LEFT is RIGHT (blogging against The Bush-war) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
###
Iraq War Cost
![]() ![]()
![]() ![]() ![]() Buy it Here for $12.95 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ::::: MY PROFILE ::::: VIDEO: When the Good Guys Do NOTHING Welcome to the New World Order Truth, War & Consequences In the Name of Freedom Oreo Calculator Army of One Remind Us One Year THANKS ESSAY/SITE: Bush's 40/IRAQ/SOTU/OTHER Lies A Declaration of Progressive Principles A Declaration of Impeachment World's Leading Terrorist Why Bush Invaded Iraq Coalition Deaths in Iraq Altruism is Out of Focus Official Bush Lie Outlet The Devil's Handbook Third World Traveler Paying for Wal-mart Those Elusive WMDs Ongoing Scandals The Bush Record Bush Scorecard Who Served Halliburton AWOL Evil
![]() I reserve the right to publish your e-mail.
Archives ![]() ![]() My Ecosystem Details Who's Linking to Left is Right Who links to me? Who's on Left is Right right now # Visits by day of month Most Recent Visitors Recent Visitors by Location United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights Humanist Manifesto III ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Brand New Bag Books about the Iraq War |
![]() Front Pages / 10 x 10 / Open Secrets / VillageVoice / The New Standard / The Hill / Washington Note
|
Weapon was taken from Iraqi leader when he was captured Updated: 10:30 p.m. ET May 30, 2004 WASHINGTON - A handgun that Saddam Hussein was clutching when U.S. forces captured him in a hole in Iraq last December is now kept by President Bush at the White House, Time magazine reported Sunday. Military officials had the pistol mounted after it was seized from Saddam near his hometown of Tikrit last year, and soldiers involved in the capture gave it to Bush in a private meeting, Time said. The magazine quoted a visitor who had been shown the gun, which is kept in a small study off the Oval Office where Bush displays memorabilia. It is the same room where former President Clinton had some of his encounters with former intern Monica Lewinsky. Bush shows Saddam's gun to select visitors, telling them it is unloaded, both now and when Saddam was captured, Time reported. "He really liked showing it off," Time quoted a visitor who had seen the gun as saying. "He was really proud of it." A White House spokesman was not immediately available for comment. |
....How many human lives are a proper price to pay for the removal of Saddam Hussein? Would you say removing Hussein would be worth it if a million people � Americans and Iraqis � had to die to achieve it? If the answer is no, let's try a lower price. How about 100,000? If that's too many, how about 10,000 lives being snuffed out to remove one man from power? ....Let's make is simpler. Rather than throwing numbers around, let's ask just one question: Would removing Hussein be worth it if the cost were just one human life � but that life was yours? Would you be willing to die to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq? If the answer is no, then anything you have to say about the world being a better place now � about collateral damage � about the glory of soldiers sacrificing their lives for their country � is meaningless. You're not willing to pay the price. You're like so many people who believe various government programs are wonderful � provided someone else pays for them. Everyone who has died so far in Iraq had a life that meant as much to him as your life means to you. But now that life is gone, done, finished, nevermore. By supporting the war in Iraq, you have supported the idea that it's okay to kill people � other people. But until you're willing to volunteer to be one of those killed, your words don't carry any weight. |
http://ArnoldWatch.org Weblog May 27, 2004 4:25 pm If You Can�t Beat �Em, Terminate �Em by Carmen Balber and Jamie Court The San Francisco Chronicle reported today that buried in Governor Schwarzenegger�s budget proposal is a $1 million reduction in the budget of the state political ethics board, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). That $1 mil cut would eliminate 15% of the agency�s overall budget, and 45% of the discretionary funding it received last year. That means less enforcement of the laws that try to keep politicians honest....including Arnold himself. In January, the FPPC ruled that the Governor had broken the law by loaning his campaign $4.5 million with the intention of fundraising to pay back the money, and he would have to cover the contribution himself. In February, our group filed a complaint with the FPPC because Arnold�s complex of campaign committees allowed him to hide the true source of funding for his bond & budget measures on the March ballot, 57 & 58, by funneling money between committees. Read the complaint: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/fs/fs004008.php3 Just last week we received a call from the FPPC that made it clear that the Commission is still investigating. Instead of sweeping Sacramento clean, the governor is cutting the janitorial staff. Arnold�s �If you can�t beat �em, terminate �em� philosophy also seems to apply to the high price of gasoline. He�s set to cut critical posts at the California Energy Commission, rather than assign it to deal with the oil industry practices leading to the high price of gasoline. Read the letter we sent to Arnold today: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/fs/fs004307.php3 Cleaning up government doesn�t mean throwing it out. |
FROM THE NEW ZOGBY POLL: Bush's job approval is down to 42 percent. His approval on Iraq is down to 36 percent. Kerry is up by five points in the horserace (47-42). Right track/wrong track is at 54/40. The percentage who say it's "time for someone new" is at 53 percent. Kerry favorability is at 55 percent. Bush favorability is at 52 percent. Bush and Kerry are tied in the red states (45-45). Kerry leads in the Blue states (49-38), the East (53-36), the West (45-44), the central Great Lakes (47-41), and among progressives, (81-12), liberals (79-12), moderates (55-30), Hispanics (59-39), African-Americans (85-6), Democrats (84-9), and Independents (46-37). Bush leads in the South (47-43) and among conservatives (71-19), Whites (46-42), Asians (63-37), Republicans (81-8), and Libertarians (80-0). |
Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives, according to a survey released today by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog. "Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge," according to a report accompanying the survey, "individual Republicans were NPR's most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." In addition, representatives of right-of-center think tanks outnumbered their leftist counterparts by more than four to one, FAIR reported. Citing comments dating to the Nixon administration in the 1970s, the report said, "That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives." However, it added, "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR." The study counted 2,334 sources used in 804 stories aired last June for four programs: "All Things Considered," "Morning Edition," "Weekend Edition Saturday" and "Weekend Edition Sunday." For the analysis of think tanks, FAIR used the months of May through August 2003. Overall, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 61 percent to 38 percent, a figure only slightly higher now, when the GOP controls the White House and both houses of Congress, than during a previous survey in 1993, during the Clinton administration. "Some people may think is too left of center because they are contrasting it to the louder, black-and-white sloganeering of talk radio," said FAIR's Steve Rendall, a co-author of the report. "It could be that, just by contrast, the more dulcet [tone] and slower pace and lower volume of NPR makes many people think it must be the opposite of talk radio." NPR spokeswoman Jenny Lawhorn responded, "This is America - any group has the right to criticize our coverage. That said, there are obviously a lot of intelligent people out there who listen to NPR day after day and think we're fair and in-depth in our approach." |
....All this is combined with a 1.5-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine, and as one powerplant the Prius produces 76 horsepower and 82 lb.-ft. of torque -- compared to 70 hp and 82 lb.-ft. for the previous model. Improving the previous Prius' performance was a major issue for Toyota engineers, and they improved acceleration, 0-60 times and fuel efficiency. Overall, the performance of the Prius is not unlike a typical 4-cylinder vehicle, though you can feel the weight difference a little. It's not fast off the line, but gets out quickly enough -- it's 0-60 is improved to 10 seconds, a full 2 ticks less than the 2003 Prius. Fuel mileage did improve by about 7 miles-per-gallon, though your personal driving habits will influence this number. Where the Prius shines most, however, is in driveability. The thing is easy to drive, smooth and effortless on acceleration and turning -- thanks in part to Toyota's throttle-by-wire technology, which replaces the traditional gearshift lever and allows shifting using a small joystick mounted on the dash. Once at cruising speeds, the Prius slices through road; on trips with multiple errands, it is an incredibly easy vehicle to start, stop, park and maneuver.... |
....It is therefore essential that even as we focus on the fateful choice, the voters must make this November that we simultaneously search for ways to sharply reduce the extraordinary danger that we face with the current leadership team in place. It is for that reason that I am calling today for Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush and Dick Cheney who are most responsible for creating the catastrophe that we are facing in Iraq. We desperately need a national security team with at least minimal competence because the current team is making things worse with each passing day. They are endangering the lives of our soldiers, and sharply increasing the danger faced by American citizens everywhere in the world, including here at home. They are enraging hundreds of millions of people and embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose rage is already near the boiling point. We simply cannot afford to further increase the risk to our country with more blunders by this team. Donald Rumsfeld, as the chief architect of the war plan, should resign today. His deputies Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and his intelligence chief Stephen Cambone should also resign. The nation is especially at risk every single day that Rumsfeld remains as Secretary of Defense. Condoleeza Rice, who has badly mishandled the coordination of national security policy, should also resign immediately. George Tenet should also resign. I want to offer a special word about George Tenet, because he is a personal friend and I know him to be a good and decent man. It is especially painful to call for his resignation, but I have regretfully concluded that it is extremely important that our country have new leadership at the CIA immediately..... |
"If the human mind was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it." ----Emerson Pugh |
Physicians' Neckties Often Contaminated With Pathogenic Bacteria NEW YORK (Reuters Health) May 24 - A change in fashion may decrease nosocomial spread of infections, according to a presentation at the 104th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. That's because neckties worn by clinicians were found to be eight times more likely to harbor pathogens than were those of hospital workers not normally in contact with patients. While doing a clinical rotation at New York Hospital at Queens, lead author Steven Nurkin, a medical student at the American-Technion Program at the Bruce Rappaport Facility of Medicine in Haifa, Israel, noticed that physicians' neckties often come into contact with patients or their bedding. After examining a patient or conducting procedure, he told Reuters Health, "they would wash their hands, and then adjust their tie," perhaps recontaminating their hands. So he and colleagues swabbed 42 neckties worn by clinicians and 10 by security personnel, and dabbed the swabs onto blood agar plates and identified the isolates that grew. Twenty of the clinicians' neckties carried pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Aspergillus. In contrast, the tie of only one security guard carried a single pathogen, S. aureus. Nurkin pointed out that neckties are encouraged because they are believed to project an aura of professionalism and increase patients' confidence, but they may not be cleaned as often as other articles of clothing. Options to reduce the risk of disease transmission, he suggested, include switching to bow-ties or using tie tacks that hold ties to physicians' shirts, decontaminating ties with a "high quality detergent spray that wouldn't ruin the tie," or even using a "necktie condom." Another option would be to abandon neckties altogether. He and his associates are considering further studies with larger sample sizes to confirm their findings. The ASM conference is being held this week in New Orleans. |
...after June 30, the Iraqis will have "full sovereignty." This is obviously nonsense since we intend to keep 150,000 troops on their soil and maintain full control of the Iraqi security forces as well. .... It's true that Iraqis won't be fooled by this, but for that reason they aren't going to be disappointed either. Americans, however, are going to be fooled by it, and that's all Bush cares about. A hundred million people are going to hear that we're handing over "full sovereignty," and maybe 1% of them will read or hear an explanation of why that's not true. So it's a win for Bush. The real danger is that it sets up Americans for disappointment, not Iraqis. The Iraqis will shrug their shoulders and continue to agitate for American withdrawl, and Americans will be left wondering why the Iraqis continue to be so ungrateful even though we've turned over full sovereignty to them just like we said we would. Of such things is American self-delusion born. |
According to a recent study, "the gap in pay between average workers and large company CEOs surpassed 300-1 in 2003." While the average worker earned $517 per week in 2003, the average CEO for a large company earned $155,769 a week. In other words, the average CEO makes more in ten minutes than an average worker makes all week. And the situation is getting worse: in the last two decades the gap has expanded rapidly � in 1982, the ratio between the average worker and CEOs was 42-1. In the last 13 years, CEO pay rose an astounding 313%. Meanwhile, pay increases for the average worker over that period (49%) were almost entirely offset by inflation (41%). |
....By a two to one margin (63% to 31%) Californians do not believe the war in Iraq is worth the toll it is taking in American lives and other costs. This represents a complete reversal from opinions that state residents held thirteen months ago, at the start of the war. Six in ten of this state�s adults and its registered voters also say they disapprove of the President�s handling of the Iraqi war, and a majority disapprove of the President�s job performance overall. The proportion of Californians who feel the direction of the country is seriously off on the wrong track is larger now than at any time since 1992. .... By a two to one margin (63% to 31%), Californians now believe the Iraqi war is not worth the toll it has taken on American lives and other costs. Support for the war is now at its lowest level since it began in early 2003. Attitudes against the war now include majorities of all demographic subgroups of the state�s population, except registered Republicans and conservatives. .... By a nearly two to one margin (60% to 33%) Californians disapprove of the job President Bush is doing in handling the war in Iraq. This rating is the most critical assessment of the President�s war performance since poll measurements on this began over a year ago. .... A majority (54%) of adults now disapprove of the job the President is doing overall, while 39% approve. Registered voters are slightly less critical, but still rate the President�s performance negatively. .... There are wide differences of opinion about Bush�s job performance across different subgroups of the state�s population. While 80% of Republicans approve of President, a comparable proportion of Democrats (78%) disapproves. Conservatives give the Bush positive ratings by a greater than two to one margin, but liberals rate him negatively by an even larger four to one margin. Moderates have a more negative than positive view of Bush�s performance (58% to 34%). Residents of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area are more negative in their assessments of the President than residents living in other parts of the state. Women hold a more critical view of the President than men, disapproving of the President 57% to 36%. Men rate him negatively but by a narrower 52% to 43% margin. White non-Hispanics disapprove of Bush by a 52% to 43% margin. Latinos are somewhat more negative (55% to 39%), while other minorities disapprove by a greater than two to one margin. While more registered voters hold a negative (52%) than positive (43%) view of the President�s performance in office, those adults who are not registered to vote rate him by a nearly negatively two to one margin (58% to 34%). .... The proportion of Californians who believe the U.S. is seriously off on the wrong track is now higher than at any time since 1982. A majority of state residents (57%) now feel the state is on the wrong track, while 33% feel it is heading in the right direction. .... A majority of Californians (54%) give the President negative marks on his handling of the nation�s economy, while 37% approve. This represents a slight worsening in Californians� views of Bush on the economy from earlier this year.... |
UC Berkeley study documents taxpayer costs to help working poor | By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 20 May 2004 BERKELEY � Two million California families in which one or more family members works rely on publicly funded safety net programs - at a cost to taxpayers of $10 billion a year, according to a University of California, Berkeley, study being released today (Thursday, May 20). "Low-wage workers are relying on public assistance to make ends meet. Low-wage employers are essentially shifting their labor costs onto the public," said report lead author Carol Zabin, research director of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. "California's 'new economy' has produced an hourglass pattern of job distribution, fostering growth of high- and low-wage jobs, but little in between," she said. The researchers report that small improvements in wages could move many families off public programs. If all workers in the state earned a minimum of $8 an hour, assistance program costs would be reduced by $2.7 billion, the report concludes. And an increase to $14 per hour would reduce expenditures by $5.6 billion. Likewise, Zabin said, if jobs included health benefits, even at current wage levels, $2.1 billion in expenditures could be put to other uses. The report, "The Hidden Public Costs of Low-Wage Jobs in California," was written by Zabin and fellow center researchers Arindrajit Dube and Ken Jacobs for the Oakland-based National Economic Development & Law Center (NEDLC). They analyzed the participation in 2002 of working families in the 10 largest statewide safety net programs, including Medi-Cal, CalWorks, the federal Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps and housing vouchers. The report found: * Half of all public assistance dollars dispersed based on recipient income qualifications are going to families who are working. In 2002, almost half - $10.1 billion - of public assistance dollars in the state went to families in which at least one person worked at least 45 weeks per year. * Most workers on public assistance earn close to the minimum wage, and more than $5 billion in support goes to families of workers earning below $8 an hour. * More than 75 percent of the benefits to working families went to households in which all earners worked full-time. * More than one of four workers in working families that receive assistance works for a business with 1,000 or more employees. * Public assistance to working families is distributed disproportionately to those working in a few industry sectors. Workers in the retail industry received about $2 billion in public assistance, more than twice the amount received by workers in any other jobs sector. Other top sectors included business services and construction. * Seventy-one percent of workers receiving public assistance are employed in sectors of the economy that do not face significant international or out-of-state competition, including retail, transportation, business services such as janitorial and security work, and construction. * More than half of the working family members receiving assistance-1.1 million-live in the greater Los Angeles area. "When wages are kept low, taxpayers make up the difference," said Art Pulaski, secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation. "We need better paying jobs with benefits. It's good for our families, our communities and taxpayers." "We need a long-term vision for our state, not just short-term cuts and Band-Aids," said State Sen. Richard Alarc�n (D-Los Angeles). "The answer is to expand the middle class by creating good jobs and investing in training," added Alarc�n, author of Senate Bill 1639. That bill would expand access to higher education for low-income people, including those on public assistance. "California doesn't have a lot of extra money right now, so we need to invest our public dollars with an eye to the future," said report sponsor Tse Ming Tam of the National Economic Development & Law Center. "The stability of our economy requires that we help low-wage workers move toward higher skills and earnings, and not just use public subsidies to perpetuate a low-wage economy." The report was commissioned by NEDLC with support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. It is the second in a series of white papers informing policy solutions to working poverty in California. The report did not include data on local programs such as general assistance or county children's health programs because necessary data was not available, researchers said. "Thus, our estimates of taxpayer costs from inadequate wages and employer benefits are lower than their true magnitude," the researchers write in the report. "Our estimate of the subsidies that currently support working families in California is ... quite conservative." |
"And the world can be certain we will never abandon our belief that freedom is the gift from the Almighty to every man and woman in this world." |
Good morning. This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror. First, American and Pakistani authorities captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our country, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. This is a landmark achievement in disrupting the al Qaeda network, and we believe it will help us prevent future acts of terror. We are currently working with over 90 countries and have dealt with over 3,000 terrorists, who have been detained, arrested, or otherwise will not be a problem for the United States. Second, the Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein's compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them. Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. Iraqi's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few prohibited missiles. Yet, our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles. Iraqi operatives continue to play a shell game with inspectors, moving suspected prohibited materials to different locations every 12 to 24 hours. And Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate in interviews with U.N. inspectors. These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it -- because we would see it; Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and destroyed. Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel -- all they need is what they have never received, the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. The only acceptable outcome is the outcome already demanded by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total disarmament. Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. Across the world, and in every part of America, people of goodwill are hoping and praying for peace. Our goal is peace -- for our own nation, for our friends, for our allies and for all the peoples of the Middle East. People of goodwill must also recognize that allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and build an arsenal for conquest and mass murder is not peace at all; it is pretense. The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed. Thank you for listening. |
Landmark controls on diesel emissions, finalized Tuesday by the U.S. EPA, are expected to prevent 12,000 premature deaths and 15,000 heart attacks each year. And these were no warmed-over regs from the Clinton era, passed off as the Bushies' own, as was the case with the Highway Diesel Rule, a tough new standard that will dramatically reduce diesel pollution from trucks and buses starting in 2007. The Bush EPA can claim all the credit for this initiative, which regulates "non-road" diesel-powered equipment such as bulldozers, forklifts, tractors, and generators -- sources responsible for a surprising 60 percent of all diesel particulate matter, which is suspected of causing cancer. The regulations require manufacturers to build 90 percent cleaner diesel engines for these non-road machines, and call for a whopping 99 percent reduction of the sulfur content in the diesel fuel that will power the updated engines. Enviros far and wide have sounded positively starry-eyed in their accolades: "The EPA staff have been phenomenal on this issue," said Richard Kassel, a Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney who helped the agency draft the regulations. "They went out of their way to give us as much of a voice in this regulatory process as they did industry. Nobody can deny that this will be remembered as a historic victory for clean air." |
BERLIN (Reuters) - Women watching erotic films are stimulated in a part of the brain associated with planning and emotion, research from scientists in Germany said Friday. When scientists from Essen University put volunteers in a brain scanning tube and showed them pornography they found both men and women showed activity in the temporal lobes linked to memory and perception, but only women used their frontal lobes. Unfortunately the researchers were not able to determine if their findings meant that while men lost themselves in the moment the busy modern professional woman was also planning her wardrobe, scheduling the vacation and juggling her tax receipts. "We don't know why these differences between men and women exist. They just do," said institute director Michael Forsting. |
.....What I think, after my short time in his company, is that Moore is a man you would not want as an opponent, but also one you'd think twice about calling a friend. Though a talented film-maker and a clever showman, a populist who knows how to play the maverick, he is too often both big-headed and small-minded. In his desire to be seen as the decent man telling truth to power, he is too ready to blame those less powerful than himself for his shortcomings. He was justly revered in the Palais, but out on the street no one had a kind word to say about him. At Cannes, Moore may have been the star but he was not, it seems, the man of the people. |
My wife said, 'Imagine if President Bush decided to offer a real alternative to the Kyoto Treaty to reduce global warming. I'd like to wake up and see that in the morning.' "'Yeah, and I would like to wake up to read that Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia invited Ariel Sharon to his home in Riyadh to personally hand him the Abdullah peace plan, and Mr. Sharon responded by freezing all Israeli settlements.' "And then Ann said, 'I want to wake up and read that General Motors will no longer make gas-guzzling Hummers and President Bush has decided to replace his limousine with an armor-plated Toyota Prius, a hybrid car that gets over 40 miles to the gallon.' "Then I said, 'I want to wake up and read that Dick Cheney has apologized to the U.N. and all of our allies for being wrong about W.M.D. in Iraq, and then appeal to our allies to join the U.S. in an even more important project � to help the Iraqis build some decent kind of democratic framework.' "'I want to wake up and read that Congress has decided to call for a tax-hike on the rich in order to save Social Security and Medicare for the next generation and to finance all our under-funded education programs.' "And finally I said, 'I want to wake up and read that John Kerry has asked a Republican to be his vice-president because if Mr. Kerry wins, he's not going to spend four years avoiding America's hardest problems � health care, deficits, energy, education � but to tackle them and that can only be done with a bipartisan spirit and bipartisan team.'" |
....Personal to John McCain: You've been the good soldier, loyal to the party you once belonged to. That party, as you are beginning to see, is long gone from the American political scene. You've been the good soldier, honorably serving in your country's service as was traditional in your familiy's history. It's time for you to be the good American, and help end the tyranny of the Bush (mis)Administration. Take an example from your fellow Senator, Jim Jeffords. Place traditional American principles above partisan politics and cease pretending you're still a Republican. You aren't. As this interview with Speaker Hastert shows, your party has left you. No one will ask you to become a Democrat - Jeffords didn't - so you won't have to feel like you are compromising your personal integrity. But to keep this integrity, you need to act - NOW. Once these evil bastards feel you have been neutralized, how long will Snowe and Collins and Chaffey be able to stand up to the assault? Not long, I expect. It's time for the four of you - yourself, Snowe, Collins, and Chaffey - to act as American Patriots and end your associations with that entity that calls itself the Republican Party and to form your own with Senator Jeffords. As a separate political bloc, you would hold the balance of power. You could still support the GOP when you felt it deserved it, but you could also do something about the predations against the American people - that you are now powerless against - by joining the Democrats in opposition. What have you to lose? Nothing you aren't going to lose anyway. The Republican Party has to be looking for someone to run against you in the next primary. You can expect little economic assistance from them should you need it. Any committee chairmanships you are seeking will go to someone else. You will never be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Similar plots against the others have to be underway as well - they aren't considered any more trustworthy by the BFEE/PNAC party leaders than you are. You put country before self once before - it's time to do it again. For the good of your personal integrity, and the health and welfare of the nation you swore an oath to protect and defend, become an Independent and lead the others away from a power-hungry elite that has demonstrated they are not responsible in their actions. |
"On the job, and elsewhere in life, choose your friends carefully. The company you keep has a way of rubbing off on you. And that can be a good thing or a bad thing." |
Los Angeles (AP) 5.21.04, 9:15a -- More than 200 California teachers have been investigated for helping students cheat on standardized tests since a statewide exam program began five years ago, according to a newspaper report. At least 75 of the teachers investigated were found to have helped students cheat on the tests, according to documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times through a Public Records Act request. In some cases, the teachers were allowed to stay; others were fired or resigned, the paper reported. Some educators say it's no surprised teachers are helping children get the right answers because, under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools with consistently low test scores can lose federal funding or have teachers reassigned. So far the state has intervened at 56 schools with poor scores, shaking up staffs. The federal government has warned 11 California campuses that they could lose funding or face other sanctions. "Some people feel that they need to boost test scores by hook or by crook," said Larry Ward of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, a watchdog group that has criticized many standardized tests. "The more pressure, the more some people take the unethical option." State education officials contend the numbers of proven cases are small in a state with more than 200,000 teachers. According to state documents, incidents in the last five years include teachers who gave hints to answers by drawing on the blackboard or leaving posters on the wall; coached children or hinted that their answers were wrong; told students the right answers; and changed the students' responses themselves. In the Inland Empire, a Rialto Unified School District third-grade teacher admitted telling students: "You missed a few answers; you need to go back and find the ones you missed." In the Ontario-Montclair School District, a student told investigators that a teacher read 10 math answers. Near Salinas, a Hollister School District teacher admitted changing about 15 answers. California allows districts to determine punishments, and most districts, citing privacy, do not disclose those decisions. State officials say they don't spend too much time checking up on districts. "We don't go out and do our own investigations; we don't have a staff to do that," said Les Axelrod of the state Education Department. "If we had a proctor in class, we would need another 200,000 people. Who is going to pay for that?" Beverly Tucker, California Teachers Association chief counsel, said before statewide testing started she saw one or two cases of cheating teachers a year. Since 1999, she said, the union has defended more than 100. "It's serious," Tucker said. "And I can understand there might be cases where dismissal is warranted because of a blatant violation." Association president Barbara Kerr said that the union didn't excuse cheating but felt bad for teachers who broke rules under "horrendous" pressure. "We have gone to such extremes -- where your whole life and existence is measured by one test -- that the pressure is on the kids, the pressure is on the teachers, the publicity is so overblown," she said. |
"Being poor is a state of mind, not a condition." ----HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson |
"Military justice is to justice what military music is to music." ----Groucho Marx |
I wonder what $300 billion would have done to [the] alternative energy industry in this country. Could Detroit possibly have figured out a way to restructure its plants to begin producing large quantities of hybrids? Could scientists have worked on greater efficiency of solar cells and wind turbines? I know virtually nothing on economics, but $300 billion sounds like a huge amount of money. We probably could have demined the entire world, cured cancer and AIDS, fed and housed the entire world with that figure. Instead, we have Saddam, somewhere, and an Iraqi populace that can't wait to kick us out. |
....So then. You gotta admit, maybe Bush isn't all that stupid after all. Maybe he's not the smirking aww-shucks born-again simpleton he constantly appears to be, the one who sits back and lets his henchmen do all the dirty work and all the complex thinking while he lets Condi Rice massage his ego and fill him in at the ranch while taking more vacation time than any other president in history. Or, rather, maybe Dubya really is that stupid, just not in the ways anyone really imagined. Maybe Bush is stupid in a way that is far worse, and far more dangerous for the health of this planet, than mere inarticulate, nonintellectual, semiliterate Texas cow-pie bumbling. It is, in short, the stupidity of the indignant and the self-righteous, of the morally arrogant, of someone whose power base is threatened and yet who is still blindly forcing America down this nightmare path, even when all signs and all leaders and all U.N. councils and all weapons investigators and all flagrant U.S.-sanctioned rapes and tortures are veritably screaming in his face that it is a mistake of increasingly epic, treacherous proportions. And so maybe, ultimately, it all comes back to us. Maybe it is the majority of people in this flag-wavin', happily deluded, fear-drenched country who can't believe it could happen, who simply, you know "misunderestimated" just how poisonous Bush's savage brand of stupidity really is. |
....Where does it go from here? The nightmare misadventure in Iraq is over, beyond the reach of any reasonable argument, though many more body bags will be filled. In Washington, chicken hawks will still be squawking about "digging in" and winning, but Vietnam proved conclusively that no modern war of occupation would ever be won. Every occupation is doomed. The only way you "win" a war of occupation is the old-fashioned way, the way Rome finally defeated the Carthaginians: kill all the fighters, enslave everyone else, raze the cities and sow the fields with salt. Otherwise the occupied people will fight you to the last peasant, and why shouldn't they? If our presidential election fails to dislodge the crazy bastards who annexed Baghdad, many of us in this country would welcome regime change by any intervention, human or divine. But if, say, the Chinese came in to rescue us--Operation American Freedom--how long would any of us, left-wing or right, put up with an occupying army teaching us Chinese-style democracy? A guerrilla who opposes an invading army on his own soil is not a terrorist, he's a resistance fighter. In Iraq we're not fighting enemies but making enemies. As Richard Clarke and others have observed, every dollar, bullet and American life that we spend in Iraq is one that's not being spent in the war on terrorism. Every Iraqi, every Muslim we kill or torture or humiliate is a precious shot of adrenaline for Osama and al Qaeda. The irreducible truth is that the invasion of Iraq was the worst blunder, the most staggering miscarriage of judgment, the most fateful, egregious, deceitful abuse of power in the history of American foreign policy. If you don't believe it yet, just keep watching. Apologists strain to dismiss parallels with Vietnam, but the similarities are stunning. In every action our soldiers kill innocent civilians, and in every other action apparent innocents kill our soldiers--and there's never any way to sort them out. And now these acts of subhuman sadism, these little My Lais. Since the defining moment of the Bush presidency, the preposterous flight-suit, Fox News-produced photo-op on the Abraham Lincoln in front of the banner that read "Mission Accomplished," the shaming truth is that everything has gone wrong. Just as it was bound to go wrong, as many of us predicted it would go wrong--if anything more hopelessly wrong than any of us would have dared to prophesy. Iraq is an epic train wreck, and there's not a single American citizen who's going to walk away unscathed. The shame of this truth, of such a failure and so much deceit exposed, would have brought on mass resignations or votes of no confidence in any free country in the world. In Japan not long ago, there would have been ritual suicides, shamed officials disemboweling themselves with samurai swords. Yet up to this point--at least to the point where we see grinning soldiers taking pictures of each other over piles of naked Iraqis--neither the president, the vice president nor any of the individuals who urged and designed this debacle have resigned or been terminated--or even apologized. They have betrayed no familiarity with the concept of shame. Thousands of young Americans are dead, maimed or mutilated, 100 billion has been wasted and all we've gained is a billion new enemies and a mouthful of dust--of sand. Chaos reigns, but in the midst of it we have this presidential election. George Bush has defined himself as a war president, and it's fitting that he should die by the sword--in fact fall on it, and quick. But even now the damned polls don't guarantee, or even indicate, his demise.... |
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) 5.20.04, 8:30a -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called President Bush "incompetent" and said he is responsible for hundreds of deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. "Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader," Pelosi told the San Francisco Chronicle in a 45-minute interview Wednesday in her Capitol office. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, is a frequent critic of the president and led the effort against the war in 2003. But this was her strongest criticism of Bush to date. "He has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops, because he would not heed the advice of his own State Department of what to expect after May 1 when he ... declared that major combat is over," Pelosi said. "The shallowness that he has brought to the office has not changed since he got there." The White House dismissed Pelosi's comments as partisan politics. "It's clear that the election season is drawing near, and there are those who will pursue politics over policy," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius told the newspaper. "That doesn't change the fact that the president is focused on winning the war on terror, protecting our homeland security and strengthening our improving economy." Pelosi also said the only way to get allies to commit more troops to Iraq is to have a new president. "Not to get personal about it, but the president's capacity to lead has never been there," Pelosi said. "In order to lead, you have to have judgment. In order to have judgment, you have to have knowledge and experience. He has none." |
By Declan McCullagh - CNET News.com - May 18, 2004, 8:37 AM PT URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5214944.html A star-studded list of technology executives on Wednesday plan to endorse President Bush for another term, saying they believe that the Republican candidate's positions are a better choice for the high-technology industry. The endorsement at a Seattle event by the group of executives, including Dell Chairman Michael Dell, Teledesic Chairman Craig McCaw and former Microsoft Executive Vice President Bob Herbold, represents the latest round of jockeying between Republicans and Democrats over which presidential candidate can claim the most tech-friendly stance. The event coincides with the release of a short Web video clip titled "Innovators" that features tech leaders touting Bush. The video clip also includes eBay CEO Meg Whitman, Barksdale Management CEO Jim Barksdale and Autodesk Chairman Carol Bartz. "After several tough years, tech is bouncing back," Bartz says in the video. "This is due in no small measure to this administration's pro-growth policies." Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers adds that Bush "understands the key high-tech issues," such as how best to deploy broadband connections. In general, Silicon Valley executives appear to prefer Democrats on social issues and Republicans on business ones. Internet and computer companies that operate their own political action committees (PACs) have given an average of 60 percent of their money to Republicans over the last four elections--and only 40 percent to Democrats. The Republican-leaning PACs include ones run by eBay, EDS, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, Intuit, Texas Instruments, VeriSign and Yahoo. Telecommunications and electronics PACs tend to be even more aggressively Republican. Like Bush, Democratic candidate John Kerry has made outreach attempts in Silicon Valley, which have included landing Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs as an informal adviser. But Kerry's views run the risk of alienating some technology executives. He has told the AFL-CIO that he is critical of "excessive" executive compensation and added that "I also support expensing stock options." Bush, on the other hand, has in the past said he supports the current mechanism of not expensing them. Kerry has also inveighed against "Benedict Arnold CEOs," who move jobs to foreign countries--a stance that has riled some Silicon Valley executives who operate overseas research labs. The Bush campaign has been more guarded about its views on offshoring, although a top presidential adviser made headlines in February after suggesting that offshoring is just the latest example of free trade, which is good for America. |
....Venice Beach, South Central and Echo Park all at one time offered space where aerosol painters, also known as graffiti artists, could legally create and display their works of art without fear of being stopped by the police. Such displays were not the kind of �scribble� people are used to seeing tagged on billboards or bus-stop benches. They were, and still are, highly detailed murals, featuring pictures and cartoony characters. But now these artists have fewer places to legally paint. As politicians in recent years have been targeting graffiti in an attempt to crack down on urban blight, aerosol paintings have been grouped into the category of graffiti, which is often associated with gang culture. To combat any kind of spay painting, some cities, such as North Hollywood and Pomona, have passed ordinances against erecting murals, while in other cities the police have the ability to censor the paintings they find distasteful. An artist who goes by the moniker �Sparks� explained the difference between the aerosol paintings and graffiti, also known as tagging. �First of all, we refer to (aerosol painting) as �piecing,�� he said. �Tagging is about competition with your friends and others to see who can write their names on more walls. Piecing is about being artistic.� It is the association with gang culture and the concept of blight that caused the closing of one popular graffiti spot. The area known as The Pit, a space filled with cement benches and lined with retaining walls along the boardwalk in Venice Beach, has been fenced off for several years. In the past, graffiti covered almost every square inch of its surface and artists were somewhat free to paint whenever they wanted. But when local business owners wanted to make the boardwalk a popular tourist attraction again, the place was cleaned up and closed off. Last year, the organization SPARC, Social and Public Art Resource Center, tried to temporarily reopen The Pit. Members from the group received permission from the Los Angeles City Council to put up new murals along open walls. The paintings however, were later recovered when the Venice Police Department found some of the images to be too controversial.... |
....How'd we get into this? After 50 years of pretty consistently prudential foreign policy, managed mostly on a consensus of bipartisan agreement (yes, there are exceptions, but by and large, true), they decided to bet the national ranch on an idea. Actually it was a series of ideas, wrapped together in an odd tangle that could look like an odd jumble when viewed from outside. The key, however, was betting the national ranch on steep odds. Only, they weren't confident the country would get behind such a riverboat gamble. So they lied about what they were doing. They didn't trust the people -- which might be an epitaph we should return to. Now, what do we expect of people who make reckless gambles with other people's money? Of people who can't discipline themselves enough to distinguish between their hopes and reality? What do you expect of that ne'er-do-well relative who's always hitting you up for a loan because he's come up with a sure thing? Do you expect those sorts of folks to take responsibility when things go bad? Or do you expect them to blame others? Character, alas, really does count. |
....Indeed, liberals have watched this administration in a state of perpetual disbelief about the number of stories that should have blown up into scandals but never did. From Harken Energy to Thomas White and Enron to the Tom Scully-Richard Foster-Medicare story to the more general rancid politicization of every agency of government, the potential scandals have been nonstop. And liberals, who care about public integrity and process, can't comprehend that these things haven't become full-fledged scandals. There are particular reasons they haven't -- no smoking gun was found on Harken, for instance. But the big historical reason they haven't is that we live in an age in which conservative morality is dominant. Public morality and adherence to democratic process just aren't as important. In the 1960s and �70s, when we lived in an era of liberal morality, those two qualities were more important, and the kinds of scandals we had then? Watergate, most obviously, but smaller-fry dustups like the Bert Lance affair reflected the privileged position of those concerns. Liberals didn't care so much about personal morality, and while they cared about positive results, they were less likely to bend rules to achieve them. (It's worth remembering, too, that as far as public service in this country was concerned, liberals wrote most of the rules.) But beginning in the 1980s, conservatives successfully discredited liberal morality and substituted their own. Now, personal morality was pre-eminent -- Ronald Reagan as the stand-up man's man, contrasted with Bill Clinton, or at least with the image of Clinton that the right successfully peddled, as a licentious and corner-cutting and self-indulgent baby boomer. That Clinton was nearly brought down in the web of a personal-morality scandal was a reflection not only of his own weaknesses of the flesh but also of the fact that this was the sort of thing conservatives cared most about and sought most fiercely to expose. To them, Clinton�s personal failings disqualified him from capable public service, and they got the mainstream media to agree with them (though, fortunately, not the majority of the country). The packaging of George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000 was nothing less than a conservative morality play. He was a "good man"; he'd gotten himself off the sauce and found Jesus; he didn't, as far as anyone knew, play around on his wife. Meanwhile, as governor of Texas, he'd squelched an investigation into a funeral-home chain run by a friend; he'd stacked the board of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, a huge deal that no major national media ever took a close, sustained look at; he kept starting failing businesses, losing money, and somehow getting richer and richer. But none of these issues, all having directly to do with public morality, mattered. He was a good, strong man who "got results" for Texas and would do the same for America.... |
....But today isn�t about how my presence here devalues this fine institution. It is about you, the graduates. I�m honored to be here to congratulate you today. Today is the day you enter into the real world, and I should give you a few pointers on what it is. It�s actually not that different from the environment here. The biggest difference is you will now be paying for things, and the real world is not surrounded by three-foot brick wall. And the real world is not a restoration. If you see people in the real world making bricks out of straw and water, those people are not colonial re-enactors�they are poor. Help them. And in the real world, there is not as much candle lighting. I don�t really know what it is about this campus and candle lighting, but I wish it would stop. We only have so much wax, people. Lets talk about the real world for a moment. We had been discussing it earlier, and I�I wanted to bring this up to you earlier about the real world, and this is I guess as good a time as any. I don�t really know to put this, so I�ll be blunt. We broke it. Please don�t be mad. I know we were supposed to bequeath to the next generation a world better than the one we were handed. So, sorry. I don�t know if you�ve been following the news lately, but it just kinda got away from us. Somewhere between the gold rush of easy internet profits and an arrogant sense of endless empire, we heard kind of a pinging noise, and uh, then the damn thing just died on us. So I apologize. But here�s the good news. You fix this thing, you�re the next greatest generation, people. You do this�and I believe you can�you win this war on terror, and Tom Brokaw�s kissing your ass from here to Tikrit, let me tell ya. And even if you don�t, you�re not gonna have much trouble surpassing my generation. If you end up getting your picture taken next to a naked guy pile of enemy prisoners and don�t give the thumbs up you�ve outdid us.... |
Medscape Medical News 2004. � 2004 Medscape - by Karla Harby May 18, 2004 (New Orleans) � A U.S. population study of 5,944 adults conducted by researchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) has found a strong association between coffee drinking and caffeine consumption and a lower risk of liver injury in persons at high risk for liver disease. The researchers defined the high-risk population as those who reported being heavy drinkers of alcohol, or who had hepatitis B or C, iron overload, were obese, or had impaired glucose metabolism. Liver injury was defined as a serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) activity level in excess of 43 U/L. The researchers reported that overall, the greater the coffee consumption, the greater the association with liver protection (P = .034 for the trend). The highest consumption noted was more than two cups of coffee per day. Consumers of more than two cups of coffee per day had an odds ratio (OR) for elevated ALT of 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 - 1.0); those who drank one to two cups had an OR of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.49 - 1.4). Those who drank less than one cup had an odds ratio of 1.4 (95% CI, 0.84 - 2.4), with zero cups being assigned an OR of 1.0. Because caffeine consumption is so highly associated with coffee drinking in the U.S., it is difficult to untangle the two statistically, explained James E. Everhart, MD, MPH, from the NIDDK, who spoke with reporters here during Digestive Disease Week. Nonetheless, the researchers reviewed consumption of tea and soft drinks containing caffeine, and found a positive association (P < .001 for the trend), with less than 49 mg per day being the lowest threshold. They found an OR of 0.78 (95% CI. 0.49 - 1.3) for caffeine intake of 49 to 142 mg per day; 0.72 (95% CI, 0.41 - 1.2) for 142 to 200 mg per day; and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.35 - 1.1) for 200 to 373 mg per day. For those who consumed more than 373 mg per day of caffeine, the highest subgroup reported, the OR was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.16 - 0.61). The mechanisms of action, if any, for coffee and caffeine are completely unknown, Dr. Everhart said. Although coffee has many known effects on the body and has been studied extensively, its specific effects on the liver have been largely unexplored, he added.... |
Arnold Watch has noted the unequal access of average people with real problems to this Governor. Now Schwarzenegger's Department of Managed Health Care is breaking with a tradition that goes back to the Wilson Administration of holding public hearings for every major HMO merger and acquisition. The deal at issue is Anthem's $15 billion acquisition of Wellpoint Health Networks, parent company of Blue Cross of California, which serves 7 million Californians. Blue Cross and its executives have given the Governor?s various committees $92,400. The execs that control those PAC contributions stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars if the acquisition is approved without wrinkles. Wellpoint CEO Leonard Schaeffer will make up to $335 million in cash and stock options. Wellpoint is also a corporate client of the investment firm Dimensional Fund Advisors, which the Gov reports owning at least a $1 million share of on his economic interest statement . The sunshine governor should keep with the tradition of HMO regulators over the last decade and give patients, doctors, nurses, businesses and pharmacists the opportunity to comment at public hearings on the potential problems of Indiana-based Anthem, which is being sued by Connecticut doctors for outrageous billing abuses, taking over care for millions of California patients. Pete Wilson's regulator even made material modifications to other HMO mergers based on public hearing comments..... |
May 17 , 2004 Special Access Granted to Major Polluters, Deal Borrowed Heavily from Industry's Proposals Washington, D.C. New documents revealed the extent of meat industry control over the Bush administration's proposed amnesty deal for animal factory polluters. The evidence, exposed by the Chicago Tribune on Sunday , shows that the deal borrowed heavily from industry proposals and that polluters had extraordinary access to the Bush administration officials writing the agreement. "This is a deal of the polluters, by the polluters, and for the polluters," said Michele Merkel of the Environmental Integrity Project. "These new documents show how much the Bush administration caters to polluting industries, while rural Americans pay the price." Industry groups approached Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 asking the agency to shield them from Clean Air Act violations, the documents reveal. Bush administration officials then corresponded in secret with industry lobbyists to craft a deal that would exempt factory farms from air pollution requirements. Internal emails even show that industry lobbyists prepared power-point presentations on the proposed deal for Bush administration officials to deliver. Additionally, the new documents reveal the extent of contact between industry groups and the administration, with monthly meetings taking place over a year-long period. One email exchange documents an EPA official admitting that it was a "no-no" for them to request that the National Pork Producers association pay for EPA's travel to a confidential meeting. "This is another example of the Bush administration striking deals behind closed doors," said Barclay Rogers of the Sierra Club. "Whether it's Vice President Cheney's Secret Energy Task Force, power companies being allowed to draft rules on toxic mercury, or the meat industry writing their own 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, it's clear that this administration is putting polluters before the public." The American Public Health Association and the National Academy of Sciences have stated that pollution from massive animal factories jeopardizes public health in rural communities across the nation. Bearing no resemblance to the traditional family farm, these facilities pack thousands of animals into small spaces, produce as much waste as a small city, and spew toxic gases and other pollutants into the air. Livestock production is the single largest contributor of ammonia gas release in the United States, and giant animal factories also emit hydrogen sulfide and fine dust particles-both of which are linked to respiratory illness-in dangerous quantities. Industry groups who were revealed as being given special access to the administration include: Smithfield Foods, ConAgra foods, Seaboard Farms, Tyson Foods, Kraft Foods, Cargill, IBP, and Premium Standard Farms. Additionally, the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, United Egg Producers, National Pork Producers Council, National Milk Producers Federation, and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association were also members of the industry coalition involved in the backroom deal. Supporting documents are available on the Sierra Club website at: http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/cafo_papers/ |
....Affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church, the Apostolic Congress is part of an important and disciplined political constituency courted by recent Republican administrations. As a subset of the broader Christian Zionist movement, it has a lengthy history of opposition to any proposal that will not result in what it calls a "one-state solution" in Israel. ....The Apostolic Congress dates its origins to 1981, when, according to its website, "Brother Stan Wachtstetter was able to open the door to Apostolic Christians into the White House." Apostolics, a sect of Pentecostals, claim legitimacy as the heirs of the original church because they, as the 12 apostles supposedly did, baptize converts in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Ronald Reagan bore theological affinities with such Christians because of his belief that the world would end in a fiery Armageddon. Reagan himself referenced this belief explicitly a half-dozen times during his presidency. While the language of apocalyptic Christianity is absent from George W. Bush's speeches, he has proven eager to work with apocalyptics�a point of pride for Upton. "We're in constant contact with the White House," he boasts. "I'm briefed at least once a week via telephone briefings. . . . I was there about two weeks ago . . . At that time we met with the president." Last spring, after President Bush announced his Road Map plan for peace in the Middle East, the Apostolic Congress co-sponsored an effort with the Jewish group Americans for a Safe Israel that placed billboards in 23 cities with a quotation from Genesis ("Unto thy offspring will I give this land") and the message, "Pray that President Bush Honors God's Covenant with Israel. Call the White House with this message." It then provided the White House phone number and the Apostolic Congress's Web address. In the interview with the Voice, Pastor Upton claimed personal responsibility for directing 50,000 postcards to the White House opposing the Road Map, which aims to create a Palestinian state. "I'm in total disagreement with any form of Palestinian state," Upton said. "Within a two-week period, getting 50,000 postcards saying the exact same thing from places all over the country, that resonated with the White House. That really caused [President Bush] to backpedal on the Road Map." |
....Bush knew about it. Rumsfeld ordered it. His undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Steven Cambone, administered it. Cambone's deputy, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, instructed Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had been executing the program involving al-Qaida suspects at Guantanamo, to go do the same at Abu Ghraib. Miller told Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of the 800th Military Brigade, that the prison would now be dedicated to gathering intelligence. Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, also seems to have had a hand in this sequence, as did William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, learned about the improper interrogations�from the International Committee of the Red Cross, if not from anyone else�but said or did nothing about it for two months, until it was clear that photographs were coming out. Meanwhile, those involved in the interrogations included officers from military intelligence, the CIA, and private contractors, as well as the mysterious figures from the Pentagon's secret operation. That's a lot more people than the seven low-grade soldiers and reservists currently facing courts-martial.... |
For nearly 12 years, Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was a hard-core, some say gung-ho, Marine. For three years he trained fellow Marines in one of the most grueling indoctrination rituals in military life - Marine boot camp. The Iraq war changed Massey. The brutality, the sheer carnage of the U.S. invasion, touched his conscience and transformed him forever. He was honorably discharged with full severance last Dec. 31 and is now back in his hometown, Waynsville, N.C. When I talked with Massey last week, he expressed his remorse at the civilian loss of life in incidents in which he himself was involved. ....Q: I would like to go back to the first incident, when the survivor asked why did you kill his brother. Was that the incident that pushed you over the edge, as you put it? A: Oh, yeah. Later on I found out that was a typical day. I talked with my commanding officer after the incident. He came up to me and says: "Are you OK?" I said: "No, today is not a good day. We killed a bunch of civilians." He goes: "No, today was a good day." And when he said that, I said "Oh, my goodness, what the hell am I into?" Q: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of mind before the invasion? A: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the whole thing. Q: What changed you? A: The civilian casualties taking place. That was what made the difference. That was when I changed. Q: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for war affect the troops? A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just feel embarrassed, ashamed about it. |
....Based on the regular Escape SUV, the Escape Hybrid has the looks and capabilities of a normal car, thus allowing Ford to sidestep the science-project styling that cut sales of Honda Motor's Insight hybrid coupe in half last year. The Insight was one of the first hybrids sold in the U.S., but Americans are buying newer, more conventionally styled hybrids in much larger numbers. Improving the regular Escape's city fuel economy by 75 percent seems more impressive, and more relevant to the average American customer, than putting out a new, standalone hybrid commuter car that gets 55 mpg. Ford estimates that the Escape Hybrid will get 35/30 city/highway mpg (the city figure is higher than the highway figure, which is unusual, because the engine cuts out during deceleration and at a stop). Toyota Motor, which currently is the only manufacturer beside Honda to sell hybrids in America, is about to release a hybrid SUV of its own, a hybrid treatment of the Lexus RX 330 called the RX 400h. With 92,366 unit sales in the U.S. last year, the regular RX is the backbone of Lexus. It's a hot vehicle whose sales continue to increase, and its hybrid derivative is going to be a huge hit, for which other automakers need to prepare competition.... |
"If you want to save the age, betray it. Expose its conceits, foibles and phony moral certitudes." ----Irish poet Brendan Keneally |
Art Share Los Angeles is a community arts incubator whose mission is to shape lives through art, education and community action. ASLA brings workshops to the Los Angeles inner-city community and its children and families. We develop emerging professional visual and theater artists by providing living / work space, subsidized monthly exhibits and performance opportunities. Art Share nurtures the arts in all media from our 30,000 sq./ft. complex in the heart of downtown arts district. We take great pride in our successful approaches addressing the many social needs our community through the arts. |
"Do you think President Bush is doing a good job or a poor job handling the situation in Iraq?" ...............Good... Poor... Not Sure ................ %....... %........ % 5/12-13/04 ..39 .......55 .......6 2/5-6/04 ......52 .......44 .......4 12/30/03 & 1/1/04 ........56 .......39 .......5 7/16-17/03 ..55 .......40 .......5 5/21-22/03 ..69 .......27 .......4 |
....Starting from the Revolutionary War, the US has engaged in warlike activity somewhere in the world in three of every four years of its existence. And the prizes, for that part of the population that owns and controls the economy, have been rich indeed: land, mines, plantations, oil and energy rights, export markets, low-wage labor, and military bases -- hundreds of them in scores of countries, outposts to guarantee that more and more of the world is open to US exports and investment, whether the indigenous population likes it or not. And how many aggressions has the US been involved in since 1999, a mere half-decade? Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. US militarism hardly looks like a policy of a group of people in power. It looks more like something that is built in -- systemic and hoary and bound to carry on in the usual fashion no matter whose name plate sits on the desk in the Oval Office. Which says that getting rid of the group now in power, and replacing it with another group -- as has been done time and time again in US history -- isn't going to change what makes the US go to war, or outrage the sovereignty of others. That's all the more true, given that the presumptive Democrat contender to the White House, John Kerry, looks more like Bush on steroids than Bush-lite when it comes to foreign policy questions. Kerry says his military will be bigger than Bush's, and that he too will use force preventively and unilaterally. And recently he pledged that, unlike Bush, he'd get the job done in Cuba. Castro, and all his intolerable baggage -- full-employment, free health care, and free education -- would be swept away, to be replaced by the phony freedom and democracy Iraqis are so grateful the US is ramming down their throats. Sadly, the Left will line up behind this right-wing, pro-imperialist anyway -- stupidly, desperately, unsure what do to, but to toss the dice once again, in a fixed game. And if that's not as absurd as the US staying in Iraq over the objections of a vast majority of Iraqis, for democracy, what is? |
"It's a fact. I'm a survivor." |
"The current administration has casually sent American armed forces on dozens of missions without clear goals, realizable objectives, favorable rules of engagement, or defined exit strategies. Over the past seven years, a shrunken American military has been run ragged by a deployment tempo that has eroded its military readiness. Many units have seen their operational requirements increased four-fold, wearing out both people and equipment." |
"My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this." ----Michael Berg, father if beheaded Nick Berg |
Passed Congress, April 2003 $7.1 billion Passed Congress, November 2003 $9.2 billion Pending Request, May 2004 $3.2 billion Total $19.5 billion .... How much is $19.5 billion? By comparison, California will receive from federal aid $9.2 billion for the No Child Left Behind Act, $728.0 million for Environmental Protection Agency programs, and $1.7 billion in Community Development Block Grant programs over the same three-year period. |
....Not only is there is more to life than politics and murder and mayhem and BushCo running around like he's the whiniest king of the sandbox, it's also that those other elements, those seemingly insignificant, fluffy, pointless divine things like sex and design and books and the color of your lover's eyes actually, if you pay full attention, turn out to be far more vital to the planet and to your spiritual health than any toxic abuse BushCo could ever smirk out to the world. Sure columns like this one don't get me as many clicks as the pointed outraged double-barreled criticisms. Sure they don't inspire as much hate mail and love mail and wonderful supportive replies and offers to come on slightly snide conservative radio shows to debate angry talking heads on the finer points of whether Bush is a corrupt malevolent demon or just a hollow sad imbecile. No matter. For better or worse, I refuse to wallow. My job is to offer perspective. Your job is to take that perspective and balance it with your own and read your ass off and get as informed as possible and filter and digest as best you can. The world's tragedies absolutely deserve our immediate attention. And our hope. And our divine raw funky sexed-up intellectual perspective. This is not a question. But what it needs even more is the counter-energy. For us all to remember to shut it all off and get the hell away from the computer and go have a glass of wine and a deep tongue kiss and a romp and a an intense book and a hot sweaty yoga class and a soft swoon to an incredible blues singer. This fuels the resistance. Rekindles meaning. Steals life back from those who would deign to devour it with pitchforks and judiciary committees and heavy artillery. After all, real life is not in the dour headlines. You know this. Real life is not in BushCo's blank confused smirk. Real life is where you launch forth, right now, just after this period coming up, this one right here. |
"That's the cruelest loss I've ever been involved with. But given a choice, if something bad is going to happen to you, that's better than being in Iraq." ----Coach Gregg Popovich following the loss of his San Antonio Spurs last night |
....You absolutely, positively, must wait until Iraq and America�s other enemies are defeated, fully and unconditionally, before you pull our warriors out. You absolutely, positively, must wait until they have proven�unconditionally!�that they can be trusted before you charge them to again rule themselves. You must not waiver, you must not falter, you must not grow weary�vigilance now and forever is our only hope, and their greatest opposition. Mr. President, you must not listen to the Politically Castrated and easily led leftists of this country�they are not the majority, and they are not right. You were right, and are right, about this war�believe in that, and believe in the freedoms we�ve sacrificed so much to preserve. Remember, Sir, that it was decades after WWII before Germany and Japan could be trusted to regulate themselves, and that in fact to this day, there are restrictions still in force--things they aren�t allowed to do or build. It has been 60 years, and while they are now our friends, the harsh reality is that they brought such strict guidelines upon themselves; for that decade of debauchery, they have had to prove themselves with six decades of good behavior. What is wrong with using this same standard now? Holding Islamic extremists accountable for the suffering they have inflicted upon the world is not wrong or mean-spirited or arrogant of us now anymore so than it was back then. It is, in fact, just, good, and in the end, the greatest kindness we can show to them. Remember, Sir, that America is a good land, made up of good people. We are the only nation in the history of the world to be attacked and murdered by enemies, then take them by the hand, investing monies, manpower, and decades to re-build and in fact greatly improve their standard of living, turning them from adversary to ally, forgiving them and welcoming them into our fold. None of our foes, past or present, would show us the same tolerance or clemency. Not one. Remember that Kerry is a coward, a loser, the scum on the boot of America to be wiped off on the sidewalk, and that if he is elected, Ranger Tillman and millions before him will have died for nothing. No amount of hippy bitching will ever benefit man so much as has the American Warrior. Listen to them, Mr. President; right now their voices are the only ones that make any sense. |
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Clothing retailer Gap Inc. said on Wednesday that forced labor, child labor, paying below minimum wage, physical punishment and coercion are some of the widespread workers' rights violations occurring at many of its factories worldwide. The San Francisco-based retailer -- whose outlets include the Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic chains -- acknowledged some of the worst abuse cases found among the 3,000 factories around the world that make its products. The worst and most persistent of the violations led Gap to terminate business with 136 factories in 2003, Gap said in its first-ever social responsibility report. The company issued the report on Wednesday to coincide with its annual meeting. The report, hailed as the first of its kind, highlights the company's efforts to improve garment factory conditions and labor standards, and counteract its reputation as an employer of sweatshop labor. The most common violations included health and safety problems, breaches of local law, faulty age documentation, excessive hours and unclear wage statements. "These are common occurrences in the garment industry," said Bruce Raynor, president of UNITE, the union for clothing and textile workers. Raynor and other labor activists said Gap was taking a clear step in the direction of correcting some of these conditions. "This company is trying to use its sourcing power to improve working conditions and labor rights, and that's really what we ask of giant retailers," Raynor said. "By no means do I say there are not problems in Gap factories. There are many. But there have been some concrete, constructive steps taken." A group of shareholders that collaborated with Gap -- including the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Domini Social Investments, As You Sow Foundation, Calvert Group, and the Center for Reflection, Education and Action -- said it pressured the company to undertake the project two years ago. "Gap did not just decide to do this out of altruism," said Conrad MacKerron, director of As You Sow's corporate responsibility program.... |
"The fact that they have 464 factories in China, a country where workers are not allowed to organize in independent unions, means probably the majority of goods continue to be made in conditions that violate international workers rights," said Medea Benjamin, founding director of Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based activist group that has campaigned against alleged sweatshop employers and specifically against Gap. "I give Gap very high marks for trying, and putting out the report. But when you realize so much of the production is in China, and so much more will be (after 2005), it's almost a joke to talk about social responsibility," Benjamin said. Of the 136 factories that were terminated in 2003 for serious or excessive breaches, greater China and Southeast Asia each had 42, the Indian subcontinent had 31, and Europe, including Russia, had nine. The garment industry is bracing for 2005, when quotas on apparel and textiles among World Trade Organization member nations will expire. China is expected to become the global powerhouse of production because there will be no limit on the extent to which importers can take advantage of its low costs.... |
By Janet Gilmore, Media Relations | 11 May 2004 BERKELEY � The situation in Iraq has caused so much concern among Americans that their comparative evaluation of the presidential candidates is based largely on that issue with very little attention to matters such as taxes, education and health care, according to a new survey from researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. Some 53 percent of those surveyed between April 1 and May 6 view the situation in Iraq as an "extremely serious problem," up from 34 percent of those queried in March. Further, those who hold a strong negative view of the Iraq situation are favoring presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry over President George W. Bush by a wide margin. "It appears that the difficult situation in Iraq and the abuse scandals have all combined to suck much of the life out of many of the issues that might otherwise have begun to influence how the public is deciding who they are going to vote for in November," said Douglas Strand of the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center. "If Iraq continues to dominate in this way, we may have an election that says little about what the public wants to do on other big questions," he said. The survey, called the Public Agendas and Citizen Engagement Survey (PACES), is led by professors Merrill Shanks and Henry Brady of the UC Berkeley Political Science Department and professor Edward G. Carmines of Indiana University. Strand is the project director. The first of the polling, conducted by the Survey Research Center, began on Feb. 18 and will continue weekly through the November presidential election. So far, 545 Americans age 18 and over have been interviewed. PACES is unique in the comprehensiveness of the issues it surveys. Individuals are asked more than 170 questions and, on average, spend about 30 minutes answering. Researchers analyze all of an individual's responses and consider party affiliation, socio-demographic characteristics (including religious involvement) and other concerns and preferences related to the national situation and potential government actions when they assess the importance of any particular issue, concern or preference. The most recent survey results are based on phone interviews that took place between April 1 and May 6. That period included news coverage of the killing and desecration of corpses of four American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, and the first publication of photos of U.S. soldiers appearing to abuse and torture Iraqi prisoners. The researchers concluded that if the election were held today, it would not be decided based on issues that the presidential candidates have emphasized in their speeches and advertisements, such as education, taxes and health care, nor would it be based on headline-grabbing issues involving gay marriage and abortion. Current candidate preferences are based heavily on views about Iraq, the United States' use of military force in general, views about the state of the U.S. economy, and to a modest degree, views about environmental protection, the researchers concluded. The percentage of Americans who see Iraq as an extremely serious problem rose in the last two months. And those with a strongly negative view of the situation have preferred Kerry over Bush 59 percent to 26 percent. The result, according to Strand, is that based on the situation in Iraq alone, Kerry has gained what appears to be at least four or five percentage points in his race against Bush. Shanks noted that overall, however, Kerry has not appeared to gain much or any ground against Bush, especially when compared to their relative standing in March. They remain either close or in a statistical tie in terms of overall public support, he said. "Some forces besides Iraq have brought Kerry down, have wiped out the gains against Bush that he appears to have made from the deterioration in Iraq," he said. "We speculate that those forces have certainly included Bush's $70 million of ads and other critical commentary about Kerry that has appeared in the media." The survey found that little had changed regarding how Americans viewed other issues. In March, 29 percent thought the "number of unemployed" was a serious problem and in early May, 27 percent held that view. In March, 40 percent viewed "the size of the deficit" as a major problem and in early May, 38 percent held that view. |
"We're in a land of denial. Every time we try to excuse our troops by claiming they're not all sadistic torturers, we miss the daily humiliation and racist behavior of our troops. When Iraqis deal with Americans, it's not all sunshine and light. People die, are beaten, robbed. Abu Ghraib was just the end of the line for humiliating Iraqis. We need to stop pretending that Abu Ghraib was the exception. Iraqis would heartily disagree." ----Steve Gilliard |
The story changes so fast you can't keep up with it. They first learned about this when the "courageous" soldier took the pictures to his superiors. And the pictures were all "personal." But then stories came out that the pictures were ordered by MI for "intimidation" purposes. And the ICRC reported it had told the Admin. about these problems months ago. And it was limited to a handful of "bad apples." Except the same thing happened in Afghanistan. And the photos were staged, not "snapshots." And they knew something was up in November, but they fixed it. But they were surprised by the allegations in January. But no one knew about it. But everyone knew about it, because there was a breakdown in command. But there was no breakdown. And the Geneva Convention has always applied. Except when it hasn't. And we've always followed it. Except when we didn't. And we don't abuse prisoners. Except when we do. It's not "American." Except it is expressly sanctioned by military regulations. Except it can only be sanctioned by the DoD, because Rumsfeld keeps tight rein on everything. Except he doesn't. Because this was authorized in Iraq, not in Washington. Except it couldn't have been, because Rummy runs a tight ship. Except he didn't know. But don't call it "plausible deniability." Because there's a chain of command. Except Rumsfeld doesn't know what it is. He only knows about the PR campaign he's been conducting since these photos went public. But he isn't lying. He just doesn't know anything. But it's okay. Because he's doing a great job. Even though everything is a shambles. |
....Mortgage lenders are putting home buyers into so-called ``nothing-down'' and ``interest-only'' loans, the Mercury News' Sue McAllister reported last weekend. The lenders pushing such deals are irresponsible because they're encouraging a dangerous kind of debt. A nothing-down mortgage is just what it sounds like: no down payment. An interest-only mortgage means no payments on principal for a period of time, usually five to seven years. Under the best of circumstances, at least some of these borrowers are going to be bitterly sorry. Under less favorable conditions, many more will regret making the bet. Never mind the mess if the overall economic climate truly sours. The foundation for this kind of borrowing is simple, and wrong-headed. It assumes that housing prices will continue to rise the way they have in the past few years. I don't believe they will. If I'm right, a nothing-down mortgage is like betting on an inside straight in a high-stakes poker game.... Basic economics can't be defied forever. Just ask the people who bought in Tokyo in the late 1980s. Japan has only just begun to recover from the economic disaster that followed the bursting of its financial bubble. It can happen here. Key regions of America, including Silicon Valley, seem clearly to be in the throes of a housing bubble. If so, average people will feel enormous financial pain -- and our entire economy will suffer. The economy is growing at the moment, but all kinds of problems are building, including some that will directly affect the housing scene. The price of oil settled above $40 a barrel Tuesday, the first time since 1990, when California's housing market was in its last tumble. Inflation is back on the horizon, partly as a result of rising energy costs. The Federal Reserve has all but erected billboards to warn us that interest rates can't stay this low much longer. If inflation is really back, and if the job market continues to grow at a reasonable pace, rate hikes could come faster and take interest costs higher than we may expect. All this makes nothing-down and interest-only mortgages the kind of bets that should worry people. But the rush to buy -- which resembles a panic as much as anything else -- continues to overwhelm common sense. While I believe there is a housing bubble that will deflate, I wouldn't dream of suggesting when. In a rush to lock in low mortgage rates, and in the general frenzy that seems to prevail, people may well keep bidding prices up for a while. The crunch will come, though. Maybe it'll happen when large numbers of low-interest adjustable loans come due and borrowers suddenly face big hikes in their monthly costs. For the nothing-down crowd, even a tiny drop in prices will put their equity under water. If things start to unravel, the market could go south in a hurry.... |
....But let's not be too hard on the least articulate, least intellectual, least accountable president in U.S. history. After all, Dubya's just like much of America. He is the prefect embodiment of our world-famous myopia, a selective type of dangerous tunnel vision whereby if we don't see it and don't really feel it and the media doesn't splash it all over us, it must not be true. And, really, what Bush-votin' flag-wavin' God-numbed patriot wants to hear that the U.S. is a world-class hypocrite, committing many of the same crimes and tortures, rapes and humiliations that Saddam himself did, in the very same prison? Who wants to hear that, in many ways, we've done no better by the Iraqi (or Afghan) people than their former leadership, and in some ways have made things far worse? And who wants to know that we have become the violent, unwanted clown on the global stage, justifiably ridiculed and thoroughly unsympathetic, as the world boos and hurls rotten foreign policies? Who wants to know that we are, in short, losing the war? Look there, isn't that Dick Cheney, hiding behind an American coffin, fondling his Halliburton portfolio and snickering quietly? Why yes, yes it is. The Powers That Be know one thing: This lack of perspective, of the gruesome details of war, keeps the nation stupid. It makes us compliant. It makes us all go, well sure, I know war is heck and all, but we're the good guys therefore any bloodshed is in the name of democracy and any rapes are necessary evils and all those dead Iraqi women and babies are unfortunate casualties in the quest to protect our president's corporate interests and life goes on and hey "American Idol" is down to three finalists! Woo! Ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is also Bush. This is a man who goes on Saudi television to claim rape and torture and sadism is not the American way of conducting a war (but not, actually, to apologize -- never that), that such behavior is contrary to our God and our principles and our morals and our happily imbecilic black-and-white, good-versus-evil worldview.... |
....Look. Everyone knows the Abu Ghraib nightmare isn't an isolated incident. These pictures merely stir that sickening, deep-down feeling that the atrocities are far worse than you can imagine and far more widespread than anyone wants to admit and they happen during every single war and Rummy and his crew not only knew it was happening but they also condoned it, promoted it, never made a move to stop it. So? Standard operating procedure, baby. It says so all over Rummy's pinched, sour face: It's an ugly, savage world, people. Now please just shut up and let us devour it in peace. Even the Red Cross is coming forth and saying, oh man, you think those Abu Ghraib pictures are bad? You think it's just that hideous little nightmare prison where American soldiers and American-funded commandos and mercenaries are torturing and abusing and grinning for the camera? You have no idea. Cut to a close-up of Jack Nicholson's beady eyes, boring straight into the smirking simpleton that is Bush, and then scanning over the pro-Bush American voting public, so inured and sheltered and flag waving and sucking down SUVs like baby seals. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! And what is that truth now? What have these photos, these glorious wartime atrocities, accomplished? Why, nothing short of guaranteeing that the United States has never been so violently hated among Middle Eastern nations as it is right now. Nothing short of massacring any last vestige of remaining 9/11 sympathy. Nothing short of supplying a whole new generation of enraged terrorists with all the proof they need that their cause is entirely valid and just..... |
"If all the rich people in the world divided up their money among themselves there wouldn't be enough to go around." ---- Christina Stead |
....I don't want to have to lie about my vote. I don't want to have to explain that I didn't really support Kerry's de-facto endorsement of ethnic cleansing even though I voted for him. It sounds like a lame excuse and it is. I don't want to have to admit to my hosts that I voted for Kerry because I thought about retirement savings and health insurance and personal security and I forgot all about Nablus and about what they were going through. Therefore, on election day, I won't forget Nablus and I won't vote for Kerry. I know many will consider this a betrayal. There is a deafening silence regarding Kerry among the progressive leadership, a shameful silence that stills that familiar argument: this is the time if there ever was one to vote strategically for the lesser evil; Bush is destroying America and stopping him must be the highest priority. This argument would be more convincing if it weren't dusted and deployed every four years. It is a self-serving argument for key progressive demographics. The palpable terror Bush evokes in the heart of many Americans is well founded. Bush is a direct menace to the wellbeing and finances of middle class America. As far as we are concerned, there is a real difference between Kerry and Bush. But the farther away one stands, the smaller the difference between them appears. For 50% percent of Americans, the difference is probably too small to justify the trip to the polls. For the victims of American imperialism, there really is no difference. It is a choice between two different commitments to bomb them into submission. The next election is not taking the shape of a referendum on the American empire, but rather a contest in management skills. Kerry claims he would be a better steward of the empire. He would be better at pacifying Iraq, better at forcing U.S. solutions on the Middle East, better at getting the world to submit to U.S. will. Perhaps he would. But ought we help him? What is our stake in improving the quality of management of the empire? Many of us do have a stake and that may be the problem. The "anything but Bush" argument today is self-interest masquerading as high-mindedness. When one says that anyone is better than Bush, what is left unsaid is that we, too, have a stake in the success of U.S. world domination. Bush's mismanagement is a threat to us because it threatens to bring down the empire, and with it the relatively sheltered lifestyle of those who manage to live well inside the beast. But can we honestly say that a better managed American imperialism makes the world a better place for others, too? Does it help the people of the world that most of the huge "research" budget of American universities has something to do with developing more effective ways to kill people? Will an American victory in the war in Iraq help Americans who can't afford seeing a family doctor? On election day, we have a choice. We can vote our complicity with imperialism or our solidarity with its victims. I do not argue that "the worse the better." If I did, I would have to advocate voting for Bush. All I say is that I do not know whether a Bush or a Kerry presidency would be better for those who have no rights. I do not know, partly because this isn't an election issue. Both contenders are committed to extending and yielding U.S. military and financial power without consideration to its victims, both at home and abroad. The "strategic vote" is, therefore, limited to "strategic from the standpoint of my own narrow interest." The conflict about whether to vote for "the lesser of two evils" is mis-framed as a conflict between pragmatism and idealism � "something is better than nothing" vs. "all or nothing." It is rather a conflict between narrow self-interest and ethics. Let those who support imperialism debate how best to run an empire. The right thing to do is to use our power to vote, symbolically, to signal our refusal to contribute to a civic conversation about the quality of imperial management and domination. It is almost a futile gesture, but not completely so; it is an act of solidarity with the disenfranchised. |
Chinese herb reveals vital malaria weakness 18:00 20 August 03 NewScientist.com news service A hitherto unknown but vital weakness in the malaria parasite has been exposed by studying extracts from ancient Chinese anti-fever remedies. The discovery opens a new front in the fight against the parasite, which has become resistant in most parts of the world to the most common anti-malarial drug, chloroquine. Derived from the Chinese herb qinghao, or sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua), the extracts have already saved millions of patients in south-east Asia who would otherwise have suffered or died when conventional drugs failed. |
"And (how many times does it have to be said?) these folks in Abu Ghraib weren't the 9/11 planners." |
"One thing came through strongly in the testimony of Rumsfeld and Myers before the Senate Committee was that the release of the pictures themselves were to what the administration (and many others with them) objected, not the acts that the pictures captured." |
....The question, instead, is when the trend in oil prices will turn decisively upward. That upward turn is inevitable as a growing world economy confronts a resource in limited supply. But when will it happen? Maybe it already has. I know, of course, that such predictions have been made before, during the energy crisis of the 1970's. But the end of that crisis has been widely misunderstood: prices went down not because the world found new sources of oil, but because it found ways to make do with less. During the 1980's, oil consumption dropped around the world as the delayed effects of the energy crisis led to the use of more fuel-efficient cars, better insulation in homes and so on. Although economic growth led to a gradual recovery, as late as 1993 world oil consumption was only slightly higher than it had been in 1979. In the United States, oil consumption didn't regain its 1979 level until 1997. Since then, however, world demand has grown rapidly: the daily world consumption of oil is 12 million barrels higher than it was a decade ago, roughly equal to the combined production of Saudi Arabia and Iran. It turns out that America's love affair with gas guzzlers, shortsighted as it is, is not the main culprit: the big increases in demand have come from booming developing countries. China, in particular, still consumes only 8 percent of the world's oil � but it accounted for 37 percent of the growth in world oil consumption over the last four years. The collision between rapidly growing world demand and a limited world supply is the reason why the oil market is so vulnerable to jitters. Maybe we'll get through this bad patch, and oil will fall back toward $30 a barrel. But if that happens, it will be only a temporary respite. In a way it's ironic. Lately we've been hearing a lot about competition from Chinese manufacturing and Indian call centers. But a different kind of competition � the scramble for oil and other resources � poses a much bigger threat to our prosperity. So what should we be doing? Here's a hint: We can neither drill nor conquer our way out of the problem. Whatever we do, oil prices are going up. What we have to do is adapt. |
May 8, 2004 | BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Last Saturday, Suhaib Badr al Baz, a cameraman for Al-Jazeera, sat in the lobby of the Swan Lake Hotel and calmly described his experience being tortured by U.S. military personnel. The soft-spoken journalist's account of his 74 days in U.S. custody was deeply disturbing, and his story not only supports what is now coming to light about human rights violations in Abu Ghraib, but also adds interesting new details. Al Baz said that much of his mistreatment took place in a building at the Baghdad airport, a place where he heard the sounds of prisoners screaming for long periods of time. If his account is accurate, it means that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq is not limited to Abu Ghraib prison or a single military unit. It may well be, as military critics argue, more widespread. Like many other prisoners of Abu Ghraib, al Baz was never charged with a crime and did not have the opportunity to defend himself before any court. As soon as he was arrested, he found himself plunged into a secretive network of American detention facilities with little connection to the outside world, a zone where human and civil rights were completely ignored. As a civilian in occupied Iraq, he should have been protected by the Geneva Conventions, but instead, al Baz became the victim of a war crime perpetrated by U.S. soldiers. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment ... Unlawful confinement of a protected person ... willfully depriving protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial." ....The cameraman's ordeal began Nov. 13 last year, when al Baz arrived at the site of a convoy attack in Samarra with his camera. U.S. soldiers stopped him and began to search his car. Al Baz said that when they found his Al-Jazeera I.D. badge, the soldiers asked him how he knew about the attack in advance, and then tied his hands behind his back. Al Baz says he arrived at the site four hours after the attack, and by that time, the entire city knew about it. Following his arrest, al Baz says that soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division took him to a U.S. military base in Samarra and interrogated him for two days. "At the base I first saw a tall heavy man who put a black hood over my head," he recalls. "Then he forced me to stand in front of a wall for three or four hours. I was treated very roughly, then taken to a room and interrogated. When the tall man was not satisfied with my answers, he hit me in the face. They asked questions in a way that showed they were not interested in the truth." Al Baz says at first he was not given food or water, or allowed to pray. On the second day, he was given foul-smelling food. Immediately after his arrest, colleagues from the network and friends began to pressure the coalition for information but were told by Gen. Kimmit's staff that there was no information available. This is a common reply for people seeking information about recently detained people. Al Baz said it took a week for the military to issue him a prison I.D. number. ....When al Baz moved to Abu Ghraib in late November, he said he was asked to strip naked at one point but was never forced to take part in staged scenes like the others. "It didn't happen like that to me," he said. But he did say that he witnessed a disturbing episode involving a father and son. From his cell, al Baz said he watched through the small window and saw two men stripped naked. "The boy was only about 16 years old, and then a soldier poured cold water over them. Their cell was directly across from mine." Al Baz says that the father and son were made to stand naked in front of other prisoners for days. Torturers often keep careful records; that is one of the odd but persistent features of the trade. It is never enough to destroy the captive -- there must also be proof of the victory over him, a souvenir. It is the prideful documentary urge that has undone the torturers of Abu Ghraib, although it is unlikely that the officers who sanctioned the abuse appear in the pictures. In any case, the Abu Ghraib prisoners were well aware that they were being photographed. "I first knew that they were taking pictures when I saw that one of the computers had a picture of some prisoners as its desktop background. One of the prisoners had a black hood over his head and he was covered in cold water. I personally witnessed this event take place. The man was screaming, "I'm innocent!" until he got sick and his body got swollen from all the punishment," al Baz said. Cold water, solitary confinement, swollen bodies and constant psychological abuse are recurring images for the Al-Jazeera cameraman, who also credits his tormentors with ingenuity. "They had all different kinds of punishments and they changed them all the time. I begged them to interrogate me again so they would know that I was innocent, but they said no, that's it. All we know is that you're staying here." .... |
....One of my great pleasures in life, I am ashamed to say, is saying �I told you so� when I give prudential advice and it is ignored. In the greatest �I told you so� of my life, I gain no pleasure at all in saying it. It makes me dizzy with sickness to say it, incandescent with rage to say it. It sticks in my throat like vomit. It makes me want to punch some abstract somebody in the mouth. It makes me want to scrawl profane insults in this space and abandon all hope of reasonable conversation. That�s because the people who did what they did, said what they said, on Iraq, the people who ignored or belitted counsel to the contrary, didn�t just screw themselves. They screwed me and my family and my people and my nation and the world. They screwed a very big pooch and they mostly don�t even have the courage to admit it. They pissed away assets and destroyed tools of diplomacy and persuasion that will take a generation to reacquire at precisely the moment that we need them most.... |
"We know what the terrorists will do; we know they will try to exploit all that is bad, and try to obscure all that is good. That's their nature. And that's the nature of those who think they can kill innocent men, women and children to gratify their own cruel wills to power." |
Thursday, May 6, 2004 - Nuclear waste changes sought at Hanford and other sites New proposal would allow Energy Dept. to skip cleanup of the most lethal material By CHARLES POPE - SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT WASHINGTON -- A South Carolina senator, working in concert with senior Energy Department officials, has quietly proposed changing federal law to allow lethal waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and other nuclear weapons plants to remain in underground tanks rather than being removed and sent to a more secure disposal site. The proposal from Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., is included in the defense authorization bill. It was heavily shaped -- if not written -- by the Energy Department. Jill Lea Sigal, a deputy assistant energy secretary, is listed as "author" on the document Graham's office submitted with the legislative language. The Energy Department did not return several phone calls seeking comment on the policy and Sigal's involvement. The department has actively been pursuing the change since 2002, saying that it needs the power to reclassify waste to accelerate cleanup and direct money to deal with the most dangerous waste. Each time, however, either Congress or the courts have blocked the department, including a federal court ruling last year that prohibited the Energy Department from reclassifying waste. What the department is trying to do now through legislation amounts to the same thing, critics say. Whoever wrote the provision, all sides agree it would have profound effects on future cleanup at the Energy Department's highly contaminated weapons plants. An aide to Graham said his measure would accelerate cleanup by removing ambiguity about which waste needs to be removed. The Energy Department has argued that it should be allowed to leave some residual waste in the tanks because the cost of removing it would far outweigh the benefits. Cement would be added to the sludge to stabilize it and prevent it from leeching into water tables. At Hanford, that could leave more than 35 million gallons of highly radioactive sludge and salt cake in the ground. "Removal of the 'heel' in the tanks is technically difficult, very costly, and poses unnecessary risks to worker safety," Graham explains in a summary of his proposal. "Removing the last 1 percent of waste is nearly as expensive as removing the first 95 percent." Critics argue that the change would allow the Energy Department alone to define "clean" and would leave states little power to challenge the department's decision. "It is an enormous change. It turns the Nuclear Waste Policy Act on its head," said attorney Geoffrey Fettus, referring to the 1982 law that dictates how nuclear materials are handled and disposed. Fettus, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, successfully sued the department last year to block the policy. "It totally subverts the nuclear waste policy act by essentially allowing DOE to exempt itself ... DOE is essentially rewriting the law that they had broken. If that is a minor change then it would be a minor change to split the state of Washington into two states," he said. Graham's approach would potentially allow millions of gallons of sludge-like radioactive waste to be reclassified as less dangerous low-level waste. The Hanford nuclear weapons complex is among the most contaminated places on Earth, with large amounts of radioactive, chemical and mixed waste that were byproducts of 50 years of nuclear weapons production. Cleanup costs are estimated at more than $50 billion. The Energy Department has been struggling for decades to make progress and in 2002 it changed gears, proposing to make cleanup both faster and cheaper by leaving some of the waste behind. The danger, critics say, is that giving the department the authority to reclassify waste would allow it to declare a site fully cleaned without removing some of the most dangerous waste. Washington state has opposed the change in court and in Congress. "Trying to rename high-level nuclear waste doesn't change the fact that it is still a dangerous, toxic, radioactive sludge that needs to be cleaned up," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. "The DOE is just trying to circumvent what the courts have already decided, which is that they can't reclassify it and the DOE needs to clean it up." Cantwell and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote a letter yesterday to the committee's chairman, John Warner, R-Va., and ranking Democrat, Carl Levin of Michigan, expressing their alarm and asking that the provision be stripped from the bill. "This amendment would give the Bush administration unilateral authority to redefine what constitutes 'cleaned up,' " the letter said. "We oppose this language because it would significantly alter the way in which DOE is allowed to define 'high-level radioactive waste,' and would minimize the role of regulators in overseeing decisions regarding this waste's disposal. In short, this language would give the administration the authority to turn the corroding, underground storage tanks at Hanford -- and elsewhere within the DOE complex -- into permanent repositories for an indeterminate amount of DOE's nuclear waste inventory. We believe this is unacceptable." Fettus agreed that the effect on Hanford could be profound. "Not only could waste at Hanford be left in tanks, it could be the recipient of waste from other facilities," he said. "Hanford has a long history of worst-case scenarios being visited upon it," Fettus said. "This provision will allow DOE to leave the most highly radioactive portion of the most radioactive waste on the site beneath a layer of grout." Opponents will try to strip the language out of the defense bill today when the Senate Armed Services Committee meets. An aide to Graham acknowledged the unexpected opposition and said his proposal might be changed to limit it to only the Energy Department's facility in South Carolina. |
Military Minister Finds Iraqis Open To Christian Message By Chad Groening - May 5, 2004 - (AgapePress) A Navy chaplain who served in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom believes the civilian population of that country is ready for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Lieutenant Carey Cash was assigned to the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment during the opening months of the war. In his book, A Table In the Presence (W Publishing Group, 2004), Cash says the troops were told all kinds of horror stories about how the Iraqi people would react to Christians. The stories he was told suggested that the Iraqis would be leery of Christians, if not downright hostile, but the Christian author and military officer says the troops discovered this was not the case at all. "Every time I had interactions with Iraqi civilians, it was the exact opposite," Cash says, adding that those Iraqis apparently loved and welcomed the Americans. For himself and the Marines he accompanied, the chaplain says, "the specter of Christian-hating Islamic people" was simply not in evidence among the ordinary citizens. Of course, the author notes, anti-American sentiment was palpable among Iraqi insurgents and Saddam loyalists. "Certainly when you talk about the Republican Guard and the Bath party, I think that, yes, that was there," he says. Cash says the Iraqis seem burdened under Islam. He believes this creates an openness to Christianity, he says, "in part because Islam, as a cultural motif, does oppress. And I think that says that one day, perhaps, a new day may dawn in that nation where the gospel can be proclaimed without fear of reprisal, and where it can liberate men, women, and children unlike they've ever known." Despite the influence of Islam in Iraq, Cash says he finds there is great openness to Christianity there now, and he feels that believers currently serving in that country will have an even better opportunity to share their faith in the future. |
"We're such a nonpartisan company.... do not look for us to take sides." ----Michael Eisner, CEO, Walt Disney Co., while commenting on his company's refusal to release Michael Moore's political documentary, "Farenheit 9/11". |
Eject Bush - May 6, 2004 For a country that wants cleaner air and cheaper driving costs, hybrid cars seem like a natch. Running mostly on electricity, they burn little gas and make little pollution. A year ago, though, hybrids were a tough sell. Now, all of a sudden, there's a long waiting list to buy a hybrid Toyota Prius. And George W. Bush is partly to blame. Before you dismiss that as knee-jerk liberal exhaust fumes, check this out: A major reason for the Prius' new popularity is that the 2004 model is bigger --comparable to a family-sized Camry instead of an itty-bitty Corolla. And who, two years ago, killed a Clinton-era federal program to help car-makers develop high-mileage, family-size hybrids? You got it. George W. Bush, friend of the oil industry. If not for that dastardly murder, we might have more Prius-type cars on the market right now for all those eager buyers -- and fewer smog-alert days this summer. --Alexander Dworkowitz, Chris Harris and Carole Bass got the Scoop |
May 06, 2004 - Study Finds Top Air Polluters Closely Tied to Bush Administration The nation's top 50 polluting power plants are owned by corporations that are tightly allied with the Bush Administration both as major campaign contributors and in conducting pollution policymaking, according to a new study released yesterday. Conducted by two nonprofit, nonpartisan groups--the Environmental Integrity Project and Public Citizen--the study utilized data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Ranking the polluters based on their emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, the report finds that sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide pollution actually increased from 2002-2003, thereby expanding risks of asthma attacks and lung ailments. According to the report, America's Dirtiest Power Plants: Plugged into the Bush Administration, the firms cited in the study, along with their trade associations, met at least 17 times with Vice President Cheney's energy task force. The report found that since 1999, the 30 largest utility companies owning the majority of the 89 dirtiest power plants in the study have contributed $6.6 million to the Bush presidential campaigns and the Republican National Committee. The 30 companies also hired at least 16 lobbying or law firms that have raised at least $3.4 million more for the Bush campaigns. "It is no coincidence that a wholesale assault on the Clean Air Act is taking place today," said Eric Schaeffer, who founded EIP after resigning in early 2002 from his post as director of EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, in protest of the administration's rollback of environmental protections. "This is a well-connected industry that is absolutely intent on preserving its 'right' to foul the air regardless of the consequences to the American people." The study ranked the top 50 polluters for each of the three emissions (mercury, SO2, CO2). Because several companies were in the top 50 for more than one pollutant, the list totaled 89 power plants. Of those 89, some 47 have either been sued or placed under investigation by the EPA for violating the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirement, under which plants that upgrade or expand must add expensive new clean technology. Last August the EPA stirred a huge controversy by relaxing requirements for New Source Review, exempting many plants from the law's pollution control requirements. A federal court stayed the new rules, but as the report notes, "The result of the administration's policy, coupled with the program's current status in legal limbo, is that many of these companies have either had the cases against them undermined or simply dropped by the Bush Adminstration." The study lists five former executives or lobbyists for the electric utility industry who have been placed in important regulatory posts in the Bush administration. One is assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, another is counsel to that office, and a third is deputy administrator of EPA. A fourth is now in charge of all government lawsuits against coal-fired power plants, and the fifth helped write national energy policy as assistant secretary at the Department of Energy. The full report is available at www.environmentalintegrity.org. |
A PROCLAMATION In his first Inaugural Address, President George Washington prayed that the Almighty would preserve the freedom of all Americans. On the National Day of Prayer, we celebrate that freedom and America's great tradition of prayer. The National Day of Prayer encourages Americans of every faith to give thanks for God's many blessings and to pray for each other and our Nation. Prayer is an opportunity to praise God for His mighty works, His gift of freedom, His mercy, and His boundless love. Through prayer, we recognize the limits of earthly power and acknowledge the sovereignty of God. According to Scripture, "the Lord is near to all who call upon Him . . . He also will hear their cry, and save them." Prayer leads to humility and a grateful heart, and it turns our minds to the needs of others. On this National Day of Prayer, we pray especially for the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces who are serving around the world to defend the cause of liberty. We are grateful for their courage and sacrifice and ask God to comfort their families while they are away from home. We also pray that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and throughout the Greater Middle East, may live in safety and freedom. During this time, we continue to ask God's blessing for our Nation, granting us strength to meet the challenges ahead and wisdom as we work to build a more peaceful future for all. The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on our citizens to reaffirm the role of prayer in our society by recognizing annually a "National Day of Prayer." NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2004, as a National Day of Prayer. I ask the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, each according to his or her own faith, for the freedoms and blessings we have received and for God's continued guidance and protection. I also urge all Americans to join in observing this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth. GEORGE W. BUSH |
We have worked out a plan where you will continue to get important information from the Bush-Cheney 04 campaign, but also get access to the resources available exclusively to Team Leaders. The Team Leader program is the grassroots activist program at the Republican National Committee. Team Leader benefits: Access to every elected official Access to every media outlet Access to every piece of federal legislation Ability to create a Team of like minded Republicans Ability to join Teams based on your interest Ability to earn unlimited GOPoints redeemable for Team Leader Gear and, It's FREEEEEEEEE! With that, I'd like to welcome you to the program! Shortly, you will begin receiving news from us. I'm sure you'll find the extra information useful. Sincerely, Blaise Hazelwood Political Director, Republican National Committee |
"I think that -- I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture. I don't know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word." ---- D. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense |
....But it's amazing to think, that after a year, the US effort is racked with failure. Not just for trying to seize Fallujah with a woefully inadequate force of 3,000 Marines. The idea was that we were going to sweep in, kick a little ass, and leave was belied by the Army's bitter ambush during the winter. A unit of the 4ID was jumped and then lied about the body count. The 82nd Airborne couldn't move from outside the city's limits without getting hammered. But now, the world, rightfully, sees us as brutal torturers and killers. Our soldiers shoot the innocent, humiliate the innocent and lie about it. I was watching Nightline last night, when Ted Koppel said there was no comparison between the old Abu Ghraib and the new one. Well, thanks Ted. We haven't hung prisoners or raped them in front of their families. The fact that we didn't descend into Saddam's worse practices says little for us. We failed by our standards. We will be judged by our standards. Not Saddam's. Just because we only brought back some torture and rape doesn't mean it's not so bad because Saddam was worse. Why in God's name are we comparing ourselves to Saddam? Why, after a year of occupation, can that comparison be made? Why did we do anything which could be compared to Saddam? Wasn't the point of this fiasco to eliminate torture and extrajudicial punishment for Iraqis? Instead, we privatized it. The bankruptcy of the US effort in Iraq can no longer be denied. |
Private Security Contractors Implicated In Prisoner Abuse Scandal Are Big GOP Campaign Contributors Two of the private security companies implicated by the Army in the Iraqi prisoner abuse investigations happen to be Titan Corporation and CACI. Aside from the possibility that employees of these firms may escape prosecution, why else should you not be surprised at the "go slow" attitude by Bush and Ashcroft towards pursuing prosecution of these private goons and cancelling contracts when the Pentagon has had this information for months? Here's several despicable reasons, and as usual with this White House, it all comes back to cash. Both of these firms are big campaign contributors to the GOP, and as you�ll notice from looking at Titan�s contribution history, they managed to give $75,000 to the GOP right at the time when Rummy and Tommy Franks were ramping up their war preparations in Kuwait without congressional knowledge and approval. The CEO of CACI is J. Phillip London, who happens to be a big campaign contributor to the GOP. Note that you won�t expect Senator John Warner to do anything to push for an investigation of CACI. Why? Because London has given money to Warner. In fact, London personally has given over $10,000 to various GOP officeholders and committees just since 2000. But London is a pauper in his giving to the GOP when compared to Titan Corporation�s Gene Ray, who is a virtual ATM for the GOP. Ray has given nearly $50,000 to the GOP since 2000. Let's see how long it takes the media to catch on here. |