Saturday, March 19, 2005
Another Sign of the Draft: All-Volunteer Army About to Break
You know it's coming. Hell, we all know it's coming. What I'm interested in seeing is how this generation will react to a draft. What will all those people who swore up and down that there'd never be another draft do? It'll be interesting to watch..Army vice chief of staff Cody worried about future of all-volunteer military
By Jon R. Anderson, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Saturday, March 19, 2005
WASHINGTON — The Army’s vice chief of staff says he’s been losing sleep lately over the future of the all-volunteer force.
“What keeps me awake at night is what this all-volunteer force will look like in 2007,” Gen. Richard Cody told lawmakers recently on Capital Hill.
It’s a concern others should share, he says.
“I think it ought to keep all of you awake,” he told a gathering of reporters Wednesday.
Nearly 31 years since it replaced the draft Army of both world wars, Korea and Vietnam, the all-volunteer force is facing its first real test, Cody said. snip
“The all-volunteer force is close to breaking right now,” said retired Maj. Gen. Edward Atkeson, now a prolific author on military affairs and a senior fellow at the Institute of Land Warfare. “When it does break, that’s when you’ll see the draft come back.”
More at Stars and Stripes.
And on the heels of that, this lovely piece:
Two Years Later, Iraq War Drains Military
Heavy Demands Offset Combat Experience
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page A01
Two years after the United States launched a war in Iraq with a crushing display of power, a guerrilla conflict is grinding away at the resources of the U.S. military and casting uncertainty over the fitness of the all-volunteer force, according to senior military leaders, lawmakers and defense experts.
The unexpectedly heavy demands of sustained ground combat are depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be fully replenished. Shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of units have been broken apart or taxed by repeated deployments, particularly in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.
"What keeps me awake at night is, what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?" Gen. Richard A. Cody, Army vice chief of staff, said at a Senate hearing this week.
The Iraq war has also led to a drop in the overall readiness of U.S. ground forces to handle threats at home and abroad, forcing the Pentagon to accept new risks -- even as military planners prepare for a global anti-terrorism campaign that administration officials say could last for a generation.
Stretched by Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States lacks a sufficiently robust ability to put large numbers of "boots on the ground" in case of a major emergency elsewhere, such as the Korean Peninsula, in the view of some Republican and Democratic lawmakers and some military leaders.
They are skeptical of the Pentagon's ability to substitute air and naval power, and they believe strongly that what the country needs is a bigger Army. "The U.S. military will respond if there are vital threats, but will it respond with as many forces as it needs, with equipment that is in excellent condition? The answer is no," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).
To be sure, the military has also benefited from two years of war-zone rotations, and from a historical perspective it is holding up better than many analysts expected. U.S. troops are the most combat-hardened the nation has had for decades, and reenlistment levels have generally remained high. The war has also spurred technological innovation while providing momentum for a reorganization of a military that in many ways is still designed for the Cold War.
More at the Washington Post.
Friday, March 18, 2005
BBC: "Bush made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before 9/11"
This won't surprise some of us...From the Beeb:
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Falah Aljibury
Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming
Mr Falah Aljibury
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.
Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.
And more details from Juan Cole...
Wolfowitz's Plot to Destroy OPEC
And Why it was always Ridiculous
Joe Conason presents some excellent reasons why Paul Wolfowitz should not head the World Bank. But there may be others.
The BBC Newsnight reports the titanic struggle between the Neoconservatives and Big Oil over Iraqi petroleum. If this story is true, it is some of the best reporting to come out of the Iraq scandal for months, and Greg Palast and his colleagues have scooped the Washington Post and the New York Times.
It is a story that also has a bearing on Paul Wolfowitz's bid to become chairman of the World Bank. I have some questions for him. Does he want to reduce the Arabs to poverty? Is he hostile to the very existence of OPEC and of producer cooperatives in primary commodities? Does he favor the use of warfare by states to permit their corporations to take over public energy resources in the Global South? Are his economic policies going to be rooted in a desire to further the interests of the Likud and other rightwing parties in the Global South?
As Palast tells the story, the Neoconservatives (presumably Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith) and the Department of Defense were dedicated to privatizing the Iraqi petroleum industry as a key plank of their Iraq project. They hoped that Iraq's privately-owned (presumably by American petroleum corporations) petroleum industry would secede from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and would pump large amounts of petroleum, refusing to stay within the bounds of the Iraq OPEC quota. By setting quotas for members, OPEC attempts to keep the price of petroleum from falling too far or from oscillating too wildly.
That there was a cult of privatization at the Pentagon has never been in doubt. Iraq has been a socialist country since at least 1968 (and had elements of socialism in the period of military rule 1958-1968). Most major industries were publicly owned. Moreover, the Iraqi population liked it that way. Opinion polls show that 80% of Iraqis think the purpose of a government is to take care of people.
Paul Bremer, the second US civil administrator of Iraq is a fanatical laissez-fairiste. The privatizers would set up private corporations to sell you creek water and oxygen if they could get away with it. In a BBC interview, Jay Garner alleged that the Department of Defense dissolved the Iraqi army and sent it home, causing all of us no end of trouble, because they were afraid that retaining a large Baath institution like that would form an obstacle to radical privatization. Bremer wanted to allow foreign companies to buy any firm in Iraq and to be able to expatriate profits immediately. (The abolition of currency regulations, advocated by Washington Consensus free marketeers, contributed to the meltdown of the East Asian economies in 1997; Malaysia escaped devastation by thumbing its nose at the privatizers and slapping on currency controls. It turns out that if there are no regulations about currency transfers, speculators take advantage of it; Surprise!)
Obviously, the real prize in privatization would be the petroleum industry. No other state-owned Iraqi industries are worth much, and will be difficult to sell to private owners because they are bloated bureaucracies and inefficient.
News for March 18th: Bulked Up Edition
Let’s start with the obvious: yesterday’s baseball hearings. You know, I understand the complaints. I really do. “What does Congress have to do with this?” “How does their authority cover this?” There are legitimate answers for this, but I’ll leave that to the pundits. The truth is, this was a triumph of representation in Congress. As a baseball fan, I wanted the answers to these questions. My Representative is at least making an attempt to find them, and he’s okay for that in my book.That said, I have no question that McGwire was juicing now; he evaded questions and looks like a shell of the man that was just three years ago. I wonder how long he’ll stay with us.
Baseball Has A Day of Reckoning In Congress
McGwire Remains Evasive During Steroid Testimony
By Dave Sheinin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A01
On an extraordinary day of words and images, a House committee investigating steroids in baseball forced the sport to confront its past and rethink its future -- encountering resistance on both counts -- and the most extraordinary image of all was that of Mark McGwire, once the game's most celebrated slugger but now the face of the steroid scandal, reduced to a shrunken, lonely, evasive figure whose testimony brought him to the verge of tears.
During the course of an all-day, nationally televised hearing, the House Government Reform Committee fulfilled its goal of examining baseball's oft-criticized drug-testing program and its impact on steroid use among teenagers. Committee members said baseball's policy was full of holes and threatened to legislate tougher testing policies if the sport doesn't come up with them itself.
In the process, however, the committee also ripped wide open the sport's most tender wound. Asked repeatedly by committee members whether he had used steroids in achieving unprecedented power numbers before his retirement in 2001, McGwire deflected each question -- his non-answers standing in stark contrast to the unabashed frankness of Jose Canseco, McGwire's former Oakland Athletics teammate and an admitted steroid user.
While McGwire acknowledged "there has been a problem with steroid use in baseball," he responded to questions about his own involvement by saying, "I'm not here to discuss the past," or, "I'm here to be positive about this subject."
The hearing came as baseball struggles to come to terms with what it admits is a steroid problem. In the past few months, leaked grand jury testimony by sluggers Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds showed them acknowledging steroid use and Canseco's book fingered some of the game's biggest stars as steroid users. Pressure from President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), among other national figures, forced baseball to strengthen its steroid policy this winter.
Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the committee chairman, opened the hearing at 10 a.m. and brought it to a close more than 11 hours later. Throughout the day, the panel threatened congressional action to bring the sport's testing program closer in line to the Olympic testing program, which includes regular testing and swift, tough sanctions.
More at the Washington Post
And since we’re in a Congress kind of mood, here are a few items from Congress.
Here’s a real conundrum of a decision. So the Senate decides to reject the spending cuts that Bush wanted (which is a good thing) AND decides to increase tax cuts (WTF?) So not only do they want to not reduce the deficit, they want to increase it. Here’s your party of fiscal responsibility.
Senate Rejects GOP Budget Cuts
House Deficit-Reduction Moves Thwarted
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A04
The Senate last night dealt a slap to President Bush and the Republican leadership, approving a 2006 budget that would gut much of the GOP's deficit-reduction efforts by restoring requested cuts to Medicaid, education, community development and other programs.
With their deficit-reduction targets disappearing, Senate Republicans also nearly doubled the budget plan's tax cuts to $134 billion over five years. The budget passed 51 to 49, with four Republicans voting no.
The Senate's actions set up a major fight over budget priorities, as the Senate, House and White House try to iron out an agreement that would allow for the first entitlement cuts since 1997, as well as oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The House yesterday narrowly passed a tough $2.6 trillion budget that includes $69 billion in entitlement cost cutting, with as much as $20 billion in savings from Medicaid, the government's primary health program for the poor.
"Certainly it appears it is going to be challenging," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa).
On Wednesday, the Senate budget plan barely survived an effort to strip out parliamentary language opening the refuge to oil exploration and drilling. The language would protect drilling legislation from a filibuster, allowing it instead to pass with a simple 51-vote majority. But that parliamentary protection will happen only if the House and Senate agree on a compromise budget resolution for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
Likewise, House and Senate budget writers hope to use the same parliamentary protections to begin tackling the growth of entitlement programs, such as agriculture subsidies, student loans and especially Medicaid.
But the Senate signaled that it may not have the will. By a vote of 52 to 48, senators moved to strip $14 billion in Medicaid cuts and instead establish a commission to explore policy changes to slow the program's growth. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) implored his colleagues to stick with the cuts.
More at the Washington Post
Well, here we go…here comes the fun and games.
GOP Sets 1st Vote on Blocked Nominee
Associated Press
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A03
Republicans yesterday cleared the first of President Bush's blocked judicial nominees for a Senate vote after Easter, a move that Democrats say could lead to a filibuster confrontation that could shut down the chamber.
The GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8 along party lines to send the nomination of former Interior Department counsel William G. Myers to the floor.
Although Republicans say Myers, a lawyer in Boise, Idaho, would make a good judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Democrats say he is too anti-environment.
Democrats blocked his nomination in the last Congress and vow to do the same this year.
Republicans have threatened to change the Senate rules to stop Democrats from blocking judicial nominees, a move Democrats have dubbed the "nuclear option" because they say it would blow up Senate relations.
From the Washington Post
Bush moves to put mark on World Bank, U.N.
Thu Mar 17, 2005 07:01 PM ET
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's move to put leading conservative advocates of U.S. power in key international institutions is an attempt to impose his activist foreign policy agenda on the world, analysts say, but administration partisans are playing down this interpretation.
"I don't think there is any grand design or message here" except picking strong candidates who share Bush's vision and merited reward with second-term jobs, one Republican insider insisted.
Still, after playing it safe with his initial second-term nominations, Bush's appointments of Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank president and John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations were extremely controversial.
Wolfowitz, the U.S. deputy defense secretary, was a key architect of the Iraq war. Bolton, undersecretary of state for non-proliferation, is an outspoken critics of the United Nations and has championed a hard line towards Iran and North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
"People may not like Bush's multilateralism but he's not pushing those institutions off to the side," said Gary Schmitt, executive director of the pro-Bush Project for the New American Century which promotes assertive American global leadership.
"If the president didn't care about the U.N., he would have left (former U.S. ambassador John) Danforth there and if he didn't care about the World Bank, he would have picked some economist friend who needed a job," he said in an interview.
But Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House who considers Bush's foreign policy revolutionary, does not believe Wolfowitz and Bolton were named to strengthen their respective institutions.
Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. presidents have believed that building effective international institutions would enhance the likelihood of other countries making common cause with America and thus advance U.S. interests, Daalder said.
More at Reuters
Here’s one of those things that make you go “hmm”. A fake cable has emerged that accuses a prominent journalist of being a spy. The Pentagon confirms that it’s a fake, so where did it come from? The bigger question is, is this the beginning of the wedge that’ll be used to take out journalists who cause too much trouble for the administration? I don’t like to think about it, but this seems to confirm some of my thoughts lately…
Fake Cable Labeled Writer a Spy for Iraq
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page C01
Someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to produce a document accusing journalist and activist William Arkin of serving as a spy for Saddam Hussein.
The Pentagon says the supposed Defense Intelligence Agency cable is a forgery. Arkin says it's "chilling" and is demanding an investigation. The NBC News military analyst says he became aware of the bogus document when a Washington Times reporter called about the spying allegation and sent him a copy.
"There are a lot of reasons, I guess, why people would want to do me harm," Arkin said yesterday. One, he said, is the recent publication of his book "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World." Another, he noted, is a series of past scoops that embarrassed the Bush administration.
Bill Gertz, the Times national security reporter who called Arkin, did not respond to two messages. Managing Editor Francis Coombs said: "We don't talk about stories we haven't put in the paper. But at this point, we do not have a story scheduled to run."
The document, filled with military jargon and described as "classified," says that "preliminary reporting . . . indicates possible US citizen William Arkin received monthly stipend for period 1994-1998 to report on quote United Nations Special Commission activities unquote. Entry in SSO [special security organization] ledger captured in Baghdad, no additional information."
Arkin said he did look into the U.N. operation known as UNSCOM, but as a consultant to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. "Someone who put this together obviously tried to make it plausible enough to do harm and endanger me," he said. Arkin found, and U.S. officials later confirmed, that the Clinton administration had eavesdropped on Iraqi communications through equipment carried by UNSCOM weapons inspectors.
The purported cable also says that "CIA exploitation of Source 8230 from Office of President SH confirms Arkin traveled to Baghdad February 1998 and November 1998 to provide information about UNSCOM plans and to discuss Desert Fox targeting," a reference to the 1998 U.S. bombing of Iraq. Arkin said he did not visit Iraq in 1998.
At the Defense Department, spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "The Pentagon has looked into this and does not believe the document to be authentic." Larry DiRita, the department's chief spokesman, added that "we certainly appreciated the fact that the journalist who had it in his possession took the time to seek a better understanding of it before filing a story on it."
More at the Washington Post
Thursday, March 17, 2005
News for March 17th: Green Edition
Ah yes, St. Patrick’s Day, the one day where everyone thinks they’re Irish-American. As a fourth-generation Irish-American, I suppose I don’t see the harm in it. It’s nice that people pay attention to them once a year, but it’s better than nothing, I suppose.Anyway, let’s dive right into it. That “anthrax alarm”? Turns out it revealed a few flaws in the response system. Of course, it doesn’t mean they’ll be fixed (believe me, I worked with government agencies, I know of which I speak).
Anthrax Alarm Uncovers Response Flaws
Pentagon Procedures Baffled Other Agencies, Delaying Health Officials
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01
The anthrax scare at the Pentagon this week exposed gaps between the military's procedures in handling biohazards and those of the rest of the federal government, which could increase the threat to public health in the event of an actual contamination, health experts and federal and Virginia officials said yesterday.
Health officials inside government and out said the Pentagon's reliance on detection and response systems that are isolated from those at other federal agencies delayed Virginia health officials, the U.S. Postal Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in moving to protect the public from a possible biohazard in the mail.
"The takeaway for me is, the government hasn't learned too many lessons from the last few years," said Scott J. Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. "The Department of Defense appears to be developing their own detection systems. . . . The linkages to public health just didn't seem to be there. Clearly, things broke down."
In the muddle, local hazardous materials teams were confused by sensor equipment that differed from equipment used by the Postal Service and Department of Homeland Security, said Robert B. Stroube, Virginia's health commissioner.
State and federal officials responsible for deciding public health actions said scientists had trouble interpreting the findings from a Pentagon contract lab, which is not part of the CDC's national network of labs that respond to bioterror.
More at the Washington Post
But that’s okay because we have Mr. Chertoff on the job! Never mind that he’s going to restructure an organization that’s already gone through a minimum of two restructurings already. Pay no attention the man behind the curtain!
Chertoff Orders Agency Review
Changes Possible, DHS Chief Says
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A23
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said yesterday that he has launched a top-to-bottom review of the 180,000-employee department and will consider revamping entire agencies and programs that are part of it.
"Old categories, old jurisdictions and old turf will not define our objectives," Chertoff said in a speech at George Washington University, 13 days after he took over the department. "Bureaucratic structures and categories exist to serve our mission, and not to drive it."
Chertoff described his 60- to 90-day examination as "a comprehensive review of our entire organization, the way it's structured . . . and its policies."
In an interview with reporters, Chertoff declined to elaborate on possible changes, but officials said one option is merging two of its agencies. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which investigates crimes, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which monitors foreigners arriving at U.S. airports, are separate parts of the former U.S. Customs Service and the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Proponents say the reunited agency would function more effectively.
In his speech, Chertoff said his study to identify the department's top priorities will focus on three factors: the specific kinds of threats terrorists pose, American society's vulnerabilities to attack and which kinds of attacks would be most devastating.
More at the Washington Post
Of course, there are always rewards to be had in incompetence…
Home Team Advantage
By Bob Williams, The Center for Public Integrity. Posted March 17, 2005.
The Department of Homeland Security deems tiny Mercyhurst College – located in ex-DHS secretary Tom Ridge's hometown – the sole source to provide training for intelligence analysts. Story Tools
WASHINGTON, March 16, 2005 – A tiny college located in the hometown of ex-Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is negotiating a no-bid contract to train intelligence analysts for the sprawling agency. In doing so, the agency is short-circuiting a selection process that would normally include a host of bigger and better known institutions already working in that field such as George Washington University and Georgetown University.
Late last month, the Department of Homeland Security filed notice it was entering into negotiations on a sole source basis with Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa., to develop and run an intelligence analyst certificate program for the department. Mercyhurst is a liberal arts, private, Catholic school located on the eastern shore of Lake Erie. The school has an enrollment of about 3,100.
(A new academic building scheduled to open this fall on a satellite campus of the college will be named the Tom and Michele Ridge Health and Safety Building. School officials say the decision to name the building in honor of the Ridges was made several years ago when the Erie native, who was then governor of Pennsylvania, helped secure $2 million in financing for the project. )
The total cost of the contract could not be determined from the few details released by DHS about the deal.
The contracting officer handling the Mercyhurst deal for DHS said she was not at liberty to discuss any details, but said that "a number of other vendors" had expressed an interest in bidding on the project after the sole source notification became public on Feb. 25.
"There are some issues," said DHS contracting officer Brenda Musgrove when contacted by telephone. "I can't really say anything more about it."
DHS spokesman Tom Burke said he would not talk about the contract on the record. Earlier, Burke did talk to Homeland Security Daily, a newsletter published by Congressional Quarterly, which first reported the school's pursuit of the contract. He told the newsletter that the department's decision to negotiate exclusively with Mercyhurst for the training program was based on speed, cost and flexibility.
More at Alternet
Now, more about bad appointments: #1 Paul Wolfowitz. I had to laugh when I saw that Bush cited Wolfowitz’s experience helping to manage the Pentagon as a sign of his capability. Yeah, because he did that so well.
Wolfowitz Picked for World Bank
Bush Nominee for Chief Faces Opposition Overseas
By Paul Blustein and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01
President Bush said yesterday that he has chosen Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq war, as the U.S. nominee to head the World Bank.
The announcement was an aggressive move to put the administration's stamp on the World Bank, the largest source of aid to developing countries, by installing at the bank's helm a leading advocate of the U.S. campaign to spur democracy in the Middle East. But it risked a new rift with countries critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, especially since it came so soon after Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton, another prominent hawk, as ambassador to the United Nations.
The nomination shocked many among the bank's 10,000-member staff and in many capitals abroad, especially in Europe. When Wolfowitz's name surfaced a couple of weeks ago as a possible nominee, many diplomats and bank insiders dismissed his prospects as remote. Although the United States traditionally gets to choose the World Bank chief, there was speculation that a Wolfowitz candidacy could be torpedoed by the board of the bank, a 184-nation institution that has always operated by consensus.
Bush said at a news conference that he chose Wolfowitz, 61, because he is "committed to development" and is "a compassionate, decent man."
The president also said that as No. 2 at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz had demonstrated skill for managing a large institution.
More at the Washington Post
I called this awhile ago. Another social conservative takes office. Why??
FCC's New Standards-Bearer
Bush Picks Vocal Indecency Opponent Kevin J. Martin to Head Commission
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page E01
President Bush has chosen Kevin J. Martin, one of the Federal Communication Commission's leaders in the crackdown on indecency, to succeed the agency's outgoing chairman, Michael K. Powell, the White House said yesterday.
Martin, 38, is one of the FCC's three Republican commissioners and has been considered the front-runner to head the agency, which is the government's chief regulator of the media and telecommunications industries. He does not require Senate confirmation because he already is a commission member.
Powell, the son of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, leaves the FCC's top job this week after four years.
Martin and Powell sometimes clashed on issues of policy and style, with Martin most notably splitting with the agency's two other Republicans during a 2003 vote on local telephone competition because he wanted to preserve a strong role for state regulators.
"I look forward to working with the administration, Congress, my colleagues and the FCC's talented staff to ensure that American consumers continue to enjoy the benefits of the best communications system in the world," Martin said in a statement. He declined to comment further.
Martin's appointment and his generally deregulatory agenda were greeted positively by industry groups, including the cable and broadcast lobbies.
More at the Washington Post
The next one is a real no-duh. You think they might not be trustworthy??
CIA's Assurances On Transferred Suspects Doubted
Prisoners Say Countries Break No-Torture Pledges
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01
The system the CIA relies on to ensure that the suspected terrorists it transfers to other countries will not be tortured has been ineffective and virtually impossible to monitor, according to current and former intelligence officers and lawyers, as well as counterterrorism officials who have participated in or reviewed the practice.
To comply with anti-torture laws that bar sending people to countries where they are likely to be tortured, the CIA's office of general counsel requires a verbal assurance from each nation that detainees will be treated humanely, according to several recently retired CIA officials familiar with such transfers, known as renditions.
But the effectiveness of the assurances and the legality of the rendition practice are increasingly being questioned by rights groups and others, as freed detainees have alleged that they were mistreated by interrogators after the CIA secretly delivered them to countries with well-documented records of abuse.
President Bush weighed in on the matter for the first time yesterday, defending renditions as vital to the nation's defense.
In "the post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack," he said at a news conference. "And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves." One CIA officer involved with renditions, however, called the assurances from other countries "a farce."
Another U.S. government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said: "It's beyond that. It's widely understood that interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used."
More at the Washington Post
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Where are we Going?
I hate to admit it, but I haven’t been as aggressive in updating the site lately. There’s a reason for it, though I’m not proud of it: I’m feeling defeated these days. I’m really feeling like we’re heading toward something terrible and now, feeling that we’re heading for it, I’m withdrawing, trying to avert my gaze like someone in a car rushing toward an accident. Okay, no, that’s not entirely accurate. I’m looking away and bracing myself: the last few weeks we’ve been trying to square away our financial situation as quickly as possible. Part of this is fortuitous timing, but part of it is also because of this strange creeping dread, this feeling of the cold fingers of fate playing at the nape of my neck.Many years ago, during my “hippy” period, I was smoking weed and reading A People’s History of the United States. Not so amazing, you say, something hundreds of hippy-dippy types have done since hippies came around, smoke up, stare at your hand, and obsess about how you’re really an ape. Been there, done that. The problem is that this particular revelation has stuck with me since then, because it’s been born out time and time again, and that’s the violence and oppression that this country (okay, most countries) has been built upon. In the late 90s, I had some naïve hope that we were moving away it, that we were becoming something else. The stupid brutalism was still there, but it was lurking beneath the surface. You glimpsed it when we strong-armed a leader, or when protestors at the World Bank got beaten, but it was still hidden, lurking behind the scenes.
Now it’s come out, full-bloom, its ugly face not only grinning, but beaming, and the American people have embraced it. How did we get this far? How did we get to the point that this is acceptable discourse:
(From Glenn Beck - a real winner of a conservative)
Glenn Beck has apologized this morning to all of us that started watching '24' this season based on his recommendation.
He is also saying that he was about to give up on '24' last night because the writers interjected PATRIOTIC Arabs that own a gun store, and are proud to be American and stand with their American brothers to go up against whoever committed the terrorist acts.
WHAT A LINE OF PC CRAP!
I, for one, have not heard a single Arab-American stand up publicly and say that they denounce Islamic terrorism and are willing to stand up with their American brothers to fight this scourge on civilized society.
We've gone from a great reality based action drama that rips headlines from the papers, showing MOST terrorists as they actually are...
To a PC line of BS influenced by the usual suspects, liberal producer, directors, and studio execs, AND a TINY, loud-mouthe minority of bleaters and whiners.
A disgusting FRAUD-of-a-show.
AND, it LOOKS as if the show is turning AWAY from REALISTIC MUSLIM terrorists, to point to EVIL WHITE guys in the defense industry, and maybe even in the military itself.
What a JOKE.
I MAY watch another show or two, but I think I'm DONE after only ONE season of viewing this PC garbage.
From the hope of George Bush Senior:
I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.
To this :
The Patriot Act will put both of you (Neuharth and Mitchell) on trial for treason and convict and execute both of you as traitors for running these stories in a time of war and it should be done on TV for other communist traitors like you two to know we mean business. This is war and you should be put in prison NOW for talking like this. Who the hell do you people think you are? You give aid and comfort to our enemies and aid them in murdering our proud soldiers. You people are a disgrace to America. Your families should be put in prison with you, then be made to leave and move to the Middle East ...This is a great Christian nation and god wants us to lead the world out of darkness with great leaders like President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Communists like Al and Greg will soon be in prison and on death row for your ugly papers. We won the election and now you are mad. We own America and all the rights, you people are trash, go back to Russia and Africa and take your friends with before we put you on death row after a fair trial.
I kind of wonder if this is something that the arch-conservatives have unleashed and don’t truly understand. I think they’ve used the language of patriotism and religion to get what they won’t and don’t (or won’t) understand what it is that’s afoot. I’ve noticed a lot of this type of language lately: kill all the liberals, let God sort them out. I don’t want to think that we’re going to go from talking about liberals as traitors to wanting to kill them, then killing them, but the language coming from these people is frankly frightening. I don’t wish for conservatives to die (hell, I used to be one); I just wish they’d be more reasonable about allowing multiple viewpoints.
But I think the people have slipped into this delusional dream world where everything would be better if we were all conservative. I think they really do believe that speaking out against the war makes someone a traitor and that someone who does speak out should be jailed or executed.
Here’s a congressman’s view:
"I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else," Gibbons said to another burst of applause...
He said that they are the same people who wanted to go to Iraq and become human shields for the enemy.
"I say it's just too damn bad we didn't buy them a ticket," Gibbons said.
Laughter rippled through the room, mingled with more applause.
Where are we going with this?
Finally, a little “ha ha joke” to share with you. This sort of thing is why I’m worried. This is what’s keeping me away and awake. I’ve highlighted the more violent ones.
FUN FACTS ABOUT LIBERALS
* Liberals hate people who are not open minded. Open minded is defined as thinking just like they think (otherwise you're evil).
* The major diet of the liberal is tofu and granola. This makes them weak and easy to pick up and throw.
* Liberals love to spend other people's money. If you see a liberal, it's okay to take his money because it probably wasn't his anyway.
* Liberals have an irrational fear of firearms. If you want to scare a liberal, point a gun at him.
* The whine of the North American liberal can often be mistaken for the sound of a screech owl. The main difference is that the liberal's whine will also have a nauseating effect.
* Liberals love socialism and want to socialize all businesses. If you see a liberal coming towards your business, throw a stick at him before he can socialize it.
* Liberals tend to congregate on college campuses as it is a safe haven for their idiotic ideas, protecting them from scrutiny. Thus, avoid college at all costs.
* Liberals are invulnerable to reason and logic. They are vulnerable to firearms, knives, and the bitch slap.
* Liberals hate America and love more oppressed people... like evil dictators.
* Much like the duck, it's illegal to shoot a liberal who is floating in a lake.
* Liberals will try to entice you with their twisted logic. If that doesn't work, they'll bite you.
* Hanging a picture of Ronald Reagan over your door will keep liberals from entering.
* Liberals come in two main varieties: intellectual and mental patient. You can only distinguish between the two by noting whether their jacket has sleeves.
* If you see a fuel-efficient car, it's probably being driven by a liberal. Run it off the road with your SUV.
* Liberals are always trying to save the environment because they are apparently dependent on it. If you want to kill all liberals, destroy the environment.
* Even if you satisfy liberals’ demands, they'll come up with new thing to complain about that you could never even imagine; they’re just that creative. That creativity is put towards much better use as forced labor in a coal mine.
* Liberals are always whining about tolerance, but, when I punch them for that, they get moody. Hey, be tolerant!
* You can tell if someone is a liberal by extracting some blood and seeing if it reacts violently to fire.
* Sorry, that previous item is how you find out if someone is the Thing. It's a good thing to check for that too, though.
* Some liberals still think Communism is good. I guess we should threaten them with nuclear missiles just like we did the Soviets.
* In a fight between Aquaman and liberals, liberals would have Aquaman fined for disturbing the habitat of endangered fish. He would then sulk about it to the great annoyance of the Aquawife.
* Liberals like to sympathize with terrorists. Keep them away from Gitmo, or there will be nothing but sympathizing.
* I've heard vicious rumors that liberals also like the French, but that might just be slander against liberals.
Real funny guys. I’m tempted to create my own, but I’m not a vicious dickhead.
The Rape of the Environment Continues: Alaska Wildlife Refuge is Open for Business
I'm not sure there's an emotion to express how I feel...somewhere between sorrow, despair, and fury. I'm waiting to see if my useless shill senators (George Allen and John Warner) voted for it; of course, I'm pretty sure they did. When I wrote Warner, he wrote back that he intended to vote to open it, and Allen toes the party line. Whenever I write them, it's like throwing myself against a brick wall. I accomplish just as much.From the AP:
Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling
By H. Josef Hebert
The Associated Press
Wednesday 16 March 2005
Washington - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.
The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster - a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.
The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.
The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.
Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.
Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.
"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.
"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.
But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely - though not yet certain - 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.
Trade Deficit Hits Record $665.9B; Bush Claims "Economics Hate Our Freedom"
I'm so giddy I could shit (and I mean that ironically, as I'm more likely to vomit than shit).From Yahoo! News:
Trade Deficit Hits Record $665.9B in 2004
WASHINGTON - The United States deficit in the broadest measure of international trade soared to an all-time high of $665.9 billion in 2004, showing in stark terms the speed with which the country is becoming indebted to the rest of the world.
The Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported Wednesday that the shortfall in the current account was 25.5 percent higher than the previous record, the $530.7 billion deficit set in 2003. The department also noted that the deficit was worsening as the year ended with the shortfall in the fourth quarter hitting a record $187.9 billion, up 13.3 percent from the third quarter deficit.
The Bush administration contends the soaring trade deficits reflect a U.S. economy that is growing faster than the rest of the world, pushing up imports and dampening demand for U.S. exports. But private economists are worried that the huge level of resources being transferred into the hands of foreigners will eventually result in lower U.S. living standards.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) reported that output at the nation's factories, mines and utilities rose by 0.3 percent in February, following a tiny 0.1 percent increase in January. It was the best showing since a surge of 0.8 percent in December and was led by a 0.5 percent jump in manufacturing, the third straight 0.5 percent gain in this sector.
In other economic news, the Commerce Department said construction of new homes and apartments rose by 0.5 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 2.195 million units in February, the fastest pace in 21 years.
Construction of single-family homes hit an all-time high of 1.775 million units, up 0.3 percent from January, and multi-family construction was up 1.7 percent to 420,000 units.
Analysts believe the housing sector, which has set sales records for four straight years, will begin to cool this year under the impact of rising interest rates.
The current account trade deficit is closely watched by economists because it is the broadest measure of international trade, covering not only trade in goods but also trade in services and investment flows between nations. The deficit for 2004 was not only a record in dollar terms but also as a percentage of the total U.S. economy, climbing to 5.7 percent of the gross domestic product, up from 4.8 percent of GDP (news - web sites) in 2003.
The deficit represents the amount in resources that the United States is transferring into the hands of foreigners in exchange for foreign oil, cars and other products that Americans are purchasing.
While foreigners have been more than willing to exchange their products for U.S. dollars, there is a worry that at some point they will become less willing to do so and will seek to exchange dollars for other foreign currencies.
The dollar's value against other currencies has been declining for three years but so far that decline has been orderly.
However, some private analysts worry that one day the dollar might begin falling in value more sharply if foreigners suddenly decide to diversify into other currencies and begin cashing in their holdings of U.S. stocks, bonds and Treasury securities. Such a development could send stock prices in this country plunging and interest rates surging.
Investor Warren Buffett (news - web sites) warned in this year's letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. that the United States could become a "sharecropper's society" by the continued transfer of U.S. assets into foreign hands. He estimated the country's debt to foreigners could surge to $11 trillion by 2015.
However, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) has said in recent speeches that he believes the country's current account deficit will be resolved without sparking financial market turmoil as the weaker dollar makes U.S. goods more competitive in foreign countries while making imports more expensive and thus less appealing to Americans.
But Buffett warned in his letter to shareholders that the growing indebtedness would require annual payments to foreigners to service the debt of around $550 billion by 2015, a transfer of resources that would mean less investment and lower living standards in the United States.
For 2004, the current account deficit reflected a shortfall of $665.5 billion in goods, up from a goods deficit of $547.6 billion in 2003. One-fourth of the deterioration was blamed on higher foreign oil imports.
The U.S. surplus in services shrank to $48.4 billion last year, down from a surplus of $51 billion in 2003. U.S. investors earned $24.1 billion in their foreign holdings last year while foreign investors earned a higher $33.3 billion on their holdings in the United States. Unilateral transfers, including such things as foreign aid, totaled $72.9 billion in 2004, up from $67.4 billion in 2003.
News for March 16th: Spreading the Disease Edition
A little nod to that poor, maligned band. Why must they blame anthrax for everything?Oh yeah, I think I called this yesterday. Interesting that Bush’s approval rating on social security dipped and we got new warnings and this…and guess what? The story that it’s not anthrax has barely even surfaced. I listen to the news in the morning and yesterday the story was everywhere. Today I had to go and search to find out the truth. What do you want to bet this will be cited as a positive in the future, even though this is the truth?
New Tests For Anthrax Negative
Threat to Public Health Unlikely, Pentagon Says
By Spencer S. Hsu and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A01
U.S. military officials said last night that they were confident that there is no public health threat at mailrooms at the Pentagon and a Fairfax County office complex because a series of tests performed yesterday all came back negative for deadly anthrax bacteria.
Based on a positive overnight test on material from the Pentagon, public health and postal officials acted throughout the day on the assumption that the capital region faced an anthrax threat for the first time since 2001. Defense Department officials recommended that nearly 700 people begin antibiotic treatment, and the U.S. Postal Service began medicating 200 workers at its main government mail center at V Street NE in the District, which was shuttered for testing. Virginia moved antibiotics for 3,000 people to Fairfax.
Mail service to the federal government in Washington was shut down. Deliveries of mail, food and office supplies to the Pentagon were halted. U.S. health officials issued a nationwide alert urging doctors to look out for cases of anthrax exposure.
But analysis of more than 70 samples subsequently taken from filters, surfaces and machines at both mailrooms showed no trace of anthrax bacteria, living or dead.
A senior military official said investigators are concentrating on the possibility that the sample from the Pentagon actually was contaminated at a contractor's laboratory in Richmond. The material, a swab taken from a filter on a biohazard detector, was then passed on to Army scientists at Fort Detrick on Monday. They confirmed the positive finding early yesterday
"The probability is low to very low that we're dealing with a true health threat," said William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.
More at the Washington Post.
Well, isn’t this just ducky news. Looks like OPEC has lost control of oil prices. What does this mean for the prospects of peak oil? Still looking like just a myth?
OPEC says it's lost control of oil prices
Cartel producers say they can't keep up with strong global demand
With world oil prices north of $50 a barrel and rising, OPEC ministers meeting in Iran Wednesday will be grappling with a problem they haven’t confronted in the cartel’s 45-year history. In the past, OPEC tried to cool overheated prices by pumping more when supplies got too tight. But most OPEC producers say they’re already pumping as fast as they can. And despite the high cost of a barrel of crude, world demand shows no signs of slowing.
As a result, some OPEC ministers say, they’ve run out of options in trying to rein in the price of crude. Global oil demand has taken up most of the slack in extra OPEC capacity. Consumption is now believed by many analysts to be pressing up against the limits of what the world can produce. Saudi Arabia is the only country believed to have any surplus production left, and even then the Saudis are pumping close to 90 percent of capacity, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
"There is not much we can do,” Algerian Oil Minister Chakib Khelil told reporters Tuesday in Isfahan, Iran, the site of Wednesday’s meeting.
"OPEC has done all it can do.” Qatar Oil Minister Abdullah al-Attiyah said. “This is out of the control of OPEC."
But that hasn’t eased political pressure on the cartel. On Tuesday, several oil ministers said they had received calls from U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman. Sen. Ron Wyden (D Ore.) said Tuesday he’s not convinced that OPEC’s hands are tied by global demand reaching the limits of production capacity.
More at MSNBC .
This is just an interesting little tidbit. Another arm of Hillary’s Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Group Tied to Norton Says It Is Tax-Exempt IRS Status, Lobbying at Issue in Probes
By Jon Kamman and Billy House
The Arizona Republic
Monday 14 March 2005
A Republican environmental group with links to Interior Secretary Gale Norton and former powerhouse lobbyist Jack Abramoff claims it is a tax-exempt corporation and does not have to account publicly for at least $250,000 that Indian tribes report contributing to it at his urging.
But the IRS says it has no record that the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy has been granted tax-free status as a corporation.
The absence of IRS approval raises questions about the extent of the council's political activities.
A news report Sunday drew connections between the group and the casino gaming interests of an Abramoff client. Also, another tribe disclosed late last week that it had been steered by the lobbyist to make $75,000 in contributions to the conservative-leaning council. The council, known as CREA, is organized two ways under the same name. As a political advocacy group, it is required to publicly disclose its contributors and expenditures. As a corporation, it can obtain tax-exempt status and keep its donors confidential, but is limited in the extent of its lobbying activities.
CREA would not provide documentation of any application to become what the Internal Revenue Service designates a "social welfare organization."
In other developments, Norton acknowledged to The Arizona Republic last week that she has had "brief discussions" with the group since becoming Interior secretary in 2001, and the Washington Post reported that CREA's leader had communicated with Norton's aides in 2001 and 2002 about issues related to Abramoff's Indian gaming interests.
More at the Arizona Republic.
And, speaking of conspiracies, here’s one hiding out in plain sight:
For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'
For the faithful who gathered in Florida last month, the goal is not just to convert individuals - but to reshape US society.
By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. – For the Reback daughters, the big attraction was the famous Ten Commandments monument, brought to Florida on tour after being removed from the Alabama judicial building as unconstitutional. The youngsters - dressed in red, white, and blue - clustered proudly around the display.
For more than 900 other Christians from across the US, the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at "reclaiming America for Christ." The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation.
"We have God-sized problems in our country, and only God can solve them," Richard Land, a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), told the group.
Their mission is not simply to save souls. The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call "the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers." Some speak of "restoring a Christian nation." Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.
In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: "As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."
More at the Christian Science Monitor .
Finally, rather than a quote of the day, I’d like to post a letter I received from Howard Dean. The subject matter is a topic that’s close to my heart: Republican attempts to stifle any and all dissent, to keep anyone from stopping their agenda at any cost necessary. We can’t let them continue to steamroll us – the American people. Here is why Dean is sending out the letter:
Senate near meltdown over judges
A vote on nominee William Myers may be a rehearsal for a next Supreme Court justice.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Thursday's vote on the first of President Bush's blocked judicial nominees sets up a test of a "nuclear option" whose fallout could effectively bring the US Senate to a stop for the balance of the 109th Congress - and affect the balance on US courts for decades.
The pitched partisan battle revolves around a change in rules that seem arcane, but the impact could reach a wide range of issues before US federal courts, from consumer and environmental protections to civil liberties and the role of government in the post-9/11 era.
Given the high stakes, with activists on both sides ramping up this week to urge firmness in party ranks, it appears unlikely that moderates can avert a showdown.
The focus, for now, is on the nomination of William Myers to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Judiciary Committee is expected to send his nomination to the full Senate with a 10-8 party-line vote - a signal that Democrats plan to filibuster the nomination on the floor. When they do, Republicans plan to use their Senate majority to change the rule for ending debate - killing filibusters with a majority, not the 60 votes now required.
"Both parties understand that this is a dress rehearsal for the Supreme Court," says Sheldon Goldman, a political scientist and expert on judicial nominations at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "It's been nicknamed the nuclear option because the fallout would be radioactive as far as our politics goes."
With Chief Justice William Rehnquist expected to retire from the US Supreme Court, the Senate rules on nominations have immediacy beyond the broader question of the ideological tenor of US courts.
Activists on both sides paint it as an epic event: "As Republican leaders prepare to overturn 200-year-old rules in the Senate to eradicate the need for bipartisan support and stack the Supreme Court, we've got to show Democratic and Republican senators that this is a grass-roots issue," said organizers for MoveOn PAC in the run-up to a rally on Wednesday.
More at the Christian Science Monitor.
Now here’s the letter:
Dear Crimnos,
Sometimes partisan politics gets overheated -- I know that as well as anyone. But when one party controls all three branches of government, and then seeks to change the fundamental principles and rules of our democracy, we need to talk about it soberly and seriously.
The Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress -- they want to give George Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Today Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators asked us, the American people, to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
We have to act. Sign this petition, which we will deliver to every U.S. Senator, asking them to protect the right to free speech in the Senate. If they don't, it is not only their voice that will be silenced -- it will be ours:
http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
Here are the facts: George Bush has appointed judges to lifetime positions at a better rate than any president in nearly three decades. More than 95% of his nominees have been approved. Only ten nominees have been refused -- all because they are unqualified and out of the mainstream.
But that's not enough. And on this issue, as on Social Security, it is becoming more and more obvious to everyone that the Republican leadership is out of touch with reality.
More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history. And that same day, across the country, the Democratic candidates for Senate received over 4 million more votes than Republicans.
Americans did not endorse the fringe agenda to dismantle Social Security. And they did not endorse dismantling the system of checks and balances that have served our country for over 200 years.
Please tell your Senator to stand up for free speech:
http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
This is not a partisan issue -- it is an American issue. And we all must act together in order to protect our democracy.
Thank you.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
News for March 15th: Scary White Powder Edition
Might as well start with the obvious – just what is coming through the mailrooms of America these days? Curious timing, this – just as reports are coming in that people don’t approve of Bush’s handling of social security. These alerts and problems always seem to come when public approval of Bush is low. Probably just because the terrorists hate our freedom.Oh, and I’ve noticed that there has been no confirmation on what the substance is, but I’ve already heard news reports saying it’s “confirmed” as anthrax.
Va. Defense Facility Locked Down
Similar Incident at Pentagon Spurs Queries About Coordination
By Jamie Stockwell and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A01
A sensor at a Department of Defense mailroom in Fairfax County signaled the presence of a suspicious biological substance yesterday, forcing hundreds of workers to remain inside three buildings for almost six hours.
The lockdown came just hours after the mail facility at the Pentagon, about four miles away in Arlington, was evacuated and closed. The Pentagon took that action yesterday morning after tests conducted last week came back positive for anthrax, officials said. Later tests at the Pentagon were negative.
Spokesmen for the Pentagon and the Fairfax fire department initially said the events at the Pentagon and in the Baileys Crossroads section of Fairfax were unrelated. But last night, a Virginia official said the events might be linked. In addition, emergency officials responding to the Fairfax incident said they were not aware of the Pentagon evacuation, causing Virginia's top homeland security official to say that coordination by the Defense Department would have to be reviewed.
Authorities said that there is no imminent danger to the public, that Defense Department mail is irradiated and that new detection systems worked. But state and local officials remained concerned that 3 1/2 years after the attack on the Pentagon and anthrax mailings that affected local postal facilities, coordination did not work smoothly yesterday.
"Clearly, the big question that's got to be answered is when did the DOD make the notification and did they make all appropriate notifications to make sure all federal, state and local players were aware of the problem?" said George W. Foresman, homeland security adviser to Gov. Mark R. Warner (D).
More at the Washington Post.
Just like I mentioned yesterday, they’re continuing to ignore the GAO. What’s the point of having such a body, then? Does the administration get a free pass on everything? I especially love how they’re now saying that the Justice Department interprets the law, not any outside agency. Uh, hello, Supreme Court? Hello checks and balances? I guess they mean nothing to this empire…er..presidency.
Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21
The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.
That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda.
But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow.
The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."
The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times.
Supporters say prepackaged news stories are a common public relations tool with roots in previous administrations, that their exterior packaging typically identifies the government as the source, and that it is up to news organizations, not the government, to reveal to viewers where the material they broadcast came from.
More at the Washington Post.
I really, really hate Scalia. What a slimeball. I don’t buy his “kinder, gentler” act one bit. I’m sure his corporate masters have told him to play nice for the camera.
Scalia Showing His Softer Side
Justice Moves Into Public Eye With Possible Sights Set on Chief Job
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A02
Antonin Scalia was about 12 minutes into the latest phase of his recent charm offensive yesterday when he briefly returned to type.
The famously acerbic Supreme Court justice was making a nuanced point about his disagreement with the notion of "substantive due process" when he paused and frowned at some photographers in the aisle. "Could we stop the cameras?" he directed. "I thought I announced a couple of shots at the beginning is fine, but click, click, click, click, click."
Still, it was a kinder, gentler Scalia who took questions from scholars at the Woodrow Wilson center. The extraordinarily private justice has in the past banned cameras from his speeches and was moved to apologize after reporters' tapes were confiscated at one lecture. He does not allow his speeches to be posted on the Supreme Court's Web site along with the other justices' addresses.
But lately Scalia has been stepping, squinting and blinking, into the public glare. In January, he consented to a televised debate at American University with his ideological opposite on the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer. And there he was in a lecture hall yesterday with two rows of reporters and five television cameras.
One possibility for Scalia's conversion: a looming vacancy in the office of chief justice. The current officeholder, William H. Rehnquist, is gravely ill, and President Bush is on record praising Scalia as one of his favorite jurists. So it might be shrewd for Scalia to be pursuing a bit of image polishing in advance of a hypothetical confirmation hearing.
More at the Washington Post
Other than that, a fairly light news day, unless you want to hear about how Jesus stopped the killer in Atlanta or Michael Jackson’s (There's another scary white powder) accuser didn’t tell his principal that Jackson was fondling his bits. You can find plenty of that elsewhere, I’m sure.
News for March 15th: Scary White Powder Edition
Might as well start with the obvious – just what is coming through the mailrooms of America these days? Curious timing, this – just as reports are coming in that people don’t approve of Bush’s handling of social security. These alerts and problems always seem to come when public approval of Bush is low. Probably just because the terrorists hate our freedom.Oh, and I’ve noticed that there has been no confirmation on what the substance is, but I’ve already heard news reports saying it’s “confirmed” as anthrax.
Va. Defense Facility Locked Down
Similar Incident at Pentagon Spurs Queries About Coordination
By Jamie Stockwell and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A01
A sensor at a Department of Defense mailroom in Fairfax County signaled the presence of a suspicious biological substance yesterday, forcing hundreds of workers to remain inside three buildings for almost six hours.
The lockdown came just hours after the mail facility at the Pentagon, about four miles away in Arlington, was evacuated and closed. The Pentagon took that action yesterday morning after tests conducted last week came back positive for anthrax, officials said. Later tests at the Pentagon were negative.
Spokesmen for the Pentagon and the Fairfax fire department initially said the events at the Pentagon and in the Baileys Crossroads section of Fairfax were unrelated. But last night, a Virginia official said the events might be linked. In addition, emergency officials responding to the Fairfax incident said they were not aware of the Pentagon evacuation, causing Virginia's top homeland security official to say that coordination by the Defense Department would have to be reviewed.
Authorities said that there is no imminent danger to the public, that Defense Department mail is irradiated and that new detection systems worked. But state and local officials remained concerned that 3 1/2 years after the attack on the Pentagon and anthrax mailings that affected local postal facilities, coordination did not work smoothly yesterday.
"Clearly, the big question that's got to be answered is when did the DOD make the notification and did they make all appropriate notifications to make sure all federal, state and local players were aware of the problem?" said George W. Foresman, homeland security adviser to Gov. Mark R. Warner (D).
More at the Washington Post.
Just like I mentioned yesterday, they’re continuing to ignore the GAO. What’s the point of having such a body, then? Does the administration get a free pass on everything? I especially love how they’re now saying that the Justice Department interprets the law, not any outside agency. Uh, hello, Supreme Court? Hello checks and balances? I guess they mean nothing to this empire…er..presidency.
Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21
The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.
That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda.
But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow.
The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."
The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times.
Supporters say prepackaged news stories are a common public relations tool with roots in previous administrations, that their exterior packaging typically identifies the government as the source, and that it is up to news organizations, not the government, to reveal to viewers where the material they broadcast came from.
More at the Washington Post.
I really, really hate Scalia. What a slimeball. I don’t buy his “kinder, gentler” act one bit. I’m sure his corporate masters have told him to play nice for the camera.
Scalia Showing His Softer Side
Justice Moves Into Public Eye With Possible Sights Set on Chief Job
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A02
Antonin Scalia was about 12 minutes into the latest phase of his recent charm offensive yesterday when he briefly returned to type.
The famously acerbic Supreme Court justice was making a nuanced point about his disagreement with the notion of "substantive due process" when he paused and frowned at some photographers in the aisle. "Could we stop the cameras?" he directed. "I thought I announced a couple of shots at the beginning is fine, but click, click, click, click, click."
Still, it was a kinder, gentler Scalia who took questions from scholars at the Woodrow Wilson center. The extraordinarily private justice has in the past banned cameras from his speeches and was moved to apologize after reporters' tapes were confiscated at one lecture. He does not allow his speeches to be posted on the Supreme Court's Web site along with the other justices' addresses.
But lately Scalia has been stepping, squinting and blinking, into the public glare. In January, he consented to a televised debate at American University with his ideological opposite on the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer. And there he was in a lecture hall yesterday with two rows of reporters and five television cameras.
One possibility for Scalia's conversion: a looming vacancy in the office of chief justice. The current officeholder, William H. Rehnquist, is gravely ill, and President Bush is on record praising Scalia as one of his favorite jurists. So it might be shrewd for Scalia to be pursuing a bit of image polishing in advance of a hypothetical confirmation hearing.
More at the Washington Post.
Other than that, a fairly light news day, unless you want to hear about how Jesus stopped the killer in Atlanta or Michael Jackson’s (now there's a scary white powder) accuser didn’t tell his principal that Jackson was fondling his bits. You can find plenty of that elsewhere, I’m sure.
News for March 15th: Scary White Powder Edition
Might as well start with the obvious – just what is coming through the mailrooms of America these days? Curious timing, this – just as reports are coming in that people don’t approve of Bush’s handling of social security. These alerts and problems always seem to come when public approval of Bush is low. Probably just because the terrorists hate our freedom.Oh, and I’ve noticed that there has been no confirmation on what the substance is, but I’ve already heard news reports saying it’s “confirmed” as anthrax.
Va. Defense Facility Locked Down
Similar Incident at Pentagon Spurs Queries About Coordination
By Jamie Stockwell and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A01
A sensor at a Department of Defense mailroom in Fairfax County signaled the presence of a suspicious biological substance yesterday, forcing hundreds of workers to remain inside three buildings for almost six hours.
The lockdown came just hours after the mail facility at the Pentagon, about four miles away in Arlington, was evacuated and closed. The Pentagon took that action yesterday morning after tests conducted last week came back positive for anthrax, officials said. Later tests at the Pentagon were negative.
Spokesmen for the Pentagon and the Fairfax fire department initially said the events at the Pentagon and in the Baileys Crossroads section of Fairfax were unrelated. But last night, a Virginia official said the events might be linked. In addition, emergency officials responding to the Fairfax incident said they were not aware of the Pentagon evacuation, causing Virginia's top homeland security official to say that coordination by the Defense Department would have to be reviewed.
Authorities said that there is no imminent danger to the public, that Defense Department mail is irradiated and that new detection systems worked. But state and local officials remained concerned that 3 1/2 years after the attack on the Pentagon and anthrax mailings that affected local postal facilities, coordination did not work smoothly yesterday.
"Clearly, the big question that's got to be answered is when did the DOD make the notification and did they make all appropriate notifications to make sure all federal, state and local players were aware of the problem?" said George W. Foresman, homeland security adviser to Gov. Mark R. Warner (D).
More at the Washington Post.
Just like I mentioned yesterday, they’re continuing to ignore the GAO. What’s the point of having such a body, then? Does the administration get a free pass on everything? I especially love how they’re now saying that the Justice Department interprets the law, not any outside agency. Uh, hello, Supreme Court? Hello checks and balances? I guess they mean nothing to this empire…er..presidency.
Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21
The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.
That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda.
But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow.
The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."
The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times.
Supporters say prepackaged news stories are a common public relations tool with roots in previous administrations, that their exterior packaging typically identifies the government as the source, and that it is up to news organizations, not the government, to reveal to viewers where the material they broadcast came from.
More at the Washington Post.
I really, really hate Scalia. What a slimeball. I don’t buy his “kinder, gentler” act one bit. I’m sure his corporate masters have told him to play nice for the camera.
Scalia Showing His Softer Side
Justice Moves Into Public Eye With Possible Sights Set on Chief Job
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A02
Antonin Scalia was about 12 minutes into the latest phase of his recent charm offensive yesterday when he briefly returned to type.
The famously acerbic Supreme Court justice was making a nuanced point about his disagreement with the notion of "substantive due process" when he paused and frowned at some photographers in the aisle. "Could we stop the cameras?" he directed. "I thought I announced a couple of shots at the beginning is fine, but click, click, click, click, click."
Still, it was a kinder, gentler Scalia who took questions from scholars at the Woodrow Wilson center. The extraordinarily private justice has in the past banned cameras from his speeches and was moved to apologize after reporters' tapes were confiscated at one lecture. He does not allow his speeches to be posted on the Supreme Court's Web site along with the other justices' addresses.
But lately Scalia has been stepping, squinting and blinking, into the public glare. In January, he consented to a televised debate at American University with his ideological opposite on the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer. And there he was in a lecture hall yesterday with two rows of reporters and five television cameras.
One possibility for Scalia's conversion: a looming vacancy in the office of chief justice. The current officeholder, William H. Rehnquist, is gravely ill, and President Bush is on record praising Scalia as one of his favorite jurists. So it might be shrewd for Scalia to be pursuing a bit of image polishing in advance of a hypothetical confirmation hearing.
More at the Washington Post.
Other than that, a fairly light news day, unless you want to hear about how Jesus stopped the killer in Atlanta or Michael Jackson’s (now there's a scary white powder) accuser didn’t tell his principal that Jackson was fondling his bits. You can find plenty of that elsewhere, I’m sure.
News for March 15th: Scary White Powder Edition
Might as well start with the obvious – just what is coming through the mailrooms of America these days? Curious timing, this – just as reports are coming in that people don’t approve of Bush’s handling of social security. These alerts and problems always seem to come when public approval of Bush is low. Probably just because the terrorists hate our freedom.Oh, and I’ve noticed that there has been no confirmation on what the substance is, but I’ve already heard news reports saying it’s “confirmed” as anthrax.
Va. Defense Facility Locked Down
Similar Incident at Pentagon Spurs Queries About Coordination
By Jamie Stockwell and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A01
A sensor at a Department of Defense mailroom in Fairfax County signaled the presence of a suspicious biological substance yesterday, forcing hundreds of workers to remain inside three buildings for almost six hours.
The lockdown came just hours after the mail facility at the Pentagon, about four miles away in Arlington, was evacuated and closed. The Pentagon took that action yesterday morning after tests conducted last week came back positive for anthrax, officials said. Later tests at the Pentagon were negative.
Spokesmen for the Pentagon and the Fairfax fire department initially said the events at the Pentagon and in the Baileys Crossroads section of Fairfax were unrelated. But last night, a Virginia official said the events might be linked. In addition, emergency officials responding to the Fairfax incident said they were not aware of the Pentagon evacuation, causing Virginia's top homeland security official to say that coordination by the Defense Department would have to be reviewed.
Authorities said that there is no imminent danger to the public, that Defense Department mail is irradiated and that new detection systems worked. But state and local officials remained concerned that 3 1/2 years after the attack on the Pentagon and anthrax mailings that affected local postal facilities, coordination did not work smoothly yesterday.
"Clearly, the big question that's got to be answered is when did the DOD make the notification and did they make all appropriate notifications to make sure all federal, state and local players were aware of the problem?" said George W. Foresman, homeland security adviser to Gov. Mark R. Warner (D).
More at the Washington Post.
Just like I mentioned yesterday, they’re continuing to ignore the GAO. What’s the point of having such a body, then? Does the administration get a free pass on everything? I especially love how they’re now saying that the Justice Department interprets the law, not any outside agency. Uh, hello, Supreme Court? Hello checks and balances? I guess they mean nothing to this empire…er..presidency.
Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21
The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.
That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda.
But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow.
The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."
The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times.
Supporters say prepackaged news stories are a common public relations tool with roots in previous administrations, that their exterior packaging typically identifies the government as the source, and that it is up to news organizations, not the government, to reveal to viewers where the material they broadcast came from.
More at the Washington Post.
I really, really hate Scalia. What a slimeball. I don’t buy his “kinder, gentler” act one bit. I’m sure his corporate masters have told him to play nice for the camera.
Scalia Showing His Softer Side
Justice Moves Into Public Eye With Possible Sights Set on Chief Job
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A02
Antonin Scalia was about 12 minutes into the latest phase of his recent charm offensive yesterday when he briefly returned to type.
The famously acerbic Supreme Court justice was making a nuanced point about his disagreement with the notion of "substantive due process" when he paused and frowned at some photographers in the aisle. "Could we stop the cameras?" he directed. "I thought I announced a couple of shots at the beginning is fine, but click, click, click, click, click."
Still, it was a kinder, gentler Scalia who took questions from scholars at the Woodrow Wilson center. The extraordinarily private justice has in the past banned cameras from his speeches and was moved to apologize after reporters' tapes were confiscated at one lecture. He does not allow his speeches to be posted on the Supreme Court's Web site along with the other justices' addresses.
But lately Scalia has been stepping, squinting and blinking, into the public glare. In January, he consented to a televised debate at American University with his ideological opposite on the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer. And there he was in a lecture hall yesterday with two rows of reporters and five television cameras.
One possibility for Scalia's conversion: a looming vacancy in the office of chief justice. The current officeholder, William H. Rehnquist, is gravely ill, and President Bush is on record praising Scalia as one of his favorite jurists. So it might be shrewd for Scalia to be pursuing a bit of image polishing in advance of a hypothetical confirmation hearing.
More at the Washington Post.
Other than that, a fairly light news day, unless you want to hear about how Jesus stopped the killer in Atlanta or Michael Jackson’s (now there's a scary white powder) accuser didn’t tell his principal that Jackson was fondling his bits. You can find plenty of that elsewhere, I’m sure.