MY POV

IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

How Bush really feels about you.

The Mars Society

Satire has never served a better purpose. Go see.
Before they cart us off to the camps.

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."

Benito Mussolini

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln
November 12, 1864

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided man."

Martin Luther King Jr., 1963

"CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

James Madison
(1751-1836)
4th President of the United States

"Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings."

Heinrich Heine
Almansor, 1823

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Sir Winston Churchill
(1874-1965)

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarschall

"Authoritarian societies inevitably crumble because they silence the critics who could save them from errors of blind hubris. Dissent is not a luxury to be indulged in the best of times, but rather an obligation of free people, particularly when the very notion of dissent is unpopular."

Robert Scheer

"FASCISM: a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism."

American Heritage Dictionary

Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is
neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it
because it is right.

Dr. Martin Luther King

"My life is my message."

Gandhi

Posted: 30 April 2005

From People for the American Way

House and Senate members are currently negotiating a final bill funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as providing aid to tsunami victims. The House has attached dangerous language to this "must-pass" bill that would grant the Secretary of Homeland Security unlimited powers which could not be challenged in any court. These powers would include the authority to suspend any law -- including environmental, civil rights and labor laws -- that the Secretary deems an obstacle to U.S. border security.

This legislation, called the REAL ID Act, must be stripped out in conference committee or it will surely become law, creating a terrible precedent for unchecked government power and threatening the safety of millions living in the U.S. or seeking asylum here.

Call today and tell your senator on the conference committee to strip the REAL ID Act language from the Iraq war appropriations bill (H.R. 1268).

Here are some talking points to reinforce your message:

The REAL ID Act would give the Secretary of Homeland Security unlimited powers not subject to judicial review, allowing the Secretary to trample our rights. Under the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security would have authority to waive "all laws" -- including environmental, civil rights and labor laws -- that s/he determines would interfere with the construction of barriers and roads along our nation's borders. For example, if the Secretary decided it would be cheaper to hire children to construct a border fence, s/he could waive child labor laws to make it happen. These decisions could not be challenged in any court because the bill also exempts such decisions from judicial review.

The Act would deny asylum to people fleeing persecution in other countries. In one of the bill's most perverse twists, victims seeking asylum in the U.S. would have to obtain corroborating evidence of their persecution, such as documentation from the persecuting government. The bill would also give U.S. officials more power to deny asylum applications based on unproven or irrelevant information, and would prohibit U.S. courts from reviewing these discretionary judgments. This would effectively make asylum applicants completely dependent on the whims of officials at the Justice and Homeland Security departments.

The Act will force more immigrants into the shadows of society, harming the safety of immigrants and non-immigrants alike. The bill would require that states make driver's license applicants prove that they are in the U.S. legally and essentially turn motor-vehicle department employees into immigration agents. These new requirements could force many of the estimated 9 to 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to forego getting a driver's license or to obtain one fraudulently. As a result, many would also lack driver training and insurance, meaning more hazardous road conditions for all. The REAL ID Act is a recipe for disaster, threatening the rights and safety of millions of Americans. Its sponsors clearly know it, or they wouldn't have been so devious as to attach it to a bill that those in our military and those recovering from natural disaster are counting on.

Were the REAL ID Act debated in Congress at length and as a stand-alone bill, there is little doubt it that large majorities would be outraged by its assault on checks and balances and immigrants to the U.S. Your call to your senator, and those made by your friends, are the last, best hope to awaken that outrage and defeat this deeply flawed legislation.

Please contact your senator today and forward this alert to friends and family members in the states listed to the right. Sound the alarm to make sure that the REAL ID Act doesn't sneak into our nation's laws and undermine our democratic principles.

Thank you,
Ralph G. Neas, President

Learn about other critical flaws in the REAL ID Act at:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17851

Once again, Molly Ivins calls it like it is. Are you tired of being shafted by the Bushies yet?

Dumb Dems let GOP run wild
Regular people continue to lose ground

AUSTIN, Texas -- Being of the populist persuasion, I am a terminal fan of Thomas Frank, who has gone from "What's the Matter With Kansas?" to "What's the Matter With Liberals?" in the current issue of the New York Review of Books, which is a good spot for it.

Those of us in the beer-drinking, pick-up-truck-driving, country-music-listening school of liberals in the hinterlands particularly appreciate his keen dissection of how the Republicans use class resentment against "elitist liberals," while waging class warfare on people who work for a living.

The unholy combination of theocracy and plutocracy that now rules this country is, in fact, enabled by dumb liberals. Many a weary liberal on the Internet and elsewhere has been involved in the tedious study of the entrails from the last election, trying to figure out where Democrats went wrong. I don't have a dog in that fight, but I can guarantee you where they're going wrong for the next election: 73 Democratic House members and 18 Democratic senators voted for that hideous bankruptcy "reform" bill that absolutely screws regular people.

The Economic Policy Institute reports the economic well-being of middle-class families has declined between 2000 and 2003 for three reasons: the generally lousy economy, the Bush tax policies and the cost of health care.

The Tax Justice Network recently reported the world's richest individuals have placed $11.5 trillion in assets in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes, a sum 10 times the GDP of Great Britain. The most authoritative study yet done shows that rich people clip $860 billion in coupons a year off this money.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a brand-new study out showing the uneven division of the fruits of the supposed economic recovery:

"The data show that the share of real income growth that has gone to wages and salaries has been smaller than during any other comparable post-World War II recovery period, while the share of real income growth that has gone to corporate profits has been larger than during all other comparable post-World War II recoveries."

In previous recoveries, workers got an average of 49 percent of the national income gains, while corporate profits got 18 percent. This time, the workers are getting 23 percent and the corporations are getting 44 percent -- about one half as much as the share that has gone to corporate profits.

None of that apply to you? Good. Go listen to Tom DeLay give another lecture on moral values.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

From Grist on-line magazine

Bush pushes refineries and nuke plants as solution to high energy prices

Many analysts say high energy prices are the result of inefficient use of non-renewable resources. President Bush does not employ any of those analysts. In a speech today, he will propose to address the "root causes" of high energy prices by, um, increasing the inefficient use of non-renewable resources. His five proposals will likely end up in the energy bill by the time the Senate votes on it. They are: encourage the construction of oil refineries on closed military bases; encourage the construction of nuclear power plants by easing the licensing process and providing federal risk insurance (long live the free market!); increase federal authority -- i.e., decrease state authority -- over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals; encourage other countries to promote nuclear, "clean coal," and other slightly less polluting energy sources; and allow purchases of cars and trucks running on "clean diesel" to receive the same tax credit already slated for hybrid and fuel- cell vehicles.

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Warren Vieth, 27 Apr 2005

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press, H. Josef Hebert, 27 Apr 2005

Gas drilling limited by equipment, workers -- not access to federal land

To hear the Bush administration tell it, domestic energy production is limited by lack of access to federal lands. Vice President Dick Cheney is galled that "large parts of the Rocky Mountain West are off-limits." But according to government records, industry experts, and local officials, there's plenty of access for gas drilling. In fact, there's so much access that there's not enough person-power and equipment to keep up with it. The Bureau of Land Management issued a record number of gas-drilling permits last year, outnumbering the available drilling rigs and qualified workers. And industry officials don't expect to catch up anytime soon, as it can take a year or more for delivery of new rigs. Even as new training schools open up, energy companies have asked for some 5,000 new workers over the next five years just to fulfill current leases. The apparent disconnect between Bush policy -- more access! -- and, well, the truth has left some energy analysts puzzled.

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Blaine Harden, 28 Apr 2005

From Organic Consumers

MAD COW COVER-UP
The USDA has been covering up cases of Mad Cow Disease, according to a USDA veterinarian in charge of monitoring cattle for the fatal disease. On the eve of retirement, Dr. Masua Doi confessed to sketchy testing since 1997. "I don't want to carry on off to my retirement," said Doi. "I want to hand it over to someone to continue, to find out. I think it's very, very important. How many did we miss?" Doi's concerns are shared by other USDA contracted scientists, like Dr. Karl Langheindrich who runs a test lab in Georgia and says the appropriate animal parts are not sent to him for accurate testing. In addition, two weeks ago, U.S. agriculture inspector Lester Friedlander offered testimony to a Canadian House of Commons committee revealing the U.S. has been covering up Mad Cow cases.

The USDA has refused to respond to any of these allegations. Learn more and sign the Mad Cow petition to the USDA http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm

From The Center for American Progress

TERRORISM – THE HIDDEN "DISTURBING" TRUTH: Breaking with a yearly precedent set in 1985, the State Department announced last week that it was "withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report," reportedly because the data raised "disturbing questions about the Bush administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism." Some of those statistics were communicated in a briefing on the Hill this week, and the results were, indeed, "disturbing." According to congressional aides who were briefed on the statistics, "the number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year." Terrorist incidents in Iraq "also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total – a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly" after the U.S. handover of power. "Last year was bad. This year is worse," said former State Department counterterrorism specialist Larry Johnson. "They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing."

Rumsfeld's Press Crackdown
ecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has launched the latest attack in the administration's war on a free and independent media. The Pentagon is requiring reporters covering the court-martial of U.S. Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar at Fort Bragg, N.C., to "sign agreements that limit their ability to perform their jobs under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." In order to gain access to the proceeding, reporters must "pledge to not interview soldiers at Fort Bragg about the case or ask legal advisors in the media room to speculate on the outcome." Reporters who don't sign aren't allowed to cover the case. These restrictions aren't taken lightly. To ensure compliance, journalists are "escorted everywhere while on base and some were monitored as they went to the restroom." Eugene Fidel, a military law expert, "said he has never heard of restrictions against talking to soldiers," calling such limitations "crazy."

SUDAN – CIA GETS BUDDY-BUDDY WITH GENOCIDAL GOV'T: The U.S. has buddied up to the top intelligence chief in Sudan, Maj. Gen. Salah Abdallah Gosh, maintaining a close friendship with the man who has played a "key role" in directing the massacres in Darfur. Just last week, according to the Los Angeles Times, the CIA ferried him to Washington "for secret meetings sealing Khartoum's sensitive and previously veiled partnership with the administration." It's all part of a Bush administration's plan to "forge a close intelligence partnership with the Islamic regime that once welcomed Osama bin Laden," offering Sudan increased ties and "normalized" intelligence relations in return for coordination in crackdowns on al-Qaeda militants and other suspected terrorists. White House officials insist the new ties won't lead to a softening of its policy toward Sudan, but an October report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service suggested just the opposite, stating the administration was "concerned that going after these individuals could disrupt cooperation on counter-terrorism." Just this month, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick "backed away from the Bush administration's assertions that the mass killings and village burning amounted to genocide," despite the fact that "Darfur's death toll is likely to be even more appalling this year than last," according to the Washington Post.

MEDIA – WITH PRESS, WHITE HOUSE NOT COLOR BLIND: Breaking with standard practice, the Secret Service has requested racial information on journalists and guests scheduled to attend a reception for White House correspondents tomorrow with President Bush. The Washington Post reports that White House reporters were offended that "after furnishing the customary information – name, date of birth and Social Security number – they were also asked for the race of each person expected to attend the small reception scheduled before the White House Correspondents' Association's annual dinner." Such policy "has not been applied universally," and anecdotal evidence "suggests the Secret Service is more frequently asking for racial information from journalists." Just last month, for example, "the Orange County Register reported that Cheney's staff requested race and gender information before the vice president would meet with the newspaper's editorial board."

SOCIAL SECURITY
Massive Middle-Class Benefit Cuts

Last night the president proposed deep Social Security benefit cuts for middle-class Americans. He formally "backed a specific plan to reduce future benefits for tens of millions of Americans." Yet in presenting the idea of progressive indexation – a change in law that will give workers less money by tying their benefits to inflation instead of wage growth – President Bush described it as a system "where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." Here is the part he skipped: the plan "would reduce annual benefits for an average wage-earner who is 25 today and retires in 2045 by 16 percent.… For an average-earner who retires in 2075, the benefit reduction would be 28 percent."

THE SHELL GAME: There are only two ways to improve Social Security's solvency: either increase the amount of money going into the system or decrease the amount of money leaving the system. If the president's plan solves as much of the system's funding problem as the White House claims it does, then it accomplishes this success through benefit cuts or increases in the payroll tax. Last night, the president dishonestly described his plan in a way that suggested it involves neither of those two options. Not only did the president not acknowledge the sweeping cuts that would be made under his plan, but his definition of a "high wage earner" was equally as misleading. A worker making $58,000 a year – who will see his or her benefits cut by 42 percent under the president's plan – certainly could not be considered "affluent."

WHERE'S THE BEEF?: In praising his plan, President Bush claimed that it guarantees "future generations [will] receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get." But that isn't an improvement over the current system. The Social Security Administration estimates that the system's reserves will be exhausted by 2041; at that point, "benefits would be almost three-quarters what is currently promised, and considerably higher in inflation-adjusted terms than they are now." Bottom line: "If nothing is done to Social Security, the system will be able to meet the president's promise to ensure that all seniors receive a benefit larger than current levels."

ALL IDEAS ARE NOT ON THE TABLE: Bush was directly asked if he would "consider it a success if Congress were to pass a piece of legislation that dealt with the long-term solvency problem but did not include personal accounts." Bush responded, "I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary personal savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system. I mean, it's got to be a part of a comprehensive package." His answer reveals the president is more concerned with his ideological agenda than solving Social Security's problems.

BUDGET
Bush Speaks Softly, Congress Carries Big Axe

Last night President Bush proposed changing Social Security so low-income Americans would never have to "retire into poverty." Thanks to the federal budget crafted by the president and passed last night by conservatives in both houses of Congress, they won't have to wait until they retire. Besides adding $5.3 billion in new, regressive taxes that will hit middle- and lower-income Americans hardest, the conservative budget features "cuts in scores of programs that middle- and low-income families rely on." Most notably, Congress voted to slash Medicaid – the country's premier health program for the poor – by $10 billion over the next five years.

THE MEDICAID "VICTORY": The $10 billion in Medicaid cuts is significantly less than what the president had asked to be included in his budget, but will nevertheless be devastating for cash-strapped states struggling to provide adequate care. Medicaid, already facing increased costs "driven primarily by enrollment growth due to the economic downturn," was the single largest proposed reduction in the Bush 2006 budget. Governors from across the country implored Congress to hold back on the cuts, and seemed to gain some traction when the Senate voted to strip Medicaid cuts and set up a bipartisan commission to study the problem last month. That's why White House officials counted the $10 billion blow to the country's poorest and neediest "as a victory."

BUSTING THE BUDGET: In the name of "fiscal discipline," the budget passed yesterday by Congress slashes funding for education, health care and job training, but clears the way for $106 billion in new tax cuts over five years. Conservatives wanted to make sure that much of that money could never be used for anything useful, so $70 billion is "shielded from a Senate filibuster," including extensions of Wall Street specials like the 2003 cuts to capital gains and dividend tax rates. As the Washington Post notes, "the cost of those tax-cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts." According to CBPP, the budget will actually "increase deficits over the next five years by $168 billion, compared with the deficits the Congressional Budget Office estimates would occur if there were no changes in policies."

Posted: 28 April 2005

Ways and Means Kills Inquiry into Question on Trust Fund

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Last night, in a rare Monday night session, the Ways and Means Committee of the United States House of Representative voted 22-1 against a resolution which would require the President to produce documentation supporting his oft-repeated claim that there is no Social Security Trust.

The action stopped a Resolution of Inquiry from proceeding to the full House for a vote. I introduced the resolution last month after President Bush had claimed in a meeting in New Hampshire that "there is no Social Security trust." He has since repeated the assertion. The implications of the President's assertions about the Social Security trust fund are quite serious for the 48 million Americans who currently rely on Social Security, and for those who will become recipients in the future.

According to the Social Security Administration's own trustees, Social Security has $1.68 trillion in the Trust Fund. According to the Social Security Administration the surplus will grow to over $6 trillion.

Most interesting, however, the President's assertion that there is no Trust Fund comes at a time when the Administration has borrowed over $637.4 billion from the fund obtained in highly regressive taxes on American workers. That borrowed money is, in effect, being used to help fund an illegal war and to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

If the President's assertions remain unchallenged, the Administration can continue to drain the Trust Fund of its assets and make true its now false claim that Social Security has no Trust Fund and is going bankrupt. They only need the complicity of the Congress.

Now the Congressional committee which has direct jurisdiction over Social Security is refusing to hold the President accountable for his statements. In other words, the Committee itself doesn't want the President to produce any documents supporting his claim that there is no Social Security Trust.

If Congress had formally asked the President to produce documents backing up his contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he would have been unable to do so and would have lacked a sufficient cause to go to war.

If Congress had formally asked the President to produce documents that the United States could afford massive tax cuts to the wealthy without going into huge deficits, he would have been unable to do so and we would not be cutting funds for education, housing, job-creation and other social services (nor borrowing from Social Security) to mask the increasing inability of the government to balance its budget.

The President has a Constitutional obligation to uphold the public debt of the United States. Social Security's financial obligations are, according to the Social Security Trustees, backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States". If, indeed, there is no Social Security trust - as the President asserts with the political protection of his Congressional majority - then it is clear that the President is heading towards a direct challenge to his own constitutional authority and legal responsibilities to affirm the financial obligations of Social Security.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich
www.kucinich.us

Posted: 25 April 2005

This Flash animation is a powerful reminder of the true price of war...and who pays it.

From Grist on-line magazine

Language in budget bill could unravel federal environmental protections

Buried deep in the 2,000-page budget bill President Bush recently sent to Congress is a three-sentence provision that threatens to eviscerate environmental and other protections. Authored by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the provision would, if passed unamended, subject any and all federal programs to the scrutiny of a "Sunset Commission." The eight-member panel, appointed by the president, would have the power to kill any programs not "producing results." Programs deemed non-productive would "automatically terminate unless the Congress took action to continue them." "This is potentially devastating," warned Wesley Warren, who served in the OMB under President Clinton. "In short order, this could knock out protections that have been built up over a generation." The provision raises thorny constitutional questions, as it would subject congressional powers to what amounts to executive approval. Still, says Clay Johnson of the Bush OMB, "We just think it makes sense."

straight to the source: Rolling Stone, Osha Gray Davidson, 05 May 2005

Further proof of Bush's disdain for nature and the public good.

U.S Forest Service looks for sites to close down

PORTLAND (AP) — The cash-strapped U.S. Forest Service can no longer afford to maintain many of its parks and has started ranking recreational sites, including campgrounds and trailheads, for possible closure.

Oregon’s Deschutes and Winema national forests are among the first to go up for review, The Oregonian reported.

Forest Service officials say the crunch is partly a result of President Bush’s Healthy Forest Initiative, a push to thin flammable Western forests, which has diverted money away from the upkeep of forest facilities.

From The Center for American Progress

ETHICS – DELAY JUNKET CHARGED TO ABRAMOFF'S CARD: In violation of House rules, airfare for Tom DeLay's (R-TX) luxurious "educational trip" to London and Scotland in 2000 was "charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe," the Washington Post reports. DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist and former DeLay chief of staff, Ed Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip. "House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists." DeLay maintains he had "no way of knowing that any lobbyist might have financially supported the trip," but former DeLay Chief of Staff Susan Hirschmann confirms DeLay's congressional office was in direct contact with Abramoff's law firm, Preston Gates, about the trip itinerary before DeLay's departure.

IRAQ – THE STORY OF COMPANY E: The New York Times today profiles the experiences of marines from Company E, a unit which lost more than one-third of its 185 troops during a six-month stint in Ramadi, Iraq last year. After returning to the United States, members of the company, part of a battalion nicknamed the "Magnificent Bastards," have broken with the traditional code of silence to tell their story, "one they say was punctuated not only by a lack of armor but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of their fiercest warriors." They tell of the four marines who died because their unarmored Humvee was only rigged with enough scrounged scrap metal shields to protect them up to their shoulders. Since the marines of Company E had less than half the troops they needed to fight, at times, they were forced to create "dummy marines" out of cardboard cutouts and camouflage shirts, which they placed in observation posts. In another tragic case, during one deadly firefight, the unit didn't have enough vehicles to rescue fellow soldiers in trouble; while marines tried in vain to hotwire a dump truck, 10 men in the unit died. Capt. Chae J. Han, a member of the Pentagon team documenting Marine camps in Iraq said, "It was pitiful. Everything was just slapped on armor, just homemade, not armor that was given to us through the normal logistical system." Their commander, Captain Royer, repeatedly asked for more men and armor for his troops; his requests were denied and he was later removed from his post.

EMPLOYMENT – GUTTING PROGRAMS TO HELP THE DISABLED: Joannne Wilson, the former commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, is sharply criticizing the White House for its efforts to "dismantle" programs to help the disabled. The RSA "provides money, technical assistance and oversight" to state agencies which help the blind, deaf, paralyzed or intellectually disabled find jobs, live independently and develop marketable skills. The program serves about 1.2 million people. According to Wilson, however, the Bush administration is gutting the office's funding and staffing. The Bush administration is also pushing states to combine RSA programs with generic job placement programs which serve both the disabled and able-bodied, a move which leaves the disabled with fewer services dedicated to helping them. Former RSA Commissioner Fredric K. Schroeder agreed that consolidating employment programs would end up hurting the disabled, saying, "The way you rehabilitate a person with a severe disability is very different than the way you help a dislocated worker return to the workforce."

MEDICAID – NEEDY GROW AS FUNDS SHRINK: With states struggling to cover record numbers of people on Medicaid and governors nationwide expressing concern about running out of money to cover the needy, "the federal government's contribution to Medicaid is shrinking – the biggest two-year drop in the program's history – because of the formula used to calculate the federal share of costs under Medicaid and a related program for needy children called the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)." Congress is debating further cuts as deep as $25 billion to $45 billion over 10 years to Medicaid, but the formula cuts "are a sure-fire hit that will only add to the budget troubles of states already facing spiraling Medicaid costs." New Mexico, for instance, stands to lose $81 million in fiscal 2006, Alaska $80 million and Louisiana $69 million. Altogether, the changes for fiscal 2006 mean states will collect $500 million less in federal matching funds.

Frist's Message of Divisiveness

Yesterday was the much anticipated "Justice Sunday," the offensive event sponsored by right-wing religious groups willing to pervert their religion for misbegotten political purposes. Though hundreds of religious leaders, even his own reverend, implored Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to reconsider his participation in the event or use that opportunity to repudiate the message of divisiveness and religious manipulation that is at the core of the gathering," Sen. Frist did neither. Instead, Frist joined the festivities through a videotaped statement – a "stunt that in itself [imbued] 'Justice Sunday' with a touch of all-American spectacle worthy of 'The Wizard of Oz'" – and "stepped up his threats to change Senate rules … while simultaneously calling for 'more civility in political life.'"

REVISIONIST TACTICS: At the beginning of the event, Family Research Council President and event organizer Tony Perkins stated, "We are not saying that people who disagree with us are not people of faith." However, the flier promoting the event read, "The Filibuster against People of Faith: The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith." This was not the only attempt to rewrite history during the telecast. In denouncing the filibuster, Frist claimed, "I don't think it's radical to ask senators to vote.… I don't think it's radical to restore precedents that worked so well for 214 years." In 2000, Frist was among a group of conservatives who voted to filibuster an appeals court judge nominated by then-President Clinton, because he had already decided Judge Richard Paez was "out of the mainstream of political thought and ... should [not] be on the court."

LETTING COLLEAGUES DO THE DIRTY WORK: Sen. Frist shied away from attacks on the judiciary by saying, "When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so … the balance of power among all three branches requires respect – not retaliation. I won't go along with that." Frist may claim not to go along with it, but a man is often judged by the company he keeps. Focus on the Family's Chairman James Dobson – who also participated in the event – recently compared the Supreme Court to the KKK, chided the Court's majority as "unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious and determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values, and they're out of control." Furthermore, both Dobson and Perkins have been caught plotting how to undermine judges with whom they disagree.

FRIST BACKS THE WRONG JUDGE: Though Frist "neither referred to religious faith nor addressed criticism that the event was inappropriately dragging religion into a partisan battle," he did take a step out there and "singled out Judge Priscilla Owen, one of the blocked appeals court nominees, for praise in the telecast." This specific mention of Owen is seen as "suggesting she may become the contested nominee at the focus of the looming showdown." For all the conservative talk against judicial activism, Frist should know that Owen has a long record of extremist decisions such that then colleague and Texas Supreme Court Justice Alberto Gonzales went so far as to describe one of her decisions as "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

WHAT'S IN A NAME?: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who is an opponent of doing away with the democratic right to a filibuster, put it best when he said: "It's not called 'nuclear' for nothing." The catastrophic consequences that can result from silencing the minority fly in the face of Senate tradition and undermine the essence of democracy. Now conservatives are trying to change the terminology so that their reckless plan does not sound as bad. As recently as November of last year, Sen. Frist (R-TN) was calling the move "the nuclear option," but as of late he says that is a term used by his opponents. Conservatives have tried the terms "constitutional option" and "fairness option" on for size, but now they are trying to incorporate name smears into the latest lexicon. Yesterday on Face the Nation, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) insisted on calling the plan "the Byrd option," pushing the false claims that Sen. Byrd (D-WV) employed such a dangerous tactic. (Today the Center for American Progress is hosting an event featuring Sen. Byrd (D-WV) to discuss the role of the filibuster in protecting minority rights and providing an effective counterweight to presidential power.)

Posted: 24 April 2005

The best way to counter this problem is to speak out, to write letters, to make your own voices heard. It may be up to us to wake up the media.

Bush's War on the Press
by Eric Alterman

Journalists, George Bernard Shaw once said, "are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." How odd, given the profession's un-equaled reputation for narcissism, that Shaw's observation holds true even when the collapsing "civilization" is their own.

Make no mistake: The Bush Administration and its ideological allies are employing every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function to hold power accountable. In fact, the Administration recognizes no such constitutional role for the press. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has insisted that the media "don't represent the public any more than other people do.... I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function."

Bush himself, on more than one occasion, has told reporters he does not read their work and prefers to live inside the information bubble blown by his loyal minions. Vice President Cheney feels free to kick the New York Times off his press plane, and John Ashcroft can refuse to speak with any print reporters during his Patriot-Act-a-palooza publicity tour, just to compliant local TV. As an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."

But the White House and its supporters are doing more than just talking trash--when they talk at all. They are taking aggressive action: preventing journalists from doing their job by withholding routine information; deliberately releasing deceptive information on a regular basis; bribing friendly journalists to report the news in a favorable context; producing their own "news reports" and distributing these free of charge to resource-starved broadcasters; creating and crediting their own political activists as "journalists" working for partisan operations masquerading as news organizations. In addition, an Administration-appointed special prosecutor, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, is now threatening two journalists with jail for refusing to disclose the nature of conversations they had regarding stories they never wrote, opening up a new frontier of potential prosecution. All this has come in the wake of a decades-long effort by the right and its corporate allies to subvert journalists' ability to report fairly on power and its abuse by attaching the label "liberal bias" to even the most routine forms of information gathering and reportage (for a transparent example in today's papers, see under "DeLay, Tom"). Some of these tactics have been used by previous administrations too, but the Bush team and its supporters have invested in and deployed them to a degree that marks a categorical shift from the past.

The Bush attack on the press has three primary components--Secrecy, Lies and Fake News. Consider these examples:

READ THE REST.

Posted: 23 April 2005

Extreme danger signs! The Neo-Con Radical Right Repubs are really out to screw us. They want to have everything their way, and they're willing to corrupt the checks and balances of government to do it. They don't give a damn about fairness, justice, or the Constitution. They're corrupt power-hungry, hate-mongering thugs with the ethics of a demented weevil.

Dems' filibusters cast as attack on 'people of faith'
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Democrats used words such as "extreme" and "un-American" Sunday to describe an upcoming telecast that frames their opposition to certain judicial nominees as an assault on "people of faith." They said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who plans to speak on the program, should not be part of it.

Frist is trying to win support for a ban on the use of the filibuster, a technique to delay Senate business, to block votes on judicial nominees. He has agreed to give a videotaped speech Sunday for Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith.

"It's a very dangerous, extreme thing. There is no telling what it might launch," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said on CNN's Late Edition.

READ THE REST.

If you weren't already convinced...

Cheney warns Democrats on judicial filibusters
Senate Republicans moving toward final confrontation

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney warned Democrats Friday that he will cast the tie-breaking vote to ban filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees if the Senate deadlocks on the question.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said the White House "has stepped over the line by interfering with the Senate to reduce checks and balances."

"The White House has always wanted to reduce the Senate's power and the fact that Vice President Cheney is encouraging this abuse of power should strengthen the Senate's resolve to resist," Schumer said.

Frist's plan has been dubbed the "nuclear option" because Democrats have promised to retaliate by blocking the rest of Bush's legislative agenda -- excluding spending and highway bills and national security measures.

Republicans say negative polling numbers wouldn't deter them.

READ THE REST.

But there are some people who see the truth.

Frist's Bad Faith
Courier-Journal op ed

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist received some mild praise recently when he backed away from the incendiary attacks on the courts by his House counterpart, Tom DeLay.

Apparently, however, it was the messenger and not the message that troubled him.

In the latest twist to the reckless Republican assault on the integrity and independence of the American judicial system, Sen. Frist has agreed to contribute a videotaped speech to a conservative Christian simulcast that portrays Democrats as opposing "people of faith" for federal judgeships.

That's utter rubbish, and Sen. Frist knows it.

The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of only 10 of President Bush's nominees to the federal bench, while more than 200 have been confirmed. Religion has not been an issue in the approval or rejection of these judges. The handful that have been blocked are from the ideological fringe or are hindered by evidence of unethical behavior.

But this small number of frustrations -- trivial compared to the number of Bill Clinton's nominations that were blocked by the GOP -- enrage the Republican right. They want Sen. Frist to change Senate rules to prevent use of the filibuster tactic to thwart nominations.

It's hard to know which is worse: Sen. Frist's implicit view that the Senate's responsibility is to rubber-stamp all of Mr. Bush's nominees, or his willingness to smear Democrats by suggesting they are motivated by religious prejudice.

Meanwhile, the telecast on which Sen. Frist has agreed to participate -- it's entitled "Justice Sunday" and will originate from Highview Baptist Church in Louisville -- is similarly scurrilous. (It also raises the question of why Highview Baptist should retain tax-exempt status if it is to be used in such blatantly political fashion.)

The event targets judges who supposedly, in the words of one organizer, "rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

That, too, is a fantasy. America's religious freedom is its guarantee that anyone can choose any faith, or no faith, without government interference. The First Amendment specifically bars the government from favoring and promoting any one religious tradition.

In a sense, this is a sequel to a play we've seen before. In the original, anyone who opposed the President's war policy was called unpatriotic. Now those who resist any of his judicial candidates are anti-Christian.

Republicans, apparently, are more American than other citizens, and are closer to God. Or so they would have you believe.

Posted: 10 April 2005

Enforced Consensus is the best descriptions I've heard for what is happening under the current administration.

When Facts Collide With Beliefs . . .
by Jay Bookman

The autopsy of Terri Schiavo should confirm beyond scientific doubt that most of her cerebral cortex had turned to fluid, meaning it would have been impossible for her to recognize visitors, try to speak, make eye contact or perform any of the other basic human functions attributed to her.

If so, it raises an intriguing question: Once confronted with incontrovertible proof that they were wrong on a claim they stressed so hard, will House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and others rethink their position on Schiavo's fate? Will they entertain even the slightest of regrets for their angry, self-righteous rhetoric?

Not a chance.

In our post-factual world, something as straightforward as an autopsy report won't have any impact whatsoever. Conclusions have become immune to facts; for too many, the only facts that are valid are those that confirm what they already "know" to be true.

Examples of that mind-set are all too easy to find. Just last week, a presidential commission tried to explain how our intelligence agencies and top government officials could have gotten things so wrong about Iraq. By its account, once our leaders convinced each other that Iraq possessed WMD and was pursuing nuclear weapons, the only "facts" they were willing to consider were those confirming that cherished belief.

As the commission put it, our government was crippled by "a culture of enforced consensus."

That's a chilling phrase, not least because "culture of enforced consensus" describes so much of what goes on these days. For example, it describes perfectly what happened during the 2004 campaign, when only die-hard supporters of President Bush were allowed to attend his rallies.

More alarming still, that same tactic is being used in the president's "nonpartisan" appearances as he tries to build support for his faltering Social Security plan. In North Dakota, 40 local people were barred from the president's "town meeting" not for security reasons, but because they might have dared to disagree. In Denver, three citizens were escorted out of the president's audience because they had driven up to the event in a car bearing a "No Blood for Oil" bumper sticker. That was evidence enough to bar them from meeting with their president, at an event paid for with their tax dollars.

In a way, this is nothing new — not unique to our time and place. The Catholic Church was enforcing the consensus of the 17th century when it intimidated Galileo into recanting his finding that the Earth revolved around the sun. Today in India, Hindu nationalists are forcing the government to rewrite the nation's history books to falsely minimize the contributions of India's Muslim minority.

In both cases, historic and scientific fact were perceived as threats to what people wanted very much to believe, so the facts were repressed.

There are disturbing echoes of that phenomenon here in this country as well. It helps explain how 70 percent of Bush voters still clung to the belief on Election Day that WMD had been found in Iraq. It also explains the push to introduce "intelligent design" into classrooms as an alternative to evolution. Unable to win the debate within science, a field that requires evidence and logic, intelligent design proponents prefer to argue in less rigorous settings where political pressure can be brought to bear, such as local school boards. As in India, their motivation is less a search for truth than an effort to impose a comforting cultural consensus.

Within the Republican Party, that "culture of enforced consensus" has even been expanded to require unquestioning support for the embattled DeLay, who is facing a multitude of legal woes ranging from political money-laundering to taking expensive foreign junkets from lobbyists.

"Conservative leaders across the country are working now to make sure that any politician who hopes to have conservative support in the future had better be in the forefront as we attack those who attack Tom DeLay," according to Morton Blackwell, a member of the Republican National Committee.

Apparently, conservatives will not be free to consider the considerable evidence against DeLay; to even entertain doubt about his innocence will be considered betrayal.

It's a tactic that Galileo would recognize immediately.

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.

© 2005 Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Now this scares the shit out of me.

The Crusaders
Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own image
By BOB MOSER

It's February, and 900 of America's staunchest Christian fundamentalists have gathered in Fort Lauderdale to look back on what they accomplished in last year's election -- and to plan what's next. As they assemble in the vast sanctuary of Coral Ridge Presbyterian, with all fifty state flags dangling from the rafters, three stadium-size video screens flash the name of the conference: reclaiming america for christ. These are the evangelical activists behind the nation's most effective political machine -- one that brought more than 4 million new Christian voters to the polls last November, sending George W. Bush back to the White House and thirty-two new pro-lifers to Congress. But despite their unprecedented power, fundamentalists still see themselves as a persecuted minority, waging a holy war against the godless forces of secularism. To rouse themselves, they kick off the festivities with "Soldiers of the Cross, Arise," the bloodthirstiest tune in all of Christendom: "Seize your armor, gird it on/Now the battle will be won/Soon, your enemies all slain/Crowns of glory you shall gain."

Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back.

"Most people hear them talk about a 'Christian nation' and think, 'Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,' says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell's autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. "What they don't know -- what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don't know -- is that 'Christian nation' means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water."

The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a $37-million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America -- not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president -- and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy.

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

READ THE REST.

From The Center for American Progress

ECONOMY – THE AMERICAN PAY CUT: According to the Los Angeles Times, "For the first time in 14 years, the American workforce has in effect gotten an across-the-board pay cut." Corporate profits are high – the economy last year grew 4 percent, more than the 3 percent historical average. Companies didn't feel the need to pass along those profits with increased salaries, however. As a result, in the first two months of 2004, the growth in American wages fell behind the growth in inflation. Compounding the problem, while salaries remain flat, high housing costs, rising health insurance premiums and skyrocketing energy prices have all taken their toll on the finances of American workers, especially the working poor. "The squeeze is especially intense on the 47% of the workforce whose employers don't directly provide their health insurance. For lower-income workers, who are more likely to be uninsured, the falling value of their wages is even more serious because they're more likely to live paycheck to paycheck. And rising food and energy prices take a proportionately higher toll on the poor than on the rich."

NIH – 'CLIMATE OF ALARM': According to the testimonies of two senior officials, whose word has been bolstered by documents collected by investigators, women at the National Institutes of Health "faced sexual intimidation and repeated disregard of their concerns for the welfare of patients in AIDS experiments." The sexual harassment and indifference towards federal safety regulations is so rampant that the "government's premier medical research agency" is in a climate of alarm where "employees are afraid to hold up experiments even if they see a safety problem." In an example of one of the more egregious offenses, a supervisor "invited a colleague to a West Coast rock concert and suggested they also visit an AIDS clinic there, so the trip could be charged to taxpayers." The National Institutes of Health is currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by its former AIDS division chief of human research protection, who charges the agency fired him "because he raised concerns about patient safety and shoddy science," an accusation that has been bolstered by testimony from both an NIH medical officer as well as the top regulatory compliance officer for the NIH's AIDS division.

IRAQ – FLUSHING FUNDS DOWN THE DRAIN: Reconstruction money in Iraq is going down the drain … literally. According to officials, "hundreds of millions" of American taxpayer dollars invested in Iraq are going to waste, as neglected electrical, water, and sewage-treatment plants are quickly falling into disrepair. Today, for example, out of the 40 water and sewage systems in the country, "not one is being operated properly." Same with electrical facilities – out of 19 power plants that received U.S. funds for repair, none runs correctly. Many Iraqis only get a few hours of electricity a day. U.S. officials blame the chaos on "insufficient training, logistical problems" and on the "indifferent work ethic" of Iraqis. Iraq's Ministry of Public Works, however, sees a different problem. Although it's estimated it would cost $10 billion to provide clean water to Iraq, "the U.S. has slashed the budget for water projects from $4.3 billion to less than $2.3 billion – with further cuts planned." Meanwhile, many normal Iraqis must drink sewage-tainted water.

HOMELAND SECURITY – BROKEN MONITORS: The Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, a "critical network of cameras and sensors" which line the borders between the United States and its North American neighbors, has been "hobbled for years by defective equipment that was poorly installed, and by lax oversight by government officials who failed to properly supervise the project's contractor." Although the $239 million system is "crucial to defending the country against terrorist infiltrators," government officials turned their back on the system, "allowing the contractor to cut corners on the project and receive huge overcharges." An investigation by the inspector general of the General Services Administration stated that payment "for shoddy work … [or] for work that was incomplete or never delivered" was commonplace. The neglect of the system was so extensive that government officials could be subject to "administrative or criminal charges."

ETHICS
'DeLay Knew Everything'

For months, Tom DeLay has tried to avoid culpability for illicitly financed junkets to England, Russia and elsewhere by claiming he didn't know the source of the funding. Last week, DeLay told CNN, "I can't – no Member can be responsible for going into the bowels of researching what this organization, how it gets its money or how it's funded." According to one of DeLay's closest associates, that isn't true. Newsweek reports that Jack Abramoff – the lobbyist who organized the trips – told a colleague "DeLay knew everything, he knew all the details."

THE VAST RIGHT-WING ANTI-DELAY CONSPIRACY: Right-wing stalwarts like Robert Novak and Rich Lowry continue to describe criticism of DeLay as partisan. The facts don't back them up. In recent days DeLay "has been criticized in two blue-chip conservative forums: the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times column of David Brooks." This weekend, Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) said, "Tom DeLay should step down as House majority leader" because of his ethics problems. Appearing on ABC's This Week on Sunday, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said DeLay "has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves."

THE PUBLIC RELATIONS COUNTER-OFFENSIVE: DeLay's cronies "plan to try to preserve his power by launching an aggressive media strategy." The plan includes "leaks from DeLay allies about questionable Democratic trips and financial matters; denunciations of unfavorable news stories as biased, orchestrated rehashes; and swift, organized responses to journalists' inquiries." The overall message from DeLay will be that "an attack on him is an attack on the conservative movement." The group will also "hold a tribute dinner for DeLay on May 12 at the Capital Hilton."

HUME SHILLS FOR DELAY: Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, "journalist" Brit Hume revealed his total inability to asses DeLay's ethical problems. Hume said to host Chris Wallace that the trip to Russia that was financed by foreign lobbyists wasn't a big deal. Hume said, "It's not at all clear that DeLay knew that [the trip was financed by foreign lobbists]. If he had known that, it still wouldn't have probably been illegal, but it would have been questionable." First, according to legal experts, "House members bear some responsibility to ensure that the sponsors for their travel are not masquerading for registered lobbyists or foreign government interests." So ignorance is not an excuse. Second, if DeLay knowingly allowed his trip to Russia to be paid for by lobbyists it wouldn't be "questionable," it would be in direct violation of House ethics rules.

TELL CORPORATE AMERICA TO DROP THE HAMMER: Believe it or not: you might be subsidizing DeLay's legal defense when you buy an airline ticket, make a phone call or have a happy hour cocktail. A network of large corporate backers – including American Airlines, Verizon and Bacardi – have poured thousands into DeLay's legal defense trust. Visit dropthehammer.org and send a message to these corporations to stop enabling DeLay's unethical behavior. Let these corporations know that unless they stop supporting DeLay, you'll stop supporting them.

Posted: 5 April 2005

Damned well said.

Dear War Supporter: Since You Asked . . .
by R. J. Eskow

"I have to infer from that (statement) that you would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power."
- Paul Wolfowitz

Let's deal with this question once and for all, OK? It's the classic retort given by neocons and other war supporters when anyone questions the wisdom of the Iraq War. In this case, it was Wolfowitz's response to a student who had just said the following: "We are tired, Secretary Wolfowitz, of being feared and hated by the world. We are tired of watching Americans and Iraqis die, and international institutions cry out in anger against us."

Let's say I get disturbed by a spider crawling the garage wall. I slam the car into it at 50 miles an hour, destroying the car and causing a few thousand dollars in damage to the garage. When my wife objects, I say:

"I have to infer from that statement that you would be happier if that spider were still crawling up the wall." No, schmuck, she says, I'd be happier if we still had a car and didn't have to fork out ten thousand dollars to fix the garage.

"Well, maybe you think our house is safe from spiders," I say. "Maybe you don't think spiders are a health problem. Maybe you don't realize some spiders are venomous." Thinking of Joe Lieberman, I add "Maybe you're in a 'spider-hole of denial.'" With David Horowitz-like reasoning, I go on to say "Maybe you support the spiders. Maybe you and the spiders are allies." I then show my wife a chart that includes her picture, together with a tarantula and a black widow, as part of an international network of spider-supporters. "Since you're so pro-spider," I ask her, "why don't you just go discuss this little problem with your 'friends' here?"

Spiders can be a health problem, she says, but there are lots of spiders in the neighborhood. This one wasn't a threat to us, and we can't go destroying things and spending tons of money every time we see a spider.

Before I can respond, Wolf Blitzer happens by. Wolf comes in and surveys the damage, then helpfully points out that "there have been some successes in the war on spiders, to judge by the corpse visible under the crumpled fender of this sedan." You don't make any sense either, she says.

"Well, if you care more about your spiders than you do about keeping this house safe," I tell my wife, " I don't think we can talk about this rationally."

So Dear Wolfie, and anybody else tempted to pose this question: No. I would not be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. I would be happier if 1,500 Americans were still alive. I would be happier if 20,000 - 150,000 Iraqi civilians were still alive. I would be happier if tens of thousands of American soldiers didn't have to face a future of disfigurement, disability, and/or psychological torment. I would be happier if my country didn't violate international law. I would be happier if I weren't lied to by an unethical government and an incompetent news media. I would be happier if we did something else with the $250 billion we're spending on this war. I would be happier if the policy of successfully containing Saddam had been continued. I would be happier if we hadn't gone through all this just so we can replace Saddam's dictatorship with a pro-Iranian theocracy. I would be happier if we had any military resources to spare, so maybe we could rescue the helpless people of Darfur.

My happiness was never going to be influenced by Saddam Hussein's career path. Instead, my happiness is affected by the well-being of Americans and Iraqis who have suffered needlessly as a result of your war.

Next question.

Posted: 4 April 2005

Yet more insanity by authorities who don't want the public to know anything about anything.

N.C. Cities Want to Sue Over Public Records Requests
By The Associated Press
(03/20/05 - RALEIGH) — North Carolina cities and other government agencies are pursuing the authority to sue citizens who ask to see public records.

Lawyers for local governments and the University of North Carolina are talking about pushing for a new state law allowing pre-emptive lawsuits against citizens, news organizations and private companies to clarify the law when there is a dispute about providing records or opening meetings.

On another front, the city of Burlington is appealing a ruling last year by the state Court of Appeals that said the government can't take people to court to try to block their access to records or meetings.

READ THE REST.

From The Center for American Progress

ETHICS – CHENEY SAYS DELAY WENT TOO FAR: Rule of thumb: when Vice President Cheney says you've gone over the line, you've gone way over the line. Cheney became the latest person to criticize Tom DeLay over his calls for retribution against federal judges who presided over the Terri Schiavo case. The New York Post reports that, in an interview, Cheney "strongly disagreed with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), who wants retribution against judges who blocked restoration of her feeding tube." Cheney said, "I don't think that's appropriate .... There's a reason why judges get lifetime appointments."

HALLIBURTON – COVERING FOR CORRUPTION: Even Kuwait, a staunch ally of Washington in the Gulf, is getting fed up with the Bush administration's coddling of Halliburton. A Kuwaiti parliamentary committee investigating charges that Vice President Cheney's old firm overcharged for fuel deliveries to Iraq is "complaining about the lack of support the U.S. military and the American company have provided." Kuwaiti parliamentarian Ali al-Rashed, the committee chairman, told the Associated Press that Halliburton has "harmed the investigation" by failing to respond to requests for information for three months, and that the U.S. military has refused to testify before the committee as a witness.

BOLTON – ALLEGATIONS OF INTIMIDATION: John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, may be in more trouble. Newsweek reports, "Foreign Relations Committee staffers are looking into charges that Bolton attempted to intimidate or victimize two career intelligence officials for what he viewed as their insufficiently alarmist analyses of intel on purported Cuban biological weapons." In 2003, "State Department WMD analyst Christian Westermann testified that he tangled with Bolton about a speech on Cuban germ warfare.... Westermann says he sent the CIA an e-mail proposing changes in Bolton's speech. Bolton later got a copy of the e-mail, 'berated' Westermann and tried to have the analyst transferred." John Bolton "declined to comment" for the Newsweek story.

HEALTH CARE
4 Parents Is 4 Ignorance

The website 4parents.gov, one of the latest "public education campaigns" launched by the Bush administration, claims to "provide parents with the information, tools and skills they need to help their teens make the healthiest choices." Maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services, the website seeks to encourage "parents to talk frankly [with teens] about sensitive topics like sex and relationships." However, the website fails miserably in these goals and nearly 150 public health and advocacy groups have signed a letter to HHS Secretary Leavitt to "express their deep concern." Accepting that parents ought to be "the primary sexuality educators of their children," the groups chide HHS because, rather than giving parents "the accurate information and resources they need," the website "relies on fear to motivate and contains many errors and biases that undermine its intent of encouraging parent-child communication around sex and sexuality."

PROMOTING ABSTINENCE AT ALL COSTS: The section entitled "What if Your Teen Has Already Had Sex?" includes value-laden, abstinence only advice: "Tell them it's not too late to stop having sex, that it's never too late to make healthy choices. They are worth it!" The section provides "no resources or suggestions" for parents with children who "are not 'worth it,'" i.e. those who make the decision to remain sexually active. For those parents, 4parents.gov instead "contains inaccurate information regarding the effectiveness of condoms, as well as the transmission and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases." By spreading misleading information, 4parents.gov succumbs to the mistaken belief that "giving young people negative information about contraception will encourage them not to have sexual intercourse, when all it will do is encourage them not to have contraception."

'ANTI-CHOICE OVERTONES': According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, pregnancy begins at implantation. This is the "medically accepted definition" of the term and has been used in prior instances by the Department of Health and Human Services. Yet, the 4parents.gov website asserts that pregnancy begins at the time of fertilization of the egg, a definition commonly used in, and preferred by, the anti-choice community. This "radical change in the definition of pregnancy … flies in the face of the medical community [and] shows a blatant disregard for science." The two different definitions of pregnancy have been linked to the recent attack on patients' rights. Another example of 4parents.gov's "anti-choice overtones" is the website's statement that "'abortion complications' are one of the major reasons for infertility." In reality, "less than one percent of women who have an abortion experience a major complication, and there is no evidence of infertility among the vast majority of women who've had abortions."

CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND: 4parents.gov not only "contains a distressing lack of information for parents of sexually abused and assaulted youth" but also "fails to address the unique needs or parents with LGBTQ children," instead using "outdated and alienating language and ideas." In a section on sexual orientation, the website stresses that parents need to address the issue "within the context of their own value system" to help "impressionable" adolescents who are "certain to hear about alternative lifestyles" from the increasing visibility of the issue "in public debate, the media, and often, in school curriculum." If parents suspect their child is gay, they are told to "consider seeing a family therapist" but one "who shares [their] values" with the intent "to clarify and work through these issues."

HELP FOR WEBSITE COMES FROM QUESTIONABLE SOURCE: The only non-governmental organization "credited as having worked with HHS to create 4parents.gov" is the National Physicians Center for Family Resources (NPC). With its ties to Focus on the Family and other radically conservative organizations, the group has been accused of representing "views that are far outside the values of mainstream Americans and the public health community." With help like NPC, its no wonder that 4parents.gov pushes abstinence and discounts the notion of safe sex. On its own website, NPC states that "the abstinence-until-marriage message should be embraced as the medical model for sexual health, both in and out of the classroom" and that "suggesting that contraceptive-based education will protect the overall health of America's adolescents is a prescription for continued disaster."

Posted: 3 April 2005

Women have yet to see their lives improve in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Iraq, for that matter.

Women Speak Out In Saudi Arabia

(CBS) Recently, there’s been a lot of talk about democracy in the Arab world -- most of it coming from President Bush, who has called on one Middle Eastern government after another to give more power to their own people.

That will be difficult for one of the president’s closest allies –- Saudi Arabia, a bastion of conservative Islam that is home to one of the last absolute monarchies in the world -– one that is notorious for keeping a tight grip on political power.

Loosening that grip means more freedom for Saudi women, against whom there is widespread social, economic, and political discrimination. Women’s rights is at the heart of calls for reform in Saudi Arabia --- calls that are finally challenging the kingdom’s political status quo. Correspondent Ed Bradley reports. What happens at the end of the day in Saudi Arabia reflects the profound role that Islam plays in the life of this country. As the last call to prayer drifts across Riyadh, there’s something new in the city’s nightlife: searchlights pinpointing the location of political meetings.

For the first time in 40 years, Saudis are attending political rallies and listening to speeches. It’s part of the first national election in this country’s history. And it comes after mounting pressure on the royal family for change.

"The most important change that must take place here in this country is to allow for the freedom of expression, for the diversity of this society to express itself freely," says Khaled al-Dakheel, professor at King Saud University in Riyadh, and a leading reformer the government banned from writing a newspaper column.

What did he say that got him banned? "It was the pattern of my writing," says al-Dakheel. "Too much call for reform and too much questioning of official positions… This government does not like you to be so daring in questioning the policy."

Men and women do almost nothing together in Saudi Arabia -- at least not in public. For instance, events like a soccer match are strictly for men. It's a country where culture and religion make women live mostly restricted segregated lives. In public, there are separate sections where they eat, where they work, and where they pray. There is also segregation inside their own homes.

READ THE REST.

The insanity continues.

Monsanto Keeps Up Attack on Seed Saving Farmers

Lords of the (GM) Harvest (Stats - Compiled by Rose Marie Berger and Mark Betz) Sojo.net, April 2005

As if U.S. farmers weren't in enough trouble, now the "seed police" are after them. Monsanto, the world leader in genetically modified grains, is pursuing fines and jail sentences for farmers who use their seed in noncontractual ways-such as saving it and sowing it the next season. The Center for Food Safety has released an investigative review of Monsanto's use of U.S. patent law to crack down on farmers. Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against U.S. farmers in 25 states that involve 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies, according to the report.

*500: The number of U.S. farmers under investigation annually by Monsanto.

*$10 million: Monsanto's annual budget (plus 75 staff) devoted to investigating and prosecuting U.S. farmers.

*$15,253,602: The total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for farmer lawsuits.

*$3,052,800: The largest recorded judgment in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit.

*8 months: The prison sentence given to a Tennessee farmer convicted of violating an agreement with Monsanto.

Sources: "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers 2005" (The Center for Food Safety); The Associated Press. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf

************************************************************************************************
This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the Ecological Farming Association www.eco-farm.org
********************************************************************************************

Posted: 2 April 2005

A refreshing read. It's time for common sense and the decency of ordinary citizens to drive the neocons out of power.

Schiavo case tests America
by Justin Webb
BBC Washington correspondent

The death of Terri Schiavo this week has not ended America's painful ethical and political debate over individuals' right to die. Her husband wanted her to be allowed to die, but her parents fought against it and received support from the most powerful Americans in the land.

In all the three years that I have been reporting from this country, I do not believe there has been a more important moment in its history than this.

Or an issue that illuminates the complex and vital soul of America as the Terri Schiavo case does.

It transcends the presidential election, the Iraq war, the rows over gay marriage and television nudity and all the other stuff, consequential, inconsequential and downright weird, which counts as "news about America".

The reason the Schiavo case is so important, the reason it has Americans talking and arguing, and the reason it should, in my view, have the rest of us re-assessing our view of this nation, is that Americans were corralled but rebelled.

They were emotionally blackmailed but refused to budge, were told that their deepest held religious beliefs should push them in one direction, but thought for themselves and thought differently.

READ THE REST.

And just in case you need it, here's a Florida Living Will found floating around on the net. ;)

I, __________________________________ (fill in the blank), being of sound mind and body, unequivocally declare that in the event of a catastrophic injury, I do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. I hereby instruct my loved ones and relatives to remove any and all life-support systems, once it has been determined that my brain is longer functioning in a cognizant realm. However that judgment should be made only after thorough consultation with medical experts; i.e., individuals who actually have been trained, educated and certified as doctors.

Under no circumstances -- and I can't state this too strongly -- should my fate be put in the hands of peckerwood politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it. Furthermore, it is my firm hope that, whenever 'the time' does comes, any discussion about terminating my medical treatment should remain private and confidential.

Living in Florida, however, I am acutely aware that the legislative and executive branches of state government are fond of meddling in family matters, and have little concern for the privacy and dignity of individuals.

Therefore, I wish to make my views on this subject as clear and unambiguous as possible.

Recognizing that some politicians seem cerebrally challenged themselves (and with no medical excuse), I'll try to keep this simple and to the point:

1. While remaining sensitive to the feelings of any loved ones who might cling to hope for my recovery, let me state that if a reasonable amount of time passes -- say, ________ (fill in the blank) months -- and I fail to sit up and ask for a cold beer, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better.

When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.

2. Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature enact a special law to keep me on life-support machinery. It is my wish that these boneheads will mind their own damn business, and pay attention instead to the health, education and the future of the millions of Floridians who aren't in a permanent coma.

3. Under no circumstances shall any governor of Florida butt into this case and order my doctors to put a feeding tube down my throat. I don't care how many fundamentalist votes he's trying to scrounge for his run for the presidency in 2008, it is my wish that he plays politics with someone else's life and leaves me to die in peace.

4. I couldn't care less if a hundred religious zealots send e-mails to legislators in which they pretend to care about me. I don't know these people, and I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade on my behalf. They should mind their own business, too.

5. It is my heartfelt wish to expire quietly and without a public spectacle. This is obviously impossible once any elected officials become involved. So, while recognizing the wrenching emotions that attend the prolonged death of a loved one, I hereby instruct my relatives to settle all disagreements about my care in private or in the courts, as provided by law.

If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.

An interview with Gore Vidal that I strongly recommend reading. Here are some excerpts.

The Undoing of America
Gore Vidal on war for oil, politics-free elections, and the late, great U.S. Constitution
by Steve Perry

It has been part of the American propaganda machine that we have no class system. Yes, there are rich people; some are richer than others. But there is no class system. We're classless. You could be president tomorrow. So could Michael Jackson, or this one or that one. This isn't true. We have a very strong, very rigid class structure which goes back to the beginning of the country. I will not go into the details of that, but there it is. Whether it's good or bad is something else.

If we don't have class interests officially, then therefore we have no political parties. What is the Republican Party? Well, it used to be the party of the small-town businessman, generally in the Middle West, generally sort of out of the mainstream. Very conservative. It now represents nothing but the gas and oil business. They own it. And the people who go to Congress are simply bought. They are lawyers who are paid to represent Halliburton, big oil, big banking. So the very rich corporate America has a party for itself, the Republican Party. The Democrats don't have much of anything but a kind of wistful style. They just want everyone to be happy, and politically correct at all times. Do not hurt other people's feelings. They spend so much time on political correctness that they haven't thought of what to do politically about anything. Like say "no" to these preemptive wars, which are against not only the whole world's take on war and peace, but against United States history.

Well, the Congress has ceded--which it cannot do--but it has ceded its power to declare war. That is written in the Constitution. It's the most important thing in the Constitution, ultimately. And having ceded that to the Executive Branch, he can declare war whenever he finds terrorism. Now, terrorism is a wonderful invention because it doesn't mean anything. It's an abstract noun. You can't have a war against an abstract noun; it's like having a war against dandruff. It's meaningless.

The sense that there are no consequences--that can happen if you keep the people diverted. Television changed everything. Some 60 or 80 percent of Americans still think Saddam Hussein was a partner of Osama bin Laden. They hated each other, and they had nothing to do with each other. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But if you keep repeating it and repeating it--and Cheney still does; nobody's switched him off, so he just babbles and babbles like a broken toy--how are they to know otherwise? Yes, there are good journals here and there, like The Nation, but they're not easily found. And with our educational system, I don't think the average person can read with any great ease anything that requires thought and the ability to exercise cause-and-effect reasoning: If we do this to them, they will do that to us. We seem to have lost all track of that rather primitive notion that I think people all the way back to chimpanzees have known. But we don't.

The media belongs to the big money, and the big money, their candidates, their party, is the Republican Party as now constituted. So everybody is behaving typically [in media]. What isn't typical is a Democratic Party that has also sold out. There are just as many lobbyists and propagandists there as on the other side. They're never going to regain anything until they remember that they're supposed to represent the people at large, and not the very rich.

His [Bush] is a mind totally lacking in culture of any kind. I'm not talking about highbrow culture, just knowledge of the American past, and our institutions. He's got rid of due process of law, which is what the United States is based upon. Once you can send somebody off and put them in the brig of a ship in Charleston Harbor and hold them as long as you like uncharged, you have destroyed the United States and its Constitution. He has done those things.

I've just been reading a report on Conyers's trip to Ohio with his subcommittee's experts. Ohio was stolen. The Republican Congress will never have a hearing on it. But I think attempts are being made to publish the details of what was done there, and elsewhere too in America.

In other words, I put the case that Bush was never elected--not in 2000, and not in 2004. This is a new game in the world. Through the magic of electronic voting, particularly through Mr. Diebold and friends, you can take a non-president and make him president. But how to keep the people, including the opposition who should know better, so silent, this introduces us to a vast landscape of corruption which I dare not enter.

There is also something in the water--let us hope it was put there by the enemy--that has made Americans contemptuous of intelligence whenever they recognize it, which is not very often. And a hatred of learning, which you don't find in any other country. There is not one hamlet in Italy in which you can fail to find kids desperate to learn.

READ THE INTERVIEW.

For those who don't think the environment is of vital concern.

Reuters. A scientist said the potential shutdown due to climate warming of the key Atlantic Conveyor current that warms northern Europe could have a major impact on fish stocks in the region.

Oceanographers have predicted that the current that drags warm water from the south to the north could weaken or even come to a halt as global warming melts the Arctic polar icecap and dilutes the ocean's salinity. "A disruption of the Atlantic meridional overturning (AMO) circulation leads to a collapse of the North Atlantic plankton stocks to less than half their initial biomass," said Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University. Writing in the science journal Nature, Schmittner said the steep drop in the plankton population was due to it becoming separated from deep water nutrient layers as the ocean current failed.

To date much work has been done on the potential disruption of the Atlantic Conveyor as the climate warms by an estimated two degrees centigrade this century due to man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. However, relatively little research has been published on the possible effect on the seaborne food chain which provides sustenance for millions of people. "A massive decline of plankton stocks could have catastrophic effects on fisheries and human food supply in the affected regions," Schmittner wrote. "Hence, emission pathways that lead to fast and large increases of future CO2 including the risk of a collapse or substantial reduction of the AMO should be avoided through early measures for emission reductions," he added.

He said there was evidence that the current had switched on and off during the ice ages, and his modeling work indicated that ocean productivity could drop by 20 percent as plankton vanished. "These model results ... suggest that global ocean productivity is sensitive to changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation," he said. It is not confined to the northern Atlantic but has implications across the Indian, Pacific, Arabian and southern Atlantic Oceans, he added. Although the effect was most noticeable in the north Atlantic where even a partial weakening in the life-giving current caused a substantial drop in productivity, it also registered globally.

Reuters. An international report said humans are damaging the planet at an unprecedented rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or "dead zones" in the seas.

The study, by 1360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years. "At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning," said the 45-member board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. "Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it said.

Ten to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species were already threatened with extinction, according to the assessment, the biggest review of the planet's life support systems. "Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel," the report said. "This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth," it added. More land was changed to cropland since 1945, for instance, than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined. "The harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years," it said.

The report was compiled by experts, including from UN agencies and international scientific and development organizations. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the study "shows how human activities are causing environmental damage on a massive scale throughout the world, and how biodiversity -- the very basis for life on earth -- is declining at an alarming rate." The report said there was evidence that strains on nature could trigger abrupt changes like the collapse of cod fisheries off Newfoundland in Canada in 1992 after years of over-fishing. Future changes could bring sudden outbreaks of disease.

Warming of the Great Lakes in Africa due to climate change, for instance, could create conditions for a spread of cholera. And a build-up of nitrogen from fertilizers washed off farmland into seas could spur abrupt blooms of algae that choke fish or create oxygen-depleted "dead zones" along coasts. It said deforestation often led to less rainfall.

And at some point, lack of rain could suddenly undermine growing conditions for remaining forests in a region. The report said that in 100 years, global warming widely blamed on burning of fossil fuels in cars, factories and power plants, might take over as the main source of damage. The report mainly looks at other, shorter-term risks. And it estimated that many ecosystems were worth more if used in a way that maintains them for future generations.

A wetland in Canada was worth $6000 a hectare (2.47 acres), as a habitat for animals and plants, a filter for pollution, a store for water and a site for human recreation, against $2000 if converted to farmland, it said. A Thai mangrove was worth $1000 a hectare against $200 as a shrimp farm. "Ecosystems and the services they provide are financially significant and...to degrade and damage them is tantamount to economic suicide," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the UN Environment Program. The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems.

christymarx.com | site map | Christy Marx: Writing Credits