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

"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: 25 Feb. 2005

from Grist on-line magazine.

Better make room -- world population to hit 9.1 billion by 2050

There will be 9.1 billion people on this li'l planet of ours by 2050, according to revised U.N. population figures released yesterday. That's a 40 percent increase from today's mere (!) 6.5 billion. While population in developed countries is expected to remain largely stable at 1.2 billion -- mainly due to immigration, as their native birth rates are declining -- the world's 50 poorest countries will see their numbers more than double. At the same time, life expectancy in southern Africa has declined from 62 years in 1995 to 48 years in 2000-2005, and is projected to hit a low of 43 before a slow recovery. That means Africans are being born and lost to AIDS at a rate almost incomprehensible to comfortable Westerners. Speaking of which, U.S. population is set to rise from 298 million in 2005 to 394 million in 2050, with immigration the main driver of growth. Meanwhile, India will probably surpass China as the world's most populous nation in coming decades, due to higher birth rates. "It is going to be a strain on the world," said Hania Zlotnik, U.N. Population Division director and master of understatement.

straight to the source: The Globe and Mail, Associated Press, 25 Feb 2005

straight to the source: BBC News, 25 Feb 2005

From The Center for American Progress

SOCIAL SECURITY – HOUSE PRIVATIZATION LEADER A WALL ST. LUSH: The Republican chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, Louisiana Rep. Jim McCrery, has accepted nearly $200,000 in contributions over four years from the very same Wall Street firms that would likely reap billions if President Bush's privatization scheme is made law. Campaign for America's Future, a progressive advocacy group, yesterday accused McCrery of a severe conflict of interest, and announced plans to run "newspaper advertisements against Mr. McCrery under the headline 'Who Does This Man Work For?' in his hometown, Shreveport," the New York Times reports. McCrery responded by attacking the group's "extreme liberal bias," while ignoring the substantive charges.

ADMINISTRATION – IN GERMANY, BUSH PLAYS BUBBLE BOY: The White House brought its sealed, dissent-free road show to Germany this week, scrapping an open "town-hall"-style event with average Germans for a meeting featuring "carefully screened 'young leaders,'" the New York Times reports. The town-hall gathering was expected to be the "main highlight" of the president's trip – that is, until the German government said it was "unwilling to permit a scripted event with questions approved in advance" (like the one Secretary Rice held recently in France). Germans eager to see a U.S. president weren't always required to undergo ideological vetting; in 1989, the first President Bush addressed an "enthusiastic audience" of 3,500 Germans during his visit. This time around, President Bush was "entirely sealed off from Germans," who protested his events and overwhelmingly oppose his foreign policy goals.

WALMART – ANOTHER DISCRIMINATION SUIT: Another chink has appeared in the armor of retail conglomerate Wal-Mart, which as of late has had to resort to trying to buy people's love. Yesterday, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was found guilty of discriminating against a former employee who suffered from cerebral palsy. After first asking the employee "impermissible pre-employment questions about his disability," the store made discriminatory presumptions about whether his disability would impede his performance by "transfer[ring] him from his job as pharmacy associate to a position picking up garbage and collecting trash in the parking lot after only one day of work." Furthermore, the order came down despite the fact that the employee had prior work experience in a pharmacy associate position. Wal-Mart has a history of facing disability discrimination suits, to the point that three years ago it had to settle with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, promising to "be more sensitive to disability issues." Apparently their fingers were crossed.

STATE WATCH – VIOLATING PRIVACY TO GO FISHING: The attorney general of Kansas, a staunch opponent of women's reproductive rights, "is demanding that two health centers hand over the medical records of about 90 female patients, including minors." Abortion clinics in Kansas have been targeted over the past few years, subjected to picketing and stalking of their employees, and two years ago, the very same attorney general "tried to force medical providers to report any information they had about girls younger than 16 engaging in sexual activity." This latest maneuver, which has surprised both anti-rights and pro-rights advocates, would force the centers, without the knowledge of their patients, to part with "names, as well as [patients'] medical histories, birth control, sexual practices and other personal details." Atty. Gen. Phill Kline is shrouding his inquisition tactic by claiming that it is "part of a criminal investigation into child rape and late-term abortions," but many are seeing it as the "fishing expedition" that it is.

DAILY GRILL
"I live in a transparent country. I live in a country where decisions made by government are wide open and people are able to call people to – me to account, which many out here do on a regular basis."
- President George W. Bush, 2/24/05

VERSUS

"Secrecy in [the United States] government appears to be on the increase."
- Judge Robert W. Sweet of the Southern District of New York, 2/24/05

Posted: 23 Feb. 2005

From The Center for American Progress

BUDGET – NOBODY'S SMILING: When it comes to the hacking job that he did on the budget, President Bush must have been expecting retorts such as "We'll fight it with everything that's in us." But he probably did not see these statements coming from his most loyal supporters. Previously devout followers of the president are aghast at the programs that were cut from the 2006 budget and are finally speaking up in defense of many of the social programs Bush is trying to eradicate. Also confusing to them is that the targeted cuts are aimed at what the president continues to tout as the priorities of his administration – for example, homeland security and education – but overall the proposed budget does not actually make a huge dent in federal spending.

MILITARY – SEND IN THE UNDERTRAINED: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld isn't working hard enough to ensure that our troops are properly equipped; now he's trying to rush them to war without sufficient training either. In a Jan. 31 memo, Rumsfeld "asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide options for cutting back military officer education during 'stress periods.'" Rumsfeld is exploring this option in order "to allow greater numbers [of troops] to be available for deployment," yet another sign that the Army is understaffed for waging the dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while also training for unforeseen conflicts. The proposal has some uniformed military outraged, with one senior Army official commenting, "We're so good because of our professional education, and you can't eliminate it, postpone it or reduce it if you want a professional military." Unfortunately, Rumsfeld's plan is already being tested out; "the Army's 4th Infantry division has decided to pull 29 officers out of [their training] early to send them to Iraq."

VALUES – THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT GETS IT WRONG AGAIN: What is it with Christian fundamentalists and cartoon characters? First there was Rev. Jerry Falwell's "outing" of Tinky Winky. Then Focus on the Family's leader James Dobson decided to attack what he saw as a pro-gay message behind SpongeBob SquarePants. The newest make-believe figure under fire from the religious right? Shrek. That's right. The uber-right Traditional Values Coalition is warning parents about the cross-dressing and transgender subtext in the movie about the beloved green ogre. The group is promoting "family values" by deciding to ignore the overall theme of Shrek – a "general message of tolerance – that outward appearances don't matter and that it's what's underneath that counts" – and instead focus on a line in the movie in which Pinocchio is teased about wearing a thong. It's time for these groups to relinquish the remote.

ENVIRO – OPPOSE 'CLEAR SKIES'? TAX RETURNS, PLEASE: Environmental regulator John Paul, a long-time Republican who voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, recently told a Senate environmental committee the president's "Clear Skies" initiative "fails on every one of our associations' core principals," is "far too lenient" on polluters and would undermine "states' abilities to protect air quality." After the testimony, several senators sent a letter to Paul with follow-up questions; Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) the chairman of the committee and also the lead sponsor of "Clear Skies," took a different route. Inhofe asked Paul to immediately submit the financial statements, membership lists and tax returns for the last six years for both regulatory associations he represents. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) called the move "a blatant attempt at intimidation and bullying so that experts will be afraid to speak out about a bill that rolls back air pollution protections for all Americans." Inhofe has since delayed a vote on the bill "after he determined that he did not have the numbers to send it to the full Senate," the Los Angeles Times reports.

AFGHANISTAN
The Ignored War

It's the forgotten war. But no news is sometimes bad news, and even though it's not making the front pages, Afghanistan today is a country on the brink of chaos. A new U.N. report, "National Human Development Report: Security With a Human Face," ranked development in the war-shattered country 173rd out of 178 countries surveyed. (Only the sub-Saharan nations of Burundi, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Sierra Leone rated worse.) Here's a snapshot of life in today's Afghanistan: The average life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44.5 years, 20 years lower than in neighboring countries. A fifth of the rural population is going hungry. Twenty percent of kids die before the age of 5, "80 percent of them from preventable diseases, one of the worst rates in the world." Part of that is due to the fact that three quarters of the population lacks access to clean drinking water. Unless the situation is turned around, the report warned, Afghanistan could revert to anarchy as "the fragile nation could easily tumble back into chaos."

NARCOTIC STRANGLEHOLD: Last month, a report by the International Monetary Fund expressed concern that Afghanistan's mushrooming opium trade was undermining its stability as a nation. Today, three years after U.S. forces arrived, Afghanistan is responsible "for about 87 percent of the world's opium supply." Drug trafficking brings in almost $3 billion a year, an amount equal to about 60 percent of Afghanistan's legitimate gross domestic product. Experts believe that "roughly 10 percent of Afghanistan's population of about 25 million is directly involved in poppy cultivation. Many more are believed to work in processing, trafficking and other illicit activities." Read more about the impact of narcotics in Afghanistan.

ELECTION CHALLENGES: Afghanistan's first free election last October was a victory for the country. Even more important, however, will be the upcoming elections to decide upon the country's Parliament members. That election is facing a rocky road. Originally scheduled to take place in April or May of this year, the deadline is being pushed back. According to Afghan law, President Karzai has to announce the boundaries of the electoral districts a full 120 days before the election. The team updating the land surveys and population figures has yet to report back, and even if Karzai were to announce the boundaries tomorrow, that means the elections couldn't be held until at least June. Second, the Afghan government has to raise $130 million to pay for the elections. Ballots for the 400+ races have to be printed and distributed, the 4,000 candidates need to be vetted and voters have to be educated. Making matters even more difficult, most of the election officials involved are brand new; most international election workers left the country after the October vote.

THE MEDIA VACUUM: So why isn't there more being reported about the challenges still faced in Afghanistan? One reason: the journalists have all gone home. Afghanistan is still a hot spot in the war against al Qaeda; the country is still facing important elections this spring. However, according to the American Journalism Review "only three news organizations – Newsweek, Associated Press and the Washington Post – have full-time reporters stationed in Kabul, the capital."

Posted: 22 Feb. 2005

From Cynopsis. Repression, suppression = censorship. PBS should be set up the same as the BBC, free from government pressure or meddling.

Many PBS stations are taking precautionary measures to assure the affiliate body they are not running afoul of FCC indecency regulations. Scheduled to air on an episode of Frontline, which typically airs at 9pm, is a documentary on the war in Iraq called A Company of Soldiers, that includes several incidents of profanity. PBS will offer to its 349 affiliates across the country two versions of the doc - one with the expletives bleeped out, and the other as originally produced. Of the PBS affiliates around the country, approx 33 will air the original version of the show; while the rest have opted for the bleeped version. And just to be doubly sure, a few affiliates will air the show at 10p, rather than 9p. While PBS is assuring its affiliate body the documentary will not generate FCC fines, it also says that on the off chance the stations are fined, PBS cannot cover those fines on the stations' behalf.

Some trenchant commentary from Hunter S. Thompson (from an interview at salon.com.)

I believe the Republicans have seen what they've believed all along, which is that this democracy stuff is bull, and that people don't want to be burdened by political affairs. That people would rather just be taken care of. The oligarchy doesn't need an educated public. And maybe the nation does prefer tyranny. I think that's what worries me. It goes back to Fourth Amendment issues. How much do you value your freedom? Would you trade your freedom for some illusion of security? Freedom is something that dies unless it's used.

This country has been having a nationwide nervous breakdown since 9/11. A nation of people suddenly broke, the market economy goes to shit, and they're threatened on every side by an unknown, sinister enemy. But I don't think fear is a very effective way of dealing with things -- of responding to reality. Fear is just another word for ignorance.

From The Center for American Progress

AFGHANISTAN – A FRAGILE NATION ON THE BRINK: In its most recent Human Development report, the United Nations ranked Afghanistan 173rd out of 178 countries surveyed, citing "poverty, poor health and insecurity" as issues that must improve if the world hopes for the country not to "revert to anarchy." Though the report does mention the progress that has been made for democracy and the Afghan economy, the living standards – from the rampant spread of the opium trade to a virtually nonexistent education system – are so dire that a ranking official with the United Nations Development program admitted that "the country has a long way to go just to get back to where it was 20 years ago." And three years after the United States attempted to lead the eradication of the Taliban, women still remain "among the worst victims, mostly condemned to lives of malnutrition, exclusion from public life, rape, violence and forced marriage." Recently elected Afghan President Hamid Karzai declared that the report "painted a gloomy picture."

IRAN – FOR TALKS TO WORK, U.S. MUST JOIN: European negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons will only succeed if "the United States joins in and throws its weight behind it," Mohamed ElBaradei has said. ElBaradei, the U.N.'s chief nuclear watchdog, said Germany, France, and Great Britain could not by themselves offer Iran sufficient "economic and security guarantees" to pressure the country into a comprehensive nuclear agreement, the Financial Times reports. Moreover, Bush administration saber-rattling toward Iran "only makes the country more determined to acquire a nuclear deterrent," ElBaradei said. The U.S. has thus far rejected participation in the talks, despite President Bush's frequent misleading claims that "we are working with European allies" on the issue.

PLAYING DUMB ON IRAN: Last week, President Bush said it was important that America "work with friends like we're doing with France...Germany, and Great Britain" to disarm Iran. In fact, the administration has been doing just the opposite, choosing isolation over engagement. "Britain, France and Germany have been working on a diplomatic solution to end Iran's nuclear program," but on Monday, a senior administration official said the U.S. "had no intention of directly joining" those talks, even though "many European officials" have expressed concern the talks will fail without U.S. involvement. On Monday, Chirac once again "made clear" to Bush "that the dialogue with Iran needed full international support, including that of the United States." The White House has given no indication it will enter the talks.

CLIMATE OF NEGLIGENCE: In his speech last month, British Prime Minister Tony Blair catapulted climate change to the top of the G-8 industrialized nations' and EU's agendas. President Bush has offered nothing besides empty rhetoric on the issue. On Monday, he promised to meet the "serious long-term challenge of global climate change," but the U.S. failed to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in 35 industrialized countries and went into effect with 140 signatories last week. In addition, the EU has established an Emissions Trading Scheme that began operating a carbon market earlier this month. Despite the fact that the U.S. produces about one-quarter of the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming, Bush opposes similar limits – reversing an explicit 2000 campaign pledge – including a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill introduced by Senators Lieberman (D-CT) and McCain (R-AZ).

DIRTY TRICKSTERS BACK IN ACTION: The Swift Boat Veterans – who wreaked havoc on John Kerry's presidential campaign with untruths, innuendo and ugly rumors – are back and ready to focus their tricks on the Social Security fight. The New York Times reports the right-wing lobbying group USA Next is planning to sink $10 million in commercials and other back-room tactics to hit the AARP. ("They are the boulder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts," said Charlie Jarvis, the group's president. "We will be the dynamite that removes them.") In an attempt to manipulate public opinion, USA Next is rounding up all the usual suspects from the Swift Boat campaign. They've hired Chris LaCivita, the former marine paid $30,000 during the campaign to advise the Swift Boat campaign on Kerry attacks. They're looking to hire Rick Reed, a partner at the firm that put together attack ads for the Swift Boat group. Also back: Creative Response Concepts, the PR firm that backed the Swift Boat group, and Regenery Publishing, the group that published "Unfit for Command," the screed against Kerry's military service put out by one of the primary leaders of the Swift Boat vets. And Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo uncovered a link between USA Next and the United Seniors Association, a "soft-money slush fund for a single GOP-friendly industry: pharmaceuticals."

ATTACKING THE AARP: The Swift Boat vet group is already starting the attack. The AARP, a group that looks out for the best interests of seniors, has come out against the Bush plan. A new ad posted on the American Spectator purports to show the "real" AARP agenda. The weird ad shows a photo of soldiers in Iraq – with a big "X" through it – next to one of two men kissing – with a big green check. The group doesn't even pretend to provide the rationale behind the ad; clicking on the "click here for details" merely brings you to USA Next's home page, with nothing about either troops or gay marriage. Thus the ad exists just to spread the implication that AARP hates U.S. troops but loves gay marriage. (Thanks to DailyKos for finding the ad.)

While you're at it, sign the Stop USA Next ad petition. Now, back to American Progress:

"POOREST FACE MOST RISK ON SOCIAL SECURITY": The Washington Post exposes the truth behind the Bush Social Security plan: "no group of Americans would be affected more...than those earning the least." Today, Social Security is the largest – or only – source of retirement income for low-income workers. The program makes up more than half of retirement benefits for almost two-thirds of the nation's seniors. Further, "it is the only source of income for 20 percent of retirees." The Bush plan, which would transfer risk onto the individuals while cutting benefits, would be devastating to these seniors. E.J. Dionne points out the real agenda behind the Bush plan: "The real 'crisis' we face is created not by Social Security but by the administration's unrelenting effort to lighten the tax burden on the wealthy, which, in turn, creates a fiscal mess that forces cuts in programs – for poor kids and needy seniors alike."

LOOK TO THE STATES: Employees in seven different states were offered the opportunity for private accounts similar to the ones President Bush is touting. In many cases, these accounts proved to be both unpopular and unsuccessful. President Bush's plan assumes two-thirds of American workers will jump to set up private plans: in most of the states offering private plans, only about 5 percent of workers actually signed up. Much of the hesitancy was due to the risk involved. Take Nebraska, for example. State and local workers who used the do-it-yourself accounts made so many errors in investing that they "ended up making less than colleagues with fixed-benefit pensions – and less than what analysts have said is needed for old age." The Nebraska legislature got rid of the accounts two years ago. West Virginia switched teachers' retirement plans to private accounts over a decade ago. Today the state is looking into switching back, after finding the change "did nothing to solve the funding shortage and ultimately cost more money." As with Nebraska, West Virginia found teachers with private accounts had lower benefits than they would have with the traditional system.

from Grist on-line magazine.

Inhofe accused of intimidating Clear Skies naysayers

Crossing Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is a risky prospect these days. A representative of two national pollution-control groups recently spoke out against the Bush administration's embattled Clear Skies bill in testimony before a subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. (The 18-member committee, chaired by Inhofe, is currently deadlocked over whether to send the bill to the Senate floor.) Ten days later, Inhofe asked the groups, which represent state and local air-pollution agencies, to fork over their financial and tax records. Andrew Wheeler, the committee's majority staff director, said the request has nothing to do with the testimony. "If we wanted to intimidate them, we would have done it before they testified, not after," he said. But Dems don't buy it. Said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), "This is a blatant attempt at intimidation and bullying so that experts will be afraid to speak out about a bill that rolls back air-pollution protections for all Americans."

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Alan C. Miller and Tom Hamburger, 19 Feb 2005

see also, in Gristmill: Inhofe tries to intimidate clean-air officials

Rash of water-rights lawsuits in California worries conservationists

A series of water-rights lawsuits in California -- one of which is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow -- has conservation activists worried about what Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is calling a backdoor assault on the Endangered Species Act. At issue are contracts between farmers and the federal government for irrigation water from public works -- water that is diverted to streams and rivers in times of drought, to help preserve endangered fish species, per the ESA. Traditionally, the water has been viewed as a public resource, to be allocated as the public deems appropriate. But in a highly controversial 2001 case, a judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims sided with farmers from California's Tulare and Kern counties, ruling that such diversions constitute "physical taking[s]" as described in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means the feds must compensate the farmers. Conservationists worry that the expense of such compensation will quickly prove prohibitive, and the feds will simply stop diverting water to save fish.

straight to the source: The New York Times, Dean E. Murphy, 22 Feb 2005

Posted: 21 Feb. 2005

Given the chokehold the right wing has on mass media, I'm not surprised to see no mention of this elsewhere. Ritter is the one who first said there were no WMD in Iraq, a statement that was proven to be true.

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS
By Mark Jensen
United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
February 19, 2005

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

READ THE REST.

Posted: 20 Feb. 2005

It may be up to world opinion to save Iceland.

The Guardian
Power driven
Susan De Muth investigates

In Iceland, work has already begun on a colossal $1bn dam which, when it opens in 2007, will cover a highland wilderness - and all to drive one US smelter. Environmentalists are furious, but the government appears determined to push through the project, whatever the cost.

North of Vatnajokull, Europe's biggest glacier, lies Iceland's most fascinating and varied volcanic landscape. Ice and boiling geothermal infernos meet at the edges of the glacier, and then the largest remaining pristine wilderness in western Europe begins - a vast panorama of wild rivers, waterfalls, brooding mountains and mossy highlands thick with flowers.

A large part of this is due to disappear under 150m of water by 2006, when the Karahnjukar dam is completed. Work has already begun on the $1bn mega-project designed to power just one aluminium smelter, to be built by US multinational Alcoa. Environmentalists in Iceland and abroad have looked on in disbelief as the project has proceeded, sidestepping one obstacle after another, driven by a government seemingly determined to push it through, whatever the cost to nature or the economy.

Aluminium smelters emit enormous quantities of greenhouse gases. In 2001, super-clean Iceland was able to negotiate a 10% increase in permitted emissions under the Kyoto protocol - the biggest increase in the world. In effect, Alcoa is buying Iceland's licence to pollute, as well as cheap electricity. The ministry of environment also gave Alcoa a licence to emit 12kg of sulphur dioxide (SO2) per tonne of aluminium produced - 12 times the level the World Bank expects from modern smelters. SO2; and fluoride, the most dangerous pollutants in terms of public health and land damage, will be pumped directly into the air via giant chimneys.

The Icelandic Nature Conservation Agency, in association with the International Rivers Network, recently produced a highly informative brochure about Karahnjukar for which it commissioned several independent studies. The result was a coalition of 120 international NGOs - including WWF and Friends Of The Earth - actively campaigning against the project in June 2003. But the government seems to care little for world opinion, as its resumption of whaling demonstrates. Sophusson represents the view of many nationalistic, conservative Icelanders when he mimes squashing a bug under his shoe and says, "Nobody does this to Iceland." Tourism is the fastest growing sector in the economy, the fishing industry the largest. Both stand to be significantly affected if Iceland and its products are boycotted as a means of global protest, as they were during the resumption of whaling in the 1980s. Already, the tourist board speaks of "hundreds, if not thousands" of potential cancellations as a direct result of the whaling controversy: 80% of tourists go to Iceland to experience what the government markets as "unspoilt nature". In a sense, that nature is part of the world's heritage and little has been known about the wholesale destruction about to take place in Karahnjukar and other parts of the country.

READ THE REST.

Posted: 19 Feb. 2005

Roseann Barr has a great line about Dubya: "He suffers from Deficit Attention Disorder".

And now, from Grist on-line magazine.

A CURRENT AFFAIR
New data on warming oceans are strong evidence for climate change

Measurements of ocean temperatures presented yesterday constitute (still more) compelling evidence that global warming is upon us, say scientists. The data, introduced at the annual gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, show that temperature readings in the oceans for the past 40 years line up almost exactly with the predictions of climate models. Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography spun several different scenarios to explain the warming -- natural climate variability, solar radiation, volcanic activity -- but "what absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming," said lead researcher Tim Barnett. Also at the AAAS conference, a separate research team presented findings showing that some 4,800 cubic miles of freshwater had melted from Arctic ice and drifted into the northern Atlantic, threatening the conveyor belt of currents that moves warm tropical water north to keep the climate around the U.S. Northeast and Northern Europe temperate. "The debate over whether or not there is a global-warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," said Barnett.

straight to the source: Knight-Ridder, Seth Borenstein, 17 Feb 2005

straight to the source: BBC News, Paul Rincon, 17 Feb 2005

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE COOKIES
China passes U.S. as reining consumerism champion

America, for years the world's largest, proudest consumer, has been dethroned. Say hello to China, now the world's most consumingest nation, according to a recent survey by the Earth Policy Institute. China now beats the U.S. in consumption of four out of five basic commodities, including grain, meat, steel, and coal. The fifth, however -- oil -- is still no contest (whew!): The U.S. continues to burn triple what China does in order to power, among other things, cars, of which Americans have almost 10 times more than the Chinese. Unfortunately for consumption patriots out there, the details are pretty grim: China leads in coal consumption by some 40 percent. It used more than twice the steel Americans did in 2003. China noshed 64 million tons of meat in 2004 to the U.S.'s 38 million. Add in the fact that China's 1.3 billion citizens also go through more refrigerators, cell phones, and TVs than do Americans, and this is a dark day indeed.

straight to the source: BBC News, 17 Feb 2005

straight to the source: China Daily, 17 Feb 2005

straight to the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Associated Press, William C. Mann, 17 Feb 2005

DELAY OF SHAME
Senate committee delays vote on Clear Skies

In what clean-air advocates called a "major victory for the environment," the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday postponed a decision on Bush's Clear Skies Act. A vote had been scheduled to determine whether the bill would advance to the Senate floor, but with 18 committee members deadlocked on the legislation, Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.) decided not to risk a bill kill and instead set a new date for a vote: March 2. Inhofe said the committee just needs to "spend some quality time together" to discuss revisions -- such as moving the 2018 deadline for compliance up two years and adding some $650 million in subsidies for coal-burning utilities -- so that they can "determine if there is middle ground." Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was targeted by bill supporters as a possible swing voter, isn't convinced the extra time will change anything: "I don't know if we're going to be able to reach a compromise," he said.

straight to the source: The New York Times, Michael Janofsky, 17 Feb 2005

straight to the source: Connecticut Post, Peter Urban, 17 Feb 2005

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press, John Heilprin, 16 Feb 2005

From The Center for American Progress

MEDIA
These Are the People in Your Neighborhood

The president and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Pat Mitchell, announced she will not be seeking a third term earlier this week, raising new questions about the future of a network beset by partisan interference and faced with major budget cuts. The move comes less than a month after Education Secretary Margaret Spellings condemned the once-celebrated PBS show, "Postcards with Buster," because a not-yet-aired episode involved an 11-year-old girl with two mommies. That was merely the latest in the Bush administration's attempts to control content and enforce conservative themes at the station. Fearful the right wing will continue to impinge on the channel's independence, children's television advocates are calling for a new funding model based on a "national trust fund or endowment [that] would allow PBS to be free of the whims of the White House." (Share your thoughts on the conservative takeover at PBS on ThinkProgress.org).

FAMILY CONNECTIONS: Mitchell maintains the "Postcards" controversy has nothing to do with her decision to leave, but the episode was indicative of the political wrangling that has complicated her job at PBS. Mitchell originally signaled she was "comfortable" with the episode in question, but according to PBS spokesman Lea Sloan, she changed her mind "after conversations with a number of PBS stations and 'national leadership.'" Asked who among the "national leadership" had contacted Mitchell, "Sloan named John Lawson, who lobbies for public TV stations on the Hill." Lawson, besides being CEO of the Association of Public Television Stations, is Spellings's brother-in-law. His role in the controversy suggests a direct conflict of interest: Lawson is supposed to advocate for public television stations, but has a family connection with media censors in the Bush administration.

CONSERVATIVES STACK CBP: In the current model, the bulk of PBS's funding comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), whose board President Bush has attempted to stack with partisan political operatives. Two of the board's newest members, Gay Hart Gaines and Cheryl Halpern, have given more than $816,000 to conservative causes over the past 14 years. In addition, both have shown contempt for the board's function. According to Common Cause, Gaines was a key fundraiser for Newt Gingrich a decade ago when the House speaker campaigned to "zero out" CPB funding and privatize PBS.

NEW MEMBERS SEEK CENSORSHIP: Halpern signaled her intentions during her confirmation hearing, when she suggested the CPB should be given authority to penalize and "remove physically" someone whose broadcasts it decided were unbalanced. Halpern took repeated shots at esteemed "Now" host Bill Moyers and advocated a policy of "aggressive" censorship. This was apparently part of a "litmus test" the Bush administration used to select board members – media watchdog groups say the White House sunk the candidacy of UCLA media professor Chon Noriega after he said the CPB should intervene in programming only in "extraordinary circumstances." The Public Broadcasting Act prohibits CPB from interfering with public TV's programming.

NEW PROGRAMMER: In addition to stacking the board of CBP, the administration hired Michael Pack, a producer with close ties to the Bush administration. In 2002, Pack greeted Mitchell at Vice President Cheney's house and proceeded to push a children's series featuring the vice president's wife, Lynn Cheney. Just weeks after pitching the show to PBS programmers – who found the whole idea "inappropriate" – Pack was appointed senior vice-president for television programming for the CPB, "which dispenses federal funding to PBS and local stations."

COMING UP NEXT: The partisan CPB has already begun to have an effect: the hosts of PBS's two new public affairs programs are right-wing CNN commentator Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot, of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board (which once called for the "complete withdrawal" of federal funding for PBS). Moyers's former newsmagazine, which also came under attack during a CBP Board meeting last winter (one member reportedly screamed, "You've got to get rid of Moyers!"), has been zero funded and cut from an hour to thirty minutes. And President Bush has "ordered an internal review" of "Postcards with Buster," a show the Education Department once praised as helping kids learn to read and giving them a "greater understanding and appreciation of the varied cultures in North America."

ON THE FRONT LINES: On Thursday, PBS found itself in the middle of another controversy when the producers of a "Frontline" documentary about U.S. combat troops in Iraq criticized the channel's decision "to send member stations an edited satellite feed of the program that cut out profanity used by soldiers." The channel "opted to change from practice" by sending only the edited version of the show and forcing stations to "sign a legal waiver indemnifying PBS" if they want to get the unedited version. The producers charge PBS is bowing to concern about Federal Communications Commission indecency rules and that the network should "stand firm" for the "principle of editorial independence." The latest dust-up highlights the "inside-the-Beltway environment in which PBS is forced to operate, where funding concerns often trump programming decisions, and the fear of upsetting conservatives has become a driving force."

NEGROPONTE – DEFINITIVELY WRONG ABOUT IRAQ: Negroponte has precious little intelligence experience. And the experience he does have has been characterized by abject failure. As an ambassador to the U.N., he pushed inaccurate intelligence about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction as a justification for war. In December 2002, he called an Iraqi declaration that they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction "an insult to our intelligence." In January 2003 he said, "we are convinced that Iraq maintains and continues to pursue its WMD programs." At the same press conference, asked whether the administration knew Iraq was using aluminum tubes to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapons program, Negroponte replied, "the answer is definitively yes." But hey, everyone was doing it, so no big deal, right?

NEGROPONTE – CUTTING AND RUNNING: John Negroponte was looking for an excuse to leave Iraq. A senior administration official quoted in the New York Times said Negroponte "made clear to everyone every time he came back that 'I've got to get out of there.'" According to the official, Negroponte said, "I want to get out of Baghdad as soon as possible. They want me to come back for something, but I want to do the private sector." Just 10 months ago, in accepting his ambassadorship to Iraq, Negroponte said our success in Iraq required "resolve, constancy and unity of purpose." Now, at this critical juncture, Iraq is without an ambassador – and the administration has yet to nominate a successor.

MILITARY – FINANCIAL AND MEDICAL 'FRIENDLY FIRE': In yet another "bureaucratic mistake," nearly a thousand Army Reserve and National Guard troops who were hurt in Iraq and Afghanistan "have gone months without pay or medical benefits they were entitled to receive." The problem is that the soldiers are removed from the active duty rolls upon returning home and then face a "convoluted and poorly defined process" to begin receiving their benefits and many just give up. One Army veteran, who suffered injuries to his brain and several other body parts during his tour, said that "it wasn't until he returned home for extended treatment that his 'real troubles began.'" The chairman of the House Government Reform Committee described the situation as "the equivalent of financial and medical 'friendly fire.'" The Government Accountability Office declared that the military has yet to resolve "underlying management control problems," despite these investigations.

HOMELAND SECURITY – FAILING GRADE FOR GOVERNMENT'S COMPUTERS: Maybe the administration should consider subjecting the government's computer systems to the same standards as the No Child Left Behind Act. The House Government Reform Committee recently released a report concluding that "the overall security of computer systems inside the largest U.S. government agencies improved marginally since last year but still merits only a D-plus." The investigators gave failing grades to nearly a third of the 24 largest agencies, one of which was the Department of Homeland Security. This sloppy state of affairs has led private sector industry groups to call on the government to practice what it preaches. Averse to reform, these groups are fighting back by arguing "that the government needs to improve its own computer security before requiring business to make such changes."

PRIVATIZATION – THE MORE YOU KNOW...: Despite months of highly publicized speeches and friendly town hall meetings, the American people are more skeptical of the president's privatization scheme than ever. A poll reported in the Los Angeles Times actually shows that "support for Social Security overhaul has slipped since Bush began campaigning for private accounts." Now even conservatives are getting wet feet. When President Bush this week announced a "new willingness to consider a tax increase to pay for the changes," conservatives "fumed." And President Bush's most recent privatization rally was notable mostly for its empty seats and tepid audience. "The president tells a good story, but I think this is scare tactics," one Bush supporter said. The clock is ticking: House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) told Congress Daily this week that selling privatization is "already about as hard as anything you can imagine to do politically, and I think after [2005] it becomes impossible."

Posted: 17 Feb. 2005

From The Center for American Progress

IRAQ – INTEL CHIEFS CONFIRM BLOWBACK: The war in Iraq, still being sold by President Bush as an effort to "hunt down terrorists abroad, so we do not have to face them here at home," has become a "potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups," top U.S. national security officials said yesterday. CIA Director Porter Goss told Congress that "jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism," and will "represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries." Moreover, the Iraq insurgency has grown "in size and complexity over the past year" and is now mounting an average of 60 attacks per day, up from 25 last year," said Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Citing the "overwhelming" negative perception of U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world, Jacoby warned the Senate panel that "our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment."

IRAQ – THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S SLICK DEALS: In the midst of the finger pointing taking place with regards to recent revelations about the United Nations oil-for-food program, the Bush administration must have been thankful that so much attention was going towards the oil-for-food kickbacks. New testimonials reveal that the Treasury Department "directly abetted Jordan's efforts to build up its strategic reserves with smuggled Iraqi oil in the weeks before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003." It was those types of duplicitous dealings, which "took place outside of the Iraq oil-for-food program," and not the alleged oil-for-food kickbacks, that provided "the bulk of [Saddam Hussein's] illicit oil sale revenues." Neither the Pentagon nor the Treasury Department has commented on these latest allegations, but they do seem content to allow excessive attention to be given to the oil-for-food kickbacks rather than their role in the illicit oil exports.

CORRUPT ESTABLISHMENT
Conservatives Cleanse Themselves of Ethics

Conservatives have concluded a partisan witch hunt aimed at purging the House Ethics Committee, which repeatedly admonished Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) for ethics violations last year. On Wednesday, new committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) "fired two senior staff lawyers," completing a cleansing that began with the replacement of the chairman, Joel Hefley (R-CO), and two other members, Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) and Steven LaTourette (R-OH), early this year. The newly ousted staff are "John Vargo, staff director and chief counsel of the panel," and Paul Lewis, spokesman for the panel. Both were involved in unanimous decisions to admonish DeLay three times for improper fundraising practices and bribes in the last two years. The move likely ensures House leaders will not have to worry about the burdensome matter of ethics for the foreseeable future.

FIVE MEN OUT: The purge began last month when House leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) axed three members of the panel, including Hefley, who had earned a reputation as an "independent-minded" leader. As Talking Points pointed out, Hulsof, LaTourette and Hefley likely hastened their ouster when they voted against the "DeLay rule," intended to shield the majority leader from having to resign because of an indictment in Texas. Hastert replaced them with three "conservative party loyalists, including two who donated to DeLay's legal defense fund." New committee members Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Tom Cole (R-OK) gave $5,000 each to the fund, intended to help DeLay defend himself against the very charges they are supposed to be investigating.

THE NEW LEADER: The decision to remove two more senior members of the panel was made by Hastings, the new committee chairman. Hastings is "known as a favorite" of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and has "received $5,930 in campaign contributions from DeLay's leadership PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority." According to Public Citizen, "Hastings' primary goal is to become chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee…[and] you don't get there by being tough on the people and party that control such a prestigious appointment." He has indicated he will shift the focus of his job from investigations like those that resulted in the DeLay admonishments to "preventive medicine," to make sure House members "don't get into trouble in the first place."

THE BURDEN OF ETHICS: As with the latest ousters, Hastert spokesman John Feehery said at the time that the initial purge had "no connection to the DeLay matter." Hulsof disagreed, telling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "I believe the decision was a direct result of our work in the last session." Hefley admitted the purge would lead people to believe "that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did." Feehery disagreed, adding that he didn't see why anyone would want to be on an ethics panel anyway: "... Ethics is more of a burden than a privilege," he said.

THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT: DeLay was publicly admonished three times by the Ethics Committee last year for scandals involving improper fundraising techniques and bribes on the House floor. In one case, the panel suggested DeLay may have violated federal law when he directed "federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved in a Texas political spat." In another, DeLay was publicly admonished for granting a group of Westar Inc. energy executives a "seat at the table" while he drafted energy legislation in return for a $56,500 contribution to a political action committee. The committee also scorned DeLay for pressuring then-Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) to vote in favor of the GOP-backed prescription drug bill "by offering to endorse Smith's son in exchange for a yes vote on the bill."

HOUSE CHANGED RULES: House members went to exorbitant lengths to protect DeLay even before purging the Ethics Committee. When DeLay's fundraising practices became the subject of a Texas Grand Jury investigation, House Republicans made it their first order of business to repeal a party rule requiring a "member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted." The move came on a party-line vote despite critics from both parties who said it "would stymie ethics enforcement." A complaint regarding those activities was being considered by the ethics panel last year, but it is "uncertain" whether the new panel will follow up.

Posted: 16 Feb. 2005

More on the GOP whore.

‘Liberal’ Media Silent About Guckert Saga
by Joe Conason

Proof that "the liberal media" is but a figment of right-wing mythology has now arrived in the person of one James Guckert, formerly known as Jeff Gannon. Were the American media truly liberal—or merely unafraid to be called liberal—the saga of Mr. Guckert’s short, strange, quasi-journalistic career would be resounding across the airwaves.

The intrinsic media interest of the Guckert/Gannon story should be obvious to anyone who has followed his tale, which touches on hot topics from the homosexual underground and the investigation into the outing of C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame to the political power of the Internet. But our supposedly liberal media becomes quite squeamish when reporting anything that might humiliate the Bush White House and the Republican Party.

Until very recently, Mr. Guckert served as the White House correspondent for Talon News, a Web site owned and operated by a group of Texas Republican activists who also run a highly partisan site called GOPUSA.com. Mr. Guckert resigned from his Talon job after liberal bloggers exposed his ties to Web sites promoting homosexual prostitution. On Valentine’s Day, AmericaBlog.org posted new evidence indicating that Mr. Guckert not only constructed those gay-play-for-pay sites, but worked as a male escort himself—and continued to do so until he got his first White House press pass in 2003.

How did this character obtain a coveted place in the White House? What did the White House press staff know about him? How does his story fit within the larger scandal of payola punditry, with federal funds subsidizing Republican propagandists in the press corps? Did someone in the Bush administration give him a classified document?

READ THE REST.

From The Center for American Progress

HIGHER EDUCATION
Academic Freedom Under Attack

Conservatives in the Ohio State Senate are considering a bill that would prohibit public and private college professors from introducing "controversial matter" into the classroom and shift oversight of college course content to state governments and courts. The language of the bill comes from right-wing activist David Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights," which recommends states adopt rules to "restrict what university professors could say in their classrooms" and halt liberal "pollution" on campus. The bill is both redundant and misleading – most colleges already have rules ensuring free expression (political and otherwise) and Horowitz and his supporters have been able to offer scant evidence of widespread political bullying. Nevertheless, a variation of the bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and has made inroads in six states. For a chance to fight back against the growing influence of the right wing on campus, and to help strengthen progressive student voices, check out American Progress's brand new website, Campus Progress.

MUMPER'S MOTIVATION: Ohio Senate Bill 24 was introduced late last month by State Sen. Larry Mumper (R), who says it is necessary because "80 percent" of college professors "are Democrats, liberals or socialists or card-carrying Communists" who attempt to indoctrinate students. When asked how he came to his conclusion, Mumper said he had been "investigating the issue for months," but cited just one instance when he had "heard of an Ohio student who said she was discriminated against because she supported Bush for president." He added that "anti-American" professors were a threat to young people and said he didn't think it was right for college campuses to teach students things their parents might disagree with.

OHIO FIGHTS BACK: Last week, the Ohio University student senate passed a resolution against the bill – the latest in a string of college students and administrations to register their opposition. One "senate commissioner" pointed out the college handbook already mandated similar rules and "suggested that the Ohio Senate should be concentrating on more important issues in education" (of which there are many). A political science professor at Ohio-Wesleyan said the law could stifle debate, and Kenyon College President S. Georgia Nugent called Horowitz's thinking "a severe threat" to academic freedom. Two conservative students from Ohio State wrote in an editorial that they did not think "government should…be involved" in policing academic debate. They also pointed out that if Horowitz "were a professor under his own bill, he probably would violate it."

DAVID HOROWITZ, CHAMPION OF OPEN DEBATE: Horowitz, who has been the driving force behind the movement for "academic freedom" in Ohio and other states, has a distinguished history of intellectual defamation, historical inaccuracy and political bullying. He has freely compared American liberals to Islamic terrorists, slandered the Democratic Party and John Kerry for criticizing the war in Iraq and made a habit out of accusing his detractors of racism. Most recently, when African-American historian John Hope Franklin questioned Horowitz's 2001 claim that black people benefited from slavery and owed a "debt" to white America, Horowitz responded by calling the eminent historian "a racial ideologue rather than a historian" and "almost pathological." Horowitz has no academic credentials and routinely distorts facts – exactly the crime he accuses "liberal" professors of committing – to fit his political bias. (Share your thoughts on David Horowitz at ThinkProgress.org)

WHAT LIBERAL CAMPUS?: Horowitz claims his bill is necessary because college campuses are a "hostile environment" for conservatives, but as American Progress's Ben Hubbard and David Halperin point out, "Increasingly, it is the conservative movement that sets the agenda." Over the past 30 years, "the right has built a powerful campus machine. A dozen right-wing institutions now spend $38 million annually pushing their agenda to students. Conservative foundations channel tens of millions more for academic programs" which "buff an intellectual sheen over conservative ideology." Groups like Young America's Foundation, which spent more than $10 million on campuses in 2003, have no progressive counterpart. The ultra-conservative Leadership Institute – boasting prestigious graduates such as disgraced fake White House reporter Jeff Gannon – claims it has trained more than 40,000 college students to become "conservative leaders" since 1979.

THE EMPTY DATABASE: Horowitz's best attempt to prove liberal bias on campus is his "Academic Freedom Abuse Center," housed on the Students for Academic Freedom (SAS) website. But the database, which invites students to report having their "rights abused" in class, only looks impressive until you start reading the actual claims. Some highlights: One student complains because her professor suggested men and women might see colors differently. Another is offended she was asked to watch an "immoral Seinfeld episode." The latest entry in the database as of Tuesday afternoon was from an Ohio State student who claims he got a bad grade on an essay because his English professor "hates families and thinks it's okay to be gay." One of the complaints comes from an Augustana College senior who is upset her school used "funds from Student activity fees to bring in the one-sided speaker David Horowitz."

Posted: 15 Feb. 2005

I have no idea how real this is, but it's damned interesting.

A man called Jeff
by John in DC - 2/14/2005 02:30:00 PM

Jeff Gannon was contacted and asked to comment on the specific allegations that he is the owner of USMCPT.com and several other profiles that offer his services as an escort. He did not respond to this request.

Why does this matter?

So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?

This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?

READ THE REST.

Where Are All the Women?
By Kristen Philipkoski, Wired

After Carly Fiorina was ousted from Hewlett-Packard last week, just seven female CEOs remained among Fortune 500 companies. None of them heads a Silicon Valley technology company.

The theories as to why women are poorly represented at tech companies are varied. But most pundits seem to agree -- and studies back them up -- that companies with women in the higher ranks are making more money, and companies that don't actively recruit and support women executives are missing the boat.

Companies with the most women in senior management had a 35 percent higher return on equity than those with the fewest, according to a study (.pdf) by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that studies women in business. It also found those companies paid their shareholders 34 percent more than companies with the fewest women in top management.

READ THE REST.

From Grist on-line magazine.

An interview with Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai

If the leaders of the U.S. environmental movement need a shot of adrenaline, they would do well to sit down with Wangari Maathai, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize. In the face of daunting odds, Maathai founded a movement that inspired women to plant 30 million trees in Kenya, helped bring down that nation's corrupt regime, and then joined its new government, first as a member of parliament, then as assistant minister for environment and natural resources. What does her work have to do with peace, and what could Americans learn from it? Plenty, as she explains in an interview with Amanda Griscom Little -- today on the Grist Magazine website.

today in Grist: Wangari Maathai chats about her work, her prize, and her plans for the future

From The Center for American Progress

BUDGET – CUTTING AND HIDING: After delaying for several days, the administration quietly released a list of the domestic programs it intended to cut in the 2006 budget. The Bush budget would end, for instance, an $18 million National Youth Sports Program that has provided athletics, tutoring, drug and alcohol abuse prevention and comprehensive medical exams "for low-income children for more than three decades." It would kill seven health programs that earmark money for emergency medical services for children, traumatic brain injury and newborn hearing screening. It would zero out the HOPE VI program to repair "severely distressed" public housing and reduce grants for Section 8 vouchers. Because crime is supposedly "on the decline," the budget would axe Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, a $626 million effort created last year to help state and local police fight violent and drug-related crime. No wonder the White House released the list of program cuts to lawmakers late on a Friday afternoon, "when it would receive relatively little attention heading into the weekend."

MILITARY – WHITE HOUSE VERSUS WAR HEROES: A group of American pilots who were beaten and abused by Saddam Hussein's regime during the 1991 Persian Gulf War are now trying to collect the $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them in 2003. The hang-up? The Bush administration has decided to fight the decision, leading a case against the former POWs that "pits the U.S. government squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva Convention." The White House says Iraq, not the soldiers, needs the funds more urgently. Yet the administration does favor "awarding compensation to the Iraqi prisoners who were abused by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib." Apparently when White House Press Secretary Scott McClellen said that "No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through," he literally meant "no amount of money." The case has now been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

VALUES
Losing Faith in Compassionate Conservatism

David Kuo, former deputy director of the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, has decided to speak candidly about his experiences. His message: this administration doesn't care about the poor. In a piece published on Beliefnet yesterday, Kuo writes, "From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.'" As a result, while President Bush spoke a lot about providing funds to "groups caring for drug addicts, at-risk youth, and teen moms," most of that assistance never arrived. In a bizarre attempt to rebut Kuo's charge that the administration was all talk on the issue, White House spokesman Trent Duffy noted, "The president has mentioned the initiative in every State of the Union." (Share your thoughts on the state of compassionate conservatism on ThinkProgress.org).

YAWNING AT THE NEEDY: The White House ignored opportunities for the president to make good on his commitments. For example, Kuo writes that in 2001 former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) approached the White House "with an offer to pass a charity relief bill that contained many of the president's campaign tax incentive policies plus new money for the widely-popular and faith-based-friendly Social Services Block Grant." The reaction: "The White House legislative affairs office rolled their eyes while others on senior staff yawned." The White House felt comfortable it could get away with this kind of behavior because there was no one to hold it accountable. Kuo writes, "Drug addicts, alcoholics, poor moms, struggling urban social service organizations, and pastors aren't quite the NRA."

THE LATEST DECEPTION: At the State of the Union, President Bush proudly announced a new three-year initiative – to be lead by First Lady Laura Bush – "to help organizations keep young people out of gangs." Kuo reveals that the money for the program – $50 million over three years – is being "taken out of the already meager $100 million request for the Compassion Capital Fund," supposedly a central component of the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives programs. If the Bush request were granted, "it would actually mean a $5 million reduction in the Fund from last year." Since 2002, President Bush has "sponsored a 44 percent overall reduction in delinquency-fighting and anti-gang funds."

THE POLITICAL MANIPULATION: Kuo writes that there is little interest in the White House to fund its Faith-Based and Community Initiatives because the program is politically popular without funding. According to Kuo, "The initiative powerfully appealed to both conservative Christians and urban faith leaders – regardless of how much money was being appropriated." The administration capitalized on this by traveling around the country promoting the thinly funded program with faith leaders, a strategy that "made powerful inroads" with "'non-traditional' supporters." In time, "Conservative Christian donors, faith leaders, and opinion makers grew to see the initiative as an embodiment of the president's own faith. Democratic opposition was understood as an attack on his personal faith."

LACK OF INITIATIVE: David Kuo isn't the first person to work in the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and leave disappointed. In 2003, John DiIulio – the first director of the office – told author Ron Suskind, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus." DiIulio said, "on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking." Under intense pressure from the White House, DiIulio subsequently backtracked, saying, "I will not be offering any further comment, or speaking or writing further on any aspect of my limited and unrepresentative White House experience or any matters or persons related thereto." Apparently, it was more representative than he thought.

Posted: 14 Feb. 2005

This is a smart approach.

About the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is a non-profit corporation supported by electric utilities, public benefits administrators, state governments, public interest groups and energy efficiency industry representatives. These entities work together to make affordable, energy-efficient products and services available in the marketplace.

Benefits of energy efficiency
By 2010, the Alliance and related utility efforts are expected to save the region over 500 aMW-enough to offset the need to build two new power plants. Reduction in carbon dioxide emission from the energy savings is estimated at over 2 million tons.

Ultimately, these savings will lower the long-term cost and environmental impact of the region's electricity system, resulting in a healthier economy and cleaner environment.

Alliance funding sources
The Alliance operates programs in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. It is funded by 11 electric utilities and the Bonneville Power Administration, which pays on behalf of its electric utility customers. We also receive public benefit money from the states of Montana and Oregon.

This money is pooled and used to fund projects approved by our Board of Directors. To date, a total of $165 million has been contributed through 2004.

Working in the marketplace
Alliance projects use a tool called market transformation to create a lasting change in the marketplace that encourages energy-savings products and services to be made and sold. Our projects fall mainly into one of three categories.

First, there are a number of the Alliance projects that work to establish relationships with current market actors--manufacturers, retailers and service providers--to encourage them to increase the availability of their energy-saving product and service offerings. We also work with these companies to market those offerings with a focus on their money- and resource-saving benefits.

As a second area of major focus, the Alliance works to promote new energy-saving technologies in commercial and industrial systems. As a credible third-party, the Alliance helps test and demonstrate an innovative technology's potential to save energy. We can also provide support for disseminating information about the new opportunity to Northwest businesses.

Finally, several Alliance projects support training and information services for energy efficiency in the region. These offerings provide Northwest electricity consumers access to energy efficiency expertise and training opportunities.

VISIT THE WEBSITE.

There's still a big battle to be won, but this is a start.

ETC Group
News Release
14 February 2005
www.etcgroup.org

Syngenta to let Mega-Genome Patent Lapse:
"Daisy-cutter" Patent Bomb Busted

Following 72 hours of negotiations by e-mail, telephone and in-person, the Swiss Gene Giant Syngenta confirmed to ETC Group last Friday, February 11, that it would allow its multi-genome patent application covering the flowering sequences in at least 40 plant species to lapse at the European Patent Office (EPO), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and around the world. Syngenta's announcement follows a month-long campaign launched by ETC Group and supported by farmers' organizations, trade unions and other civil society organizations.

The patent was called the "daisy-cutter" after the world's largest conventional bomb, which has parachuted from US Air Force cargo planes to clear troop-landing sites in Vietnam and during the Gulf and Iraq Wars. The daisy-cutter bomb explodes about three feet above the ground and delivers "shock and awe" by destroying everything living within a radius of 1000 feet. The Swiss company's patent application (WO03000904A2/3) claims, among other things, discovery of the DNA sequence coding for the flowering of the rice crop. Beyond rice, however, the company also claims the sequence as it appears in many other major food crops from wheat to bananas. "Syngenta's application even claimed monopoly over the flowering process in yet-to-be-discovered species that use the same sequence," says Pat Mooney ETC Group's Executive Director. Mooney met with Syngenta in Bern, Switzerland last Thursday and received a telephone call from the company Friday morning confirming it would let the patent application lapse.

More Mega-genome Patents Pending? "We're delighted that the patent is being abandoned," says Pat Mooney now back in Ottawa, "but we are concerned that there are still other mega-genome patents out there held by this company and others that could pose a major threat to food security. We need a commitment from the Gene Giants that mega-genome claims will be withdrawn everywhere."

READ THE REST.

Patrick McGoohan should come to mind: "I am not a number! I'm a free man!"

Robotic ball that chases burglars
By David Millward

A large black ball, originally designed by Swedish scientists for use on Mars, could be the latest weapon in the war against burglars.

The device, developed at the University of Uppsala, acts as a high-tech security guard capable of detecting an intruder thanks to either radar or infra-red sensors. Once alerted, it can summon help, sound an alarm or pursue the intruders, taking pictures.

It is capable of travelling at 20mph, somewhat faster than a human being. Even worse for intruders, the robot ball can still give chase over mud, snow and water.

The ball relies on an internal pendulum to control its motion which, when shifted, changes the centre of gravity and starts it rolling.

Other devices, including microphones, cameras, heat sensors and smoke detectors are mounted on its central axis.

Nils Hulth, co-founder of Rotundus, the company which is marketing the ball, said it was especially well-suited to patrolling perimeter fences.

The prototype, just under 2ft in diameter, weighs about 10lb. "It is extremely light, which is why it moves so fast," Mr Hulth said.

While the current version can only raise the alarm, it could be adapted to corner an intruder if the customer wanted, Mr Hulth added.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP who is campaigning to give people greater rights to defend their property against burglars, thought the robot ball could have potential: "It would be interesting to see whether the ball had used grossly disproportionate force or whether it would be deemed reasonable.

"But I would much rather a burglar be terrified of householders and shopkeepers, rather than some sort of futuristic device."

From The Center for American Progress

CONSUMER RIGHTS
Morally Bankrupt

The United States credit card industry rakes in $2.5 billion a month in profits – largely in fees and interest charged to the American consumer. But its thirst for additional profits is insatiable. Credit card corporations are showering Congress with cash in an attempt to squeeze every last dime out of those who can afford it least to by making it harder for them to get out of debt. The industry is pushing for a bill that would deny bankruptcy relief to "people with low or moderate incomes who have fallen on hard times because of illness, job loss or divorce." Meanwhile the bill does nothing to stop "abusive lending practices by credit card companies." (Share your thoughts on the bankruptcy bill at ThinkProgress.org.)

INCREASED BUREAUCRACY: The bankruptcy bill is an attempt to prevent people from filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy – which gives people a clean slate – and make them file under Chapter 13, which requires continued payments to the credit card companies. Already, judges can deny Chapter 7 protection if they think the law is being abused. The bankruptcy bill would require consumers to complete a complex array of forms to "prove" they qualify for Chapter 7. The law would also require those seeking Chapter 7 protection to "obtain counseling from a court-approved counseling center before filing." But according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, just "3 percent of people who file under Chapter 7 could continue to pay under a court-supervised plan if they filed under Chapter 13." So the real impact of the bill would not be to prevent abuse of the system but to "make filing for bankruptcy much more costly" for those who genuinely need it.

PUNISHING THE SICK: The overwhelming majority of Americans do not become bankrupt by purchasing Rolex watches and plasma TVs. The leading cause: getting sick. A Harvard University study found that half of all respondents "said that illness or medical bills drove them to bankruptcy." Three-quarters of that group had health insurance but "high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverage and other loopholes left them holding the bag for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs when serious illness struck." Many people who suffer debilitating illness lose their jobs and, eventually, their health insurance. Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law professor who headed up the study, argues "the problem is not in the bankruptcy laws. The problem is in the health care finance system." Passing the bankruptcy bill "would be no different than a congressional demand to close hospitals in response to a flu epidemic." A group of 1,700 doctors sent a letter to Congress opposing the bankruptcy bill because it "would remove protection from patients financially ruined by medical costs."

PUNISHING THE ELDERLY: Another group saddled with credit card debt – largely due to costs out of their control – is the nation's elderly. Between 1992 and 2001, "the number of older Americans filing for bankruptcy tripled." A new report by the Demos Network emphasizes "the growing presence of America's seniors in the bankruptcy courts should warn policymakers of the importance of safeguarding this difficult last resort."

PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES: Credit card companies aggressively market their products to many consumers – such as college students, low wage workers and people already drowning in debt – that they know can't afford to pay off their balances. Last year, the industry "collected $11.7 billion in penalty fees." Even as the Federal Reserve has kept its target rate very low (2.25 percent), credit card corporations charged customers who miss one or two payments "with maximum rates that now exceed 28 percent." In April, a unilateral change in the agreement by Discover card allowed the company "to raise the interest rate to 19.99 percent, from as low as zero, for a single late payment." A late payment that was made anytime in the 11 months before the rule change could justify the increase.

THE PAYOFF: Why are members on both sides of the aisle willing to sell out the sick and the poor to pad the profits of the credit card industry? Follow the money. Over the last four years, credit card companies have contributed $24.8 million to congressional and presidential candidates. MBNA – the company leading the industry's hardball lobbying campaign – was the largest single contributor to President Bush's reelection campaign. MBNA contributed $240,675 to Bush through the company's Political Action Committee and individual contributions. It's a reasonable investment; if the bill passes it is expected to "add $75 million a year to MBNA's bottom line."

CORPORATE WATCH – THIRD TIME'S A FAILURE: From the government-bankrolled corporation that brought us the failed FBI computer upgrade and the non-existent Iraqi security force comes another failure in a string of, well, failures. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) recently informed "some of the nation's most influential former military and intelligence officials" that they were "at risk of identity theft" due to a robbery at the SAIC offices. The personal information – including the officials' Social Security numbers, phone numbers and addresses – was not obtained by some Mission Impossible stunt; the thieves gained access to the building by breaking a few windows. For a company that is entrusted with "sensitive government contracts, including many in information security," vulnerability to smash and grab jobs brings us down to a whole new level of national insecurity.

Posted: 13 Feb. 2005

Next time some idiot says it's "unnatural" to be gay...

Gay animals come out of the closet

The crowd that gathered for the first tour comprised a predictable mix of homosexual humans and their curious heterosexual counterparts.

"I have kids at school who think that homosexuality is unnatural," one young teacher told swissinfo, "so I wanted to come along and get some facts to prove them wrong." During the entertaining one-hour tour, Schärz recites evidence from American biologist Bruce Bagemihl’s groundbreaking 1999 study "Biological Exuberance" which documented homosexual activity in more than 450 animal species.

Indiscriminate

Visitors to the zoo learn about the indiscriminate and almost insatiable sexuality of bonobo apes. And re-runs of ‘Flipper’ might never be the same again after hearing how gay male dolphins use their lovers’ blowholes for sexual gratification.

But there are also anecdotes from closer to home.

"Right here in Zurich we once had a gay flamingo couple who remained partners for life," recalls Schärz. "In Cologne zoo they have a pair of lesbian penguins who each year steal an egg from one of their neighbours and treat it as their own."

READ THE REST.

Posted: 12 Feb. 2005

From truthout.org

U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings
By Julie Cart
The Los Angeles Times

More than 200 Fish and Wildlife researchers cite cases where conclusions were reversed to weaken protections and favor business, a survey finds.

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.

The survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such species need to be protected.

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant secretary of the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, have been critical of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that its implementation has imposed hardships on developers and others while failing to restore healthy populations of wildlife.

Along with Republican leaders in Congress, the administration is pushing to revamp the act. The president's proposed budget calls for a $3-million reduction in funding of Fish and Wildlife's endangered species programs.

"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

READ THE REST.

Posted: 11 Feb. 2005

From Organic Consumers Assoc.

ACTION ALERT--TERMINATE THE TERMINATOR
Consumer, farmer, and environmental organizations across the globe are mobilizing to stop the legalization and commercialization of the controversial Terminator Gene Technology, whereby seeds are genetically engineered to become sterile or commit suicide after one growing season. The Monsanto corporation and the biotech industry support the Terminator Technology, because it will force many of the 1.4 billion farmers around the world to stop saving their seeds and instead to purchase patented seed varieties from the Gene Giants. In addition, scientists are concerned that genetic pollution from Terminator crops will lead to killing off a wide range of crops and plants, as Terminator pollen and seeds are spread by the wind, insect pollinators, and commercial seed co-mingling and transportation. After a massive international campaign in 1998, Monsanto Corporation announced they were shelving plans to commercialize the Terminator, while the United Nations (UN) called for a global ban. But today (2/11/2005), renewed efforts to overturn the worldwide ban were launched at a UN conference in Bangkok.

Learn more and sign OCA's petition to the UN to terminate the Terminator Gene: http://organicconsumers.org/un.htm

RBGH MILK IS RBGH MILK
The Center for Global Food Safety, an industry front group funded in part by the Monsanto Corporation, has launched an aggressive "Milk is Milk" campaign, claiming there is no difference between milk produced by cows injected with genetically engineered hormones (Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone), and organic or naturally produced milk. The FDA is aiding the industry's anti-organic "Milk is Milk" campaign, saying they will crack down on organic and rBGH-free dairies that label their products as "hormone free." Monsanto's controversial hormone has been banned in every industrialized country in the world, other than the U.S., Brazil and Mexico, due to scientific evidence indicating that the milk from injected cows contains more pus, antibiotic residues, and IGF-1, a potent cancer tumor promoter. The drug also seriously damages the health of the cows. Read an analysis of the risks of rBGH and a response to the launching of the "Milk is Milk" campaign by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.(University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health) and Ronnie Cummins of the OCA. Learn more...

ORGANIC RICHES
The second annual State of Science Review has found that cancer-fighting antioxidant levels are, on average, 30% higher in organic produce vs. conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. The cause for this, say scientists, is that antioxidant chemicals are created within a plant grown organically or in the wild when the plant triggers internal defense mechanisms. These beneficial mechanisms are rarely triggered in plants that are raised with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Learn more...

From Grist on-line magazine.

GOP congressfolk announce plan to revamp Endangered Species Act

House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) has expressed open hostility toward the Endangered Species Act numerous times, so some conservationist critics are questioning the sincerity of his recently announced effort to "breathe new life" into the law. Along with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), as well as, to the dismay of ESA's backers, moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), Pombo announced plans to introduce a single ESA reauthorization bill that would include a number of changes long sought by critics of the act, including increased incentives for private landowners, increased state involvement, and stricter (critics say prohibitive) scientific review for proposed listings. The talking point wielded by ESA's critics is that only 1 percent of the 1,800 species listed under the act have fully recovered and been removed from the list; the law's backers reply that the intent of the law is to prevent extinction, and only about 1 percent of the species have gone extinct, a rather striking success.

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press, Erica Werner, 10 Feb 2005

straight to the source: Bend.com, 10 Feb 2005

From The Center for American Progress

NONPROLIFERATION
Nuclear Negligence

For a president who claims to be decisive, George Bush has shown an appalling lack of leadership when it comes to North Korea. This week, after four years of vacillation, indecision and hesitancy from the White House, North Korea announced it has nuclear weapons. The United States has long suspected North Korea of having a secret nuclear program; some are dismissing this as a gambit by Kim Jong-Il to get the edge in North Korea's dangerous quest to become an accepted nuclear power. Without a swift commitment from the Bush administration to finally lead, however, that gambit might pay off. Time and again, North Korea's inflammatory behavior has gotten the country exactly what it wanted; as the Washington Post charges, "Every time a red line appears to have been drawn, North Korea has crossed it without penalty."

EVIL FLOURISHES WHEN GOOD PEOPLE DO NOTHING: Nicholas Kristoff reminds readers that, under the watchful Clinton administration, North Korea "as best we know…didn't make a single nuclear weapon." But while the Bush White House indulged its fixation with Iraq, North Korea continuously tested the waters to see just how far it could push the nuclear envelope. Over the past four years, North Korea has "kicked out international weapons inspectors, withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, publicly claimed to have reprocessed spent fuel rods into plutonium and, in 2003, privately threatened U.S. diplomats that it might test a nuclear device." Today, the Bush administration "now acknowledges that North Korea extracted enough plutonium in the last two years for about half a dozen nuclear weapons. "

THEY WILL NOT BE IGNORED: President Bush has refused to focus on the festering problem of North Korea. When Bush took office, the New York Times writes, "he immediately began distancing himself from the Clinton administration's approach, which had stopped the most imminent North Korean nuclear weapons program in its tracks." North Korea went on "a diplomatic back burner as [the White House] followed its obsession with Iraq." As a result, North Korea fell further into "deeper isolation and paranoia." But when reports showed the country was stepping up its nuclear program, Undersecretary of State John Bolton said concern over whether "they had two plutonium-based weapons and now they have seven" was just "quibbling" (a view probably not shared by the nuclear black market).

VACILLATING LEADERSHIP: When an increasingly aggressive North Korea did attract White House attention, the administration remained "startlingly passive." President Bush has been frozen, unable to make the difficult decision between diplomacy and following a hard line. Charles Pritchard, formerly Colin Powell's top official dealing with North Korea, warned that "the administration has neither offered much of a carrot nor wielded a stick." While the White House dithered, North Korea used the time to build more bombs.

STICKS AND STONES BREAKING BONES: Although the White House is reluctant to act in North Korea, it continues to make the situation unstable with incendiary rhetoric. In 2002, President Bush threw off the delicate diplomatic balance by including the country in his "Axis of Evil." (In the days after the speech, former President Jimmy Carter said, "I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement.") In July 2003, just before crucial six-nation talks with North Korea, Bolton so insulted the country that the State Department was forced to call him home. And even though "skittish South Korean and Chinese officials" recently urged the Bush administration to tread lightly around North Korea, in her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted upon calling North Korea "an outpost of tyranny," a phrase North Korea repeated in its nuclear declaration.

ENVIRONMENT
Of, By and For Corporate Lobbyists

The administration is set for a major push of its Orwellian "Clear Skies Act," which the National Academy of Sciences revealed last month would result in more air pollution than under current law. Yesterday, secret documents obtained by the National Resources Defense Counsel revealed the legislation was written by corporate lobbyists representing the industries it supposedly regulates. In April 2003, a group of eight power plant companies reviewed the administration's first draft and submitted a wish list of "essential" changes to further weaken already anemic pollution controls. The administration gave the polluters what they wanted. Now, Congress has to decide if it will join the charade. Apparently, the media can't be bothered to report on corporate control of administration policy. Thus far, this story hasn't been covered by a single major newspaper. Plenty of info, however, on Camilla Parker Bowles.

PRESIDENT BUSH SELLS OUT PUBLIC HEALTH: Why was President Bush willing to take instructions from eight corporations at the expense of public health? Follow the money. All told, the corporations gave nearly $100,000 directly to Bush's presidential campaigns from individual executives and their Political Action Committees (PACs) – including $27,860 from Cinergy and $24,200 from American Electric Power.

ALTERED BILL CREATED INDUSTRY SLUSH FUND: The "Clear Skies Act" works on a "cap-and-trade" model, where the government caps total emissions on certain pollutants and then sells emissions allowances to industry. Under the initial version of the Act, proceeds from the sales of emissions caps would go back to the taxpayers. But corporate lobbyists didn't like that idea. They asked the administration to create "a largely unregulated Department of Energy account to fund industry efforts to develop pollution control technologies." And the lobbyists got exactly what they wanted. In other words, the law would now "pay industry to comply with preexisting laws – at the taxpayers expense."

UNDERMINING THE EPA: The "Clear Skies Act" began as the brainchild of an industry lobbyist. In April 2001, a top utility industry lobbyist, Quin Shea, told coal industry representatives that "he and his colleagues had a plan for the White House to allow coal plants to emit more pollution for much longer than the Environmental Protection Agency had been planning under the Clean Air Act." (You can read the transcript of his presentation here, starting on page 46.) That plan formed the basis of the "Clear Skies Act," which would "delay and dilute cuts in power plants' sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollution that are required by the Clean Air Act." The Act would also "weaken the Clean Air Act's public health safeguards protecting local air quality, curbing pollution from upwind states and restoring visibility in our national parks."

IGNORING GLOBAL WARMING: President Bush has abandoned his campaign promise to place caps on carbon dioxide emissions. The "Clear Skies Act" does nothing to address the global warming problem. The conservative co-sponsors, in fact, don't see it as a problem at all. Sen. James Inhofe recently said that climate change was "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of Church and State." For the facts on global warming and a responsible way to address the problem, check out this American Progress report.

HALLIBURTON – HEY, ANYBODY SEEN OUR NUKES?: Whoops. A 185-pound container of radioactive equipment – the material used in dirty bombs – which was imported by Halliburton Energy Services turned up unexpectedly this week at a shipping facility in Chelsea, MA. The problem: the shipment was falsely registered as having arrived in Newark, NJ, four months ago, and Halliburton only reported the missing container last Tuesday. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan, stating the obvious, said that Halliburton's four-month delay in reporting the loss "did not comply with notification requirements."

FDA – IMAGE OVER SAFETY: In a responsible move that demonstrated concern for the health of its citizenry, Canada's drug regulators pulled a drug for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder off the market earlier this week due to concern that it "had been linked to 20 sudden deaths and a dozen strokes, including some among children." The United States Food and Drug Administration, however, wasn't as diligent in looking out for public safety; the FDA allegedly requested that Canadian health officials not pull the drug because the FDA "could not handle another 'drug safety crisis.'"

INTEL – RICE RECEIVED 'URGENT' AL QAEDA WARNING: Eight months before the Sept. 11 attacks, and days after the Bush administration first took office, then-White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke issued a memo to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice describing the "urgent need" for "a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network." A newly released memo seriously undermines Rice's claim in a 3/22/04 column in the Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration." Also, a previously undisclosed 9/11 Commission report released yesterday showed federal aviation officials received dozens of warnings before the Sept. 11 attacks about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, including some that mentioned airline hijackings or suicide attacks. Former members of the Commission and families of the 9/11 victims are pushing a reluctant White House to release the entire classified 9/11 Commission report.

CORRUPTION – FOLLOW THE HOUSE LEADER: Texas representatives eager to gut the state's ethics guidelines are said to be following in the footsteps of the master – House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX). In what watchdogs call "a junior version" of DeLay's efforts in Washington, a veteran state GOP lawmaker this week filed a bill that would give the Texas Ethics Commission the power to prohibit a district attorney from continuing an ethics inquiry if the Ethics Commission did not agree that charges were warranted. Among the politicians who appoint Ethics Commission members is state House Speaker Tom Craddick (R). According to the Los Angeles Times, Craddick also happens to be a target of the fundraising investigation by District Attorney Ronnie Earle into whether political and business groups with ties to Rep. DeLay illegally financed the campaigns of 22 Republican House candidates in 2002. Earle called the bill "a slap in the face to the public."

Posted: 10 Feb. 2005

The Republicans are turning into such a batch of unethical bastards.

The Senate leadership is considering implementation of a rarely used procedure known as the "nuclear option" to get around a potential filibuster of federal judicial appointments. This maneuver could limit Senate debate on President George W. Bush's expected nominees to the Supreme Court, and other federal courts, and silence voices of dissent.

This so called "nuclear option" will give Vice President Dick Cheney, who serves as the Senate's presiding officer, the power to declare unconstitutional the use of filibusters in judicial nominations. This rule change will allow a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than 60 votes, to affirm judges for lifetime appointments. The Senate minority - the Democrats - will not be able to filibuster Cheney's rulings under this option.

This is wrong. It is wrong to jettison a longtime Senate procedure simply because it is inconvenient to one party's goals. It is an abuse of power to strip the Senate minority of a tool designed to protect its rights - rights both parties have vociferously defended throughout the Senate's history. Sign our petition today, and let the senators know that we oppose the changing long-standing Senate rules to blatantly advance one party's goals:

Save the Integrity of the U.S. Senate

www.commoncause.org/SaveSenatesIntegrity

Kevin Drum, a writer for Washington Monthly points out the hypocrisy in this change of Senate rules:
When Democrats were in the majority, Republicans defended these traditional Senate rules and used them to freely to block judges they had strong objections to. But when they became the majority party themselves, they gradually decided the rules should no longer be allowed to get in the way of unbridled majority of power.

Also, it is especially wrong to arbitrarily oppose a filibuster only in the instance of judicial nominations, which are among the most important and long-lasting decisions made by the Senate. So, let your senators know that we expect them to preserve the integrity of deliberations in the Senate, which is based on the ideals of compromise and curbing of extremism:

www.commoncause.org/SaveSenatesIntegrity

The Senate has long prided itself as the world's greatest deliberative body. Senators of both parties cite the filibuster, which has been in place in various forms since the 1790s, as key to that. Although the filibuster is perhaps best known as part of the efforts to block civil rights legislation, filibusters have been used by both parties for a range of issues. Common Cause, in fact, worked to overcome filibusters mounted by opponents of campaign finance reform.

Removing such a long-standing parliamentary maneuver now to serve immediate partisan goals violates core democratic values and is an anathema to the Senate's commitment to consensus and a bipartisan deliberative process. This is why we need you to urge your senators to oppose implementation of this nuclear option that will erode the existing checks against the unbridled majority power of one political party:

www.commoncause.org/SaveSenatesIntegrity

Thank you for all you do for Common Cause.
Sincerely,

Chellie Pingree
President & CEO, Common Cause

From The Center for American Progress

VALUES
The Right-Wing's Broken Moral Compass

Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and 114 conservatives in the House of Representatives are pushing hard for a bill – the REAL ID Act – that would make it more difficult for people persecuted for their religious beliefs to receive asylum in the United States. Under the legislation, many refugees tortured, raped and brutalized on the basis of their race, national origin or political opinions would also be turned away. Sensenbrenner claims the law is necessary "to prevent another 9/11-type attack by disrupting terrorist travel." But current law already bars anyone who poses a security risk from being granted asylum. The bill also contains other provisions that are an affront to core American principles, including federalism, environmental stewardship and the rule of law. (Share your thoughts on the right-wing's moral values at ThinkProgress.org.)

FAITH-BASED GROUPS SPEAK OUT: A diverse coalition of faith-based groups – including an arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, B'nai B'rith International and the Midland Association of Churches – have spoken out against the legislation. An interfaith statement signed by the religious groups says, "We believe that the religious traditions which we embrace calls us to oppose a narrowing of the door to asylum by some of the world's most at risk persons. We are committed to resisting a fear driven agenda which violates our faith based principles."

BIPARTISAN COMMISSION CONDEMNS TREATMENT OF REFUGEES: The REAL ID Act will add more problems to an already flawed system. The bipartisan United States Commission on International Religious Freedom recently released a report that found "thousands of people who come to the United States saying they are seeking refuge from persecution are treated like criminals while their claims are evaluated." Refugee are frequently "strip-search, shackled and...thrown into solitary confinement in local jails and federal detention centers." Some refugees are given no privacy to use the toilet and little chance to exercise outdoors. Others are allowed to work but paid only $1 per day. The commission recommended "a high-level protector of refugees be appointed to monitor the system and correct inequities."

AN AFFRONT TO FEDERALISM: The REAL ID Act would also dictate to states driver's license eligibility requirements. Most significantly, it would invalidate all driver's licenses in 10 states that grant licenses to undocumented immigrants until they changed their policies. Officials in Washington State say such a mandate would endanger its residents because it would prevent many immigrants on the roads from obtaining automobile insurance. The bill, which contains no privacy protections, would also require sensitive state driver's license data to be shared with Canada and Mexico.

2005 = 1984: In an Orwellian touch, the REAL ID Act contains a provision that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to "waive any and all laws in the course of securing the borders from illegal immigration." The bill also contains "exemption from judicial review that not only shields the waiver decisions from court scrutiny but also strips courts of any power to order remedies for anyone harmed by the consequences of such decisions." The provision "would empower the DHS Secretary to give no-bid contracts for border construction to private companies and then shield those contractors from all employment discrimination and workplace safety laws." Another big concern: the provision gives DHS free reign to waive environmental laws across thousands of acres of federal lands.

MEDICARE
The $913 Billion Boondoggle

According to the administration's new budget, the president's Medicare prescription drug bill will cost $913 billion from 2006 to 2015. It's a far cry from the initial estimate – in his 2003 State of the Union, remember, President Bush assured the nation his plan would cost just $400 billion. Immediately after his legislation was rammed through a reluctant Congress, in a classic bait-and-switch, the administration admitted the cost would be closer to $534 billion from 2005 to 2014, although it "never offered a detailed breakdown of that estimate." Here's a look back at the history of this misguided legislation.

THE PROBLEMS: The first stage of the law – the introduction of prescription drug cards – has been a bust with seniors. Why? The system is confusing, with 73 different cards all covering different medications. And once seniors have signed up for a specific card, they are locked into it, even though the drug companies are allowed to change prices as often as once a week. And the discount isn't guaranteed. In fact, to offset the potential loss in profit, drug companies jacked up the price of medicines over the past year an average of 7.4 percent, "or more than three times the 2.3 percent rate of general inflation in that period." Finally, studies have shown seniors can find cheaper drugs without using the cards.

THE COSTS: The Medicare bill may not have been good for seniors, but it was huge boost for the pharmaceutical industry and corporate interests. The White House, for example, blocked efforts to allow Medicare to use bulk purchasing power to negotiate cheaper drug prices. On top of that, the Medicare program will give corporations $89 billion to "discourage" employers from dropping retirees from their plans. The loophole: corporations receive the subsidy even if they cut support for pensioners…and many are taking the money and running. (The AARP recently sued the administration