership, even after I indicated support of the homeowners in every case here
on the forum. Now I'm a communist? I'll leave both that and your question as rhetorical.
tim929
11-04-2005, 03:39 PM
The unfortunate limitations of
our current situation leave us...and our elected officials in a very uncomfortable situation."Honesty," is a word
that gets alot of air time in the press and among the intelectual elite.But unfortunatly it's not how you win and
election and it certainly isnt how you keep the office you just won.Regardless of party affiliation or personal
beliefs.If the Bush administration were to come befor the American people with hat in hand and appologize for
leading us down this path of stupidity,the voters would run them out of town on a rail in a heart beat.
The same
would have been true durring the Clinton administration,the first Bush administration,the Reagan administration and
so forth,on down the line to our first president...George what's-his-name.The wheeels of politics are powered by
money,greased with the blood of the innocent and driven on a road paved with thier bones.This is the sad reality of
politics.One need only pick up a history book and read of the trecherous and broken path of the Roman senate and the
various Roman emperors to see the almost photographic simmilarities in the demise of the Romans and the path we are
on today.
Roman senators were forbidden by law from owning businesses...yet,they became quite wealthy on a
modest state stypend...how?Our vice president is no longer affiliated with his former corperation,Halliburton...and
yet his bank accounts are pregnant.Republican friends of mine refer to Bill Clinton as Clintigula.A throw back to
the perverse and corrupt Roman emperor Caligula.
The rules of politics are simple.If you wish to feed at the
trough,keep your mouth shut and you will feed comfortably.Dont make waves,dont rat out the others and everything
will be alright.Make the wrong noises and we will throw you under the bus to make an example of you.Just sit there
and make little grunting noises and shove your snout in the slop and let the media circus keep the people distracted
from whats realy going on.Sure,the piglets might scrap among themselves over silly things like abortion or gay
rights,but thats all part of the show.The moment a politician starts having an attack of guilt and starts making the
wrong noises,he ends up being hauled off to the slaugter house for processing.
A friend of mine lives in
Chicago.The practice there is that EVERYBODY knows that the local officials are corrupt up to thier necks.But
everybody covers for everybody else.But once in a while,just to keep all the little herdlings happy in the
public,they cull one or two of them away from the trough and butcher them on national T.V. and everybody
says,"wow,those guys are realy looking out for us by catching those crooks."And the herd goes back to watching the
latest episode of CSI Miami and the politicians shove thier snouts back into the trough and its back to buisiness as
usual.
The Bush administration has thrown a couple people out in front of the speeding train so that the
herdlings will make a buch of noise and stomp around and carry on dramaticly.The press will be busy re-reporting the
same crap about these guys for weeks.The talking heads will flop around and moan and groan on T.V. and the herd will
imagine to itself that the big bad wolves will finaly pay thier dues.But the reality is that G.W. and his closest
friends are,as I write this,burrying thier snouts back into the trough and feeding wildly in a frenzy of grunting
and squealing and laughing to themselves about how wonderful it is to be an American.And,when the dust settles and
the smoke clears,we will still be in the same mess we are in right now.
The next administrations hardest job
wont be "how to fix the mess George Bush made." Thier biggest problem will be to figure out how to make a profit
from it and keep the trough filled for themselves and all thier friends while making sure the herdlings stay focused
on CSI Miami and Poptarts.Much of the "opposition" we hear from the Democrats is geared toward enhancing thier
position in the up comming elections.If they can make Republicans look bad enough,they will be handed a grand
opportunity to sweep the White House AND Congress and be in a position to pour and extra measure of slop in the
trough for thier buddies and friends.Dont be fooled by this silly talk about peace and love and all that crap.The
real issue is the fact that when Republicans control the trough,Democrats dont get as much slop.When Democrats
control the trough,the Republicans get pushed away from the trough.
If you spend alittle time in a stock yard
watching pigs getting fed...you will develop the most accurate and detailed understanding of the inner workings of
politics.No joke....it should be required in college.
DrSmellThis
11-04-2005, 04:04 PM
Some good points, and I
support your bringing us in touch with the dark side of it; though I personally am not quite that cynical or ready
to give up. I don't think talk of peace and love is all crap, and I do believe progress is possible. Positive
change in world culture happens, but challenges get greater with a shrinking world and resources. So progress is
masked. I still refuse to accept the least-common denominator, status quo.
Clinton at least eventually apologized
and came clean about his affair in that particular instance. I think it was effective when he did so. I believe
honesty and integrity can potentially work in government, when combined with strength, charisma, communication
skills, and clarity of vision. There are changes we can make to make it more possible.
Incidentally, Cheney is
still on the payroll at Halliburton, to the tune of an amount roughly equal to his salary as VP.
I personally
think there's both specific and general corruption at play. What I've noticed is that a lot of folks with
conservative and/or republican and/or righty leanings rely much heavier on the "all politics is equally corrup"
mindset, allowing them to gloss over the specific situation we are in with neoconservative leadership. Otherwise
they'd have to turn a critical eye on themselves specificially, which would be uncomfortable. That is just my
opinion and observation. Nothing personal to anyone intended.
belgareth
11-04-2005, 04:04 PM
To me
relying on the courts to tell us whether politicians and their foreign policies have done anything immoral or
destructive would be just as crazy as getting it all off of Fox news. That is not the proper role of courts, which
is to determine legal guilt and innocence for the purpose of penalization and other legal actions -- not to
determine human thought. The sum total of what courts will ever be able to tell us about the world is virtually
nothing, except on a few extremely discreet questions about a few extremely discreet instances. I am supposed to
think nothing immoral has ever occured in society unless everyone has been convicted of it? My girlfriend cheats on
me, but I can't get mad unless she's been convicted in court? Realistically, there is not a single corrupt
politician in our government that will ever have all their corruption thoroughly addressed by the legal system.
Therefore I am to conclude there is no corruption anywhere in government.
[/qoute]
I love how one thing cannot
be black and white but another can. Your morality is not necessarily theirs or mine, you should know better than to
expect anything else. How can you convict somebody of immorality? More to the point, how can you convict somebody of
immorality based on the press? How can you expect me or anybody else to accept your morality? That's an absurdity
on the face of it!
If your girlfriend has sexual relations with somebody outside your relationship, that is a
moral question between you, her and the outside party and it is none of my business. I will not judge you on it
until you try to enforce your morality on me. Then I will fight you tooth and claw. That is significantly different
from sending citizens off to die in a war, I hope you can understand that. Frankly, I doubt very seriously if you
know all Bush's reasons for his actions, only what you choose to attribute to him. Is that really what is in
Bush's mind, a reflection of press bias or a reflection of your mentality? I don't personally know or even have an
opinion. Whatever the case is, the point is that some things he does are very bad and I strongly disagree with him,
other things he does are good and I give him credit for them. What you conclude is up to you and really not my
concern.
[QUOTE=DrSmellThis]
Give to the courts the things that belong to the courts. That's not to say using
the courts to the max as a source of information isn't wise. It's partly to say that courts are not our only
source of information.
So, what is? I am not going to rely on the press. You can if you want to, that's
entirely up to you. I don't expect or want the courts to make moral judgements, even though they do all to often. I
also spend time looking for other sources of information because I don't trust the press, they've misrepresented
too many times and are obviously biased.
To me Republican propaganda, and to a lesser extent
politician-speak in general, is full of legalism. I'm not a big fan of legalism as a life philosophy
(another oft-heard version of legalism: "as long as it's legal, it's OK to do"). It's obvious that Rove and Libby
did something unethical to me and most Americans. And yet neither Bush, Scott McCllellan nor Cheney will apologize,
accept responsibility, or express dismay. They keep using the cheap excuse that no one has been convicted of a crime
yet, so therefore they are all doing a great job. I don't buy that logic.
That's true of both parties,
as you should well know. It may be obvious to you that they did something unethical. Please present your proofs.
Without your proofs the rest is noise. Nor does the lack of proof indicate they are doing a great job, that's a
silly statement and you know it.
All I've been doing for the past few years is uncovering
evidence of this administration's destructiveness (e.g., that we are fighting an unjust war based on real lies in
which real people are really dying), and everything I've read and heard points to the same conclusion. I don't
know how to respond to the notion that there is "no evidence" of our current regime's destructiveness. Maybe Bush
doesn't exist at all. Now there's a comforting thought. :)
I didn't say there was no evidence of the
current regime's distructiveness and get really sick of you trying to put words in my mouth. Please stop. I am
happy to discuss the issues but that approach is dishonest.
Intellectual dishonesty is just as bad. How much did
you scream about Clinton's bombing of Belgrade and all the innocents who died there? When did the Yugoslavs attack
the US? Or was it the Serbs? Of course, it's entirely possible that Clinton didn't exist either based on your
thought processes. However, my friends that were wounded by American bombs dropped on Clinton's orders did
exist!
So "honesty" is black and white? Do you know anyone who is perfectly honest? That has a
perfect grasp of the truth? That knows themselves perfectly to even tell the truth to themselves? Are all statements
even clearly true or clearly false? Is there ever a case where being dishonest, even the slightest little bit, might
be the best thing to do?
Go back and read what I said! Didn't I say "In this instance"? Is there some
part of that you don't understand?
Black and white thinking is now, and will always be, a
harmful disorder of thinking. It's sort of like "concept arrogance". To promote it is dangerous, frankly. If I
could eradicate it and accomplish nothing else, my life would have been well-spent beyond my wildest dreams. They'd
have to put me in the bible. The elimenation of terrorism and intolerance would be just grains of sand in the total
benefits.
An example of black and white thinking would be to interpret my statement that there should be some
limits to ownership as indicating even a possibility that I am against ownership, even after I indicated support of
the homeowners in every case here on the forum. Now I'm a communist? I'll leave both that and your question as
rhetorical.
Get off it Doc! I asked you to clarify something I didn't understand, no more and no less. All
the rest of your statement is ridiculous. Stop putting words in my mouth. Instead of going off in another wild
diatribe, why don't you answer the question asked?
Your stand on black and white is amazing, to say the least.
I'm not going to discuss it with you because you either cannot understand my point of view or don't want to.
That's fine as yours is utterly incomprehensible to me.
DrSmellThis
11-04-2005, 05:06 PM
Are you taking responsibility
for what you say and think? Yes, I'm sorry. You did imply there was no evidence of destructivenes. Trace the logic
of your own words, please.
I may not be all that and a bag of chips, but regard myself as saying things that are
typically at least reasonable and withstand scrutiny as such. I've never been accused of a habit of wild diatribes
until just now, but won't waste our time further on it. Your accusations of intellectual dishonesty are groundless
and hilarious.
* You didn't know me during the Clinton administration. I was extremely critical of Clinton,
including of that bombing, as I've said multiple times in the past here, from multiple angles, in threads in which
you were actively participating.
* We all depend on others for information at times.I use as many sources of
information as I can, as I said. I have posted tons of information here about Rove. It is your responsibility to
investigate it further, not mine to prove it to you.
* I have no idea what you meant by honesty being black and
white in that instance. Nor was it possible to see what you meant in your words. I do know it's virtually always BS
to say honesty is "black and white". If you want a more specific response, please make a more specific, clear
statement.
* Hopefully some others can understand the point about black and white thinking. I promise everyone
I'm doing my best to do a good thing by talking about it, something that needs to be done. Parents need to teach
their kids about it. That's our best hope.
belgareth
11-04-2005, 09:12 PM
Are you
taking responsibility for what you say and think? Yes, I'm sorry. You did imply there was no evidence of
destructivenes. Trace the logic of your own words, please.
Taking responsibility for every word of it and
am telling you again that I did not say it or imply it. Trace the logic yourself and tell me where you come to such
an erroneous conclusion. I already went back and re-read it. Your reasoning is beyond me.
I
may not be all that and a bag of chips, but regard myself as saying things that are typically at least reasonable
and withstand scrutiny as such. I've never been accused of a habit of wild diatribes until just now, but won't
waste our time further on it. Your accusations of intellectual dishonesty are groundless and hilarious.
Nice dodge but untrue. In a very recent example I asked a question about ownership for clarification of something I
didn't understand. Rather than putting words in your mouth or assuming what you meant, I asked a question. You went
off on me (wild diatribe) and ended by accusing me of calling you a communist when all I did was ask a single,
simple question. It would make anybody wonder why you got so defensive over a harmless request for clarification.
* You didn't know me during the Clinton administration. I was extremely critical of Clinton,
including of that bombing, as I've said multiple times in the past here, from multiple angles, in threads in which
you were actively participating.
No I didn't know you then. I was attempting to highlight something and
use your own sarcasm to do so. Guess it was lost on you.
* We all depend on others for
information at times.I use as many sources of information as I can, as I said. I have posted tons of information
here about Rove. It is your responsibility to investigate it further, not mine to prove it to you.
I do
investigate but apparently am not seeing the same material as you or maybe I am seeing more or other information. Is
there some reason you are unwilling to share it? Yes, you have posted a lot, almost all from a media that is well
known to be liberally biased and sensationalist and almost all your postings were one sided. That does not
constitute proof of any sort. Part of what I do is try to add a bit of balance to it.
* I have
no idea what you meant by honesty being black and white in that instance. Nor was it possible to see what you meant
in your words. I do know it's virtually always BS to say honesty is "black and white". If you want a more specific
response, please make a more specific, clear statement.
It was clear. I said "Oh...yes, I do consider
honesty to be a black and white issue in this respect." in reference to people in political office. You do
understand qualifiers, don't you? It was not so complicated as to be incomprehensible to most people, or at least
it wasn't intended to be.
* Hopefully some others can understand the point about black and
white thinking. I promise everyone I'm doing my best to do a good thing by talking about it, something that needs
to be done. Parents need to teach their kids about it. That's our best hope.
I do hope so as well. I am
also trying to do a good thing by pointing out a different perspective. Misrepresenting my philosophy and branding
it as mental illness accomplishes nothing. Additionally, my efforts have yeilded success in raising my kids, in my
personal life, in my corporate career and in my own business while doing as much as possible to help others. If
that's wrong or I'm mentally ill as a result of it then I don't think I want to get well. That reality sounds
like a truly horrid world. I'm quite happy with my fantasy world.
You keep implying all sorts of things about
black and white thinking but apply black and white thinking to your argumments then tell us that disagreement with
your position is a sign of mental illness. You seem pretty unwilling to allow anything other than your opinion,
twist or misquote my words and use other assorted misdirection. I should know better than discuss things with you
because it usually degenerates into a long series of corrections. At least your technique is consistant. What a
waste of time.
belgareth
11-05-2005, 01:01 PM
Some good
points, and I support your bringing us in touch with the dark side of it; though I personally am not quite that
cynical or ready to give up. I don't think talk of peace and love is all crap, and I do believe progress is
possible. Positive change in world culture happens, but challenges get greater with a shrinking world and resources.
So progress is masked. I still refuse to accept the least-common denominator, status quo.
Clinton at least
eventually apologized and came clean about his affair in that particular instance. I think it was effective when he
did so. I believe honesty and integrity can potentially work in government, when combined with strength, charisma,
communication skills, and clarity of vision. There are changes we can make to make it more possible.
Incidentally, Cheney is still on the payroll at Halliburton, to the tune of an amount roughly equal to his salary
as VP.
I personally think there's both specific and general corruption at play. What I've noticed is that a
lot of folks with conservative and/or republican and/or righty leanings rely much heavier on the "all politics is
equally corrup" mindset, allowing them to gloss over the specific situation we are in with neoconservative
leadership. Otherwise they'd have to turn a critical eye on themselves specificially, which would be uncomfortable.
That is just my opinion and observation. Nothing personal to anyone intended.
Clinton came clean once he
was backed into a corner. he had no choice by that time. In that kind of a case it wasn't a virtue, it was a lack
of any other choices.
Is he? I'd read that somewhere before and never got around to verifying it. Is that
legal? I would think that would be a comflict of interest. Yes, legality is the issue. That and voter opinions on
it. Trying to enforce any particular set of ethics on it is not right because each person has their own set of
ethics. I can imagine the screaming if somebody else wanted to use their christian beliefs to decide the point.
Beyond a doubt you are right that there are both types of corruption at play. It has been going on for an awfully
long time and is getting worse with each administration. It seems to be that those at the top have been so corrupt
for so long that it has filtered down to almost all aspects of the government. What we really need is a general
housecleaning. It isn't likely to happen but it would sure be nice to see the criminals at all levels of government
caught and punished. The biggest problem, and it has been mentioned on this forum in the past, is that to even get
close to being able to run for president in either major party requires a high level of corruption to start off
with.
I am not now or at any other time promoting violence as a solution but I wonder if that isn't what it is
going to take to correct the declining government in this country.
belgareth
11-09-2005, 04:57 PM
Some good news, some less than good. One thing that really shocked me
was towards the end. Nearly a quarter of the people think its ok for the government to secretly search your house?
There isn't language strong enough to express my negative opinion of that idea.
Belgareth
************************************************** ****************
Congress May Curb Some Patriot Act Powers By LAURIE
KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Congress is moving to
curb some of the police powers it gave the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including
imposing new restrictions on the FBI's access to private phone and financial records.
A budding House-Senate deal on the expiring USA Patriot Act includes
new limits on federal law enforcement powers and rejects the Bush administration's request to grant the FBI
authority to get administrative subpoenas for wiretaps and other covert devices without a judge's
approval.
Even with the changes, however, every part of the law set
to expire Dec. 31 would be reauthorized and most of those provisions would become
permanent.
Under the agreement, for the first time since the act
became law, judges would get the authority to reject national security letters giving the government secret access
to people's phone and e-mail records, financial data and favorite Internet
sites.
Holders of such information — such as banks and Internet
providers — could challenge the letters in court for the first time, said congressional aides involved in merging
separate, earlier-passed House and Senate bills reauthorizing the expiring Patriot
Act.
The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the panel has
not begun deliberations.
Under the 2001 law, the FBI reportedly has
been issuing about 30,000 national security letters annually, a hundred-fold increase since the 1970s, when they
first came into existence under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Last year, a federal judge in New York struck down the national security letter statute as unconstitutional
because he said the law did not permit legal challenges to the letters or a gag rule on recipients of the letters.
The administration has appealed.
Civil libertarians lauded the
deal's preliminary terms, saying recent accounts of the FBI's aggressive use of national security letters have
lent credibility to their call for caution.
"Without those checks and
balances, there will be abuses," said former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., of Patriots to Restore Checks and
Balances.
The Bush administration contends there have been no
abuses.
"In the four years since the passage of the USA Patriot Act
there has not been a single verified abuse of the act's provisions, including in the department's own inspector
general's report to Congress," said Justice Department spokesman Brian
Roehrkasse.
Hashed out over two months by senior House and Senate
aides, the preliminary terms still have to be approved by a panel of lawmakers from each chamber and then by the
full House and Senate. The process is taking shape this week, with the appointment of House members to the panel on
Wednesday and the bicameral committee's first meeting expected on Thursday.
The power to conduct wiretaps and install covert listening devices without court approval had been on the
administration's wish list for more than a year but was never seriously considered by either chamber's Judiciary
committee.
Both the House and Senate versions of a Patriot Act
extension, debated over the summer, proposed giving the judiciary a role in national security letters. "The court
may quash or modify a request if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive," according to a summary by the
Congressional Research Service. The Senate added more conditions: "or violate any constitutional or other legal
right or privilege."
Some version of those curbs is expected to be
passed as part of the compromise bill.
Less specific but looked upon
favorably is a proposal to add a new restriction on evidence-gathering of classified material that would require
investigators to return or destroy any materials that are not relevant to the probe, the congressional aides
said.
Polls show that most Americans do not distinguish between the
Patriot Act and the war on terror, and a majority knows little about the four-year-old law. But the more Americans
know about the Patriot Act, the less they like.
A poll conducted in
August by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut showed that almost two-thirds
of all Americans, 64 percent, said they support the Patriot Act. But only 43 percent support the law's requirement
that banks turn over records to the government without judicial approval; 23 percent support secret searches of
Americans' homes without informing the occupants for a period of time.
tim929
11-09-2005, 05:05 PM
Ya know...how can we have a
polite scociety if people arent willing to accept little inconviniences like secret searches of thier
homes,monitoring of thier phone conversations,email and internet habbits and turn over thier firearms the the
nearest available law enforcement agency?You barbaric "freedom seekers" need to get a clue.The Government only wants
to help you by putting sensors and tracking devices up your "you-know-what." Why would you object to that?It's for
your own good and the good of the country.
belgareth
11-09-2005, 07:55 PM
I gather you read that they
outlawed handguns in San Francisco? What a bunch of idiocy! I'm taking wagers on the number of criminals who turn
in their handguns between now and April.
koolking1
11-14-2005, 08:23 PM
November 14, 2005 latimes.com : Opinion : Commentary Print E-mail story Most e-mailed Change text size
This isn't the real America
By Jimmy Carter, JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States.
His newest book is "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," published this month by Simon &
Schuster.
IN RECENT YEARS, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies
that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.
These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties,
our environment and human rights.
Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with
truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal
responsibility.
At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of
international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear
arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.
Instead of our tradition of
espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of
"preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other
purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse
to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.
Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by
top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.
These revolutionary policies have
been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be
internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional
terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances
based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.
Another disturbing
realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated
exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our
nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public
awareness of casualties.
Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find
civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.
Of
even greater concern is that the U.S. has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use of torture in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary
rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA should be free
to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in U.S. custody.
Instead of
reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and
that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms
control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear
proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear
nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.
Protection of the
environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry
and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at
home and almost universal condemnation of our nation's global environmental policies.
Our government has
abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families.
Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per
hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).
I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many
houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously
thought unimaginable.
As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of
peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to
combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the
forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.
It is time for the deep and disturbing political
divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and
nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years. "
I think he
speaks for many of us. I only wish other prominent people would speak out.
DrSmellThis
11-15-2005, 02:24 AM
November 14,
2005 latimes.com : Opinion : Commentary Print E-mail story Most e-mailed Change text size
This isn't the real
America
By Jimmy Carter, JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Our
Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," published this month by Simon & Schuster.
IN RECENT YEARS, I have
become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles
espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.
These include the rudimentary American
commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.
Also
endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices
and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.
At the same time, our political
leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed
long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the
international system of justice.
Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our
security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack
other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences
with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve
disputes.
Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial
dominance throughout the world.
These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our
nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in
combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or
against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the
threat of terrorism.
Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the
burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in
the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been
made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.
Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion
of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of
the Patriot Act.
Of even greater concern is that the U.S. has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use
of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called
extraordinary rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA
should be free to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in U.S. custody.
Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on
our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all
nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global
nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against
nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.
Protection of
the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil
industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution
standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation's global environmental policies.
Our
government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's
working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum
wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).
I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist
shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways
previously thought unimaginable.
As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving
champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can
gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should
be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.
It is time for the deep and disturbing
political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to
revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years. "
I
think he speaks for many of us. I only wish other prominent people would speak out.This left wing pinko
conspiracy theorist was elected president of the United States? What the he!! does he know about politics? Bad
mouthin your country like this sends a mixed message to our troops. It's just sour grapes because he got his @$$
kicked by a better man, GHWB, and failed at everything he did. Isn't he gay? Go tell it to Fonda, pinko!
Mtnjim
11-15-2005, 10:55 AM
This left wing
pinko conspiracy theorist was elected president of the United States? What the he!! does he know about politics? Bad
mouthin your country like this sends a mixed message to our troops. It's just sour grapes because he got his @$$
kicked by a better man, GHWB, and failed at everything he did. Isn't he gay? Go tell it to Fonda,
pinko!
I presume this was totally "tongue in cheek"! :trout:
By the way, Ronnie Ray Gun was the 40th
President, not Daddy Bush!!:hammer:
Netghost56
11-15-2005, 11:01 AM
I hope it was a joke, too.
Bush didn't follow Carter. Plus I've never seen the Doc resort to namecalling.
I don't think that Carter
misspoke on anything. Everything he said made references to actual events. I only have an issue with two
things:
The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice...
Maybe not directly,
but the American people are paying for this war, and if we don't leave it will eventually bankrupt us.
As
the world's only superpower... Who? us? I just can't get behind that, not when the euro and the yen are
above and beyond the dollar. And I think we look like idiots in the eyes of the rest of the world, and have ever
since we went to Iraq.
Mtnjim
11-15-2005, 11:30 AM
"And I think we look like idiots in
the eyes of the rest of the world, and have ever since we went to Iraq."
Absolutely!!!
DrSmellThis
11-15-2005, 12:08 PM
Sorry guys. That was my evil
twin, evidently a poor historian (or at least playing one satirically), who likes to joke around after going to a
concert and consuming several beers.
My real reaction was "Amen!" I think Carter summed it up flawlessly, except
I agree with Netghost56, too. I give him a lot of credit for the courage to call it like it is and take a stand,
while so many in his party are waffling and trying so hard to sound moderate. I guess it's that he isn't running
for anything any more. He was President and understands the perspective, scope and pressures of the job. He knows
the importance of speaking carefully. He could have reacted even more strongly in the same direction, though, since
the reasonable conclusions he has come to are so profoundly disturbing, and should fill any American who is fully in
touch with themselves with rage.
DrSmellThis
11-15-2005, 01:22 PM
I disagree with the decision by the current administration to use torture.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20051115/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraqi_detainees_lions_2 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051115/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraqi_detainees_lions_2)
DrSmellThis
11-15-2005, 01:32 PM
Jeez, I hope they made him pay for his own drinks. Otherwise we
did.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/14/chalabi-chene
y/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/14/chalabi-cheney/)
belgareth
11-15-2005, 04:17 PM
This seems to be a bit
hypocritical as we continue to lose our
freedoms:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051115/a
p_on_go_pr_wh/bush_asia (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051115/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_asia)
belgareth
11-16-2005, 04:24 AM
It looks to be getting interesting in the capitol. I can't wait to
see how all this comes out.
Bush Risks Alienating GOP Over Iraq War By TOM RAUM
WASHINGTON - President Bush's efforts to paint Democrats as
hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after they once warned that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat could
backfire on Republicans.
Polls show marked declines in support for
the war, notably among moderate Republicans, especially Republican women, and independents — voting blocs that the
GOP needs to woo or keep in their camp.
If Bush castigates Democrats
for changing their minds on the war, he might wind up alienating Republicans who have done so,
too.
The administration has been engaging in a rhetorical high-wire
act in its efforts to defend its use of prewar intelligence — so much that some analysts have likened it to
President Clinton's remark in his deposition on the Monica Lewinsky case: "That depends on what the definition of
'is' is."
Bush and his advisers have conceded that the
administration was wrong in its assessment of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion. So the
debate centers on whether they misled members of Congress and the American
people.
"The fact is this was a truly major failure in intelligence
and analysis," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert and former Pentagon intelligence official. "But that does
not mean that information was not manipulated or used to create a case for war that was much stronger than the
assessments made before the conflict."
Well, maybe it depends on what
the definition of "manipulated" is.
"In reality in this city, on a
bipartisan basis, everybody always spins the facts to support the policy they advocate. There are no innocents,"
said Cordesman, now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He suggested those in the
intelligence community didn't have to be told that, if they wanted to exert influence and have their advice taken
seriously, "you better tell policy makers there was a really good case for
war."
Anxiety over Iraq among both Republicans and Democrats seemed
apparent as the Senate voted 79-19 on Tuesday to demand regular updates from the White House on progress in Iraq
until all U.S. troops are withdrawn.
The vote on a defense policy
bill came after the GOP-led chamber rejected a far more restrictive Democratic amendment demanding that Bush set a
timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.
Bush and senior members of his
administration have stepped up their attack on Democrats, singling out those criticizing the war now who supported
the October 2002 war resolution like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. John Edwards,
D-N.C.
In a speech to U.S. troops in Alaska on his way to a trip to
Asia, Bush said Monday it was "irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American
people," suggesting lawmakers had access to the same intelligence — faulty as it turns out — as did the
administration and foreign allies.
Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld and the Republican National Committee joined the fray on Tuesday.
Rumsfeld quoted Clinton administration officials who contended in the late 1990s that Saddam was a
security threat to the U.S. and its allies, including Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser.
The RNC, meanwhile, put on its Web site (http://www.gop.com) a video compilation of such
statements, including more recent ones by current Democratic leaders and potential 2008 presidential contenders,
including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, Joe Biden of Delaware and
Edwards.
The video implies that such Democrats had later turned
against the war, even though Mrs. Clinton has been consistent in supporting Bush's
efforts.
Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University political
scientist who studies war and politics, said the administration's case that it didn't manipulate Iraq information
was undermined by the CIA-leak case. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, was
indicted on five counts for obstructing an investigation into the leaking of the identity of an intelligence officer
married to an outspoken war critic.
Top Bush strategist Karl Rove
remains under investigation.
"The critics of Bush's Iraq policy
have more ammunition now," said Cimbala. "And Republicans in Congress are very nervous because they know that, if
Bush's numbers don't come up, they could be in big trouble next year in the midterm elections."
Bush's approval is at the low point of his presidency, 37 percent
in a recent AP-Ipsos poll.
His Republican base still supports him on
Iraq, but that support has been eroding.
His approval on handling
Iraq fell from 87 percent among all Republicans in November 2004 to 78 percent this month. Among Republican women,
from 88 percent a year ago to 73 percent now. Among independents, approval on Iraq fell from 49 percent in November
2004 to 33 percent now.
Among Democrats, where he has enjoyed little
support for his war policies all along, it fell from just 15 percent a year ago to 12 percent now.
DrSmellThis
11-16-2005, 02:45 PM
This is where the bullsh!t of
politics becomes frustrating.
No one was denying Iraq was potentially dangerous, since they had been resisting
inspections (whether they had really fired on our planes has been debated). But everyone at the top level of Bush's
administration, including Rice, Cheney, and Rumsfeld; made public statements, in 2000 especially, to the effect that
Iraq was not a nuclear or WMD threat, and did not have a significant offensive force capable of threatening its
neighbors. They take credit for this accomplishment by the Bush family.
Then 9/11 happens; they get their Pearl
Harbor, and act like it's Christmas. All of a sudden, we're waiting for a "mushroom cloud" from Iraq. Every Bush
speech links Hussein to Al Queda (usually by implication), after he says "We've had no evidence Saddham Hussein was
involved in 9/11", and after the CIA and military intelligence both conclude there's no link there.
Furthermore,
the WMD intel is just fabricated out of thin air, much of it in deals with foreign intelligence sources eager to win
favor with the U.S.
Now he's accusing the Democrats and some Republicans of hypocrisy.
Well, of course
there are two-faced politicians on both sides of the aisle. But you feed Congress and the American people a steady
diet of lies on the matter of going to war, and then blame them for changing their mind when they find out it was
all a pack of lies? You're going to lie about the intel heirarchy and say they had the same intelligence (not to
mention relationships with the intel community) you did?
He's in so deep now, all he can do is continue to tell
bigger and bigger lies.
belgareth
11-16-2005, 03:49 PM
Senate Passes Bill to Shore Up Pensions By JIM ABRAMS, Associated
Press Writer
Hoping to reverse the deterioration of pension plans
covering 44 million Americans, the Senate voted Wednesday to force companies to make up underfunding estimated at
$450 billion and live up to promises made to employees.
The action
came a day after the federal agency that insures such plans reported massive liabilities and predicted a troubled
future.
The Senate legislation, passed 97-2, takes on the daunting
task of compelling companies with defined-benefit plans to live up to their funding obligations — without driving
those companies into abandoning the plans and further eroding the retirement benefits of millions of
people.
"This bill honors a promise that we made way back in 1974"
when Congress passed legislation to protect pensions, said Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. "If
you've been promised a pension, we are going to make sure that you receive
it."
Broad support of the bill reflected its bipartisan origins.
Grassley and the top Democrat on the committee, Max Baucus of Montana, crafted it with Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
The White House, in a statement, said it
supported passage of the Senate bill but opposed some provisions, including extended relief for the airline
industry. It warned that the president would be advised to veto any bill that resulted in weakening pension funding
requirements.
The House could take up a companion bill in early
December, although it remains to be seen whether the two chambers can reach a compromise on the legislation, which
runs hundreds of pages, by the end of the year.
The vote came a day
after the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures defined-benefit plans of 44 million people and takes
over the plans of bankrupt companies, reported a deficit of $22.8 billion at the end of the 2005 fiscal year on
Sept. 30.
The PBGC said it assumed responsibility for the pension
benefits of an additional 235,000 workers and retirees in 2005, bringing the total to 1.3 million, and paid benefits
of $3.7 billion, up from $3 billion in 2004.
Premiums per
participant, paid by companies, totaled $1.5 billion. Those premiums would increase from $19 to $30 a year under the
Senate bill.
That legislation, unlike the House version, also would
extend special relief for debt-ridden airlines. Bankrupt steel and airline companies have been a major source of the
PBGC's mounting financial problems.
The PBGC is now financed
entirely by premiums and interest on investments, but there is growing concern that the agency may one day have to
turn to taxpayers for a bailout that could rival the Savings and Loan crisis of the
1980s.
The Senate bill would give companies seven years to pay off
their unfunded liabilities while changing the interest rate formula to better reflect what those liabilities toward
future retirees will be. Companies with poor credit ratings would be required to make additional payments into their
plans.
The legislation would encourage companies to put more money
into their pension plans when times are good. It would clarify the law governing hybrid plans such as cash balance
plans that are gaining in use.
PBGC-covered single-employer
defined-benefit plans, under which workers receive monthly benefits based on their salaries and length of service,
fell from 95,000 in 1980 to 30,000 in 2004 as more companies either stopped offering plans or switched to
401(k)-type programs.
Some companies seeking to switch to cash
balance plans, which award benefits at a steady rate during a worker's tenure, have been thwarted by court rulings
that some such programs discriminate against older workers.
The
Senate accepted an amendment by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., that extended from 14 to 20 years the time allowed for
airlines to stabilize their pension plans. It also would expand the number of airlines that qualify for the payment
relief.
Also approved as an amendment by Sen. Daniel Akaka (news,
bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, to protect the pensions of airline pilots, who are required to retire at age 60.
"Had the airlines not had a crisis, I'm not sure we would have been
here today debating pensions," Enzi said.
United Airlines and US
Airways used bankruptcy earlier this year to dump their employee pension liabilities — a combined $9.6 billion —
onto the PBGC. Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines, which both filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
September, could do the same.
The PBGC imposes ceilings on how much
it pays out to retirees. Baucus cited estimates that almost 7,000 United workers will lose 50 percent or more of
their promised benefits.
Voting against the bill were the two
Democratic Michigan senators, Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin.
___
The bill is S. 1783
On the Net:
Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
PBGC: http://www.pbgc.gov/
DrSmellThis
11-17-2005, 08:02 AM
In
challenging war's critics, administration tinkers with truth
By James Kuhnhenn and Jonathan S.
Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney turned up the
White House rhetoric Wednesday in attacking critics of the Iraq war, accusing some unnamed lawmakers of lacking
"backbone."
Cheney's rough-edged remarks were the latest in the Bush administration's campaign to challenge
critics of the war, accusing them of twisting the historical record about how and why the war was launched. Yet in
accusing Iraq war critics of "rewriting history," Bush, Cheney and other senior administration officials are
tinkering with the truth themselves.
The administration's overarching premise is beyond dispute -
administration officials, Democratic and Republican lawmakers and even leaders of foreign governments believed
intelligence assessments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That intelligence turned out to be wrong.
But Bush, Cheney, and other senior officials have added several other arguments in recent days that distort the
factual record. Below, Knight Ridder addresses the administration's main assertions:
ASSERTION: In
a Veterans Day speech last Friday, Bush said that Iraq war "critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate
investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to
Iraq's weapons programs."
CONTEXT: Bush is correct in saying that a commission he appointed,
chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., found no evidence of "politicization" of
the intelligence community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported weapons of mass destruction programs.
But
neither that report nor others looked at how the White House characterized the intelligence it had when selling its
plan for war to the world and whether administration officials exaggerated the threat. That's supposed to be the
topic of a second phase of study by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
"Our executive order did not
direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that was not part of our
inquiry," Silberman said when he released the panel's findings in March.
The Senate committee concluded that
none of the intelligence analysts it interviewed said they were pressured to change their conclusions on weapons of
mass destruction or on Iraq's links to terrorism.
But the committee's findings were hardly bipartisan.
Committee Democrats said in additional comments to the panel's July 2004 report that U.S. intelligence agencies
produced analyses and the key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit weapons in "a highly pressurized climate."
And the committee found that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, analysts were under pressure to avoid missing
credible threats, and as a result they were "bold and assertive" in making terrorist links.
In a July 2003
report, a CIA review panel found that agency analysts were subjected to "steady and heavy" requests from
administration officials for evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida, which created "significant pressure on the
Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection."
ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush
noted that "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence -
voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
CONTEXT: This isn't true.
The Congress
didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief, a top-secret compendium of intelligence on the most pressing
national security issues that was sent to the president every morning by former CIA Director George Tenet.
As
for prewar intelligence on Iraq, senior administration officials had access to other information and sources that
weren't available to lawmakers.
Cheney and his aides visited the CIA and other intelligence agencies to view
raw intelligence reports, received briefings and engaged in highly unusual give-and-take sessions with analysts.
Moreover, officials in the White House and the Pentagon received information directly from the Iraqi National
Congress (INC), an exile group, circumventing U.S. intelligence agencies, which greatly distrusted the organization.
The INC's information came from Iraqi defectors who claimed that Iraq was hiding chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons programs, had mobile biological-warfare facilities and was training Islamic radicals in
assassinations, bombings and hijackings.
The White House emphasized these claims in making its case for war,
even though the defectors had shown fabrication or deception in lie-detector tests or had been rejected as
unreliable by U.S. intelligence professionals.
All of the exiles' claims turned out to be bogus or remain
unproven.
War hawks at the Pentagon also created a special unit that produced a prewar report - one not shared
with Congress - that alleged that Iraq was in league with al-Qaida. A version of the report, briefed to Secretary of
Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and top White House officials, disparaged the CIA for finding there was no cooperation
between Iraq and the terrorist group, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disclosed.
After the
report was leaked in November 2003 to a conservative magazine, the Pentagon disowned it.
In fact, a series of
secret U.S. intelligence assessments discounted the administration's assertion that Saddam could give banned
weapons to al-Qaida.
In other cases, Bush and his top lieutenants relied on partial or uncorroborated
intelligence.
For example, Cheney contended in an August 2002 speech that Iraq would develop a nuclear weapon
"fairly soon," even though U.S. intelligence agencies and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency had no
evidence to support such a claim.
The following month, Bush, Cheney and then-national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice asserted that Iraq had sought aluminum tubes for a nuclear-weapons program. At the time, however,
U.S. intelligence agencies were deeply divided over the question. The IAEA later determined that the tubes were for
ground-to-ground rockets.
A recently declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 said
that an al-Qaida detainee was probably lying to U.S. interrogators when he claimed that Iraq had been teaching
members of the terrorist network to use chemical and biological weapons.
Yet eight months after the report was
published, Bush told the nation that "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and
poisons and gases."
Meanwhile, lawmakers didn't have access to intelligence products that may have been more
temperate than what they got, even after they investigated the prewar intelligence assessment. For instance, the
Director of Central Intelligence refused to give the Senate committee a copy of a paper drafted by the CIA's Near
East and Southeast Asia Office examining Iraq's links to terrorism.
Lawmakers didn't see the main document
concerning Iraq and WMD - the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate - until three days before their vote
authorizing war. The White House ordered the NIE compiled only after lawmakers, including the then-chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., demanded it.
The resolution that authorized
use of force against Iraq didn't specifically address removing Saddam. It gave Bush the power to "defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to "enforce all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
ASSERTION: In his Veterans Day address,
Bush said that "intelligence agencies around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."
CONTEXT: Bush is correct in saying that many intelligence agencies, particularly in Europe, believed that
Saddam was hiding some weapons of mass destruction capabilities - not necessarily weapons. But they didn't agree
with other U.S. assessments about Saddam. Few, with the exception of Great Britain, argued that Iraq was an imminent
threat, or that it had any link to Islamic terrorism, much less the Sept. 11 attacks.
France, backed by several
other nations, argued that much more time and effort should have been given to weapons inspections in Iraq before
war was launched.
ASSERTION: Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, told
reporters last Thursday that the Clinton administration and Congress perceived Saddam as a threat based on some of
the same intelligence used by the Bush administration.
"Congress, in 1998 authorized, in fact, the use of
force based on that intelligence," Hadley said.
And Rumsfeld, in briefing reporters Tuesday, seemed to link
President Clinton's signing of the act to his decision to order four days of U.S. bombing of suspected weapons
sites and military facilities in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.
CONTEXT: Congress did pass the
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated U.S. support for regime change in Iraq and provided up to $97 million in
overt military and humanitarian aid to opposition groups in Iraq.
But it didn't authorize the use of U.S.
force against Iraq.
Clinton said his bombing order was based on Iraq's refusal to comply with weapons
inspections, a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondents William Douglas and Warren P. Strobel contributed to this report.
DrSmellThis
11-20-2005, 04:16 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/torture/index.html
belgareth
11-21-2005, 03:27 AM
Authorities Crack Down on NYC Poker Clubs
By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - On a busy night
at the New York Players Club in upper Manhattan, vice squad officers wearing bulletproof vests and raid jackets
dealt the underground poker scene a losing hand.
The team entered
unannounced at 11 p.m., detaining dealers, snatching up piles of cash and sending dozens of card players home with
empty pockets. Downtown, another popular card club, Playstation, also was shuttered. In all, police arrested 39
employees and confiscated $100,000.
The raids on May 26 — dubbed
"Black Thursday" by one poker Web site — and two more last month have sent a chill through the city's clandestine
poker scene.
Several members-only card clubs closed their doors after
13 arrests on Oct. 16 at the Broadway Club in the Flatiron District, where the Yankees' $25-million-a-year third
baseman, Alex Rodriguez, reportedly had played. On Oct. 28, a second-floor parlor on the Upper East Side, the EV
Club, became the site of more vice squad arrests.
Regulars at the
Manhattan clubs, including professional card player Phil Hellmuth, have questioned the crackdown while predicting
the popularity of poker and its potential for profit make it unlikely the chips will be down for
long.
"People just want to play poker, and because there are no legal
clubs in the city, they turn to underground clubs," said Hellmuth, a former World Series of Poker
champion.
Authorities elsewhere also have taken a hard
line.
In Passaic County, N.J., police converged on a shopping center
basement that allegedly was home to an illegal parlor posing as a soccer club. They arrested dozens of people and
seized about $60,000.
An undercover investigation in Palmer Lake,
Colo., led to the arrest of the owner of a Mexican restaurant that held a Texas Hold 'em tournament. And in
Baltimore, police arrested 80 poker players in the biggest gambling raid in the city since Prohibition, only to have
prosecutors drop the case.
In Manhattan, at least a dozen clubs —
with names like Ace Point, High Society, Hudson and All-In — once operated up to 10 tables in rented offices, back
rooms and other nondescript locations, according to regulars. Countless others have sprung up in the outer boroughs
and Long Island, offering local alternatives to casinos in Atlantic City and Internet
games.
The clubs, unlike casinos, don't take a percentage of the
pot. Instead, patrons pay about $5 per half-hour to sit at tables and play Texas Hold 'em and other card games with
buy-ins as low as $40. Their ranks include Wall Street brokers, lawyers, teachers and other professionals, along
with the occasional celebrity.
The Daily News has reported that A-Rod
has been warned by Yankee officials to curb his enthusiasm for poker parlors — something his agent denied. Rodriguez
later spoke publicly about the clubs, saying, "In retrospect, it's probably a place I shouldn't have
gone."
The clubs typically ban alcohol but provide other perks:
Playstation served Oreo cookies; New York Players Club offered valet parking; and the Broadway Club featured plasma
televisions and a glassed-in room for high-stakes games. Front doors are unmarked, and manned by
bouncers.
It is a world reminiscent of the 1998 movie "Rounders,"
which was set largely in underground New York poker clubs and is credited with jump-starting the poker
craze.
Hellmuth said
he was "a bit shocked anyone's making a big deal over the New York's poker scene" — a reaction shared by an
attorney for a club operator who was arrested.
"This is not the crime
of the century," said the lawyer, Michael Rosen.
Indeed, playing
poker isn't criminal. However, it's illegal to profit by promoting it.
Authorities say the clubs, along with evading taxes, could be funneling tens of thousands of dollars to drug
traffickers or mobsters. The sizable cash flow is certain to entice armed robbers, police said.
"We realized that this was the start of a problem because there is
lots of money involved," vice squad Lt. Pasquale Morena said at the time of the Players Club takedown. "We don't
know where the profits from the gambling are going."
Hellmuth
suggested officials simply start licensing existing clubs.
One
proposed law in New York would decriminalize poker in bars and restaurants that sponsor low-stakes games, although
it would not protect the poker rooms now under siege.
"Poker's so
commonplace now," said state Sen. John Sabini, who sponsored the bill. "Businesses should be allowed to cash in on
it."
DrSmellThis
11-29-2005, 03:46 PM
Ex-Powell aide: Bush 'too
aloof'
President was detached during Iraq postwar planning, Wilkerson says
WASHINGTON (AP) --
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff says President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the
details" of post-war planning, allowing underlings to exploit Bush's detachment and make bad decisions.
In an
Associated Press interview Monday, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said that wrongheaded ideas
for the handling of foreign detainees after Sept. 11 arose from a coterie of White House and Pentagon aides who
argued that "the president of the United States is all-powerful," and that the Geneva Conventions were
irrelevant.
Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded
aides. Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror
assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."
Wilkerson
suggested his former boss may agree with him that Bush was too hands-off about Iraq.
"What he seems to be
saying to me now is the president failed to discipline the process the way he should have and that the president is
ultimately responsible for this whole mess," Wilkerson said.
He said Powell now generally believes it was a good
idea to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but may not agree with either the timing or execution of the war.
Wilkerson said Powell may have had doubts about the extent of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein but was convinced
by then-CIA Director George Tenet and others that the intelligence girding the push toward war was sound.
Powell
was widely regarded as a dove to Cheney's and Rumsfeld's hawks, but he made a forceful case for war before the
United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, a month before the invasion. At one point, he said Saddam
possessed mobile labs to make weapons of mass destruction that were never found.
Cheney may have deliberately
ignored contrary intelligence
Wilkerson criticized the CIA and other agencies for allowing mishandled and
bogus information to underpin that speech and the whole administration case for war.
He said he has almost, but
not quite, concluded that Cheney and others in the administration deliberately ignored evidence of bad intelligence
and looked only at what supported their case for war.
A newly declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document
from February 2002 said that an al Qaeda military instructor was probably misleading his interrogators about
training that the terror group's members received from Iraq on chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Ibn
al-Shaykh al-Libi reportedly recanted his statements in January 2004.
(Full Story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/iraq.intel/))
A presidential intelligence commission
also dissected how spy agencies handled an Iraqi refugee who was a German intelligence source. Codenamed Curveball,
this man who was a leading source on Iraq's purported mobile biological weapons labs was found to be a fabricator
and alcoholic.
On the question of detainees picked up in Afghanistan and other fronts on the war on terror,
Wilkerson said Bush heard two sides of an impassioned argument within his administration. Abuse of prisoners, and
even the deaths of some who had been interrogated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, have bruised the U.S. image abroad
and undermined fragile support for the Iraq war that followed.
Cheney's office, Rumsfeld aides and others
argued "that the president of the United States is all-powerful, that as commander in chief the president of the
United States can do anything he damn well pleases," Wilkerson said.
On the other side were Powell, others at
the State Department and top military brass, and occasionally then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice,
Wilkerson said.
Powell raised frequent and loud objections, his former aide said, once yelling into a telephone
at Rumsfeld: "Donald, don't you understand what you are doing to our image?"
Wilkerson also said he did not
disclose to Bob Woodward that administration critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, joining the growing
list of past and current Bush administration officials who have denied being the Washington Post reporter's
source.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP). All
rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this
article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/1
1/29/wilkerson.interview.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/29/wilkerson.interview.ap/index.html)
DrSmellThis
11-29-2005, 04:16 PM
..and this follow up item is even more
striking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle
_east/4480638.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4480638.stm)
DrSmellThis
11-29-2005, 08:55 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200511
29/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_war_semantics_2 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_war_semantics_2)
...strikes one as a touch rebellious, does it not? It's that
pesky torture issue again. But it's good to know about Donnies' "epiphany".
belgareth
11-29-2005, 08:59 PM
Donald H. Rumsfeld has
decided the enemy are not insurgents.
Now there's a firm grasp of the obvious! We invaded their
country then call people defending their homes insurgents? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call us an
invading/occupying army and them patriots?
DrSmellThis
11-29-2005, 09:12 PM
Now there's
a firm grasp of the obvious! We invaded their country then call people defending their homes insurgents? Wouldn't
it be more accurate to call us an invading/occupying army and them patriots?:lol: Bush calls them
"terrorists", and I don't know why the Commander in Chief's term is not good enough for Mr. Rumsfeld. When did our
"friends", the Iraqis, become "terrorists"? That I don't know.
Somehow I think that when or if we leave, the
Iraqi people will manage to defend themselves and their homes. But if my innocent friends were rounded up and
tortured by an occupying force, without being charged with anything -- whether or not that occupying force was
claiming to have installed a democracy -- I'd have to say I'd think about shooting at them too.
belgareth
11-29-2005, 09:44 PM
Just think about shooting
back?
In all fairness I can't blame the Iraqi people for fighting back. However, the bloody bas...ds that set
off bombs that are intended to harm or kill innocents are another subject. They're fair game.
DrSmellThis
11-29-2005, 10:23 PM
Just think
about shooting back?I wouldn't go so far as to say "just think", even though you can't solve anything with
naked violence, as we are finding out. It's hard to believe we -- our leaders -- are being that animalistic and
stupid.
belgareth
11-30-2005, 09:08 AM
I wouldn't
go so far as to say "just think", even though you can't solve anything with naked violence, as we are finding out.
It's hard to believe we -- our leaders -- are being that animalistic and stupid.
True, but in the case of
another country invading and occupying my country or even of our government trying to impose martial law, I'd have
no options but to fight back. You can't blame people for resisting when another country unilaterally decides to
replace your government with one of their own choosing.
It isn't really hard to believe, that's the pattern
we've followed for two centuries. Why do something different? Jeeze, man! Don't rock the boat and expect an
original thought from a politician.
koolking1
11-30-2005, 10:50 AM
I think and truly hope that
we now have a real man in charge at the Pentagon, Gen Peter Pace. Rummy must be fuming, gonna be real interesting
to see how this plays out.
koolking1
11-30-2005, 11:14 AM
"Pace also proved himself
to be no 'yes' man. When questioned about torture by the Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld said "obviously, the United
States does not have a responsibility." Pace, however, evidently disagreed, telling the briefing "It is the absolute
responsibility of every US service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop
it."
When Rumsfeld tried to correct him, saying, "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to
physically stop it; it's to report it," Pace stood his ground. "If they are physically present when inhumane
treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," the Joint Chiefs Chairman
stated."
I am greatly heartened by this. Is this the beginning of our national recovery, I sure hope
so.
I hope the rest of the world understands that under our system of government it's quite a lengthy
process to put gangs of criminals in prison.
DrSmellThis
11-30-2005, 04:21 PM
I hope the
rest of the world understands that under our system of government it's quite a lengthy process to put gangs of
criminals in prison.A key concept. The best way to sell democracy to the planet is to set an example, not to
conquer people. When people see a government prosecuting its own criminals they will think they want that kind of
government too. That is how real people around the world actually think, IMO. "Bush bashing", as the righties call
it, is actually among the best ways to spread democracy at this moment. It is also supporting the troops, by the
same logic. This is what democracy is. Let the charade escalate to epic proportions! Screw fascist, imperialist
totalitarianism!
Mtnjim
11-30-2005, 04:22 PM
You mean there is actually someone
with "nuts" in Washington today??
There must be some mistake here!!!
koolking1
11-30-2005, 04:25 PM
I read elsewhere today,
CounterPunch.Org I think, that Bush/Cheney bumperstickers are disappearing from cars.
belgareth
12-02-2005, 03:19 PM
A culture of bribery in Congress The Monitor's View
Fri Dec 2, 2005
Almost every US lawmaker takes big money aimed at helping private
interests win favorable government action. If they stash the cash for themselves, it's illegal. If they use it to
get reelected, keep their job, and help the private interests, it's generally legal.
Either way, money still talks in Washington and the legal/illegal
distinction gets easily blurred in all the backroom dealings with private interests until, that is, a brazen case of
bribery pops up. Then Washington, if it had any sense, might ask if the laws and rules that regulate campaign
donations and lobbyist gifts are tough enough or prosecutors are vigilant
enough.
Obviously the laws and prosecutors weren't good enough in
the case of Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The California Republican congressmen resigned on Monday after admitting he
took $2.4 million in bribes - yes, $2.4 million - to help steer Pentagon business toward select defense
contractors. (Newspapers, not prosecutors, first exposed Mr. Cunningham's unexplained
wealth.)
Strangely, his official crimes were committed openly in
Congress as he worked like many lawmakers in pushing through specific benefits for private interests or calling
government departments to coerce a decision in favor of a well-funded, private interest. The plea agreement stated
he steered spending "to the benefit" of defense contractors who bribed him, and those contracts were not "in the
best interests of the country."
Cunningham, who wisely and contritely
admitted the wrongdoing, will probably serve years in jail. But the question lingers: How many other members of
Congress (or presidents) have collected big money from private interests - either as campaign-related donations or
as bribes - and then conducted the people's business in shady ways that also weren't "in the best interests of the
country"?
And let's not stop there with the obvious rhetorical
questions: Why should large amounts of money, either as bribes or as big campaign funds from businesses and unions,
be permitted at all, since in too many cases such hefty chunks of change can easily distort a lawmaker's ability to
represent the highest interests of the most people?
The Washington
Post reported that Rep. Virgil Goode (news, bio, voting record) (R) received more than $80,000 in campaign donations
from the employees of MZM - a defense firm that's an alleged co-conspirator in Cunningham's case - and then was
the principal sponsor of a measure helping MZM get a contract in his district. He's since offered to refund the
money.
Other recent ethics scandals in Washington, almost all
involving Republicans, point to weaknesses in current laws and a need for some sort of public campaign financing.
They also highlight Congress's inaction toward further campaign-finance reform and ethics watchdogging - an
inaction that seems purposeful: "Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, have used ethics allegations
as a political weapon for years," Common Cause stated after Cunningham's guilty plea.
No wonder dictators laugh at US demands for representative democracy. They can easily point to
American democracy's big failing: allowing the well-monied to corrupt lawmakers by dictating government actions -
either legally or illegally.•
belgareth
12-02-2005, 03:25 PM
People sometimes wonder why I am so cynical about our government and
sceptical about all their motives. This is just another example of the same type of thing we are seeing from our
government right now. Anybody besides me ever read the book "The Cuban Missile Crises"? I had to read it in a
PoliSci class.
Analysis Casts Doubt on Vietnam War Claims By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
Fri Dec 2, 2005
WASHINGTON - Another war, another set of faulty intelligence findings behind it.
Forty years before the United States invaded Iraq believing
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it widened a war in Vietnam apparently convinced the enemy had
launched an unprovoked attack on two U.S. Navy destroyers.
Papers
declassified by the National Security Agency point to a series of bungled intelligence findings on the purported
clash in the Gulf of Tonkin that led Congress to endorse President Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam conflict in
August 1964.
Among the documents released Thursday is an article
written by NSA historian Robert J. Hanyok for the agency's classified publication, Cryptologic Quarterly. In it, he
declares that his review of the complete intelligence shows beyond doubt "no attack happened that
night."
Claims that North Vietnamese boats attacked two U. S. Navy
destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964 — just two days after an initial assault on one of those ships — rallied Congress behind
Johnson's build-up of the war. The so-called Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed three days later empowered him to
take "all necessary steps" in the region and opened the way for large-scale commitment of U.S.
forces.
As with the intelligence that convinced the administration
and lawmakers that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the article asserts officials gave much weight to scant
evidence.
But, also like Iraq, it did not find that top
administration officials ordered up fabricated evidence to suit their wishes.
Instead, in the case of Vietnam, they were presented with an incomplete story, Hanyok said. Of the
intelligence-gatherers who got it wrong, he added: "They walked alone in their
counsels."
The agency released more than 140 documents in response to
requests from researchers trying to get to the bottom of an episode that unfolded in the South China Sea that cloudy
night, and has been disputed since.
"The parallels between the faulty
intelligence on Tonkin Gulf and the manipulated intelligence used to justify the Iraq war make it all the more
worthwhile to re-examine the events of August 1964 in light of new evidence," researcher John Prados
said.
Prados is a specialist on the Gulf of Tonkin at George
Washington University's National Security Archive, which is not affiliated with the National Security Agency, and
which pressed for release of the documents through Freedom of Information requests and other
means.
Hanyok's article reviews signals intelligence, or SIGINT,
from that time and concludes that top administration officials were only given material supporting the claim of an
Aug. 4 attack, not the wealth of contradictory intelligence. His study was published in 2001 and does not necessary
reflect the agency's position.
"In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged
in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August," Hanyok
wrote.
He said "the handful of SIGINT reports which suggested that an
attack had occurred contained severe analytical errors, unexplained translation changes, and the conjunction of two
unrelated messages into one translation. This latter product would become the Johnson administration's main proof
of the Aug. 4 attack."
He said he did not find "manufactured evidence
and collusion at all levels"; rather, it appeared intelligence-gatherers had made a series of mistakes and their
superiors did not set the record straight.
Conflicting and confused
reports from the scene have long cast doubt on whether the events unfolded as
claimed.
Hanyok's analysis of previously top secret intelligence
adds insight on North Vietnam's communications from that time, showing, he said, that the supposed attackers did
not even know the location of the destroyers, the USS Maddox and C. Turner Joy, as the two ships patrolled off the
North Vietnam coast.
A shorter agency study done years earlier and
also released Thursday indicated the ships did not know what, if anything, was coming at them as they zigzagged to
evade what the crews feared were torpedoes.
That study concluded
with a wry note, saying the destroyers resumed their patrols after a heavy round of U.S. air strikes on North
Vietnam ports, "and the rest is just painful history."
A detailed
chronology assembled days after the episode for the Joint Chiefs of Staff by J.J. Merrick, commander of Destroyer
Division 192, reflected the uncertainty of that night.
It said sonar
in many cases picked up sounds that were believed to be torpedoes but turned out to be "self noise" — the beating of
the ships' own propellers, or noise from patrol boats or supporting planes that were strafing the dark sea, unable
to see any prey. In another instance, however, the report contended a "torpedo wake was seen by four people."
The Maddox had come under fire from North Vietnamese patrol boats
Aug. 2, taking only superficial damage.
tim929
12-03-2005, 07:27 AM
Funny...the C. Turner Joy is
berthed here wher I live.I always cringe alittle when I see it sitting at anchor in the bay.
DrSmellThis
12-04-2005, 06:26 PM
People sometimes wonder why I am so cynical about our government
and sceptical about all their motives. This is just another example of the same type of thing we are seeing from our
government right now. Anybody besides me ever read the book "The Cuban Missile Crises"? I had to read it in a
PoliSci class.
Analysis Casts Doubt on Vietnam War Claims By
CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
Fri Dec 2,
2005
WASHINGTON - Another war, another set of faulty intelligence
findings behind it.
Forty years before the United States invaded
Iraq believing Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it widened a war in Vietnam apparently convinced the
enemy had launched an unprovoked attack on two U.S. Navy destroyers.
Papers declassified by the National Security Agency point to a series of bungled intelligence findings on the
purported clash in the Gulf of Tonkin that led Congress to endorse President Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam
conflict in August 1964.
Among the documents released Thursday is an
article written by NSA historian Robert J. Hanyok for the agency's classified publication, Cryptologic Quarterly.
In it, he declares that his review of the complete intelligence shows beyond doubt "no attack happened that
night."
Claims that North Vietnamese boats attacked two U. S. Navy
destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964 — just two days after an initial assault on one of those ships — rallied Congress behind
Johnson's build-up of the war. The so-called Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed three days later empowered him to
take "all necessary steps" in the region and opened the way for large-scale commitment of U.S.
forces.
As with the intelligence that convinced the administration
and lawmakers that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the article asserts officials gave much weight to scant
evidence.
But, also like Iraq, it did not find that top
administration officials ordered up fabricated evidence to suit their wishes.
Instead, in the case of Vietnam, they were presented with an incomplete story, Hanyok said. Of the
intelligence-gatherers who got it wrong, he added: "They walked alone in their
counsels."
The agency released more than 140 documents in response to
requests from researchers trying to get to the bottom of an episode that unfolded in the South China Sea that cloudy
night, and has been disputed since.
"The parallels between the faulty
intelligence on Tonkin Gulf and the manipulated intelligence used to justify the Iraq war make it all the more
worthwhile to re-examine the events of August 1964 in light of new evidence," researcher John Prados
said.
Prados is a specialist on the Gulf of Tonkin at George
Washington University's National Security Archive, which is not affiliated with the National Security Agency, and
which pressed for release of the documents through Freedom of Information requests and other
means.
Hanyok's article reviews signals intelligence, or SIGINT,
from that time and concludes that top administration officials were only given material supporting the claim of an
Aug. 4 attack, not the wealth of contradictory intelligence. His study was published in 2001 and does not necessary
reflect the agency's position.
"In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged
in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August," Hanyok
wrote.
He said "the handful of SIGINT reports which suggested that an
attack had occurred contained severe analytical errors, unexplained translation changes, and the conjunction of two
unrelated messages into one translation. This latter product would become the Johnson administration's main proof
of the Aug. 4 attack."
He said he did not find "manufactured evidence
and collusion at all levels"; rather, it appeared intelligence-gatherers had made a series of mistakes and their
superiors did not set the record straight.
Conflicting and confused
reports from the scene have long cast doubt on whether the events unfolded as
claimed.
Hanyok's analysis of previously top secret intelligence
adds insight on North Vietnam's communications from that time, showing, he said, that the supposed attackers did
not even know the location of the destroyers, the USS Maddox and C. Turner Joy, as the two ships patrolled off the
North Vietnam coast.
A shorter agency study done years earlier and
also released Thursday indicated the ships did not know what, if anything, was coming at them as they zigzagged to
evade what the crews feared were torpedoes.
That study concluded
with a wry note, saying the destroyers resumed their patrols after a heavy round of U.S. air strikes on North
Vietnam ports, "and the rest is just painful history."
A detailed
chronology assembled days after the episode for the Joint Chiefs of Staff by J.J. Merrick, commander of Destroyer
Division 192, reflected the uncertainty of that night.
It said sonar
in many cases picked up sounds that were believed to be torpedoes but turned out to be "self noise" — the beating of
the ships' own propellers, or noise from patrol boats or supporting planes that were strafing the dark sea, unable
to see any prey. In another instance, however, the report contended a "torpedo wake was seen by four people."
The Maddox had come under fire from North Vietnamese patrol boats
Aug. 2, taking only superficial damage. It is true that LBJ lied through his teeth about the
Viet Nam War. It was shameful then and is now.
belgareth
12-06-2005, 11:05 AM
U.S. Factory Orders Rebound in October By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
WASHINGTON - Orders to U.S. factories posted a solid increase in October, the government reported Tuesday,
providing the latest evidence that the economy is rebounding from the Gulf Coast hurricanes and a spike in energy
prices.
The Commerce Department said that demand for
manufactured goods rose by 2.2 percent to a seasonally adjusted $399.8 billion in October, erasing a 1.4 percent
September decline when demand was jolted by the hurricanes, a strike at aircraft giant Boeing and a jump in energy
costs.
The October increase was in line with economists'
expectations. Orders for durable goods, items expected to last three or more years, increased by 3.7 percent while
demand for nondurable goods rose by 0.5 percent.
In other news, the
productivity of American workers shot up at an annual rate of 4.7 percent in the July-September quarter, the best
showing in two years. The new report from the Labor Department represented a big upward revision from an initial
estimate made a month ago that productivity was growing at a 4.1 percent rate in the third
quarter.
The big jump in worker efficiency helped to push labor costs
down by 1 percent at an annual rate in third quarter, double the 0.5 percent drop in unit labor costs that had
originally been reported. The stronger productivity and falling labor costs should help ease fears at the
Federal Reserve that overall inflation was on the verge of worsening because of rising wage
pressures.
The 2.2 percent overall rise in durable goods was the best
showing since a 2.9 percent jump in August. It showed that manufacturing, which was the hardest hit sector in the
2001 recession, is showing resilience in the face of rising energy costs and the devastation caused by hurricanes
Katrina, Rita and Wilma, which caused widespread destruction along the Gulf
Coast.
The 3.7 percent gain in orders for durable goods was even
better than an initial estimate of a 3.4 percent increase made last week. The gain was led by a 142 percent rise in
orders for military aircraft and parts and a 50.6 percent jump in orders for commercial
aircraft.
DrSmellThis
12-13-2005, 01:28 PM
Probe backs CIA prison
allegations
PARIS, France -- European investigators say they have evidence that supports allegations the CIA
"abducted and transferred" people between countries and temporarily held them "without any judicial
involvement."
"The information gathered to date has reinforced the credibility of the allegations concerning the
transfer and temporary detention of individuals without any judicial involvement in European countries," Swiss
Senator Dick Marty said in a report Tuesday.
"Legal proceedings in progress in certain countries seemed to
indicate that individuals had been abducted and transferred to other countries without respect for any legal
standards."
The report by Marty, who heads the Council of Europe investigation, noted the allegations had never
been formally denied by the United States.
It did not specify which countries were involved.
"It's still
too early to say if there has been any involvement or complicity of member states in illegal actions," Marty said in
the report to the human rights committee of the 46-nation council in Paris.
"The seriousness of the allegations
and the consistency of the information gathered to date justifies an in-depth inquiry," he said.
"If the
allegations proved correct, the member states would stand accused of having seriously breached their human rights
obligations to the Council of Europe."
During a news conference Tuesday, Marty said he believed the United
States was no longer holding prisoners secretly in Europe, The Associated Press reported.
Marty said he believed
the detainees were moved to North Africa in early November, when reports about secret U.S. prisons first emerged in
The Washington Post. He did not provide any other details, AP said.
Poland and Romania have been identified by
the New York-based Human Rights watch as sites of possible CIA secret prisons. But both countries have denied any
involvement.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced repeated questions about the allegations during her
recent trip to Europe but denied that the United States used European airspace or airports to transport detainees to
countries where officials believed they would be tortured.
Rice also denied that U.S. personnel engaged in
torture, saying that U.S. interrogators abided by the Geneva Conventions.
The U.S. State Department contended
as recently as last week that suspected terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions because they are not
prisoners of war.
However, a department spokesman said the United States applies the conventions to those
suspected terrorists anyway.
In the past, the Bush Administration has said the conventions do not apply to
Americans working outside U.S. borders.
-- CNN producer Jonathan Wald contributed to this
report
Copyright 2005 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed. Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP) contributed to this
report.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/13
/cia.europe/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/13/cia.europe/index.html)
belgareth
12-16-2005, 03:42 PM
This is mostly good
news.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_51;_ylt=AvMszQ993Dpyci2
c8ALQG.kTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCU l (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_51;_ylt=AvMszQ993Dpyci2c8ALQG.kTv5UB;_ ylu=X
3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
Netghost56
12-16-2005, 04:54 PM
I'm wondering if anyone here
has heard of Aspartame? It's come up on some other forums, and I'm not sure whether its propaganda
or fact:
http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Nancy_Markle/nancy_markle.html
They also say that Rumsfeld
had a hand in
this:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/05/07/aspartame_gate_when_donald_rumsfeld_was_ceo_of_sea rle.ht
m
Again, I don't know much about this beyond what's on these pages. Frankly, it looks like scare tactics,
but with our government, you never know...
belgareth
12-17-2005, 11:04 AM
I'm
wondering if anyone here has heard of Aspartame? It's come up on some other forums, and I'm not
sure whether its propaganda or
fact:
http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Nancy
_Markle/nancy_markle.html (http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Nancy_Markle/nancy_markle.html)
It seems a little implossible for several reasons. The first is that
something like this is the provence of the FDA not the EPA. I did check the EPA website and they have nothing to say
about Aspartame at all. When you do a search you geet information on wood alcohol and there is no reference to MS or
Lupis. You can check for yourself at: www.epa.gov (http://www.epa.gov/).
They also
say that Rumsfeld had a hand in
this:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/05/07/aspartame_gate_when_donald_rumsfeld_was_ceo_of_sea rle.htm (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/05/07/aspartame_gate_when_donald_rumsfeld_was_ceo_of_sea rle.h
tm)
n
Again, I don't know much about this beyond what's on these pages. Frankly, it looks like scare tactics, but
with our government, you never know...
I strongly suspect that it is extreme exageration
put out by the same people who have put out so much other misinformation in an effort to discredit the current
administration. Frankly, if they would focus on real issues they'd stand a much better chance of getting results.
You are encouraged to do your own research but here's what you can find on the FDA page:
From: Mark Gold
[mgold@shelltown.net]Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 11:18 PMTo:
fdadockets@oc.fda.govSubject: Docket # 02P-0317 Recall Aspartame as a
Neurotoxic Drug: File#9: Recent Independent Aspartame ResearchSubject: Docket # 02P-0317To: FDA Dockets
SubmittalFrom: Mark D. Gold Aspartame Toxicity Information Center 12 East Side Dr., Suite 2-18 Concord, NH 03301
603-225-2110Date: January 12, 2002Please find below Evidence File #9: Recent Independent Aspartame Research Recent
Independent Aspartame Research Results(1998 - 2002)The results of recent independent research continue the trend of
researchnot funded by the manufacturer finding serious problems with aspartameingestion. Details about other
independent research demonstrating thehazards of aspartame ingestion can be found in the Aspartame FAQs andAspartame
Scientific Abuse web pages.Table of ContentsAspartame Ingestion Causes Formaldehyde Accumulation in the
BodyAspartame and MSG Cause to Painful Fibromyalgia SymptomsAspartame and Brain Tumors (Swedish Study)Aspartame
Causes Memory
Loss----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------Aspartame Ingestion Causes Formaldehyde Accumulation in the
BodyExcerpt from:Trocho, C., et al., 1998. "Formaldehyde Derived From Dietary AspartameVinds to Tissue Components in
vivo," Life Sciences, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp.337+, 1998"These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of
formaldehyde, asubstance responsible for chronic deleterious effects that has also beenconsidered
carcinogenic....."It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazardbecause of its contribution to
the formation of formaldehyde adducts.""It was a very interesting paper, that demonstrates that
formaldehydeformation from aspartame ingestion is very common and does indeedaccumulate within the cell, reacting
with cellular proteins (mostlyenzymes) and DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear). The fact that itaccumulates with
each dose, indicates grave consequences among those whoconsume diet drinks and foodstuffs on a daily basis."
(NeuroscientistRussell Blaylock,
MD)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------Aspartame and MSG Cause to Painful Fibromyalgia SymptomsAnn
Pharmacother 2001 Jun;35(6):702-6Relief of fibromyalgia symptoms following discontinuation of
dietaryexcitotoxins.Smith JD, Terpening CM, Schmidt SO, Gums JG. Malcolm Randall VeteransAffairs Medical Center,
Gainesville, FL, USA.BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a common rheumatologic disorder that is oftendifficult to treat
effectively. CASE SUMMARY: Four patients diagnosed withfibromyalgia syndrome for two to 17 years are described. All
had undergonemultiple treatment modalities with limited success. All had complete, ornearly complete, resolution of
their symptoms within months aftereliminating monosodium glutamate (MSG) or MSG plus aspartame from theirdiet. All
patients were women with multiple comorbidities prior toelimination of MSG. All have had recurrence of symptoms
whenever MSG isingested. DISCUSSION: Excitotoxins are molecules, such as MSG andaspartate, that act as excitatory
neurotransmitters, and can lead toneurotoxicity when used in excess. We propose that these four patients
mayrepresent a subset of fibromyalgia syndrome that is induced or exacerbatedby excitotoxins or, alternatively, may
comprise an excitotoxin syndromethat is similar to fibromyalgia. We suggest that identification of similarpatients
and research with larger numbers of patients must be performedbefore definitive conclusions can be made.
CONCLUSIONS: The elimination ofMSG and other excitotoxins from the diets of patients with fibromyalgiaoffers a
benign treatment option that has the potential for dramaticresults in a subset of patients. PMID:
11408989------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------Aspartame and Brain TumorsA published study in Sweden that
looked at various possible causes ofbrain tumors (e.g., cell phones, aspartame) found a link between use ofdiet
drinks and certain types of large brain tumors in middle-aged andelderly population groups.
http://www
.medscape.com/MedGenMed/braintumors---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aspartame (http://www.medscape.com/MedGenMed/braintumors-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aspartame) Causes Memory
LossTitle: DANGEROUS DIET DRINKS.Subject(s): ASPARTAME -- Physiological effect; NONNUTRITIVE sweetenersSide effects;
MEMORYSource: Psychology Today, Mar/Apr 2001, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p20, 2/5pSection: [Nutrition] Facts&FindingsMIND
DANGEROUS DIET DRINKSCAN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU HAD FOR LUNCH?WHAT YOU ATE OR DRANK MIGHT BE THE REASON.New research
suggests that the artificial sweetener aspartame may actuallygo to your head.By Peter RebhahnAnecdotal evidence that
aspartame disrupts memory has been growing sincethe sugar substitute was approved in the early 1980s, though
attempts toprove the claim have so far been equivocal. Previous studies have testedmemory by asking aspartame users
to remember lists of words or numbers--tests of short-term memory. But according to Timothy M. Barth, Ph.D.,
apsychology professor at Texas Christian University, those studies focusedon the wrong type of memory.In his study
of 90 students, Barth found that participants who regularlydrank diet sodas containing aspartame performed as well
as nonusers onlaboratory tests. However, aspartame users were more likely to reportlong-term memory lapses like
forgetting details of personal routines orwhether or not a task had been completed."These people aren't crazy,"
says Barth. Instead, "the type of memoryproblems they report are not the type of memories that have been assessedin
the typical laboratory study."After reporting his findings at a recent Society for Neuroscience meeting,Barth
cautioned that he thinks it's premature to condemn aspartame. But hedoes worry about the largely untested effects
of long-term use. Already,he has made some converts. "Several of my graduate students who drank dietsoda no longer
do.
"************************************************** ******************
After reviewing scientific
studies, FDA determined in 1981 that aspartame was safe for use in foods. In 1987, the General Accounting Office
investigated the process surrounding FDA's approval of aspartame and confirmed the agency had acted properly.
However, FDA has continued to review complaints alleging adverse reactions to products containing aspartame. To
date, FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame, nor
is the agency aware of any recent studies that clearly show safety problems.
Carefully controlled clinical studies
show that aspartame is not an allergen. However, certain people with the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU), and
pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine (high levels of phenylalanine in blood) have a problem with aspartame because
they do not effectively metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine, one of aspartame's components. High levels of this
amino acid in body fluids can cause brain damage. Therefore, FDA has ruled that all products containing aspartame
must include a warning to phenylketonurics that the sweetener contains phenylalanine.
************************************************** ****
75 Food and Drug Administration
November 18, 1996
Arthur Whitmore: (202) 205-4144
Consumer Hotline: (800)532-4440
FDA Statement on Aspartame
A recently
published medical journal article raises the
question whether any increased incidence in the number of
persons
with brain tumors in the United States is associated with the
marketing of aspartame, an artificial
sweetener, following the
Food and Drug Administration's approval of that food additive in
1981. The following can
be used to answer questions:
Analysis of the National Cancer Institute's public data base
on cancer incidence in
the United States -- the SEER Program --
does not support an association between the use of aspartame
and
increased incidence of brain tumors. Data from the SEER program
show that overall incidence of brain and
central nervous system
cancers began increasing in 1973 and continued to increase
through 1985 in the United
States. Since 1985 the trend line has
flattened for these cancers, and in the last two years recorded
(1991 to
1993), the incidence has slightly decreased.
The FDA stands behind its original approval decision, but
the Agency
remains ready to act if credible scientific evidence
is presented to it -- as would be the case for any
product
approved by the FDA.
The question of a relationship between brain tumors and
aspartame was initially
raised when the Agency began considering
approval of this food additive in the mid-1970s.
The agency resolved the
brain tumor issue before the initial
approval of aspartame in 1981. A Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI)
was convened
in 1980 by the Agency to review the scientific data
presented by G.D. Searle and Company relating to the safety
of
aspartame. These independent scientific advisors to the Agency
concluded that aspartame did not cause brain
damage. At the same
time, they said that there was not sufficient scientific evidence
presented to the PBOI that
aspartame did not cause brain tumors
in rats. Therefore, the PBOI recommended against approval of
aspartame at
that time and concluded that further study was
needed.
In 1981 after extensive review of the record by
FDA
scientists, then Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes approved
aspartame as a food additive. In his decision Hayes
noted that
additional scientific data from a Japanese study about the brain
tumor issue corroborated his decision.
The PBOI chairman later
wrote in a letter to Hayes that the Japanese data would have
caused that panel to give
aspartame an "unqualified approval."
"As data stood, we were unable to reach a communal feeling
of confidence in
aspartame's innocuousness on this score and
expressed this unease in our report to you. By the same token,
we
wish to express our endorsement of your final decision in this
matter," wrote Walle J. H. Nauta, M.D., Ph.D., of
the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
####
Netghost56
12-17-2005, 06:41 PM
Have you seen the Wiki
entry?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame
It also has
a bunch of works cited.
All this talk about it breaking down into wood alcohol and formaldehyde- here's how they
said Aspartame was discovered:
The Story of
Aspartame Aspartame was
discovered in 1965 by a researcher, Mr. James Schlatter, at G.D. Searle & Company.
Schlatter was a scientist doing research with amino
acids, working to develop a treatment for ulcers. When he licked his finger to pick up a piece
of paper he tasted a sweet attractive flavor. James Schlatter inadvertently had the first taste of
aspartame and helped create a product that would revolutionize the category of "sweetener" for individuals
and food companies.
---------
No wonder! Aspartame comes from paper products?
belgareth
12-17-2005, 07:53 PM
Wiki entries can be made by
anybody to say almost anything. They are great for foundational stuff but once you get past that point you really
need a better resource.
DrSmellThis
12-17-2005, 09:37 PM
Bel, I'd like to read your
FDA post, but the links caused it to grow outside my viewable screen. Could you edit that please? Thanks in
advance.
belgareth
12-17-2005, 11:11 PM
Did
that help Doc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netghost56
I'm wondering if anyone here has heard of
Aspartame? It's come up on some other forums, and I'm not sure whether its propaganda or
fact:
It seems a little implossible for several reasons. The first is that something like
this is the provence of the FDA not the EPA. I did check the EPA website and they have nothing to say about
Aspartame at all. When you do a search you geet information on wood alcohol and there is no reference to MS or
Lupis. You can check for yourself at:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netghost56
They also say that
Rumsfeld had a hand in this:
Again, I don't know much about this beyond what's on these pages. Frankly, it
looks like scare tactics, but with our government, you never know...
</FONT></FONT>
I strongly suspect
that it is extreme exageration put out by the same people who have put out so much other misinformation in an effort
to discredit the current administration. Frankly, if they would focus on real issues they'd stand a much better
chance of getting results. You are encouraged to do your own research but here's what you can find on the FDA page:
From: Mark Gold [mgold@shelltown.net]Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 11:18 PMTo: Subject: Docket # 02P-0317
Recall Aspartame as a Neurotoxic Drug: File#9: Recent Independent Aspartame ResearchSubject: Docket # 02P-0317To:
FDA Dockets SubmittalFrom: Mark D. Gold Aspartame Toxicity Information Center 12 East Side Dr., Suite 2-18 Concord,
NH 03301 603-225-2110Date: January 12, 2002Please find below Evidence File #9: Recent Independent Aspartame Research
Recent Independent Aspartame Research Results(1998 - 2002)The results of recent independent research continue the
trend of researchnot funded by the manufacturer finding serious problems with aspartameingestion. Details about
other independent research demonstrating thehazards of aspartame ingestion can be found in the Aspartame FAQs
andAspartame Scientific Abuse web pages.Table of ContentsAspartame Ingestion Causes Formaldehyde Accumulation in the
BodyAspartame and MSG Cause to Painful Fibromyalgia SymptomsAspartame and Brain Tumors (Swedish Study)Aspartame
Causes Memory
Loss----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------Aspartame Ingestion Causes Formaldehyde Accumulation in the
BodyExcerpt from:Trocho, C., et al., 1998. "Formaldehyde Derived From Dietary AspartameVinds to Tissue Components in
vivo," Life Sciences, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp.337+, 1998"These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of
formaldehyde, asubstance responsible for chronic deleterious effects that has also beenconsidered
carcinogenic....."It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazardbecause of its contribution to
the formation of formaldehyde adducts.""It was a very interesting paper, that demonstrates that
formaldehydeformation from aspartame ingestion is very common and does indeedaccumulate within the cell, reacting
with cellular proteins (mostlyenzymes) and DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear). The fact that itaccumulates with
each dose, indicates grave consequences among those whoconsume diet drinks and foodstuffs on a daily basis."
(NeuroscientistRussell Blaylock,
MD)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------Aspartame and MSG Cause to Painful Fibromyalgia SymptomsAnn
Pharmacother 2001 Jun;35(6):702-6Relief of fibromyalgia symptoms following discontinuation of
dietaryexcitotoxins.Smith JD, Terpening CM, Schmidt SO, Gums JG. Malcolm Randall VeteransAffairs Medical Center,
Gainesville, FL, USA.BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a common rheumatologic disorder that is oftendifficult to treat
effectively. CASE SUMMARY: Four patients diagnosed withfibromyalgia syndrome for two to 17 years are described. All
had undergonemultiple treatment modalities with limited success. All had complete, ornearly complete, resolution of
their symptoms within months aftereliminating monosodium glutamate (MSG) or MSG plus aspartame from theirdiet. All
patients were women with multiple comorbidities prior toelimination of MSG. All have had recurrence of symptoms
whenever MSG isingested. DISCUSSION: Excitotoxins are molecules, such as MSG andaspartate, that act as excitatory
neurotransmitters, and can lead toneurotoxicity when used in excess. We propose that these four patients
mayrepresent a subset of fibromyalgia syndrome that is induced or exacerbatedby excitotoxins or, alternatively, may
comprise an excitotoxin syndromethat is similar to fibromyalgia. We suggest that identification of similarpatients
and research with larger numbers of patients must be performedbefore definitive conclusions can be made.
CONCLUSIONS: The elimination ofMSG and other excitotoxins from the diets of patients with fibromyalgiaoffers a
benign treatment option that has the potential for dramaticresults in a subset of patients. PMID:
11408989------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------Aspartame and Brain TumorsA published study in Sweden that
looked at various possible causes ofbrain tumors (e.g., cell phones, aspartame) found a link between use ofdiet
drinks and certain types of large brain tumors in middle-aged andelderly population groups. Causes Memory
LossTitle: DANGEROUS DIET DRINKS.Subject(s): ASPARTAME -- Physiological effect; NONNUTRITIVE sweetenersSide effects;
MEMORYSource: Psychology Today, Mar/Apr 2001, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p20, 2/5pSection: [Nutrition] Facts&FindingsMIND
DANGEROUS DIET DRINKSCAN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU HAD FOR LUNCH?WHAT YOU ATE OR DRANK MIGHT BE THE REASON.New research
suggests that the artificial sweetener aspartame may actuallygo to your head.By Peter RebhahnAnecdotal evidence that
aspartame disrupts memory has been growing sincethe sugar substitute was approved in the early 1980s, though
attempts toprove the claim have so far been equivocal. Previous studies have testedmemory by asking aspartame users
to remember lists of words or numbers--tests of short-term memory. But according to Timothy M. Barth, Ph.D.,
apsychology professor at Texas Christian University, those studies focusedon the wrong type of memory.In his study
of 90 students, Barth found that participants who regularlydrank diet sodas containing aspartame performed as well
as nonusers onlaboratory tests. However, aspartame users were more likely to reportlong-term memory lapses like
forgetting details of personal routines orwhether or not a task had been completed."These people aren't crazy,"
says Barth. Instead, "the type of memoryproblems they report are not the type of memories that have been assessedin
the typical laboratory study."After reporting his findings at a recent Society for Neuroscience meeting,Barth
cautioned that he thinks it's premature to condemn aspartame. But hedoes worry about the largely untested effects
of long-term use. Already,he has made some converts. "Several of my graduate students who drank dietsoda no longer
do.
"************************************************** ******************
After reviewing scientific
studies, FDA determined in 1981 that aspartame was safe for use in foods. In 1987, the General Accounting Office
investigated the process surrounding FDA's approval of aspartame and confirmed the agency had acted properly.
However, FDA has continued to review complaints alleging adverse reactions to products containing aspartame. To
date, FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame, nor
is the agency aware of any recent studies that clearly show safety problems.
Carefully controlled clinical studies
show that aspartame is not an allergen. However, certain people with the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU), and
pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine (high levels of phenylalanine in blood) have a problem with aspartame because
they do not effectively metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine, one of aspartame's components. High levels of this
amino acid in body fluids can cause brain damage. Therefore, FDA has ruled that all products containing aspartame
must include a warning to phenylketonurics that the sweetener contains phenylalanine.
************************************************** ****
75 Food and Drug Administration
November 18, 1996
Arthur Whitmore: (202) 205-4144
Consumer Hotline: (800)532-4440
FDA Statement on Aspartame
A recently
published medical journal article raises the
question whether any increased incidence in the number of
persons
with brain tumors in the United States is associated with the
marketing of aspartame, an artificial
sweetener, following the
Food and Drug Administration's approval of that food additive in
1981. The following can
be used to answer questions:
Analysis of the National Cancer Institute's public data base
on cancer incidence in
the United States -- the SEER Program --
does not support an association between the use of aspartame
and
increased incidence of brain tumors. Data from the SEER program
show that overall incidence of brain and
central nervous system
cancers began increasing in 1973 and continued to increase
through 1985 in the United
States. Since 1985 the trend line has
flattened for these cancers, and in the last two years recorded
(1991 to
1993), the incidence has slightly decreased.
The FDA stands behind its original approval decision, but
the Agency
remains ready to act if credible scientific evidence
is presented to it -- as would be the case for any
product
approved by the FDA.
The question of a relationship between brain tumors and
aspartame was initially
raised when the Agency began considering
approval of this food additive in the mid-1970s.
The agency resolved the
brain tumor issue before the initial
approval of aspartame in 1981. A Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI)
was convened
in 1980 by the Agency to review the scientific data
presented by G.D. Searle and Company relating to the safety
of
aspartame. These independent scientific advisors to the Agency
concluded that aspartame did not cause brain
damage. At the same
time, they said that there was not sufficient scientific evidence
presented to the PBOI that
aspartame did not cause brain tumors
in rats. Therefore, the PBOI recommended against approval of
aspartame at
that time and concluded that further study was
needed.
In 1981 after extensive review of the record by
FDA
scientists, then Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes approved
aspartame as a food additive. In his decision Hayes
noted that
additional scientific data from a Japanese study about the brain
tumor issue corroborated his decision.
The PBOI chairman later
wrote in a letter to Hayes that the Japanese data would have
caused that panel to give
aspartame an "unqualified approval."
"As data stood, we were unable to reach a communal feeling
of confidence in
aspartame's innocuousness on this score and
expressed this unease in our report to you. By the same token,
we
wish to express our endorsement of your final decision in this
matter," wrote Walle J. H. Nauta, M.D., Ph.D., of
the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
####
DrSmellThis
12-19-2005, 07:52 PM
There was no change.
Apparently some formatting was copied and pasted? No biggie.
belgareth
12-19-2005, 08:09 PM
Sorry Doc, it works fine for
me. No formatting problems at all. Screen resizes and everything. PM me and we can work something out if you want a
copy of it.
DrSmellThis
12-19-2005, 08:26 PM
No biggie. I can rock the
horizontal scroll back and forth to view it.
Netghost56
12-19-2005, 09:13 PM
Well, I can confirm it's not
pure fantasy. Today my mother bought some maple syrup and after getting home, realized that she accidently bought
"Suger Free" syrup. I was curious so I checked the nutritional information, and BING! Aspartame was on the list.
Talk about alarms going off in your head. I won't be putting that syrup on my pancakes. Not just because it's got
Aspartame, but because we never eat sugar free stuff. It all tastes like crap to me.
belgareth
12-19-2005, 09:19 PM
Have you tasted it? Aspartame
tastes just like sugar.
There's no doubt that it is in may products. The question is whether or not it is
causing problems. Specifically, is there a relationship between Lupis/MS and aspartame? Next question, is it worse
for you than the alternatives? For instance real sugar or saccarine?There's been recent research showing that fruit
sugars (sucrose and fructose) are heavy contributors to obesity which leads to cardiocascular desease and diabetes
too.
Personally I think the best answer is to eat good quality foods, stay away from fast food altogether, eat
snacks and sweets in moderation and get some regular exercise.
DrSmellThis
12-19-2005, 10:36 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html
Netghost56
12-19-2005, 11:25 PM
Personally I
think the best answer is to eat good quality foods, stay away from fast food altogether, eat snacks and sweets in
moderation and get some regular exercise.
Which is exactly what I do. But my concern is that this junk
intrudes into my diet. Say if I wanted a carrot cake. Or even a simple sugar cookie. How long will it be before a
stick of gum becomes as lethal as cocaine? Ok, that's alarmist. But seriously though, the more you give them, the
more they take.
And I don't think I can handle being a vegan or raw foodist. I need homecooked meals! :D
belgareth
12-20-2005, 01:38 AM
I eat home cooked meals most of
the time. If you look in our pantry you won't find pre-packaged or sugar/salt/fat laden foods. You'll find fresh
fruits and veggies and basic ingredients. It's up to each person to make sure what they eat is wholesome. If I want
a carrot cake, I'll probably make it myself because what passes for cake in the grocery store or even in most
bakeries is junk and not suitable for consumption.
Right now, I don't know if aspartame is the evil substance
those articles make it out to be. I can tell you though that all the fats and sugars most people consume as a part
of their daily diet is killing them. A huge part of the problem is that we as a group are much more interested in
having time to watch football or some idiotic sitcom to get off our behinds and do something for ourselves.
Arbitrarily throwing one food additive out as bad while we continue to pour crap by the gallon into our systems in
rather silly and a waste of time. We need to look at the whole picture and stop consuming so much garbage in
general. Aspartame would not be a question if we weren't so interested in junk food in the first place.
DrSmellThis
12-20-2005, 02:07 AM
http://www.cq.com/public/20051209_homeland.html
DrSmellThis
12-20-2005, 02:13 AM
http://www.washingto
npost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402528_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402528_pf.html)
DrSmellThis
12-20-2005, 02:17 AM
Bush claims he doesn't know. So this time the implicit admission that Bush lied on matters of
national security comes from one of his staunchest
supporters:
http:/
/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402121_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402121_pf.html)
belgareth
12-20-2005, 10:15 PM
This is just funny!
Computer worm traps child porn offender in Germany Tue Dec
20,2005
BERLIN (Reuters) - A child porn offender in Germany turned
himself in to the police after mistaking an email he received from a computer worm for an official warning that he
was under investigation, authorities said on Tuesday.
"It just goes
to show that computer worms aren't always destructive," said a spokesman for police in the western city of
Paderborn. "Here it helped us to uncover a crime which would otherwise probably have gone
undetected."
The 20-year-old was caught out by a version of the
"Sober" worm, a prolific Internet virus which can invade computers and then send out messages from a host of
fabricated addresses.
The trap was set when the man got an email
saying "an investigation is underway," that listed the sender as Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA).
Police charged him after finding pornographic images of children on his home computer.
Netghost56
12-22-2005, 05:59 PM
MP calls for ban on 'unsafe' sweetener
By Felicity Lawrence | The
Guardian Consumer Affairs Correspondent, Thursday, December 15, 2005
A member of the parliamentary select
committee on food and the environment yesterday called for emergency action to ban the artificial sweetener
aspartame, used in 6,000 food, drink and medicinal products.
The Liberal Democrat MP Roger Williams said in an
adjournment debate in the Commons that there was "compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance
to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether". In licensing aspartame for use, regulators around the
world had failed in their main task of protecting the public, he told MPs.
Mr Williams highlighted
new concerns about the additive's safety, raised by a recent Italian study that linked it to cancer in rats. He
said the history of aspartame's licensing put "regulators and politicians to shame", with the likes of Donald
Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary and former head of Searle, the company that discovered the sweetener, "calling in
his markers" to get it approved.
Responding for the government, the public health minister,
Caroline Flint, said a thorough independent review of safety data had been conducted as recently as 2001 and the
Food Standards Agency advice remained the same: aspartame is safe for use in food. She said the government took food
safety very seriously.
The European Food Safety Authority would be reviewing the Italian study as
soon as it had full data on it, but an initial review by the UK's expert committee on toxicity had not been
convinced by its authors' interpretation of their data. "I am advised that aspartame does not cause cancer," she
said, adding that artificial sweeteners also help to control obesity.
Aspartame is now consumed on
average every day by one in 15 people worldwide, most of whom are children, according to the MP. It is used to
sweeten no fewer than 6,000 products, from crisps, confectionery, chewing gums, diet and sports drinks to vitamin
pills and medicines, including those for children. Yet the science that supported its approval was "biased,
inconclusive and incompetent".
Mr Williams said he was using the immunity he was afforded under
parliamentary privilege to initiate a debate about aspartame's safety which had been largely repressed since the
early 1980s, with the help of the sweetener industry's lawyers.
Independent research published
last month by the European Ramazzini Foundation showed moderate regular consumption of aspartame led to a repeated
incidence of malignant tumours in rats and "should have set alarm bells ringing in health departments around the
world", he said. "The World Health Organisation recognises such findings in rats as being highly predictive of a
carcinogenic risk for humans. The contrast between the quality of the science in the Ramazzini study and the
industry studies could not be more clear and more damaging to the industry."
Mr Williams, the MP
for Brecon and Radnorshire and a Cambridge science graduate, said he had been looking into the safety of aspartame
for more than a year. At first he had been unconvinced by the "internet conspiracy theories" but he said what he had
found had "truly horrified" him.
Sound science and proper regulatory and political independence had
been notable by their absence from the approval of aspartame, he said. In addition to Mr Rumsfeld being instrumental
in securing aspartame's approval, with the support of the then newly elected president Ronald Reagan, there had
been numerous examples of decision makers who were worried about aspartame's safety being discredited or being
removed from their positions. Industry sympathisers had been appointed to replace them and were in turn recompensed
with lucrative jobs working for the sweetener industry.
The European Food Safety Authority said
last night that it planned to review the safety of aspartame as "a matter of high priority" in the light of the
Ramazzini Foundation study. The foundation's director, Dr Morando Soffritti, said he expected to send the authority
a 1,000-page dossier by the end of the month.
The industry's Aspartame Information Service said Mr
Williams' material brought no new information to the public. "The minister's response was accurate and on point,"
a statement said.
------------
DrSmellThis
01-11-2006, 03:35 PM
[url="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0111-01.htm"]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0111-01.htm[/url
]
DrSmellThis
01-13-2006, 01:45 PM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.nsa13jan13,1,3964287.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cs
et=true (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.nsa13jan13,1,3964287.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cse
t=true)
DrSmellThis
01-13-2006, 01:56 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cell13.h
tml (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cell13.html)
DrSmellThis
01-14-2006, 08:42 AM
It was one of the first things he did when he got in
office. This fact contradicts administration claims that it was 9/11 motivated. Tired of being lied to
yet?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml
...one thing that appears to be indisputable is that the NSA surveillance began well
before 9/11 and months before President Bush claims Congress gave him the power to use military force against
terrorist threats, which Bush says is why he believed he had the legal right to bypass the judicial
process. Notice the U.S. government document is conveniently
linked, for anyone who is a skeptic.
This warrantless domestic spying on American citizens is not only illegal,
it is impeachable.
belgareth
01-15-2006, 04:03 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/
story?id=1500338&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)
Netghost56
01-15-2006, 05:21 PM
Yeah, that's why I'm so
dumb. Public schooling.
Nowadays it's all about how you FEEL rather than what you KNOW. And the teachers can't
discipline kids anymore, so kids can do what they want.
There's a vid related to this available on bittorrent
(it's a independent
documentary):http://isohunt.com/release.php?ihq=who+controls+the+children&id=31687
It's about a program
started in the 90s that put intelligence in the back seat in education. (That was far back enough to affect
me).
Official site:
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
Related
info:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vo10no16.htm
http://www.educationnews.org/perspective
__who_controls_our_ch.htm
belgareth
01-15-2006, 08:34 PM
I've believed for a long time
that there is a general dumbing down of the overall population, that video just supports my fears. The schools are
not completely to blame though. Speaking as an old fart, if I'd have caused trouble in school my dad would have
ripped me a new ....well, you can imagine. Now parents sue the school if their kid gets into trouble.
Holmes
01-15-2006, 08:52 PM
Can't view the
video...
ISpeaking as an old fart, if I'd have caused trouble in school my dad would have
ripped me a new ....well, you can imagine. Now parents sue the school if their kid gets into
trouble.
It's amazing the degree to which everything is everyone else's fault these days.
Especially if there's a couple bucks in it.
"Is it possible, then, to sue you people?" - Sol
Rosenberg (The Jerky Boys), threatening a Lawyer who won't take his case.
belgareth
01-15-2006, 09:00 PM
//Rant=ON//
It isn't my fault
that...
I'm fat, even though I never exercise and eat garbage foods
I don't exercise
I broke the law and am in
jail
I cut myself playing catch with a knife
Burned mytself with coffeee while driving and eating
Wrecked my car
while talking on my cell phone
Got drunk, busted for drunk driving and lost my job
my wife caught me cheating and
divorced me
I can't hold a job
I lie
I cheat
I steal
I harm another person
and on
and on
and on
and
on...
//rant=off//
belgareth
01-30-2006, 04:59 AM
I love it. We demand other
countries hold democratic elections. When they hold those elections and the people vote in nnew leaqdership, we
aren't happy about it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_eu/rice;_ylt=AnC2meTgiZdrf98Us1KPFI.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A2Z2szaz
kxBHNlYwN0bQ (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_eu/rice;_ylt=AnC2meTgiZdrf98Us1KPFI.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A2Z2szazkxBH
NlYwN0bQ)--
tim929
01-30-2006, 05:37 AM
It is the privelage of being an
american to dissaprove of the choices that others make...but what we dont seem to understand is that if we dont like
the choices other people make it becomes incumbent uppon us to figure out a way to work WITH this situation rather
than sabotage the relationship.It may not work,but the bigger man will try and then say "I told you so" rather than
simply start dropping laser guided bombs from the get go.
DrSmellThis
02-03-2006, 04:39 PM
In this year's State of the
Union, Bush set a goal to eliminate tyranny everywhere, claiming that tyranny anywhere is a threat to our national
security. That belief would seem to imply us fighting in an awful lot of wars.
Bush's neocon interventionism,
and "US-government-everywhereism" is starting to piss off old-school conservatives; who believe in having a small
government, and taking care of our own business.
To wit, check out this scathing article by Pat
Buchanan:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.p
hp?id=12168 (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12168)
As far as I can tell from my reading of critical political discussions over the past five
years, there has been very, very little in the way of attacks from the left on traditional conservative or
Republican philosophies. These American ideas and ways of doing things are just as endangered as liberal insights
and practices. In the past it seems we've needed both perspectives, as well as the wisdom to transcend the
limitations of both.
Criticising this administration is not about partisanship; but is rather about patriotism.
This is not the America we grew up believing in, if I may be so bold. It's about fascism, corporatism, corruption,
and empire-building.
Netghost56
02-03-2006, 04:45 PM
Iraq war vets enter US political fray
Democrats have enlisted special help in the battle for Congress from a small band of Iraq war veterans,
hoping their military experience turns into campaign-trail credibility with voters.
At least 10 veterans of the
Iraq war are running for Congress, all but one as Democrats, in what amounts to an open challenge to both President
George W. Bush's policies in Iraq and the traditional Republican advantage on national security issues.
The
Iraq veterans, all political neophytes, say the call to arms in November's election is a natural extension of their
military service. For many, it is also a direct result of their experiences in a war they now oppose.
"The
veterans who served in Iraq have a special voice and a responsibility to continue our public service," said Patrick
Murphy, a lawyer and veteran of the Army's 82nd Airborne who is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge
Republican Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick in suburban Philadelphia.
"We've seen the truth and we're willing to stand up
for it," Murphy told Reuters. "I have seen with my own eyes why we need a change in direction there, but when I came
home I saw that it's not just about Iraq."
Democrats believe the war veterans will be good messengers in an
election year they hope focuses on the war in Iraq, Republican corruption scandals and sagging public confidence in
Bush's leadership.
The Iraq veterans, part of a larger group of more than 50 military veterans running for
Congress this year as Democrats, also could be an antidote to decades of Republican attacks on Democrats as weak on
defense.
"Their experience gives them instant credibility and the ability to break out and get their views
heard," said Amy Walter, a House analyst with the Cook Political Report. "But it can be a double-edged sword if they
get pigeonholed as one-issue candidates."
REPUBLICAN ONE
Republicans have one pro-war Iraq veteran running
for Congress - in Texas - and more than 40 military veterans on the ballot in House races, but they dismiss their
political impact.
"Having military experience is a great resume item, but it does not automatically make someone
a good candidate," said Carl Forti, spokesman for the House Republican campaign committee. "It takes a lot more to
be a credible candidate than one strong resume point."
Forti said many of the Iraq veterans are long shots
running in Republican districts where local and domestic issues dominate the agenda. The Democrats point to Paul
Hackett, an Iraq veteran who nearly pulled off a huge upset in a heavily Republican Ohio district last summer, for
inspiration.
Hackett is now running for the Senate in Ohio in a high-profile primary clash against Democratic
Rep. Sherrod Brown (news, bio, voting record). Other veterans in competitive races include Murphy, running in a
Democratic-leaning district, and Andrew Horne, a Marine Reserves lieutenant colonel vying for the right to challenge
perpetually endangered Republican Rep. Anne Northup (news, bio, voting record) in Kentucky.
Tammy Duckworth, a
helicopter pilot who lost both legs in Iraq, has garnered a wave of media attention for her race in the Republican
district of retiring Rep. Henry Hyde (news, bio, voting record) in Illinois.
The Democratic veterans all share a
distaste for the war, but like the rest of their party differ on the details of how to end it. They also pledge to
be more than one-issue candidates, and say their experiences in Iraq taught them bitter lessons about Bush's
leadership on a range of topics.
"The current circumstances in Iraq are just a symptom of what is wrong with the
administration," Horne told Reuters. "This administration acts with arrogance, doesn't get advice from Congress or
allies, has difficulty acknowledging its problems and politicizes everything."
Democrats have learned the
pitfalls of relying on military credentials in a campaign, most recently when decorated Vietnam War veteran John
Kerry saw his record shredded under heavy Republican attack during the 2004 White House race.
The Democratic
veterans have formed a political action committee to promote their cause and fight back against Republicans, and
will kick off the campaign with events in Washington next week.
_____________
belgareth
02-04-2006, 06:29 AM
Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 24 January
2006
10:03 am ET
Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions
without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.
And
they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of
view.
Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to
evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The
subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.
The results
were announced today.
"We did not see any increased activation of the
parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory
University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to
be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
Bias on both sides
The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring
information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.
Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas
that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response
similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.
The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said.
"Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want,
and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of
positive ones."
Notably absent were any increases in activation of
the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with
reasoning.
The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates,
President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked
to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the
contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.
The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious
contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.
"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person
can learn very little from new data," Westen said.
Vote for Tom Hanks
Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix,
such as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these
characters in the same manner.
The findings could prove useful
beyond the campaign trail.
"Everyone from executives and judges to
scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to
interpret 'the facts,'" Westen said.
The researchers will present
the findings Saturday at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology.
a.k.a.
02-04-2006, 09:44 AM
Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but
detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.
I can’t speak to the
scientific merit of this study, but you can reach the same conclusions by engaging folks in a little political
discussion. George Orwell called it “doublethink”: the capacity to hold two contradictory thoughts in your mind at
the same time.
In the novel “1984”, “doublethink” was a prerequisiste for success within the government
bureaucracy.
Of course the ultimate test of loyalty was being able to admit, and fully believe, that 2 +
2 = 5. I imagine we’ll be seeing that soon enough.
DrSmellThis
02-04-2006, 08:08 PM
What was the source for that
article?
People in general hate to question their own beliefs. The pain of doing this becomes the overriding
concern, and reason is abandoned. They self identify with their beliefs. People can learn to be flexible and not
feel significant pain from admitting "they're wrong", or simply shift their beliefs whenever indicated. But it is a
learned skill that takes much effort. I think it is a mark of emotional maturity.
belgareth
02-04-2006, 10:52 PM
The source of the article is
listed in the article. I don't have an opinion on the matter because I am not trained in that area. I simply found
the concept interesting and decided to share it.
DrSmellThis
02-05-2006, 03:30 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc
f/02/05/cartoon.protests/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/cartoon.protests/index.html)
People sure do get into a lot of trouble when they take their own
notion of God and religious beliefs too seriously.
belgareth
02-05-2006, 03:36 PM
That they do, don't they?
a.k.a.
02-05-2006, 03:40 PM
http://www.cnn.co
m/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/cartoon.protests/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/cartoon.protests/index.html)
People sure do get into a lot of trouble when
they take their own notion of God and religious beliefs too seriously.
That they do.
I wonder what
the reaction would be if somebody tried to jokingly depict Jesus as a terrorist. I can still remember all the ruckus
from Martin Scorcese's "Last Temptation of Christ". In that film, Jesus was merely depicted as capable of human
desire.
Netghost56
02-05-2006, 03:51 PM
That was a great movie. Very
thought provoking.
belgareth
02-05-2006, 09:41 PM
I can’t speak to
the scientific merit of this study, but you can reach the same conclusions by engaging folks in a little political
discussion. George Orwell called it “doublethink”: the capacity to hold two contradictory thoughts in your mind at
the same time.
In the novel “1984”, “doublethink” was a prerequisiste for success within the government
bureaucracy.
Of course the ultimate test of loyalty was being able to admit, and fully believe, that 2 + 2 = 5.
I imagine we’ll be seeing that soon enough.
Yeah, that crossed my mind when I read the article. Mr. Orwell
was an astute observer of human nature and politics.
InternationalPlayboy
02-06-2006, 06:37 AM
http://www.cnn.co
m/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/cartoon.protests/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/cartoon.protests/index.html)
People sure do get into a lot of trouble when
they take their own notion of God and religious beliefs too seriously.
I came across the cartoons
accidentally last week. I won't post a direct link to them but a bit of searching can find them at
humaneventsonline.com. I find it interesting that there has been a violent reaction to these cartoons, some of which
depict the person of controversy as an instigator of violence.
DrSmellThis
02-06-2006, 03:12 PM
I
came across the cartoons accidentally last week. I won't post a direct link to them but a bit of searching can find
them at humaneventsonline.com. I find it interesting that there has been a violent reaction to these cartoons, some
of which depict the person of controversy as an instigator of violence.Black and white thinking based in
superstitious fundamentalism. Not a good combo. But according to a CNN reader poll today, 38% of respondents believe
respect for religion should outweigh the right to free speech. Has anyone else ever felt like an alien on their own
planet?
a.k.a.
02-06-2006, 06:57 PM
I see it as more of a racism/hate
crime issue. Muslims are already being profiled as terrorists. So the image of Mohamed with a bomb is kind of like
depicting the virgin of Guadalupe as a welfare mother, Martin Luther King as a street thug, Thomas Jefferson as an
torturer and etc. It’s not the religion being mocked. It’s the people.
Contrast this cartoon with Rushdie’s
“Satanic Verses”, which satirized Mohamed in order to mock the authority of mullahs and ayatolas — without insulting
the dignity of the people. Now that was a free speech issue.
DrSmellThis
02-07-2006, 03:50 AM
I see it as more
of a racism/hate crime issue. Muslims are already being profiled as terrorists. So the image of Mohamed with a bomb
is kind of like depicting the virgin of Guadalupe as a welfare mother, Martin Luther King as a street thug, Thomas
Jefferson as an torturer and etc. It’s not the religion being mocked. It’s the people.
Contrast this cartoon with
Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”, which satirized Mohamed in order to mock the authority of mullahs and ayatolas — without
insulting the dignity of the people. Now that was a free speech issue.Hmmm... yeah, I guess the cartoons
could be considered offensive -- not that I really understood them. I am aware they were sort of right wing
cartoons. But how is this not still free speech again? I mean, their protests are also free speech -- until
somebody gets hurt.
One uncomfortable thing I read was that Mohammed was actually a quite violent person from the
very beginning. I believe he led a pretty violent army that took over a lot of towns. If that is true, and I don't
trust every history book I read, Muslims would do well to deal with that.
Honestly, I've seen lots of obscene
art about Jesus but was never offended, even though I was raised Catholic. I think people take Jesus more
"seriously" than he took himself in some important ways.
I honestly think it's healthy to laugh at and see
the folly in even the most "sacred things", since it's not really the "things themselves" that are sacred, if that
makes sense (and I'm sure it doesn't to everyone). According to this line of thinking, though, the more extreme
the mockery one can appreciate, the healthier it is.
belgareth
02-07-2006, 05:57 AM
Reading the local paper this morning I ran across something and wanted to share it. The city of Dallas has
determined they need more bilingual teachers. There's already a legitimate debate about hiring teachers to teach in
spanish but I found another part of it a little baffling. They want to hire illegal immigrants to teach bilingual
classes! That's going a bit far. These people are in this country illegally and we are going to reward them by
hiring them to teach our children?
tim929
02-07-2006, 06:40 AM
The decline of Rome went this way
too bel...Romans became to afluent and lazy to do the work for themsleves and began importing slaves and barbarians
to do the work for them...in the end,we got some realy cool ruins to explore when we go on vacation to Europe.In
generations to come,the white house and the capitol building will be little more than archeological amusements.The
Romans had a problem that we are having right now in fact.The young men of Rome had absolutly no use for entering
military service.They were fat,lazy,over stimulated by the games and the excess of being a Roman and as a
result,Rome had to import barbarians to fill the ranks of its armies with promises of land and citizenship to those
who served.At this point,our recruiters are resorting to some very dirty tricks to fill thier quotas.
One such
trick involves quietly covering up a recruits past criminal history,getting them in and calling it good.By the time
the nice folks at BUPERS (Bureau of Personel) figure out that you arent eligable for service,its too late...the
records for that recruiter show that he made quota,even though his recruits are getting sent home.Thats the only
reason that ANY of the recruiters are even coming close to making quotas.Try finding people who are willing to work
in a warehouse for 8.00 an hour.The only ones willing to work for low wages anymore are Mexicans.They will work for
less than minimum wage and wont complain.They will live several families to an appartment to keep down costs and
work for less than you can hire an American for.Thats why G.W. Bush is such a pussy when it comes to imigration.His
friends back home in Crawford Texas need illeagals to do the work because the rest of us wont work for poverty
wages,and they arent willing to pay more than poverty wages.If we cut off the supply of illeagals now,they would be
put in the uncomfortable position to have to actualy pay fair wages to real Americans that are supporting families
that expect to have an actual standard of living.
I know PLENTY of white folks("white folks" includes
blacks,asians,native americans,pacific islanders etc. who were born and bread in the U.S.A. and hispanics that were
either born here or are actualy LEAGAL) who are fluent in spanish AND english.But since the buget for teachers is so
low,they figure they can hire a half dozen illeagals for the price of one of these other totaly capable and
qualified people.
I realy dont hate Mexicans...in point of fact,I work with a couple immigrants and they and
thier families are fabulous.But they came here LEAGALY and if they hadnt I would have no remorse about turning them
in to INS at gunpoint with a smile!but these people took the time to jump through the hoops and worked hard for the
RIGHT to be here.Yes...the RIGHT to be here.Its thier RIGHT because they did it LEAGALY!!! And God bless them for
it! I have no use for a person whos first act uppon entering my home was to commit a felony just by being here!
Sorry if I sound like an intolerant a$$ hole...but...in point of fact...I am an intolerant a$$ hole and proud of
it too!
belgareth
02-07-2006, 12:19 PM
Compromise Proposed in Eminent Domain Fight Tue Feb 7,
2006
NEW LONDON, Conn. - The mayor of New London, where a fight over
government seizing property led to a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is proposing a compromise for a
group of homeowners.
Under a plan presented to the City Council
Monday night, four people whose homes were seized for a private development would be allowed to stay. The city would
own their properties and the residents would have to pay the city to live
there.
Two other homeowners were excluded from Mayor Beth Sabilia's
plan; one doesn't live in the home and the other moved in after the court battle
began.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June that the quasi-public New
London Development Corp. could take homes in the Fort Trumbull area for private economic development. The 94-acre
project, proposed in 1998, calls for a hotel, office space and upscale housing.
The court also said states are free to ban the taking of property under eminent domain for such projects,
and many states have begun considering such bans.
One of the property
owners who sued over the Fort Trumbull seizures, Susette Kelo, said the mayor's proposal shows that the houses and
the private development can coexist. But she and another plaintiff, Michael Cristofaro, said they aren't interested
in paying rent for homes they owned.
"The ongoing battle of the last
eight years has not been to allow us to live in our homes and pay rent to the city of New London until we die," Kelo
said.
The city council voted Monday to collect rent from the
homeowners while city Law Director Thomas Londregan studies the mayor's
proposal.
Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development
Corp., said the agency would defer to the council's decision.
The
government offered what it said was fair value for the Fort Trumbull homes. Most residents took the money and left,
but those remaining either say the money isn't enough or their homes aren't for sale at all. Money for the houses
still standing has been set aside for the homeowners.
belgareth
02-07-2006, 12:37 PM
There is nothing
wrong with mexican people, my son in law is one. He and his family are all fine people as are most other mexican
people I've known. The majority have stronger family values and a better work ethic than most home-grown Americans
that I know.
Nor am I opposed to immigration whatsoever. This country was made up of immigrants, my wife is one
and most of my older sister's in-laws are immigrants. Every one of them jumped through hoops to come here, met all
the legal standards and made every effort to become a participating member of this country.
All that said, we
are going to hire ellegal immigrants to work and be paid from or tax money? That's not even rational! That's
nearly as wild as giving them driver's licenses. How can you have a law forbidding illegal entry then give the
people who broke the law quasi-legal status by hiring them to work for the government or licensing them to operate
motor vehicles on the streets? Why bother having immigration laws whatsoever?
a.k.a.
02-07-2006, 08:59 PM
The Supreme Court
ruled 5-4 in June that the quasi-public New London Development Corp. could take homes in the Fort Trumbull area for
private economic development.
I would be so pissed if that happened to me.
It’s bad
enough when the city wants to expand freeways. But dispossessing one person of their property so that another person
can get rich? That’s un-American. It’s the kind of stuff that was happening in England when the first settlers
arrived.
belgareth
02-07-2006, 09:01 PM
And now, the city is generously
offering to allow those people to keep their homes IF THE PAY THE CITY RENT FOR THEIR OWN PROPERTY!!! That was the
part that really hit home with me.
a.k.a.
02-07-2006, 10:29 PM
Hmmm... yeah, I
guess the cartoons could be considered offensive -- not that I really understood them. I am aware they were sort
of right wing cartoons. But how is this not still free speech again? I mean, their protests are also free speech --
until somebody gets hurt.
You’re right. Racist free speech is still free speech. Governments shouldn’t
censor it, but citizens should certainly protest it.
One uncomfortable thing I read was
that Mohammed was actually a quite violent person from the very beginning. I believe he led a pretty violent army
that took over a lot of towns. If that is true, and I don't trust every history book I read, Muslims would do well
to deal with that.
Mohammed was no pacifist. He and his followers were being attacked by the rulers of
Mecca. So he negotiated sanctuary with Arabs in Medina. The rulers of Mecca continued harassing his followers with
raiding parties. Mohammed managed to unite the various Arab tribes of Medina against them, but two Jewish tribes
wanted to stay neutral, and one supported the rulers of Mecca. So Mohammed expelled the two neutral tribes and
massacred the enemy tribe — selling the women and children into slavery.
Six years later he led and army of
10,000 that conquered Mecca.
This much is uncontroversial.
I don’t know if Mohammed personally
led other conquests but it certainly wasn’t the end of Muslim conquests in the Middle East, North Africa and parts
of Europe. Like all conquests, it was rationalized as a civilizing mission. Maybe in some ways it was: art, science,
literature, hygiene, medicine, architecture...
All the major religions of our day were spread through
conquest (unless you want to count indigenous faiths, voodoo and Wicca as major religions). Christianity has the
bloodiest history by far and, to this day, it’s primary symbol is the cross. The ancient equivalent of our modern
electric chair.
All religious issues aside. No European culture is in the moral position to preach pacifism
to any other culture.
DrSmellThis
02-09-2006, 10:19 PM
Mohammed was no
pacifist. He and his followers were being attacked by the rulers of Mecca. So he negotiated sanctuary with Arabs in
Medina. The rulers of Mecca continued harassing his followers with raiding parties. Mohammed managed to unite the
various Arab tribes of Medina against them, but two Jewish tribes wanted to stay neutral, and one supported the
rulers of Mecca. So Mohammed expelled the two neutral tribes and massacred the enemy tribe — selling the women and
children into slavery.
Six years later he led and army of 10,000 that conquered Mecca.
This much is
uncontroversial.
I don’t know if Mohammed personally led other conquests but it certainly wasn’t the end of
Muslim conquests in the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. Like all conquests, it was rationalized as a
civilizing mission. Maybe in some ways it was: art, science, literature, hygiene, medicine, architecture...
All
the major religions of our day were spread through conquest (unless you want to count indigenous faiths, voodoo and
Wicca as major religions). Christianity has the bloodiest history by far and, to this day, it’s primary symbol is
the cross. The ancient equivalent of our modern electric chair.
All religious issues aside. No European culture
is in the moral position to preach pacifism to any other culture.True enough. And it is incumbent on each
tradition to own up to, and critically examine, its violent, inhumane histories.
At least Jesus was himself a
pacifist, and champion of peace, nonjudgment, compassion, and justice. That in no way excuses the Crusades, or any
number of other destructive actions of the Church. There is little resemblance between Christian religions and the
life philosophy of the historical Jesus.
DrSmellThis
02-09-2006, 11:03 PM
What a
suprise!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09
/cia.leak/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/cia.leak/index.html)
On September 30, 2003, President Bush said, "If there is a leak out of my
administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care
of."
belgareth
02-17-2006, 08:35 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/ap_on_re_us/ivy_league_sex;_ylt=Al_A6KOth8POWoVMISa4wRB
vzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/ap_on_re_us/ivy_league_sex;_ylt=Al_A6KOth8POWoVMISa4wRBvzwcF;_ ylu=X3oDMTA
5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA)--
belgareth
02-18-2006, 10:47 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/a
p_on_go_pr_wh/presidential_errors (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/presidential_errors)
Netghost56
02-19-2006, 12:55 AM
I don't agree with Wilson's
mention. He stuck to his guns, and he was trying for world peace. He got closer than anyone ever did. And he hit it
at just the right time. It was the squabbling of the other nations that killed the LON.
belgareth
02-19-2006, 05:39 AM
I'm not an historian and
don't claim to know enough to judge. Only found the article interesting. It's likely that if viewed from another
perspective that you could completely re-order the list.
Mtnjim
02-20-2006, 01:55 PM
PLASTICS
By Russell
Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Good morning.
We've just awakened. Cup of coffee in hand.
We flip through
today's papers.
Looking for stories by our favorite corporate crime reporters.
And this is what we
found:
In the New York Times, Jane Perlez reports that Newmont Mining
Corporation will pay $30 million to
Indonesia in a settlement of a civil
lawsuit in which the government argued that the company had polluted a
bay
with arsenic and mercury. The settlement will have no effect on a
criminal trial of the company and its Indonesian
director that is now
under way in the province of Northern Sulawesi.
In USA Today, Matt Kelley reports that
Senator Arlen Specter asked the
Senate Ethics Committee to investigate whether a top aide improperly
helped direct
nearly $50 million in Pentagon spending to clients
represented by her husband. The Pennsylvania Republican asked
for the
review of legislative assistant Vicki Siegel Herson's actions after
Kelly reported Thursday that his
office inserted 13 provisions into
spending bills benefiting clients of her husband, Michael Herson, a
registered
lobbyist.
In the New York Times, James Glanz reports that Christopher Joseph
Cahill, an executive for a company
that was hired by Kellogg, Brown &
Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, to fly cargo into Iraq for the war
effort
pled guilty to inflating invoices by $1.14 million to cover
fraudulent "war risk surcharges."
The Associated
Press reports out of Charleston, West Virginia that
federal regulators have issued safety citations at the West
Virginia
coal mines where 14 miners died last month. (Big of them. How about a
criminal investigation?)
In the
Washington Post, Kathleen Day reports that the Securities and
Exchange Commission filed civil charges against two
local auditors with
the accounting firm KPMG LLP for failing to act on widespread
bookkeeping irregularities that
the SEC says helped U.S. Foodservice
Inc. overstate profits by millions of dollars in 1999 and 2000. The
civil
complaint alleges that Kevin Hall and Rosemary Meyer "engaged in
improper professional conduct" because they found
numerous "red flags"
in the bookkeeping at the Columbia, Maryland-based hotel and restaurant
supply company but
didn't alert the company's audit committee.
The Associated Press reports that three former executives of a
Berkshire
Hathaway unit and a former American International Group official pled
not guilty to federal charges of
conspiring to distort AIG's finances.
The New York Times, in an editorial titled "Price-Gouging on
Cancer
Drugs?" says that "the high price charged for Avastin, a drug that has
proved moderately effective against
colon cancer and is about to be used
against breast and lung cancer, seems hard to justify on any ground
other
than maximum profit for its maker. The pricing scheme planned by
Genentech and its majority owner, Roche, is a sign
of how the rising
cost of new life-extending drugs may affect American health care unless
ways are found to
mitigate the trend." The Times reported this week that
Genentech's pricing for Avastin will drive its cost to
$8,800 a month
for lung cancer and $7,700 a month for breast cancer, up from the $4,400
cost for colon cancer
patients. The manufacturers go beyond the standard
argument that high prices are needed to recoup research costs
and add a
new twist: the price reflects the value of this medicine to society.
In the Houston Chronicle, Mary
Flood reports that the criminal trial of
Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling is suddenly picking up
speed.
Bloomberg reports that drug wholesaler McKesson Corp. will pay $3
million to settle allegations that it
defrauded the Pentagon by charging
more for medicine than government contracts allowed. The civil
settlement
resolves claims McKesson overcharged for pharmaceutical
products from October 1997 to December 2001, the Justice
Department said.
This is from a quick glance at one morning's newspapers.
And what are we to conclude?
The
idea that the Skilling/Lay trial in Houston is the peak of the most
recent "wave" of corporate crime is a
fantasy.
The wave has not peaked.
And will not peak until the government stops playing tiddlywinks
with
society's most dangerous criminals -- the white-collar class.
And so we update that scene from the movie
The Graduate where the older
guy whispers into a young Dustin Hoffman the one word he believes is the
future --
"plastics."
We look into our crystal ball and whisper into the ears of all young
reporters, prosecutors,
investors, and lawyers -- "corporate crime."
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate
Crime
Reporter, <http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com>. Robert Weissman is
editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor,
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org>. Mokhiber and Weissman are
co-authors of On the
Rampage: Corporate Predators and the Destruction of
Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press).
(c) Russell
Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
This article is posted
at:
<http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2006/000231.html>
DrSmellThis
02-20-2006, 08:04 PM
Chertoff defends Arab firm control of U.S.
ports
Homeland Security director says government review provided
‘assurances’
MSNBC staff and news service
reports
Updated: 2:56 p.m. ET Feb. 19,
2006
WASHINGTON - Homeland Security Director
Michael Chertoff on Sunday defended the government’s security review of an Arab company given permission to take
over operations at six major U.S. ports.
“We
have a very disciplined process, it’s a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of
assets that we consider relevant to national security,” Chertoff told Tim Russert on
“Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/).”
London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought last week by
Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates. Peninsular and Oriental runs major
commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
“We don’t take a risk. What we do is we
require a very careful review—we have the FBI involved, we have the Department of Defense involved—of what the
challenges are. We have, in fact, dealt with this port before because we deal with it overseas as part of our
comprehensive global security network,” Chertoff said.
“We’ve built in, and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these kinds of things don’t
happen. And, you know, this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with the need to
still maintain a real robust global trading environment.”
U.S. lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale, approved by the Bush administration,
as a possible risk to national security.
“It’s
unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history,” Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. said on “Fox News
Sunday.”
“Most Americans are scratching their
heads, wondering why this company from this region now,” Graham said.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, said she would support legislation to block
foreign companies from buying port facilities.
“I’m going to support legislation to say ‘No more, no way.’ We have to have American companies
running our own ports ... Our infrastructure is at risk,” she said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Added Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.: “I think we’ve
got to look into this company. We’ve got to ensure ... the American people that their national security interests
are going to be protected.”
At least one
Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.
“Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings,” Chertoff told CNN’s “Late
Edition.”
“We have to balance the paramount
urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system,” he added.
Sen. Robert Menendez, who is working on
legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the
U.S., said Chertoff’s comments showed him that the administration “just does not get it.”
In a statement, the New Jersey Democrat said,
“No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of
our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a
foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports.”
Chertoff said Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such
a deal because it is based in the UAE.
Critics
have cited the UAE’s history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001.
In addition, they contend the
UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya
by a Pakistani scientist.
DP World has said it
intends to “maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements.” The UAE’s foreign minister has
described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10704051/
a.k.a.
02-21-2006, 06:20 AM
“We have to
balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading
system,”
In other words, if you’re an average Arab that comes to this country looking for freedom and
opportunity, don’t be surprised if you get detained without charges, denied legal representation, your assets are
seized and you get shipped off to some undisclosed location where you will be tortured. If you’re a big shot Arab
entrepreneur that comes looking for a way to spend lots of money, don’t be surprised if it takes less than a month
to get high level security clearance and you recieve lucrative opportunities to engage in a highly sensitive
business.
Actually, I think Barbara Boxer has it right. It wasn’t much better when a British firm was
in charge of the facility. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have private enterprises in
charge of national security in the first place. There’s little public oversight, not much accountability and there’s
always a strong motivation to cut corners.
Mtnjim
02-21-2006, 11:13 AM
From E-Week, a computer geek's magazine!!:type:
Judge Orders DOJ to Release Spying
Records
By Caron Carlson
February 17, 2006
A federal judge ordered the Department of Justice to
release records related to the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic spying program by March 8, or else
explain the legal basis under which the records cannot be released.
The order was handed down Feb. 16 in a case
brought against the Justice Department by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
EPIC requested the documents
in December under the Freedom of Information Act, after the New York Times reported that President Bush authorized
the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance of people in the United States without a court order.
EPIC asked four
offices at the Justice Department to hasten the processing and release of the spy program records, and the offices
agreed that the requests merited expedited handling.
However, it remained unclear when EPIC would receive the
information it sought, and so it filed a lawsuit Jan. 19 to stop what it called the agency's "unlawful attempts" to
prevent the center from obtaining the documents.
In ordering the Justice Department to expedite the FOIA request
processing, Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said that the
department's opinion that it could determine how much time is needed was "easily rejected."
For advice on how to
secure your network and applications, as well as the latest security news, visit Ziff Davis Internet's Security IT
Hub.
"Under DOJ's view of the expedited processing provisions of FOIA, the government would have carte
blanche to determine the time line for processing expedited requests," Kennedy wrote in his opinion.
EPIC asked
the Justice Department for four types of records, including an audit of NSA domestic surveillance activities, a
checklist showing probable cause to eavesdrop, communications about the use of information NSA obtained, and other
documents concerning increased domestic surveillance.
The Justice Department argued that working too fast to
respond to the FOIA request would increase the odds that exempted information (such as classified documents) would
be released accidentally, but the judge dismissed that concern.
Click here to read more about New York rejecting
the Department of Justice's request to track people's cell phone information.
"Vague suggestions that
inadvertent release of exempted documents might occur are insufficient to outweigh the very tangible benefits that
FOIA seeks to further—government openness and accountability," he wrote.
Noting that public awareness of the
government's actions is necessary in democracy, Kennedy said that timely awareness is also a
necessity.
"President Bush has invited meaningful debate about the warrantless surveillance program," Kennedy
wrote.
"That can only occur if DOJ processes its FOIA requests in a timely fashion and releases the
information sought."
David Sobel, general counsel for EPIC, said that the order vindicates the public's right to
know about the spying program.
"The administration has attempted to spin this story by controlling the flow of
information, but the court has now rejected that strategy," Sobel said.
"The government must now produce all
relevant information, or provide a compelling justification to withhold it."
DrSmellThis
02-22-2006, 10:43 AM
NSC, Cheney Aides Conspired to Out CIA Operative
By Jason Leopold
t r u t
h o u t | Investigative Report Monday 20 February 2006
The investigation into the leak of covert CIA
operative Valerie Plame Wilson is heating up. Evidence is mounting that senior officials in the office of Vice
President Dick Cheney and the National Security Council conspired to unmask Plame Wilson's identity to reporters
in an effort to stop her husband from publicly criticizing the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence,
according to sources close to the two-year-old probe.
In recent weeks, investigators working for Special
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald have narrowed their focus to a specific group of officials who played a direct
role in pushing the White House to cite bogus documents claiming that Iraq attempted to purchase 500 tons of
uranium from Niger, which Plame Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had exposed as highly
suspect.
One high level behind-the-scenes player who has been named by witnesses in the case as a
possible source for reporters in the leak is Robert Joseph, formerly the director of nonproliferation at the
National Security Council. Joseph is responsible for placing the infamous "sixteen words" about Iraq's
attempt to purchase uranium from Niger in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
It's unknown when Fitzgerald will present the grand jury with additional evidence related to this aspect of the
case or if he is close to securing indictments. The sources said the Special Prosecutor is very "methodical,"
and they expect the investigation to continue well into the spring.
The new grand jury hearing
evidence in the leak case was empanelled in November. Right now, the jurors are still absorbing two years' worth
of evidence Fitzgerald presented to the jurors a couple of weeks after the previous grand jury's term expired
at the end of October. Sources said the jurors have raised numerous legal questions about unnamed senior Bush
administration officials against whom Fitzgerald is trying to secure indictments.
Sources close to the
probe said witnesses involved in the case told FBI investigators that Joseph was one of the recipients of a
classified State Department memo in June 2003 that not only debunked the Niger allegations but also included a
top-secret reference to Valerie Plame Wilson's work for the CIA, and that she may have been responsible for
recommending that the CIA send her husband to Niger to investigate the uranium claims in February 2002.
Joseph did not return calls for comment. A spokeswoman for the vice president's office said she would not
comment on "rumors" or "speculation" as long as the investigation is ongoing. Hadley's spokeswoman also did
not return calls for comment, but she has said in the past that Hadley played no role in the leak.
The
sources added that the witnesses testified that Joseph and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley
had worked directly with senior officials from vice president Cheney's office - including Cheney's former
chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, National Security Adviser John Hannah, and White House Deputy Chief
of Staff Karl Rove - during the month of June to coordinate a response to reporters who had phoned the vice
president's office and the NSC about the administration's use of the Niger documents.
Libby was
indicted in October on five counts of lying to investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice related to his
role in the Plame Wilson leak. Legal scholars said that Fitzgerald can ask a grand jury to add conspiracy
charges against Libby if he uncovers evidence that Libby and other administration officials worked together to
leak Plame Wilson's identity to reporters in an effort to silence her husband. If additional charges were
filed against Libby it would come in the form of a superseding indictment. Fitzgerald would have to introduce new
evidence and witnesses against Libby to the grand jury, and the grand jury would decide whether there were
enough evidence to support the superseding indictment.
In a court filing (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_060216.pdf) made public Friday in
response to a defense motion in which Libby's attorneys wanted Fitzgerald to turn over highly classified
documents to assist the defense's case, Fitzgerald made it clear that Libby was not charged with conspiracy.
"Libby is not charged with conspiracy or any other offense involving acting in concert with others, and the
indictment lists no un-indicted co-conspirators," states Fitzgerald's motion, which asks a judge to deny
the defense motion seeking evidence Fitzgerald said is unrelated to Libby's criminal indictment.
That
could change, however, the sources said, if there is enough evidence to support conspiracy charges.
Although that remains to be seen, former State Department and CIA officials who have testified about their role
in the leak said they believe officials at the National Security Council and in the vice president's office
worked together to unmask Plame Wilson to reporters, specifically to undercut her husband's credibility. They
said that Joseph was one NSC staffer who worked with Cheney officials to do so.
Joseph, who is now the
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control - a position once held by John Bolton, now United States Ambassador to
the United Nations - testified before the grand jury that he played no part in the leak and was not involved
in attempts by the administration to discredit Wilson.
Moreover, Joseph testified that he did not recall
receiving a warning in the form of a phone call from Alan Foley, director of the CIA's nonproliferation,
intelligence and arms control center, saying that the "sixteen words" should not be included in Bush's speech,
the sources said.
Foley had revealed this element during a closed-door hearing before the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence back in July 2003 - just two weeks after Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York
Times that proved the administration cited suspect intelligence claiming Iraq attempted to purchase uranium
from Niger.
The Senate committee had held hearings during this time to try to find out how the
administration came to rely on the Niger intelligence at a time when numerous intelligence agencies had warned
top officials in the Bush administration that it was unreliable.
Foley said he spoke to Joseph a day or
two before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address and told Joseph that detailed
references to Iraq and Niger should be excluded from Bush's speech. Foley told committee members that Joseph
agreed to water down the language and would instead, he told Foley, attribute the intelligence to the British,
which is exactly what Bush's speech said.
However, a few weeks before Foley's meeting with the Senate
committee, the Niger intelligence was beginning to unravel and threatened to expose the roles of Libby,
Hadley, Joseph, Hannah, and Rove in getting the administration to rely upon it to build the case for war.
The sources said it was during this time that Libby, Hadley, Joseph, Hannah and Rove plotted to silence Wilson by
leaking his wife's name to a specific group of reporters, saying that she chose him for the fact-finding
mission to Niger and as a result his investigation was highly suspect. It's unclear what role, if any, Cheney
played, but the sources said Fitzgerald is trying to determine if the vice president was involved.
The
sources said Hannah is one of the cooperating witnesses in the probe.
The sources said this time frame was
chosen because there were "rumors" that Wilson was "going to go public" and reveal that he had checked out
the Niger claims on behalf of the CIA and that there was no truth to them. According to the sources close to
the probe, all five of the officials have spoken with reporters about Plame Wilson.
At the same time that
Plame Wilson's CIA status was leaked to reporters, Libby, Rove and Hadley had been exchanging emails that
included draft statements explaining how the "sixteen words" ended up in President Bush's State of the
Union address, the sources added.
"Before Mr. Wilson's article appeared in the New York Times," one
source close to the case said, "the administration still insisted that Niger still had merit. It was only
after the article had been published that the White House accepted responsibility."
Wilson disclosed in
an op-ed he wrote in the New York Times that he had been the special envoy chosen by the CIA in February 2002 to
travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from the
African country.
Wilson's fact-finding mission had come as a result of additional questions Vice
President Cheney raised with the CIA about the veracity of those allegations a month or so before Wilson was
selected for the mission. Wilson wrote in the column that he had reported back to the CIA eight days after his
trip that there was no truth to the charges. In his column, he accused the administration of ignoring his report.
He said President Bush and Cheney continued to cite the Niger uranium intelligence, knowing it was false, in
order to dupe the public and Congress into supporting the war.
In the four months prior to writing his
column, Cheney and officials from the NSC insisted that the Niger intelligence had merit, and said as much
publicly, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Association found that they were crude forgeries.
Moreover, there is evidence that Cheney, Hadley, Libby, and numerous other officials were warned as early as
March 2002 - one year before the start of the Iraq war - that claims suggesting Iraq tried to purchase uranium
from Niger were baseless.
Indeed, witnesses in the case have testified that President Bush's senior
aides, the vice president's office, the Pentagon, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the National Security Council had received and
read a March 9, 2002, cable sent by the CIA that debunked the Niger claims.
The cable was prepared by a
CIA analyst and was based on Wilson's oral report upon his return from Niger. It did not mention Wilson by name,
but quoted a "CIA source" and Niger officials Wilson had questioned during his eight-day mission, who said
there was absolutely no truth to the claims that Iraq had tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium ore
from Niger.
Cheney and other officials connected to the leak have said over the years that they never saw
such a report from the CIA, and had never heard of Wilson until he became the subject of news accounts in which
the former ambassador called into question the veracity of the Niger documents upon which the uranium claims
were based.
The sources said it was during this month, March 2003, when Wilson arrived on the
administration's radar as a result of his public comments that alleged the White House had manipulated
intelligence, that Cheney, Libby, and Hadley spearheaded an effort to discredit Wilson.
It was during the
course of their attempts to attack Wilson's credibility and rebut his charges that officials in the State
Department, the CIA, Cheney's office, and the National Security Council - many of whom were responsible for
pushing the administration to cite the Niger claims - learned that Wilson's wife was a covert CIA agent and,
upon learning that she may have been responsible for sending Wilson to Niger, leaked her name to a handful of
reporters.
Five days after Wilson's explosive column was published, CIA Director George Tenet accepted
responsibility for allowing the infamous "sixteen words" to be included in Bush's January 28, 2003, State of
the Union address. Many people interpreted this as Tenet falling on his sword to protect the president.
Two weeks later, the CIA revealed that other administration officials were culpable as well. CIA officials sent
Hadley two memos in October 2002 warning him not to continue peddling the Niger claims to the White House
because the intelligence was not accurate.
Hadley, who didn't heed the CIA's warnings at the time, said
during a press conference on July 23, 2003, that he had forgotten about the memos.
belgareth
02-22-2006, 10:55 AM
You know, the more I read the
more I think Cheney is the real bad guy here. Sometimes it seems like he pushes all the buttons and King George is
only doing what he's told. Doesn't speak any better of GWB but might make things clearer.
DrSmellThis
02-22-2006, 02:13 PM
Published on Wednesday,
February 22, 2006 by Knight Ridder (http://www.realcities.com/)
Dubai Company Set to Run U.S. Ports Has Ties to
Administration
by
Michael McAuliff
WASHINGTON - The
Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House. One
is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale
of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal
and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port
operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The
other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by
Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to
give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
"The more you look at this
deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who said the deal was
rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.
Besides
operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and
Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
"It's particularly troubling that the United States
would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's
Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping
Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
"It always raises flags" when administration officials
have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The New York Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day investigation should have
been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the
longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in
control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the
U.S."
Congressional sources said the president has until March 2 to trigger that closer look.
"The most
important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.
© 2006 KRT Wire and wire service sources
Mtnjim
02-23-2006, 02:28 PM
All I can say to the above post is
"Yes, and??"!!
It's to be expected Bush and friends is going to get as much for his friends as he can, it's a
given!!!
tim929
02-23-2006, 03:13 PM
Going out and handing lucrative
contracts to friends is a time honored tradition in politics.Clinton did it,Bush Sr. did it,reagan did it,Carter did
it,Ford did it,Nixon did it....Caesar did it,the Pharos all did it...Its just the way politics is.The problems I
have with this administration are these:The contracts that are being handed out bear fruit for a very small number
of people rather than "floating all boats" and the fact that this administration is so blatant and "in your face"
about it.At least Clinton made an effort to make it look legit.These people dont even try...they just ram it through
and smile.I suppose its thier twisted way of claiming to be honest by not hiding the fact that they are bending us
over and...well...you get the picture.
DrSmellThis
02-23-2006, 04:07 PM
Last night on the radio I heard an eye-opening interview with one of Ronald Reagan's former economic
advisers, a former Wall Street Journal economics reporter (hardly a "left wing liberal" by history). I remember his
analysis well; but not his name, unfortunately. If I find more info on him I'll post it.
The U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics released some employment numbers recently, showing that only two million jobs were created over the
past five years.
That's one million in the private sector and one million in the public sector. But in
no way does that represent a real increase in jobs.
The number of jobs required to keep pace with
population growth over that period was 9 million.
So we are short by 7 million jobs. Those are literally
depression-era numbers (1930's most recent precedent).
It's even more depressing to look at the areas in
which the "new jobs" were created.
The biggest single increase was in lower income social service/health care
jobs (not doctors, psychologists and nurses, for example). After that was bartenders and wait staff. Third were
creditors and collection agencies. The entire growth in engineer-type jobs can be attributed to lower wage hiring of
immigrants, rather than American engineers. There is no net growth for college age, entry level workers, except in
bartending/wait staff. Great use for your college degree, n'est pas? There is also a "growth" in
construction jobs, all of which was taken up by a combination of legal and illegal Mexican workers. Those were the
major factors, but I might have reversed a couple of factors in the rank ordering.
Meanwhile upper tier
executives and CEOs especially are enjoying logarithmic levels of income growth every year (here I forget, but
wasn't it something like a 50% growth?), tied mostly into bonuses for cost reducing (i.e., cheaper labor through
outsourcing overseas, hiring foreign workers), rather than salary. Obviously, the gap between rich and poor has
grown every year.
Does anyone else see the overall theme here? Within an overall massive shortage of jobs, the
only "growth" benefitting average Americans is due to the greater number of sick and troubled people, more people
drinking, more people who can't pay their bills; and more of our business/economy going to other countries. So
although there are 7 million fewer jobs for the American population, the main remaining opportunity within that is
to capitalize on the growth of poverty and chaos among the lowest SES class, at their expense, relative to
ever-wealthier cost-cutting corporate execs.
Further, the new tendency is for people to drop out of the work
force permanently, rendering the common unemployment statistic, which measures how many are laid off and collecting
unemployment, useless as an overall economic measure. That is in stark contrast to unemployment stats during past
years where a healthy manufacturing economy meant cyles of production that would absorb those temporarily laid off.
Also, many states are running out of unemployment insurance, which also makes that statistic dubious.
The
primary factor supporting the economy among the middle and lower classes was people spending their savings. The
American people overall are saving less than they have since the depression. This kind of spending cannot
last.
The economist being interviewed predicted we'd be a "third world country in ten years" at this
rate, and said that even radical domestic protectionism (which he seemed to advocate for: U.S. workers producing
U.S. goods for U.S. consumers -- I could see his point) was unlikely to bring us out of this crisis at this point.
a.k.a.
02-23-2006, 05:50 PM
Last night on the
radio I heard an eye-opening interview with one of Ronald Reagan's former economic advisers, a former Wall Street
Journal economics reporter (hardly a "left wing liberal" by history). I remember his analysis well; but not his
name, unfortunately. If I find more info on him I'll post it.
Could it be Paul Craig Roberts? He
was Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and a former Associate Editor for the Wall Street Journal.
If so, he’s a frequent contributor to counterpunch.org.
Here’s his take on Bush’s latest State of the Union
speech:
The True State of the Union
More Deception from the Bush White House
By PAUL CRAIG
ROBERTS
Gentle reader, if you prefer comforting lies to harsh truths, don't read this column.
The
state of the union is disastrous. By its naked aggression, bullying, illegal spying on Americans, and illegal
torture and detentions, the Bush administration has demonstrated American contempt for the Geneva Convention, for
human life and dignity, and for the civil liberties of its own citizens. Increasingly, the US is isolated in the
world, having to resort to bribery and threats to impose its diktats. No country any longer looks to America for
moral leadership. The US has become a rogue nation.
Least of all did President Bush tell any truth about the
economy. He talked about economic growth rates without acknowledging that they result from eating the seed corn and
do not produce jobs with a living wage for Americans. He touted a low rate of unemployment and did not admit that
the figure is false because it does not count millions of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the work
force.
Americans did not hear from Bush that a new Wal-Mart just opened on Chicago's city boundary and
25,000 people applied for 325 jobs (Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 26), or that 11,000 people applied for a few Wal-Mart
jobs in Oakland, California. Obviously, employment is far from full.
Neither did Bush tell Americans any of
the dire facts reported by economist Charles McMillion in the January 19 issue of Manufacturing & Technology
News:
During Bush's presidency the US has experienced the slowest job creation on record (going back to
1939). During the past five years private business has added only 958,000 net new jobs to the economy, while the
government sector has added 1.1 million jobs. Moreover, as many of the jobs are not for a full work week, "the
country ended 2005 with fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January 2001."
McMillion reports
that the largest sources of private sector jobs have been health care and waitresses and bartenders. Other areas of
the private sector lost so many jobs, including supervisory/managerial jobs, that had health care not added 1.4
million new jobs, the private sector would have experienced a net loss of 467,000 jobs between January 2001 and
December 2005 despite an "economic recovery." Without the new jobs waiting tables and serving drinks, the US economy
in the past five years would have eked out a measly 64,000 jobs. In other words, there is a job depression in the
US.
McMillion reports that during the past five years of Bush's presidency the US has lost 16.5% of its
manufacturing jobs. The hardest hit are clothes manufacturers, textile mills, communications equipment, and
semiconductors. Workforces in these industries shrunk by 37 to 46 percent. These are amazing job losses. Major
industries have shriveled to insignificance in half a decade.
Free trade, offshore production for US markets,
and the outsourcing of US jobs are the culprits. McMillion writes that "every industry that faces foreign
outsourcing or import competition is losing jobs," including both Ford and General Motors, both of which recently
announced new job losses of 30,000 each. The parts supplier, Delphi, is on the ropes and cutting thousands of jobs,
wages, benefits, and pensions.
If the free trade/outsourcing propaganda were true, would not at least some US
export industries be experiencing a growth in employment? If free trade and outsourcing benefit the US economy, how
did America run up $2.85 trillion in trade deficits over the last five years? This means Americans consumed almost
$3 trillion dollars more in goods and services than they produced and turned over $3 trillion of their existing
assets to foreigners to pay for their consumption. Consuming accumulated wealth makes a country poorer, not
richer.
Americans are constantly reassured that America is the leader in advanced technology and intellectual
property and doesn't need jobs making clothes or even semiconductors. McMillion puts the lie to this reassurance.
During Bush's presidency, the US has lost its trade surplus in manufactured Advanced Technology Products (ATP). The
US trade deficit in ATP now exceeds the US surplus in Intellectual Property licenses and fees. The US no longer
earns enough from high tech to cover any part of its import bill for oil, autos, or clothing.
This is an
astonishing development. The US "superpower" is dependent on China for advanced technology products and is dependent
on Asia to finance its massive deficits and foreign wars. In view of the rapid collapse of US economic potential, my
prediction in January 2004 that the US would be a third world economy in 20 years was optimistic. Another five years
like the last, and little will be left. America's capacity to export manufactured goods has been so reduced that
some economists say that there is no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.
McMillion reports
that median household income has fallen for a record fifth year in succession. Growth in consumer spending has
resulted from households spending their savings and equity in their homes. In 2005 for the first time since the
Great Depression in the 1930s, American consumers spent more than they earned, and the government budget deficit was
larger than all business savings combined. American households are paying a record share of their disposable income
to service their debts.
With America hemorrhaging red ink in every direction, how much longer can the dollar
hold on to its role as world reserve currency?
The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is the cradle
of the propaganda that globalization is win-win for all concerned. Free trader Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley
reports that the mood at the recently concluded Davos meeting was different, because the predicted "wins" for the
industrialized world have not made an appearance.
Roach writes that "job creation and real wages in the
mature, industrialized economies have seriously lagged historical norms. It is now commonplace for recoveries in the
developed world to be either jobless or wageless--or both."
Roach is the first free trade economist to admit
that the disruptive technology of the Internet has dashed the globalization hopes. It was supposed to work like
this: The first world would lose market share in tradable manufactured goods and make up the job and economic loss
with highly-educated knowledge workers. The "win-win" was supposed to be cheaper manufactured goods for the first
world and more and better jobs for the third world.
It did not work out this way, Roach writes, because the
Internet allowed job outsourcing to quickly migrate from call centers and data processing to the upper end of the
value chain, displacing first world employees in "software programming, engineering, design, and the medical
profession, as well as a broad array of professionals in the legal, accounting, actuarial, consulting, and financial
services industries."
This is what I have been writing for years, while the economics profession adopted a
position of total denial. The first world gainers from globalization are the corporate executives, who gain millions
of dollars in bonuses by arbitraging labor and substituting cheaper foreign labor for first world labor. For the
past decade free market economists have served as apologists for corporate interests that are dismantling the
ladders of upward mobility in the US and creating what McMillion writes is the worst income inequality on
record.
Globalization is wiping out the American middle class and terminating jobs for university graduates,
who now serve as temps, waitresses and bartenders. But the whores among economists and the evil men and women in the
Bush administration still sing globalization's praises.
The state of the nation has never been worse. The
Great Depression was an accident caused by the incompetence of the Federal Reserve, which was still new at its job.
The new American job depression is the result of free trade ideology. The new job depression is creating a reserve
army of the unemployed to serve as desperate recruits for neoconservative military adventures. Perhaps that explains
the Bush administration's enthusiasm for
globalization.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02012006.html
People that feel
Reagan did a good job with the economy might find this article interesting. Roberts continues to support
Reaganomics, but he feels the current administration has it all wrong:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html
DrSmellThis
02-23-2006, 06:03 PM
Good job, AKA! You found it.
It is for sure the same guy. I enjoyed the two articles as well. The guy, who appears to be fairly non-partisan,
makes excellent points by the bushel-basket.
Netghost56
02-23-2006, 06:50 PM
Further, the new
tendency is for people to drop out of the work force permanently, rendering the common unemployment statistic, which
measures how many are laid off and collecting unemployment, useless as an overall economic measure.
We
heard that last year. It also shows you that "certain" news networks like to pick and choose which statistics they
run.
The rest sounds about right.
I read last spring about bread lines forming in the MidWest. They weren't
really bread lines, but what it was: The number of people appearing at a gov. commodity/soup kitchen (several in
different cities) jumped from a few dozen to several hundred. The article mentioned a mile of cars lined up at one
place. People were eventually turned away because they ran out of food.
Here's a case to ponder: My neighbor has
40 acres of pasture, 70 head of cattle, three trucks, a tractor, an ATV, two chicken houses, a smaller piece of
property 1 hour away, one house and he's just built another. Everything I've just listed- he's mortaged. OK? He
can't sell his land or his vehicles, can't sow crops, can't kill a cow for meat, can't buy feed unless he sells
some cows, which he can't do without the bank's consent. What kind of life is that? I mean, the bank owns
everything but his underpants!
IMHO, even if you have to scrape dirt, "DON'T GET IN DEBT". I see everyone I know
in debt, and I can't see how they think they can pull themselves out and keep up their exorbiant lifestyle. We may
be poor, but we don't owe anybody anything!
DrSmellThis
02-24-2006, 06:04 AM
Average family income drops
2.3%
By Sue Kirchhoff, USA TODAY
The 2001 recession was shallow, but its effects were steep.
Average family
incomes fell in the USA from 2001 to 2004, pulled down by a sluggish recovery from the downturn and the sharp stock
market drop, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. The decline — the first since 1989-92 — was accompanied by the
smallest increase in net worth in that period.
In its comprehensive Survey of Consumer Finances, released every
three years, the Fed said the median net worth of the bottom 40% of families declined, while those at the top saw
gains. The percentage of families investing in stocks fell 3.3 percentage points to 48.6% from 2001 to 2004, a level
last reached some time between the 1995 and 1998 surveys.
Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com,
says job growth and incomes have been picking up since the survey period. But the report provides more troubling
evidence of a rising gap in wealth in the USA.
"The household balance sheet is in good shape, better shape today
... but it's not improved for everybody. It's improved for the people in the top distribution of income and
wealth," he says.
From 2001 to 2004, average family income fell 2.3%, to an inflation-adjusted $70,700 from
$72,400 in the 1998-2001 period. By contrast, from 1998 to 2001, average income jumped 17.3%. Median income — the
midpoint of the income range — rose 1.6% to $43,200.
Fed economists said the figures were "strongly influenced"
by a more-than-6% drop in median real wages during the period. Also, investment income was less than in the stock
market boom years of the late 1990s. (Related:
Full report (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf))
Real net worth —
the difference between family assets and liabilities — rose only slightly from 2001 to 2004. Median net worth rose
only 1.5% to $93,100 during the period, vs. a 10.3% gain from 1998 to 2001. And liabilities rose faster than assets,
due largely to a big rise in mortgage debt.
Though the economy was in recession in 2001, it steadily improved
from 2002 to 2004 with low inflation and falling unemployment.
There was some good news in the report.
Minorities, who have long lagged behind whites in income, saw healthier gains. Homeownership rates rose. Still,
minority income remains much lower, about 60% of whites.
"The measured gains in wealth in the 2001-04 period pale
in comparison with the increases of the preceding three years," wrote Fed economists Brian Bucks, Arthur Kennickell
and Kevin Moore.
DrSmellThis
02-24-2006, 06:10 AM
From Capitol Hill Blue
The Rant
Secret Service agents say Cheney was drunk when he shot lawyer
By DOUG THOMPSON
Feb 22,
2006, 07:35
Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington
on a hunting outing two weeks ago say Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting.
Agents
observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the
hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech
and erratic actions.
According to those who have talked with the agents and others present at the outing, Cheney
was drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on
the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up.
We talked with a
number of administration officials who are privy to inside information on the Vice President's shooting "accident"
and all admit Secret Service agents and others say they saw Cheney consume far more than the "one beer' he claimed
he drank at lunch earlier that day.
"This was a South Texas hunt," says one White House aide. "Of course there
was drinking. There's always drinking. Lots of it."
One agent at the scene has been placed on administrative
leave and another requested reassignment this week. A memo reportedly written by one agent has been destroyed,
sources said Wednesday afternoon.
Cheney has a long history of alcohol abuse, including two convictions of
driving under the influence when he was younger. Doctors tell me that someone like Cheney, who is taking blood
thinners because of his history of heart attacks, could get legally drunk now after consuming just one drink.
If Cheney was legally drunk at the time of the shooting, he could be guilty of a felony under Texas law and the
shooting, ruled an accident by a compliant Kenedy County Sheriff, would be a prosecutable offense.
But we will
never know for sure because the owners of the Armstrong Ranch, where the shooting occurred, barred the sheriff's
department from the property on the day of the shooting and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III agreed to wait
until the next day to send deputies in to talk to those involved.
Sheriff's Captain Charles Kirk says he went
to the Armstrong Ranch immediately after the shooting was reported on Saturday, February 11 but both he and a game
warden were not allowed on the 50,000-acre property. He called Salinas who told him to forget about it and return
to the station.
"I told him don't worry about it. I'll make a call," Salinas said. The sheriff claims he
called another deputy who moonlights at the Armstrong ranch, said he was told it was "just an accident" and made the
decision to wait until Sunday to investigate.
"We've known these people for years. They are honest and
wouldn't call us, telling us a lie," Salinas said.
Like all elected officials in Kenedy County, Salinas owes
his job to the backing and financial support of Katherine Armstrong, owner of the ranch and the county's largest
employer.
"The Armstrongs rule Kenedy County like a fiefdom," says a former employee.
Secret Service
officials also took possession of all tests on Whittington's blood at the hospitals where he was treated for his
wounds. When asked if a blood alcohol test had been performed on Whittington, the doctors who treated him at
Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial in Corpus Christi or the hospital in Kingsville refused to answer. One admits
privately he was ordered by the Secret Service to "never discuss the case with the press."
It's a sure bet that
is a private doctor who treated the victim of Cheney's reckless and drunken actions can't talk to the public then
any evidence that shows the Vice President drunk as a skunk will never see the light of day.
belgareth
02-24-2006, 11:16 AM
Why consumer pocketbooks had a rough start this millennium By Mark Trumbull, Staff writer of The Christian
Science Monitor
Fri Feb 24,
2006
As Americans entered a new millennium, gains in their pocketbook
slowed dramatically.
Median incomes rose just 1.6 percent after
inflation during the 2001-04 period, according to data released Thursday by the Federal Reserve Board. The
median family net worth, a measure of wealth that represents the sum of all assets minus liabilities, rose a
similarly small 1.5 percent in that period.
Gains are better than
losses, but the survey confirms and amplifies a trend of wage stagnation that is continuing to dampen American
paychecks into 2006.
"It is a long-term trend," says Mark Weisbrot,
an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, which studies the well-being of American
workers and families. "Over the past 30 years, the median wage has grown about 9 or 10
percent."
The Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances comes out
every three years, and represents a more detailed portrait of family finances than the monthly economic reports that
come from the Department of Labor or other government agencies.
The period studied in its new survey encompassed a rocky time for the stock market, a slow-growing job market,
and a rise in both home prices and family debts.
Inflation-adjusted
incomes have grown so slowly, Mr. Weisbrot says, despite solid growth in productivity. A worker today is able to
produce about 80 percent more, per hour of work, than his or her counterpart 30 years
ago.
"Globalization is part of the process by which the bargaining
power of most employees in the United States has been drastically reduced so that they don't capture most of the
gains from the economy," he says.
Thanks in large measure to a rough
stock market, the 2001-04 period was not necessarily a lucrative one for the richest Americans
either.
The median measure of income captures the "typical" family -
with half of households above and half beneath that number. It reached $43,200 in 2004, up from $42,500 in
2001.
Yet average incomes fell, in part due to a plunge in the
earnings of the top 10 percent of families ranked on a scale of net worth. Essentially, they weren't able to earn
as much on their assets as in 2001. It's not that managerial salaries have fallen. But the recent period hasn't
been quite the booming opportunity for capital gains and stock options that the late 1990s
was.
Thus, the average American family income fell from $72,400 in
2001 to $70,700 in 2004. The average income of families in the top 10 percent of net worth fell from $273,100 to
$256,000 during that period.
The net worth, meanwhile, rose somewhat
for families of all levels of wealth, although not as strongly as in the late
1990s.
The median, or midpoint, for net worth rose by 1.5 percent to
$93,100 from 2001 to 2004. That growth was far below the 10.3 percent gain in median net worth from 1998 to 2001, a
period when the stock market reached record highs before starting to decline in early
2000.
The Fed survey found that the share of Americans' financial
assets invested in stocks dipped to 17.6 percent in 2004, down from 21.7 percent in
2001.
The percentage of Americans who owned stocks, either directly
or through a mutual fund, fell by 3.3 percentage points to 48.6 percent in 2004, down from 51.9 percent in
2001.
Stock ownership rates were highest in 2004 among families with
higher incomes and heads of households aged 55 to 64. Overall median stock holdings fell to $24,300 in 2004, down
from $36,700 in 2001. With baby boomers turning 60 this year and nearing retirement, the survey found that the
percentage of families with some type of tax-deferred retirement account, such as a 401(k), fell by 2.5 percentage
points to 49.7 percent of all families.
However, those who had
retirement accounts saw their holdings increase. The median for holdings in retirement accounts rose by 13.9 percent
to $35,200.
The Fed survey found that debts as a percent of total
assets rose to 15 percent in 2004, up from 12.1 percent in 2001. Mortgages to finance home purchases were by far the
biggest share of total debt at 75.2 percent in 2004, unchanged from the 2001 level.
"Three key shifts in the 2001-04 period underlie the changes in net
worth," said the Fed researchers involved in the study. "First, the strong appreciation of house values and a rise
in the rate of homeownership produced a substantial gain in the value of holdings of residential real estate."
Second, the rate of ownership of stocks in direct and indirect forms
(such as through mutual funds) declined, as did the typical amount held.
Third, the amount of debt relative to assets surged, notably debt secured by real estate. The upshot:
"Families devoted more of their income to servicing debts, despite a general decline in interest rates," the
researchers said.
The fraction of families with debt payments 60
days or more overdue rose substantially, mainly among people in the bottom 80 percent of the income ladder.
The Fed survey of consumer finances is conducted between May and
December of every third year, and involves interviews with several thousand US families.
• Material from the Associated Press was used in this
report.
a.k.a.
02-24-2006, 11:51 AM
The guy, who
appears to be fairly non-partisan, makes excellent points by the bushel-basket.
I think so too. He
gives a very straightforward account of America’s decline. Here’s the scariest one I’ve read:
August 9,
2005
Good News! Soon You'll No Longer Need an Expensive College Education to Work in the US
Watching the
Economy Crumble
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The US continues its descent into the Third World, but you would
never know it from news reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ July payroll jobs release.
The media gives
a bare bones jobs report that is misleading. The public heard that 207,000 jobs were created in July. If not a
reassuring figure, at least it is not a disturbing one. On the surface things look to be pretty much OK. It is when
you look into the composition of these jobs that the concern arises.
Of the new jobs, 26,000 (about 13%) are
tax-supported government jobs. That leaves 181,000 private sector jobs. Of these private sector jobs, 177,000, or
98%, are in the domestic service sector.
Here is the breakdown of the major categories:
• 30,000
food servers and bar tenders;
• 28,000 health care and social assistance:
• 12,000 real estate;
• 6,000 credit intermediation;
• 8,000 transit and ground passenger transportation;
• 50,000 retail
trade; and
• 8,000 wholesale trade.
(There were 7,000 construction jobs, most of which were filled by
Mexicans immigrants.)
Not a single one of these jobs produces a tradable good or service that can be exported
or serve as an import substitute to help reduce the massive and growing US trade deficit. The US economy is
employing people to sell things, to move people around, and to serve them fast food and alcoholic beverages. The
items may have an American brand name, but they are mainly made off shore. For example, 70% of Wal-Mart’s goods are
made in China.
Where are the jobs for the 65,000 engineers the US graduates each year? Where are the jobs for
the physics, chemistry, and math majors? Who needs a university degree to wait tables and serve drinks, to build
houses, to work as hospital orderlies, bus drivers, and sales clerks?
In the 21st century job growth in the
US economy has consistently reflected that of a Third World country--low productivity domestic services jobs. This
goes on month after month and no one catches on--least of all the economists and the policymakers.
Economists
assume that every high productivity, high paying job that is shipped out of the country is a net gain for America.
We are getting things cheaper, they say. Perhaps, for a while, until the dollar goes. What the cheaper goods
argument overlooks are the reductions in the productivity and pay of employed Americans and in the manufacturing,
technical, and scientific capability of the US economy.
What is the point of higher education when the job
opportunities in the economy do not require it?
These questions are too difficult for economists,
politicians, and newscasters. Instead, we hear that “last month the US economy created 207,000
jobs.”
Television has an inexhaustible supply of optimistic economists.
Last weekend CNN had John
Rutledge (erroneously billed as the person who drafted President Reagan’s economic program) explaining that the
strength of the US economy was “mom and pop businesses.” The college student with whom I was watching the program
broke out laughing.
What mom and pop businesses? Everything that used to be mom and pop businesses has been
replaced with chains and discount retailers. Auto parts stores are chains, pharmacies are chains, restaurants are
chains. Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Lowes, have destroyed hardware stores, clothing stores, appliance stores, building
supply stores, gardening shops, whatever--you name it.
Just try starting a small business today. Most gasoline
station/convenience stores seem to be the property of immigrant ethnic groups who acquired them with the aid of a
taxpayer-financed US government loan.
Today a mom and pop business is a cleaning service that employs
Mexicans, a pool service, a lawn service, or a limo service.
In recent years the US economy has been kept
afloat by low interest rates. The low interest rates have fueled a real estate boom. As housing prices rise, people
refinance their mortgages, take equity out of their homes and spend the money, thus keeping the consumer economy
going.
The massive American trade and budget deficits are covered by the willingness of Asian countries,
principally Japan and China, to hold US government bonds and to continue to acquire ownership of America’s real
assets in exchange for their penetration of US markets.
This game will not go on forever. When it stops, what
is left to drive the US economy?
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08092005.html
As he says
in another article, “If you’re worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry
is.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02112006.html
a.k.a.
02-24-2006, 12:25 PM
Yet average incomes
fell, in part due to a plunge in the earnings of the top 10 percent of families ranked on a scale of net worth.
Essentially, they weren't able to earn as much on their assets as in 2001. It's not that managerial salaries have
fallen. But the recent period hasn't been quite the booming opportunity for capital gains and stock options that
the late 1990s was.
This is true throughout the world. The investment climate is much worse in Europe,
and even China is showing a slight slowdown in its growth.
I’m sure if you were to subtract protected
industries (such as military tech and pharmaceuticals) and subsidized markets (such oil & gas) you would find an
even worse investment climate. It’s really quite hard to find any clear winners in the current phase of
globalization. (The Japanese economy appears to be bouncing back — in terms of GDP — but it doesn't seem to be
trickling down into any significant job gains.) That’s why many commentators cal it a “race to the bottom”.
Bush’s plan of making tax cuts permenant is an effort to address this problem (at least in the US), but I feel it is
more of a band-aid for the upper-middle class (in other words a political payoff for the Republican constituency)
than a realistic solution for the country.
belgareth
02-26-2006, 06:20 AM
So far, the clearest winners
seem to be developing countries like India. I hate to pick on an individual nation but outsourcing to India has been
a primary culprit in the decline of technical jobs in the US over the last 10-15 years and it isn't likely to get
better. The bright side is that it benefits people like me, my competitors and those who work for us. Frankly and
despite the remarks made in one of the above articles, small businesses seem to be doing well. I don't mean the mom
and pop gas stations but the highly skilled professional. My company focuses on small business and I am a member of
the local Chamber of Commerce. Most the chambers are affiliated and I hear the same from all over the country. There
are a lot of pros that are growing in the small business/professional services arena.
Something I've mentioned
before and that I find frightening is the number of young people coming out of college with technical degrees that
can't find work. I get anywhere from 2 to 15 resumes in any given week from college grads looking for work and
willing to accept technician's wages. On the other hand, my wife who works in a highly specialized field gets a lot
of headhunters contacting her about potential work. Much of it is in this country but a lot is in other countries
and some of the offers are pretty amazing, to say the least. I think one of the things we need to consider is the
marketability of the specific jobs we are training our young people for. Years ago a large portion of our workforce
was devoted to heavy industry until foreign competition became to stiff. We moved on in large part to other areas.
Now, is there some other developing arena to persue that would be more lucrative and have better opportunities for
the future?
We are probably going to disagree about tax cuts but in my mind they didn't go far enough. The more
capitol you can put back into circulation the more is available for investment for future gains. Every dime the
government takes for any purpose is taken out of circulation for a time and if returned it is only a fraction of
what was removed. Some portion of it is sent out of the country for various reasons as well. As an economic engine
the government is a terribly inefficient one.
It might give us all a warm fuzzy feeling to take from the haves
and give to the have nots but it is only a short term solution. I know, as a business owner, what I would do with
more ready cash from reduced taxes or any other source, any small business owner who plans on being around in ten
years would do they same. They will not put it in their pocket but will invest it in advertising and sales people to
increase sales and in hardware and supplies. That in turn is going to put more poeple to work fulfilling the
increased orders. As profits rise so do the things I can do to keep a talented workforce from looking to other
employers. Better benefits, higher wages and more company paid training would be the first things to be done. In
turn, more jobs are created making it possible for more people to move away from government assistance and into the
workforce where they will have the disposable income to buy consumer goods creating still more jobs. As a side
effect, tax revenues will rise. Not from higher taxes but from greater spending.
a.k.a.
02-26-2006, 10:40 AM
In terms of profits, India is still
a colony. There’s more money going out of the country than coming in. Therefore I could never call it a “winner”,
even though many of the standard economic indicators demonstrate that it’s economy is growing. (Another factor is
that much of this growth is based on privatization and displacement of communities that used to rely on subsitance
farming/fishing and traditional handicrafts. A rise in the middle class has been outweighed by the fact that a large
percentage of the rural poor has been transformed into the urban unemployed. Creating a severe crowding problem and
diminishing quality of life for all.)
In the US... it’s true that professional services are on the rise.
The sharpest rise has been in internet, finance, and computer software-and-services companies. There has also been
respectable growth in legal services, accounting, management and consulting, and administrative services.
The
downside — from an “Economic Health of the Nation” perspective — is that these businesses account for very small
payrolls compared to the industries that are being exported to foreign lands.
In any case the point of
Robert’s analysis (which I agree with) is that America is producing less and borrowing more. This is not the mark of
a robust economy, any way you look at it.
I wasn’t trying to make any ethical points about Bush’s tax
cuts (that’s another story altogether). The point is that — in the absence of solid investment opportunities — these
cuts are highly unlikely to stimulate economic growth.
Any tax cut is likely to help small businesses stay
competitive — as you say. But most small businesses do not produce for foreign markets and even fewer offer stock
options for the average investor.
Given the fact that mutual funds are becoming riskier every day, people that
do not own their own business (that is the majority of people) will most likely either spend their tax surplus or
put it into savings.
In other words, the Bush tax breaks are a highly inefficient stimulus for small
business, at best. And let’s be realistic. How many new employee’s do you plan to hire as a result of these tax
cuts?
Netghost56
02-26-2006, 11:06 AM
I've been saying all along
that there isn't any jobs. But no one seems to believe me.
When you're on a 2 year waiting list to sweep
floors at Wal-Mart, SOMETHING'S WRONG!
belgareth
02-26-2006, 12:16 PM
In terms of
profits, India is still a colony. There’s more money going out of the country than coming in. Therefore I could
never call it a “winner”, even though many of the standard economic indicators demonstrate that it’s economy is
growing. (Another factor is that much of this growth is based on privatization and displacement of communities that
used to rely on subsitance farming/fishing and traditional handicrafts. A rise in the middle class has been
outweighed by the fact that a large percentage of the rural poor has been transformed into the urban unemployed.
Creating a severe crowding problem and diminishing quality of life for all.)
Which is offset by the
increases (long term) of a segment of the population's income. It isn't a short term fix but results will happen
over time. Money is flowing into India where people are slowly and in small groups becoming more educated and able
to increase their earning power. That gives them more money which is the fuel for any and all economic engines. I
don't know the figures for it but I do know that if money is flowing from one point it has to be flowing to
another. Where is it going and why?
However, that wasn't the intent of the statement. Tens of thousands of
technical and engineering jobs are flowing into India every year from this country. In that aspect, India is
winning.
In the US... it’s true that professional services are on the rise. The sharpest rise has
been in internet, finance, and computer software-and-services companies. There has also been respectable growth in
legal services, accounting, management and consulting, and administrative services.
The downside — from an
“Economic Health of the Nation” perspective — is that these businesses account for very small payrolls compared to
the industries that are being exported to foreign lands.
Likely so. That was the point of my question.
That was also true when Japan started making better cars for cheaper than we could produce them. You aren't going
to be able to legislate the jobs staying in this country so what is the alternative? The alternative is the same as
any business establishment. You find a product/service you can profitably offer.
In any case the
point of Robert’s analysis (which I agree with) is that America is producing less and borrowing more. This is not
the mark of a robust economy, any way you look at it.
No disagreement on that point. The question is what
to do about it?
I wasn’t trying to make any ethical points about Bush’s tax cuts (that’s another
story altogether). The point is that — in the absence of solid investment opportunities — these cuts are highly
unlikely to stimulate economic growth.
Any tax cut is likely to help small businesses stay competitive — as you
say. But most small businesses do not produce for foreign markets and even fewer offer stock options for the average
investor.
Given the fact that mutual funds are becoming riskier every day, people that do not own their own
business (that is the majority of people) will most likely either spend their tax surplus or put it into
savings.
In other words, the Bush tax breaks are a highly inefficient stimulus for small business, at best. And
let’s be realistic. How many new employee’s do you plan to hire as a result of these tax cuts?
I never said
anything about ethical as it is irrelevent to the subject. I do disagree, tax cuts always put money back into the
economy making more of the essential energy available. No matter what, the government is a worse stimulant to
economic growth than putting the money back in the taxpayer's hands. It's a fact that EVERY increase in taxes and
EVERY decrease in taxes has a direct effect on the number of available jobs. A dynamic example that we can see every
day is the increases or decreases in the interest rates which is no more than a tax. The economy is growing too
fast, stiffle it with an increase. Growing too slow? Encourage it with a reduction in interest rates. There is a
direct correlation.
What happens when somebody spends money? It is used by the business to hire people, buy
inventory and increase advertising. That isn't to allow the businesses mto be competitive, its to allow or
encourage growth which results in job creation.
Since you asked I'll give you an example based on my business.
Let's say that I get a $10,000 tax break this year. By going to my banker and taking part of that tax break as a
loan I can easily parley that into three new jobs before the end of the year. That means I'll also have to buy a
couple more desks, phones and so on. In two years, with the same tax break for those two years I can turn it into
eight new employees. Now, multiply that by the number of small businesses and remember that mine is a small
business. Then think about all the secondary effects, all the material's all of us will have to purchase, the money
those people will now have to spend to buy still more consumer goods. The people needed to fill those orders and the
materials needed to build or create the items I and my employees will buy.. With my new employees I'll also hav a
wider profit margin and can increase their benefits package again so still other industries will be profiting.
Simply put, the reduction in taxes has made it easier for me to build up capitol to invest in the things I need to
grow my business, which includes a major investment in people. They are the first and most important part of any
business development plan.
Yes, there is a very real concern about the flow of money out of this country. It
needs to be addressed. How is subject to debate.
InternationalPlayboy
02-26-2006, 06:03 PM
Something I've mentioned before and that I find frightening is the number of young people coming
out of college with technical degrees that can't find work. I get anywhere from 2 to 15 resumes in any given week
from college grads looking for work and willing to accept technician's wages.
I have an Associate's
Degree in Electronic Technology and have worked for a government contractor for 21 years. Got the job just a month
or two before I got the degree. When I saw a programmer with no technical experience swap out a motherboard on a
(then) high end Silicon Graphics computer, I realized that the technician's days are numbered. That was over ten
years ago.
There is very little troubleshooting to component level anymore, if any. Most of the repairs I do
now are board swaps, or even more common now, sending the unit back to the manufacturer for repair. The community
college where I got my degree doesn't even teach electronic technology anymore. When I graduated high school in
1977, they (the counselors) told me, and a lot of others, that electronic technology is where the big money will be
in the future. After 21 years, I'm still making under $40k/year.
My job anymore consists mainly of making
cables. I'm at my element when I'm installing new equipment and have to fabricate things to make them work right.
Technicans here are a dying breed, but if you have IT experience, that's where the money is now where I
work.
I'm tired of what I do, but don't see myself making enough to keep up with the bills if I went
somewhere else, unless I "reinvent" myself. About five years ago, I went to a job fair in San Diego. One person I
talked to said that three years before, they needed technicians but all the applicants were engineers. At the time I
attended, all the jobs were for engineers and all the applicants were technicians.
I like the saying a
coworker had displayed in his office, "nothing engineered works until it's technicianed." But it sure seems slim
for the opportunity to do so anymore.
belgareth
02-26-2006, 06:19 PM
I have both an EE and CS degree
and have never really put either one to use.
Yes, I will agree that there are still some jobs in IT but they
have been declining every year. My department in the corporation I worked for was 90 people the day I left, its less
than 10 now and the rest is offshored. Dell now has somewhere around 8,000 IT people in India. Sun Microsystems is
opening a facility there and plans to employ close to 10,000 by '08. Microsoft is doing the same thing but I don't
have their numbers. However, almost all their coding, QC and support is done offshore now. SBC, our local phone
company who recently merge/bought/was bought by ATT is doing it too as are almost every other major corporation.
Right now, today, there are more than 15,000 IT people in the Dallas/Fort Worth area who are either unemployed or
under-employed. It's the same in almost every technical center in the US. I am dead serious when I tell you I can
hire MCSE's with a CS degree all day long at $35,000. They are happy to take a job as a field technician.
Being
a computer technician now days is different from the board level work you and I both learned. There are hardware
diagnostics to be performed and analysing various conflicts to deal with. But the real challenges now are
integrating all the various components with the software and fighting off various types of invasions. Not the same
thing at all. With the number of operating systems out there and the variety of software we deal with it's always
something new.
I understand what you are saying about being tired of what you do. There were a lot of reasons
for leaving the corporate world but being sick of it was one of them. Reinventing yourself is a challenge but it can
sure be fun too.
Netghost56
02-27-2006, 09:01 AM
When I graduated high school in 1977, they (the counselors) told me, and a lot of
others, that electronic technology is where the big money will be in the future. Believe it or not, in 1999
I was sold the same hogwash.
I have an A+ and Net+ certificate, but they might as well be TP. In three years
I've only sat down for one IT job interview, and I completely blew it.
I can do any kind of hardware work to a
computer. Practically any kind of software work too. I know basic HTML, I do digital design and video editing for a
hobby.
People keep asking me why I can't find work. I tell them, "when was the last time you saw an IT job in
this country?" It's all fast food and cash registers anymore.
a.k.a.
02-27-2006, 09:06 PM
Anybody seen the old Terry Gilliam
movie “Brazil”?
It starts out with a glitch in one of the printers in one of the government’s data mining
operations. This leads to some poor sap getting mistakenly fingered as a terrorist. A swat-like unit breaks into his
home, terrorizes his family and drags him off in a bag. He eventually dies under torture.
Of course nothing
like that could ever happen in real life.
TIA Lives On
By Shane Harris, National Journal
© National
Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006
A controversial counter-terrorism program, which lawmakers
halted more than two years ago amid outcries from privacy advocates, was stopped in name only and has quietly
continued within the intelligence agency now fending off charges that it has violated the privacy of U.S.
citizens.
Research under the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program -- which
developed technologies to predict terrorist attacks by mining government databases and the personal records of
people in the United States -- was moved from the Pentagon's research-and-development agency to another group,
which builds technologies primarily for the National Security Agency, according to documents obtained by National
Journal and to intelligence sources familiar with the move. The names of key projects were changed, apparently to
conceal their identities, but their funding remained intact, often under the same contracts.
It is no secret
that some parts of TIA lived on behind the veil of the classified intelligence budget. However, the projects that
moved, their new code names, and the agencies that took them over haven't previously been disclosed. Sources aware
of the transfers declined to speak on the record for this story because, they said, the identities of the specific
programs are classified.
Two of the most important components of the TIA program were moved to the Advanced
Research and Development Activity, housed at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Md., documents and sources confirm. One
piece was the Information Awareness Prototype System, the core architecture that tied together numerous information
extraction, analysis, and dissemination tools developed under TIA. The prototype system included privacy-protection
technologies that may have been discontinued or scaled back following the move to ARDA.
A $19 million
contract to build the prototype system was awarded in late 2002 to Hicks & Associates, a consulting firm in
Arlington, Va., that is run by former Defense and military officials. Congress's decision to pull TIA's funding in
late 2003 "caused a significant amount of uncertainty for all of us about the future of our work," Hicks executive
Brian Sharkey wrote in an e-mail to subcontractors at the time. "Fortunately," Sharkey continued, "a new sponsor has
come forward that will enable us to continue much of our previous work." Sources confirm that this new sponsor was
ARDA. Along with the new sponsor came a new name. "We will be describing this new effort as 'Basketball,' "
Sharkey wrote, apparently giving no explanation of the name's significance. Another e-mail from a Hicks employee,
Marc Swedenburg, reminded the company's staff that "TIA has been terminated and should be referenced in that
fashion."
Sharkey played a key role in TIA's birth, when he and a close friend, retired Navy Vice Adm. John
Poindexter, President Reagan's national security adviser, brought the idea to Defense officials shortly after the
9/11 attacks. The men had teamed earlier on intelligence-technology programs for the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, which agreed to host TIA and hired Poindexter to run it in 2002. In August 2003, Poindexter was
forced to resign as TIA chief amid howls that his central role in the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s made him
unfit to run a sensitive intelligence program.
It's unclear whether work on Basketball continues. Sharkey
didn't respond to an interview request, and Poindexter said he had no comment about former TIA programs. But a
publicly available Defense Department document, detailing various "cooperative agreements and other transactions"
conducted in fiscal 2004, shows that Basketball was fully funded at least until the end of that year (September
2004). The document shows that the system was being tested at a research center jointly run by ARDA and SAIC Corp.,
a major defense and intelligence contractor that is the sole owner of Hicks & Associates. The document describes
Basketball as a "closed-loop, end-to-end prototype system for early warning and decision-making," exactly the same
language used in contract documents for the TIA prototype system when it was awarded to Hicks in 2002. An SAIC
spokesman declined to comment for this story.
Another key TIA project that moved to ARDA was Genoa II, which
focused on building information technologies to help analysts and policy makers anticipate and pre-empt terrorist
attacks. Genoa II was renamed Topsail when it moved to ARDA, intelligence sources confirmed. (The name continues the
program's nautical nomenclature; "genoa" is a synonym for the headsail of a ship.)
As recently as October
2005, SAIC was awarded a $3.7 million contract under Topsail. According to a government-issued press release
announcing the award, "The objective of Topsail is to develop decision-support aids for teams of intelligence
analysts and policy personnel to assist in anticipating and pre-empting terrorist threats to U.S. interests." That
language repeats almost verbatim the boilerplate descriptions of Genoa II contained in contract documents, Pentagon
budget sheets, and speeches by the Genoa II program's former managers.
As early as February 2003, the
Pentagon planned to use Genoa II technologies at the Army's Information Awareness Center at Fort Belvoir, Va.,
according to an unclassified Defense budget document. The awareness center was an early tester of various TIA tools,
according to former employees. A 2003 Pentagon report to Congress shows that the Army center was part of an
expansive network of intelligence agencies, including the NSA, that experimented with the tools. The center was also
home to the Army's Able Danger program, which has come under scrutiny after some of its members said they used
data-analysis tools to discover the name and photograph of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta more than a year before the
attacks.
Devices developed under Genoa II's predecessor -- which Sharkey also managed when he worked for the
Defense Department -- were used during the invasion of Afghanistan and as part of "the continuing war on terrorism,"
according to an unclassified Defense budget document. Today, however, the future of Topsail is in question. A
spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, N.Y., which administers the program's contracts, said
it's "in the process of being canceled due to lack of funds."
It is unclear when funding for Topsail was
terminated. But earlier this month, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, one of TIA's strongest critics
questioned whether intelligence officials knew that some of its programs had been moved to other agencies. Sen. Ron
Wyden, D-Ore., asked Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and FBI Director Robert Mueller whether it
was "correct that when [TIA] was closed, that several ... projects were moved to various intelligence agencies.... I
and others on this panel led the effort to close [TIA]; we want to know if Mr. Poindexter's programs are going on
somewhere else."
Negroponte and Mueller said they didn't know. But Negroponte's deputy, Gen. Michael V.
Hayden, who until recently was director of the NSA, said, "I'd like to answer in closed session." Asked for
comment, Wyden's spokeswoman referred to his hearing statements.
The NSA is now at the center of a political
firestorm over President Bush's program to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States
who the agency believes are connected to terrorists abroad. While the documents on the TIA programs don't show that
their tools are used in the domestic eavesdropping, and knowledgeable sources wouldn't discuss the matter, the TIA
programs were designed specifically to develop the kind of "early-warning system" that the president said the NSA is
running.
Documents detailing TIA, Genoa II, Basketball, and Topsail use the phrase "early-warning system"
repeatedly to describe the programs' ultimate aims. In speeches, Poindexter has described TIA as an early-warning
and decision-making system. He conceived of TIA in part because of frustration over the lack of such tools when he
was national security chief for Reagan.
Tom Armour, the Genoa II program manager, declined to comment for
this story. But in a previous interview, he said that ARDA -- which absorbed the TIA programs -- has pursued
technologies that would be useful for analyzing large amounts of phone and e-mail traffic. "That's, in fact, what
the interest is," Armour said. When TIA was still funded, its program managers and researchers had "good
coordination" with their counterparts at ARDA and discussed their projects on a regular basis, Armour said. The
former No. 2 official in Poindexter's office, Robert Popp, averred that the NSA didn't use TIA tools in domestic
eavesdropping as part of his research. But asked whether the agency could have used the tools apart from TIA, Popp
replied, "I can't speak to that." Asked to comment on TIA projects that moved to ARDA, Don Weber, an NSA spokesman
said, "As I'm sure you understand, we can neither confirm nor deny actual or alleged projects or operational
capabilities; therefore, we have no information to provide."
ARDA now is undergoing some changes of its own.
The outfit is being taken out of the NSA, placed under the control of Negroponte's office, and given a new name. It
will be called the "Disruptive Technology Office," a reference to a term of art describing any new invention that
suddenly, and often dramatically, replaces established procedures. Officials with the intelligence director's
office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.
DrSmellThis
02-28-2006, 02:04 AM
As long as the death squad
czar is running it, I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.
DrSmellThis
02-28-2006, 04:08 AM
White House 'Discovers' Emails Related to Plame Leak
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o
u t | Report Friday 24 February 2006
The White House turned over last week 250 pages of emails from
Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Senior aides had sent the emails in the spring of 2003 related to the leak of
covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed during a federal court
hearing Friday.
The emails are said to be explosive, and may prove that Cheney played an active role in the
effort to discredit Plame Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush
administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence, sources close to the investigation said.
Sources close to the probe
said the White House “discovered” the emails two weeks ago and turned them over to Fitzgerald last week. The sources
added that the emails could prove that Cheney lied to FBI investigators when he was interviewed about the leak in
early 2004. Cheney said that he was unaware of any effort to discredit Wilson or unmask his wife’s undercover status
to reporters.
Cheney was not under oath when he was interviewed. He told investigators how the White House
came to rely on Niger documents that purportedly showed that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African
country.
Cheney said he had received an intelligence briefing on the allegations in either December 2001 or
January 2002.
Cheney said he was unaware that Ambassador Wilson was chosen to travel to Niger to look into the
uranium claims, and that he never saw a report Wilson had given a CIA analyst upon his return which stated that the
Niger claims were untrue. He said the CIA never told him about Wilson's trip.
However, the emails say
otherwise, and will show that the vice president spearheaded an effort in March 2003 to attack Wilson’s credibility
and used the CIA to dig up information on the former ambassador that could be used against him, sources said.
Some of the emails that were turned over to Fitzgerald contained references to Plame Wilson's identity and CIA
status, and developments related to the inability of ground forces to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after
the start of the war in March 2003.
According to sources, the emails also contained suggestions by senior
officials in Cheney’s office, and at the National Security Council, on how the White House should respond to what it
believed were increasingly destructive comments Wilson had been making about the administration's pre-war Iraq
intelligence.
Last month, Fitzgerald disclosed in court documents that he discovered from witnesses in the
case that some emails related to Wilson and his wife, written by senior aides in Cheney’s office and sent to other
officials at the National Security Council, had not been turned over to investigators by the White House.
“In
an abundance of caution,” Fitzgerald's January 23 letter to Libby's defense team states, “we advise you that we
have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for
certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.”
Sources close to the case said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales withheld numerous emails from
Fitzgerald’s probe citing “executive privilege” and “national security” concerns. These sources said that as of
Friday there are still some emails that have not been turned over to Fitzgerald because they contain classified
information in addition to references about the Wilsons.
Attorneys representing Cheney’s former Chief of
Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to
his role in the leak, were in court Friday arguing that Fitzgerald should be required to turn over classified
material, including highly sensitive Presidential Daily Briefs, to Libby’s defense team.
The defense hopes
that the classified materials will establish that Libby was dealing with more pressing matters facing the White
House and that he simply did not intend to mislead the grand jury when he testified that he did not disclose Plame
Wilson’s name to reporters.
In another development in the leak case Friday, U.S. District Judge Reggie B.
Walton said another administration official, who does not work at the White House, also spoke to reporters about
Plame Wilson. This individual, according to sources close to the case, works at the National Security Council.
Walton said that Libby’s defense team was not entitled to be told of the individual’s identity because the person is
not charged with a crime in the leak. However, the person is said to be one of several people in the administration
who is cooperating with the probe.
DrSmellThis
02-28-2006, 04:11 AM
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/cheney
3.htm (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/cheney3.htm)
DrSmellThis
02-28-2006, 04:14 AM
I wonder what will happen to the poll numbers when the emails, and Cheney's pivotal role
in blowing the cover of a major CIA operation in revenge to cover up his own war crimes, hit the public
consciousness?
Remember, Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby testified that his "superiors" (He has exactly
two superiors: Cheney and Bush) authorized the leak.
For those who haven't studied this, CIA agent Valerie
Plame's company was investigating WMD's. After the company's entire cover was blown by administraton officials,
several agents reportedly met violent ends; severely damaging the United States' ability to get human intelligence
on WMD's for the forseeable future. That is obviously a huge blow to national security. In light of this, it should
be obvious why knowingly "outing" even one undercover CIA agent is considered treason under U.S.
law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stor
ies/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml)
DrSmellThis
02-28-2006, 01:50 PM
Published on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 by
OneWorld.net (http://www.oneworld.net/)
Incomes Fall, Hunger Worsens as Bush Says 'We're Doing Fine'
by Abid
Aslam
WASHINGTON - The average
American family has taken a financial tumble and millions in the country go hungry despite President George W.
Bush's sunny assessment of the U.S. economy, say federal data and economists.
Bush talked up the nation's wealth last week during a speech in Milwaukee.
''We're doing fine,'' he said and described the economy as ''strong and gaining steam.''
Economic growth had clocked a respectable 3.5 percent, unemployment had
been held down to 4.7 percent with more than four million new jobs created in the past 30 months, and after-tax
income had risen eight percent since 2001, he said.
Within days, however, the Federal Reserve reported that average incomes after adjusting for
inflation actually had fallen between 2001 and 2004.
At the same time, the number of Americans who need emergency food aid to survive had swollen to
more than 25 million even before hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck, the nation's largest network of food banks
said in a separate report.
Many families continued to
struggle in the wake of the 2000 stock market collapse and 2001 recession, the central bank said in its latest
triennial ''Survey of Consumer Finances,'' released Thursday.
Inflation helped to eat away at the average American family's income, reducing the total to
$70,700 in 2004--a loss of 2.3 percent from 2001. That followed a 17.3 percent gain in average incomes between 1998
and 2001 and 12.3 percent in 1995-98, the Fed said.
Median family income showed a slight increase of 1.6 percent to reach $43,200 in 2004, up from
$42,500 in 2001.
Half of all households are
understood to stand above, and half to fall below, the median point, which is used to represent the ''typical''
rather than ''average'' family.
Economic analysts
said the latest Fed's findings confirmed earlier research showing that the average American family's finances were
deteriorating.
''Every American should be able to
achieve middle class economic security, a hallmark of national and household stability in this country,'' said
Tamara Draut, director of the economic opportunity program at research and advocacy group
Demos (http://www.demos-usa.org/).
''But
the Federal Reserve's findings spotlight trends that are causing economic fragility in today's middle class and
are closing the door on low-income Americans.''
The
income situation appears to be worsening.
Last year
proved to be the worst one on record for inflation-adjusted income, said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the
Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epinet.org/), a Washington, D.C.-based think
tank.
''Wages and compensation for the average
worker are lagging inflation despite strong productivity growth,'' Bernstein said, citing figures from last
month's ''Employment Cost Index'' report from the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
''Averaging over all of 2005, real wages fell 0.9 percent--the lowest
annual result on record--while compensation's essentially unchanged rate from 2004 provides its worst year on
record as well,'' Bernstein added in an analysis of the BLS report. The term ''compensation'' refers to wages
plus benefits.
Draut, at Demos, said she was worried by
the latest Fed report's findings that ''growing numbers of American households face mounting debt and financial
instability.''
In particular, more than 76 percent of
households carry debt, up since 2001. Of households in debt, the median amount of debt, $55,300, amounts to 128
percent of the median household income.
''A greater
number of people reported not saving money in 2004 than in 2001. Only 41 percent save regularly,'' Draut said,
citing the Fed's figures. ''That's a foreboding number for a nation with 76 million people reaching retirement
age over the next 25 years.''
The Fed found that
four in 10 senior citizens older than 75 years shouldered debts in 2004, up from 29 percent in 2001.
Americans also have been piling up credit card debt,
which grew 10 percent in the median household and 15.9 percent in the average household. Most of the increase
occurred in the ''middle class,'' which the Fed defined as the fifth of the population with a median income of
$42,500.
''Stagnant wages and skyrocketing
healthcare, education and housing costs, plus greater job instability has pushed America's families right to the
limit, and they're borrowing on high-cost credit just to make ends meet,'' said Draut.
Home equity loans also have become bigger and more common, with many
homeowners using the cash-out refinancing to pay down their credit card debts and to recover expenses they can't
cover with their earnings, she added.
Rising
household debt and stagnant real wages sapped median net worth, a tally of assets and liabilities. Median net worth
grew by 1.5 percent in 2001-04, down from 10.3 percent in 1998-2001, the Fed report said.
The gap between wealthy and poor also has widened, the Fed said.
America's wealthiest 10 percent saw their net worth rise by 6.1 percent to an average of $3.1 million while the
bottom 10 percent saw theirs fall from zero in 2001 to minus $1,400--meaning they owed this much more than the value
of all their assets--in 2004.
Data on net worth would
have proven even more anemic were it not for big gains in the notional value of real estate--something that, at
least hypothetically, boosted homeowners' financial standing, the Fed and analysts agreed.
''Americans are keeping their families afloat by putting their greatest
asset at risk,'' said Draut.
Yet they appear to be
among the fortunate, according to America's Second Harvest (http://www.secondharvest.org/), which
supports 50,000 food-aid charities nationwide.
More
than 25 million Americans were forced to resort to food donations from the organization's affiliates last year, an
8 percent increase over 2001, it said.
Nine million
children younger than 18 and three million senior citizens stood among the hungry, America's Second Harvest said in
its ''Hunger in America 2006'' report.
''About 70
percent of the clients seeking emergency food assistance are living below the federal poverty line,'' the private
philanthropy said.
''Nearly 40 percent have at least
one adult working in their household,'' it added.
Those figures suggest that increasing numbers of working Americans do not earn enough to feed
their families.
Mtnjim
02-28-2006, 02:18 PM
America's wealthiest 10 percent saw their net worth rise by 6.1 percent to an average
of $3.1 million while the bottom 10 percent saw theirs fall from zero in 2001 to minus $1,400--meaning they owed
this much more than the value of all their assets--in 2004.
See, this proves Bush right!
His CEO buddies are doing just fine, as for the rest of us scum, we don't count.:angel:
belgareth
03-01-2006, 05:53 AM
Study: One in 1,000 Know First Amendment By ANNA JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 1, 2006
CHICAGO - Americans apparently know more about "The Simpsons" than
they do about the First Amendment.
Only one in four Americans can name
more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly
and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family,
according to a survey.
The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom
Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in
1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.
Joe
Madeira, director of exhibitions at the museum, said he was surprised by the
results.
"Part of the survey really shows there are misconceptions, and
part of our mission is to clear up these misconceptions," said Madeira, whose museum will be dedicated to helping
visitors understand the First Amendment when it opens in April. "It means we have our job cut out for
us."
The survey found more people could name the three "American Idol"
judges than identify three First Amendment rights. They were also more likely to remember popular advertising
slogans.
It also showed that people misidentified First Amendment
rights. About one in five people thought the right to own a pet was protected, and 38 percent said they believed the
right against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment was a First Amendment right, the survey
found.
The telephone survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Jan. 20-22 by
the research firm Synovate and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Mtnjim
03-01-2006, 10:29 AM
I remember some years ago,
researchers carried around a petition that was the Bill of Rights and asked people to sigh it to get congress to
enact the provisions. The number of times they got called "commies" and "hippie freaks" was amazing.
DrSmellThis
03-01-2006, 02:07 PM
It completely blows my mind
that we don't have time to teach that in grade schools. Kids should also learn a little about the history of
struggle for citizenship, rights and freedom; here and around the world.
Mtnjim
03-01-2006, 02:25 PM
It completely
blows my mind that we don't have time to teach that in grade schools. Kids should also learn a little about the
history of struggle for citizenship, rights and freedom; here and around the world.
And can't locate
Brazil on a map!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.