MY POV

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

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

How Bush really feels about you.

"If there were such a thing as Intelligent Design, we wouldn't have George W. Bush."

Christy Marx

The Mars Society

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969)
34th President of the USA
a Republican, in a letter written to his brother on November 8, 1954

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

Benito Mussolini

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

Abraham Lincoln
November 12, 1864

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

Martin Luther King Jr., 1963

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

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

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

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

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

Heinrich Heine
Almansor, 1823

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

Sir Winston Churchill
(1874-1965)

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

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

Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarschall

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

Robert Scheer

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

American Heritage Dictionary

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

Dr. Martin Luther King

"My life is my message."

Gandhi

Posted: 30 May 2007

Bruce Schneier is a security specialist who has a highly useful blog on LiveJournal.

Department of Homeland Security Not Focused on Terrorism
by Bruce Schneier

I thought terrorism is why we have a DHS, but they've been preoccupied with other things:

Of the 814,073 people charged by DHS in immigration courts during the past three years, 12 faced charges of terrorism, TRAC said.

Those 12 cases represent 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed.

"The DHS claims it is focused on terrorism. Well that's just not true," said David Burnham, a TRAC spokesman. "Either there's no terrorism, or they're terrible at catching them. Either way it's bad for all of us."

The TRAC analysis also found that DHS filed a minuscule number of what are called "national security" charges against people in the immigration courts. The report stated that 114, or 0.014 percent of the total of roughly 800,000 individuals charged were charged with national security violations.

TRAC reported more than 85 percent of the charges involved more common immigration violations such as not having a valid immigrant visa, overstaying a student visa or entering the United States without an inspection.

TRAC is a great group, and I recommend wandering around their site if you're interested in what the U.S. government is actually doing.

Posted: 29 May 2007

Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health
Expert links additive to cell damage
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Published: 27 May 2007

A new health scare erupted over soft drinks last night amid evidence they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.

The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.

The findings could have serious consequences for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who consume fizzy drinks. They will also intensify the controversy about food additives, which have been linked to hyperactivity in children.

Concerns centre on the safety of E211, known as sodium benzoate, a preservative used for decades by the £74bn global carbonated drinks industry. Sodium benzoate derives from benzoic acid. It occurs naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces.

Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale.

Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.

READ THE REST.

Posted: 27 May 2007

I knew from day one that the current Iraqi war was about the oil.

What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies
By Ann Wright

On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.

This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.

What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.

READ THE REST.

Posted: 26 May 2007

Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the United States

The Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental rules for causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a handful of companies with large control over our nation’s gas markets that is directly causing these high prices.
Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.

Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels’ application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for – and receiving – permits to modify and expand their existing refineries.[1]

Myth 2: The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive.

Fact: Actually, industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector. The largest five oil refiners in the United States (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell) now control over half (56.3%) of domestic oil refinery capacity; the top ten refiners control 83%. Only ten years ago, these top five oil companies only controlled about one-third (34.5%) of domestic refinery capacity; the top ten controlled 55.6%. This dramatic increase in the control of just the top five companies makes it easier for oil companies to manipulate gasoline supplies by intentionally withholding supplies in order to drive up prices. Indeed, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices—all as a “profit-maximizing strategy.” A May 2004 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report also found that mergers in the oil industry directly led to higher prices—and this report did not even include the large mergers after the year 2000, such as ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips. Yet, just one week after Hurricane Katrina, the FTC approved yet another merger of refinery giants—Valero Energy and Premcor—giving Valero 13% of the national market share. These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been challenged by the U.S. government.

Myth 3: The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability.

Fact: Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet today’s reformulated gasoline blend needs.

Profit margins for oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, U.S. oil refiners made a profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, the profits jumped 80% to 40.8 cents per gallon of gasoline refined. Between 2001 and mid-2005, the combined profits for the biggest five refiners was $228 billion.

Gutting environmental laws for oil refinery siting will not solve the high gas prices.

So what should be done?

* Improve regulations over the over-concentrated oil industry

The most effective way to protect consumers is to restore competitive markets. Congress should limit the financial incentives oil companies have to keep gasoline supplies artificially tight by mandating minimum storage of gasoline, reevaluating recent mergers, investigating anticompetitive practices, and re-regulating oil trading.

* Adopt tougher fuel economy standards

In 2004, the EPA found that the average fuel economy of 2004 vehicles is 20.8 miles per gallon (mpg), compared to 22.1 mpg in 1987—a six percent decline. This decline is attributable to the fact that fuel economy standards have not been meaningfully increased since the 1980s, while sales of fuel inefficient SUVs and pickups have exploded: in 1987, 28% of new vehicles sold were light trucks, compared to 48% in 2004. Billions of gallons of oil could be saved if significant fuel economy increases were mandated. Improving fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles from 27.5 to 40 mpg, and for light trucks (including SUVs and vans) from 20.7 to 27.5 mpg by 2015 would reduce our gasoline consumption by one-third. Dramatic reductions in consumption will not only reduce strain on America’s refinery output, but also on Americans’ pocketbooks.

Posted: 24 May 2007

From The Center for American Progress.

ENVIRONMENT -- POLLUTERS FLOURISH UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: "Environmental enforcement efforts by the U.S. EPA and the Justice Department have plummeted over the last five years, resulting in a 38 percent decline in criminal fines and a 25 percent drop in civil penalties, according to a new report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP)." Through examination of ten years of federal data, the group concluded that enforcement was much stronger under the Clinton administration but has lacked since President Bush took office. The EIP's analysis revealed that the EPA's effectiveness has dropped in four of five categories: cases filed, number of civil penalties, criminal fines, and criminal investigations. The only category which did not decline was "value of enforcements," but the EIP adds that even this is "endangered" because the Bush administration continues to "try to weaken or eliminate New Source Review" rules, which are designed to ensure that power plants meet pollution guidelines under the Clean Air Act. Reflecting the dismal enforcement under Bush, the EIP reports that the Justice Department files, on average, only 16 lawsuits per year "against polluters who refuse to settle," whereas the Clinton administration prosecuted an average of 52 per year. The Bush administration was quick to deny the claims. "Any suggestion that the Justice Department is not enforcing the nation's laws is utterly false," said Matthew J. McKeown of the Department of Justice. "The bad news here is that it now costs less to pollute," said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the EIP and a former top official at the EPA. "A good environmental program needs to make polluters pay for their violations."

ETHICS -- JUSTICE OFFICIALS CONFIRM WHITE HOUSE INSTIGATED PLAN TO BYPASS SENATE ON U.S. ATTORNEY: Both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson approved a plan to bypass the Senate and install Karl Rove-protege Tim Griffin as U.S. attorney in Arkansas. But private testimony by Sampson reveals that the idea was "instigated" by the White House. According to Karen Tumulty of Time, "Pressure to do it, he suggested, was coming from officials at the White House -- specifically, White House political director Sara Taylor, her deputy Scott Jennings and Chris Oprison, the associate White House counsel. Sampson described himself and Goodling as 'open to the idea,' which is not the same as instigating it." Taylor reports directly to Rove. In a Dec. 19, 2006 e-mail, Sampson said that getting Griffin "appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Additionally, according to written testimony by Bud Cummins -- the prosecutor Griffin replaced -- Michael Elston, the chief of staff to former Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, said that the plan to install Griffin and circumvent Senate approval was completely dictated by the White House. Cummins wrote, "Elston denied knowing anything about anyone's intention to circumvent Senate confirmation in Griffin's case. He said that might have been the White House's plan, but they 'never read DOJ into that plan' and DOJ would never go along with it. This indicated to me that my removal had been dictated entirely by the White House." Fortunately, in a 306-114 vote, the House recently passed legislation "that would curb President Bush's power to appoint prosecutors indefinitely," limiting interim U.S. attorneys' terms to 120 days. The Senate has already approved the bill, and it now heads to Bush for his signature.

Posted: 23 May 2007

10 Disturbing Trends in Subliminal Advertising
Subliminal advertising has gone mainstream - fake news, mind control scripts, propaganda and stealth voicemail are in wide use by corporations, government bodies and industry groups.

Excerpts:

9. Planted News Stories
Industry front groups, public relations firms and government departments are planting news stories on TV, radio, newspapers and the web. Those 'miracle drug' stories or research reports are often Video News Release (VNRs). TV newsrooms love these prepackaged news items that are distributed across the networks. It saves them time and money but it is killing community news and genuine investigative reporting. Real news items are being replaced by slick corporate promotions and political messages. According to one Nielsen Media Research Survey, about 80 percent of U.S. news directors air VNRs several times a month, and all American television newsrooms now use VNRs in their newscasts.

10. Government Propaganda
When it's time to launch a war or promote an unpopular policy, the government needs special help to sell the idea through the media. Opinion engineers are paid to "manage" public perception of inconvenient facts, and turn them around for better. Using the universal tools fear, patriotism, and phrase repetition, these high flying spin doctors can easily sway the population. The most successful public relations campaigns aim to change public perception without our awareness of the campaign. They are typically launched by governments, institutions and countries who need to change their public image, restore their reputation or manipulate public opinion. There are PR firms today who advise dictatorships, dishonest politicians and corrupt industries to cover up environmental catastrophes and human rights violations.

Martin Howard is a media researcher and author of "We Know What You Want: How They Change Your Mind".

From Grist, "gloom and doom with a sense of humor".

Carbon emissions increasing faster than expected, says new study

Remember climate change? It's still happening -- and faster than expected. From 2000 to 2004, global carbon dioxide emissions leapt from an average 1.1 percent annual growth rate to more than 3 percent annual growth, according to a new report published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That means the globe's inhabitants spewed nearly 8 billion tons of carbon in 2005, up from 6 billion tons in 1995. "We're burning more carbon per dollar of wealth created," says lead author Mike Raupach, blaming the trend on intensive industrialization in developing countries like China, as well as a leveling off of energy efficiency in developed countries such as the U.S. and Australia. Emissions are accelerating at a rate eerily close to the worst-case-scenario projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which predicted a consequence of a 7.2-degree surface-temperature rise by 2100. Good luck next time, Earthlings!


Smithsonian allegedly revised exhibit to show climate "uncertainty"

In 2003, the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History was accused of pandering to the Bush administration when a photography exhibit about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was relocated and downplayed. Now former museum administrator Robert Sullivan is charging that last year, the museum toned down an exhibit on climate changes in the Arctic by rewriting official text to inject uncertainty about human causation, omitting scientific interpretation of research, and altering graphs. "The obsession with getting the next allocation and appropriation was so intense that anything that might upset the Congress or the White House was being looked at very carefully," says Sullivan, who resigned in the fall when officials tried to reassign him. The museum claims that changes were made in the name of objectivity, not politics, but a federal climate scientist who consulted on the exhibit sees it differently: "They're not stupid. They don't want to upset the people who pay them."

Posted: 21 May 2007

A long, but vital interview. I urge you to read the entire article.

Greg Palast, Author of Armed Madhouse, on How Rove May Have Already Stolen the 2008 Election
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

BuzzFlash: You’re having incredible success with the new expanded paperback edition of Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. Of course, the electronic voting machines and how they function is a very significant issue, but your specialty has really been how the Bush/Rove GOP political machine keeps persons who are likely to vote Democratic or Independent from voting.

Greg Palast: Yes. People ask me: Are they going to steal the 2008 election? No, they’ve already stolen the 2008 election. We still have a chance of swiping it back, but the reason I’ve expanded and put out the new edition of Armed Madhouse is to tell you how they will steal in 2008, and what to do about it. That’s one of the main new things. Plus a special chapter on New Orleans and my bust down there.

Of course, I was very flattered that the first review of the new edition of Armed Madhouse was written by Karl Rove and the Rove-bots -- it was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee -- I can’t make this up. On February 7th, the Rove team, which had been writing several e-mails screaming about Armed Madhouse and "that British reporter," Greg Palast, were gloating that no U.S. media had picked up my stories. And they had a .pdf file attached. Of course, the reason my book was subpoenaed is that it has to do with the US prosecutor firings. The prosecutor firings were 100% about influencing elections -- not about loyalty to Bush, which is what The New York Times wrote. The administration team couldn’t tolerate appointees who wouldn’t go along with crime. In the book I present the evidence that Karl Rove directed a guy named Tim Griffin to target suppressing the votes of African American students, homeless men, and soldiers. Nice guy. They actually challenged the votes and successfully removed tens of thousands of legal voters from the voter rolls, same as they did in 2000. But instead of calling them felons, they said that they had suspect addresses.

BuzzFlash: In which election cycle?

Greg Palast: 2004. And in 2006 and 2004, they challenged tens of thousands of black soldiers. They stopped their votes from being counted when they were mailed in from Baghdad. Go to Baghdad and lose your vote -- mission accomplished.

BuzzFlash: How did they do that?

Greg Palast: By sending letters to the homes of soldiers, marked "do not forward." When they came back undelivered, they said: Aha! Illegal voter registered from a false address. And when their ballot came in from Fallujah, it was challenged. The soldier didn’t know it. Their vote was lost. Over half a million votes were challenged and lost by the Republicans -- absentee ballots. Three million voters who went to the polls found themselves challenged by the Republicans. This was not a small operation. It was a multi-million dollar, wholesale theft operation.

They’re right that I’m a British reporter, because I put this story on British TV, not on American TV, which won’t touch it. [BuzzFlash note: Palast writes for British papers and reports on the BBC, but he is a product of the San Fernando Valley and the University of Chicago, 100% American.] But our election was a complete, total fraud. This is grand theft -- no question. It’s not a dirty trick; it’s a felony crime.

I’m working with Bobby Kennedy, who is a voting rights attorney. He said, “This is not just an icky, horrible thing that people do wearing white sheets. This is a felony crime.” [paraphrase] And the guy they put in charge of this criminal ring to knock out voters is a guy named Tim Griffin. Today, Tim Griffin is -- badda-bing -- U.S. Attorney for Arkansas. When they fired the honest guys, they put in the Rove-bots to fix the 2008 election. That’s what I’m saying -- it’s already being stolen, as we speak. Tim Griffin is the perpetrator who’s become the prosecutor, and that’s what’s going down right now.

BuzzFlash: You have been questioned about prosecutor-gate and about the theft of the election of 2008. But these replacement prosecutors are still in place, not to mention the ones who have cooperated with Bush. Gonzales has basically told the House Judiciary Committee, make my day. I’m staying on. It’s over with. You asked me questions. I didn’t give you answers, but you don’t have the courage to impeach me, so I’m staying.

Greg Palast: That’s the game, too. Congress is shooting at the glove puppet. I shoot at the puppeteers. It’s not Gonzales. He’s meaningless. He’s a nothing. He should go because he allowed it to happen, and that’s a crime. When I was a racketeering investigator, we used to call it “willful failure to know.” He can’t just say to his staff, I know what Rove is doing, but don’t tell me about it. He would still be liable for criminal conspiracy of obstruction of justice. That’s why Monica Goodling took the Fifth. Not knowing doesn’t mean you’re not guilty, especially when you went out of your way not to know.

Gonzales should be read his rights and carted away. But it’s the puppeteers behind him -- Rove and Harriet Miers -- who were deeply involved in the prosecutor hits. No one’s talking about her. This is the woman who went from head of the Texas State Lottery to nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Bush, and no one asked how that happened. They said: Harriet who? But they didn’t ask how that happened. They said, oh, she’s loyal to Bush. She’s the one who did the payoffs to cover up the fact that George Senior got George Junior out of the war in Vietnam. Do you think that that was done just by daddy making a call? Money had to be paid -- lots and lots of money to keep people quiet -- $23 million. That is something I reported on BBC Television and in the Guardian newspaper. We’ve given them plenty of time to challenge that story about the payoffs. We’ve never gotten a peep from these guys. And unlike CBS, the BBC has not withdrawn the story that the fix was put in to get Chicken George out of Vietnam. No one has challenged our story, nor have we withdrawn a comment on our story that the payoffs were made to keep it quiet.

BuzzFlash: Let’s focus for the moment on voter suppression, and we'll return later to other elements of the voter manipulation story.

Greg Palast: I have it all in Armed Madhouse, including in the three new chapters. First and foremost, is that it’s not one thing. It ain’t just electronic voting, guys. You go, oh, we have paper ballots, we’re saved, we’re saved. Bulls***! Wake up! Hello! Let’s remember that in Florida and Ohio, they didn’t have computer voting. So all the stuff about Diebold -- Ohio was not stolen by computers, because they didn’t have computers there. In fact, they were thrilled when people complained about computers because they could keep the junky punch cards in. That doesn’t mean that computers are safe. As I point out in the new chapter, the Republicans held on to Katherine Harris’ seat -- and we don’t want to think too carefully about that image -- they held onto Katherine Harris’ seat with 300 votes, while 18,000 votes disappeared in the computers. So they do use computers. That was a pure, straight-up, shoplift of the Congressional seat.

READ THE REST.

Posted: 20 May 2007

Fascinating stuff.

Diamonds tell tale of comet that killed off the cavemen
Fireballs set half the planet ablaze, wiping out the mammoth and America's Stone Age hunters
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday May 20, 2007
The Observer

Scientists will outline dramatic evidence this week that suggests a comet exploded over the Earth nearly 13,000 years ago, creating a hail of fireballs that set fire to most of the northern hemisphere.

Primitive Stone Age cultures were destroyed and populations of mammoths and other large land animals, such as the mastodon, were wiped out. The blast also caused a major bout of climatic cooling that lasted 1,000 years and seriously disrupted the development of the early human civilisations that were emerging in Europe and Asia.

'This comet set off a shock wave that changed Earth profoundly,' said Arizona geophysicist Allen West. 'It was about 2km-3km in diameter and broke up just before impact, setting off a series of explosions, each the equivalent of an atomic bomb blast. The result would have been hell on Earth. Most of the northern hemisphere would have been left on fire.'

READ THE REST.

Here's an amazing thing to watch -- four nuclear cooling towers being demolished.

http://www.chapelcrosscoolingtowers.com/index.html

Found via link at http://oldgreypoet.wordpress.com.

Posted: 18 May 2007

From The Center for American Progress.

Soldiers Get Stiffed

Yesterday, the House passed a comprehensive $646 billion defense spending bill by an overwhelming vote of 397-27. The bill authorizes "more than $100 billion in military procurement. That includes money to buy new protective vehicles and body armor for troops, and an additional $142 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." But the White House is threatening to veto the bill because it objects to, among other things, a recommended 3.5 percent military pay raise for 2008, with further increases in 2009 through 2012. The increases are "intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today." Even after the proposed increases, the gap will still remain at 1.4 percent. In a statement of administration policy released Wednesday, White House budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" the pay raise provision because, according to them, extra pay increases are "unnecessary." The White House is also objecting to a $40 monthly allowance for military survivors, additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees, and price controls for prescription drugs under Tricare, the military's health care plan for military personnel and their dependents. Bush's veto threat is holding captive all the funding contained in the bill.

VETO IS AN 'OUTRAGE': "This is a strong bill that addresses our military's critical readiness needs, supports our troops in the field and at home and protects the American people," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Veterans groups and members of Congress are rightly outraged at the administration's callous veto threat. "The president just vetoed legislation so he would be able to send more troops into the middle of the Iraqi...civil war -- without end, mind you -- but is against increasing benefits to the spouses of those lost, or a pay increase for those who are serving," wrote Jon Soltz, the co-founder of VoteVets.org, yesterday. "If there's a more fitting definition of 'outrage,' I'd love to see it." Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said, "The President is a lot of talk when it comes to supporting the troops and their families. ... But actions matter and when it comes to the treatment of our troops and their families, our resources must match our rhetoric."

INCREASING STRAINS: In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was "extending the tours of duty for active duty Army troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from 12 to 15 months." To no surprise, many soldiers reacted to the forced extensions with "anger," "frustration," and a "collective groan." The White House is now facing increased pressure "to ease the strain on the lives of military families suffering as a result of the extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and frequent redeployment." Estrangement from family back home is one of the more significant problems for soldiers facing extended tours. The divorce rate of active-duty soldiers has risen sharply with increased deployments. In 2004, 7,152 enlisted personnel's marriages ended in divorce, up 28 percent from 2003 and 53 percent from 2000; the rate is still increasing. A recent Pentagon report also found that the more soldiers are deployed, the more likely they are to "suffer mental health problems such as combat trauma, anxiety and depression," contributing to increased problems at home. A provision in the defense bill passed by the House yesterday, aimed at helping soldiers struggling with divorce at home, preventing them from "permanently losing custody of their children because of the absence." But with Bush's veto threat, that legal relief is now in jeopardy.

Posted: 17 May 2007

ALERT: ANOTHER SNEAK ATTACK ON ORGANIC STANDARDS: USDA TO ALLOW MORE CONVENTIONAL INGREDIENTS IN ORGANICS

USDA & INDUSTRY TRY TO SNEAK BANNED CONVENTIONAL INGREDIENTS INTO ORGANIC BEER, SAUSAGE, & PROCESSED FOODS

The USDA has announced a controversial proposal, with absolutely no input from consumers, to allow 38 new non-organic ingredients in products bearing the "USDA Organic" seal. Most of the ingredients are food colorings derived from plants that are supposedly not "commercially available" in organic form. But at least three of the proposed ingredients, backed by beer giant Anheuser-Busch, and pork and food processors, represent a serious threat to organic standards, and have raised the concerns of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

The OCA is gathering signatures for the following petition, which will presented to the USDA prior to the close of this short 7 day public comment period. Please sign on to the petition below by scrolling to the bottom of this page.

Go here: Organic Consumers Association

From Grist, "gloom and doom with a sense of humor".

Legislation introduced to overhaul ancient mining law

In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed a mining-regulation law -- and while resource extraction has changed significantly since then, the rules haven't. Now Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) is seeking to revamp what he calls "the Jurassic Park of all federal laws," introducing a proposal that would require land-reclamation plans, make some public lands off-limits to mining, and impose an 8 percent royalty on minerals. The revenue from the tax -- similar to what oil, natural gas, and coal companies already pay -- would go to clean up highly toxic abandoned mines in the West, but the expected annual $100 million intake might barely make a dent; the Interior Department estimates cleanup may be a $32 billion job. The 1872 law, which does nothing to protect groundwater or force post-extraction cleanup, has led to a "staggering legacy of poisoned streams, abandoned waste dumps, and maimed landscapes," says Rahall, whose toughest opponent might be Senate Majority Leader (and miner's son) Harry Reid of gold-happy Nevada.

From The Center for American Progress.

IRAN -- CENTCOM COMMANDER FALLON SAYS ATTACK ON IRAN 'WILL NOT HAPPEN ON MY WATCH': Earlier this year, the Bush administration deployed a second Navy group carrier into the Persian Gulf. Vice President Dick Cheney referred to the move as an attempt to send a "strong signal" about the administration's commitment to confronting Iran. In February, Newsweek reported that the Bush administration was planning to ratchet up the pressure even further by deploying a third carrier into the Gulf. IPS reported that the administration's attempt to send the third carrier group was vetoed by the new head of the U.S. Central Command. "Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush's nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM." One source said Fallon sent a memo that "insisted there was no military requirement for" an additional carrier. Fallon privately conveyed, around the time of his confirmation hearing, that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch." IPS notes, "Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it."

Posted: 16 May 2007

From Grist, "gloom and doom with a sense of humor". I have little sympathy for the actions of the accused, but I think it will be a dangerous and scary thing if the government gets its way.

U.S. prosecutors compare "eco-terrorists" to KKK

In its unyielding quest to root out terror at its terror-y roots, the U.S. government is battling to have 10 eco-activists sentenced as terrorists. At a hearing in Eugene, Ore., yesterday, attorneys argued that 10 members of the loosely coalesced Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front deserve the label, which could not only net them longer sentences in scarier prisons, but also redefine how other forms of activism are prosecuted. U.S. attorneys compared the 10 -- who have pleaded guilty to arson and conspiracy in connection with 20 fires from 1996 to 2001, including a mega-blaze at a Vail ski resort -- to the Ku Klux Klan. The defense objected, pointing out that the KKK killed people. On purpose. The U.S. attorney's response? The fires are "a classic case of terrorism" because the groups were trying to coerce the feds into changing their policies, and it was "pure luck" that no one was killed or injured. Did we mention no one was killed or injured? A ruling is expected next week.

From The Center for American Progress.

ETHICS -- DESPITE ROVE'S CLAIMS, VOTER FRAUD WASN'T A 'PROBLEM' IN NEVADA: The Washington Post recently reported, "Of the 12 U.S. attorneys known to have been dismissed or considered for removal last year, five were identified by Rove or other administration officials as working in districts that were trouble spots for voter fraud." One of those districts was Nevada. The U.S. attorney in that region, Daniel Bogden, was fired last year as part of the Bush administration's prosecutor purge. According to Justice Department documents, part of the reason he was fired was because Karl Rove and Benton Campbell, chief of staff for the Justice Department's Criminal Division, believed that Bogden didn't go after voter fraud aggressively enough. Yet as the Las Vegas Sun reports, voter fraud wasn't a problem in Nevada. In fact, Bogden didn't have any cases to pursue. "Secretary of State Ross Miller, a Democrat, said he knew of no cases brought to the U.S. attorney's office in recent years," noted the Sun. "Nevada Republicans say the same. The biggest case Nevada had seen recently was an allegation in 2004 that a Republican-financed group had shredded registration cards from Democratic voters. The FBI investigated but it appears the case was not forwarded to Bogden." As the New York Times said in a March 16 editorial, "In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. ... There is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in this country. Rather, Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups." Gonzales has admitted that when he approved of the firings in Nov. 2006, he didn't know why Bogden was on the hit list.

ETHICS -- NOMINEE TO PROTECT CONSUMER SAFETY RECEIVES $150,000 FROM MANUFACTURERS GROUP: On March 1, President Bush nominated Michael Baroody to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which is charged with protecting the public from dangerous consumer products. Baroody is a senior lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), "a trade group that opposes aggressive product safety regulation" and "has called for weakening the Consumer Product Safety Commission." Today, the New York Times reports that Baroody will "receive a $150,000 departing payment from the association when he takes his new government job," even though he will be charged with "enforcing consumer laws against members of the association." This "extraordinary payment" will nearly equal the $154,600 salary Baroody will receive as chairman of the commission. NAM often has issues before the CPSC and "recently prevailed on the agency, for instance, to relax the requirements for when companies must notify the agency about defective products." While at NAM, Baroody repeatedly lobbied for looser business regulations, frequently at the expense of public safety. NAM opposes tougher rules regulating asbestos and in 2003, teamed up with the asbestos industry and spent $180,000 opposing asbestos reform legislation. In 2000, NAM successfully killed a bill in the Senate that would have helped reduce safety risks to motorists by requiring tire manufacturers to report accident data and potential defects to the National Highway and Transportation Safety Board. A coalition of consumer groups has come out in opposition to Baroody's nomination.


92 percent: Proportion of the world's opium that Afghanistan now produces. Bush administration officials acknowledge that until recently, "fighting drugs was considered a distraction from fighting terrorists." The problem has become so severe that American officials now "hope that Afghanistan's drug problem will someday be only as bad as that of Colombia."

Posted: 15 May 2007

Ding! Dong! The witch is dead! Yes, Jerry Falwell has snuffed it and not a day too soon. He was a loud-mouthed, hypocritical bigot who embodied everything that is wrong with right-wing fundamentalists. Good riddance.

From Progressive Democrats of America. I love this idea!

For a Fresher Democracy,
Try an ImpeachMINT!

The movement to hold Bush & Cheney accountable is growing, and you can help build momentum. It’s as simple as sending democracy-freshening ImpeachMINTS to your member of Congress.

Act now, before the Memorial Day recess that begins May 26.

For just a $10 donation, we'll send your Congress member an envelope with a business-size card as shown here – personalized with your name and address – along with three ImpeachMINTS. For just a $15 donation we'll send ImpeachMINTS to your Congress member and each of your US Senators.

Order yours today! Click here to quickly place an order.

Then forward a link to this page to your friends. Let's offer a fresher democracy to every Congress Member and Senator.

If we flood their offices with ImpeachMINTS, they won’t be able to ignore our message. Get more impeachment products at the PDA store!

And while you're at it, please donate something extra, to help support other PDA activities.

The movement for White House accountability is gaining momentum. The Kucinich resolution with Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney has gained co-sponsors. California’s Democratic Party issued a strong impeachment statement, while cities and towns across the country are passing similar resolutions.

Thank you for your efforts toward a fresher democracy,

Tim Carpenter and Sherry Bohlen

Progressive Democrats of America is a grassroots PAC that works both inside the Democratic Party and outside in movements for peace and justice. Our goal: Extend the victory of Nov. 2006 into a permanent, progressive majority. PDA’s advisory board includes six members of Congress and activist leaders such as Tom Hayden, Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin and Rev. Lennox Yearwood. More info: http://pdamerica.org/.

From The Center for American Progress.

CONGRESS -- ALASKA CONGRESSMEN ATTEMPT TO EARMARK 'BRIDGE TO NOWHERE' FOR PERSONAL PROFITEERING: In 2005, Congress defeated the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark spearheaded by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), which would have spent $200 million to connect mainland Alaska to an island home to 50 people. Roll Call reported yesterday that members of Alaska's congressional delegation are persisting in making another bridge in the Alaskan tundra. Their pet project this time is for a bridge in the sparsely populated Knik Arm region, and the earmark "could mean a significant windfall for a number of people close to the Congressional delegation...some of whom purchased land in the area." Both Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) have several relatives and former aides who own land or stock in companies with property in the Knik Arm region. Most notorious, however, is Stevens, whose underlings stand to make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the bridge, including his former chief of staff and at least two former aides, each of whom owns tens of acres of land in the area. Sen. Stevens's cronyism here is a continuation of years of abuse of power for personal gain. His son, Ben Stevens has received millions of dollars in consulting fees from several of Sen. Stevens' projects (see the list HERE). For example, Sen. Stevens secured more than $10 million in federal aid to put the 2001 Special Olympics Winter Games in Anchorage. Ben Stevens ran those Olympics and received over $700,000 in salary for doing so. Sen. Stevens also helped settle a disputed contract favorable to VECO, an Alaskan oil company which recently pleaded guilty to bribing at least four Alaskan officials, including paying over $200,000 in bribes to Ben Stevens.

Posted: 10 May 2007

Interesting stuff. Look at the author's credentials and judge for yourself.

THE METHODIC DEMISE OF NATURAL EARTH
~An Environmental Impact Overview~
By Dr. R. Michael Castle

In this century, we believe we are witnessing the gradual, purposeful demise of the Earth's Natural System. There are those who will debunk/dis-info all that is written regarding the subject of this paper: ChemTrails. What's this? ChemTrails are only a vague description, in lay-terms, of a greater theater of toxic materials being released into the atmosphere/stratosphere, for a myriad of crude and toxic agendas.

The author, Dr. R. Michael Castle, will attempt to put this Global debacle into a profile of events. Technical specificity of all the identified components would require at least a book in length, to recite them all. A short Bibliography follows, and links to various pertinent documents of unquestionable validity.

READ THE REST.

Posted: 8 May 2007

IMPORTANT AND URGENT! Reposting from Bruce Schneier's blog:

REAL ID Action Required Now

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/real_id_action.html

I've written about the U.S. national ID card -- REAL ID -- extensively (most recently here). The Department of Homeland Security has published draft rules regarding REAL ID, and are requesting comments. Comments are due today, by 5:00 PM Eastern Time. Please, please, please, go to this Privacy Coalition site and submit your comments. The DHS has been making a big deal about the fact that so few people are commenting, and we need to prove them wrong.

This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on REAL ID (info -- and eventually a video -- here); I was one of the witnesses who testified.

And lastly, Richard Forno and I wrote this essay for News.com:

In March, the Department of Homeland Security released its long-awaited guidance document regarding national implementation of the Real ID program, as part of its post-9/11 national security initiatives. It is perhaps quite telling that despite bipartisan opposition, Real ID was buried in a 2005 "must-pass" military spending bill and enacted into law without public debate or congressional hearings.

DHS has maintained that the Real ID concept is not a national identification database. While it's true that the system is not a single database per se, this is a semantic dodge; according to the DHS document, Real ID will be a collaborative data-interchange environment built from a series of interlinking systems operated and administered by the states. In other words, to the Department of Homeland Security, it's not a single database because it's not a single system. But the functionality of a single database remains intact under the guise of a federated data-interchange environment.

The DHS document notes the "primary benefit of Real ID is to improve the security and lessen the vulnerability of federal buildings, nuclear facilities, and aircraft to terrorist attack." We know now that vulnerable cockpit doors were the primary security weakness contributing to 9/11, and reinforcing them was a long-overdue protective measure to prevent hijackings. But this still raises an interesting question: Are there really so many members of the American public just "dropping by" to visit a nuclear facility that it's become a primary reason for creating a national identification system? Are such visitors actually admitted?

DHS proposes guidelines for proving one's identity and residence when applying for a Real ID card. Yet while the department concedes it's a monumental task to prove one's domicile or residence, it leaves it up to the states to determine what documents would be adequate proof of residence--and even suggests that a utility bill or bank statement might be appropriate documentation. If so, a person could easily generate multiple proof-of-residence documents. Basing Real ID on such easy-to-forge documents obviates a large portion of what Real ID is supposed to accomplish.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for Americans, the very last paragraph of the 160-page Real ID document deserves special attention. In a nod to states' rights advocates, DHS declares that states are free not to participate in the Real ID system if they choose--but any identification card issued by a state that does not meet Real ID criteria is to be clearly labeled as such, to include "bold lettering" or a "unique design" similar to how many states design driver's licenses for those under 21 years of age.

In its own guidance document, the department has proposed branding citizens not possessing a Real ID card in a manner that lets all who see their official state-issued identification know that they're "different," and perhaps potentially dangerous, according to standards established by the federal government. They would become stigmatized, branded, marked, ostracized, segregated. All in the name of protecting the homeland; no wonder this provision appears at the very end of the document.

One likely outcome of this DHS-proposed social segregation is that people presenting non-Real ID identification automatically will be presumed suspicious and perhaps subject to additional screening or surveillance to confirm their innocence at a bar, office building, airport or routine traffic stop. Such a situation would establish a new form of social segregation--an attempt to separate "us" from "them" in the age of counterterrorism and the new normal, where one is presumed suspicious until proven more suspicious.

Two other big-picture concerns about Real ID come to mind: Looking at the overall concept of a national identification database, and given existing data security controls in large distributed systems, one wonders how vulnerable this system-of-systems will be to data loss or identity theft resulting from unscrupulous employees, flawed technologies, external compromises or human error--even under the best of security conditions. And second, there is no clear guidance on the limits of how the Real ID database would be used. Other homeland security initiatives, such as the Patriot Act, have been used and applied--some say abused--for purposes far removed from anything related to homeland security. How can we ensure the same will not happen with Real ID?

As currently proposed, Real ID will fail for several reasons. From a technical and implementation perspective, there are serious questions about its operational abilities both to protect citizen information and resist attempts at circumvention by adversaries. Financially, the initial unfunded $11 billion cost, forced onto the states by the federal government, is excessive. And from a sociological perspective, Real ID will increase the potential for expanded personal surveillance and lay the foundation for a new form of class segregation in the name of protecting the homeland.

It's time to rethink some of the security decisions made during the emotional aftermath of 9/11 and determine whether they're still a good idea for homeland security and America. After all, if Real ID was such a well-conceived plan, Maine and 22 other states wouldn't be challenging it in their legislatures or rejecting the Real ID concept for any number of reasons. But they are.

And we as citizens should, too. Let the debate begin.

Again, go to this Privacy Coalition site and express your views. Today. Before 5:00 PM Eastern Time. (Or, if you prefer, you can use EFF's comments page.)

Really. It will make a difference

From The Center for American Progress.

NATIONAL SECURITY -- WITH BIN LADEN 'STRONGER THAN EVER,' U.S. OFFICIALS CONCEDE OVERESTIMATING DAMAGE DONE TO AL QAEDA: In the months after Sept. 11, President Bush declared victory over the man he once pledged to capture "dead or alive" and began turning his focus to Iraq. "I am deeply concerned about Iraq. ... I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]. ... He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore," Bush said in 2002. The results have been predictable: as the U.S. has been mired in an Iraqi civil war, bin Laden has slipped away and is using his freedom to help al Qaeda resurge all over the Middle East. U.S. News reports this week that "bin Laden already has a safe haven in Pakistan -- and may be stronger than ever" as al Qaeda "retains the ability to organize complex, mass-casualty attacks and inspire others. ... Bin Laden and Zawahiri have been able to fill in the gaps between their megaplots with a rising stream of smaller-scale, homegrown attacks." Now well over five years after 9/11, some administration officials are conceding they may have been too hasty in declaring victory over bin Laden: "Privately, U.S. officials concede that they had overestimated the damage they had inflicted on al Qaeda's network. The captures of successive operational commanders, including 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, amounted only to temporary setbacks; they were replaced with disturbing ease. 'We understand better how al Qaeda is withstanding the offensive that was launched against it in 2001 and later,' says a senior U.S. government official." Bush is using the rise of al Qaeda as fodder to promote his misguided escalation plan in Iraq. He now claims that al Qaeda has made Iraq a central front in the war on terror, but terrorists view Bush's Iraq strategy as more opportunity to launch attacks against U.S. troops. "Iraq has, of course, been an undeniable boon for al Qaeda, both as a battleground and a rallying cause," U.S. News adds.

Posted: 4 May 2007

From The Center for American Progress. Oh, the hypocrisy.

SCIENCE -- THREE CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SAY THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION: During last night's Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in California, a reader of Politico.com asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for a yes or no answer on whether he believed in evolution. McCain paused for a second before answering "Yes." Politico's Jim VandeHei, one of three moderators for the night, then opened up the question to the other nine candidates. Three candidates -- Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AK) -- raised their hands to say that they do not believe in evolution. While the three politicians' lack of belief in evolution is shared by a slim majority of Americans, "outside of the precincts of the religious right, though, the scientific consensus about evolution is very close to unanimous." The National Academy of Sciences, "the nation's most prestigious scientific organization," declares evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have." President Bush's scientific adviser John Marburger has called it "the cornerstone of modern biology." But for years, conservative activists have been seeking to push evolution out of school classrooms in order to replace it with "intelligent design," a theory that posits extra-natural, non-scientific phenomena as its basis. Despite McCain's expressed belief in evolution, he appeared recently as the keynote speaker for the most prominent "intelligent design" advocacy group in the country, the Discovery Institute.

Posted: 2 May 2007

From The Center for American Progress. Oh, the hypocrisy.

"Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq."
-- President Bush, 5/1/07

VERSUS

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
-- Bush, 6/5/99


IRAQ -- SUSTAINED WAR WILL LEAD TO 'FEWER JOBS AND SLOWER ECONOMIC GROWTH': According to the Congressional Research Service, the vetoed $124 billion Iraq supplemental and the President's new "request for $116 billion" to fund the war in the next fiscal year will "push the total for Iraq to $564 billion." That amount is "about ten times more than the Bush administration anticipated before the war started four years ago, and no one can predict how high the tab will go." Before the war, the White House estimated the "conflict would cost about $50 billion" and "White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey lost his job after he offered a $200 billion estimate." Robert Hormats, author of The Price of Liberty, worries that the Bush administration's "painless" approach to war funding in which the "average American" feels "no economic consequence" will hamper our nation's ability to address domestic concerns like Social Security and Medicare. A new report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that Hormats's concerns are legitimate and that sustained expenses of the war in Iraq will likely lead "to fewer jobs and slower economic growth." The study shows that while some short-term benefits to increased military spending are likely, the long-term strains on the economy produces "considerably higher" inflation and interest rates, reduces the number of available jobs, and "diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment." As Hormats said of the war time economy, "You can't have business as usual."


ETHICS -- CONTROVERSIAL INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL RESIGNS: Julie A. MacDonald, a senior Bush political appointee at the Interior Department, resigned yesterday ahead of her upcoming appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee is set to hold a hearing next week "on accusations that she violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." A civil engineer with no training in biology, MacDonald, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, often overruled and disparaged the findings of scientists on her staff, instead relying on the recommendations of political and industry groups to decide which imperiled animals and plants should be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Under MacDonald and other Bush administration appointees, just 56 species have been listed under the Endangered Species Act as of Nov. 2006, a rate of about 10 a year. Under President Clinton, officials listed 512 species, or 64 a year, and under President George H.W. Bush, the department listed 234, or 59 a year. MacDonald's departure also "came as the agency was discussing plans to demote her," an Interior Department official told the Washington Post. In a report by the inspector general of the Interior Department earlier this year, MacDonald was chastised for "disclosing confidential documents to 'private sector sources' such as the Pacific Legal Foundation and the California Farm Bureau Federation, both of which have challenged endangered-species listings." Environmental groups praised her departure. "Increasing transparency in the decision-making process would make other political appointees think twice before altering or distorting scientific documents," said Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

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