tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90909432011-04-21T12:45:54.129-07:00A Daily Blogpmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.comBlogger1191100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-24935115584263446152009-03-12T20:11:00.000-07:002009-03-12T20:12:14.429-07:00Hello. I'm still alive.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-2493511558426344615?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1156436583280849792006-08-24T09:19:00.000-07:002006-08-24T09:23:03.320-07:00<h3>by Megan Tady from <a href="http://newstandardnews.net">The New Standard</a> </h3> <div class="teaser"> <h4>The recently revealed spread of genetically modified rice has critics alarmed on two levels: the problem itself and the fact that authorities suppressed the news.</h4> </div> <div class="content"> <p><b> Aug. 24 – </b> Last week, the US Department of Agriculture announced that US commercial long-grain rice supplies are contaminated with "trace amounts" of genetically engineered rice unapproved for human consumption. </p> <p>The genetically engineered (GE) rice is known as Liberty Link (LL) 601. Its genetic code has been modified to provide resistance to herbicides and is illegal for marketing to humans because it has not undergone environmental and health impact reviews by the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). LL601 was field-tested from 1998 to 2001 under permits granted by the USDA, but Bayer Corp Science, the developer of the experimental rice, did not seek commercial approval for it.</p> <p>The contamination was only disclosed after Bayer notified the USDA itself. Currently, the government relies on self-reporting from food companies to determine genetically engineered (GE) contamination, rather than a federal testing system. The USDA dismissed concerns that companies may not always "self-report" or even be aware of their mistakes, which would lead to further undetected contamination of unapproved GE food. </p> <p>It appears a separate company first detected the contamination in January of this year and that Bayer may have known about the contamination since May. But the government was not notified until July 31. It took another 18 days for the USDA to tell the public. </p> <div style="padding-right: 5px; float: left; margin-left: 6px;"> <a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=98532482246" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('TodaysReason','','http://peoplesnetworks.net/images/text_survey_tall_back.png',1)"><br /></a> </div> <p>At a press conference, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns would not divulge how the contamination had happened, or how far it had spread. It was unclear whether he even knew. Jim Rogers, a USDA spokesperson, told <i>The NewStandard</i> the contaminated rice was detected in barrels sent to Missouri and Arizona. </p> <p>"But the rice could have come from anywhere [in the US]," Rogers said. </p> <p>Riceland, a farmer-owned cooperative that markets rice produced by Southern farmers, issued a press release on August 18, saying it first discovered the contamination in January. Riceland conducted its own tests from several grain-storage locations and found: "A significant number tested positive for the Bayer trait. The positive results were geographically dispersed and random throughout the rice-growing area." </p> <div style="float: right;"><a href="http://newstandardnews.net/drive/?page=appeal_page1"><br /></a></div> <p>Riceland notified Bayer of the contamination in May, but did not notify the public or the government. </p> <p>Johanns indicated that an economic motive was behind the government’s delay of nearly three weeks before informing the public about the contamination, as the government anticipated foreign rice importers might reject the product. The Secretary said the USDA spent the time preparing tests for rice importers to check the product for contamination. The US constitutes about 12 percent of the world’s rice trade. </p> <p>There are currently no plans to destroy or recall the rice, and Rogers is unsure if Bayer will be fined. While the government "validates" its tests for the rice, Johanns directed people to Bayer’s website, saying the company "has made arrangements with private laboratories to run tests" on the rice. </p> <div class="pullquoteright"><h5>“We see this as an opportunity to get out the message that this is a radically new technology. These foods have not been tested and we don’t know if they’re safe.” </h5></div> <p>Although the field tests for LL601 ended in 2001, the contamination appeared in a 2005 harvest, leaving some food-safety advocates to worry that the contamination has been present for several years and suggesting that genetically modified strains can persist in the environment well after they have been discontinued in experiments. </p> <p>Two other varieties of rice with the same gene and from the same company have already been approved for human consumption, though never marketed. There is currently no known, intentional commercial US production of genetically engineered rice. </p> <p>Johanns said that based on "available scientific data" provided by Bayer, the USDA and the FDA have concluded "that there are no human-health, food-safety or environmental concerns associated with this GE rice."</p> <p>When pressed about the health implications of the contaminated rice, Rogers noted that foods from pesticide- and herbicide-resistant crops are already on the market. In fact, according to the USDA, 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients. </p> <p>Rogers dismissed concern that, because the government relies on companies’ self-reporting, there could be widespread contamination of unapproved GE ingredients in the US food supply. He said the government did not have plans to begin testing food itself. </p> <p>But this is not the first time unapproved genetic material has escaped detection in the food supply. In 2004, the company Syngenta admitted that for four years, it had sold unapproved GE maize in the US. </p> <p>In response to the Bayer revelation, Greenpeace has called for a worldwide ban on imports of US rice. Already, Japan has suspended US rice imports.</p> <p>The Center for Food Safety, a public-interest organization, is also calling for a moratorium on all new permits for open-air field testing of GE crops. The Center is concerned that open-air testing allows GE crops to cross pollinate with neighboring non-GE crops. </p> <p>"We see this as an opportunity to get out the message that this is a radically new technology," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center. "These foods have not been tested, and we don’t know if they’re safe." </p> </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-115643658328084979?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1145832071237996982006-04-23T15:40:00.000-07:002006-04-23T15:50:03.010-07:00<span style="font-size:130%;">One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush<br /><br />Rolling Stone, 4/20/06<br /><br />George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.<br /><br />From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.<br /><br />Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.<br /><br />The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.<br /><br />Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.<br /><br />Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, "a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.") Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.<br />* * * *<br />How does any president's reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.<br /><br />Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.<br />* * * *<br />THE CREDIBILITY GAP<br />No previous president appears to have squandered the public's trust more than Bush has. In the 1840s, President James Polk gained a reputation for deviousness over his alleged manufacturing of the war with Mexico and his supposedly covert pro-slavery views. Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois congressman, virtually labeled Polk a liar when he called him, from the floor of the House, "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man" and denounced the war as "from beginning to end, the sheerest deception." But the swift American victory in the war, Polk's decision to stick by his pledge to serve only one term and his sudden death shortly after leaving office spared him the ignominy over slavery that befell his successors in the 1850s. With more than two years to go in Bush's second term and no swift victory in sight, Bush's reputation will probably have no such reprieve.<br /><br />The problems besetting Bush are of a more modern kind than Polk's, suited to the television age -- a crisis both in confidence and credibility. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam travails gave birth to the phrase "credibility gap," meaning the distance between a president's professions and the public's perceptions of reality. It took more than two years for Johnson's disapproval rating in the Gallup Poll to reach fifty-two percent in March 1968 -- a figure Bush long ago surpassed, but that was sufficient to persuade the proud LBJ not to seek re-election. Yet recently, just short of three years after Bush buoyantly declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq, his disapproval ratings have been running considerably higher than Johnson's, at about sixty percent. More than half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy, and a decisive plurality consider him less trustworthy than his predecessor, Bill Clinton -- a figure still attacked by conservative zealots as "Slick Willie."<br /><br />Previous modern presidents, including Truman, Reagan and Clinton, managed to reverse plummeting ratings and regain the public's trust by shifting attention away from political and policy setbacks, and by overhauling the White House's inner circles. But Bush's publicly expressed view that he has made no major mistakes, coupled with what even the conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. calls his "high-flown pronouncements" about failed policies, seems to foreclose the first option. Upping the ante in the Middle East and bombing Iranian nuclear sites, a strategy reportedly favored by some in the White House, could distract the public and gain Bush immediate political capital in advance of the 2006 midterm elections -- but in the long term might severely worsen the already dire situation in Iraq, especially among Shiite Muslims linked to the Iranians. And given Bush's ardent attachment to loyal aides, no matter how discredited, a major personnel shake-up is improbable, short of indictments. Replacing Andrew Card with Joshua Bolten as chief of staff -- a move announced by the president in March in a tone that sounded more like defiance than contrition -- represents a rededication to current policies and personnel, not a serious change. (Card, an old Bush family retainer, was widely considered more moderate than most of the men around the president and had little involvement in policy-making.) The power of Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, remains uncurbed. Were Cheney to announce he is stepping down due to health problems, normally a polite pretext for a political removal, one can be reasonably certain it would be because Cheney actually did have grave health problems.<br /><br />* * * *<br />BUSH AT WAR<br />Until the twentieth century, American presidents managed foreign wars well -- including those presidents who prosecuted unpopular wars. James Madison had no support from Federalist New England at the outset of the War of 1812, and the discontent grew amid mounting military setbacks in 1813. But Federalist political overreaching, combined with a reversal of America's military fortunes and the negotiation of a peace with Britain, made Madison something of a hero again and ushered in a brief so-called Era of Good Feelings in which his Jeffersonian Republican Party coalition ruled virtually unopposed. The Mexican War under Polk was even more unpopular, but its quick and victorious conclusion redounded to Polk's favor -- much as the rapid American victory in the Spanish-American War helped William McKinley overcome anti-imperialist dissent.<br /><br />The twentieth century was crueler to wartime presidents. After winning re-election in 1916 with the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War," Woodrow Wilson oversaw American entry into the First World War. Yet while the doughboys returned home triumphant, Wilson's idealistic and politically disastrous campaign for American entry into the League of Nations presaged a resurgence of the opposition Republican Party along with a redoubling of American isolationism that lasted until Pearl Harbor.<br /><br />Bush has more in common with post-1945 Democratic presidents Truman and Johnson, who both became bogged down in overseas military conflicts with no end, let alone victory, in sight. But Bush has become bogged down in a singularly crippling way. On September 10th, 2001, he held among the lowest ratings of any modern president for that point in a first term. (Only Gerald Ford, his popularity reeling after his pardon of Nixon, had comparable numbers.) The attacks the following day transformed Bush's presidency, giving him an extraordinary opportunity to achieve greatness. Some of the early signs were encouraging. Bush's simple, unflinching eloquence and his quick toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan rallied the nation. Yet even then, Bush wasted his chance by quickly choosing partisanship over leadership.<br />No other president -- Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War -- faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats. Top military advisers and even members of the president's own Cabinet who expressed any reservations or criticisms of his policies -- including retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- suffered either dismissal, smear attacks from the president's supporters or investigations into their alleged breaches of national security. The wise men who counseled Bush's father, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, found their entreaties brusquely ignored by his son. When asked if he ever sought advice from the elder Bush, the president responded, "There is a higher Father that I appeal to."<br /><br />All the while, Bush and the most powerful figures in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were planting the seeds for the crises to come by diverting the struggle against Al Qaeda toward an all-out effort to topple their pre-existing target, Saddam Hussein. In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion on the basis of what has now been demonstrated to be tendentious and perhaps fabricated evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat to American security, one that the White House suggested included nuclear weapons. Instead of emphasizing any political, diplomatic or humanitarian aspects of a war on Iraq -- an appeal that would have sounded too "sensitive," as Cheney once sneered -- the administration built a "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked, preventive warfare, based on speculative threats and embracing principles previously abjured by every previous generation of U.S. foreign policy-makers, even at the height of the Cold War. The president did so with premises founded, in the case of Iraq, on wishful thinking. He did so while proclaiming an expansive Wilsonian rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy -- yet discarding the multilateralism and systems of international law (including the Geneva Conventions) that emanated from Wilson's idealism. He did so while dismissing intelligence that an American invasion could spark a long and bloody civil war among Iraq's fierce religious and ethnic rivals, reports that have since proved true. And he did so after repeated warnings by military officials such as Gen. Eric Shinseki that pacifying postwar Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops -- accurate estimates that Paul Wolfowitz and other Bush policy gurus ridiculed as "wildly off the mark."<br /><br />When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed," then something terrible has happened. Even as a brash young iconoclast, Buckley always took the long view. The Bush White House seems incapable of doing so, except insofar as a tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on a par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.<br />* * * *<br />BUSH AT HOME<br />Bush came to office in 2001 pledging to govern as a "compassionate conservative," more moderate on domestic policy than the dominant right wing of his party. The pledge proved hollow, as Bush tacked immediately to the hard right. Previous presidents and their parties have suffered when their actions have belied their campaign promises. Lyndon Johnson is the most conspicuous recent example, having declared in his 1964 run against the hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater that "we are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." But no president has surpassed Bush in departing so thoroughly from his original campaign persona.<br /><br />The heart of Bush's domestic policy has turned out to be nothing more than a series of massively regressive tax cuts -- a return, with a vengeance, to the discredited Reagan-era supply-side faith that Bush's father once ridiculed as "voodoo economics." Bush crowed in triumph in February 2004, "We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." The claim is bogus for the majority of Americans, as are claims that tax cuts have led to impressive new private investment and job growth. While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services. The lion's share of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. Private-sector job growth since 2001 has been anemic compared to the Bush administration's original forecasts and is chiefly attributable not to the tax cuts but to increased federal spending, especially on defense. Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.<br /><br />The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!<br /><br />The rest of what remains of Bush's skimpy domestic agenda is either failed or failing -- a record unmatched since the presidency of Herbert Hoover. The No Child Left Behind educational-reform act has proved so unwieldy, draconian and poorly funded that several states -- including Utah, one of Bush's last remaining political strongholds -- have fought to opt out of it entirely. White House proposals for immigration reform and a guest-worker program have succeeded mainly in dividing pro-business Republicans (who want more low-wage immigrant workers) from paleo-conservatives fearful that hordes of Spanish-speaking newcomers will destroy American culture. The paleos' call for tougher anti-immigrant laws -- a return to the punitive spirit of exclusion that led to the notorious Immigration Act of 1924 that shut the door to immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe -- has in turn deeply alienated Hispanic voters from the Republican Party, badly undermining the GOP's hopes of using them to build a permanent national electoral majority. The recent pro-immigrant demonstrations, which drew millions of marchers nationwide, indicate how costly the Republican divide may prove.<br />The one noncorporate constituency to which Bush has consistently deferred is the Christian right, both in his selections for the federal bench and in his implications that he bases his policies on premillennialist, prophetic Christian doctrine. Previous presidents have regularly invoked the Almighty. McKinley is supposed to have fallen to his knees, seeking divine guidance about whether to take control of the Philippines in 1898, although the story may be apocryphal. But no president before Bush has allowed the press to disclose, through a close friend, his startling belief that he was ordained by God to lead the country. The White House's sectarian positions -- over stem-cell research, the teaching of pseudoscientific "intelligent design," global population control, the Terri Schiavo spectacle and more -- have led some to conclude that Bush has promoted the transformation of the GOP into what former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips calls "the first religious party in U.S. history."<br /><br />Bush's faith-based conception of his mission, which stands above and beyond reasoned inquiry, jibes well with his administration's pro-business dogma on global warming and other urgent environmental issues. While forcing federally funded agencies to remove from their Web sites scientific information about reproductive health and the effectiveness of condoms in combating HIV/AIDS, and while peremptorily overruling staff scientists at the Food and Drug Administration on making emergency contraception available over the counter, Bush officials have censored and suppressed research findings they don't like by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture. Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."<br /><br />The Bush White House's indifference to domestic problems and science alike culminated in the catastrophic responses to Hurricane Katrina. Scientists had long warned that global warming was intensifying hurricanes, but Bush ignored them -- much as he and his administration sloughed off warnings from the director of the National Hurricane Center before Katrina hit. Reorganized under the Department of Homeland Security, the once efficient Federal Emergency Management Agency turned out, under Bush, to have become a nest of cronyism and incompetence. During the months immediately after the storm, Bush traveled to New Orleans eight times to promise massive rebuilding aid from the federal government. On March 30th, however, Bush's Gulf Coast recovery coordinator admitted that it could take as long as twenty-five years for the city to recover.<br /><br />Karl Rove has sometimes likened Bush to the imposing, no-nonsense President Andrew Jackson. Yet Jackson took measures to prevent those he called "the rich and powerful" from bending "the acts of government to their selfish purposes." Jackson also gained eternal renown by saving New Orleans from British invasion against terrible odds. Generations of Americans sang of Jackson's famous victory. In 1959, Johnny Horton's version of "The Battle of New Orleans" won the Grammy for best country & western performance. If anyone sings about George W. Bush and New Orleans, it will be a blues number.<br />* * * *<br />PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT<br />Virtually every presidential administration dating back to George Washington's has faced charges of misconduct and threats of impeachment against the president or his civil officers. The alleged offenses have usually involved matters of personal misbehavior and corruption, notably the payoff scandals that plagued Cabinet officials who served presidents Harding and Ulysses S. Grant. But the charges have also included alleged usurpation of power by the president and serious criminal conduct that threatens constitutional government and the rule of law -- most notoriously, the charges that led to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and to Richard Nixon's resignation.<br /><br />Historians remain divided over the actual grievousness of many of these allegations and crimes. Scholars reasonably describe the graft and corruption around the Grant administration, for example, as gargantuan, including a kickback scandal that led to the resignation of Grant's secretary of war under the shadow of impeachment. Yet the scandals produced no indictments of Cabinet secretaries and only one of a White House aide, who was acquitted. By contrast, the most scandal-ridden administration in the modern era, apart from Nixon's, was Ronald Reagan's, now widely remembered through a haze of nostalgia as a paragon of virtue. A total of twenty-nine Reagan officials, including White House national security adviser Robert McFarlane and deputy chief of staff Michael Deaver, were convicted on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair, illegal lobbying and a looting scandal inside the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Three Cabinet officers -- HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, Attorney General Edwin Meese and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger -- left their posts under clouds of scandal. In contrast, not a single official in the Clinton administration was even indicted over his or her White House duties, despite repeated high-profile investigations and a successful, highly partisan impeachment drive.<br /><br />The full report, of course, has yet to come on the Bush administration. Because Bush, unlike Reagan or Clinton, enjoys a fiercely partisan and loyal majority in Congress, his administration has been spared scrutiny. Yet that mighty advantage has not prevented the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges stemming from an alleged major security breach in the Valerie Plame matter. (The last White House official of comparable standing to be indicted while still in office was Grant's personal secretary, in 1875.) It has not headed off the unprecedented scandal involving Larry Franklin, a high-ranking Defense Department official, who has pleaded guilty to divulging classified information to a foreign power while working at the Pentagon -- a crime against national security. It has not forestalled the arrest and indictment of Bush's top federal procurement official, David Safavian, and the continuing investigations into Safavian's intrigues with the disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, recently sentenced to nearly six years in prison -- investigations in which some prominent Republicans, including former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed (and current GOP aspirant for lieutenant governor of Georgia) have already been implicated, and could well produce the largest congressional corruption scandal in American history. It has not dispelled the cloud of possible indictment that hangs over others of Bush's closest advisers.<br />History may ultimately hold Bush in the greatest contempt for expanding the powers of the presidency beyond the limits laid down by the U.S. Constitution. There has always been a tension over the constitutional roles of the three branches of the federal government. The Framers intended as much, as part of the system of checks and balances they expected would minimize tyranny. When Andrew Jackson took drastic measures against the nation's banking system, the Whig Senate censured him for conduct "dangerous to the liberties of the people." During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln's emergency decisions to suspend habeas corpus while Congress was out of session in 1861 and 1862 has led some Americans, to this day, to regard him as a despot. Richard Nixon's conduct of the war in Southeast Asia and his covert domestic-surveillance programs prompted Congress to pass new statutes regulating executive power.<br /><br />By contrast, the Bush administration -- in seeking to restore what Cheney, a Nixon administration veteran, has called "the legitimate authority of the presidency" -- threatens to overturn the Framers' healthy tension in favor of presidential absolutism. Armed with legal findings by his attorney general (and personal lawyer) Alberto Gonzales, the Bush White House has declared that the president's powers as commander in chief in wartime are limitless. No previous wartime president has come close to making so grandiose a claim. More specifically, this administration has asserted that the president is perfectly free to violate federal laws on such matters as domestic surveillance and the torture of detainees. When Congress has passed legislation to limit those assertions, Bush has resorted to issuing constitutionally dubious "signing statements," which declare, by fiat, how he will interpret and execute the law in question, even when that interpretation flagrantly violates the will of Congress. Earlier presidents, including Jackson, raised hackles by offering their own view of the Constitution in order to justify vetoing congressional acts. Bush doesn't bother with that: He signs the legislation (eliminating any risk that Congress will overturn a veto), and then governs how he pleases -- using the signing statements as if they were line-item vetoes. In those instances when Bush's violations of federal law have come to light, as over domestic surveillance, the White House has devised a novel solution: Stonewall any investigation into the violations and bid a compliant Congress simply to rewrite the laws.<br /><br />Bush's alarmingly aberrant take on the Constitution is ironic. One need go back in the record less than a decade to find prominent Republicans railing against far more minor presidential legal infractions as precursors to all-out totalitarianism. "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the president," Sen. Bill Frist declared of Bill Clinton's efforts to conceal an illicit sexual liaison. "No man is above the law, and no man is below the law -- that's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country," Rep. Tom DeLay asserted. "The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door," warned Rep. Henry Hyde, one of Clinton's chief accusers. In the face of Bush's more definitive dismissal of federal law, the silence from these quarters is deafening.<br />The president's defenders stoutly contend that war-time conditions fully justify Bush's actions. And as Lincoln showed during the Civil War, there may be times of military emergency where the executive believes it imperative to take immediate, highly irregular, even unconstitutional steps. "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful," Lincoln wrote in 1864, "by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation." Bush seems to think that, since 9/11, he has been placed, by the grace of God, in the same kind of situation Lincoln faced. But Lincoln, under pressure of daily combat on American soil against fellow Americans, did not operate in secret, as Bush has. He did not claim, as Bush has, that his emergency actions were wholly regular and constitutional as well as necessary; Lincoln sought and received Congressional authorization for his suspension of habeas corpus in 1863. Nor did Lincoln act under the amorphous cover of a "war on terror" -- a war against a tactic, not a specific nation or political entity, which could last as long as any president deems the tactic a threat to national security. Lincoln's exceptional measures were intended to survive only as long as the Confederacy was in rebellion. Bush's could be extended indefinitely, as the president sees fit, permanently endangering rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizenry.<br />* * * *<br />Much as Bush still enjoys support from those who believe he can do no wrong, he now suffers opposition from liberals who believe he can do no right. Many of these liberals are in the awkward position of having supported Bush in the past, while offering little coherent as an alternative to Bush's policies now. Yet it is difficult to see how this will benefit Bush's reputation in history.<br /><br />The president came to office calling himself "a uniter, not a divider" and promising to soften the acrimonious tone in Washington. He has had two enormous opportunities to fulfill those pledges: first, in the noisy aftermath of his controversial election in 2000, and, even more, after the attacks of September 11th, when the nation pulled behind him as it has supported no other president in living memory. Yet under both sets of historically unprecedented circumstances, Bush has chosen to act in ways that have left the country less united and more divided, less conciliatory and more acrimonious -- much like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover before him. And, like those three predecessors, Bush has done so in the service of a rigid ideology that permits no deviation and refuses to adjust to changing realities. Buchanan failed the test of Southern secession, Johnson failed in the face of Reconstruction, and Hoover failed in the face of the Great Depression. Bush has failed to confront his own failures in both domestic and international affairs, above all in his ill-conceived responses to radical Islamic terrorism. Having confused steely resolve with what Ralph Waldo Emerson called "a foolish consistency . . . adored by little statesmen," Bush has become entangled in tragedies of his own making, compounding those visited upon the country by outside forces.<br />No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents -- Harry Truman was one -- who have left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars. But so far the facts are not shaping up propitiously for George W. Bush. He still does his best to deny it. Having waved away the lessons of history in the making of his decisions, the present-minded Bush doesn't seem to be concerned about his place in history. "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."<br />Another president once explained that the judgments of history cannot be defied or dismissed, even by a president. "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history," said Abraham Lincoln. "We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation."<br /><br />SEAN WILENTZ</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-114583207123799698?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1138320842662301122006-01-26T16:11:00.000-08:002006-01-26T16:14:02.686-08:00<span style="font-family:Helvetica, Helvetica;font-size:6;"><b>We Don't Need a New King George<br /></b></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, Helvetica;font-size:130%;"><i>How can the President interpret the law as if it didn't apply to him?<br /><br /></i></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, Helvetica;">By ANDREW SULLIVAN - Time Magazine </span><br /><br />Jan. 23, 2006<br /><br />A somewhat legal law is a little like a somewhat pregnant woman. At first blush, it seems like an absurdity. But President Bush disagrees. In the past five years, quietly but systematically, he has been arguing that the law doesn't always apply to him. How has he done this? By attaching "signing statements" that spell out his own attitude to bills he signs.<br />Previous Presidents have sporadically issued signing statements, but seldom and mainly as boilerplate or spin. Until the 1980s, there had been just over a dozen in two centuries. The President's basic legislative weapon, after all, is the veto power given him by the founders. He can use the power as leverage to affect legislation or kill it. But he cannot legislate himself or interpret the law counter to Congress's intent. Signing statements were therefore relatively rare instances of presidential nuance or push-back. In eight years, Ronald Reagan used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, and Bill Clinton 105.<br /><br />In five years, President Bush has already challenged up to 500 provisions, according to one tally--far, far more than any predecessor. But more important than the number under Bush has been the systematic use of the statements and the scope of their content, asserting a very broad legal loophole for the Executive. Last December, for example, after a year of debate, the President signed the McCain amendment into law. In the wake of Abu Ghraib, the amendment banned all "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of U.S. military detainees. For months, the President threatened a veto. Then the Senate passed it 90 to 9. The House chimed in with a veto-proof majority. So Bush backed down, embraced McCain and signed it. The debate was over, right? That's how our democracy works, right?<br /><br />Not according to this President. Although the meaning of the law was crystal clear and the Constitution says Congress has the exclusive power to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," Bush demurred.<br /><br />He issued a signing statement that read, "The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."<br /><br />Translation: If the President believes torture is warranted to protect the country, he'll violate the law and authorize torture. If the courts try to stop him, he'll ignore them too. This wasn't quibbling or spinning. Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do, Bush all but declared himself above a law he signed. One professor who specializes in this constitutional area, Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University in Oregon, has described the power grabs as "breathtaking."<br /><br />And who came up with this innovative use of presidential signing statements? Drumroll, please. Samuel Alito, Supreme Court nominee, way back in 1986. In a Feb. 5 memo, he wrote, "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress." That is, of course, a very strange idea--which is why, until then, signing statements had been sporadic and rare. Courts have always looked solely to congressional debates in interpreting laws Congress has passed. In laws with veto-proof margins, the President's view is utterly irrelevant. Alito seemed to concede that at the time, recognizing the "novelty of the procedure and the potential increase of presidential power."<br /><br />Alito, of course, didn't foresee the war on terrorism. But put a war President's power together with the new use of signing statements, and Executive clout has been put on steroids. "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the Commander in Chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," argued Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina.<br /><br />As Graham shows, this isn't a Republican-Democrat issue. It's a very basic one. A President, Democrat or Republican, has every right to act unilaterally at times to defend the country. But a democracy cannot work if the person who is deputed to execute the laws exempts himself from them when he feels like it. Forget the imperial presidency. This is more like a monarchical one. America began by rejecting the claims of one King George. It's disturbing to think we may now be quietly installing a second one. Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, can be found at <a href="http://www.time.com">time.com</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-113832084266230112?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1130279271515284522005-10-25T15:19:00.000-07:002005-10-25T15:27:51.523-07:00I'm not 100% sure, but I do know that there is now a website that allows you to opt out of receiving them.<br /><br />It turns out that they get their information using data provided by the four credit companies: Equifax, Experian, Innovis, and TransUnion.<br /><br />I found out about this through a consumer email newsletter that I receive from Ed Foster.<br /><br />You can read his inquiry into whether this service is legitimate (it is) at the following URL. : <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2005/10/25.html#a322" eudora="autourl">http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2005/10/25.html#a322</a> or <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ayq6m" eudora="autourl">http://tinyurl.com/ayq6m</a>.<br /><br />Ed also provides a phone number that can be called for the same purpose.<br /><br /> The website to go to to actually opt out is:<br /><br /> <a href="https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t" eudora="autourl">https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t</a><br /><br /> Please use this information for good and not for evil.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Why this is worth knowing about:<br /><br />1. You can help save trees.<br />2. You can save time.<br />3. You can strike a blow against big business.<br /><br />Any downsides?<br /><br />1. It takes a few moments to read Ed's article so that you can be sure this is worth it.<br />2. It takes a little time to fill in the form to submit.<br />3. They ask for your social security number, which they encrypt before it goes out into the ether.<br />4. As Ed mentions, it's disconcerting to have to beg to have this kind of nonsense stopped.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-113027927151528452?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1120433402269144892005-07-03T16:28:00.000-07:002005-07-03T16:30:02.276-07:00<h1><br /></h1> <h1><span style="font-weight: normal;">Thanks to Dan Falkoff for this.</span><br /></h1> <h1><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:6;"><b>Man said to recite pi to 83,431 digits</b></span></h1> <span style="font-family:arial;">July 2, 2005<br /><br />TOKYO --A Japanese psychiatric counselor has recited pi to 83,431 decimal places from memory, breaking his own personal best of 54,000 digits and setting an unofficial world record, a media report said Saturday.<br />Akira Haraguchi, 59, had begun his attempt to recall the value of pi -- a mathematical value that has an infinite number of decimal places -- at a public hall in Chiba city, east of Tokyo, on Friday morning and appeared to give up by noon after only reaching 16,000 decimal places, the Tokyo Shimbun said on its Web site.<br /><br />But a determined Haraguchi started anew and had broken his old record on Friday evening, about 11 hours after first sitting down to his task, the paper said.<br /><br />He reached the 80,000-digit mark after midnight early Saturday, according to the paper, which had a photo showing Haraguchi with his eyes closed, his face contorted in concentration.<br /><br />If verified and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records, Haraguchi's feat would beat his own previous best -- currently under review -- of 54,000 digits. The official current record-holder, also Japanese, calculated pi from memory to 42,195 decimal places in 1995.<br /><br />Pi, usually given as an abbreviated 3.14, is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. The number has fascinated and confounded mathematicians for centuries.<br /><br />Aided by a supercomputer, a University of Tokyo mathematician set the world record for figuring out pi to 1.24 trillion decimal places in 2002.<br /><br />Researchers say that calculating pi to more than about 1,000 decimal places has not much purpose in math or engineering, though mathematicians have done so to test the accuracy and limits of supercomputers.</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-112043340226914489?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1119390185552499852005-06-21T14:41:00.000-07:002005-06-21T14:43:05.556-07:00300 Free fonts for you to download. Just move them to your FONTS folder in your WINDOWS (or WINNT) directory.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.goodfonts.org/handwriting/">http://www.goodfonts.org/handwriting/</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-111939018555249985?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1111964520874664162005-03-27T15:02:00.000-08:002005-03-27T15:02:00.873-08:00<a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032705X.shtml">t r u t h o u t - FOCUS: Army Admits Violating Geneva Convention</a>: "Saturday 26 March 2005 <br /> <br /> <br /> Washington -- Newly released government documents say the abuse of prisoners in Iraq by US forces was more widespread than previously reported. <br /> <br /> An officer found that detainees "were being systematically and intentionally mistreated" at a holding facility near Mosul in December 2003. The 311th Military Intelligence Battalion of the Army's 101st Airborne Division ran the lockup. <br /> <br /> Records previously released by the Army have detailed abuses at Abu Ghraib and other sites in Iraq as well as at sites in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The documents released Friday were the first to reveal abuses at the jail in Mosul and are among the few to allege torture directly. <br /> <br /> "There is evidence that suggests the 311th MI personnel and/or translators engaged in physical torture of the detainees," a memo from the investigator said. The January 2004 report said the prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions were violated. <br /> <br /> Top military officials first became aware of the Abu Ghraib abuses in January 2004, when pictures such as those showing soldiers piling naked prisoners in a pyramid were turned over to investigators. The resulting scandal after the pictures became public tarnished the military's image in Arab countries and worldwide and sparked investigations of detainee abuses. <br /> <br /> The records about the Mosul jail were part of more than 1,200 pages of documents referring to allegations of prisoner abuse. The Army released the records to reporters and to the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. <br /> <br /> "They show the torture and abuse of detainees was routine and such treatment was considered an acceptable practice by US forces," ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said. <br /> <br /> Guards at the detention facility near Mosul came from at least three infantry units of the 101st Airborne, including an air-defense artillery unit. The investigating officer, whose name was blacked out of the documents, said the troops were poorly trained and encouraged to abuse prisoners. <br /> <br /> According to the report, the abuse included: <br /> <br /> * Forcing detainees to perform exercises such as deep knee bends for hours on end, to the point of exhaustion. <br /> <br /> * Blowing cigarette smoke into the sandbags the prisoners were forced to wear as hoods. <br /> <br /> * Throwing cold water on the prisoners in a room that was between 40 degrees and 50 degrees. <br /> <br /> * Blasting the detainees with heavy-metal music, yelling at them and banging on doors and ammunition cans. <br /> <br /> No one was punished for the abuses, however, because the investigating officer said there was not enough proof against any individual. The report did not say what actions might have amounted to torture or which individuals might have committed them. <br /> <br /> -------- <br /> <br /> On the Net: <br /> <br /> ACLU: http://www.aclu.org<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-111196452087466416?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1109765158788985292005-03-02T04:00:00.000-08:002005-03-02T04:05:58.800-08:00Thanks Mike Taylor for the link to this article.<br /><br />MEDIA MONSTER KILLER<br />Corporate Media, Coming of the Rapture, and the Culture of Fear: Coffee Talk with Bill Moyers<br />by Nick Welsh<br /><br />Spend five minutes on the phone with Bill Moyers, dubbed by some “the conscience” of American journalism, and it’s abundantly obvious that the man is troubled, and profoundly pissed off; though it’s doubtful someone so imbued with good Southern manners would use such talk. Now 70, Moyers has spent most of the past 55 years hunting the truth behind his craft, a working journalist tracing the twisted paths of power for both newspapers and television. Embodying that rare combination of graciousness, dignity, and passion, Moyers has been audacious enough to tell “the truth behind the news,” rather than to report the “he-said-she-said” ping-pong that often passes for news. And the truth about the news business — and democracy — as Moyers sees, could not be more grim.<br /><br />The mainstream news media, Moyers laments, has taken a dive at a time when the power of the Republican Party has never been more absolute and more morally bankrupt. As a result, public discourse has been reduced to a scream-fest dominated by such unabashedly conservative media giants as Fox, Clear Channel, and Sinclair, who’ve become “echo chambers” for the Bush administration, if not outright propagandists. And when it comes to the realities of bare-knuckle politics, Moyers is hardly some pious sissy. For three years he worked closely with former President Lyndon Johnson, whose ferocity as a political infighter was exceeded only by his reputed Machiavellian genius. After his stint with Johnson, Moyers went to work for CBS; in 1986 he created his own independent production company, Public Affairs Television.<br /><br /> ‘I never took him as a compassionate conservative.<br /> I’m a Texan. I saw what he had done to Texas and I knew he would do to the nation what he had done to Texas.<br /> And by God he’s done it.’<br /> — Bill Moyers<br /><br />Via Public Affairs, Moyers explored not just the political but the spiritual dimension of American life, introducing the likes of anthropologist Joseph Campbell (The Power of Myth) and poet Robert Bly to the American public. Over the past three years, Moyers became best known for his searing weekly news series NOW — broadcast Friday nights on public television — which painstakingly dissected the worrisome cross-pollination between political and corporate power.<br /><br />Late last December, Moyers pulled the plug on NOW. He had no time for anything else, he explained, and his five grandchildren weren’t getting any younger. And at age 70, neither was he. Moyers is hardly retiring from life; rather he’s launching what he called his “third act.” On March 1, Moyers is set to appear at UCSB’s Campbell Hall to kick off a fundraising campaign for the university’s Arts & Lectures program — where he’ll be interviewed by acclaimed Palestinian-American poet Naomi Shihab Nye. Two weeks ago, he gave me a chunk of prime time on the phone, and the following is an abbreviated version of that conversation.<br /><br />NICK WELSH: When you arrive in S.B., there could be 500 reporters from all over the world covering jury selection for the Michael Jackson trial. Any interest in a firsthand look; any gut reaction to seeing so much journalistic time, energy, and resources devoted to such a trial?<br /><br />BILL MOYERS: First, I think the other 500 will handle the heavy responsibilities of reporting that trial. And second, I once said to a judge, “You know there’s no justice in the world.” And he said, “That’s right. Get on with it.” I have learned at this advanced stage in life not to grieve over what I cannot change and not to be disturbed about what doesn’t bother me. It’s unfortunate that so much attention could be given to the trial of a Michael Jackson as opposed to covering the truth behind the news. But there’s no institution more immune to criticism than the media. I don’t waste any time, energy, or grief over the reality of a world saturated with celebrity. I mean, the BBC — which I listen to every morning — led yesterday with the announcement that Prince Charles is going to marry Camilla what’s-her-name. As did the New York Times. This is a startling announcement? I thought maybe the rapture had begun.<br /><br />In your parting shots prior to going off the air, you accused conservative news outlets like Fox of being a propaganda arm of the administration — or at least a vast echo chamber. These outlets are incredibly popular though, bringing to mind Al Capone’s famous line, “I’m just giving the people what they want.” So when you look at the ratings, why shouldn’t we conclude that Fox and O’Reilly are what the people want?<br /><br />I don’t dispute that. It’s certainly what the people who watch that want. I’ve never challenged that. They’re giving their ideological audience what that ideological audience wants. They bought into a belief system that can’t be challenged by any evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />If that’s the case and that’s so bad, then why do you think the other media outlets — the ones that don’t buy into this approach — are having such a hard time competing?<br /><br />I think mainstream journalism has been driven to the lowest priority on the scale of values of the mega media companies that own them. Journalism and the news business don’t always mix. And we now have big media companies that own the journalistic organs and that’s not their top priority. When Michael Eisner says he doesn’t want ABC news covering Disney activities you realize there’s a chilling effect on corporate journalists that proscribes their boundaries. With a few honorable exceptions, you cannot count on the big media companies to put journalism above other values in their hierarchy of values. There was a study done a year ago in which one-third of the journalists who responded said they were asked to kill stories that were offensive to the clientele of their corporate bosses. So you have a very neutered mainstream media, and you have a powerful ideological megaphone in Fox News and talk radio for the right wing. So there’s an imbalance today and the right wing has the dominant megaphone in America.<br /><br />As feeble as you say mainstream media is, it still reported many of the most notable failures of the Bush administration: no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; no postwar planning for Iraq; new policies that condone torture in Iraq; an all-out attack on environmental regulation; tax policies that favored the rich and destabilized the dollar. Still, Bush got elected. The first time around, he managed to run as the compassionate conservative, but this time, the information was out there for anyone to see …<br /><br />I never took him as a compassionate conservative. I’m a Texan. I saw what he had done to Texas and I knew he would do to the nation what he had done to Texas. And by God he’s done it. He’s turned the environment over to the polluters, he’s turned the courts over to big business, and he’s turned the schools over to the religious right. I was not fooled by his prevarications and his camouflage and his deceits.<br /><br /><br />But all that was out there in plain view. How do you account for this?<br /><br />There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth. In this case, a majority of voters knew exactly what you’re saying, yet voted for him none the less. They did so for one of two reasons. First, Bush had America scared to death. And fear was the dominant issue in that campaign, not moral values. Second, many of Bush’s supporters buy into the belief system that he and his allies have propounded. And in that belief system — which is supported by Fox News and talk radio — no evidence to the contrary can be permitted. Ideologues embrace a worldview that cannot be changed because they admit no evidence to the contrary. The Washington Post had a story about a study recently about how even if what people first hear turns out to be wrong, they still tend to believe it’s true. That’s because, if it fits their value system, they don’t change it after they learn it’s not true. It’s a weird phenomenon. I’d also say conservatives have never been more politically dominant and more intellectually and morally bankrupt. Because of that they can keep their troops believing the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that the threat of Al Qaeda is greater to us than the threat of low wages, environmental pollution, the growing inequality in America, or the terrible failure of the Bush policies on schools. People just didn’t want the uncomfortable truth to disturb the comfortable lie.<br /><br /><br />At the risk of twisting your words, I thought I read somewhere that you said the reason we went to war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil or fighting terrorism or spreading democracy but because of Bush’s religious beliefs about accelerating the coming of the Rapture. Am I getting this right?<br /><br />You are twisting my words. I didn’t say that about Bush. I said the the reasons Bush went to war were not the reasons he gave: There were no weapons of mass destruction and there were no ties between Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center. I also said there are a lot of people — 15 percent of the Bush electorate are people who believe in the Rapture — who believe that Jesus is coming again and that that belief diminishes their interest in addressing issues like the environment. I have no idea whether Bush subscribes to that, and would not want to suggest that he does. But I do know for a fact there are millions of people who are part of the conservative constituency, who believe the end-times theology that turns Earth into a transit station to heaven, and who actually believe the Rapture cannot come until certain biblical prophecies are fulfilled.<br /><br /><br />For those secular people not in touch with the Rapture index, could you explain what that’s all about? Is this some fringe group of nut balls or is this more mainstream and we just don’t know about it?<br /><br />I do not look at them as nuts. They are perfectly sincere; they believe the Bible is literally true. I would never describe them as nuts. Some of them are my cousins.<br /><br />But you are describing a relatively extreme worldview and I’m trying to get a sense of how many people hold it.<br /><br />According to a Gallup poll, one-third of the American electorate believes the Bible is literally true. Among that one-third, there are millions who believe the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. And they believe in the Rapture index. The best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the Left Behind series written by Christian fundamentalist and religious right-winger Timothy LaHaye [co-written with Jerry Jenkins]. These true believers believe that once Israel has occupied the rest of its biblical land, legions of the antichrist will attack, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. Those Jews who have not converted will be burned and the Messiah will return for the Rapture. I’m not making this up. These people are sincere, serious, polite people who will tell you they feel called to help bring the Rapture on as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That’s one reason they’ve declared solidarity with Israel as a Jewish settlement and backed up their support with money and volunteers. They see war in the Middle East as not something to be feared but welcomed because it’s part of the biblical prophecy.<br /><br /><br />You write a lot about the right-wing media and right-wing Christianity. Is there a connection there, and do you find it odd that the right-wing conservative networks have led the charge in smutifying the airwaves and that they led the T&A quotient?<br /><br />It’s so interesting that one of the chief critics of smut in television, Brent Bozell, who runs a right-wing media watch group [Media Research Center], is silent when it comes to the public standards of Rupert Murdoch’s sleaze empire. They do have a double standard. They are silent about the fact that it’s capitalism, and that it’s the media tycoons who are polluting the public sphere.<br /><br /><br />To what extent do you feel that the left has ignored that issue at their own peril? <br />That there is a genuine and sincere outrage over the pornification of the airwaves and that it’s not just right-wing Christians who are offended?<br /><br />This is not a monolithic country, contrary to what people feel. This is not a left or a right country. The networks wouldn’t be making money if there wasn’t a large percentage of people who watch and appreciate that stuff.<br /><br /><br />The Christian right has been around for a long time. But it seems it’s gained new intensity. Is this a function of the gay marriage issue or is there something else that accounts for its current strength?<br /><br />Not all Christians are the same. There are evangelical Christians who believe in stewardship of the environment and there are fundamentalist Christians who believe that the environment is just a passing phenomenon and we ought not to pay any attention to it. It is a great danger in America that we have allowed simplistic bumper-sticker notions to dominate what is a complex society with a lot of different views. I just read a letter from a guy in Indiana who home-schools his children and goes to church every Sunday and deplores what happens in popular culture but is a liberal when it comes to economics. I know there are a lot of people who are conservatives and Christians who do not share the Republican ideology.<br /><br /><br />Why don’t we hear from them?<br /><br />The mainstream media doesn’t give a damn. It wants the most flamboyant outspoken sensational Pat Robertson it can get.<br /><br /><br />So is the only option for them to get their own media outlets, kind of like Al Franken is doing with Air America?<br /><br />I don’t think that will be possible. They don’t have the money, for one thing, and secondly most of the outlets are taken up. If a group of [liberal] churches were to try to provide an alternative, it’s too late. The stage has been bought, the arena’s been filled.<br /><br /><br />Thanks for the grim picture. Where do you get your news?<br /><br />I use the Internet widely and I read 10-12 newspapers every week and 50 magazines every month. I scan them. You have to work hard to stay informed in this society. You can’t take any one newspaper or any one magazine and expect to be informed. You have to work at it. Anybody who has the energy and the time and the will can be informed today. But you can’t do it by listening to one broadcast or watching one cable channel or reading one newspaper. You really have to become your own editor today. I think that’s both exhilarating and exhausting. It is also a necessity. You can’t rely on the networks. You have to read the other side and listen to the other side. I spend as much time with conservative Web sites and conservative journals as I do with the New York Times, Washington Post, or the L.A. Times.<br /><br /><br />You worked for Lyndon Johnson, who was destroyed by the antiwar movement despite being some sort of Machiavellian genius. Bush on the other hand hasn’t been fazed by the antiwar movement, even though there were hundreds of thousands of people protesting since long before we even went to war. What’s Bush got that LBJ didn’t?<br /><br />He’s got a contained war for one thing, and a war without a draft, for another thing. Iraq is not Vietnam. We made the same mistakes we made in Vietnam. Their information and judgment is no better than ours was in Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson misinterpreted the events in the Gulf of Tonkin and too quickly committed the U.S. to escalating the war on the basis of inadequate information. That’s what they did in Iraq. But for sheer scale and scope, Vietnam was far beyond what Iraq is. Unfortunately, it’s been very destructive to the Iraqi people, but because of embedded journalism and terrorism, the public doesn’t see or care about what’s happened to Iraqi citizens. You had 55,000 Americans killed in Vietnam — 1,400 killed in Iraq. The sheer scale of the violence and the death and destruction in Vietnam — which was a well-covered war — brought home to Americans the immorality of that war. The ends did not justify the means. You’ve also got a more compliant press. Lyndon Johnson railed against journalists but he never tried to keep them from being in Vietnam. That was a war under a looking glass. And Iraq has been very carefully censored. And very carefully contained, and successfully kept largely off the radar screen.<br /><br />Seymour Hersh talks of Vietnam being a tactical war, Iraq being a strategic war — meaning that the stakes are a lot higher than in Vietnam.<br /><br />This war was sold to us as a means of containing terrorism and has actually created more terrorism. It’s inflaming the Muslim world in a way that Vietnam didn’t inflame the rest of the world. Let me put it this way: Iraq is a war with consequences for billions of people who don’t live there. Vietnam was largely a war with terrible consequences for the people who fought and the people who lived there but it didn’t have a great fallout for the rest of the world. It’s dangerous to read any historical event into the present reality. But it is possible you can learn from the past, and that lesson is: Be damn sure of your information. A war is too terrible to undertake on a mere suspicion.<br /><br /><br />Do you see this mushrooming beyond the scope of Vietnam?<br /><br />I don’t think anyone knows right now the extent to which downstream consequences of the policies in Iraq will create continuing alienation and vengeance on the part of the Muslim world. It’s our policies that are driving so many people to hate us. Some of that’s unjustified, some of it isn’t. But you’re asking questions that will take journalists 50 years from now to answer.<br /><br /><br />You’re a Texan. LBJ was a Texan. Bush is a Texan. There’s all this myth about Texas. Does that give any edge in understanding this guy? Or is Bush really a Texan or just an East Coast Brahmin masquerading as a Texan?<br /><br />He’s Texanized American politics. I was never fooled by it, but if you go home to Texas today, it’s a Christian empire. The state of Texas is a Christian nation. Conservative Christians dominate everything there. I don’t know Bush. I’ve never met him. I don’t know if he’s a likable man or not. But I know if I met him I would ask him, “How can you grow up well-churched and well-loved and well-taught and be so utterly insensitive to other people’s reality? How can you be so indifferent to people?” He’s a privileged man who is the ally of people who are trying to undo the social contract in this country and to take us back to the pre-1932 period, when it was every man for himself and American economic strategy was to let the animal spirits of capitalism run and everyone take the consequences. I do not understand that. Except to say that if a son of privilege cannot see beyond his own prerogatives and is therefore unable to feel and see how life is for others, then that’s a tragedy and a political travesty.<br /><br /><br />The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do you think it’s possible that whatever Bush’s true intentions were in Iraq, they might lead to a free democratic nation?<br /><br />I hope things go well in Iraq. Too many people have died and too much suffering has occurred and too much treasure spent for it not to. I do not think you should go to war based on a suspicion, as I said earlier; but having gone, I certainly don’t want the people who have been beheading their own people to win. It remains to be seen if we wind up with a theocracy or not. But again, it is too early to predict the outcome of the forces that have been let loose in Iraq.<br /><br /><br />If you were a young man coming up today, do you think you’d go into journalism again?<br /><br />If you want to go cover Michael Jackson, I guess yes. But if you want to be a serious student and analyst of the world, if you want to do really good journalism and journalism that tells the truth as you see it, then broadcast journalism is not the place to go today. There are still good newspapers. If you’re young today and you have a fire in your belly, you’ve got to follow it because it’s that fire that will sustain you in moments of low wages, in the face of indifferent editors and hostile owners, and a public at large that doesn’t care. But if it were me, I’d probably do the same thing over again. <br /><br />Bill Moyers: In Conversation with Naomi Shihab Nye,<br />Tuesday, March 1, 8 p.m.,<br />UCSB’s Campbell Hall.<br />Call 893-3535.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110976515878898529?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1109758437880219202005-03-02T02:13:00.000-08:002005-03-02T02:13:58.086-08:00March 1, 2005<br /><br />MEDIA ALERT: IS THE EARTH REALLY FINISHED?<br /><br />Countering Despair with the Momentum of Hope<br /><br />"What goes against the grain of conditioning is experienced as not credible, or as a hostile act." (John McMurtry, philosopher)<br /><br /><br />Bizarre Conversations<br /><br />Climate crisis is not a future risk. It is today's reality. As Myles Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University, warned recently: "The danger zone is not something we are going to reach in the middle of this century. We are in it now." (Roger Highfield, 'Screen saver weather trial predicts 10 deg rise in British temperatures', Daily Telegraph, 31 January, 2005)<br /><br />Human-induced climate change has been killing people for decades. Climatologists estimate that global warming has led to the deaths of 150,000 people since 1970. (Meteorological Office, 'Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change', 1-3 February 2005, Table 2a. 'Impacts on human systems due to temperature rise, precipitation change and increases in extreme events', page 1; www.stabilisation2005.com/impacts/impacts_human.pdf) By 2050, as temperatures rise, scientists warn that three billion people will be under "water stress", with tens of millions likely dying as a result.<br /><br />At such a desperate moment in the planet's history, we could simply throw up our hands in despair, or we could try to reduce the likelihood of the worst predictions coming true. The corporate media has yet to examine its own role in setting up huge obstacles to the latter option of hope.<br /><br />Consider, for example, Michael McCarthy, environment editor of the Independent. McCarthy described how he "was taken aback" at dramatic scientific warnings of "major new threats" at a recent climate conference in Exeter. One frightening prospect is the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, previously considered stable, which would lead to a 5-metre rise in global sea level. As McCarthy notes dramatically: "Goodbye London; goodbye Bangladesh".<br /><br />On the way back from Exeter on the train, he mulls over the conference findings with Paul Brown, environment correspondent of the Guardian:<br /><br />"By the time we reached London we knew what the conclusion was. I said: 'The earth is finished.' Paul said: 'It is, yes.' We both shook our heads and gave that half-laugh that is sparked by incredulity. So many environmental scare stories, over the years; I never dreamed of such a one as this.<br /><br />"And what will our children make of our generation, who let this planet, so lovingly created, go to waste?" (McCarthy, 'Slouching towards disaster', The Tablet, 12 February, 2005; available at http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/Tablet.pdf)<br /><br />This is a remarkably bleak conclusion. McCarthy glibly notes the "inevitability of what [is] going to happen", namely: "The earth is finished." We applaud the journalist for presenting the reality of human-caused climate change. But the resignation, and the apparent lack of any resolve to avert catastrophe, is irresponsible. As Noam Chomsky has put it in a different, though related, context:<br /><br />"We are faced with a kind of Pascal's wager: assume the worst and it will surely arrive: commit oneself to the struggle for freedom and justice, and its cause may be advanced." (Chomsky, 'Deterring Democracy', Vintage, London, 1992, p. 64)<br /><br />Following McCarthy's anguished return to the Independent's comfortable offices in London, one searches in vain for his penetrating news reports on how corporate greed and government complicity have dragged humanity into this abyss. One searches in vain, too, for anything similar by Paul Brown in The Guardian.<br /><br />The notion of government and big business perpetrating climate crimes against humanity is simply off the news agenda. A collective madness of suffocating silence pervades the media, afflicting even those editors and journalists that we are supposed to regard as the best.<br /><br /><br />Contraction and Convergence: Climate Logic for Survival<br /><br />In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was agreed. The objective of the convention is to "stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will avoid dangerous rates of climate change." The Kyoto protocol, which came into force in February, requires developed nations to cut emissions by just 5 per cent, compared to 1990 levels. This is a tiny first step, and is far less than the cuts required, which are around 80 per cent.<br /><br />One of the major gaps in the climate 'debate' is the deafening silence surrounding contraction and convergence (C&C). This proposal by the London-based Global Commons Institute would cut greenhouse gas emissions in a fair and timely manner, averting the worst climatic impacts. Unlike Kyoto, it is a global framework involving all countries, both 'developed' and 'developing'.<br /><br />C&C requires that annual emissions of greenhouse gases contract over time to a sustainable level. The aim would be to limit the equivalent concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a safe level. The pre-industrial level, in 1800, was 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The current level is around 380 ppmv, and it will exceed 400 ppmv within ten years under a business as usual scenario. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, the planet would continue to heat up for more than a hundred years. In other words, humanity has already committed life on the planet to considerable climate-related damages in the years to come.<br /><br />Setting a 'safe' limit of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration actually means estimating a limit beyond which damage to the planet is unacceptable. This may be 450 ppmv; or it may be that the international community agrees on a target lower than the present atmospheric level, say 350 ppmv. Once the target is agreed, it is a simple matter to allocate an equitable 'carbon budget' of annual emissions amongst the world's population on a per capita basis. This is worked out for each country or world region (e.g. the European Union).<br /><br />The Global Commons Institute's eye-catching computer graphics illustrate past emissions and future allocation of emissions by country (or region), achieving per capita equality by 2030, for example. This is the convergence part of C&C. After 2030, emissions drop off to reach safe levels by 2100. This is the contraction. (Further information on C&C, with illustrations, can be found at http://www.gci.org.uk).<br /><br />Recall that the objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is to "stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will avoid dangerous rates of climate change." Its basic principles are precaution and equity. C&C is a simple and powerful proposal that directly embodies both the convention's objective and principles.<br /><br />Last year, the secretariat to the UNFCCC negotiations declared that achieving the treaty's objective "inevitably requires Contraction and Convergence". C&C is supported by an impressive array of authorities in climate science, including physicist Sir John Houghton, the former chair of the science assessment working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988-2002). Indeed, the IPCC, comprising the world's recognised climate experts, has announced that: "C&C takes the rights-based approach to its logical conclusion."<br /><br />The prestigious Institute of Civil Engineers in London recently described C&C as "an antidote to the expanding, diverging and climate-changing nature of global economic development". The ICE added that C&C "could prove to be the ultimate sustainability initia­tive." (Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, paper 13982, December 2004)<br /><br />In February 2005, Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute was given a lifetime's achievement award by the Corporation of London. Nominations had been sought for "the person from the worlds of business, academia, politics and activism seeking the individual who had made the greatest contribution to the understanding and combating of climate change, leading strategic debate and policy formation."<br /><br />Although Meyer is at times understandably somewhat despondent at the enormity of the task ahead, he sees fruitful signs in the global grassroots push for sustainable development, something which "is impossible without personal and human development. These are things we have to work for so hope has momentum as well as motive." ('GCI's Meyer looks ahead', interview with Energy Argus, December 2004, p. 15; reprinted in http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/EAC_document_3.pdf, p. 27)<br /><br />And that momentum of hope is building. C&C has attracted statements of support from leading politicians and grassroots groups in a majority of the world's countries, including the Africa Group, the Non-Aligned Movement, China and India. C&C may well be the only approach to greenhouse emissions that developing countries are willing to accept. That, in turn, should grab the attention of even the US; the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto protocol ostensibly, at least, because the agreement requires no commitments from developing nations. Kyoto involves only trivial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, as we noted above, and the agreement will expire in 2012. A replacement agreement is needed fast.<br /><br />On a sane planet, politicians and the media would now be clamouring to introduce C&C as a truly global, logical and equitable framework for stabilising the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Rational and balanced coverage of climate change would be devoting considerable resources to discussion of this groundbreaking proposal. It would be central to news reports of international climate meetings as a way out of the deadlock of negotiations; Jon Snow of Channel 4 news would be hosting hour-long live debates; the BBC's Jeremy Paxman would demand of government ministers why they had not yet signed up to C&C; ITN's Trevor Macdonald would present special documentaries from a multimillion pound ITN television studio; newspaper editorials would analyse the implications of C&C for sensible energy policies and tax regimes; Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace would be endlessly promoting C&C to their supporters. Instead, a horrible silence prevails.<br /><br /><br />Leaders as Moral Metaphors of a Corrupt System<br /><br />We conducted a Lexis-Nexis newspaper database search to gauge the relative importance given to different topics in climate news reports by a number of major environment reporters. The following figures relate to the five year period leading up to, and including, 25 February 2005. We investigated to what extent equity, and contraction and convergence, entered into mainstream news reports on climate, in the best British press.<br /><br />Michael McCarthy (Independent) Number of news reports<br />"climate" 232<br />"climate" + "industry" 80<br />"climate" + "Blair" 53<br />"climate" + "equity" 0<br />"climate" + "contraction and convergence" 0<br /><br />Geoffrey Lean (Independent on Sunday)<br />"climate" 105<br />"climate" + "industry" 40<br />"climate" + "Blair" 38<br />"climate" + "equity" 0<br />"climate" + "contraction and convergence" 1<br /><br />Charles Clover (Telegraph)<br />"climate" 136<br />"climate" + "industry" 47<br />"climate" + "Blair" 38<br />"climate" + "equity" 0<br />"climate" + "contraction and convergence" 0<br /><br />Paul Brown (Guardian)<br />"climate" 287<br />"climate" + "industry" 137<br />"climate" + "Blair" 48<br />"climate" + "equity" 1<br />"climate" + "contraction and convergence" 1<br /><br />John Vidal (Guardian)<br />"climate" 193<br />"climate" + "industry" 98<br />"climate" + "Blair" 31<br />"climate" + "equity" 1<br />"climate" + "contraction and convergence" 0<br /><br />This is not a rigorous scientific analysis, of course, but the numbers +are+ highly indicative of hugely skewed priorities. Out of a grand total of 953 articles across the Independent, Independent on Sunday, Guardian and Telegraph, C&C was mentioned only twice, as was equity. On the other hand, industry was addressed in 402 articles, and Blair was mentioned 208 times, both almost entirely from an uncritical perspective.<br /><br />One might counter that pronouncements on climate by Tony Blair, as prime minister, should be deemed automatically 'newsworthy'. But we must also bear in mind what Blair actually represents, even if the media conceals it well. Canadian philosopher John McMurtry explains:<br /><br />"Tony Blair exemplifies the character structure of the global market order. Packaged in the corporate culture of youthful image, he is constructed as sincere, energetic and moral. Like other ruling-party leaders, he has worked hard to be selected by the financial and media axes of power as 'the man to do the job'. He is a moral metaphor of the system." (McMurtry, 'Value Wars', Pluto, London, 2002, p. 22)<br /><br />Although public trust in Blair has collapsed after his many deceptions over Iraq, the media continue to present him as a fundamentally well-intentioned leader pursuing the interests of the nation. Thus, whenever Blair, Bush and other corporate-backed political leaders are given prominent news coverage, the media is in effect promoting its own business goals of profit and power. This is inimical to any reasonable prospect of averting climate catastrophe.<br /><br />Contraction and convergence is the only serious global framework on the table for plotting a route out of the climate crisis. That C&C, and the concept of equity, can be so systematically ignored by the corporate media, is yet another damning indictment of the media's systemic failings. It is incumbent upon us all to push these issues onto the news agenda.<br /><br /><br />SUGGESTED ACTION<br /><br />The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. When writing emails to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. You could ask questions along the following lines: In your reports on climate change, why do you never address equity, or contraction and convergence?<br /><br />Write to Michael McCarthy, environment editor of the Independent:<br />Email: m.mccarthy@independent.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Geoffrey Lean, environment editor of the Independent on Sunday:<br />Email: g.lean@independent.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Charles Clover, environment editor of the Daily Telegraph:<br />Charles.Clover@telegraph.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Paul Brown, environment correspondent of the Guardian:<br />Email: paul.brown@guardian.co.uk<br /><br />Write to John Vidal, environment editor of the Guardian:<br />Email: john.vidal@guardian.co.uk<br /><br />Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:<br />Email: editor@medialens.org<br /><br />This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Currently only one of us is able to work full-time on this project. Please consider giving less to the corporate media and donating more to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html<br /><br />Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110975843788021920?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1109037161532593022005-02-21T17:51:00.000-08:002005-02-21T17:52:41.533-08:00Text Messaging, Shorthand & Acronyms<br /><br />These abbreviations are used in newsgroup postings, instant messaging, cell phones, PDAs, handheld devices, Web sites, IRC, blogs, etc., anytime people use technology to communicate. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm">http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm</a><br /><br />enjoy!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110903716153259302?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1108802947415000322005-02-19T00:46:00.000-08:002005-02-19T00:49:07.416-08:00Good Morning fellow Windsorites:<br /><br />I came upon this page and thought some of you might be interested. It's a very well-done collection of search tools.<br /><br />It's compiled by someone named Pat Ensor who says:<br /><br />Tired of endless lists of Web search tools that give you no guidance as to which ones to use? Or that were last updated when Gophers were alive? I'm inviting you to look over my shoulder and use what I use every day for Web searching in an academic library. I keep up with this stuff so you don't have to!<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br />Peter McGovern 65-67<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/5n9tu<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110880294741500032?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1108717254015678902005-02-18T01:00:00.000-08:002005-02-18T01:00:54.023-08:00When I was a boy I was told that<br />anybody could become President.<br />I'm beginning to believe it.<br />--Clarence Darrow<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110871725401567890?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1108588105822949052005-02-16T13:07:00.000-08:002005-02-16T13:08:25.823-08:00Thanks Mike Taylor for passing this on!<br /><br />I don't know if there's any truth to this or not, but I love it:<br /><br />Walking Eagle<br /><br />President Bush was invited to address a major gathering of the American<br />Indian Nation last weekend in Arizona. He spoke for almost an hour on his<br />future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of<br />living. He referred to his career as Governor of Texas,<br />how he had signed "YES" 1,237 times - for every Indian issue that came to<br />his desk for approval.<br /><br />Although the President was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most<br />enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his "red brothers".<br /><br />At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the President with a<br />plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud<br />President then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.<br /><br />A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they come to<br />select the new name given to the President.<br /><br />They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of<br />shit it can no longer fly.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110858810582294905?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1107977804850625812005-02-09T11:36:00.000-08:002005-02-09T11:36:44.850-08:00Thanks Elena! <br /> <br />FEUDALISM You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. <br /> <br />FASCISM You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk. <br /> <br />PURE COMMUNISM You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. <br /> <br />APPLIED COMMUNISM You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. <br /> <br />DICTATORSHIP You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. <br /> <br />MEXICAN DEMOCRACY You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots you and sends the cows to Zurich. <br /> <br />MILITARISM You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you into the army. <br /> <br />SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment. <br /> <br />PURE DEMOCRACY You have two cows. All your neighbours decide who gets the milk. <br /> <br />REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone who will tell you who gets the milk. <br /> <br />AMERICAN DEMOCRACY The government promises to give you two cows, if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate", but supports the president. The cow sues you for breach of contract. Your legal bills exceed your annual income. You settle out of court and declare bankruptcy. <br /> <br />BRITISH DEMOCRACY You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything. <br /> <br />EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY You have two cows. At first, the government regulates what you can feed them and then you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that, it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. <br /> <br />CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You retire on the income as the enormous herd grazes the world into desert. <br /> <br />HONG KONG CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the right to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because of bad "feng shui". <br /> <br />TOTALITARIANISM You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned. <br /> <br />SURREALISM You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. <br /> <br />Mary Ewert Keele University Law Department m.ewert@law.keele.ac.uk<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110797780485062581?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1107658511916952332005-02-05T18:54:00.000-08:002005-02-05T18:55:11.916-08:00Real Court Room Drama <br /> <br />These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are <br />things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and <br />now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm <br />while these exchanges were actually taking place. <br /> <br />__________________________________ <br />Q: Are you sexually active? <br />A: No, I just lie there. <br />__________________________________ <br />Q: What is your date of birth? <br />A: July 15th. <br />Q: What year? <br />A: Every year. <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? <br />A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks. <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: This myast! henia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? <br />A: Yes. <br />Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory? <br />A: I forget. <br />Q: You forget? Can you give us an example of something that <br />you've forgotten? <br />_____________________________________ <br />Q: How old is your son, the one living with you? <br />A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which. <br />Q: How long has he lived with you? <br />A: Forty-five years. <br />_____________________________________ <br />Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he <br />woke up that morning? <br />A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?" <br />Q: And why did that upset you? <br />A: My name is Susan. <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo <br />or the occult? <br />A: We both do. <br />Q: Voodoo? <br />A: We do. <br />Q: You do? <br />A: Yes, voodoo. <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his <br />sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? <br />A: Did you actually pass the bar exam? <br />___________________________________ <br />Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he? <br />_____________________________________ <br />Q: Were you present when your picture was taken? <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? <br />A: Yes. <br />Q: And what were you doing at that time? <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: She had three children, right? <br />A: Yes. <br />Q: How many were boys? <br />A: None. <br />Q: Were there any girls? <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: How was your first marriage terminated? <br />A: By death. <br />Q: And by whose death was it terminated? <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: Can you describe the individual? <br />A: He was about medium height and had a beard. <br />Q: Was this a male, or a female? <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition <br />notice which I sent to your attorney? <br />A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people? <br />A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? <br /> <br />Q: What is your Name? <br />A: Oral. <br />Q: What school did you go to? <br />A: Oral. <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? <br />A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. <br />Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time? <br />A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an <br />autopsy. <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? <br />______________________________________ <br />Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a <br />pulse? <br />A: No. <br />Q: Did you check for blood pressure? <br />A: No. <br />Q: Did you check for breathing? <br />A: No. <br />Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you <br />began the autopsy? <br />A: No. <br />Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor? <br />A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. <br />Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? <br />A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and <br />practicing law somewhere.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110765851191695233?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1107430051983973132005-02-03T03:26:00.000-08:002005-02-03T03:27:31.983-08:00SAN DIEGO - At a panel discussion in San Diego Tuesday, a top Marine general tells an audience that, among other things, it is "fun to shoot some people." <br /> <br /> <br />The comment, made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, came in reference to fighting insurgents in Iraq. He went on to say, "Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling." <br /> <br />"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." <br /> <br />About 200 people gathered for the discussion, held at the San Diego Convention Center. While many military members laughed at the comments, a military expert interviewed by NBC 7/39 called the comments "flippant." <br /> <br />"I was a little surprised," said Retired Vice Adm. Edward H. Martin. "I don't think any of us who have ever fought in wars liked to kill anybody." <br /> <br />Mattis also discussed operational tactics of the war, calling on military members not to underestimate the capacity of terrorists. <br /> <br />Mattis leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division in Iraq. He is in charge of the Marine Corps combat development and is based in Quantico, Va. <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110743005198397313?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1107336813930728322005-02-02T01:28:00.000-08:002005-02-02T01:40:01.546-08:00<p><b style="font-size: 14px;">(CNN) -- A photograph posted on an Islamist Web site appears to be that of an action figure and not a U.S. soldier being held hostage. <br /></b></p> <p><b style="font-size: 14px;"> <br /> <br /> <br /><img src="http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.hostage/story.hostage.ap.jpg" alt=action figure hostage /> <br /> <br /></b></p> <p>Liam Cusack, the marketing coordinator for Dragon Models USA, said the figure pictured on the Web site is believed to be "Special Ops Cody," a military action figure the company manufactured in late 2003.</p> <p>"It pretty much looks exactly like the same person," he said.</p> <p>Cusack said he was contacted Tuesday morning by one of his retailers, who informed him that the alleged hostage appeared to be one of the company's action figures. </p> <p>"I thought it was a joke at first," he said.</p> <p>But after reading a report on a news Web site about a U.S. soldier allegedly being captured, "I looked at it and said, 'It does look like one of our action figures.'"</p> <p>"Cody" is an action figure the company made for the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which supplies U.S. military bases worldwide with various items. The doll was meant to look like a U.S. soldier who might be serving in Iraq, Cusack said.</p> <p>On the Islamist Web site, a group calling itself the Al Mujahedeen Brigade, posted a photograph of a man it claimed was a captured U.S. soldier named John Adam, and it threatened to behead him if Iraqi prisoners are not released by U.S. forces.</p> <p>Staff Sgt. Nick Minecci of the U.S. military's press office in Baghdad told The Associated Press that "no units have reported anyone missing."</p> <p>The photograph showed the figure against a black flag with white lettering reading, "God is great, there is no god but Allah." A U.S. military assault rifle was pointed at its head. It appears that "rifle" was part of the plastic weaponry that came with the action figure.</p> <p>The photograph immediately raised questions.</p> <p>CNN military analyst James Marks, a retired Army general, questioned its authenticity.</p> <p>He told CNN in a phone interview that the flak jacket in the picture had a kind of trim along the edges that he'd never seen before, and that the open-legged pants, as opposed to gathered hems, struck him as odd.</p> <p>He also questioned what appeared to be camouflage paint on the face.</p> <p>"We have not used camo paint with conventional forces serving in Iraq," Marks said.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110733681393072832?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1107299368060743702005-02-01T15:06:00.000-08:002005-02-01T15:09:28.060-08:00 What They're Not Telling You About the "Election" <br />By Dahr Jamail <br /> <br /> February 01, 2005 <br /> <br />The day of blood and elections has passed, and the blaring trumpets of <br />corporate media hailing it as a successful show of “democracy” have <br />subsided to a dull roar. <br /> <br />After a day which left 50 people dead in Iraq, both civilians and <br />soldiers, the death toll was hailed as a figure that was “lower than <br />expected.” Thus…acceptable, by Bush Administration/corporate media <br />standards. After all, only of them was an American, the rest were Iraqis <br />civilians and British soldiers. <br /> <br />The gamble of using the polling day in Iraq to justify the ongoing <br />failed occupation of Iraq has apparently paid off, if you watch only <br />mainstream media. <br /> <br />“Higher than expected turnout,” US mainstream television media blared, <br />some citing a figure of 72%, others 60%. <br /> <br />What they didn’t tell you was that this figure was provided by Farid <br />Ayar, the spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq <br />(IECI) before the polls had even closed. <br /> <br />When asked about the accuracy of the estimate of voter turnout during a <br />press conference, Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying that a <br />closer estimate was lower than his initial estimate and would be more <br />like 60% of registered voters. <br /> <br />The IECI spokesman said his previous figure of 72% was “only guessing” <br />and “was just an estimate,” which was based on “very rough, word-of <br />mouth estimates gathered informally from the field. It will take some <br />time for the IECI to issue accurate figures on turnout.” <br /> <br />Referencing both figures, Ayar then added, “Percentages and numbers come <br />only after counting and will be announced when it's over ... It's too <br />soon to say that those were the official numbers.” <br /> <br />But this isn’t the most important misrepresentation the mainstream media <br />committed. <br /> <br />What they also didn’t tell you was that of those who voted, whether they <br />be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of <br />an ongoing US occupation of their country. <br /> <br />In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi <br />I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National <br />Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation. <br /> <br />And they expect the call for a withdrawing of foreign forces in their <br />country to come sooner rather than later. <br /> <br />This causes one to view the footage of cheering, jubilant Iraqis in a <br />different light now, doesn’t it? <br /> <br />But then, most folks in the US watching CNN, FOX, or any of the major <br />networks won’t see it that way. Instead, they will hear what Mr. Bush <br />said, “The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the <br />Middle East,” and take it as fact because most of the major media <br />outlets aren’t scratching beneath film clips of joyous Iraqi voters over <br />here in the land of daily chaos and violence, no jobs, no electricity, <br />little running water and no gasoline (for the Iraqis anyhow). <br /> <br />And Bush is portrayed by the media as the bringer of democracy to Iraq <br />by the simple fact that this so-called election took place, botched as <br />it may have been. Appearances suggest that the majority Shia in Iraq now <br />finally get their proportional representation in a “government.” Looks <br />good on paper. <br /> <br />But as you continue reading, the seemingly altruistic reasons for this <br />election as portrayed by the Bush Administration and trumpeted by most <br />mainstream media are anything but. <br /> <br />And Iraqis who voted are hearing other trumpets that are blaring an end <br />to the occupation. <br /> <br />Now the question remains, what happens when the National Assembly is <br />formed and over 100,000 US soldiers remain on the ground in Iraq with <br />the Bush Administration continuing in its refusal to provide a timetable <br />for their removal? <br /> <br />What happens when Iraqis see that while there are already four permanent <br />US military bases in their country, rather than beginning to disassemble <br />them, more bases are being constructed, as they are, by Cheney’s old <br />company Halliburton, right now? <br /> <br />Antonia Juhasz, a /Foreign Policy in Focus/ scholar, authored a piece <br />just before the “election” that sheds light on a topic that has lost <br />attention amidst the recent fanfare concerning the polls in Iraq. <br /> <br />Oil. <br /> <br />I think it’s worth including much of her story here, as it fits well <br />with today’s topic of things most folks aren’t being told by the <br />bringers of democracy to the heart of the Middle East. <br /> <br />/On Dec. 22, 2004, Iraqi Finance Minister Abdel Mahdi told a handful of <br />reporters and industry insiders at the National Press Club in <br />Washington, D.C. that Iraq wants to issue a new oil law that would open <br />Iraq's national oil company to private foreign investment. As Mahdi <br />explained: "So I think this is very promising to the American investors <br />and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies." <br /> <br />In other words, Mahdi is proposing to privatize Iraq's oil and put it <br />into American corporate hands. <br /> <br />According to the finance minister, foreigners would gain access both to <br />"downstream" and "maybe even upstream" oil investment. This means <br />foreigners can sell Iraqi oil and own it under the ground — the very <br />thing for which many argue the U.S. went to war in the first place. <br /> <br />As Vice President Dick Cheney's Defense Policy Guidance report explained <br />back in 1992, "Our overall objective is to remain the predominant <br />outside power in the [Middle East] region and preserve U.S. and Western <br />access to the region's oil." <br /> <br />While few in the American media other than Emad Mckay of Inter Press <br />Service reported on — or even attended — Mahdi’s press conference, the <br />announcement was made with U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at <br />Mahdi's side. It was intended to send a message — but to whom? <br /> <br />It turns out that Abdel Mahdi is running in the Jan. 30 elections on the <br />ticket of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the <br />leading Shiite political party. While announcing the selling-off of the <br />resource which provides 95 percent of all Iraqi revenue may not garner <br />Mahdi many Iraqi votes, but it will unquestionably win him tremendous <br />support from the U.S. government and U.S. corporations. <br /> <br />Mahdi's SCIR is far and away the front-runner in the upcoming elections, <br />particularly as it becomes increasingly less possible for Sunnis to vote <br />because the regions where they live are spiraling into deadly chaos. If <br />Bush were to suggest to Iraq’s Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi that <br />elections should be called off, Mahdi and the SCIR's ultimate chances of <br />victory will likely decline./ <br /> <br />I’ll add that the list of political parties Mahdi’s SCIR belongs to, The <br />United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), includes the Iraqi National Council, which <br />is led by an old friend of the Bush Administration who provided the <br />faulty information they needed to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, <br />none other than Ahmed Chalabi. <br /> <br />It should also be noted that interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi also fed <br />the Bush Administration cooked information used to justify the invasion, <br />but he heads a different Shia list which will most likely be getting <br />nearly as many votes as the UIA list. <br /> <br />And The UIA has the blessing of Iranian born revered Shiite cleric, <br />Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Sistani issued a fatwa which instructed <br />his huge number of followers to vote in the election, or they would risk <br />going to hell. <br /> <br />/Thus, one might argue that the Bush administration has made a deal with <br />the SCIR: Iraq's oil for guaranteed political power. The Americans are <br />able to put forward such a bargain because Bush still holds the strings <br />in Iraq. <br /> <br />Regardless of what happens in the elections, for at least the next year <br />during which the newly elected National Assembly writes a constitution <br />and Iraqis vote for a new government, the Bush administration is going <br />to control the largest pot of money available in Iraq (the $24 billion <br />in U.S. taxpayer money allocated for the reconstruction), the largest <br />military and the rules governing Iraq's economy. Both the money and the <br />rules will, in turn, be overseen by U.S.-appointed auditors and <br />inspector generals who sit in every Iraqi ministry with five-year terms <br />and sweeping authority over contracts and regulations. However, the one <br />thing which the administration has not been unable to confer upon itself <br />is guaranteed access to Iraqi oil — that is, until now. <br />/ <br /> <br />And there is so much more they are not telling you. Just like the Iraqis <br />who voted, believing they did so to bring an end to the occupation of <br />their country. <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110729936806074370?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1106896490196648692005-01-27T23:12:00.000-08:002005-01-27T23:17:29.906-08:00By Ed Foster, InfoWorld's GripeLine Columnist <br /> <br />(Blogster's note: An EULA is an 'end user license agreement'. Those are those agreements in fine print that you have to agree to to use software programs or partake of certain services (such as renting cars, etc.) <br /> <br />One of the best ways to rid ourselves of bad terms is to hold their purveyors up to a little public embarrassment. So this week we examine another collection of egregious EULA provisions that readers have spotted. Cast your vote for the worst of them all, and let's see how many of them we can make disappear. <br /> <br />You might recall that among the outrageous terms that went away after readers pointed them out was Hilton's "we own all your information" privacy policy. But while Hilton did remove the most offensive privacy terms, some other bizarre legal language remains in its website usage agreement. For example, in its "Release" section, the Hilton website terms describe California's Section 1542 and similar laws that say you don't give up claims you don't yet know about. But Hilton says: <br /> <br />"Nevertheless, it is your intention, through this Agreement, and with the advice of counsel, fully and finally settle and release all such matters, and all claims relative thereto, which do now exist, may exist, or have existed between and among the parties hereto, including the Indemnified Parties. You hereby acknowledge that you have been advised by your legal counsel, understand and acknowledge the significance and consequence of this release and of this specific waiver of Section 1542 and other such laws." <br /> <br />So even the most casual of visitors browsing a Hilton-related website is supposed to have retained counsel in order to give up their legal rights? While Section 1542 releases aren't all that uncommon in EULAs, I haven't seen any others where you agree you've consulted an attorney. Of course, EULA writers like to push the envelope in a number of areas like this. One reader spotted an "equitable relief" section in the EULA for Sierra's Hallmark Card Studio Deluxe 2004: <br /> <br />"You hereby agree that Sierra would be irreparably damaged if the terms of this License Agreement were not specifically enforced, and therefore you agree that Sierra shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this License Agreement, in addition to such other remedies as Sierra may otherwise have available to it under applicable laws." <br /> <br />In other words, said the reader, it would seem that Sierra can do anything it wants to you. Another reader, knowing my fondness for censorship clauses, pointed out one that goes beyond the typical restrictions on publishing benchmarks. The EULA for Micromuse's Netcool product states: <br /> <br />"No benchmark results nor results of any functional testing or evaluation of the Program shall be disclosed to any third party or used for any purpose other than to facilitate Licensee's internal use of the Program." <br /> <br />If you can't disclose your evaluation of the program to any third party, the reader wondered if she was violating the EULA by telling me what she thinks of their censorship clause. What if she wanted to recommend the software to a friend at another company - would that also be prohibited? <br /> <br />Spyware EULAs no doubt deserve their own separate rogues' gallery, but there's one I feel compelled to include because of its resemblance to the EULA-wrapped "FriendGreetings" virus of a few years back. Today's EULA for Avenue Media's Internet Optimizer states that: <br /> <br />"In consideration for viewing of video content, Avenue Media may send email to your Microsoft Outlook contacts and/or send instant messages to your IM contacts offering the video to them on your behalf. By viewing the video content, you expressly consent to said activity." <br /> <br />Finally, there's one more term I have to include, even though we've talked about it before. That's because - at least insofar as I can tell - we haven't been able to embarrass Autodesk yet into changing the AutoCad EULA. So customers who don't owe Autodesk a cent are still subject to losing their license because of any financial difficulties: <br /> <br />"No Assignment, Insolvency. This Agreement and any rights hereunder are non-assignable and any purported assignment shall be void. The Agreement and the licenses granted hereunder shall terminate without further notice or action by Autodesk if You become bankrupt or insolvent, make an arrangement with Your creditors or go into liquidation." <br /> <br />So which of those five fine-print horrors do you think is the worst? On my <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2005/01/25.html#a208">website </a>you can answer that question in my reader poll, see the poll results, and post your comments about this story. And don't worry about any of the vendors' feelings here -- when you deal in bad terms such as these, you deserve all the embarrassment you get.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110689649019664869?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1106770803100100302005-01-26T13:19:00.000-08:002005-01-26T12:20:03.100-08:00Thanks Baird! <br /> <br />The Bush Pledge of Allegiance <br />----------------------------- <br /> <br />I pledge allegiance to the flag <br /> <br />of the corporate states of America, <br /> <br />And to the Republicans for which it stands, <br /> <br />One nation , under debt, easily divisible, <br /> <br />With liberty and justice for oil. <br /> <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110677080310010030?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1106719705107784852005-01-25T22:07:00.000-08:002005-01-25T22:08:25.106-08:00The President, the First Lady and Dick Cheney are flying on Air <br />Force One. George looks at Laura, chuckles and says, You know, I could throw <br />A $1,000.00 bill out the window right now and make somebody very happy." <br /> <br />Laura shrugs her shoulders and says, "Well, I could throw ten <br />$100.00 bills out the window and make ten people very happy." <br /> <br />Cheney says, "Of course then, I could throw one hundred $10.00 bills <br />out the window and make a hundred people very happy." <br /> <br />The pilot rolls his eyes, looks at all of them and says to his <br />co-pilot, "Such big shots back there..... hell, I could throw all of THEM <br />out the window and make 56 million people very happy."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110671970510778485?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1106527055039805532005-01-23T16:37:00.000-08:002005-01-23T16:37:35.040-08:00DEAR ABBY, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already <br />we can hardly keep up with the interest. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Also, he has gotten religious in a big way, although I don't quite understand it. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />And now he has been going to the gym an awful lot and is into wearing uniforms and cowboy outfits, and I hate to think what that means. Finally, the last straw, he's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />It's just so horribly creepy! Can you help? <br /> <br />Signed, <br /> <br />Lost in DC <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Lost: <br /> <br /> <br />Stop whining, Laura. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. <br />The rest of us are stuck with him for four more years! <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Abby<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110652705503980553?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1106289721742277092005-01-20T22:19:00.000-08:002005-01-20T22:42:01.743-08:00This is great stuff! Thanks AB! <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1695_">http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1695_</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110628972174227709?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1106217231085715162005-01-20T02:32:00.000-08:002005-01-20T02:33:51.086-08:00From an ad in the New York Times <br /> <br />We are members of the families of Abraham — Muslims, Christians, <br />Jews. <br /> <br />Our traditions teach us to have compassion, seek justice, and pursue <br />peace for all peoples. We bear especially deep concern for the <br />region where Abraham grew and learned, taught and flourished. Today <br />that region stretches from Iraq, where Abraham grew up, to Israel <br />and Palestine, where he sojourned, and to Mecca and Egypt, where he <br />visited. <br /> <br />Today our hearts are broken by the violence poured out upon the <br />peoples of that broad region. <br /> <br />That violence has included terrorist attacks on and kidnappings of <br />Americans, Israelis, Iraqis, Europeans, and others by various <br />Palestinian and Iraqi groups and by Al Qaeda; the occupation of <br />Palestinian lands by Israel and of Iraq by the United States; and <br />the torture of prisoners by several different police forces, <br />military forces, and governments in the region. <br /> <br />From our heartbreak at these destructive actions, we intend to open <br />our hearts more fully to each other and to the suffering of all <br />peoples. <br /> <br />In the name of the One God Whom we all serve and celebrate, we <br />condemn all these forms of violence. To end the present wars and to <br />take serious steps toward the peace that all our traditions demand <br />of us, we call on governments and on the leaders of all religious <br />and cultural communities to act. <br /> <br />We urge the US government to set a firm and speedy date for <br />completing the safe return home from Iraq of all American soldiers <br />and civilians under military contract. We urge the UN to work <br />directly with Iraqi political groupings to transfer power in Iraq to <br />an elected government. <br /> <br />We urge the UN, the US, the European Union, and Russia to convene a <br />comprehensive peace conference through which the governments of <br />Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, and all Arab states <br />conclude a full diplomatic, economic, and cultural peace with Israel <br />and Palestine, defined approximately on the 1967 boundaries, with <br />small mutual adjustments. <br /> <br />We urge the international community to work out lawful and effective <br />means to deal with the dangers of international terrorism, the <br />spread of nuclear and similar weapons, and conflicts over the <br />control of oil and water. <br /> <br />We ourselves will act to create transnational and interfaith <br />networks of Jews, Christians, and Muslims who will covenant <br />together - <br /> <br />_ to insist that governments take these steps, <br /> <br />_ to undertake whatever nonviolent actions are necessary to prevent <br />more violence and achieve a just peace throughout the region, <br /> <br />_ and to grow grass-roots relationships that bind together those who <br />have been enemies into a Compassionate Coalition. <br /> <br />According to tradition, Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah kept their tent <br />open in all four directions, the more easily to share their food and <br />water with travelers from anywhere. In that spirit, we welcome all <br />those who thirst and hunger for justice, peace, and dignity, to join <br />in affirming this statement. <br /> <br />- Sister Joan Chittister, OSB; Rev. Bob Edgar, National Council of <br />Churches; Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Syeed, Islamic Society of North <br />America; Imam Abdul Faisal Rauf, Imam Talib Abdur Rashid, Imam Mahdi <br />Bray, Saadi Shakur/Neil Douglas-Klotz; Rabbis Elliot Dorff, Gerry <br />Serotta, David Teutsch, Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, Arthur Waskow, and <br />Sheila Weinberg; --- and YOU?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110621723108571516?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1106192789010103102005-01-19T19:41:00.000-08:002005-01-19T19:49:54.256-08:00Send Iraq_Dispatches mailing list submissions to <br /> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/app/iraq_dispatches@dahrjamailiraq.com"> iraq_dispatches@dahrjamailiraq.com</a> <br /> <br />To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit <br /> <a href="http://lists.dahrjamailiraq.com/mailman/listinfo/iraq_dispatches"> http://lists.dahrjamailiraq.com/mailman/listinfo/iraq_dispatches</a> <br />or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to <br /> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/app/iraq_dispatches-request@dahrjamailiraq.com">iraq_dispatches-request@dahrjamailiraq.com</a> <br /> <br />You can reach the person managing the list at <br /> iraq_dispatches-owner@dahrjamailiraq.com <br /> <br />When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific <br />than "Re: Contents of Iraq_Dispatches digest..." <br /> <br /> <br />Today's Topics: <br /> <br /> 1. Car Bombs (iraq_dispatches@dahrjamailiraq.com) <br /> <br /> <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> <br />Message: 1 <br />Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:00:30 +0300 <br />From: iraq_dispatches@dahrjamailiraq.com <br />Subject: Iraq Dispatches: Car Bombs <br />To: iraq_dispatches@dahrjamailiraq.com <br />Message-ID: <41ee59ee.40809@dahrjamailiraq.com> <br />Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed <br /> <br /> <br /> January 19, 2005 <br /> <br /> <br /> Car Bombs <br /> <br />The thundering blast rocks me awake at 7:05am. The first thing my eyes see are the curtains of my room flowing in, as if a strong wind is blowing into my room. <br /> <br />‘Holy shit, they hit the embassy,’ I think to myself, ‘the blast was so close.’ <br /> <br />I leave my windows cracked and curtains drawn for just this reason-while my door was blasted open, splintering the frame where it was locked shut, none of my windows shattered. Aside from small chunks from the ceiling of my room strewn about the floor, I am alright. <br /> <br />I look out my window and see that despite shattered glass strewn outside many of the nearby buildings, the Australian embassy is intact. <br /> <br />I quickly throw on some clothes, grab my camera and run into the hall-where it is filled with so much dust <<a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&id=dustyhall">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&amp;id=dustyhall</a>> <br />it’s difficult to see. <br /> <br />In the hall, as well as all the others I see as I run upstairs, pieces of ceiling <br /><<a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&id=ceiling">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&amp;id=ceiling</a>> <br />and broken glass are everywhere. <br /> <br />The suicide car bomb detonated near the base of a large building across the street which is home to many Australian soldiers. From there they guard the checkpoint to their nearby embassy from the multi-story building with snipers. Two smoldering bits of a vehicle sit nearby the <br />building, and two bodies <<a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&id=bodies">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&amp;id=bodies</a>> <br />lay in pools of blood across the street. <br /> <br />A small building near the Australian outpost received heavy damage <br /><<a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&id=fires">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&amp;id=fires</a>> <br />right in front of the detonated car. Despite being heavily fortified with concrete barriers, razor wire, sand bags, and sand barriers, the outpost has chunks blown out of it and the netting and plywood which covers many of the windows is hanging haphazardly out the openings. <br /> <br />I was on the roof just minutes after the blast and the Iraqi Police (IP) had already arrived en masse. A woman screaming in hysterics is pushed inside one of their trucks and taken away…she was trying to reach one of the bodies as several policeman ushered her off. <br /> <br />Other IP’s inspect the bodies while black smoke plumes languidly drift down the street <br /><<a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&id=fullview">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&amp;id=fullview</a>> <br />in the early morning stillness. <br /> <br />Police run about, yelling orders and barking at journalists, but there is nothing much else for them to do. They load the two bodies into a vehicle and drive them to a morgue. <br /> <br />It is a seemingly senseless attack-as this building occupied by the Australian military is so heavily fortified that no car bomb could possibly reach it. This one caused merely superficial damage <<a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&id=bombaussies">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&amp;id=bombaussies</a>>, <br />and killed only civilians while wounding some Australian soldiers. <br /> <br />This was a smaller car bomb, as it didn’t leave a crater like so many of the others. Nevertheless, glass is shattered in buildings hundreds of meters away from the blast, pieces of wall are crumbled…it is like being in a large earthquake, but the tremors consolidated into one large shake. <br /> <br />About 20 minutes later several truckloads of Iraqi soldiers show up, many of them wearing their usual black facemasks. <br /> <br />15 minutes after this the US military shows up <br /><<a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&id=military">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&amp;id=military</a>> <br />with 10 Humvees, a Bradley and a large tank. They seal the street, and begin to string their razor wire across the road. <br /> <br />Two Apache helicopters arrive and commence rumbling in circles around the area, buzzing overhead. <br /> <br />I watch an old woman who lives in a home just across from the bombing. She is walking around in her yard aimlessly, sometimes stopping to slowly pick up rubble from her wall that was damaged in the blast, then just looking around her home. <br /> <br />Half an hour after this another large car bomb detonates in eastern Baghdad at an Iraqi police headquarters, killing 18 people as the explosion echoes across the capital city. <br /> <br />I return to my room to commence writing…Abu Talat calls and can’t make it over for our work because so many roads nearby my hotel are closed. <br /> <br />As I write three more huge explosions rumble across the center of Baghdad. In a span of just 90 minutes five car bombs detonated killing at least 26 people. <br /> <br />One of the car bombs detonated outside a bank where IP’s were collecting their salaries, killing at least 10 of them. <br /> <br />Another car bomb detonated at the airport, killing two guards. <br /> <br />A military installation was also attacked, killing two American soldiers and two civilians. <br /> <br />Iraqis around my hotel compound are sweeping up glass <<a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&id=sweepingglass">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album31&amp;id=sweepingglass</a>> <br />as I make some calls to let folks know I’m alive. <br /> <br />The US-backed Iraqi government has announced draconian measures which state that from January 29th-31st the borders of Iraq will be closed, mobile and satellite phone services will be cut, the borders of Iraq’s 18 governorates will be closed and no civilian traffic will be allowed <br />near the polling stations. <br /> <br />Polling stations will each have several rings of security in an attempt to stave off the violence. Be that as it may, the Ministry of Health is making special preparations to deal with the massive bloodshed expected for the “elections.” <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />------------------------------ <br /> <br />_______________________________________________ <br />Iraq_Dispatches mailing list <br />Iraq_Dispatches@dahrjamailiraq.com <br /><a href="http://lists.dahrjamailiraq.com/mailman/listinfo/iraq_dispatches">http://lists.dahrjamailiraq.com/mailman/listinfo/iraq_dispatches</a> <br /> <br /> <br />End of Iraq_Dispatches Digest, Vol 5, Issue 10 <br />********************************************** <br /> <br /> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110619278901010310?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1106085956369447982005-01-18T14:04:00.000-08:002005-01-18T14:07:11.653-08:00 <div class="author">From The New Yorker Magazine <br /> <br />by SEYMOUR M. HERSH</div> <div class="summary">What the Pentagon can now do in secret. </div> <div class="issuepublish">Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31 <br />Posted 2005-01-17</div> <p class="descender">George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.</p> <p>Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing. </p> <p>“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”</p> <p>Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things went wrong—whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient armor plating for G.I.s’ vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, and he is not widely admired inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was never in doubt. </p> <p>Rumsfeld will become even more important during the second term. In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld’s responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon’s control. The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. </p> <p>The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call it ‘covert ops’—it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell the <span class="smallcaps">cinc</span>s”—the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)</p> <p>In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. “Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’” the former intelligence official told me. “But they say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned—not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there.”</p> <img src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif" alt="" border="0" height="18" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="18" /> <br /><p class="descender">For more than a year, France, Germany, Britain, and other countries in the European Union have seen preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as a race against time—and against the Bush Administration. They have been negotiating with the Iranian leadership to give up its nuclear-weapons ambitions in exchange for economic aid and trade benefits. Iran has agreed to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear power plants but also could produce weapons-grade fissile material. (Iran claims that such facilities are legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or N.P.T., to which it is a signator, and that it has no intention of building a bomb.) But the goal of the current round of talks, which began in December in Brussels, is to persuade Tehran to go further, and dismantle its machinery. Iran insists, in return, that it needs to see some concrete benefits from the Europeans—oil-production technology, heavy-industrial equipment, and perhaps even permission to purchase a fleet of Airbuses. (Iran has been denied access to technology and many goods owing to sanctions.) </p> <p>The Europeans have been urging the Bush Administration to join in these negotiations. The Administration has refused to do so. The civilian leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of military action. “The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,” a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. “And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked.”</p> <p>The core problem is that Iran has successfully hidden the extent of its nuclear program, and its progress. Many Western intelligence agencies, including those of the United States, believe that Iran is at least three to five years away from a capability to independently produce nuclear warheads—although its work on a missile-delivery system is far more advanced. Iran is also widely believed by Western intelligence agencies and the I.A.E.A. to have serious technical problems with its weapons system, most notably in the production of the hexafluoride gas needed to fabricate nuclear warheads. </p> <p>A retired senior C.I.A. official, one of many who left the agency recently, told me that he was familiar with the assessments, and confirmed that Iran is known to be having major difficulties in its weapons work. He also acknowledged that the agency’s timetable for a nuclear Iran matches the European estimates—assuming that Iran gets no outside help. “The big wild card for us is that you don’t know who is capable of filling in the missing parts for them,” the recently retired official said. “North Korea? Pakistan? We don’t know what parts are missing.”</p> <p>One Western diplomat told me that the Europeans believed they were in what he called a “lose-lose position” as long as the United States refuses to get involved. “France, Germany, and the U.K. cannot succeed alone, and everybody knows it,” the diplomat said. “If the U.S. stays outside, we don’t have enough leverage, and our effort will collapse.” The alternative would be to go to the Security Council, but any resolution imposing sanctions would likely be vetoed by China or Russia, and then “the United Nations will be blamed and the Americans will say, ‘The only solution is to bomb.’”</p> <p>A European Ambassador noted that President Bush is scheduled to visit Europe in February, and that there has been public talk from the White House about improving the President’s relationship with America’s E.U. allies. In that context, the Ambassador told me, “I’m puzzled by the fact that the United States is not helping us in our program. How can Washington maintain its stance without seriously taking into account the weapons issue?”</p> <p>The Israeli government is, not surprisingly, skeptical of the European approach. Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister, said in an interview last week in Jerusalem,with another <span class="italic">New Yorker</span> journalist, “I don’t like what’s happening. We were encouraged at first when the Europeans got involved. For a long time, they thought it was just Israel’s problem. But then they saw that the [Iranian] missiles themselves were longer range and could reach all of Europe, and they became very concerned. Their attitude has been to use the carrot and the stick—but all we see so far is the carrot.” He added, “If they can’t comply, Israel cannot live with Iran having a nuclear bomb.”</p> <p>In a recent essay, Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (and a supporter of the Administration), articulated the view that force, or the threat of it, was a vital bargaining tool with Iran. Clawson wrote that if Europe wanted coöperation with the Bush Administration it “would do well to remind Iran that the military option remains on the table.” He added that the argument that the European negotiations hinged on Washington looked like “a preëmptive excuse for the likely breakdown of the E.U.-Iranian talks.” In a subsequent conversation with me, Clawson suggested that, if some kind of military action was inevitable, “it would be much more in Israel’s interest—and Washington’s—to take covert action. The style of this Administration is to use overwhelming force—‘shock and awe.’ But we get only one bite of the apple.”</p> <p>There are many military and diplomatic experts who dispute the notion that military action, on whatever scale, is the right approach. Shahram Chubin, an Iranian scholar who is the director of research at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told me, “It’s a fantasy to think that there’s a good American or Israeli military option in Iran.” He went on, “The Israeli view is that this is an international problem. ‘You do it,’ they say to the West. ‘Otherwise, our Air Force will take care of it.’” In 1981, the Israeli Air Force destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor, setting its nuclear program back several years. But the situation now is both more complex and more dangerous, Chubin said. The Osirak bombing “drove the Iranian nuclear-weapons program underground, to hardened, dispersed sites,” he said. “You can’t be sure after an attack that you’ll get away with it. The U.S. and Israel would not be certain whether all the sites had been hit, or how quickly they’d be rebuilt. Meanwhile, they’d be waiting for an Iranian counter-attack that could be military or terrorist or diplomatic. Iran has long-range missiles and ties to Hezbollah, which has drones—you can’t begin to think of what they’d do in response.”</p> <p>Chubin added that Iran could also renounce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “It’s better to have them cheating within the system,” he said. “Otherwise, as victims, Iran will walk away from the treaty and inspections while the rest of the world watches the N.P.T. unravel before their eyes.”</p> <img src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif" alt="" border="0" height="18" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="18" /> <br /><p class="descender">The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected. The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids. “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,” the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me.</p> <p>Some of the missions involve extraordinary coöperation. For example, the former high-level intelligence official told me that an American commando task force has been set up in South Asia and is now working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists and technicians who had dealt with Iranian counterparts. (In 2003, the I.A.E.A. disclosed that Iran had been secretly receiving nuclear technology from Pakistan for more than a decade, and had withheld that information from inspectors.) The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan, has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground installations. The task-force members, or their locally recruited agents, secreted remote detection devices—known as sniffers—capable of sampling the atmosphere for radioactive emissions and other evidence of nuclear-enrichment programs. </p> <p>Getting such evidence is a pressing concern for the Bush Administration. The former high-level intelligence official told me, “They don’t want to make any W.M.D. intelligence mistakes, as in Iraq. The Republicans can’t have two of those. There’s no education in the second kick of a mule.” The official added that the government of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani President, has won a high price for its coöperation—American assurance that Pakistan will not have to hand over A. Q. Khan, known as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, to the I.A.E.A. or to any other international authorities for questioning. For two decades, Khan has been linked to a vast consortium of nuclear-black-market activities. Last year, Musharraf professed to be shocked when Khan, in the face of overwhelming evidence, “confessed” to his activities. A few days later, Musharraf pardoned him, and so far he has refused to allow the I.A.E.A. or American intelligence to interview him. Khan is now said to be living under house arrest in a villa in Islamabad. “It’s a deal—a trade-off,” the former high-level intelligence official explained. “‘Tell us what you know about Iran and we will let your A. Q. Khan guys go.’ It’s the neoconservatives’ version of short-term gain at long-term cost. They want to prove that Bush is the anti-terrorism guy who can handle Iran and the nuclear threat, against the long-term goal of eliminating the black market for nuclear proliferation.”</p> <p>The agreement comes at a time when Musharraf, according to a former high-level Pakistani diplomat, has authorized the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear-weapons arsenal. “Pakistan still needs parts and supplies, and needs to buy them in the clandestine market,” the former diplomat said. “The U.S. has done nothing to stop it.”</p> <p>There has also been close, and largely unacknowledged, coöperation with Israel. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon said that the Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. (After Osirak, Iran situated many of its nuclear sites in remote areas of the east, in an attempt to keep them out of striking range of other countries, especially Israel. Distance no longer lends such protection, however: Israel has acquired three submarines capable of launching cruise missiles and has equipped some of its aircraft with additional fuel tanks, putting Israeli F-16I fighters within the range of most Iranian targets.) </p> <p>“They believe that about three-quarters of the potential targets can be destroyed from the air, and a quarter are too close to population centers, or buried too deep, to be targeted,” the consultant said. Inevitably, he added, some suspicious sites need to be checked out by American or Israeli commando teams—in on-the-ground surveillance—before being targeted. </p> <p>The Pentagon’s contingency plans for a broader invasion of Iran are also being updated. Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. Updating the plan makes sense, whether or not the Administration intends to act, because the geopolitics of the region have changed dramatically in the last three years. Previously, an American invasion force would have had to enter Iran by sea, by way of the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman; now troops could move in on the ground, from Afghanistan or Iraq. Commando units and other assets could be introduced through new bases in the Central Asian republics.</p> <p>It is possible that some of the American officials who talk about the need to eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure are doing so as part of a propaganda campaign aimed at pressuring Iran to give up its weapons planning. If so, the signals are not always clear. President Bush, who after 9/11 famously depicted Iran as a member of the “axis of evil,” is now publicly emphasizing the need for diplomacy to run its course. “We don’t have much leverage with the Iranians right now,” the President said at a news conference late last year. “Diplomacy must be the first choice, and always the first choice of an administration trying to solve an issue of . . . nuclear armament. And we’ll continue to press on diplomacy.”</p> <p>In my interviews over the past two months, I was given a much harsher view. The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. “We’re not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “They’ve already passed that wicket. It’s not <span class="italic">if</span> we’re going to do anything against Iran. They’re doing it.”</p> <p>The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,” the consultant told me. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse”—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.</p> <p>“The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce a popular uprising is extremely illinformed,” said Flynt Leverett, a Middle East scholar who worked on the National Security Council in the Bush Administration. “You have to understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated.” Leverett, who is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, warned that an American attack, if it takes place, “will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime.”</p> <img src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif" alt="" border="0" height="18" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="18" /> <br /><p class="descender">Rumsfeld planned and lobbied for more than two years before getting Presidential authority, in a series of findings and executive orders, to use military commandos for covert operations. One of his first steps was bureaucratic: to shift control of an undercover unit, known then as the Gray Fox (it has recently been given a new code name), from the Army to the Special Operations Command (<span class="smallcaps">socom</span>), in Tampa. Gray Fox was formally assigned to <span class="smallcaps">socom</span> in July, 2002, at the instigation of Rumsfeld’s office, which meant that the undercover unit would have a single commander for administration and operational deployment. Then, last fall, Rumsfeld’s ability to deploy the commandos expanded. According to a Pentagon consultant, an Execute Order on the Global War on Terrorism (referred to throughout the government as <span class="smallcaps">gwot</span>) was issued at Rumsfeld’s direction. The order specifically authorized the military “to find and finish” terrorist targets, the consultant said. It included a target list that cited Al Qaeda network members, Al Qaeda senior leadership, and other high-value targets. The consultant said that the order had been cleared throughout the national-security bureaucracy in Washington.</p> <p>In late November, 2004, the <span class="italic">Times</span> reported that Bush had set up an interagency group to study whether it “would best serve the nation” to give the Pentagon complete control over the C.I.A.’s own élite paramilitary unit, which has operated covertly in trouble spots around the world for decades. The panel’s conclusions, due in February, are foregone, in the view of many former C.I.A. officers. “It seems like it’s going to happen,” Howard Hart, who was chief of the C.I.A.’s Paramilitary Operations Division before retiring in 1991, told me. </p> <p>There was other evidence of Pentagon encroachment. Two former C.I.A. clandestine officers, Vince Cannistraro and Philip Giraldi, who publish <span class="italic">Intelligence Brief,</span> a newsletter for their business clients, reported last month on the existence of a broad counter-terrorism Presidential finding that permitted the Pentagon “to operate unilaterally in a number of countries where there is a perception of a clear and evident terrorist threat. . . . A number of the countries are friendly to the U.S. and are major trading partners. Most have been cooperating in the war on terrorism.” The two former officers listed some of the countries—Algeria, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Malaysia. (I was subsequently told by the former high-level intelligence official that Tunisia is also on the list.)</p> <p>Giraldi, who served three years in military intelligence before joining the C.I.A., said that he was troubled by the military’s expanded covert assignment. “I don’t think they can handle the cover,” he told me. “They’ve got to have a different mind-set. They’ve got to handle new roles and get into foreign cultures and learn how other people think. If you’re going into a village and shooting people, it doesn’t matter,” Giraldi added. “But if you’re running operations that involve finesse and sensitivity, the military can’t do it. Which is why these kind of operations were always run out of the agency.” I was told that many Special Operations officers also have serious misgivings. </p> <p>Rumsfeld and two of his key deputies, Stephen Cambone, the Under-secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, will be part of the chain of command for the new commando operations. Relevant members of the House and Senate intelligence committees have been briefed on the Defense Department’s expanded role in covert affairs, a Pentagon adviser assured me, but he did not know how extensive the briefings had been. </p> <p>“I’m conflicted about the idea of operating without congressional oversight,” the Pentagon adviser said. “But I’ve been told that there will be oversight down to the specific operation.” A second Pentagon adviser agreed, with a significant caveat. “There are reporting requirements,” he said. “But to execute the finding we don’t have to go back and say, ‘We’re going here and there.’ No nitty-gritty detail and no micromanagement.”</p> <p>The legal questions about the Pentagon’s right to conduct covert operations without informing Congress have not been resolved. “It’s a very, very gray area,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a West Point graduate who served as the C.I.A.’s general counsel in the mid-nineteen-nineties. “Congress believes it voted to include all such covert activities carried out by the armed forces. The military says, ‘No, the things we’re doing are not intelligence actions under the statute but necessary military steps authorized by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to “prepare the battlefield.”’” Referring to his days at the C.I.A., Smith added, “We were always careful not to use the armed forces in a covert action without a Presidential finding. The Bush Administration has taken a much more aggressive stance.”</p> <p>In his conversation with me, Smith emphasized that he was unaware of the military’s current plans for expanding covert action. But he said, “Congress has always worried that the Pentagon is going to get us involved in some military misadventure that nobody knows about.”</p> <p>Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, U.S. military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists. This could potentially involve organizing and carrying out combat operations, or even terrorist activities. Some operations will likely take place in nations in which there is an American diplomatic mission, with an Ambassador and a C.I.A. station chief, the Pentagon consultant said. The Ambassador and the station chief would not necessarily have a need to know, under the Pentagon’s current interpretation of its reporting requirement.</p> <p>The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls “action teams” in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. “Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he said. “The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.” A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, “We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.”</p> <p>One of the rationales for such tactics was spelled out in a series of articles by John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, and a consultant on terrorism for the <span class="smallcaps">rand </span>corporation. “It takes a network to fight a network,” Arquilla wrote in a recent article in the San Francisco <span class="italic">Chronicle</span>: </p> <p class="pullout"> <span class="item">When conventional military operations and bombing failed to defeat the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya in the 1950s, the British formed teams of friendly Kikuyu tribesmen who went about pretending to be terrorists. These “pseudo gangs,” as they were called, swiftly threw the Mau Mau on the defensive, either by befriending and then ambushing bands of fighters or by guiding bombers to the terrorists’ camps. What worked in Kenya a half-century ago has a wonderful chance of undermining trust and recruitment among today’s terror networks. Forming new pseudo gangs should not be difficult. </span> <br /></p> <p>“If a confused young man from Marin County can join up with Al Qaeda,” Arquilla wrote, referring to John Walker Lindh, the twenty-year-old Californian who was seized in Afghanistan, “think what professional operatives might do.”</p> <p>A few pilot covert operations were conducted last year, one Pentagon adviser told me, and a terrorist cell in Algeria was “rolled up” with American help. The adviser was referring, apparently, to the capture of Ammari Saifi, known as Abderrezak le Para, the head of a North African terrorist network affiliated with Al Qaeda. But at the end of the year there was no agreement within the Defense Department about the rules of engagement. “The issue is approval for the final authority,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “Who gets to say ‘Get this’ or ‘Do this’?”</p> <p>A retired four-star general said, “The basic concept has always been solid, but how do you insure that the people doing it operate within the concept of the law? This is pushing the edge of the envelope.” The general added, “It’s the oversight. And you’re not going to get Warner”—John Warner, of Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee—“and those guys to exercise oversight. This whole thing goes to the Fourth Deck.” He was referring to the floor in the Pentagon where Rumsfeld and Cambone have their offices. </p> <p>“It’s a finesse to give power to Rumsfeld—giving him the right to act swiftly, decisively, and lethally,” the first Pentagon adviser told me. “It’s a global free-fire zone.”</p> <img src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif" alt="" border="0" height="18" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="18" /> <br /><p class="descender">The Pentagon has tried to work around the limits on covert activities before. In the early nineteen-eighties, a covert Army unit was set up and authorized to operate overseas with minimal oversight. The results were disastrous. The Special Operations program was initially known as Intelligence Support Activity, or I.S.A., and was administered from a base near Washington (as was, later, Gray Fox). It was established soon after the failed rescue, in April, 1980, of the American hostages in Iran, who were being held by revolutionary students after the Islamic overthrow of the Shah’s regime. At first, the unit was kept secret from many of the senior generals and civilian leaders in the Pentagon, as well as from many members of Congress. It was eventually deployed in the Reagan Administration’s war against the Sandinista government, in Nicaragua. It was heavily committed to supporting the Contras. By the mid-eighties, however, the I.S.A.’s operations had been curtailed, and several of its senior officers were courtmartialled following a series of financial scandals, some involving arms deals. The affair was known as “the Yellow Fruit scandal,” after the code name given to one of the I.S.A.’s cover organizations—and in many ways the group’s procedures laid the groundwork for the Iran-Contra scandal.</p> <p>Despite the controversy surrounding Yellow Fruit, the I.S.A. was kept intact as an undercover unit by the Army. “But we put so many restrictions on it,” the second Pentagon adviser said. “In I.S.A., if you wanted to travel fifty miles you had to get a special order. And there were certain areas, such as Lebanon, where they could not go.” The adviser acknowledged that the current operations are similar to those two decades earlier, with similar risks—and, as he saw it, similar reasons for taking the risks. “What drove them then, in terms of Yellow Fruit, was that they had no intelligence on Iran,” the adviser told me. “They had no knowledge of Tehran and no people on the ground who could prepare the battle space.”</p> <p>Rumsfeld’s decision to revive this approach stemmed, once again, from a failure of intelligence in the Middle East, the adviser said. The Administration believed that the C.I.A. was unable, or unwilling, to provide the military with the information it needed to effectively challenge stateless terrorism. “One of the big challenges was that we didn’t have Humint”—human intelligence—“collection capabilities in areas where terrorists existed,” the adviser told me. “Because the C.I.A. claimed to have such a hold on Humint, the way to get around them, rather than take them on, was to claim that the agency didn’t do Humint to support Special Forces operations overseas. The C.I.A. fought it.” Referring to Rumsfeld’s new authority for covert operations, the first Pentagon adviser told me, “It’s not empowering military intelligence. It’s emasculating the C.I.A.”</p> <p>A former senior C.I.A. officer depicted the agency’s eclipse as predictable. “For years, the agency bent over backward to integrate and coördinate with the Pentagon,” the former officer said. “We just caved and caved and got what we deserved. It is a fact of life today that the Pentagon is a five-hundred-pound gorilla and the C.I.A. director is a chimpanzee.”</p> <p>There was pressure from the White House, too. A former C.I.A. clandestine-services officer told me that, in the months after the resignation of the agency’s director George Tenet, in June, 2004, the White House began “coming down critically” on analysts in the C.I.A.’s Directorate of Intelligence (D.I.) and demanded “to see more support for the Administration’s political position.” Porter Goss, Tenet’s successor, engaged in what the recently retired C.I.A. official described as a “political purge” in the D.I. Among the targets were a few senior analysts who were known to write dissenting papers that had been forwarded to the White House. The recently retired C.I.A. official said, “The White House carefully reviewed the political analyses of the D.I. so they could sort out the apostates from the true believers.” Some senior analysts in the D.I. have turned in their resignations—quietly, and without revealing the extent of the disarray. </p> <img src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif" alt="" border="0" height="18" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="18" /> <br /><p class="descender">The White House solidified its control over intelligence last month, when it forced last-minute changes in the intelligence-reform bill. The legislation, based substantially on recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, originally gave broad powers, including authority over intelligence spending, to a new national-intelligence director. (The Pentagon controls roughly eighty per cent of the intelligence budget.) A reform bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 96-2. Before the House voted, however, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld balked. The White House publicly supported the legislation, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to bring a House version of the bill to the floor for a vote—ostensibly in defiance of the President, though it was widely understood in Congress that Hastert had been delegated to stall the bill. After intense White House and Pentagon lobbying, the legislation was rewritten. The bill that Congress approved sharply reduced the new director’s power, in the name of permitting the Secretary of Defense to maintain his “statutory responsibilities.” Fred Kaplan, in the online magazine <span class="italic">Slate</span>, described the real issues behind Hastert’s action, quoting a congressional aide who expressed amazement as White House lobbyists bashed the Senate bill and came up “with all sorts of ludicrous reasons why it was unacceptable.”</p> <p>“Rummy’s plan was to get a compromise in the bill in which the Pentagon keeps its marbles and the C.I.A. loses theirs,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Then all the pieces of the puzzle fall in place. He gets authority for covert action that is not attributable, the ability to directly task national-intelligence assets”—including the many intelligence satellites that constantly orbit the world. </p> <p>“Rumsfeld will no longer have to refer anything through the government’s intelligence wringer,” the former official went on. “The intelligence system was designed to put competing agencies in competition. What’s missing will be the dynamic tension that insures everyone’s priorities—in the C.I.A., the D.O.D., the F.B.I., and even the Department of Homeland Security—are discussed. The most insidious implication of the new system is that Rumsfeld no longer has to tell people what he’s doing so they can ask, ‘Why are you doing this?’ or ‘What are your priorities?’ Now he can keep all of the mattress mice out of it.”<img src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/dingbat.gif" alt="" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110608595636944798?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105952175630064922005-01-17T01:56:00.000-08:002005-01-17T00:58:56.286-08:00<a href="http://www.pacforachange.com/">Pac for a Change</a>: "PAC for a Change <br />1/13/2005 <br /> <br />On Tuesday, January 18th and Wednesday, January 19th, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a confirmation hearing for her appointment as Secretary of State. <br /> <br />Dr. Rice's confirmation hearing must not be a rubber stamp of President Bush's appointment. The Senate must take its 'advice and consent' role seriously. <br /> <br />That's why, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I intend to stand up and ask Condoleezza Rice the tough questions that Americans deserve to have answered. Questions like: <br /> <br /> * Why did the United States go to war in Iraq based on misleading -- if not false and fraudulent -- evidence? <br /> <br />* Why did we divert valuable resources and intelligence personnel to Iraq, taking them away from Afghanistan and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden? <br /> <br />* Why did you mislead the American people into thinking there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida before September 11th? <br /> <br />We must hold Condoleezza Rice accountable for her misleading statements leading up to the Iraq war and beyond before we can even consider promoting her to Secretary of State. <br /> <br />So I ask you to join with me: Lend your voice to the chorus of millions of Americans across our great land who are demanding that Condoleezza Rice tell the truth about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, the search for Osama bin Laden, the fight against Al Qaida, and the war on terrorism. <br /> <br />I urge you to sign my petition, so I can take your voice with me to the committee room and the floor of the Senate in the pursuit of the truth from Condoleezza Rice. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /><a href="http://ga4.org/campaign/ricehearings">Click here to sign the petition</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110595217563006492?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105880232649708262005-01-16T04:56:00.000-08:002005-01-16T04:57:12.650-08:00The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched across the pages of history the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence, we were here. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Everybody can be great... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />From the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire, let freedom ring. From the mighty mountains of New York, let freedom ring. From the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania, let freedom ring. But not only that: Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />I am not interested in power for power's sake, but I'm interested in power that is moral, that is right and that is good. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />If physical death is the price that I must pay to free my white brothers and sisters from a permanent death of the spirit, then nothing can be more redemptive. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolute night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhwre. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />The art of acceptance is the art of making someone who has just done you a small favor wish that he might have done you a greater one. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br /> <br />The time is always right to do what is right. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />There is nothing more tragic than to find an individual bogged down in the length of life, devoid of breadth. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />We are not makers of history. We are made by history. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br />We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr. <br /> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110588023264970826?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105707313603659162005-01-14T04:34:00.000-08:002005-01-14T04:55:13.603-08:00Thanks Mike Taylor for this link. <br /> <br />30,500 children under 5 years old die every day of preventable diseases such as diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition. <br /> <br />Every month, 50,000 children under 15 are infected with AIDS. <br /> <br />Every 20 minutes, the human population grows by about 3,000. At the same time another plant or animal becomes extinct (27,000 each year). <br /> <br />And another link with information about this issue: <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.overpopulation.org/children.html">http://www.overpopulation.org/children.html</a> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110570731360365916?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105609765373765552005-01-13T01:43:00.000-08:002005-01-13T01:51:03.376-08:00Two humorous links for a change: <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.j-walk.com/other/spamu/index.htm">http://www.j-walk.com/other/spamu/index.htm</a> <br /> <br />The first is to the site of SPAM University: Here are two of the courses they offer: <br /> <br /><ul> <li> <p align="left"> <b>The History of Spam</b> <br /> Required course. Gain a historical perspective on your chosen profession. For example, you'll learn that the term <i>SPAM</i> is actually an acronym for Stupid People Always Multiply (and that's a good thing).</p> </li><li> <p align="left"> <b>The Science of Writing Subject Lines</b> <br /> Discover the secrets to writing successful subject lines, such as "Why Pay More?", Viagra 1/2 Off!", and the ever-popular "ÂÖåó ÇèóÌØáù Æб»ÛýÀ."</p></li> </ul> The second is to the Nigerian Scam Email Conference web site: <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.j-walk.com/other/conf/">http://www.j-walk.com/other/conf/</a> <br /> <br /><h2 dynamicanimation="fpAnimhopWordsFP1" id="fpAnimhopWordsFP1" style="position: relative ! important; visibility: visible; left: 0pt; top: 0pt;" language="Javascript1.2" align="center"><i><span style="color:#0000ff;"><i>"Write better emails. Make more moneys."</i></span></i></span></h2> <span style="font-family:Arial;">I am Mr. Laurent Mpeti Kabila, a senior assistant leader of the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone.</span> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">I present to you an urgent and confidential request: I request your attendance at <b>The 3rd Annual Nigerian EMail Conference</b>. This is an excellent opportunity to meet your distinguished colleagues, learn new marketing techniques, and spend your hard-earned money. Attending this conference demands the highest trust, security and confidentiality between us.</span></p> Go there! Have fun! <br /> <br />Tomorrow we can continue our exploration of the continuing tragedy of the Bush agenda. <br /> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110560976537376555?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105604034534293392005-01-13T01:12:00.000-08:002005-01-13T00:18:09.600-08:00Thanks to Jim Wrathall from <a href="http://tvset.org/">http://tvset.org </a>for passing this on to me! <br /> <br />By PAUL KRUGMAN <br /> <br />Published: January 11, 2005 <br />The New York Times <br /> <br /> <br />Last week someone leaked a memo written by Peter Wehner, an aide to Karl Rove, about how to sell Social Security privatization. The public, says Mr. Wehner, must be convinced that "the current system is heading for an iceberg." <br /> <br />It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis to bully people into doing what you want. "For the first time in six decades," the memo says, "the Social Security battle is one we can win." One thing I haven't seen pointed out, however, is the extent to which the White House expects the public and the media to believe two contradictory things. <br /> <br />The administration expects us to believe that drastic change is needed, and needed right away, because of the looming cost of paying for the baby boomers' retirement. <br /> <br />The administration expects us not to notice, however, that the supposed solution would do nothing to reduce that cost. Even with the most favorable assumptions, the benefits of privatization wouldn't kick in until most of the baby boomers were long gone. For the next 45 years, privatization would cost much more money than it saved. <br /> <br />Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining. The Wehner memo talks of borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion "to cover transition costs." Similar numbers have been widely reported in the news media. <br /> <br />But that's just the borrowing over the next decade. Privatization would cost an additional $3 trillion in its second decade, $5 trillion in the decade after that and another $5 trillion in the decade after that. By the time privatization started to save money, if it ever did, the federal government would have run up around $15 trillion in extra debt. <br /> <br />These numbers are based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Plan 2, which was devised by a special presidential commission in 2001 and is widely expected to be the basis for President Bush's plan. <br /> <br />Under Plan 2, payroll taxes would be diverted into private accounts while future benefits would be cut. In the short run, this would worsen the budget deficit. In the long run, if all went well, cutting benefit payments would reduce the deficit. <br /> <br />All wouldn't go well; I'll explain why in another column. But suppose that everything went according to plan. Even in that unlikely case, privatization wouldn't even begin to reduce the budget deficit until 2050. This is supposed to be the answer to an imminent crisis? <br /> <br />While we waited 45 years for something good to happen, there would be a real risk of a crisis - not in Social Security, but in the budget as a whole. And privatization would increase that risk. <br /> <br />We already have a large budget deficit, the result of President Bush's insistence on cutting taxes while waging a war. And it will get worse: a rise in spending on entitlements - mainly because of Medicare, but with a smaller contribution from Medicaid and, in a minor supporting role, Social <br />Security - looks set to sharply increase the deficit after 2010. <br /> <br />Add borrowing for privatization to the mix, and the budget deficit might well exceed 8 percent of G.D.P. at some time during the next decade. That's a deficit that would make Carlos Menem's Argentina look like a model of responsibility. It would be sure to cause a collapse of investor confidence, sending the dollar through the floor, interest rates through the roof and <br />the economy into a tailspin. <br /> <br />And when investors started fleeing because they believed that America had turned into a banana republic, they wouldn't be reassured by claims that someday, in the distant future, privatization would do great things for the budget. Just ask the Argentines: their version of Social Security privatization was also supposed to save money in the long run, but all it <br />did was move forward the date of their crisis. <br /> <br />A responsible administration would reverse course on tax cuts and the botched 2003 Medicare drug bill, both of which pose much greater threats to the government's solvency than the modest financial shortfall of the Social Security system. But Mr. Bush has declared his tax cuts inviolable, and he says that his drug bill will actually save money. (The Medicare trustees say <br />it will cost $8 trillion.) <br /> <br />There's an iceberg in front of us, all right. And Mr. Bush wants us to steam right into it, full speed ahead. <br /> <br /> <br />E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com <br /> <br /> <br />====================== <br /> <br />FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 107, this <br />material is distributed on a strictly nonprofit basis to recipients <br />who previously have indicated their interest in receiving such <br />information for educational and/or research purposes.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110560403453429339?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105519806533779042005-01-12T01:50:00.000-08:002005-01-12T00:52:25.313-08:00by Seth Hettena <br />From <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/">Common Dreams</a> <br /> <br /> Witness: CIA and SEALs Beat Prisoners During Interrogation in Iraq <br />by Seth Hettena <br /> <br /> <br />SAN DIEGO - A former Navy SEAL says he saw fellow SEALs and CIA officials kick, choke and eye-gouge detainees at a U.S. military base in Iraq. <br /> <br />The former SEAL testified at a military hearing Monday that he saw "interrogation by means of abuse" take place at Camp Jenny Pozzi, the SEAL base at Baghdad International Airport <br /> <br />He said a prisoner under interrogation by the CIA was abused in October 2003 by two or three SEALs. On another occasion a month later, the witness said he watched as SEALs punched, choked and poked their fingers in the eye of Iraqi Manadel al-Jamadi, who also was punched by a CIA official when he didn't answer questions. <br /> <br />Al-Jamadi, a suspect in the bombing of a Red Cross facility in Iraq, died a few hours after he was captured during a joint CIA-special operations mission in November 2003. He died while being interrogated by CIA personnel in the shower room of the Abu Ghraib prison. <br /> <br />The former SEAL, who was not identified, was the government's main witness at Monday's Article 32 hearing. <br /> <br />The hearing, the military equivalent of a civilian grand jury, was for a Navy SEAL lieutenant who is accused of assault, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming an officer for his handling of detainees, including al-Jamadi. <br /> <br />A Navy officer hearing the evidence will make a recommendation whether the lieutenant, who was not identified, should face a court-martial. <br /> <br />Although the lieutenant is not charged with al-Jamadi's death, it could be an aggravating factor that could yield stiffer punishment. <br /> <br />The ex-SEAL who testified Monday, and who also served under the lieutenant in Iraq, was kicked out of the elite unit after he was convicted of stealing a fellow SEAL's bulletproof vest - an act that earned him the nickname "Klepto." The sailor said he saw the lieutenant abuse prisoners, including al-Jamadi, three times. <br /> <br />Defense attorney Matthew Freedus challenged the ex-SEAL's credibility during his two-hour cross examination. <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110551980653377904?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105518453113167272005-01-12T01:25:00.000-08:002005-01-12T00:50:34.860-08:00Thanks Aminah for bringing this to my attention! <br /> <br />From : Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. <info@d...> <br />Sent : Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:08 PM <br />To : Aminah Yaquin <aminahyaquin@h...> <br />Subject : I'm Running <br /> <br />| | | Inbox <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Aminah Yaquin, <br /> <br />As I have traveled across our country, I have talked to thousands of <br />people who are working for change in their own communities about the <br />power of politics to make a difference in their own lives and in the <br />lives of others. Every group I have spoken to, I encouraged them to <br />stand up for what they believe and to get involved in the electoral <br />process -- because the only sure way to make difference is to step <br />up and run for office yourself. <br /> <br />Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for the Chairmanship of the <br />Democratic National Committee. <br /> <br />The Democratic Party needs a vibrant, forward-thinking, long-term <br />presence in every single state and we must be willing to contest <br />every race at every level. We will only win when we show up and <br />fight for the issues important to all of us. <br /> <br />Another integral part of our strategy must be cultivating the <br />party's grassroots. Our long term success depends on all of us <br />taking an active role in our party and in the political process, by <br />volunteering, going door to door and taking the Democratic message <br />into every community, and by organizing at the local level. After <br />all, new ideas and new leaders don't come from consultants; they <br />come from communities. <br /> <br />As important as organization is, it alone can no longer win us <br />elections. Offering a new choice means making Democrats the party of <br />reform -- reforming America's financial situation, reforming our <br />electoral process, reforming health care, reforming education and <br />putting morality back in our foreign policy. The Democratic Party <br />will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by <br />changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's <br />positions. We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we <br />say it. <br /> <br />But most of all, together, we have to rebuild the American <br />community. We will never succeed by treating our nation as a <br />collection of separate regions or separate groups. There are no red <br />states or blues states, only American states. And we must talk to <br />the people in all of these states as members of one community. <br /> <br />That word -- 'values' -- has lately become a codeword for <br />appeasement of the right-wing fringe. But when political <br />calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to <br />policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have <br />abandoned our true values. <br /> <br />We cannot let that happen. And we cannot just mouth the words. Our <br />party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the <br />socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our <br />party -- and the vast majority of Americans -- together. <br /> <br />All of this will require both national perspective and local <br />experience. I know what it's like to lead hands-on at the state <br />level and I know what it's like to run for national office. <br /> <br />With your help, this past election season, Democracy for America, <br />already started creating the kind of organization the Democratic <br />Party can be. This past election cycle, we endorsed over 100 <br />candidates at all levels of government -- from school board to U.S. <br />Senate. We contributed almost a million dollars to nearly 750 <br />candidates around the country and raised millions of dollars for <br />many more candidates. <br /> <br />Together, we helped elect a Democratic governor in Montana, a <br />Democratic mayor of Salt Lake County, Utah and an African American <br />woman to the bench in Alabama. Fifteen of the candidates we endorsed <br />had never run for office before -- and won. <br /> <br />I also have experience building and managing a local party <br />organization. My career started as Democratic Party chair in <br />Chittenden County, Vermont. I then ran successful campaigns: for <br />state legislature, lieutenant governor and then governor. In my 11- <br />year tenure as governor, I balanced the state's budget every year. <br /> <br />I served as chair of both the National Governors' Association and <br />the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA). And as chair of the <br />DGA, I helped recruit nearly 20 governors that won -- even in states <br />like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and <br />Mississippi. <br /> <br />All of these experiences have only reaffirmed what I know to be <br />true. There is only one party that speaks to the hopes and dreams of <br />all Americans. It is the party you have already given so much to. It <br />is the Democratic Party. <br /> <br />We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe. <br /> <br />Thank you and I look forward to listening to your concerns in the <br />weeks ahead. <br /> <br />Governor Howard Dean, M.D.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110551845311316727?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105517165574843412005-01-12T01:02:00.000-08:002005-01-12T00:06:05.573-08:00 Free Iraq: The Responsibility of Withdrawal <br /> <br />The war policies of President Bush present Congress with a paradox: It is unthinkable for the U.S. to leave Iraq as a failed state, yet a continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq may well lead to a failed state. <br /> <br />When the 109th Congress convenes in January, will Congress "stay the course" and fund the same failed war policies of the past two years, or will it condition funding on the U.S. implementing new policies to de-escalate the violent conflict, to end the occupation, and to return Iraq to Iraqis? <br /> <br />To "stay the course" means confronting insurgent violence with greater U.S. violence. The temptation to stay the course stems partly from a denial of the reality that the U.S. preventive war and nation-building experiment in Iraq have failed. "Success" for the U.S. in Iraq is no longer an option, if it ever was. War is not the answer. <br /> <br />Some argue that U.S. responsibility under international law to restore security and protect civilians in Iraq demands that the U.S. military remain and help stabilize the country. In fact, the presence and offensive operations of U.S. troops have become the greatest threats to Iraq’s future. U.S. offensives, including aerial bombings, city sieges (witness Fallujah), and neighborhood sweeps, foster resentment among Iraqis, fuel the insurgency, and threaten civilian lives. Iraqi security forces are attacked more often when U.S. troops are present, and the Green Zone--a barricaded neighborhood housing the interim Iraqi government along side the U.S. embassy--has become a prime target for suicide bombings and mortar attacks. <br /> <br />Arguably, sufficient military force could overcome the insurgency with time. "Sufficient" might mean a U.S. troop strength of a quarter million or more staying for a decade. That will not happen, and, because of the inevitable civilian casualties, it would not be recommendable. To fulfill the moral and legal obligations it has incurred to help rebuild Iraq, the U.S. must now accept its responsibility and withdraw. <br /> <br />U.S. Failing to Meet its Obligations <br /> <br />The Bush administration continues to claim its experiment in building democracy through war is on track. In fact, since the invasion and occupation nearly two years ago, the U.S. has failed to meet its obligations under international law to restore security, support reconstruction, and return sovereignty to Iraqis. Instead, the occupation has been mired in a long list of missteps, scandals, and abuses. Moreover, any progress made toward a new political order in Iraq has been eclipsed by the surging violence and swelling resentment of many Iraqis. <br /> <br />In the lead up to Iraq’s January 30 elections, the U.S. is now adding 12,000 troops. Pentagon officials have said any future reductions of the total 150,000 U.S. troop force will be "determined by events on the ground." But recent events on the ground have only escalated the violence. <br /> <br />In February, the White House is expected to send Congress a fourth war "supplemental" spending request, adding an estimated $80 billion-$100 billion to the more than $187 billion already appropriated. The war has cost far more and lasted far longer than the administration estimated in 2003. <br /> <br />The human costs of the war now include 1,300 U.S. troops killed and some 8,000 wounded; an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths from war and occupation; as many as 100,000 returning U.S. troops in need of mental health care; billions of dollars in Iraqi revenue and reconstruction funds lost due to violence, war-profiteering, and mismanagement of funds by U.S. authorities; and rising anti-U.S. sentiment globally. <br /> <br />Steps Toward Withdrawal <br /> <br />When the President sends his next war supplemental to Congress, legislators should condition any further funding on the U.S. taking clear steps toward the withdrawal of all its troops and bases from Iraq and support for Iraqi-led reconstruction. <br /> <br />Meeting U.S. moral and legal obligations to restore security and rebuild Iraq requires the removal--not build-up--of U.S. forces. FCNL calls on the Administration and Congress to: <br /> <br /> * Cease fire: Halt U.S. military actions immediately; <br /> <br /> * Declare withdrawal policy: Congress should pass a "leave no bases behind" resolution, declaring that U.S. policy is to withdraw all U.S. forces and bases from Iraq; <br /> <br /> * End the occupation: Withdraw immediately U.S. forces from major population centers to remote temporary bases and shift to a limited role of providing border control and assuring Iraq’s territorial integrity until other security forces can take over; <br /> <br /> * Support Iraqi sovereignty: Fund Iraqi efforts to re-employ ministry staff, train new police and security forces; <br /> <br /> * Nationalize reconstruction: Give Iraqis control over reconstruction funds, terminate contracts with U.S. contractors and turn projects over to Iraqis, and provide transparent accounting of all U.S. contracts; <br /> <br /> * Stabilize Iraq: Commit to long-term U.S. financial support for Iraqi-led reconstruction. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />While the U.S. cannot fulfill its dual responsibilities to withdraw its forces and support Iraqi rebuilding easily or without cost, these steps could help break the cycle of violence, undercut the insurgency, save lives, and give control of Iraq’s future back to Iraqis. <br /> <br />Reprinted from the January 2005 Washington Newsletter. For more information see <a href="www.fcnl.org">www.fcnl.org</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110551716557484341?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105448909294818552005-01-11T05:07:00.000-08:002005-01-11T05:08:29.296-08:00My friend Del Greenfield sent me this. The comments below are hers. <br /> <br />I thought this was interesting because I have never read anything about it in the paper. It doesn't make Israel right about Palestine but they should get credit for this. <br /> <br /> <br />Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 11:23 AM <br />Subject: FW: J'ACCUSE <br /> <br />J’ACCUSE….! <br /> <br />I, Mike Levine, citizen of Israel and the United States, accuse you, New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Denver Post, Atlanta Constitution, CNN, Times of London, and thousands of other newspapers and TV networks worldwide… <br /> <br />I accuse you of gross bias against, and naked hatred towards the Jewish state of Israel. <br /> <br /> <br />For years most of you have shown a clear bias in favor of the Arab Muslims and Palestinians, taking every opportunity to demonize Israel, the only Democracy in the Middle East, and the only Jewish state in the world. <br /> <br />But in the past two weeks you have raised your hatred to a new high, while your journalistic standards have fallen to new lows. <br /> <br />While coverage of the earthquake and tsunami in Asia has been extensive, and your reporting of international fund raising and rescue efforts has been massive, you wrote hardly a word about the fact that Israel was one of the very first to offer substantial aid and send medical rescue missions to the stricken areas! Within hours planeloads of well trained rescue people and experienced trauma doctors were on their way. <br /> <br />Israel is one of the tiniest nations on earth, with a total population far less than many cities of the world, yet in the first hours following <br />the earthquake and flooding, Israel assembled hundreds of doctors and other medical personnel, many planeloads of medical supplies, tents, food, blankets, even baby diapers. While other, much larger, much richer nations, were still rubbing their eyes in disbelief, Israel was already setting up several aid stations in the worst hit areas. <br /> <br />Nor did you report the unbelievably hateful refusal by Sri Lanka, and a couple of other Muslim states, to accept the entry of Jewish medical <br />and rescue personnel, although they did cynically accept the supplies and equipment sent by Israel. <br /> <br />I accuse world media of gross incompetance. <br />I accuse world media of abrogation of journalistic integrity. <br />I accuse world media of sheer, transparent prejudice against Israel and the Jews. <br />I accuse world media of pandering to the Islamic nations unbridled hatred of anything Jewish. <br /> <br />Only a few publications outside Israel mentioned the major contribution being made by Israel. Only a very few pointed out that Israel’s PER <br />CAPITA contribution of manpower, equipment, supplies, and money WAS THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD! <br /> <br />Only a few bothered to mention that only a tiny trickle of aid was offered by all of the world’s Muslim nations, nations sitting on half of the <br />world’s oil reserves, nations raking in billions of dollars daily, nations whose elite live lives of such oppulence as can hardly be imagined by most of the world’s masses. <br /> <br />Saudi Arabia sat unmoved for a week while the world scrambled to raise funds and send massive aid, then magnanimously pledged a measly ten million dollars, a pledge which has yet to be paid! Imagine, this from a brother Muslim state, a state that raised $150,000,000 (one hundred fifty million dollars) for families of Palestinian suicide bombers during the past year! <br /> <br />Kuwait, the second richest Muslim nation, pledged an equally paltry ten million! They should have been raked over the editorial coals for <br />their inhumanity to their own brothers and sisters. Yet, there was almost universal silence! <br /> <br />You people in Chicago…did you read any of this in your newspapers? <br /> <br />How about you good people in Dallas? Paris? Berlin? Melbourne? Did any of you read or hear of Israel’s incredible generousity of spirit, <br />manpower, and money? Did you read one editorial praising the fact that the Jewish state unselfishly came to the immediate aid of Muslim nations that have long called for the destruction of Israel? <br /> <br />No, chances are you did not. Maybe you ought to let your editors know how you feel about their treatment of Israel and the Jewish people. <br />Because if you don’t speak out, they will continue to believe no one gives a damn about Israel, and they will continue speaking of Israel only in negative terms, writing only about how the Jewish state mistreats the Palestinians and their terrorist leadership. <br /> <br />Join me when I say to world media...loud and clear …J’ACCUSE!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110544890929481855?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105317244396418952005-01-09T16:32:00.000-08:002005-01-09T16:37:52.660-08:00Friends, <br /> <br />The earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean has hit Aceh, Indonesia, hardest of all, with more than 100,000 people killed. But the Indonesian government and military, whose role in Aceh until December 26 was mainly repression, are making it difficult to get aid to everyone who needs it. <br /> <br />The East Timor Action Network (ETAN) has already raised more than $50,000 to send to grassroots groups in Aceh doing emergency relief,.And we continue to solicit donations. We are also responding politically to the Indonesian government's restrictions on humanitarian agencies, violations of the cease-fire and other aspects of the crisis -- see some of our statements at www.etan.org. <br /> <br />With the help of Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! radio/TV program, journalist Allan Nairn, Acehnese in the U.S. and Indonesia, Nonviolence International, TAPOL and others, we are funding local organizations trusted by Acehnese people (unlike the Indonesian military). These groups know how to bypass the bureaucratic and other roadblocks to get assistance where it is needed. Many have long experience helping the many people in Aceh displaced by war and military repression. ETAN will send every cent contributed to for tsunami relief directly to local organizations. <br /> <br />To make a donation via credit card for Aceh relief go to <br /><a href="http://www.etan.org/action/action2/23alert.htm">http://www.etan.org/action/action2/23alert.htm</a>. <p>You can also download a leaflet to pass out to your friends, family and colleagues. <br /> <br />Please mail your check to (be sure to write "Aceh" in the memo line): <br /> <br />East Timor Action Network, <br />P.O. Box 15774, <br />Washington, DC 20003-0774 <br /> <br />If you would like your donation to be tax-deductible, make it to <br /> <br />Nonviolence International (NI) <br />PO Box 39127, Friendship Station, <br />Washington, DC 20016, USA. <br />www.nonviolenceinternational.net <br />(please let ETAN know if you donate this way) <br /> <br /> <br />P.S. To help meet the emergency relief needs in Aceh, we have suspended some of our own end-of-year fundraising. We will be coming back to you to ask you to support our ongoing work in the US for justice and human rights in East Timor and Indonesia. If you have recently donated to ETAN's regular work, we thank your for the support -- and if you would like to do so now, you can at <a href="http://www.etan.org/etan/donate.htm">http://www.etan.org/etan/donate.htm</a>. <br /> <br />ETAN needs your financial support: Make a secure contribution: <a href="http://etan.org/etan/donate.htm">http://etan.org/etan/donate.htm</a> <br /> <br />John M. Miller Internet: fbp@igc.org <br /> <br />Media & Outreach Coordinator <br />East Timor Action Network: 12 Years for Self-Determination & Justice <br /> <br />48 Duffield St., Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA <br />Phone: (718)596-7668 Fax: (718)222-4097 <br />Mobile phone: (917)690-4391 <br />Web site: http://www.etan.org <br /> <br />Send a blank e-mail message to info@etan.org to find out <br />how to learn more about East Timor on the Internet <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110531724439641895?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105269404033826972005-01-09T03:16:00.000-08:002005-01-09T03:16:44.033-08:00My good friend Del Greenfield has sent me a link for a great looking <br />progressive letter writing site. <br /> <br />The link is: <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.progressivesecretary.org/">http://www.progressivesecretary.org/</a> <br /> <br />Here's some info <br /> <br />Thank you for asking for more information about Progressive Secretary. <br />There isn't much to say, because it works so simply. <br /> <br />After you join us, we send you proposed letters. If you like each one, <br />we send it for you. It is that simple! <br /> <br />But let us tell you more about the choices you can make as a <br />participant. <br /> <br />Your participation is always free and voluntary. You can ignore any <br />letters you don't like, and nothing happens. You can cancel at any <br />time, freely. There is never any pressure put on you, no advertising, <br />no salesmanship. <br /> <br />Progressive Secretary is simply a secretarial service that shows you a <br />finished letter, then, if you say send, puts it into an electronic <br />"envelope", and mails it for you. The letter inside the envelope is in <br />your name, the return address is yours. <br /> <br />I'm going to join and see what happens. <br /> <br />Take care and Good Night, <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110526940403382697?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105179823871069682005-01-08T02:19:00.000-08:002005-01-08T02:23:43.870-08:00Thanks Lucas Ramage for posting this link <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.ihaveanidea.org/thework/details.php?image_id=976&sessionid=c10c504eea47038c0ed9a35e5665243b">http://www.ihaveanidea.org/thework/details.php?image_id=976&sessionid=c10c504eea47038c0ed9a35e5665243b</a> <br /> <br />He writes: <br />Informative from a glance. I just happened upon this you may find it an interesting presentation <br /> <br />Peace <br /> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110517982387106968?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105177551580052612005-01-08T01:43:00.000-08:002005-01-08T01:45:51.580-08:00 Iraq: The Devastation <br /> By Dahr Jamail <br /> 7 January 2004 <br /> <br /> The devastation of Iraq? Where do I start? After working 7 of the last 12 months in Iraq, I'm still overwhelmed by even the thought of trying to describe this. <br /> <br /> The illegal war and occupation of Iraq was waged for three reasons, according to the Bush administration. First for weapons of mass destruction, which have yet to be found. Second, because the regime of Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda, which Mr. Bush has personally admitted have never been proven. The third reason -- embedded in the very name of the invasion, Operation Iraqi Freedom -- was to liberate the Iraqi people. <br /> <br /> So Iraq is now a liberated country. <br /> <br /> I've been in liberated Baghdad and environs on and off for 12 months, including being inside Fallujah during the April siege and having warning shots fired over my head more than once by soldiers. I've traveled in the south, north, and extensively around central Iraq. What I saw in the first months of 2004, however, when it was easier for a foreign reporter to travel the country, offered a powerful -- even predictive -- taste of the horrors to come in the rest of the year (and undoubtedly in 2005 as well). It's worth returning to the now forgotten first half of last year and remembering just how terrible things were for Iraqis even relatively early in our occupation of their country. <br /> <br /> Then, as now, for Iraqis, our invasion and occupation was a case of liberation from -- from human rights (think: the atrocities committed in Abu Ghraib which are still occurring daily there and elsewhere); liberation from functioning infrastructure (think: the malfunctioning electric system, the many-mile long gas lines, the raw sewage in the streets); liberation from an entire city to live in (think: Fallujah, most of which has by now been flattened by aerial bombardment and other means). <br /> <br /> Iraqis were then already bitter, confused, and existing amid a desolation that came from myriads of Bush administration broken promises. Quite literally every liberated Iraqi I've gotten to know from my earliest days in the country has either had a family member or a friend killed by U.S. soldiers or from the effects of the war/occupation. These include such everyday facts of life as not having enough money for food or fuel due to massive unemployment and soaring energy prices, or any of the countless other horrors caused by the aforementioned. The broken promises, broken infrastructure, and broken cities of Iraq were plainly visible in those early months of 2004 -- and the sad thing is that the devastation I saw then has only grown worse since. The life Iraqis were living a year ago, horrendous as it was, was but a prelude to what was to come under the U.S. occupation. The warning signs were clear from a shattered infrastructure, to all the torturing, to a burgeoning, violent resistance. <br /> <br /> Broken Promises <br /> <br /> It was quickly apparent, even to a journalistic newcomer, even in those first months of last year that the real nature of the liberation we brought to Iraq was no news to Iraqis. Long before the American media decided it was time to report on the horrendous actions occurring inside Abu Ghraib prison, most Iraqis already knew that the "liberators" of their country were torturing and humiliating their countrymen. <br /> <br /> In December 2003, for instance, a man in Baghdad, speaking of the Abu Ghraib atrocities, said to me, "Why do they use these actions? Even Saddam Hussein did not do that! This is not good behavior. They are not coming to liberate Iraq!" And by then the bleak jokes of the beleaguered had already begun to circulate. In the dark humor that has become so popular in Baghdad these days, one recently released Abu Ghraib detainee I interviewed said, "The Americans brought electricity to my ass before they brought it to my house!" <br /> <br /> Sadiq Zoman is fairly typical of what I've seen. Taken from his home in Kirkuk in July, 2003, he was held in a military detention facility near Tikrit before being dropped off comatose at the Salahadin General Hospital by U.S. forces one month later. While the medical report accompanying him, signed by Lt. Col. Michael Hodges, stated that Mr. Zoman was comatose due to a heart attack brought on by heat stroke, it failed to mention that his head had been bludgeoned, or to note the electrical burn marks that scorched his penis and the bottoms of his feet, or the bruises and whip-like marks up and down his body. <br /> <br /> I visited his wife Hashmiya and eight daughters in a nearly empty home in Baghdad. Its belongings had largely been sold on the black market to keep them all afloat. A fan twirled slowly over the bed as Zoman stared blankly at the ceiling. A small back-up generator hummed outside, as this neighborhood, like most of Baghdad, averaged only six hours of electricity per day. <br /> <br /> Her daughter Rheem, who is in college, voiced the sentiments of the entire family when she said, "I hate the Americans for doing this. When they took my father they took my life. I pray for revenge on the Americans for destroying my father, my country, and my life." <br /> <br /> In May of 2004, when I went to their house, a recent court-martial of one of the soldiers complicit in the widespread torturing of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib had already taken place. He had been sentenced to some modest prison time, but Iraqis were unimpressed. They had been convinced yet again -- not that they needed it -- that Bush administration promises to clean up its act regarding the treatment of detained Iraqis were no less empty than those being offered for assistance in building a safe and prosperous Iraq. <br /> <br /> Last year, the empty promises to bring justice to those involved in such heinous acts, along with promises to make the prison at Abu Ghraib more transparent and accessible, fell on distraught family members who waited near the gates of the prison to see their loved ones inside. Under a scorching May sun I went to the dusty, dismal, heavily-guarded, razor-wire enclosed "waiting area" outside Abu Ghraib. There, I heard one horror story after another from melancholy family members doggedly gathered on this patch of barren earth, still hoping against hope to be granted a visit with someone inside the awful compound. <br /> <br /> Sitting alone on the hard packed dirt in his white dishdasha, his head scarf languidly flapping in the dry, hot wind, Lilu Hammed stared unwaveringly at the high walls of the nearby prison as if he were attempting to see his 32 year-old son Abbas through the concrete walls. When my interpreter Abu Talat asked if he would speak with us, several seconds passed before Lilu slowly turned his head and said simply, "I am sitting here on the ground waiting for God's help." <br /> <br /> His son, never charged with an offense, had by then been in Abu Ghraib for 6 months following a raid on his home which produced no weapons. Lilu held a crumpled visitation permission slip that he had just obtained, promising a reunion with his son…three months away, on the 18th of August. <br /> <br /> Along with every other person I interviewed there, Lilu had found consolation neither in the recent court martial, nor in the release of a few hundred prisoners. "This court-martial is nonsense. They said that Iraqis could come to the trial, but they could not. It was a false trial." <br /> <br /> At that moment, a convoy of Humvees full of soldiers, guns pointing out the small windows, rumbled through the front gate of the penal complex, kicking up a huge dust cloud that quickly engulfed everyone. The parent of another prisoner, Mrs. Samir, waving away the clouds of dust said, "We hope the whole world can see the position we are in now!" and then added plaintively, "Why are they doing this to us?" <br /> <br /> Last summer I interviewed a kind, 55 year-old woman who used to work as an English teacher. She had been detained for four months in as many prisons…in Samarra, Tikrit, Baghdad and, of course, at Abu Ghraib. She was never, she told me, allowed to sleep through a night. She was interrogated many times each day, not given enough food or water, or access to a lawyer or to her family. She was verbally and psychologically abused. <br /> <br /> But that, she assured me, wasn't the worst part. Not by far. Her 70 year-old husband was also detained and he was beaten. After seven months of beatings and interrogations, he died in U.S. military custody in prison. <br /> <br /> She was crying as she spoke of him. "I miss my husband," she sobbed and stood up, speaking not to us but to the room, "I miss him so much." She shook her hands as if to fling water off them…then she held her chest and cried some more. <br /> <br /> "Why are they doing this to us?" she asked. She simply couldn't understand, she said, what was happening because two of her sons were also detained, and her family had been completely shattered. "We didn't do anything wrong," she whimpered. <br /> <br /> With the interview over, we were walking towards our car to leave when all of us realized that it was 10 pm, already too late at night to be out in dangerous Baghdad. So she asked us instead if we wouldn't please stay for dinner, all the while thanking me for listening to her horrendous story, for my time, for writing about it. I found myself speechless. <br /> <br /> "No, thank you, we must get home now," said Abu Talat. By this time, we were all crying. <br /> <br /> In the car, as we drove quickly along a Baghdad highway directly into a full moon, Abu Talat and I were silent. Finally, he asked, "Can you say any words? Do you have any words?" <br /> <br /> I had none. None at all. <br /> <br /> Broken Infrastructure <br /> <br /> Everything in Iraq is set against the backdrop of shattered infrastructure and a nearly complete lack of reconstruction. What the Americans turn out to be best at is, once again, promises -- and propaganda. During the period when the Coalition Provisional Authority ruled Iraq from Baghdad's Green Zone, their handouts often read like this one released on May 21, 2004: "The Coalition Provisional Authority has recently given out hundreds of soccer balls to Iraqi children in Ramadi, Kerbala, and Hilla. Iraqi women from Hilla sewed the soccer balls, which are emblazoned with the phrase ‘All of Us Participate in a New Iraq.'" <br /> <br /> And yet when it came to the basics of that New Iraq, unemployment was at 50% and increasing, better areas of Baghdad averaged 6 hours of electricity per day, and security was nowhere to be found. Even as far back as January, 2004, before the security situation had brought most reconstruction projects to the nearly complete standstill of the present moment, and 9 months after the war in Iraq had officially ended, the situation already verged on the catastrophic. For instance, lack of potable water was the norm throughout most of central and southern Iraq. <br /> <br /> I was then working on a report that attempted to document exactly what reconstruction had occurred in the water sector -- a sector for which Bechtel was largely responsible. That giant corporation had been awarded a no-bid contract of $680 million behind closed doors on April 17, 2003, which in September was raised to $1.03 billion; then Bechtel won an additional contract worth $1.8 billion to extend its program through December 2005. <br /> <br /> At the time, when travel for Western reporters was a lot easier, I stopped in several villages en route south from Baghdad through what the Americans now call "the triangle of death" to Hilla, Najaf, and Diwaniyah to check on people's drinking-water situation. Near Hilla, an old man with a weathered face showed me his water pump, sitting lifeless with an empty container nearby -- as there was no electricity. What water his village did have was loaded with salt which was leaching into the water supply because Bechtel had not honored its contractual obligations to rehabilitate a nearby water treatment center. Another nearby village didn't have the salt problem, but nausea, diarrhea, kidney stones, cramps, and even cases of cholera were on the rise. This too would be a steady trend for the villages I visited. <br /> <br /> The rest of that trip involved a frenetic tour of villages, each without drinkable water, near or inside the city limits of Hilla, Najaf, and Diwaniya. Hilla, close to ancient Babylon, has a water treatment plant and distribution center managed by Chief Engineer Salmam Hassan Kadel. Mr. Kadel informed me that most of the villages in his jurisdiction had no potable water, nor did he have the piping needed to repair their broken-down water systems, nor had he had any contact with Bechtel or its subcontractors. <br /> <br /> He spoke of large numbers of people coming down with the usual list of diseases. "Bechtel," he told me, "is spending all of their money without any studies. Bechtel is painting buildings, but this doesn't give clean water to the people who have died from drinking contaminated water. We ask of them that instead of painting buildings, they give us one water pump and we'll use it to give water service to more people. We have had no change since the Americans came here. We know Bechtel is wasting money, but we can't prove it." <br /> <br /> At another small village between Hilla and Najaf, 1,500 people were drinking water from a dirty stream which trickled slowly by their homes. Everyone had dysentery; many had kidney stones; a startling number, cholera. One villager, holding a sick child, told me, "It was much better before the invasion. We had twenty-four hours of running water then. Now we are drinking this garbage because it is all we have." <br /> <br /> The next morning found me at a village on the outskirts of Najaf, which fell under the responsibility of Najaf's water center. A large hole had been dug in the ground where the villagers tapped into already existing pipes to siphon off water. The dirty hole filled in the night, when water was collected. That morning, children were standing idly around the hole as women collected the residue of dirty water which sat at its bottom. Everyone, it seemed, was suffering from some water-born illness and several children, the villagers informed me, had been killed attempting to cross a busy highway to a nearby factory where clean water was actually available. <br /> <br /> In June, six months later, I visited Chuwader Hospital, which then treated an average of 3,000 patients a day in Sadr City, the enormous Baghdad slum. Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri, the head manager there, promptly began describing the struggles his hospital was facing under the occupation. "We are short of every medicine," he said and pointed out how rarely this had occurred before the invasion. "It is forbidden, but sometimes we have to reuse IV's, even the needles. We have no choice." <br /> <br /> And then, of course, he -- like the other doctors I spoke with – brought up their horrendous water problem, the unavailability of unpolluted water anywhere in the area. "Of course, we have typhoid, cholera, kidney stones," he said matter-of-factly, "but we now even have the very rare Hepatitis Type-E…and it has become common in our area." <br /> <br /> Driving out of the sewage filled, garbage strewn streets of Sadr City we passed a wall with "Vietnam Street" spray painted on it. Just underneath was the sentence -- obviously aimed at the American liberators -- "We will make your graves in this place." <br /> <br /> Today, in terms of collapsing infrastructure, other areas of Baghdad are beginning to suffer the way Sadr City did then, and still largely does. While reconstruction projects slated for Sadr City have received increased funding, most of the time there is little sign of any work being done, as is the case in most of Baghdad. <br /> <br /> While an ongoing fuel crisis finds people waiting up to two days to fill their tanks at gas stations, all of the city is running on generators the majority of the time, and many less favored areas like Sadr City have only four hours of electricity a day. <br /> <br /> Broken Cities <br /> <br /> The heavy-handed tactics of the occupation forces have become a commonplace of Iraqi life. I've interviewed people who regularly sleep in their clothes because home raids are the norm. Many times when military patrols are attacked by resistance fighters in the cities of Iraq, soldiers simply open fire randomly on anything that moves. More commonly, heavy civilian casualties occur from air raids by occupation forces. These horrible circumstances have led to over 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties in the less than two year-old occupation. <br /> <br /> Then there is Fallujah, a city three-quarters of which has by now been bombed or shelled into rubble, a city in whose ruins fighting continues even while most of its residents have yet to be allowed to return to their homes (many of which no longer exist). The atrocities committed there in the last month or so are, in many ways, similar to those observed during the failed U.S. Marine siege of the city last April, though on a far grander scale. This time, in addition, reports from families inside the city, along with photographic evidence, point toward the U.S. military's use of chemical and phosphorous weapons as well as cluster bombs there. The few residents allowed to return in the final week of 2004 were handed military-produced leaflets instructing them not to eat any food from inside the city, nor to drink the water. <br /> <br /> Last May, at the General Hospital of Fallujah, doctors spoke to me of the sorts of atrocities that occurred during the first month-long siege of the city. Dr. Abdul Jabbar, an orthopedic surgeon, said that it was difficult to keep track of the number of people they treated, as well as the number of dead, due to the lack of documentation. This was caused primarily by the fact that the main hospital, located on the opposite side of the Euphrates River from the city, was sealed off by the Marines for the majority of April, just as it would again be in November, 2004. <br /> <br /> He estimated that at least 700 people were killed in Fallujah during that April. "I worked at five of the centers [community health clinics] myself, and if we collect the numbers from these places, then this is the number," he said. "And you must keep in mind that many people were buried before reaching our centers." <br /> <br /> When the wind blew in from the nearby Julan quarter of the city, the putrid stench of decaying bodies (a smell evidently once again typical of the city) only confirmed his statement. Even then, Dr. Jabbar was insisting that American planes had dropped cluster bombs on the city. "Many people were injured and killed by cluster bombs. Of course they used cluster bombs. We heard them as well as treated people who had been hit by them!" <br /> <br /> Dr. Rashid, another orthopedic surgeon, said, "Not less than sixty percent of the dead were women and children. You can go see the graves for yourself." I had already visited the Martyr Cemetery and had indeed observed the numerous tiny graves that had clearly been dug for children. He agreed with Dr. Jabbar about the use of cluster bombs, and added, "I saw the cluster bombs with my own eyes. We don't need any evidence. Most of these bombs fell on those we then treated." <br /> <br /> Speaking of the medical crisis that his hospital had to deal with, he pointed out that during the first 10 days of fighting the U.S. military did not allow any evacuations from Fallujah to Baghdad at all. He said, "Even transferring patients in the city was impossible. You can see our ambulances outside. Their snipers also shot into the main doors of one of our centers." Several ambulances were indeed in the hospital's parking lot, two of them with bullet holes in their windshields. <br /> <br /> Both doctors said they had not been contacted by the U.S. military, nor had any aid been delivered to them by the military. Dr. Rashid summed the situation up this way: "They send only bombs, not medicine." <br /> <br /> As I walked to our car at one point amid what was already the desolation of Fallujah, a man tugged on my arm and yelled, "The Americans are cowboys! This is their history! Look at what they did to the Indians! Vietnam! Afghanistan! And now Iraq! This does not surprise us." <br /> <br /> And that, of course, was before the total siege of the city began in November, 2004. The April campaign in Fallujah, which resulted in a rise in resistance proved -- like so much else in those early months of 2004 -- to be but a harbinger of things to come on a far larger scale. While the goal of the most recent siege was to squelch the resistance and bring greater security for elections scheduled for January 30, the result as in April has been anything but security. <br /> <br /> In the wake of the destruction of Fallujah fighting has simply spread elsewhere and intensified. Families are now fleeing Mosul, Iraq's third largest city, because of a warning of another upcoming air campaign against resistance fighters. At least one car bomb per day is now the norm in the capital city. Clashes erupt with deadly regularity throughout Baghdad as well as in cities like Ramadi, Samarra, Baquba and Balad. <br /> <br /> The intensification is two-sided. With each ratchet upwards in violence, the tactics by the American military only grow more heavy-handed and, as they do, the Iraqi resistance just continues to grow in size and effectiveness. Any kind of "siege" of Mosul will only add to this dynamic. <br /> <br /> Despite a media blackout in the aftermath of the recent assault on Fallujah, stories of dogs eating bodies in the streets of the city and of destroyed mosques have spread across Iraq like wildfire; and reports like these only underscore what most people in Iraq now believe -- that the liberators have become no more than brutal imperialist occupiers of their country. And then the resistance grows yet stronger. <br /> <br /> Yet among Iraqis the growing resistance was predicted long ago. One telling moment for me came last June amid daily suicide car bombings in Baghdad. While footage of cars with broken glass and bullet holes in their frames flashed across a television screen, my translator Hamid, an older man who had already grown weary of the violence, said softly, "It has begun. These are only the start, and they will not stop. Even after June 30." That, of course, was the date of the long-promised handover of "sovereignty" to a new Iraqi government, after which, American officials fervently predicted, violence in the country would begin to subside. The same pattern of prediction and of a contrarian reality can now be seen in relation to the upcoming elections. <br /> <br /> Three weeks ago, a friend of mine who is a sheikh from Baquba visited me in Baghdad and we had lunch with Abdulla, an older professor who is a friend of his. As we were eating, Abdulla expressed a sentiment now widely heard. "The mujahideen," he said, "are fighting for their country against the Americans. This resistance is acceptable to us." <br /> <br /> The Bush administration has recently increased its troops in Iraq from 138,000 to 150,000 -- in order, officials said, to provide greater security for the upcoming elections. Such troop increases also occurred in Vietnam. Back then it was called escalation. <br /> <br /> What I wonder is, will I be writing a piece next January still called, "Iraq: The Devastation," in which these last terrible months of 2004 (of which the first half of the year was but a foreshadowing) will prove in their turn but a predictive taste of horrors to come? And what then of 2006 and 2007? <br /> <br /> Dahr Jamail is an independent journalist from Anchorage, Alaska. He has spent 7 of the last 12 months reporting from inside occupied Iraq. His articles have been published in the Sunday Herald, Inter Press Service, the website of the Nation magazine, and the New Standard internet news site for which he was the Iraq correspondent. He is the special correspondent in Iraq for Flashpoints radio and also has appeared on the BBC, Democracy Now!, Free Speech Radio News, and Radio South Africa. This is his first piece for Tomdispatch.com. <br /> <br />Copyright C2004 Dahr Jamail <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110517755158005261?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105093152235794542005-01-07T02:14:00.000-08:002005-01-07T02:20:33.900-08:00President Bush is expected soon to ask for $100 billion or more for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, in a separate request, he is expected to ask for less than $500 million (less than half of one percent of what he is asking for the Iraq war) to address the tsunami disaster, a catastrophe that has devastated the lives of millions of people from Indonesia to India to Africa. <br /> <br />It is time to shift our government’s budget and foreign policy priorities, and we must start by getting Congress and the administration to bring the war in Iraq to an end. <br /> <br />Congress will begin debating these spending requests in early February. Many in Congress – Democrats and Republicans alike – are very concerned about the mounting costs and deepening violence in Iraq. Many are wondering how to extricate the U.S. from this quagmire. Some are considering a congressional resolution stating simply that it is U.S. policy to withdraw all U.S. military forces and bases from Iraq. The Bush administration has never made this statement before, yet it would be an important first step toward defusing the suspicion and growing discontent that now exists in Iraq against the U.S. It would begin assuring the Iraqi people, who are suspicious of U.S. permanent intentions, that the U.S. will leave. <br /> <br />Act Now: Rising concern among both Republicans and Democrats about the deepening quagmire and escalating costs of the war in Iraq provides an important opening for dialog with our members of Congress. Please contact your representative and senators today. Urge them to support a congressional resolution stating that it is U.S. policy to withdraw all U.S. military forces and bases from Iraq. Urge them to provide generous and sustained long-term development assistance to the countries devastated by the tsunami. <br /> <br />See FCNL’s web site for a sample letter to your members of Congress. <<a href="http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=6790831&type=CO">http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=6790831&type=CO</a>> <br /> <br />Contribute to Tsunami Relief and Long-Term, People Centered Development Assistance: Contact the American Friends Service Committee for more information. <<a href="http://www.afsc.org/tsunami/default.htm">http://www.afsc.org/tsunami/default.htm</a>> <br /> <br />Background: Our government continues to be distracted by an endless "war on terror" and associated ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each month, these wars consume about seventeen times the amount pledged for tsunami victims so far ($350 million). In the meantime, even greater catastrophes than this unfold each month in the poorest countries around the world. Malaria, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, poverty-related diseases, and natural and man-made disasters claim millions of lives in the poorest countries each year. These disasters hit the poorest people in the poorest countries the hardest, and, because of their poverty, it takes them much longer to recover from disaster. Yet, the U.S. government spends only about 15 cents per capita per day on international aid* while spending roughly thirty times that fighting and preparing for wars. (*See Nicholas Kristoff, "Land of Penny Pinchers," New York Times, January 5, 2005.) <br /> <br />_______________________________________ <br /> <br />Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/. <br /> <br />Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign bumper stickers and yard signs: <br /><a href="http://www.fcnl.org/newinfo/special_pub.htm">http://www.fcnl.org/newinfo/special_pub.htm</a> <br /><a href="http://www.fcnl.org/iraq-war.htm">http://www.fcnl.org/iraq-war.htm</a> <br /> <br />Contribute to FCNL: <br /><a href="http://www.fcnl.org/suprt/indx.htm">http://www.fcnl.org/suprt/indx.htm</a> <br /> <br />Subscribe or update your information to this list: <br /><a href="http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/">http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/</a>. To unsubscribe from this list, please see the end of this message. <br /> <br />Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists: <br /><a href="http://www.fcnl.org/listserv/quaker_issues.php">http://www.fcnl.org/listserv/quaker_issues.php</a>. <br /> <br />________________________________________ <br /> <br />Friends Committee on National Legislation <br />245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795 <br />fcnl@fcnl.org * <a href="http://www.fcnl.org/">http://www.fcnl.org/</a> <br />phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330 <br /> <br />We seek a world free of war and the threat of war <br />We seek a society with equity and justice for all <br />We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled <br />We seek an earth restored. <br /> <br /> <br /> To Unsubscribe: You may unsubscribe at any time by visiting here. <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110509315223579454?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1105081532224056042005-01-06T23:04:00.000-08:002005-01-06T23:05:32.226-08:00My friend Mike writes: <br /> <br />While the fight was going on today to try and preserve some semblance of democracy and voter integrity and concerned people are trying to prevent the confirmation of "Quaint Geneva Conventions" Gonzales, where is John Kerry? Trying his hardest to look like he wasn't using the occasion for personal gain by going as far away as possible to "support our troops." I've lost what little respect I had for him. What a spineless worm. What does he have to lose? Why didn't he remain in the Senate and stand up for what's right? Why doesn't he DO HIS JOB? Apparently he'll be following the Electoral College vote and the Senate confirmation hearings for our new attorney general, Alberto Torquemada, on his Blackberry. <br /> <br />Below is a statement from Senator John Kerry on the Congressional certification of Electoral College results: <br /> <br />Wednesday, January 5, 2005 <br /> <br />"On November 3, I conceded the presidential election to George Bush and also expressed my commitment to ensuring that every vote in this election is counted. While I am deeply concerned about the issues being highlighted by my colleagues in Congress and citizens across the country and support their efforts to highlight the need to ensure voting rights, I will not be joining their protest of the Ohio Electors. <br /> <br />"As Representative John Conyers' (D-Mich.) recently released voting rights report shows, there are very troubling questions that have not yet been answered by Ohio election officials. I have supported and will continue to support a close examination of voting irregularities in Ohio and elsewhere because it's critical to our democracy. <br /> <br />"As I have committed, in the coming months I will present a national proposal to ensure transparency and accountability in our voting process. I plan to use the information gathered by Representative Conyers in his report, and information from other investigations underway, to guide my legislation. It will be one of my top agenda items. I ask the Republican leadership, and all those concerned about voting rights, to join this effort so that we act on reform this year. <br /> <br />"I will continue to strongly support the efforts of the civil rights and voting rights groups across the country that continue to investigate what happened in 2004 and how we can ensure it will never happen again. <br /> <br />"I am currently traveling in the Middle East to thank our troops for their service, and I am reminded once again of the power of democracy and fair and free elections. All American citizens should have the confidence that their vote was counted. Our democracy depends on it." <br />homepage: http://kerry.senate.gov <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110508153222405604?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104965098700683162005-01-05T14:27:00.000-08:002005-01-05T14:54:08.403-08:00Americans (People) are basically kind and compassionate. The outpouring of aid to the Tsunami victims is a testament to that. As a people, we have been moved to action by the images of death and destruction. <br /> <br />Our government knows that about us. If we were allowed to see the destruction that we are creating in Iraq, our emotions would similarly propel us into action. The media not only downplays the dead...but downplays the injured as well. <br /> <br />The paragraphs below are only part of an interesting commentary. <br /> <br />Thanks for reading this! <br /> <br />---------------- <br /> Disaster comes in many forms, be it natural or unnatural. And media sensationalism (in the battle for market shares) can sure keep you reeling. It's amazing how the media outlets decided to show the graphic loss of life from the killer tsunami waves - the bodies washed ashore, many bloated as they piled up in numbers that far outdistanced the ability of loved ones to identify and bury them. Yet televising dead American service-members arriving home at Dover Air Force Base in the dead of night, in neat flag-draped coffins, is still not allowed. <br /> <br />Who makes these decisions? Certainly not anyone with any shred of honor. But there it was in all its undaunted glory, in big screen, plasma screen and wide screen - media executives giving the thumbs-up to show bloated bodies, decomposing bodies, floating bodies and even bodies hanging in trees - on television, dumped squarely into my living room. Strange, isn't it, that they still refuse to televise one single American funeral at home honoring our heros who have died in the line of duty, while bravely serving their country in a time of war. What the hell is wrong with this picture? <br /> <br />The rest of this well-stated opinion can be found at: <br /><a href=" <br />http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/01/05_blackout.html"> <br />http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/01/05_blackout.html</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110496509870068316?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104964062335869882005-01-05T14:20:00.000-08:002005-01-05T14:27:42.336-08:00I got this email from my sister today <br /> <br />Hi - Are you following the governor election in Washington state? The Republicans are now pushing for a new election. <br /> <br />I think the Democrats need to be hyper-vigilant in this "fight." The Republicans have demonstrated time and again they will stop at nothing nor hesitate at stooping as low as possible to get what they want. They're already starting with the propaganda ads a la "Swift Boat Veterans" to stir things up, claiming GIs did not get a chance to vote. <br /> <br />I think it's just a matter of time before Cheney (Carl Rove, et al.) steps in. In their ads, the Republicans are urging citizens to sign a petition to lobby for a new election. This is going way too far. Especially when everyone knows that if the election had come out in their favor, they would not be asking for a new election. Can you put something about this on your website? Thanks - <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110496406233586988?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104887774186368602005-01-04T17:13:00.000-08:002005-01-04T17:16:14.186-08:00Dear friend, <br />I hate to start the New Year with bad news, but the Senate is about to consider Alberto Gonzales' nomination to become Attorney General, replacing John Ashcroft. Gonzales is the White House counsel notorious for opening the door to torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons. Senators should view the Gonzales nomination very skeptically, given this radical history. As part of the upcoming hearings, we can call on Senators to ask Gonzales to unequivocally renounce torture as an instrument of American policy. <br />Join me in asking Gonzales and Senators to prohibit torture by clicking here: <br /><a href="http://www.moveon.org/gonzales/">http://www.moveon.org/gonzales/</a> <br />Thanks. <br /> <br />I added the following short statement when I sent this at Moveon's site: <br /> <br />We supposedly fight for the freedoms guaranteed us in our constitution. We supposedly stand for liberty and justice for all (see the pledge of allegiance). Torture in the name of Freedom is still torture. Therefore I urge you to support the declaration against torture included in this email. <br />-- <br /> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110488777418636860?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104837116004896852005-01-04T03:09:00.000-08:002005-01-04T03:23:53.426-08:00Thanks to Jim Wrathall from <a href="http://tvset.org">http://tvset.org</a> for forwarding this to me <br /> <br />On Sunday, Jan 2, Dana Priest, writing in the Washington Post, described the plans of the Pentagon and the Justice Department to imprison indefinitely, perhaps for life, persons it wants removed from society. <br /> <br />Having committed no crime, but believed to be associated with terrorism however that is defined at any given moment in time the people will live in prison camps modeled on American prisons. <br /> <br />At this moment, the CIA admits that it has imprisoned hundreds of people in foreign prisons. Amnesty International puts that number at well over 1000. At least one American citizen has been thus imprisoned in Saudi Arabia at the demand of federal prosecutors, Ahmed Abu Ali. Charged with no crime, implicated in no wrongdoing. <br /> <br />But back to the Priest story. The administration apparently has some trouble trusting its lawless incarceration to its friends. Even the most inhumane of governments don't want to be America's prison warden. Recall that Syria sent back to Canada the Canadian citizen the CIA had kidnapped at New York's Kennedy Airport and sent to Syria for questioning (go ahead and read torture into that term). The Syrian guards got tired of trying to beat information out of man who had no ties to anything. <br /> <br />To avoid restlessness among its surrogate thugs, Priest writes that the US is contracting with private companies (no doubt subsidiaries of Halliburton, which continues to build prisons in Guantanamo and Iraq) to build new prisons on American soil. Sources say the government is writing the rules (as they can do until somebody stops them), and it is specifically written that these prisoners wont be charged with any crime and will never set foot in a courtroom. <br /> <br />I guess they have already made up their minds that even if the Supremes say you can't imprison people without giving them their day in court, they will do it anyway. The Pentagon has already set a precedent for waving off the high court's mandate. <br /> <br />Military officials, supported by legions of lawyers at the Department of "Justice," are thwarting at every opportunity efforts of lawyers to represent prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; prisoners the Court said are entitled to legal representation and judicial review of their detentions. Is the Supreme Court going to force the Pentagon's hand and find Rumsfeld in contempt? I don't think so! <br /> <br />In case you have forgotten what gulags are, let me refresh your memory. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, gulags made up a system of Soviet labor camps and accompanying detention and transit camps and prisons that from the 1920s to the mid-1950s housed the political prisoners and criminals of the Soviet Union. <br /> <br />At its height the Gulag imprisoned millions of people. The name Gulag had been largely unknown in the West until the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, 19181956 (1973), whose title likens the labor camps scattered through the Soviet Union to an island chain. <br /> <br />A system of forced-labor camps was first inaugurated by a Soviet decree of April 15, 1919, and underwent a series of administrative and organizational changes in the 1920s, ending with the founding of Gulag in 1930 under the control of the secret police, OGPU (later, the NKVD and the KGB). The Gulag had a total inmate population of about 100,000 in the late 1920s, when it underwent an enormous expansion coinciding with the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's collectivization of agriculture. By 1936 the Gulag held a total of 5,000,000 prisoners, a number that was probably equaled or exceeded every subsequent year until Stalin died in 1953. <br /> <br />Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned for several years before he was rehabilitated and exiled to the United States. Think about this when you are sitting in an airport waiting for a plane. <br /> <br />The CIA has a Gulfstream jet that might have a seat waiting for you. We will have an attorney general, Albert Gonzales, who has already validated your governments plans. In memos to his boss right after September 11, and in subsequent memos, Gonzales told Bush he had unlimited and unassailable power during wartime." <br /> <br />Members of Congress are quoted in the story, and they don't seem terribly upset. A couple are say they would like to read the rules when the Pentagon gets around to sharing them. If ever. None of the members quoted expressed shock or horror, not even a little concern. <br /> <br />The Post story is one of those not likely to even to be noticed save by readers like me who are looking for them. A year or two from now, I hope you will remember that you read about it here: January 2, 2005. And were warned. <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110483711600489685?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104747992755349152005-01-03T02:24:00.000-08:002005-01-03T02:26:32.756-08:00<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Happy New year and a break from all that heavy political stuff. (It'll be back!)</span></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;"><b>A dime has 118 ridges around the edge.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:180%;color:#804040;"><b>A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;"><b>A crocodile cannot stick out its tongue.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#400000;"><b>A dragonfly has a life span of 24 hours.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#800040;"><b>A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;"><b>A "jiffy" is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"><b>A shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#ff8040;"><b>A snail can sleep for three years.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;color:#ff8000;"><b>Al Capone's business card said he was a used furniture dealer.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:180%;color:#804000;"><b>All 50 states are listed across the top of the Lincoln Memorial on the back of the $5 bill.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;"><b>Almonds are a member of the peach family.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;color:#80ff80;"><b>An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;"><b>Babies are born without kneecaps. They don't appear until the child reaches 2 to 6 years of age.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;"><b>Butterflies taste with their feet.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:180%;"><b>Cats have over one hundred vocal sounds. Dogs only have about 10.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;color:#004000;"><b>"Dreamt" is the only English word that ends in the letters "mt."</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#808040;"><b>February 1865 is the only month in recorded history not to have a full moon</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;"><b>In the last 4,000 years, no new animals have been domesticated.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#004040;"><b>If the population of China walked past you, in single file, the line would never end because of the rate of reproduction.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#008040;"><b>If you are an average American, in your whole life, you will spend an average of 6 months waiting at red lights.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"><b>It's impossible to sneeze with your eyes open.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#800040;"><b>Leonardo Da Vinci invented the scissors.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;"><b>Maine is the only state whose name is just one syllable.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;"><b>No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver, or purple.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:7;"><b>On a Canadian two dollar bill, the flag flying over the Parliament building is an American flag.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;"><b>Our eyes are always the same size from birth, but our nose and ears never stop growing.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:180%;"><b>Peanuts are one of the ingredients of dynamite.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0080ff;"><b>Rubber bands last longer when refrigerated.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#0080c0;"><b>"Stewardesses" is the longest word typed with only the left hand and "lollipop" with your right.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#8080ff;"><b>The average person's left hand does 56% of the typing.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#0000a0;"><b>The cruise liner, QE2, moves only six inches for each gallon of diesel fuel that it burns.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;"><b>The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:180%;"><b>The sentence: "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" uses every letter of the alphabet.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;color:#400040;"><b>The winter of 1932 was so cold that Niagara Falls froze completely solid.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;color:#400040;"><b>The words 'racecar,' 'kayak' and 'level' are the same whether they are read left to right or right to left (palindromes).</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:6;"><b>There are 293 ways to make change for a dollar.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:180%;color:#800040;"><b>There are more chickens than people in the world.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;color:#8080c0;"><b>There are only four words in the English language which end in "dous": tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#ff80c0;"><b>There are two words in the English language that have all five vowels in order: "abstemious" and "facetious."</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#ff80ff;"><b>There's no Betty Rubble in the Flintstones Chewables Vitamins.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;color:#800040;"><b>Tigers have striped skin, not just striped fur.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#ff0080;"><b>TYPEWRITER is the longest word that can be made using the letters only on one row of the keyboard.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#8000ff;"><b>Winston Churchill was born in a ladies' room during a dance.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;color:#8000ff;"><b>Women blink nearly twice as much as men.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:180%;color:#400080;"><b>Your stomach has to produce a new layer of mucus every two weeks; otherwise it will digest itself.</b></span> <br /> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:7;color:#800040;"><b>Okay.................Now you know everything!</b></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110474799275534915?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104695994919797222005-01-02T11:39:00.000-08:002005-01-02T11:59:54.920-08:00<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Got this in an email today - Thanks Mike. <br />------------------- <br /> <br />In a nutshell, Republican leaders in the House are planning on GUTTING the ethics rules governing their own members, for the most part because one of their own, Rep. Tom Delay, got caught doing a lot of nasty stuff. So in retaliation, they're changing the rules to make it next to impossible to file an ethics complaint in the future. Any complaint will be dropped, period, unless a majority of members on the committee in favor of it. Like that will ever happen. <br /> <br />But oh, it gets better. They also plan to change the rules so family members of congressmen can more easily accept gifts from lobbyists trying to influence the congressman in question. AND, they even want to permit congressmen to BRING A PARENT ON A CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION. Yes, now we're giving them perks for mom and dad. Wouldn't it be nice if all of our companies let us bring the folks on business trips to Europe, at the taxpayers' expense, no less. <br /> <br />This is absolutely outrageously disgusting what they are planning on doing. All the more so because this is the "values" party, and they're now trying to railroad new rules that will permit them to be less ethical. What a way to cast your first vote of the new Congress, and in the case of new members of Congress their first vote ever. <br /> <br />There are a few clear action steps that are needed: <br /> <br />1. I hear from good sources that the Dems in the House are terrified of taking on this issue full-blast as they don't want Tom Delay to get mad at them. Well, I'm through with playing nice, hoping the Republicans will throw us a few scraps while they lead us to the slaughterhouse. <br /> <br />Call Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, both Democratic leaders who need to grow a set of balls (or vaginas) and finally throw down the gauntlet on this outrageous behavior by the Republicans. What more do the Democrats need handed to them than this proposed vote on Tuesday? If this were the Dems planning this kind of vote, what do you think Newt Gingrich would do? He certainly wouldn't be sitting back issuing press releases and having the occasional press conference. He'd be plotting all out war to embarrass the hell out of the Democrats. It's time the Dems did the same. Call Pelosi and Hoyer and tell them it's about time the democrats started fighting back - demand that they go nuclear over this proposed change to the ethics rules this coming Tuesday. And it is irrelevant if you're from their state or not - they are the leaders of the Democratic party, tell them you're one angry Democrat and demand that your voice be heard, or we should throw them all out. <br /> <br />Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) <br />Phone (415) 556-4862, (202) 225-4965 <br />Email: sf.nancy@mail.house.go <<a href="mailto:sf.nancy@mail.house.gov" eudora="autourl">mailto:sf.nancy@mail.house.gov</a>>v <br /> <br />Rep. Steny Hoyer(D-MD) <br />Phone (202) 225-4131 - Fax(202) 225-4300 <br />Phone (301) 474-0119 - Fax (301) 474-4697 <br />Phone (301) 843-1577 - Fax (301) 843-1331 <br />Web form for email: <a href="http://www.hoyer.house.gov/feedback.cfm?campaign=hoyers&type=Let%27s%20Talk" eudora="autourl">http://www.hoyer.house.gov/feedback.cfm?campaign=hoyers&amp;type=Let%27s%20Talk</a> <<a href="http://www.hoyer.house.gov/feedback.cfm?campaign=hoyers&type=Let%27s%20Talk" eudora="autourl">http://www.hoyer.house.gov/feedback.cfm?campaign=hoyers&amp;type=Let%27s%20Talk</a>> <br /> <br />2. Then contact your own House member, Democrat or Republican, and let them have it. I'm serious, the only thing these people understand is pissed off constituents - I worked there, trust me, it gets their attention. <br /> <br />Use this zip-code locator <<a href="http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind" eudora="autourl">http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind</a>> to find your member of Congress. Call and email them today through Tuesday - fill their voice mail with messages over the weekend. Blast them over this issue. <a href="http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind" eudora="autourl">http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind</a> <br /> <br />3. Call and email your local newspapers IMMEDIATELY over this issue, especially if you have a new member of Congress elected from your district. Will your congressman's first vote of the new congress, and possibly their career, be in favor of lowering their ethical standards? Make sure your local papers cover this issue - call the paper and ask for a reporter or editor covering the US Congress and talk to them about this issue. Trust me, if they get 20 or so calls from people, they'll write about the issue. Find some friends and have them call too (just look your papers up online for email and phone contact info, letters to the editor, etc.) <br /> <br />You can read more on this issue here: <br /><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/20041216/" eudora="autourl">http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/20041216/</a> <br /> <br />Feel free to copy this post and put it on your site, or to email this message to your friends. It's high time the Democrats fought back and stopped this outright theft of our government. <br /></blockquote> <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110469599491979722?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104627845372819862005-01-01T17:01:00.000-08:002005-01-01T17:04:05.373-08:00<tt>January 1, 2005 <br />By HASSAN M. FATTAH <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />AMMAN, Jordan <br /> <br />AT a tiny meeting spot for Arab culture, the search for <br />direction quietly continues. <br /> <br />Here at the Arab Culture Shack, a toolshed-size bookstore <br />in the heart of downtown Amman, Hassan al-Beer, a man who <br />lives by the book and intends to die by the book, has a <br />motto that he regards as inviolable. "Only the mind can <br />conquer the Kalashnikov," he says, as he has for decades. <br /> <br />With war raging in Iraq, and the Israeli-Palestinian <br />conflict grinding steadily on, Mr. Beer, 63, guardedly <br />calls himself an optimist. He is better known as Abu Ali, a <br />champion of the very Arab culture forgotten over decades of <br />turmoil. And from his unlikely perch, he presides over a <br />daily debate with his customers over the future of the Arab <br />world, inciting, refereeing and hoping to inform their <br />quest for a new direction. <br /> <br />"Where did these extremists and fundamentalists come from?" <br />Abu Ali demands rhetorically. "How did we get to the stage <br />where people are being executed on evening TV?" <br /> <br />He pins part of the blame on America, but he has an even <br />bigger problem with his Arab friends and neighbors. "This <br />is mainly because of closed minds and closed mouths," he <br />says in answer to his own questions. <br /> <br />Abu Ali is in the business of open minds. For the past 33 <br />years, he has held court in his bookshop, which he calls a <br />shrine to Arab pen and culture. Distinct from the other <br />newspaper kiosks that line the street above and below his, <br />Abu Ali's Culture Shack is a bookstore first and an open <br />forum second, a brave meeting ground for Amman's <br />intelligentsia who grew up alongside Abu Ali in the heady <br />days of Arab nationalism. <br /> <br />The books stacked high and deep encircling Mr. Beer's <br />kiosk, he says, hold at least some of the answers to the <br />questions that today dog the Arab world. Works by <br />well-known Arab writers like Naguib Mahfouz, the Nobel <br />Prize laureate from Egypt, and Mahmoud Darwish, the <br />Palestinian poet, offer a reminder of where the Arab world <br />came from and what it aspired to be. <br /> <br />But you'll also find works meant as much to incite as to be <br />insightful - Arabic translations of the Talmud, of Henry A. <br />Kissinger's memoirs, and of Michael Moore's "Stupid White <br />Men." <br /> <br />MOST customers open conversation with, "What do you have <br />for me, Abu Ali?" For one woman he picks out a book of <br />short stories, for a middle-aged man, a book by a <br />Palestinian author. His tastes are as quirky as they are <br />particular, but that's one reason his regulars keep coming <br />back. Soon they get to talking. <br /> <br />"I now take the line that the Americans are bastards, pure <br />bastards," declares a man who identifies himself only as <br />Abu Elias, an optometrist. "We've been demolished, <br />eviscerated - culturally, emotionally, personally. But <br />remember, after every night comes day." <br /> <br />"Don't you think we share the blame?" an onlooker asks. <br /> <br /> <br />"Keep talking," Abu Ali encourages him. <br /> <br />"Of course the problem is in us - the poverty, the <br />dictatorships," says Abu Elias, his voice rising in <br />frustration. "But any country that has to send its troops <br />clear across the world to take over another country is <br />nothing short of a colonialist." <br /> <br />"Say it!" Abu Ali adds. <br /> <br />What about all the dictators and paternalism? he goes on. <br /> <br /> <br />"That's the problem," Abu Elias says. "We counted on some <br />of them, but they've all let us down. But our culture will <br />survive." <br /> <br />Ultimately Abu Ali is selling optimism - of a better day, <br />of better understanding, of a world moving forward, not <br />backward. That makes the conundrum of men like Abu Elias <br />all the more lamentable, he notes. The region seemed to be <br />making gains before Sept. 11, 2001. Now, those gains lie in <br />the rubble of the conflict in Iraq, Abu Ali insists. <br /> <br />"If Afghanistan and Iraq had not happened, we would have <br />done well," he says. "We were already on the way." Now, <br />Iraq hangs like a pall over the region. Anyone who speaks <br />of reform falls in the American camp, and is therefore <br />discredited on the street. Even people like him feel they <br />have to be more discreet in their language. <br /> <br />Part of Abu Ali's thesis is that people don't read books <br />like they used to. Falling standards of living and the <br />rising cost of books have made them more of a luxury, and <br />lending libraries are few. It used to be, in the 70's, that <br />one Jordanian dinar (about $3 in today's money) would buy <br />three books, Abu Ali says, but these days one can barely <br />buy one book for 10 dinars - and he makes little profit on <br />that. <br /> <br />Then there are the distractions of cellphones and satellite <br />television. <br /> <br />The book business being a shadow of what it was, on any <br />given day Abu Ali barely has $100 to his name. In fact, <br />selling newspapers accounts for most of his business, he <br />admits. He has made sure all nine of his children are <br />college educated; none of them work with him. <br /> <br />A stately woman walks in, and hears the talk and scoffs. <br />"All they do is talk history. We want to talk about the <br />future," she says. "The Arab man is lost, and he doesn't <br />know what direction to head." <br /> <br />FOR all the talk, Abu Ali insists he has no interest in <br />politics. After all, that's how things went wrong. What has <br />been missing in recent years is the sense of culture and <br />history, he says, and despite the political undertones of <br />everything in his shack, the books are fundamentally about <br />culture, arts and philosophy. In 2002, in recognition of <br />his support of Arab culture, King Abdullah awarded him a <br />silver medal. <br /> <br />"I don't do politics, I do culture," he says. <br /> <br />Yet the <br />Culture Shack's mere existence is political. When he <br />arrived in Amman as a Palestinian refugee in 1948, Abu Ali <br />hustled as a paperboy, giving up school after the fifth <br />grade. Then in 1971, at the height of Arab nationalistic <br />fervor, he won a lease for the 9-foot-by-9-foot shack from <br />the Jordanian Press Syndicate and has remained ever since. <br /> <br />He opened his shop at a time when political parties and <br />intellectuals roamed downtown streets speaking of Arab <br />unity and identity. He still remembers the day when King <br />Hussein stopped to buy a newspaper from him; Arab authors <br />and thinkers were regulars. <br /> <br />It was a time of intense ideological clashes, so much so <br />that in the early 1970's Jordan faced near civil war. These <br />days, most of the neighborhood's cafes and bookshops are <br />gone and the politicians and intellectuals have either died <br />off or moved on to fancier joints uptown. <br /> <br />Even in Amman, arguably one of the most open of Arab <br />capitals, dialogue has moved behind closed doors or <br />disappeared altogether. <br /> <br />As he straightened out his papers late one evening, Abu Ali <br />grew pensive. He leaned against the wall and looked out <br />into the bustling street. "People are afraid to talk," he <br />said. "Even as I talk, I am afraid." <br /> <br />It's not fear of the government exactly, but of violence at <br />the hands of those with sealed minds. It's never been more <br />difficult to be an optimist, Abu Ali admits. But he is <br />hanging on for his regulars, hoping this, too, shall pass. <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/international/middleeast/01fprofile.html?ex=1105586652&ei=1&amp;en=14a461eb690cba16">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/international/middleeast/01fprofile</a><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/international/middleeast/01fprofile.html?ex=1105586652&ei=1&amp;en=14a461eb690cba16">.html?ex=1105586652&ei=1&amp;en=14a461eb690cba16</a> <br /> <br />Thanks Aminah for sending this article my way! <br /></tt><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110462784537281986?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104491594878130292004-12-31T03:12:00.000-08:002004-12-31T03:13:14.876-08:00 Hi, Pete -- <br /> <br />Thanks for forwarding the MoveOn alert on Tsunami relief. As you know, the need is critical, and there are many groups and people collecting money to help people in Aceh, Sri Lanka and other places devastated by the earthquake and tidal wave. However, much of the money collected in these ways -- including what our government may give, will probably not be used efficiently or reach those most affected. <br /> <br />Many of the large agencies work through governments, and in both Aceh (Indonesia) and Sri Lanka there are civil wars where the majority of people in the worst-affected areas (Acehnese and Tamil) are considered "enemies" by their national governments. Much aid channeled through big relief organizations will not get to the people who need it most. <br /> <br />MoveOn is recommending aid through Oxfam, which is one of the best of the international relief NGOs. But I think it's even better to give donations to local organizations in close contact with the devastated communities. <br /> <br />For Aceh, the East Timor Action Network is sending money directly to Acehnese grassroots humanitarian organizations. <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.etan.org/">http://www.etan.org</a> . ETAN also has an action alert <a href="http://www.etan.org/action/action2/23alert.htm">http://www.etan.org/action/action2/23alert.htm</a> <br />to get Congress to urge the U.S. and Indonesian administrations to do better. <br /> <br />For Sri Lanka, the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization <a href="http://www.trousa.org/">http://www.trousa.org/</a> is performing a similar function. <br /> <br />I agree wholeheartedly that we need to push our government to do more, both for the immediate emergency and for the future. I just sent the following letter to the NY Times in response to today's editorial "Are We Stingy? Yes" which you can read at: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html</a> <br /> <br />-- Charlie <br />============================ <br /> <br />To the Editor: <br /> <br />U.S. stinginess in humanitarian aid (editorial, December 30) is beyond comprehension. President Bush’s enlarged promise of $35 million represents 94 seconds of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the output of our economy. In comparison, East Timor, the newest and poorest country in Asia, is donating one hour and 25 minutes of its GDP for tsunami victims. <br /> <br />The President complains that UN officials ignore U.S. generosity, citing our foreign aid program. Last year, I was in East Timor working with the local watchdog organization La’o Hamutuk. A U.S. government team visited to evaluate the U.S. aid program, and asked me how effective it was. I told them that since 70% of U.S. aid buys goods and services from the U.S., it did little to help East Timor rebuild its economy after Indonesia’s devastating 1999 withdrawal. The interviewer’s response: “only 70%? Congress wants it to be 90%.” <br /> <br />Charles Scheiner <br />------------ <br /> <br />If you want to confirm my calculations, they're based on a U.S. GDP of $11.8 trillion, as reported by the government for the current quarter at <a href="http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls">http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls</a> . <br /> <br />East Timor's government has pledged $50,000 to the aid effort -- see <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6dn25">http://tinyurl.com/6dn25 </a> <br /> <br />According to the World Bank, East Timor's GDP in 2003 (the latest figure available) was $310 million -- see <br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/3lh26">http://tinyurl.com/3lh26</a> <br />. It has probably decreased since then. <br />*********************************************************** <br />Charles Scheiner <br />P.O. Box 1182, White Plains, NY 10602 USA <br />Tel. +1-914-831-1098 or +1-914-473-3185 (mobile) <br />email: cscheiner@igc.org<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110449159487813029?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104455099737429692004-12-30T17:04:00.000-08:002004-12-30T17:39:43.283-08:00<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1230-07.htm">Republican Judge Takes Aim at Bush Terror Policies</a>: "Republican Judge Takes Aim at Bush Terror Policies <br />by Gail Appleson <br /> <br /> <br />NEW YORK - Far from the typical corporate Christmas card, a former U.S. federal judge's law firm is embracing controversy with holiday cards showing the historic Supreme Court session where he sucessfully challenged the Bush administration's treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees. <br /> <br /> <br />John Gibbons <br />Even more unusually, the attorney who argued the case before the nation's highest court is a Republican and former federal appeals judge appointed by President Richard Nixon. <br /> <br />'Human rights issues are not Republican or Democratic issues,' said John Gibbons, whose arguments led to the Supreme Court's landmark June ruling that foreign terror suspects held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba can have access to U.S. courts. <br /> <br />Gibbons, a former chief judge of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, told Reuters that he has never heard criticism of his fight for detainee rights from other lawyers, regardless of their party affiliation. <br /> <br />'I don't know any organized bar group that has taken the position that the government is right. I think most lawyers probably think the government has gone crazy,' he said. <br /> <br />Certainly this soft-spoken former jurist, who takes long thoughtful pauses before answering questions, is no rabble-rouser. Gibbons is a devoutly religious man of conviction, his colleagues say, who time and again has put himself on the line when he thinks a wrong needs righting. <br /> <br />The strong human interest views held by Gibbons and his Newark, N.J.-based corporate law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione have led the former judge and his colleagues, who usually handle business matters, to become involved in a range of controversial cases. <br /> <br />These have led the lawyers to take on such causes as fighting for the rights of sex offenders and challenging death penalty sentences. <br /> <br />Please Click on title if you'd like to read more. Thank You.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110445509973742969?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104441937784904242004-12-30T13:25:00.000-08:002004-12-30T13:25:37.783-08:00<a href="http://www.moveon.org/tsunamirelief//letter.html">MoveOn.org: Tsunami Relief</a>: "Dear friend, <br /> <br />The tsunami in southern Asia and Africa may be the worst natural disaster of our time. More than 116,000 lives were wiped out within hours. <br /> <br />Rising to this challenge is at the heart of global leadership, and the world is depending on us. The U.S government can lead billions of dollars of aid into this relief effort, if it chooses. Americans are generous and ready to step forward, but the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration have made a weak initial contribution to the effort -- first offering $15 million and then $35 million when they came under pressure. Clearly, we can do more. <br /> <br />Let Congress and the President know that Americans are supporting strong leadership on this relief effort, at: <br /> <br />http://www.moveon.org/tsunamirelief/ <br /> <br />Thanks."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110444193778490424?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104406495905223542004-12-30T03:33:00.000-08:002004-12-30T03:34:55.906-08:00By Arianna Huffington <br /> <br />While so many year-end publications focus on what we should remember about the year now grinding to a close, I'd like to continue this column's contrarian tradition of pointing out the things we'd all be better off never having cross our minds again. <br /> <br />Here then is a list of all the things I'd like to forget, circa 2004: <br /> <br />Bernard Kerik's nanny. Bernard Kerik's Ground Zero love nest. Bernard Kerik. <br /> <br />That the woman who dismissed a presidential briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." as a "historical" document is going to be our next secretary of state. <br /> <br />That a man who finds the Geneva Conventions "quaint" is going to be our next attorney general. <br /> <br />Janet Jackson's briefly exposed right boob. <br /> <br />That it took 14 months and public protests from the victims' families before the president OK'd the 9/11 Commission, but only two weeks before the first hearings were held on Janet Jackson's boob. <br /> <br />That the media thought "Don't be economic girlie men" was a great line. <br /> <br />Scott Peterson's love of golf. And that his lawyers thought it was a reason he shouldn't be sentenced to death. <br /> <br />Paris Hilton's new perfume. Paris Hilton's new album. Paris Hilton's new book. Paris Hilton. <br /> <br />"Surviving Christmas," "Jersey Girl," J-Lo: Ben Affleck goes 0-for-2004. <br /> <br />Madrid, Spain, March 11, 2004. <br /> <br />Beslan, Russia, Sept. 3, 2004. <br /> <br />That the Federal budget deficit hit $413 billion this year, and two-thirds of it is the result of Bush's tax cuts. <br /> <br />That Dick Cheney is talking about another round of tax cuts. <br /> <br />What Colin Powell did to his credibility. "You break it, you live with it for the rest of your life." <br /> <br />"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." <br /> <br />That picture of Lynndie England holding the leash. <br /> <br />The way the administration tried to sweep Abu Ghraib under the rug. <br /> <br />William Hung, recording artist. <br /> <br />Ashlee Simpson, lip synch artist. <br /> <br />Bob Dylan, lingerie salesman. <br /> <br />That George Tenet, who knew that the intel on Iraqi WMD was thinner than Lara Flynn Boyle on Dexatrim, turned into the Dick Vitale of WMD: "It's a slam dunk, baby!" <br /> <br />That George Tenet was subsequently awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. <br /> <br />That a 10-year-old grilled cheese sandwich allegedly bearing the likeness of the Virgin Mary sold for $28,000 on eBay. <br /> <br />The 10,000 Web remixes incorporating The Dean Scream. <br /> <br />That of the roughly 550 enemy combatants held captive in Guantanamo Bay, only four have been formally charged. <br /> <br />The Pistons/Pacers basketbrawl. <br /> <br />The looks on George and Laura Bush's faces when Dr. Phil asked them about the "epidemic levels of oral sex" in America's middle schools. <br /> <br />That Osama is still on the loose — and releasing tapes. <br /> <br />That the Kyoto Protocol was ratified — and we aren't part of it. <br /> <br />That Ken Lay has still not gone to trial or served a minute in jail. <br /> <br />That 35.9 million Americans live below the poverty line — 12.9 million of them children. <br /> <br />That 42 percent of Americans still think Saddam Hussein was "directly involved in planning, financing or carrying out" the 9/11 attacks. <br /> <br />That, thanks to presidential cutbacks, we actually have fewer police and first responders on the streets today than we had on 9/11. <br /> <br />Star Jones' wedding. <br /> <br />The Movie Multiplex from Hell: "Alexander," "My Baby's Daddy," "Thunderbirds," "Sleepover," "Around the World in 80 Days." <br /> <br />The iPod Party Mix from Hell: Jessica Simpson's "Take My Breath Away," William Hung's "She Bangs," Britney Spears' "Toxic," Britney Spears' "My Prerogative," Britney Spears' "I've Just Begun Having My Fun." <br /> <br />That Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld couldn't find time to personally sign letters of condolence to the families of troops killed in Iraq. <br /> <br />That Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz couldn't remember the number of soldiers who'd lost their lives in Iraq. <br /> <br />Drilling for oil in ANWR (I've been desperately trying to forget this one since 2001, but the White House just won't let me!). <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110440649590522354?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104310380850228522004-12-29T01:51:00.000-08:002004-12-29T00:53:00.850-08:00<a href="http://334578.com/Media/patong_beach.wmv"> Patong_beach_Video</a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://334578.com/Media/phuket_tsunami.wmv"> Phuket_Tsunami_Video</a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://334578.com/Media/sri_lanka_tsunami.wmv">Sri_Lanka_Tsunami_Video</a> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110431038085022852?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104300432120946752004-12-28T22:07:00.000-08:002004-12-28T22:07:12.120-08:00<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1228-01.htm">Ohio GOP Election Officials Ducking Subpoenas as Kerry Enters Stolen Vote Fray</a>: "Ohio GOP Election Officials Ducking Subpoenas as Kerry Enters Stolen Vote Fray <br />by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman <br /> <br /> <br />COLUMBUS -- Ohio Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell refused to appear at a deposition on Monday, December 27. The deposition was part of an election challenge lawsuit filed at the Ohio Supreme Court. Meanwhile John Kerry is reported to have filed a federal legal action aimed at preserving crucial recount evidence, which has been under GOP assault throughout the state."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110430043212094675?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104300367580267282004-12-28T22:06:00.000-08:002004-12-28T22:06:07.580-08:00<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1228-02.htm">Reelection Honeymoon With Voters Eludes Bush, Polls Say</a>: "Despite a clear-cut reelection and the prospect of lasting GOP dominance in Congress, President Bush prepares to start his second term with the lowest approval ratings of any just-elected sitting president in half a century, according to new surveys."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110430036758026728?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104268858983759092004-12-28T13:18:00.000-08:002004-12-28T13:20:58.983-08:00These come from American, Dahr Jamail's website. Warning!!! They are extremely graphic. <br /> <br /><a href="http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1">http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&amp;page=1</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110426885898375909?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104220606167379132004-12-27T23:55:00.000-08:002004-12-27T23:56:46.166-08:00<span style="font-size:85%;"><b>By JOHN SCHWARTZ <br /> <br /></b></span>or vivid reporting from the enormous zone of tsunami disaster, it was hard to beat the blogs. <br /> <br />The so-called blogosphere, with its personal journals published on the Web, has become best known as a forum for bruising political discussion and media criticism. But the technology proved a ready medium for instant news of the tsunami disaster and for collaboration over ways to help. <br /> <br /> There was the simple photo of a startlingly blue boat smashed against a beachside palm in Jaffna, Sri Lanka, at <a href="http://www.thiswayplease.com/extra.html"><span style="color:#000066;">www.thiswayplease.com/extra.html</span></a>. "Every house and fishing boat has been smashed, the entire length of the east coast," wrote Fred Robart, who posted the photo. "People who know and respect the sea well now talk of it in shock, dismay and fear." <br /> <br /> At <a href="http://sumankumar.com/"><span style="color:#000066;">sumankumar.com</span></a>, Nanda Kishore, a contributor, offered photos and commentary from Chennai, India: "Some drenched till their hips, some till their chest, some all over and some of them were so drenched that they had already stopped breathing. Men and women, old and young, all were running for lives. It was a horrible site to see. The relief workers could not attend to all the dead and all the alive. The dead were dropped and the half alive were carried to safety." <br /> <br />His postings included a photo of a body on a sidewalk with a buffalo walking by. "It now seems prophetic," he wrote, "for according to the Hindu mythology, Lord Yama (the god of death) rides on a buffalo." <br /> <br />Bloggers at the scene are more deeply affected by events than the journalists who roam from one disaster to another, said Xeni Jardin, one of the four co-editors of the site <a href="http://boingboing.net/"><span style="color:#000066;">BoingBoing.net</span></a>, which pointed visitors to many of the disaster blogs. <br /> <br />"They are helping us understand the impact of this event in a way that other media just can't," with an intimate voice and an unvarnished perspective, with the richness of local context, Ms. Jardin said. <br /> <br />That makes blogs compelling - and now essential - reading, said Dr. Siva Vaidhyanathan, an assistant professor of culture and communication at New York University and a blogger. Once he heard about the disaster, "Right after BBC, I went to blogs," he said. <br /> <br />"This notion that we now have eyes and ears around the world is more than something we've grown accustomed to; we've grown to demand it," he said. <br /> <br /> Bloggers at <a href="http://worldchanging.com/">worldchanging.com</a>, some of them living in the affected nations, began chattering immediately after the waves hit and began discussions of ways to help. South Asian bloggers created tsunamihelp <a href="http://blogspot.com/"><span style="color:#000066;">blogspot.com</span></a> to direct people to aid organizations. "I haven't seen this level of people saying, 'You know what? We can do something here. We can connect the pieces,' " said Alex Steffen, who lives in Seattle and edits worldchanging.com. "It's mind-blowing, and it's inspiring." <br /> <br />Howard Rheingold, the author of "Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution," about the use of interactive technologies like text-messaging to build ad hoc coalitions, said that using blogs to muster support for aid was a natural next step. "If you can smartmob a political demonstration, an election or urban performance art, you can smartmob disaster relief," he said. <br /> <br />One veteran of the online medium said he was initially "a little disappointed" in the reports he got from the blogs. Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future in California, said that with the widespread use of digital cameras and high-speed digital access, he was expecting to see more raw video and analysis. <br /> <br />He said that upon reflection he realized that it was difficult to get information out of hard-hit areas and that putting digital video online is still the domain of "deep geeks" with significant resources. "This brought home to me just how far we have to go," he said. <br /> <br />Ms. Jardin of BoingBoing said people online often argued about whether blogs would replace mainstream media. The question is as meaningless, she said, as asking "will farmers' markets replace restaurants?" <br /> <br /> "One is a place for rich raw materials," she continued. "One represents a different stage of the process." <br /> <br />Blogging from the tsunami, she said, is "more raw and immediate," but the postings still lack the level of trust that has been earned by more established media. "There is no ombudsman for the blogosphere," she said. "One will not replace the other, but I think the two together are good for each other." <br /> <br />Dr. Vaidhyanathan said he was leaving for a long-planned trip to India today and, if possible, hoped to visit relatives in Madras. "As long as there is electricity and Internet access, I'll blog," he said. <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110422060616737913?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104131476544303982004-12-26T23:09:00.000-08:002004-12-26T23:11:16.543-08:00<table dwcopytype="CopyTableCell" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr align="left"><td><div align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:180%;"><b><!-- #EndEditable --> </b></span></div> </td> </tr> <tr align="left"> <td> <div align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;"><b><!-- #BeginEditable "author" -->by Geoffrey Lean<!-- #EndEditable --></b></span></div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="10"> </td> </tr> <tr align="left" valign="top"> <td><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;"><!-- #BeginEditable "Body" --> <p>George Bush's two closest allies in his attempt to sabotage international action to combat global warning last week dramatically distanced themselves from him.</p> <p>Saudi Arabia announced that it had approved the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty on climate change which President Bush has been trying to kill. And Australia, while still rejecting it, parted company from the United States by saying that it was prepared to negotiate its successor.</p> <p>The moves follow a tense international negotiating session in Buenos Aires where, as The Independent on Sunday <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1219-02.htm">reported last week</a>, the US brought the talks to the brink of collapse by obstructing even anodyne proposals. This breached an assurance given by President Bush in 2001, when he pulled out of the protocol, that America would not try to stop other countries reaching agreement. <br /></p> <p>The rest of this article can be found here: <br /> </p> <p><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1226-01.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1226-01.htm</a> <br /> </p> </span></td></tr></tbody> </table> <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110413147654430398?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1104130939569306552004-12-26T22:57:00.000-08:002004-12-26T23:02:19.570-08:00<span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" ><p>WASHINGTON -- A trove of government disclosures forced by a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has signaled that the abuse of detainees in Iraq and at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was much broader than the Bush administration has portrayed it since the Abu Ghraib prison scandal became public this spring.</p> <p>A heavily redacted internal e-mail from an FBI agent in June, for example, reported hearing of ''numerous serious physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees . . . strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings, and unauthorized interrogations" and refers to ''coverup efforts."</p> <p>Another FBI agent wrote in an e-mail in August of witnessing an interrogation in Guantanamo:</p> <p>''The A/C had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees," the report said. ''The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night."</p> <p>Thousands of pages of documents, including two sets of FBI reports made public in the past week, have been released since October in response to a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups.</p></span>The rest of this article can be found here: <br /><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1226-02.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1226-02.htm</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110413093956930655?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103971242533058952004-12-25T01:59:00.000-08:002004-12-25T02:40:42.533-08:00<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110397124253305895?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103956841485714682004-12-24T22:40:00.000-08:002004-12-24T22:55:18.576-08:00by David Sudarsky <br /> <br />Over the past few years, the mainstream consumer has become aware of the horrific modern production of eggs, under which hens are stuffed into battery cages, where they spend their entire miserable lives on a wired surface averaging approximately 7x7 inches per bird. As with the exposed veal industry decades ago, the brutal truth of egg production has prompted a good number of consumers to look for more humane alternatives. Even if 97% of eggs are still produced under atrocious conditions, at least consumers now have the option of purchasing "Cage-Free" eggs, "Free Range" eggs, "Animal Care Certified" eggs, and eggs from "Free-Roaming" hens or "Happy Hens." But what do these terms really mean? Are these terms regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), or by anyone else? <br /> <br />Clearly, there are now plenty of labels relating to the welfare of egg-laying hens. This means that the egg industry acknowledges that the consumer cares about the welfare of "food" animals, and the industry is doing something about it. Are they providing a humane alternative to the standard egg? That is the question, and here are some answers. <br /> <br />"Free Range" and "Free Roaming" are terms that bring to mind idyllic barnyard scenes. These labels, which are regulated by the USDA, may be used by a producer if their hens are allowed some access to the outdoors. This does not guarantee constant access, nor is there any specification of the size of the outdoor area (which is, of course, a penned area, not a range). Because production efficiency is paramount in the highly-competitive egg industry, a high density of hens per area is the norm. <br /> <br />Some producers, particularly those in colder regions of the country, have found little use for the terms "Free Range" and "Free Roaming." Why would they want their hens to have access to a harsh or snow-covered landscape? Instead, the term, "Cage-Free," is their buzzword of choice. The problem is that this term is completely unregulated. Still, it is reasonable to take this term at face value and assume that the hens do not live their lives in cages. It is not reasonable to assume that there is ample space, that birds are not debeaked (as in factory farms), or that their physical and psychological welfare is of any concern to the producer. Hens will lay eggs even if they are under great stress. Egg-laying is simply a biological function. <br /> <br />I thought it might be a good idea to contact a few companies that I know to be somewhat more animal-friendly and/or socially conscious than the average. Trader Joe's, a national specialty grocer, offers a large range of vegan and soy products. They also offer "Cage Free" eggs. None of the employees at my local store could offer any information concerning the welfare of the hens. However, I did get a response from corporate headquarters: "The hens live in barns with some access to the outdoors. They are debeaked because that is necessary to keep them from injuring each other." If, in fact, Trader Joe's deems debeaking as necessary, then this immediately reveals the high density of birds. Under a true free range setting, hens can establish a "pecking order" and none is in danger so long as she can move easily to a different area. Under a high-stress, high-density environment, a natural pecking order cannot be established and the sharp beaks of hens can result in injury (and death) to large numbers of birds. <br /> <br />Allow me to digress for a moment to detail debeaking: It is a process by which much of a young chick's beak is burned or cut off without anesthetic. Because a bird's beak has many nerves, it is a very painful procedure. This fact is well established. Some chicks die of shock, while others may be left with deformed beaks that prevent them from feeding, thereby leading to starvation. But most chicks do make it past the debeaking process OK -- that is, if they are female. Male chicks do not lay eggs and are not good "meat" birds, so they are discarded at the hatchery well before the debeaking process. Yes, a full 50% of chicks are simply killed without anesthetic or stunning because they are of no use to the industry and the time involved for a less painful death would be too costly to the industry. Many of their sisters are headed off to factory egg farms, while others are purchased by "Cage Free" or "Free Roaming" operations. <br /> <br />Speaking of "Free Roaming" operations, a few days after realizing that Trader Joe's does not offer humanely produced eggs, I was at our local natural foods co-op, where I found an expensive half-dozen free range egg package from Shelton's. This was no ordinary package. It contained a photo-realistic image of a few hens outside a barn, and they had full beaks! I contacted Shelton's by email, because I wanted to know if their hens really were not debeaked. I received a quick, disappointing reply. It turned out that their hens are debeaked. I shot off another email asking Shelton's why their package showed hens with full beaks. I also asked if they thought that was, perhaps, false or deceptive advertising on their part. I never did receive a reply to that email. <br /> <br />Perhaps I would fare better with "Animal Care Certified" eggs? No, this turned out to be a complete joke. At least "Cage-Free" and "Free-Range" hens are not in tiny cages. "Animal Care Certified" is a seal developed by an egg industry trade group known as United Egg Producers. Standard battery cages are still used, but each bird will be guaranteed 35% more space than the previous average. This is a minor improvement, but adding 17-18 square inches of space is still not nearly enough for the birds to spread their wings. I intentionally stated, "will be guaranteed 35% more space," because the seal can be displayed now by any producer that agrees to phase in the extra space in the coming years, so that their business is not disrupted. In other words, the seal is a promise of sorts to provide a little more space for hens in the future. This industry seal also carries with it other advances, such as maintaining a sufficient supply of food and water for the birds. Apparently, that is just too much to ask of some producers that cannot meet the meager United Egg Producers' standards. If keeping hens in battery cages too small for them to spread their wings (for their entire lives) is "animal care" in your estimation, then perhaps you should purchase "Animal Care Certified" eggs. However, the Better Business Bureau has asked United Egg Producers to stop using the seal because it implies that animals are actually treated reasonably well, which is very far from the truth. <br /> <br />The egg industry, like the meat industry, is morally bankrupt. They consistently offer consumers deception and half-truths concerning animal care standards. In general, consumers do want to continue to purchase eggs, but without a guilty conscience. Terms such as "Happy Hens" (another ridiculous and completely unregulated label) imply that animals are raised with proper care and that they live their lives naturally and happily before being slaughtered. This is complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps the only "Happy Hens" are those that have been rescued to live out their lives at Farm Sanctuary and other animal shelters, but their eggs aren't for sale.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110395684148571468?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103945230456586232004-12-24T19:26:00.000-08:002004-12-24T19:27:10.456-08:00Michael Taylor sent me this great quote: <br /> <br />"I'm worried about the state of education in America when 51% of the country fails a 1-question multiple-choice test after having 4 years to study." <br /> -- Anonymous <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110394523045658623?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103888546937116402004-12-24T03:42:00.000-08:002004-12-24T03:43:23.066-08:00<a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=595867">News</a>: Logging fears as Bush eases forestry laws <br />By Rupert Cornwell in Washington <br /> <br />24 December 2004 <br /> <br />President George Bush's administration has issued new rules for a looser, more corporate-style management of US forests, something critics say will lead to more logging and other economic activity, and weaken protection for dozens of already endangered species. <br /> <br />In essence the regulations - the most sweeping overhaul of forest management in almost three decades - will give local forest supervisors more freedom to react to events. They could range from fire problems and invasive new species, to requests for logging or recreation permits. Supporters claim the new system will speed up decision-making, cut costs, and bring the US into line with much of the rest of the developed world. It will make sure some of America's most beautiful wilderness areas are run by people on the spot who know them best, they argue, rather than by a cumbersome, remote bureaucracy. <br /> <br />But environmentalists complain that the scheme is yet another example of the White House pandering to big business. "This rips the guts out of national forest management plans," a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defence Council said. "It doesn't ensure the necessary resources." <br /> <br />The 155 US national forests cover some 300,000 sq miles, more than three times the area of the UK. Largely concentrated in the Rocky Mountains and the west, they are governed by the 1976 National Forest Management Act. <br /> <br />That measure put the priority on preserving the ecological health of forests and protecting endangered species. It set the stage for confrontations such as the decades-long controversy over the northern spotted owl, pitting conservationists against the lumber industry in the Pacific north-west. <br /> <br />In recent years, competing pressures on forests have - if anything - increased. Not only does the timber industry want greater access. The forests are a growing tourist attraction, with the number of visitors doubling in the past eight years. On the other hand, a quarter of all US species facing extinction live in national forests, according to the NatureServe conservationist group. <br /> <br />The new rules extend to environmental management, a system that has gained favour in industry, and has the enthusiastic support of this Republican White House. Instead of conforming to rigid and centralised environmental rules, companies are encouraged to set their own standards. The results are judged by outside auditors. <br /> <br />In this case the outside judges could be officials of the National Forest Service, or outside environmentalist or economic groups. But it is not clear what powers they would have, or even what standards would be enforced. <br /> <br />The new policy has enraged environmentalists, not least because of the timing of the announcement, just two days before Christmas when Congress is not in session, and news coverage will be scant. <br /> <br />Democrats expressed outrage too. "These regulations cut the public out of the forest planning process," Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico declared. "They will just inspire lawsuits and provide less protection for wildlife." <br /> <br />Tom Harkin, a senior Democrat, said the new policy threatened to "derail decades of progress" in preserving America's forests. <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110388854693711640?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103708710689876332004-12-22T01:44:00.000-08:002004-12-22T01:45:10.690-08:00<span class="text"><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up. </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">"These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers." </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The documents were obtained after the ACLU and other public interest organizations filed a lawsuit against the government for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request. </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized. </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the ‘FBI’ interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public." </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The document also says that no "intelligence of a threat neutralization nature" was garnered by the "FBI" interrogation, and that the FBI’s Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) believes that the Defense Department’s actions have destroyed any chance of prosecuting the detainee. The e-mail’s author writes that he or she is documenting the incident "in order to protect the FBI." </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">"The methods that the Defense Department has adopted are illegal, immoral, and counterproductive," said ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer. "It is astounding that these methods appear to have been adopted as a matter of policy by the highest levels of government." </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The June 2004 "Urgent Report" addressed to the FBI Director is heavily redacted. The legible portions of the document appear to describe an account given to the FBI’s Sacramento Field Office by an FBI agent who had "observed numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees," including "strangulation, beatings, [and] placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings." The document states that "[redacted] was providing this account to the FBI based on his knowledge that [redacted] were engaged in a cover-up of these abuses." </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The release of these documents follows a federal court order that directed government agencies to comply with a year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case. </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Other documents released by the ACLU today include: </span></span></p><ul><li><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">An FBI email regarding DOD personnel impersonating FBI officials during interrogations. The e-mail refers to a "ruse" and notes that "all of those [techniques] used in these scenarios" were approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. (Jan. 21, 2004) </span></span></li><li><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Another FBI agent’s account of interrogations at Guantánamo in which detainees were shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor. The agent states that the detainees were kept in that position for 18 to 24 hours at a time and most had "urinated or defacated [sic]" on themselves. On one occasion, the agent reports having seen a detainee left in an unventilated, non-air conditioned room at a temperature "probably well over a hundred degrees." The agent notes: "The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night." (Aug. 2, 2004) </span></span></li><li><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">An e-mail stating that an Army lawyer "worked hard to cwrite [sic] a legal justification for the type of interrogations they (the Army) want to conduct" at Guantánamo Bay. (Dec. 9, 2002) </span></span></li><li><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">An e-mail noting the initiation of an FBI investigation into the alleged rape of a juvenile male detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. (July 28, 2004) </span></span></li><li><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">An FBI agent’s account of an interrogation at Guantánamo - an interrogation apparently conducted by Defense Department personnel - in which a detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights. (July 30, 2004) </span></span></li></ul><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The ACLU and its allies are scheduled to go to court again this afternoon, where they will seek an order compelling the CIA to turn over records related to an internal investigation into detainee abuse. Although the ACLU has received more than 9,000 documents from other agencies, the CIA refuses to confirm or deny even the existence of many of the records that the ACLU and other plaintiffs have requested. The CIA is reported to have been involved in abusing detainees in Iraq and at secret CIA detention facilities around the globe. </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Jaffer, Amrit Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Art Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky and Jeff Fogel of CCR. </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The documents referenced above can be found at: <a class="noline" href="http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/fbi.html" target="_blank">http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/fbi.html</a>. </span></span></p><p><span class="text"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">More on the lawsuit can be found at: <a class="noline" href="http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/" target="_blank">http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/</a>. </span></span></p></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110370871068987633?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103706563319012812004-12-22T01:06:00.000-08:002004-12-22T01:09:23.320-08:00<span class="blackArl20"></span>Having so often been the bearer of bad news from the legal front, I am thrilled to have some good news to report for a change. The old-fashioned shrinkwrap license appears to have suffered from what may well be a mortal wound. Microsoft, Symantec, Adobe, CompUSA, Best Buy, and Staples have agreed in the settlement of a California lawsuit to change their ways, and you can already see the first results at the software retailer nearest you. <p>In January 2003, California resident Cathy Baker walked into her local CompUSA store to return copies of Windows XP and Norton AntiVirus she'd purchased there. When trying to install the programs, she had of course been confronted by all the obnoxious terms in the Windows and NAV End User License Agreements. Instead of clicking OK, she took them back to the store for a refund, as the EULAs said she was supposed to do if she refused to accept the terms.</p> <p>At CompUSA, however, Baker was told the store's policy was that it could not give refunds for software once the customer has opened the package. Even though Baker had no way of seeing the EULAs until after she purchased the products, took them home, opened the package and tried to install the software on her computer, she was now told she could not get her money back even when she rejected the terms. (In a somewhat bizarre twist, after she protested enough, one CompUSA employee told her that they had "secret instructions" from Symantec to provide refunds in such circumstances.) <br /></p> <p>The rest of this article is at <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2004/12/21.html#a196">http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2004/12/21.html#a196</a> <br /></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110370656331901281?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103623407950515332004-12-21T02:03:00.000-08:002004-12-21T02:03:27.950-08:00<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/">Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.</a>: "Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary, has been using a machine to sign letters of condolence to the relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq, it emerged yesterday. <br /> <br />In a statement to the Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper, he conceded that he had not 'individually' signed letters to the families of more than 1,300 war dead. He said it had been his wish to speed up the process. He added: 'I have directed that in the future I sign each letter.' <br /> <br />His statement follows a flood of complaints to the paper from bereaved families, accusing 72-year-old Mr Rumsfeld of high-handedness and disdain for their loss. <br /> <br />Army Specialist Ivan Medina, whose twin brother was killed in a roadside bomb attack in Iraq this summer, said: 'To me it is an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but as someone who served in Iraq. This does not show our families the respect they deserve.' <br /> <br />The issue was exposed by David Hackworth, a retired colonel. He incurred Mr Rumsfeld's ridicule during the invasion of Iraq when he said, only days before Baghdad fell, that the mission had become a quagmire. But 20 months later, as American forces struggle to control the rebellion by guerrilla fighters, he and other Rumsfeld critics are finding their voice again. <br /> <br />He said: 'One father bitterly commented that it was a pity that Mr Rumsfeld could keep his squash schedule but could not find the time to sign his dead son's letter.'"<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110362340795051533?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103622942326855802004-12-21T01:55:00.000-08:002004-12-21T01:59:28.220-08:00Poll Also Finds Slight Majority Favoring Rumsfeld's Exit <p> <span style="font-size:85%;"> <!--plsfield:byline--><div id="byline">By John F. Harris and Christopher Muste</div> <!--plsfield:credit-->Washington Post Staff Writers <br /><!--plsfield:disp_date-->Tuesday, December 21, 2004; Page A04 </span></p> <p> </p> <div id="article_body"> <!--plsfield:description--><p> <nitf>President Bush heads into his second term amid deep and growing public skepticism about the Iraq war, with a solid majority saying for the first time that the war was a mistake and most people believing that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should lose his job, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" -- an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion. <br /></nitf></p><nitf>Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld at a morning news conference yesterday, but the Pentagon chief who soared to international celebrity and widespread admiration after the terrorist attacks three years ago can be glad he answers to an audience of one. Among the public, 35 percent of respondents approved of his job performance and 53 percent disapproved; 52 percent said Bush should give Rumsfeld his walking papers.</nitf><p> </p> <p> <nitf>Seven weeks since his reelection victory over Democrat John F. Kerry and four weeks before his second inauguration, the poll suggests Bush is in a paradoxical situation -- a triumphant president who remains acutely vulnerable in public opinion on a national security issue that is dominating headlines and could shadow his second term.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>While the results are bad for Bush as people look at past decisions -- whether the Iraq war should have been waged in the first place -- the president has more support for his policies over the choices he faces going forward.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>A strong majority of Americans, 58 percent, support keeping military forces in Iraq until "civil order is restored," even in the face of continued U.S. causalities. By a slight margin, 48 percent to 44 percent, more voters agreed with Bush's position that the United States is making "significant progress" toward its goal of establishing democracy in Iraq. Yet, by a similar margin, the public believes the United States is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>This was just one area where there was considerable ambivalence and even pessimism about the challenges confronting U.S. policy in the coming months.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>On the question of whether Iraq is prepared for elections next month -- a topic widely debated among national security experts -- 58 percent of respondents believed the violence-plagued country is not ready. Nonetheless, 60 percent want elections to go forward as scheduled -- even though 54 percent do not expect honest results with a "fair and accurate vote count." Fifty-four percent are not confident elections will produce a stable government that can rule effectively.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>Bush waged his reelection campaign heavily on national security, but the polling data reaffirm what similar surveys showed during the campaign: He is winning only half the case.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>A full 57 percent disapprove of his handling of Iraq, a number that is seven percentage points higher than a poll taken in September. But the president's core political asset, public confidence in his leadership on terrorism, remains intact, albeit down significantly from even a year ago. Fifty-three percent approve of his record on terrorism, while 43 percent do not. Those numbers were 70 percent and 28 percent a year ago this week.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>The public splits down the middle on Bush's overall job performance, with 48 percent approving while 49 percent disapprove, percentages that closely approximate results taken just before the election. By contrast, President Bill Clinton had an approval of 60 percent in a poll taken just before he began his second term.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>The Post-ABC results are consistent with other newly released surveys. Time magazine, which this week named Bush its "Person of the Year," found that 49 percent approve of his job performance, little changed from before the election. A Pew Research Center survey, meanwhile, showed that the angry divisions about Bush that marked the 2004 campaign were hardly bridged by the election's end -- nor were the sharply divergent appraisals of reality. By emphatic majorities, Bush voters were upbeat on whether things are going well in Iraq and with the economy, while Kerry voters were negative.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>The Post poll also showed such partisan divides on many foreign policy and national security questions. In a potential trouble sign for the White House, Republicans' support for Bush on these questions is lower than the Democratic opposition. And majorities of independents side with the Democrats in their skepticism toward the administration's course.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>There are sharp partisan divisions over Rumsfeld, with about two-thirds of Democrats and slight majorities of independents disapproving of his job performance and believing he should be replaced. Smaller majorities of Republicans, about six in 10, approve of Rumsfeld and want him to stay in the job.</nitf> </p> <p> <nitf>There are similar splits on Iraq. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents agree the elections should be held. But more than two-thirds of Democrats and about six in 10 independents believe that Iraq is not ready for elections and that the vote will not be fair and will not produce a stable Iraqi government, in contrast to a majority of Republicans. Opinion is even more sharply divided over the outcome of elections. Seven in 10 Democrats and five in nine independents believe elections will not produce a stable government in Iraq, while more than two-thirds of Republicans believe they will.</nitf> </p> <p class="lastPar"> <nitf>A total of 1,004 randomly selected Americans were interviewed Dec. 16 to 19. The margin of sampling error for the results is plus or minus three percentage points. </nitf> </p> </div> <br /> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110362294232685580?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103358114157667812004-12-18T01:21:00.000-08:002004-12-18T00:23:41.160-08:00<a href="http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/navy_seals_torturing_iraq/index.html">US Navy Seals Torturing Iraqis</a>: <br /> <br />Warning! Following this link will lead to graphically upsetting photographs. <br /> <br /> "The U.S. military has launched a criminal investigation into photographs that appear to show Navy SEALs in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees, and photos of what appear to be bloodied prisoners, one with a gun to his head."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110335811415766781?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103282691438294212004-12-17T03:18:00.000-08:002004-12-17T03:28:26.696-08:00If you'd like to do something about this, It's easy to send a letter to your senators on this topic by using the following link and entering your zip code. <br /> <br /><a href="http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=6757941">http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=6757941</a> <br /> <br />You can then send the letter to various media - fairly easily here: <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media">http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/ </a> <br /> <br />Here's the letter I sent. It's easy to cut and paste at the link above to create your own. Feel free to use whatever portions of mine you would like. I used most of theirs. I've also posted some talking points at the end of this letter if you'd like more information. I hope to write letters to the media this weekend. <br /> <br /> <br />Peter McGovern 65-67 <br /> <br />----------- <br />Dear ________________ <br /> <br />I’m concerned about reports that Alberto Gonzales approved the use of torture by U.S. forces. As leaders of the free world I believe we have a moral obligation to lead by example. Approving an Attorney General who has sanctioned torture would not set any kind of example that I could ever feel good about. <br /> <br />I’m also concerned that Alberto Gonzales is reported to have advised the President that the Geneva Conventions are outdated and don’t have to be obeyed. <br /> <br />The Geneva conventions, in my opinion, preserve at least a minimum of protection for all sides involved in an armed conflict. While I do not support this war, I do support the Geneva conventions. If Alberto Gonzales does not, then he is not of the moral caliber I believe he needs to be to hold the position of the top cop of our country. <br /> <br />I’m also worried about Alberto Gonzales’ ability to be objective and independent as the head law enforcement officer in the U.S., given his close, loyal relationship with the President. <br /> <br />The attorney general should have the best interests of the nation in mind, not the best interests of the president. <br /> <br />I’m counting on you to ask Alberto Gonzales hard questions about these issues before you vote on his nomination to be attorney general. And if he does not answer these questions to your satisfaction, I urge you to oppose his appointment. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> Peter McGovern <br /> <br /> <br />------------ <br />talking points <br />------------- <br /> <br />Alberto Gonzales: A Poor Choice for Attorney General <br /> <br />On Nov. 10, 2004, President Bush announced his nomination of Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as Attorney General for the President’s second term in office. <br /> <br />As Counsel to the President and head of the White House Office of Legal Counsel during George Bush’s first term as President, Alberto Gonzales: <br /> <br />• Advised the President that “enemy combatants” named by the President in the “war on terror,” once captured, could be held in indefinite detention without a hearing. <br /> <br />• Advised the President that the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, are “obsolete” and “quaint” in the context of the modern “war on terror” and could be disregarded at the will of the President of the United States. <br /> <br />• Advised the President that it is appropriate to adopt a definition of torture so narrow as to approve use of violent, cruel interrogation techniques outlawed by the U.S. Constitution, U.S. military regulations and standards of conduct, the international Convention Against the Use of Torture (to which the U.S. is a signatory), and international customary law. <br /> <br />As Counsel to the Governor of Texas during President Bush’s tenure as governor, Alberto Gonzales: <br /> <br />• Advised then-Gov. Bush that the state of Texas was not bound by the Vienna Conventions (to which the U.S. is a signatory), and thus that Texas was not required to give foreign nationals accused of a crime access to legal counsel by a representative from the accused’s home country. <br /> <br />Alberto Gonzales’s legal advice has supported policies of this administration which have undermined the rule of law. Arguably these policies have placed captured U.S. military at risk of torture, sullied the U.S. international reputation for justice and fair-dealing, led to the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other U.S. interrogation cells, and granted license for the indefinite imprisonment of human beings at the administration’s discretion, without a hearing. Alberto Gonzales’ record is one of casting aside the rule of law in favor of creation of law-free zones, where conduct of our government is judged by a man, the President, rather than by the rule of law. <br /> <br />Has Alberto Gonzales disqualified himself for the position of Attorney General? Does he reflect the qualities our country wants in the chief law enforcement officer of the land? <br /> <br /> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110328269143829421?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103187245710336832004-12-16T01:54:00.000-08:002004-12-16T00:55:16.583-08:00<a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7485.htm">Navy Documents Detail Iraqi Abuse Claims</a> <br /> <br /> 12/15/04 "LA Times" -- WASHINGTON — Marines in Iraq conducted mock executions of juvenile prisoners last year, burned and tortured other detainees with electrical shocks, and warned a Navy corpsman they would kill him if he treated any injured Iraqis, according to military documents made public Tuesday. <br /> <br />The latest revelations of prisoner abuse cases, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit against the government, involved previously unknown incidents in which 11 Marines were punished for abusing detainees. Military officials indicated that they had investigated 13 other cases, but deemed them unsubstantiated. Four investigations are pending. <br /> <br />Military superiors handed down sentences of up to a year in confinement after finding Marines guilty of offenses ranging from assault to "cruelty and mistreatment," the documents show. <br /> <br />The new documents are the latest in a series of reports, e-mails and other records that the ACLU has obtained to bolster its contention that the abuse of prisoners goes far beyond the handful of soldiers charged with abusing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110318724571033683?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103083967574871992004-12-14T20:07:00.000-08:002004-12-14T20:12:47.573-08:00<span style="font-family: times new roman;"> <b>Bill Moyers recently won Harvard Medical School's Global Environment </span><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Citizen Award. His speech in response to the award presentation was, in my opinion, particular well-written.<b> <br /> <br />I'm posting a small sample here and will post the rest at the link at the end of this post.</span><b> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the oval office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts."</span> <br /><b> <br /> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">also from the same speech</span><b> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">"Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.'</span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">"Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate."</span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">See the rest of this speech at:</span> <br /> <a style="font-family: times new roman;" href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1206-10.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1206-10.htm</a> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">Thanks for reading this!</span> <br /> <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110308396757487199?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103067934245144292004-12-14T15:44:00.000-08:002004-12-14T15:45:34.246-08:00You may have seen this but if you haven't - here it is. <br /> <br />ANNOUNCING THE NEW BUILT-IN ORDERLY ORGANIZED KNOWLEDGE DEVICE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE BOOK! <br /> <br />It's a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on. It's so easy to use even a child can operate it. Just life its cover. Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere--even sitting in an armchair by the fire--yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD-ROM. <br /> <br />Here's how it works: each BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper (recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. These pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. By using both sides of each sheet, manufacturers are able to cut costs in half. <br /> <br />Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet. The book may be taken up at any time and used by merely opening it. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward and backward as you wish. Most come with an "index" feature, which pinpoints the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval. <br /> <br />An optional "BOOKmark" accessory allows you to open the BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session--even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers. <br /> <br />Portable, durable and affordable, the BOOK is the entertainment wave of the future, an many new titles are expected soon, due to the surge in popularity of its programming tool, the Portable Erasable-Nib Cryptic Intercommunication Language Stylus... <br /> <br />-Thanks Mike <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110306793424514429?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1103015233185511872004-12-14T01:06:00.000-08:002004-12-14T01:07:13.186-08:00The US is not going to admit to using Napalm or any chemical weapons. The mainstream media isn't going to report it unless they have proof. I'm sure that embedded media have had to sign non-dislosure agreements that limit their reporting. So we can only go by the reports we get. <br /> <br />It took a lot of searching but I found that the US only signed off on a couple of the protocols of weapons control- retaining the right to use incendiary devices including phosporus. <br /> <br />"The United States must retain its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II." <br /> <br />That's from : <br /><a href="http://windsorpol.blogspot.com/http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/%7Etreaty/CCWC.html/">http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/CCWC.html</a> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />and from : <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm</a> <br /> <br />comes this: <br /> <br />The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy. <br /> <br />A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war. <br /> <br />And from <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=5066&grp=21&amp;cat=94">http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=5066&grp=21&amp;cat=94</a> <br /> <br />But Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility said: "John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. <br /> <br />"It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." <br /> <br />Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility, said: "It creates horrible wounds. Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon." He said the Pentagon's distinction was "Orwellian." <br /> <br />The weapon uses a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. Last week the international news agency AFP reported the use of 'firebombs' in Iraq, believed to be naplam.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110301523318551187?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1102928371409172742004-12-13T00:59:00.000-08:002004-12-13T00:59:31.410-08:00<a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121304E.shtml">t r u t h o u t - Victim Claims Abu Ghraib Torture was Official U.S. Policy</a>: "For many Latin American victims of torture, the infamous pictures of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison brought back not only chilling recollections of their own experiences, but also confirmed what they have long maintained: that their torturers were following interrogation guidelines set by the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA). <br /> <br /> 'I had flashbacks when I saw the guy with the hood [at Abu Ghraib],' says Carlos Mauricio, a Salvadorean who was tortured in 1983. Founder of Stop Impunity, a group that seeks to prosecute human rights violators, dismisses as a 'whitewash' the Bush administration's view that Abu Ghraib abuse was the work of a few U.S. army misfits. <br /> <br /> 'What happened at Abu Ghraib was torture by the book; they were implementing U.S. policy,' Mauricio, 51, told the Sunday Herald. <br /> <br /> 'The U.S. military deny they teach torture and say it happens in Latin America because soldiers have always been brutal. But what happened at Abu Ghraib belies this.' <br /> <br /> Among the SOA's 60,000 graduates are former dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-ranking graduates were involved in the 1980 assassination of Salvadorean Archbishop Oscar Romero and the massacre of 900 civilians at El Mozote, El Salvador, in 1980. <br /> <br /> Between 1946 and 1984 the SOA was based in Panama, the former headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command. In 1977, the school was relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia, but in the face of international criticism it was closed by the Clinton administration in December 2000 - only to be reopened a month later on the same site under a new name, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation (WHINSEC)."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110292837140917274?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1102752929152027452004-12-11T01:10:00.000-08:002004-12-11T00:15:29.153-08:00Knowing what I know of the Vietnam War, I believe the likelihood of <br />atrocities occurring in Iraq is high. <br /> <br />We know that prisoners in Iraq have been abused, sexually <br />humiliated, and tortured. A visit to <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.net/">http://www.iraqbodycount.net/</a> <br />shows that they report a minimum of 14,620 civilian Iraqi deaths. They <br />do all they can to substantiate each civilian death. Other sites have <br />reported civilian death rates in Iraq as much higher based on <br />extrapolation. <br /> <br />From what I understand, the context of the kind of warfare we are <br />engaged in in Iraq engenders a close bond between troops. Since many <br />casualties occur among troops on both sides, emotions run high and may <br />be acted upon. We also know that the abdication of personal <br />responsibility (as demonstrated by Milgram) in the face of <br />authoritarian commands also results in the likelihood of war crimes <br />being committed. Add in the stresses of climate, possible sleep <br />deprivation, and especially fear and a stage is set for the kinds of <br />acts that the Canadian deserter asserted took place. <br /> <br />In addition, there now seem to be many accounts of continued use of <br />chemical weapons by American troops. In fact, we have already admitted <br />to the use of Napalm in 2003. <br /> <br />In my mind, and especially since We attacked Them, we are now the <br />terrorists and they are a people defending their homes and families <br />using whatever means they have at their disposal. The destruction of <br />Fallujah, in my mind, represents a low point in American History. <br /> <br />We need, in my opinion, to call an emergency session of our <br />legislature. They should, I believe, come up with a coherent plan for <br />expedient disengagement. <br /> <br />This war is turning the world against us, draining our financial <br />resources, killing and injuring American men and women, turning <br />American men and women into war criminals, killing and injuring <br />thousands of innocent foreigners, and diverting attention <br />from issues and problems (such as the genocide in Darfur) both abroad <br />and at home that need to be addressed. <br /> <br />To do otherwise, I strongly suspect, would be both dangerous, foolish, <br />and immoral. <br /> <br />Please write a letter to your representatives today, uring an end to this war! You can do so at: <br /> <br /><a href="http://capwiz.com/fconl/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6670356">http://capwiz.com/fconl/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6670356</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110275292915202745?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1102661687942314912004-12-09T22:51:00.000-08:002004-12-09T22:56:44.526-08:00I got this from <a href="http://www.aclu.org/Focus.cfm?ContentStyle=2&num=5">http://www.aclu.org/Focus.cfm?ContentStyle=2&num=5</a> <br /> <br />Feel free to use it as a stepping off point for your own letter or email. <br /> <br />The Honorable Ron Wyden <br />United States Senate <br />516 Hart Senate Office Building <br />Washington, DC 20510 3703 <br /> <br />Re: Torture is not acceptable <br /> <br /> Senator Wyden: <br /> <br />As your constituent, I urge you to demand access to the relevant memorandum and other documents relating to the Bush Administration’s interrogation and torture policies. The American people deserve to know the truth about these policies, especially in light of the nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to serve as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. <br /> <br />I believe that we MUST stop committing war crimes if we are to regain any semblance of international credibility. I want to know what types of torture we have used and I want you as my representative to do whatever is in your power to stop any further torture from taking place. <br /> <br />Documents that already have been released show that Gonzales was a central player in radically changing U.S. policy on the use of torture. Gonzales wrote a key legal opinion arguing that the Geneva Conventions were “quaint” and “obsolete” and did not apply to many of the prisoners caught by the United States. And he ordered and reviewed memos that argue that brutal and inhumane practices are not “torture.” <br /> <br />There are no excuses for the Bush Administration to withhold torture related documents. President Bush has nominated one of the architects of the interrogation and torture policies to serve as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. The Senate should know the truth about his role in setting policies and whether those policies resulted in one of the most lawless governmental acts in recent history. Senators have the same national security clearance as Gonzales and deserve to see the same documents that he has written or seen and the President should waive his trumped up claims of executive privilege over documents that relate to wartime atrocities. <br /> <br />Now is the time to release all the torture related documents. Despite requests in congressional hearings and a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the Bush Administration is refusing to release dozens of documents that reportedly show how policy changes that Gonzales recommended be made at the White House and at the top levels of government trickled down to decisions made by the military and the CIA holding prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush Administration must stop hiding the truth from the American people. The Senate and the American public deserve to know the truth before considering Gonzales as Attorney General. <br /> <br />Once again, I urge you to demand access to the relevant memorandum and other documents relating to this Administration’s interrogation and torture policies. <br />I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110266168794231491?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1102585167212447702004-12-09T01:38:00.000-08:002004-12-09T01:39:27.213-08:00 Dec 9 - At a hearing today for a US soldier seeking asylum in Canada, one witness described how he and his fellow Marines routinely shot unarmed civilians at checkpoints in Iraq. <br /> <br />"We deliberately gunned down people who were civilians," said Marine staff sergeant Jimmy Massey, who was honorably discharged after serving twelve years in the military, three months of which were in Iraq. "I became so concerned because I felt that Marines were honestly enjoying it. I saw plenty of Marines become psychopaths -- they enjoyed the killing." <br /> <br />Massey, addressing the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, told of one 48-hour period when he and his fellow Marines killed over 30 civilians while they were stationed at a checkpoint in southern Baghdad. Massey said those civilians included a group of unarmed demonstrators and a driver of a car who had raised his hands above his head in surrender. <br /> <br />See the rest of this article at: <br /><a href="http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1289">http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1289</a> <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110258516721244770?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1102502651868115572004-12-08T02:42:00.000-08:002004-12-08T02:44:11.866-08:005 December 2004 <br /> <br />George Bush's new administration, and its supporters controlling Congress, are setting out to dismantle three decades of US environmental protection. <br /> <br />In little over a month since his re-election, they have announced that they will comprehensively rewrite three of the country's most important environmental laws, open up vast new areas for oil and gas drilling, and reshape the official Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). <br /> <br />They say that the election gave them a mandate for the measures - which, ironically, will overturn a legislative system originally established by the Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford - even though Mr Bush went out of his way to avoid emphasising his environmental plans during his campaign. <br /> <br />More <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=589884">here</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110250265186811557?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1102494956306922812004-12-08T01:33:00.001-08:002004-12-08T00:38:33.593-08:00<span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:100%;" >MoveOn’s state of denial is bad for Democrats</span> <br /><span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:100%;" >by Marc Cooper</span> <br /> <tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>Never mind that George W. Bush</b> won re-election by 4 million votes. Or that Democrats lost in 28 out of 50 states. Or that more than a third of Latino votes went to the Republicans. And that something like 40 percent of union votes went Republican.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Don’t worry — be happy. "We are truly stronger than ever." I know that because the liberal political action group MoveOn wrote me to tell me so. Indeed, it was so darn pleased with itself and so amped up after a pre-Thanksgiving, coast-to-coast round of house meetings that the follow-up report issued by MoveOn quoted one participant as jubilantly proclaiming: "A groundswell is happening."</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Yessir. One more groundswell like that of the last month and MoveOn and the rest of us can start carrying out our meetings inside submarines. Please, for the moment, no more little ripples, let alone a groundswell.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Just the title alone under which the meetings took place is enough to make you scratch ... um ... your head. "Bush Beat Kerry But He Didn’t Beat Me" was the perky slogan that brought what MoveOn says are "tens of thousands" of supporters to these post-defeat huddles. And I do mean defeat. Because while Bush didn’t beat MoveOn, he sure as hell whipped MoveOn’s candidate which, the last time I checked, is the only thing that counts in an election.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It’s more than appropriate to distance yourself from a defeated candidate. In the case of Kerry, the quicker the better. Distancing yourself from your mistakes without first acknowledging what they were, however, is quite another trick.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I demand no mea culpas from the Democrats. In fact, I don’t really care what the Democrats do. The hardened inner shell of the party can and will go on as it pleases, raising gazillions and favoring sure-fire loser candidates like Hillary Clinton.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I do care, however, about all those liberals and radicals and young voters who invested so much of their hope in MoveOn and similar groups as the backbone of some new progressive movement. Please proceed with great caution and even more skepticism.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The attendees at the MoveOn parties were asked to vote on what they think are the most important issues to be pursued over the next four years. The results, by my reckoning, are mind-blowing. Election reform and media reform came in first and second.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This is classic denial, a clumsy outsourcing of political responsibility. The inherent message: We or, if you prefer, Kerry lost because the voting was fishy and the media were skewed. Not our fault that we couldn’t rouse a majority. The only big problem Democrats have are external, not internal.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I’d actually be okay with these results if some of the root issues of the Democratic defeat — or at least their correctives — had been listed among the other top priorities chosen. But the war in Iraq came in as the third priority, followed by the environment, the Supreme Court and civil liberties. MoveOn lists no others.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Let’s give each selected issue a quick glance:</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Voting reform. Yes, let’s tighten up the process. That would be about the 39th item on my "Fix America" list.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Media reform. Does that mean breaking up the conglomerates? A great idea. And one that is doable shortly after the working class seizes power and abolishes capitalism.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The war in Iraq. What does that mean? For or against? As soon as the Democrats decide, let me know.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The environment, the Supremes and civil liberties. All worthy issues. None of them, however, offers a clue to a political strategy capable of building a political majority broad enough to govern and effect reform (remember that winning the White House alone ain’t enough).</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Notably missing from the recipe dashed out by the MoveOn meetings are anything resembling an aggressive agenda that directly confronts the phony populism of the Republicans. Make no mistake about it. A progressive strategy has to consciously undercut the GOP’s appeal among working- and middle-class families by offering a tangible realignment of national politics. Urging people to vote against Republicans because they are bad and evil, or convincing yourself people vote Republican because they are ill-informed, stupid or brainwashed ain’t gonna cut it. I hope that that much, at least, has been learned from the November debacle.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But apparently not. What would the MoveOn agenda — as listed in those six priorities — mean for Americans worried about their jobs, their wages, their schools, their housing, their health care? And yes, their taxes (that remain too high for individuals and way too low for corporations)?</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">No doubt these omissions reflect some of the class and cultural limitations of groups like MoveOn. These are fundamentally middle-class or better congregations of comfortable Volvo Democrats who don’t have excessive (if any) concern over such details as wages and insurance premiums. Fact is, whether a Republican or a Democrat or anyone else sits in the Oval Office has but negligible effect on their daily lives.</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Meeting together was probably in itself a mistake. What is accomplished by getting a group of like-minded folks in one room to ask each other what they want? How about trying something really different — like asking people who don’t automatically agree with you (but ought to) what they want? Wouldn’t it have been a more useful exercise for MoveOn to send its "tens of thousands" of adherents into the field with the assignment of each one talking to 10 people who are just like them — except that they voted for Bush? Might something more useful had been learned?</span></p> <p align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Maybe then we would have seen at least a suggestion of self-criticism on the MoveOn wish list. Last week, interviewed on MSNBC, former Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi lamented that the only way Democrats beat Republicans this last election was in racking up million-dollar-level contributions. And, he said, the only hope Democrats had for the future was to completely rethink the Democratic Party. One way to begin is to not kid yourself into believing you are stronger than ever.</span></p> <br /> <br />From Tompaine.com<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110249495630692281?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1102323479960908322004-12-06T01:54:00.000-08:002004-12-06T15:59:56.933-08:00Recently, I was in an online conversation about name calling. It had been suggested in the group that we refrain from using words like "idiot" or other derogatory terms when referring to people. <br />One person asked: <br /> <br />Will the village idiot be a better prez if we don't call him an idiot? <br /> <br />I replied: <br /> <br />Your post about censorship got me thinking. <br /> <br />First of all, you are absolutely correct about censorship. It would be a drag to have to remember a detailed set of rules about what was appropriate to post and what wasn't. Also, who would argue against common sense? Not I! <br /> <br /> ---------------- Will the village idiot be a better prez if we don't call him an idiot? ----------------------- <br /> <br /> Probably not, but I think we might be more likely to do something about the things he is doing if we don't. <br /> <br />What do you think of the following?: <br /> <br />The issues I have with name-calling as related to public figures have to do with effectiveness, not correctness. By shifting the focus, when speaking of an individual, to a global characteristic (like idiotic), it's harder to focus on the idiotic or stupid thing they did. It may also tend to dilute the significance in our own minds of what they did. <br /> <br />If I read, "That idiotic Bush appointed Jerry Fallwell to his cabinet," the word "idiotic" dilutes the statement for me. At some level I can justify it to myself, saying "Of course he did! He's an idiot." And if I were the author of the above statement, I may feel that my calling him an idiot constitutes at least 'some' action on my part. <br /> <br />Name-calling can also lead to the danger of underestimating the true seriousness ofa particularly idiotic thing. Since Bush isn't really an 'idiot' (only a person who 99.9% of the time makes what we consider harmful and dangerous decisions and choices) we lose sight of the fact that in many areas he is adequate and in some areas he excels. <br /> <br />Despite the fact he may have stolen the election twice, he has convinced MILLIONS of people to like him and even more MILLIONS to vote for him. He is far from an 'idiot'. What we really want to use, I think, are far more extreme adjectives. But we're lazy. <br /> <br />Instead of saying "He's an idiot," we would would possibly be more accurate in saying something like "He, on a day-to-day basis, is causing more suffering in the world than possibly any other human being. He's the first convicted felon of a president, has been convicted of at least three crimes in US courts prior to his presidency, and has numerous countries and individuals charging him with war crimes. Every time I see him smirk and pat someone on the back with that wink of his, I think of the babies with their heads blown off, the tens of thousands of innocent people who have died in his war, the Iraqis who were tortured at Abu Ghraib, and the prisoners being held without charges or rights in Guantanamo." <br /> <br />His actions aren't those of an idiot. His actions seem to be those of a person corrupted by the power of their office and circumstance. <br /> <br />And every day he is continuing his reign of terror in our world. And because we believe (those of us who do) that his actions are and will be causing the suffering of millions of people, and the continued destruction of the environment, don't you think we need to be more effective than ever in creating a climate conducive to political change? <br /> <br />If what we want is to feel better, then calling him a name might work. <br /> <br />If, on the other hand, we are truly appalled and want to do something (or ask someone else to do something) it is much more useful to be as descriptive and accurate as possible (read: less emotional). This is not because emotional is BAD, it's just because it doesn't work as well when we want to connect to others who may not understand our personal brand of emotional language. <br /> <br />The other factor to consider is that we are hampered by our online environment. The non-verbal contexts of our words are mostly absent here. Emotionally laden words NEED to be heard in the nonverbal context in which they are spoken or their meanings are likely to be misinterpreted. This is especially true here where many of us have never even met the people whose words we are interpreting! <br /> <br />Here's a three-stepped model of communication I try to use from time to time: It's somewhat simple (and it's loosely based on Harry Stack Sullivan's model of Interpersonal Dynamics which I learned From Jack Butler) <br /> <br />A. Inclusion. Include the other person or people in your world. Let them know that they are valued and respected by you. <br /> <br />B. Orientation. This is where the need to be as descriptively accurate as possible comes in handy. This is the 'meat and potatoes' of the communication. You are orienting the other person to your reality in a clear a way as possible. If you fail here....it will seem as if they just don't 'get it.' <br /> <br />Orienting another to our reality is difficult to do even in person, never-the-less online. This is because our reality is a combination of events and experiences. The two need to be separated. Events can be disputed and negotiated; experiences are non-negotiable and generally include feelings. <br /> <br />C. Direction. This is the purpose of the communication. Once you have included and oriented another or others....it's time to look towards the future. <br /> <br />This is the "Where are we going to go with this" phase. If the first two steps were successful, this phase may go well also. If, however, the communication has fallen apart during either of the first two stages, it's unlikely you and the other (or others) will be able to look ahead. You'll probably still be mired (usually in an unpleasant manner) in the first two parts of this process (usually arguing about the other's 'experience'!) <br /> <br />The direction stage is where you plan your action and then act your plan. A successful communication usually produces a successful result. (ie two people decide to see a movie, choose one, and then actually go off and see it) <br /> <br />Does this make any sense to you (or anyone here)? <br /> <br />To sum up: My purpose in this post is to generate a greater awareness of how we communicate with each other online. The reason I want to do this is so that we are all more effective at getting from this group what we want (friendship, connectedness, laughter, etc.) and also so that we can be more effective at creating a better world. <br /> <br />Can you tell I take to heart the Horace Mann quote: "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/9090943-110232347996090832?l=4therecord.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>pmcghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05507503140790201225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9090943.post-1102144991551051562004-12-03T23:16:00.000-08:002004-12-03T23:26:55.646-08:00The following lengthy post describes how I discovered startling and undisputed (at least up till now) facts about human nature that changed my life and how I view the world. <br /> <br />(Warning: the information in this post could do the same for you). <br /> <br />There is also an interesting link between IBM and Nazi tattoos at the end of the post. <br /> <br />---------------------- <br /> <br />I remember sitting at my Great Aunt's Dinner table with a guest who had survived a concentration camp. They made a point of showing me his tattoo. I was too young to really understand the significance of it at the time. <br /> <br />This Aunt (who was really like a loving grandmother to me) was also adamant about not purchasing any German products of any type, ever. A huge portion of her family had been murdered in the Nazi concentration camps. She was one of the most loving people I knew and so her hatred of the Germans made all the more of an impression on me. <br /> <br />Long after I dropped out of Windsor, and got my BA (in literature) from Antioch, I returned to school at SUNY Purchase for no other reason than a love of learning. One of the classes I took changed my perspective on life forever. <br /> <br />The class was called "The Psychology of Morality". A large portion of the class was devoted to the study of the holocaust. A couple of worthwhile books (Daniel K, are you still adding books to the DB?) that came out of that class were "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor E. Frankl (http://tinyurl.com/659qx) and "Night" by Elie Weisel (http://tinyurl.com/5j4tl). <br /> <br />But by far the most influential portion of the class was devoted to Stanley Milgram's studies on obedience to Authority. I recommend reading about these studies as soon as you can if you aren't thoroughly familiar with them. (There's an excellent link at the end of this post) <br /> <br />Basically he established (and references are below) that about 65% of human beings will torture and kill strangers if responsibility for the act is deflected by an authority. <br /> <br />The experiments were highly controversial at the time and would not be allowed to be performed today. They were filmed, and we saw the films in our class. It was eerie to watch ordinary Americans become capable of torturing and killing strangers merely because an experimenter asked them to. Several of the participants actually suffered breakdowns over the conflict they endured during the experiment. Also fascinating was watching the 35% who refused to go along for the ride. <br /> <br />Basically this changed how I viewed the German people (not the Nazi authorities). The experimental results showed that we would have done the same in the same situation (and we actually have done, it turns out, many of the same kinds of things in Vietnam and now Iraq). <br /> <br />Take any 100 young Americans, have an authority figure ask them to torture and kill strangers and 65% of them will obey. I'll bet the 65% figure would be even greater in a war-like situation. <br /> <br />The Milgram study was done again and again in all kinds of different situations and the results were always consistent. <br /> <br />My take on this..and it is not pleasant...is that a majority of all the people you meet(and maybe even you or I) have the capacity to participate willingly in the torture and killing of our human brothers and sisters. <br /> <br />So for me this meant that the horrors of the holocaust had less to do with the German people or Tattoos and had more to do with intentions of Hitler and his gang and the ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT THEY CREATED. <br /> <br />We didn't know then about the ability of ordinary humans to act willingly against their own values. We do know now. <br /> <br />Therefore, I believe, we have a need to be eternally vigilant and informed about what we are up to as humans and to always look at what we are doing from an ethical point of view. <br /> <br />What people are being told to do, who is telling them to do those things, and why, are extremely important questions I believe we always need to be asking. <br /> <br />It has also become extremely important to me to question my own actions and motivations; to be more self-aware. And it has also become important for me to question those in authority who tell me to do things I am not comfortable with. <br /> <br />I suspect the 'adjust but don't conform' mantra applies to this. <br /> <br />And this is why I have created this blog. It is why I encourage all of you to post what you are passionate about or uncomfortable with wherever you can. We can, in my opinion, no longer comply with what is not ethical without complicity! <br /> <br />Milgram opened for me the Pandora's Box of our personal responsibility for what happens in our world. I can not close it. <br /> <br />It is why I respect anyone who expresses their indignance even when I feel their indignity crosses lines I am uncomfortable seeing crossed. To me their indignance is never personal but always IMPORTANT. <br /> <br />I would rather have people balk at accepting the status quo here even if I am uncomfortable with it BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO REACTED LIKE THAT IN THE FILMS I SAW WERE THE PEOPLE WHO REFUSED TO TORTURE AND KILL STRANGERS. <br /> <br />I remember one lanky guy with a cowboy hat replying after he was told to shock a stranger because "The experiment requires you to do so" that "the experiment could go and f*&amp;K itself!" (or some words to that nature.) I chuckled at the time and was proud of his raw and ethical humanity. It's the same way I chuckle when I see passionate people anywhere 'go on a rant'. <br /> <br />Of course I also believe in balance (and courtesy and respect). I don't think we need to spend our entire waking hours being politically vigilant. If we can't laugh, love, play, enjoy each other's company, parent, work, listen to or play music, read, weep, commune with nature or our God or Gods, and learn from each other, then what's the point? <br /> <br />It seems that one of the best ways to resist acting in ways that betray our own values is to solicit and enjoy the support of others who feel the same way. <br /> <br />Some interesting links can be found below. <br /> <br />All the Best, <br /> <br />Peter McGovern 65-67 <br /> <br />------------------------- The following comes from <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.html">http://www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.html</a> <br /> <br />He (Milgram) found, surprisingly, that 65% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks-up to 450 volts-to a pitifully protesting victim, simply because a scientific authority commanded them to, and in spite of the fact that the victim did not do anything to deserve such punishment. The victim was, in reality, a good actor who did not actually receive shocks, and this fact was revealed to the subjects at the end of the experiment. But, during the experiment itself, the experience was a powerfully real and gripping one for most participants. <br /> <br />The following is f