Politics - World - s.f. bayarea forums - craigslist: "The Greenland ice cap IS melting
This has been well documented for years, e.g.,
'Greenland's ice sheet could disappear within the next 1,000 years if global warming continues at its present rate, a report in Nature magazine suggests.
Jonathan Gregory and colleagues from the University of Reading, UK, say their studies forecast an 8C increase in Greenland's temperature by 2350.
They believe that if the ice cap melts, global average sea level will rise by about 7m (23ft).
Even if global warming was halted the rise could be irreversible, they say. '
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3607335.stm
The really, REALLY bad news:
It's rapidly creating moulins through the ice which will accelerate the process by a couple of orders of magnitude. (By comparison, the Larsen B ice shelf, all 7000' feet thick and 20 miles across, melted suddenly and unexpectedly in the summer of 2002 in just 35 days flat.)
'Ice is melting in Greenland faster than we
ever thought possible, fast enough that it?s alarming,?
Box believes. ?What controls the speed of a
glacier?s advance toward the sea is what?s going on
down at its bed. Adding liquid water to the bases
of glaciers via meltwater lakes that flow into moulins
is making these glaciers race along.
?What we have in Greenland is nothing short
of galloping glaciers.'
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/19_2/19.2_ripplemarks.pdf
When (not if) Greenland finally goes, sea level will rise over 20' REAL FAST.
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
FT.com / World / US - Housing boom will not end in a crash, says Harvard
FT.com / World / US - Housing boom will not end in a crash, says Harvard: "Housing boom will not end in a crash, says Harvard
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: June 12 2006 22:19 | Last updated: June 12 2006 22:19
graphicMarkets seldom disappoint both bulls and bears for long. But over the coming years the US housing market looks likely to do just that, according to a study by Harvard University.
After the slump of the early 1990s and the surge of the past five years, the housing market might prove an anti-climax to all concerned. The long period of stagnation forecast by the survey would disappoint home-owners who expect big price rises but also those who missed the boat and have been hoping for a crash.
“Although housing prices are stretched, it is hard to see the catalyst for a crisis in the market,” says Nicolas Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard. “The overvaluation looks pretty well balanced by longer term supports for house prices, so we may just see a few years with little action. Houses will revert to being something to live in rather than money makers.”
The study begins with some sobering observations about the record run in the US housing market. Over the past five years house prices have outstripped income growth more than sixfold – the median"
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: June 12 2006 22:19 | Last updated: June 12 2006 22:19
graphicMarkets seldom disappoint both bulls and bears for long. But over the coming years the US housing market looks likely to do just that, according to a study by Harvard University.
After the slump of the early 1990s and the surge of the past five years, the housing market might prove an anti-climax to all concerned. The long period of stagnation forecast by the survey would disappoint home-owners who expect big price rises but also those who missed the boat and have been hoping for a crash.
“Although housing prices are stretched, it is hard to see the catalyst for a crisis in the market,” says Nicolas Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard. “The overvaluation looks pretty well balanced by longer term supports for house prices, so we may just see a few years with little action. Houses will revert to being something to live in rather than money makers.”
The study begins with some sobering observations about the record run in the US housing market. Over the past five years house prices have outstripped income growth more than sixfold – the median"
Friday, June 09, 2006
None dare call it 'lies'
Truth Is for 'Liberals': "Truth Is for 'Liberals'
Eric Alterman
Here we are, five and a half years into the Bush Administration, and the press corps still hasn't figured out how to handle the White House's primary tactic of media management: lying.
During George W. Bush's first term, reporters had a powerful confluence of motivations for their difficulty in calling the President to task. First was tradition; mere journalists lacked the authority to call a President a liar. Second, post-9/11 they were intimidated by Bush's McCarthyite with-us-or-ag'in-us rhetoric as well as by a bloodthirsty right-wing punditocracy. (New York Times White House reporter Elisabeth Bumiller admitted that she and her colleagues found it 'frightening to stand up there,' and 'no one wanted to get into an argument with the President at this very serious time.')
Finally, though much of what Bush said during his first term was laughable, it was not easily disprovable in a normative sense. Would the poor and the middle class be the primary beneficiaries of tax cuts designed almost exclusively to enrich the extremely wealthy? Could right-wing church groups and ideology factories replace the services provided by traditional government health and welfare agencies? Does abstinence-only education based on disinformation reduce teen pregnancy? Were WMD-infested, bin-Laden-loving Iraqis eager to be 'liberated' by a power that instructs them that our God is bigger than their God? 'Well maybe,' replied most reporters. 'Time will tell.'
Because the mainstream media make a fetish of a particularly brainless form of objectivity, the Bush Administration has been able to deceive the American public on a dizzying array of issues, from war to economics to science to, well, you name it. Lying has usually damaged the Presidents who do it, as I argued in my book When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences. But the media proved so timid in the face of this Administration's deceptions that the reckoning was delayed long enough for Bush to squeak into a second term.
Now the results are in--and reporters, under siege from several directions, are still trapped in self-eviscerating sanctimony. Jim Lehrer explained the peculiar form of "objectivity" he and his colleagues practice to CJR Daily's Liz Cox Barrett not long ago: "I don't deal in terms like 'blatantly untrue,'" he averred. "That's for other people to decide.... I'm not in the judgment part of journalism. I'm in the reporting part of journalism." As Todd Gitlin pointed out on TPM Cafe, Lehrer's interview sounded an awful lot like Rob Corddry lecturing a befuddled Jon Stewart, "I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons.' I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity'--might wanna look it up someday."
Of course, even when they did catch Bush in the occasional bald-faced, easily demonstrable lie, most Washington journalists thought it gauche to make a big deal out of it. Dana Milbank wrote the classic 2002 Washington Post article about Bush's tendency to mislead, deliberately--all without ever using the "L" word. When asked by CNN's Howard "conflict of interest" Kurtz specifically about an incontrovertible lie by Bush about why we invaded Iraq--the President claimed that Saddam Hussein would not allow inspectors in--Milbank excused the liar: "This is just the President being the President." He meant it as a compliment.
Now Bush's lies are news again. When replacing his Treasury Secretary recently, he told another one that reporters have had trouble ignoring. Asked by Bloomberg's Richard Keil, "Has Treasury Secretary Snow given you any indication that he intends to leave his job anytime soon?" Bush responded, "No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he's doing a fine job." In fact, as Washington Post.com's Dan Froomkin reported, "Tony Snow [no relation] confirmed that Bush had offered John Snow's job to Goldman Sachs chairman Henry Paulson several days before the press conference, and the spokesman didn't deny that Bush and his treasury secretary had talked about it." Quizzed about the discrepancy, Tony Snow called Bush's response "artfully worded." By Bush Administration standards, that's sad but true.
Froomkin devoted a column to the incident, brazenly titled "Bush's Lie." In it he wondered at all the reasons reporters are reluctant to call a lie a lie. He quoted his own newspaper's coverage by Peter Baker and Paul Blustein, which gave no indication of the President's purposeful mendacity. "Bush, when asked about the Treasury Secretary at his news conference last night, indicated only that he had not spoken directly with Snow and quickly changed the subject to positive economic indicators." In other words: "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" (Also writing about the incident, Slate's John Dickerson explained, mystifyingly, "I'm reluctant to call it a lie, but the President abused our trust.")
Interestingly, Froomkin's attentiveness to the issue of what's true and what's false in the President's statements has earned him the reputation around the office of being an ideologue. Late last year Washington Post executive editor Len Downie spoke of his desire to "make sure people in the administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column." National political editor John Harris admitted at the same time that he had "heard from Republicans" who thought Froomkin "unfair." To offer readers "balance," Post honchos demonstrated just what they consider to be the proper antidote to a twenty-year veteran reporter who submits Administration rhetoric to truth tests: In March they hired a 24-year-old former Bush/Cheney political operative named Ben Domenech, who had little (if any) experience as a journalist but plenty, it turned out, as a plagiarist.
So truth is for "liberals." Were it not for the fact that our democracy is being undermined by the liars in office, we might be flattered. But even the collapse of the President's popularity has not installed much backbone in the press corps. Bush can still lie about whatever he wants whenever he wants; treasury secretaries one day; war the next. It's "just the President being the President."
... it's just more "getting the gov't we deserve" if you ask me.
Eric Alterman
Here we are, five and a half years into the Bush Administration, and the press corps still hasn't figured out how to handle the White House's primary tactic of media management: lying.
During George W. Bush's first term, reporters had a powerful confluence of motivations for their difficulty in calling the President to task. First was tradition; mere journalists lacked the authority to call a President a liar. Second, post-9/11 they were intimidated by Bush's McCarthyite with-us-or-ag'in-us rhetoric as well as by a bloodthirsty right-wing punditocracy. (New York Times White House reporter Elisabeth Bumiller admitted that she and her colleagues found it 'frightening to stand up there,' and 'no one wanted to get into an argument with the President at this very serious time.')
Finally, though much of what Bush said during his first term was laughable, it was not easily disprovable in a normative sense. Would the poor and the middle class be the primary beneficiaries of tax cuts designed almost exclusively to enrich the extremely wealthy? Could right-wing church groups and ideology factories replace the services provided by traditional government health and welfare agencies? Does abstinence-only education based on disinformation reduce teen pregnancy? Were WMD-infested, bin-Laden-loving Iraqis eager to be 'liberated' by a power that instructs them that our God is bigger than their God? 'Well maybe,' replied most reporters. 'Time will tell.'
Because the mainstream media make a fetish of a particularly brainless form of objectivity, the Bush Administration has been able to deceive the American public on a dizzying array of issues, from war to economics to science to, well, you name it. Lying has usually damaged the Presidents who do it, as I argued in my book When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences. But the media proved so timid in the face of this Administration's deceptions that the reckoning was delayed long enough for Bush to squeak into a second term.
Now the results are in--and reporters, under siege from several directions, are still trapped in self-eviscerating sanctimony. Jim Lehrer explained the peculiar form of "objectivity" he and his colleagues practice to CJR Daily's Liz Cox Barrett not long ago: "I don't deal in terms like 'blatantly untrue,'" he averred. "That's for other people to decide.... I'm not in the judgment part of journalism. I'm in the reporting part of journalism." As Todd Gitlin pointed out on TPM Cafe, Lehrer's interview sounded an awful lot like Rob Corddry lecturing a befuddled Jon Stewart, "I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons.' I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity'--might wanna look it up someday."
Of course, even when they did catch Bush in the occasional bald-faced, easily demonstrable lie, most Washington journalists thought it gauche to make a big deal out of it. Dana Milbank wrote the classic 2002 Washington Post article about Bush's tendency to mislead, deliberately--all without ever using the "L" word. When asked by CNN's Howard "conflict of interest" Kurtz specifically about an incontrovertible lie by Bush about why we invaded Iraq--the President claimed that Saddam Hussein would not allow inspectors in--Milbank excused the liar: "This is just the President being the President." He meant it as a compliment.
Now Bush's lies are news again. When replacing his Treasury Secretary recently, he told another one that reporters have had trouble ignoring. Asked by Bloomberg's Richard Keil, "Has Treasury Secretary Snow given you any indication that he intends to leave his job anytime soon?" Bush responded, "No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he's doing a fine job." In fact, as Washington Post.com's Dan Froomkin reported, "Tony Snow [no relation] confirmed that Bush had offered John Snow's job to Goldman Sachs chairman Henry Paulson several days before the press conference, and the spokesman didn't deny that Bush and his treasury secretary had talked about it." Quizzed about the discrepancy, Tony Snow called Bush's response "artfully worded." By Bush Administration standards, that's sad but true.
Froomkin devoted a column to the incident, brazenly titled "Bush's Lie." In it he wondered at all the reasons reporters are reluctant to call a lie a lie. He quoted his own newspaper's coverage by Peter Baker and Paul Blustein, which gave no indication of the President's purposeful mendacity. "Bush, when asked about the Treasury Secretary at his news conference last night, indicated only that he had not spoken directly with Snow and quickly changed the subject to positive economic indicators." In other words: "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" (Also writing about the incident, Slate's John Dickerson explained, mystifyingly, "I'm reluctant to call it a lie, but the President abused our trust.")
Interestingly, Froomkin's attentiveness to the issue of what's true and what's false in the President's statements has earned him the reputation around the office of being an ideologue. Late last year Washington Post executive editor Len Downie spoke of his desire to "make sure people in the administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column." National political editor John Harris admitted at the same time that he had "heard from Republicans" who thought Froomkin "unfair." To offer readers "balance," Post honchos demonstrated just what they consider to be the proper antidote to a twenty-year veteran reporter who submits Administration rhetoric to truth tests: In March they hired a 24-year-old former Bush/Cheney political operative named Ben Domenech, who had little (if any) experience as a journalist but plenty, it turned out, as a plagiarist.
So truth is for "liberals." Were it not for the fact that our democracy is being undermined by the liars in office, we might be flattered. But even the collapse of the President's popularity has not installed much backbone in the press corps. Bush can still lie about whatever he wants whenever he wants; treasury secretaries one day; war the next. It's "just the President being the President."
... it's just more "getting the gov't we deserve" if you ask me.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Gutless Coulter
“Godless” is Gutless
Greg Palast
June 7th, 2006
Anne Coulter says we’re “Godless” — we “liberals.” And by “liberals,”
she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants,
out of Iraq, and out of the business of helping Big Business shoplift
America.
It’s time someone took on the blonde bully.
Anne, I realize yesterday was special day for you, releasing your book
on June 6 — 06-06-06.
Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: ‘Godless’ is a 300-page
brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion
magazine: Big Brother wears Prada.
You accuse those who don’t sign on to your list of prejudices as the
Lord’s enemies. That’s not original, Anne: the Taliban thought of it
before you and they too were partial to dressing in black.
You want to talk about Godless? OK, let’s go:
Would the Lord lie us into a war?
Would the Lord let thousands drown in New Orleans while chilling at a
golf resort?
Would the Lord have removed tens of thousands of Black soldiers from the
voter rolls as the Republican Party did in 2004?
You talk about being “Christian” — but with all your zeal to fire up
electric chairs and Abrams tanks, you sound more like a Roman.
I suggest this, Anne: let’s debate. Set the time, set the place, and
I’ll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism.
But I know you don’t have the guts to do anything but lob idiocies from
your electronic Fox-hole.
Your new book is called, “Godless.” Your autobiography should be called,
“Gutless.”
Greg Palast
June 7th, 2006
Anne Coulter says we’re “Godless” — we “liberals.” And by “liberals,”
she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants,
out of Iraq, and out of the business of helping Big Business shoplift
America.
It’s time someone took on the blonde bully.
Anne, I realize yesterday was special day for you, releasing your book
on June 6 — 06-06-06.
Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: ‘Godless’ is a 300-page
brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion
magazine: Big Brother wears Prada.
You accuse those who don’t sign on to your list of prejudices as the
Lord’s enemies. That’s not original, Anne: the Taliban thought of it
before you and they too were partial to dressing in black.
You want to talk about Godless? OK, let’s go:
Would the Lord lie us into a war?
Would the Lord let thousands drown in New Orleans while chilling at a
golf resort?
Would the Lord have removed tens of thousands of Black soldiers from the
voter rolls as the Republican Party did in 2004?
You talk about being “Christian” — but with all your zeal to fire up
electric chairs and Abrams tanks, you sound more like a Roman.
I suggest this, Anne: let’s debate. Set the time, set the place, and
I’ll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism.
But I know you don’t have the guts to do anything but lob idiocies from
your electronic Fox-hole.
Your new book is called, “Godless.” Your autobiography should be called,
“Gutless.”
Friday, May 19, 2006
A Nation of Suspects
by Eric Alterman
May 18, 2006
Back in January, while NBC’s Andrea Mitchell was interviewing New York Times reporter James Risen about his story that blew the lid off the National Security Agency’s secret wiretapping program, she asked a strange question.
In an interview that never actually ran on any NBC affiliate and which the network quickly scrubbed from its Web site, Mitchell asked Risen if he knew anything about reporters being swept up in the NSA’s domestic surveillance operation. He said he didn’t know.
She pressed harder, asking pointedly if he had any information showing that CNN’s Christiane Amanpour had been eavesdropped upon by the Feds. Risen again claimed ignorance. But the questions, and the fact that NBC pulled the transcript from their Web site, ignited a small storm of controversy in the blogosphere that ended up fading from public view almost as fast as it had erupted.
A few days later, an unnamed “senior U.S. intelligence official” would tell CNN that the “National Security Agency did not target CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour or any other CNN journalist for surveillance.” And that seemed to be good enough for the rest of the mainstream media.
At least until last week, when USA Today exposed what appears to be a massive internal eavesdropping program directed at American citizens. On Monday, only days after the USA Today’s scoop, ABC News’ Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported that a "senior federal law enforcement official" had informed them that "the government is tracking the phone numbers [the two reporters] call in an effort to root out confidential sources."
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1695725
... A nation of sheep inevitably begets a government of wolves -- Edward R. Murrow
May 18, 2006
Back in January, while NBC’s Andrea Mitchell was interviewing New York Times reporter James Risen about his story that blew the lid off the National Security Agency’s secret wiretapping program, she asked a strange question.
In an interview that never actually ran on any NBC affiliate and which the network quickly scrubbed from its Web site, Mitchell asked Risen if he knew anything about reporters being swept up in the NSA’s domestic surveillance operation. He said he didn’t know.
She pressed harder, asking pointedly if he had any information showing that CNN’s Christiane Amanpour had been eavesdropped upon by the Feds. Risen again claimed ignorance. But the questions, and the fact that NBC pulled the transcript from their Web site, ignited a small storm of controversy in the blogosphere that ended up fading from public view almost as fast as it had erupted.
A few days later, an unnamed “senior U.S. intelligence official” would tell CNN that the “National Security Agency did not target CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour or any other CNN journalist for surveillance.” And that seemed to be good enough for the rest of the mainstream media.
At least until last week, when USA Today exposed what appears to be a massive internal eavesdropping program directed at American citizens. On Monday, only days after the USA Today’s scoop, ABC News’ Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported that a "senior federal law enforcement official" had informed them that "the government is tracking the phone numbers [the two reporters] call in an effort to root out confidential sources."
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1695725
... A nation of sheep inevitably begets a government of wolves -- Edward R. Murrow
Monday, May 15, 2006
The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
Another buried story deserving of resurrection...
The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket: "The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.
Robert Scheer
10/19/04 'ICH' -- 'Los Angeles Times' -- It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.
'It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed,' an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that 'the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward.'
When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. 'We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report,' she said. 'We are very concerned.'
According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been 'stalled.' First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.
The offici"
The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket: "The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.
Robert Scheer
10/19/04 'ICH' -- 'Los Angeles Times' -- It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.
'It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed,' an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that 'the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward.'
When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. 'We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report,' she said. 'We are very concerned.'
According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been 'stalled.' First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.
The offici"
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Revolt of the Gens (ret) redux
My good friend responds:
to which I must reply, Retaking control of the gov't at this point is a sucker play. Whoever is in power when the tsunami of fecal matter really hits the rotating air circulation device will be permanently saddled with the smell by the suddenly irate electorate. Better to wait for the inevitable denouement and the day the ignamorati finally demand a change. I'd even go so far as to say the elections are crooked and we're not running anyone in '08.
Hypocrisy may be the life blood but it doesn't make it either right or (more to the point) smart in the long run. Just like lying for convenience, eventually the loss in credibility causes more trouble than the temporary convenience was worth. Look at the world's view of the US now: We've already lost the war for the hearts and minds of the mainstream Muslims just by lying about the justification for war -- the islamofascists can blame the CIA for every bad thing that happens and no amount of denials or evidence to the contrary will dissuade the arab street.
Tin
PS: Fun With English Nouns:
* Hypocrite: one who exhibits the characteristic of hypocrisy
* Hypocrisy: the characteristic trait of the hypocrite
* Hypocracy: gov't by hypocrites, presumably
... How's that working for ya?
My take: BETTER LATE THAN NEVER. Besides, at least one of the generals turned down a 3rd star to retire, which is not chump change.
Sure it's the Commander in Chief's fault, but he's not up for re-election this time (more's the pity). With a little luck maybe the Demos can take control of the House of Representatives and impeach the son of a bitch. Not that the Senate would convict, but the late "great" Tom Delay showed us that you can make your point just by impeaching the president, and all you really need is a majority in the House of Representatives who will vote for Impeachment.
It's way overdue for the Military wing of the Republican Party to speak up. Now if the Fiscal conservatives in the Republican party would just grow some balls, we might hope to scale back tax cuts for the rich in order to trim the deficit just a tiny bit. (Fat chance).
Finally, Hypocracy is the life blood of politics. Note, for example that the same Republicans who were SHOCKED, SHOCKED that Clinton might lie about a dalliance with an Intern, indignantly say that Scooter Libby hasn't been charged with releasing classified information, but only with lying to a Grand Jury. (Note that they also almost elected Ollie North to the Senate a few years ago, after he boasted about lying to Congress about a little privately financed war, financed by trading arms for hostages with the Iranians [aka axis of evil member in good standing]).
to which I must reply, Retaking control of the gov't at this point is a sucker play. Whoever is in power when the tsunami of fecal matter really hits the rotating air circulation device will be permanently saddled with the smell by the suddenly irate electorate. Better to wait for the inevitable denouement and the day the ignamorati finally demand a change. I'd even go so far as to say the elections are crooked and we're not running anyone in '08.
Hypocrisy may be the life blood but it doesn't make it either right or (more to the point) smart in the long run. Just like lying for convenience, eventually the loss in credibility causes more trouble than the temporary convenience was worth. Look at the world's view of the US now: We've already lost the war for the hearts and minds of the mainstream Muslims just by lying about the justification for war -- the islamofascists can blame the CIA for every bad thing that happens and no amount of denials or evidence to the contrary will dissuade the arab street.
Tin
PS: Fun With English Nouns:
* Hypocrite: one who exhibits the characteristic of hypocrisy
* Hypocrisy: the characteristic trait of the hypocrite
* Hypocracy: gov't by hypocrites, presumably
... How's that working for ya?
It's the President, stupid.
Palast has a little different on the Revolt of the Generals (Ret.) plus some add'l insight from Gen. Garner below.
My take: it's easy to snipe from the safety of their pensions -- where were they when it might have done some good (with the exception of Zinni, the only one I know of that spoke out while still in uniform)? Buncha careerist chickenshits as far as I'm concerned. Plus, while it's hypocritical of the Kool-Aid Krowd to say they shouldn't be going public now when it was just fine for the brass to attack Clinton, it's also a bit hypocritical for Clintonites who said the brass were speaking out of turn then to support it now (albeit defending our troops from gays was certainly less of a national security issue than defending our troops from getting blown apart in a mismanaged shooting war).
Duncan
--- Greg Palast
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Palast
Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign
The Guardian - Comment
Friday, April 14, 2006
By Greg Palast
Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the
gaggle of generals, safely retired, to lay siege to
Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them have called
for the Secretary of Defense's resignation.
Well, according to my watch, they're about four
years too late -- and they still don't get it.
I know that most of my readers will be tickled pink
that the bemedalled boys in crew cuts are finally
ready to kick Rummy in the rump, in public. But to
me, it just shows me that these boys still can't
shoot straight.
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who stood up
in front of the UN and identified two mobile
latrines as biological weapons labs, was it, General
Powell?
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who told us
our next warning from Saddam could be a mushroom
cloud, was it Condoleezza?
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who declared
that Al Qaeda and Saddam were going steady, was it,
Mr. Cheney?
Yes, Rumsfeld is a swaggering bag of mendacious
arrogance, a duplicitous chicken-hawk,
yellow-bellied bully-boy and Tinker-Toy Napoleon --
but he didn't appoint himself Secretary of Defense.
Let me tell you a story about the Secretary of
Defense you didn't read in the New York Times,
related to me by General Jay Garner, the man our
president placed in Baghdad as the US' first
post-invasion viceroy.
Garner arrived in Kuwait City in March 2003 working
under the mistaken notion that when George Bush
called for democracy in Iraq, the President meant
the Iraqis could choose their own government. Misunderstanding the
President's true mission, General Garner called for Iraqis to hold
elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull
troops out of the cities to a desert base. "It's
their country," the General told me of the Iraqis.
"And," he added, most ominously, "their oil."
Let's not forget: it's all about the oil. I showed
Garner a 101-page plan for Iraq's economy drafted
secretly by neo-cons at the State Department,
Treasury and the Pentagon, calling for
"privatization" (i.e. the sale) of "all state assets
... especially in the oil and oil-supporting
industries." The General knew of the plans and he
intended to shove it where the Iraqi sun don't
shine. Garner planned what he called a "Big Tent"
meeting of Iraqi tribal leaders to plan elections.
By helping Iraqis establish their own multi-ethnic
government -- and this was back when Sunnis, Shias
and Kurds were on talking terms -- knew he could get
the nation on its feet peacefully before a welcomed "liberation"
turned into a hated "occupation."
But, Garner knew, a freely chosen coalition
government would mean the death-knell for the
neo-con oil-and-assets privatization grab.
On April 21, 2003, three years ago this month, the
very night General Garner arrived in Baghdad, he got
a call from Washington. It was Rumsfeld on the line.
He told Garner, in so many words, "Don't unpack,
Jack, you're fired."
Rummy replaced Garner, a man with years of
on-the-ground experience in Iraq, with green-boots
Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger
Associates. Bremer cancelled the Big Tent meeting of
Iraqis and postponed elections for a year; then he
issued 100 orders, like some tin-pot pasha, selling
off Iraq's economy to U.S. and foreign operators,
just as Rumsfeld's neo-con clique had desired.
Reading this, it sounds like I should applaud the
six generals' call for Rumfeld's ouster. Forget it.
For a bunch of military hotshots, they sure can't
shoot straight. They're wasting all their bullets on
the decoy. They've gunned down the puppet instead of
the puppeteers.
There's no way that Rumsfeld could have yanked
General Garner from Baghdad without the word from
The Bunker. Nothing moves or breathes or spits in
the Bush Administration without Darth Cheney's growl
of approval. And ultimately, it's the
Commander-in-Chief who's chiefly in command.
Even the generals' complaint -- that Rumsfeld didn't
give them enough troops -- was ultimately a decision
of the cowboy from Crawford. (And by the way, the
problem was not that we lacked troops -- the problem
was that we lacked moral authority to occupy this
nation. A million troops would not be enough -- the insurgents would
just have more targets.)
President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him
today on the intercom with Cheney: "Well, pardner,
looks like the game's up." And Cheney replies, "Hey,
just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until
he's taken all their ammo."
When Bush and Cheney read about the call for
Rumsfeld's resignation today, I can just hear George
saying to Dick, "Mission Accomplished."
Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about
choosing a target: It's the President, stupid.
My take: it's easy to snipe from the safety of their pensions -- where were they when it might have done some good (with the exception of Zinni, the only one I know of that spoke out while still in uniform)? Buncha careerist chickenshits as far as I'm concerned. Plus, while it's hypocritical of the Kool-Aid Krowd to say they shouldn't be going public now when it was just fine for the brass to attack Clinton, it's also a bit hypocritical for Clintonites who said the brass were speaking out of turn then to support it now (albeit defending our troops from gays was certainly less of a national security issue than defending our troops from getting blown apart in a mismanaged shooting war).
Duncan
--- Greg Palast
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Palast
Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign
The Guardian - Comment
Friday, April 14, 2006
By Greg Palast
Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the
gaggle of generals, safely retired, to lay siege to
Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them have called
for the Secretary of Defense's resignation.
Well, according to my watch, they're about four
years too late -- and they still don't get it.
I know that most of my readers will be tickled pink
that the bemedalled boys in crew cuts are finally
ready to kick Rummy in the rump, in public. But to
me, it just shows me that these boys still can't
shoot straight.
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who stood up
in front of the UN and identified two mobile
latrines as biological weapons labs, was it, General
Powell?
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who told us
our next warning from Saddam could be a mushroom
cloud, was it Condoleezza?
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who declared
that Al Qaeda and Saddam were going steady, was it,
Mr. Cheney?
Yes, Rumsfeld is a swaggering bag of mendacious
arrogance, a duplicitous chicken-hawk,
yellow-bellied bully-boy and Tinker-Toy Napoleon --
but he didn't appoint himself Secretary of Defense.
Let me tell you a story about the Secretary of
Defense you didn't read in the New York Times,
related to me by General Jay Garner, the man our
president placed in Baghdad as the US' first
post-invasion viceroy.
Garner arrived in Kuwait City in March 2003 working
under the mistaken notion that when George Bush
called for democracy in Iraq, the President meant
the Iraqis could choose their own government. Misunderstanding the
President's true mission, General Garner called for Iraqis to hold
elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull
troops out of the cities to a desert base. "It's
their country," the General told me of the Iraqis.
"And," he added, most ominously, "their oil."
Let's not forget: it's all about the oil. I showed
Garner a 101-page plan for Iraq's economy drafted
secretly by neo-cons at the State Department,
Treasury and the Pentagon, calling for
"privatization" (i.e. the sale) of "all state assets
... especially in the oil and oil-supporting
industries." The General knew of the plans and he
intended to shove it where the Iraqi sun don't
shine. Garner planned what he called a "Big Tent"
meeting of Iraqi tribal leaders to plan elections.
By helping Iraqis establish their own multi-ethnic
government -- and this was back when Sunnis, Shias
and Kurds were on talking terms -- knew he could get
the nation on its feet peacefully before a welcomed "liberation"
turned into a hated "occupation."
But, Garner knew, a freely chosen coalition
government would mean the death-knell for the
neo-con oil-and-assets privatization grab.
On April 21, 2003, three years ago this month, the
very night General Garner arrived in Baghdad, he got
a call from Washington. It was Rumsfeld on the line.
He told Garner, in so many words, "Don't unpack,
Jack, you're fired."
Rummy replaced Garner, a man with years of
on-the-ground experience in Iraq, with green-boots
Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger
Associates. Bremer cancelled the Big Tent meeting of
Iraqis and postponed elections for a year; then he
issued 100 orders, like some tin-pot pasha, selling
off Iraq's economy to U.S. and foreign operators,
just as Rumsfeld's neo-con clique had desired.
Reading this, it sounds like I should applaud the
six generals' call for Rumfeld's ouster. Forget it.
For a bunch of military hotshots, they sure can't
shoot straight. They're wasting all their bullets on
the decoy. They've gunned down the puppet instead of
the puppeteers.
There's no way that Rumsfeld could have yanked
General Garner from Baghdad without the word from
The Bunker. Nothing moves or breathes or spits in
the Bush Administration without Darth Cheney's growl
of approval. And ultimately, it's the
Commander-in-Chief who's chiefly in command.
Even the generals' complaint -- that Rumsfeld didn't
give them enough troops -- was ultimately a decision
of the cowboy from Crawford. (And by the way, the
problem was not that we lacked troops -- the problem
was that we lacked moral authority to occupy this
nation. A million troops would not be enough -- the insurgents would
just have more targets.)
President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him
today on the intercom with Cheney: "Well, pardner,
looks like the game's up." And Cheney replies, "Hey,
just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until
he's taken all their ammo."
When Bush and Cheney read about the call for
Rumsfeld's resignation today, I can just hear George
saying to Dick, "Mission Accomplished."
Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about
choosing a target: It's the President, stupid.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Core Beliefs of the Wadical White Wing
Core Beliefs of the Wadical White Wing
1) Being a drug addict is a moral failure and a crime, unless you're a rich conservative. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
2) The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iran/Iraq.
3) Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
4) Standing Tall for America, means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
5) Multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
6) The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7) A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
8) HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
9) Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
10) Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a 'we can't find Bin Laden' diversion.
11) A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
12) The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
13) What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
14) Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
1) Being a drug addict is a moral failure and a crime, unless you're a rich conservative. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
2) The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iran/Iraq.
3) Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
4) Standing Tall for America, means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
5) Multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
6) The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7) A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
8) HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
9) Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
10) Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a 'we can't find Bin Laden' diversion.
11) A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
12) The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
13) What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
14) Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Court Papers: Bush, Cheney OK'ed Leaks
Court Papers: Bush, Cheney OK'ed Leaks: "Court Papers: Bush, Cheney OK'ed Leaks
SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST
PERMALINK
COMMENTS (79)
President Bush told Vice President Cheney to tell the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, to disclose highly classified information regarding Iraq intelligence in order to try and discredit legitimate criticism of the administration.
What's this? The latest line from proponents of impeachment?
No, it is what the bible of Washington insiders, the National Journal, is reporting that Libby has testified was the scenario that played out before he began contacting reporters in an effort to undermine the reputation of former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
According to the Journal report published today: 'I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had received 'approval from the President through the Vice President' to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to the court papers. Libby was said to have testified that such presidential authorization to disclose classified information was 'unique in his recollection,' the court papers further said.'
| The Journal report, which is based on both court papers and interviews with senior government officials familiar with the investigation of Libby's actions by "
SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST
PERMALINK
COMMENTS (79)
President Bush told Vice President Cheney to tell the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, to disclose highly classified information regarding Iraq intelligence in order to try and discredit legitimate criticism of the administration.
What's this? The latest line from proponents of impeachment?
No, it is what the bible of Washington insiders, the National Journal, is reporting that Libby has testified was the scenario that played out before he began contacting reporters in an effort to undermine the reputation of former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
According to the Journal report published today: 'I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had received 'approval from the President through the Vice President' to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to the court papers. Libby was said to have testified that such presidential authorization to disclose classified information was 'unique in his recollection,' the court papers further said.'
| The Journal report, which is based on both court papers and interviews with senior government officials familiar with the investigation of Libby's actions by "
Friday, March 31, 2006
Politics - World - s.f. bayarea forums - craigslist
Politics - World - s.f. bayarea forums - craigslist: "Malthus was an optimist < RoughJustice > 03/31/06 16:01
Here's more evidence...
WASHINGTON (AP) - A one-two punch of bleaching from record hot water followed by disease has killed ancient and delicate coral in the biggest loss of reefs scientists have ever seen in Caribbean waters.
Researchers from around the globe are scrambling to figure out the extent of the loss. Early conservative estimates from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands find that about one-third of the coral in official monitoring sites has recently died.
'It's an unprecedented die-off,' said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 stations in the Virgin Islands. 'The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months.'
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060331/D8GM9UO07.html
... when do suppose Easter Islanders figured out that there would never be any more trees? "
Here's more evidence...
WASHINGTON (AP) - A one-two punch of bleaching from record hot water followed by disease has killed ancient and delicate coral in the biggest loss of reefs scientists have ever seen in Caribbean waters.
Researchers from around the globe are scrambling to figure out the extent of the loss. Early conservative estimates from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands find that about one-third of the coral in official monitoring sites has recently died.
'It's an unprecedented die-off,' said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 stations in the Virgin Islands. 'The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months.'
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060331/D8GM9UO07.html
... when do suppose Easter Islanders figured out that there would never be any more trees? "
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Rumsfeld, Rice Say Iraq Not at Civil War
If this isn't one, what is?
My Way News: "Rumsfeld, Rice Say Iraq Not at Civil War
Mar 9, 11:53 AM (ET)
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
(AP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Capitol...
Full Image
Google sponsored links
Search military records - Find enlistment records, gravesites regimental histories and more.
Ancestry.com
Should U.S. Leave Iraq? - Take Our Iraq Survey And Get Paid $300 In The Next 15 Minutes!
Ahwa.org
WASHINGTON (AP) - Top members of the Bush administration urged Congress Thursday to quickly pass a $91 billion spending bill that includes money to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that despite a surge in sectarian violence in Iraq, the process of creating a stable government is proceeding satisfactorily.
Rumsfeld was pressed to explain the U.S. military's plan to respond in the event that Iraq's sectarian violence grows into a full-fledged civil war.
'The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the - from a security standpoint - have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to,' Rumsfeld said.
(AP) An unidentified protester interrupts a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill,...
Full Image
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., repeatedly pressed Rumsfeld to say what U.S. troops would do if civil war broke out, noting that in his own view the country 'only narrowly missed descending into all-out civil war' in recent days.
Rumsfeld said the key to avoiding civil war is for Iraq's political leaders to form a government of nationa"
My Way News: "Rumsfeld, Rice Say Iraq Not at Civil War
Mar 9, 11:53 AM (ET)
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
(AP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Capitol...
Full Image
Google sponsored links
Search military records - Find enlistment records, gravesites regimental histories and more.
Ancestry.com
Should U.S. Leave Iraq? - Take Our Iraq Survey And Get Paid $300 In The Next 15 Minutes!
Ahwa.org
WASHINGTON (AP) - Top members of the Bush administration urged Congress Thursday to quickly pass a $91 billion spending bill that includes money to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that despite a surge in sectarian violence in Iraq, the process of creating a stable government is proceeding satisfactorily.
Rumsfeld was pressed to explain the U.S. military's plan to respond in the event that Iraq's sectarian violence grows into a full-fledged civil war.
'The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the - from a security standpoint - have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to,' Rumsfeld said.
(AP) An unidentified protester interrupts a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill,...
Full Image
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., repeatedly pressed Rumsfeld to say what U.S. troops would do if civil war broke out, noting that in his own view the country 'only narrowly missed descending into all-out civil war' in recent days.
Rumsfeld said the key to avoiding civil war is for Iraq's political leaders to form a government of nationa"
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Red states & black students continue to lag.
Draw your own conclusions...
"In the nation's public schools, 14.1 percent of the class of 2005 passed at least one AP test, up from 13.2 percent a year before. In 2000, 10.2 percent of high school seniors passed an AP test.
The number of students passing at least one test increased by nearly 120,000 from 2000 to 2005. But black students continued to take the exams at lower rates than white students, and their overall scores remained a level behind whites last year.
Nationwide, black students make up 13.4 percent of the student population, but only 6.4 percent of the students taking AP exams. The percentage of white and Latino students taking the tests more closely mirrored their numbers in the classroom
... meanwhile, red states continue to show why they're red:
Forty-four states and the District of Columbia increased the percentage of students passing at least one AP test last year. The percentage of students passing at least one test declined in five states — Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming. It was flat in Louisiana.
New York led the nation with 22.8 percent of its high school seniors passing at least one test. Louisiana was last with 2.5 percent."
... 2.5% is around a tenth the national average. I guess that explains why La was flat -- it's hard to get any lower.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/national/main1291874.shtml
"In the nation's public schools, 14.1 percent of the class of 2005 passed at least one AP test, up from 13.2 percent a year before. In 2000, 10.2 percent of high school seniors passed an AP test.
The number of students passing at least one test increased by nearly 120,000 from 2000 to 2005. But black students continued to take the exams at lower rates than white students, and their overall scores remained a level behind whites last year.
Nationwide, black students make up 13.4 percent of the student population, but only 6.4 percent of the students taking AP exams. The percentage of white and Latino students taking the tests more closely mirrored their numbers in the classroom
... meanwhile, red states continue to show why they're red:
Forty-four states and the District of Columbia increased the percentage of students passing at least one AP test last year. The percentage of students passing at least one test declined in five states — Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming. It was flat in Louisiana.
New York led the nation with 22.8 percent of its high school seniors passing at least one test. Louisiana was last with 2.5 percent."
... 2.5% is around a tenth the national average. I guess that explains why La was flat -- it's hard to get any lower.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/national/main1291874.shtml
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
Index: "
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. [includes rush transcript]
John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.
20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, 'Conscience of an Economic Hit Men.'
Perkins writes, 'The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Rold?s, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Rold?s and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.
John Perkins goes on to write: 'I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. Howe"
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. [includes rush transcript]
John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.
20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, 'Conscience of an Economic Hit Men.'
Perkins writes, 'The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Rold?s, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Rold?s and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.
John Perkins goes on to write: 'I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. Howe"
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Looting and Pillaging in the Boardroom
A tale of two pension plans: regular vs. CEO
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/boomerbucks/20060215a2.asp
tale of two pension plans: regular vs. CEO
Corporate promises for a traditional pension benefit can be easily broken for the average worker, but not so for the top brass.
Traditional pension plans for the average Joe are creeping into the Ice Age, as more companies have announced the decision to deep-freeze their pension plans to current or new employees -- or both. General Motors Corp. and Alcoa are among the latest to jump on the frozen-pension bandwagon that includes IBM, Verizon, Sears, Circuit City, Hewlett-Packard, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Aon Corp. and NCR. Most of these companies are not on the verge of bankruptcy, mind you.
This freeze phenomenon spells disaster for boomers who had been promised a pension and who have 10 years or more left till retirement. That's because benefits under the traditional pension formula ordinarily accrue at accelerated levels for older employees as they approach retirement. The last 10 years are absolutely crucial. With frozen plans, benefits stop building up altogether.
Another trend among companies is to convert defined-benefit plans into cash-balance plans, which substantially reduces a pension's value because the benefit buildup is calculated differently than with a traditional pension plan. Hundreds of companies have chosen to do this in recent years.
But the retirement plans of highly paid executives are not affected at all by these trends. That's because they're a different breed. I mean the retirement plans, not the execs, though I suppose that statement could apply to either. Most top executives have so-called "supplemental executive retirement plans," or SERPs, that are governed by a different set of rules, because they're nonqualified plans.
Qualified pension plans have tax benefits for both employer and employee and have to pass rigorous IRS nondiscrimination tests that ensure some semblance of fairness among highly compensated employees and those that are not highly compensated. Nonqualified plans have no tax benefits and no such fairness standards.
Congress suddenly appalled
Recently, some members of Congress have voiced objections to the retirement pay disparity between top executives and their employees. One bill, introduced by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., would disallow companies from funding pensions for the top brass if they're unable to adequately fund their workers' pensions. Other bills along similar lines have surfaced.
"This huge disparity between ... protected pensions that CEOs have versus production workers is really immoral," Miller told the Los Angeles Times.
Just how lavish are the retirement deals for top execs? It's not all that transparent because current rules allow their retirement packages to be obscured from investors, financial analysts, the media and everyone else. That might change in the future, as the Securities and Exchange Commission last month proposed that disclosure requirements be improved concerning executives' pay, including their retirement benefits.
As it stands now, shareholders rarely get wind of just how generous executive retirement packages can be until it's too late -- when the executive already starts drawing payments. This information is not included in the summary compensation tables required under current law that are readily available to the public.
Those tables list various forms of compensation awarded to the top five executives in a company, but the retirement plan is not on the radar screen, Lucian Bebchuk wrote in a recent commentary for the Wall Street Journal.
Retirement plans for the rich
Bebchuk, director of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School, co-wrote a white paper called "Executive Pensions" with Robert J. Jackson Jr., which was released in December. They collected information from the SEC filings of 51 large corporations.
"We use these disclosures to make estimates of the value of pension plans awarded to the CEOs in our sample," the authors say in the white paper. "But such estimates are not accessible to outsiders without closely analyzing company disclosures and making a series of actuarial assumptions and calculations."
In other words, you and I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of these filings. - advertisement -
SERPs take the form of defined-benefit plans -- yes, the very same plans that are heading toward extinction for the average worker. For these plans, the company promises a specific benefit based on tenure and assumes all investment risk.
Except that, for the CEO, tenure is one of those variables that can be fudged. Extra years, in the form of "service credits," can be added on an executive's tenure for the purpose of awarding a larger retirement benefit.
Time Magazine reported last fall on this phenomenon in its cover story, "The Great Retirement Ripoff." The article pointed out that, for example, Leo Mullin, former CEO and chairman of Delta Air Lines, received service credits amounting to 21 years that were added to his actual tenure of about 7.5 years, an allowance that greatly augmented his retirement benefits.
And here's the corker: "Under Mullin's stewardship, Delta killed the defined-benefit pension of its nonunion workers and replaced it with a less generous plan," Time reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele noted.
What stunning leadership!
Anyway, Bebchuk and Jackson set out to determine how much a CEO's retirement benefit compares to his or her total compensation. Was it just a teeny weeny fraction of the big picture, or was it major? They discovered that it was rather significant, not only as a percentage of the CEO's total compensation, but sometimes even as a percentage of the total value of the companies they headed.
The researchers looked at two sets of data. The first comprised CEOs who retired during 2003 and the first five months of 2004. The second included all CEOs between the ages of 63 and 67 at the end of 2003 who would retire soon and who headed companies listed in the S&P 500. In both sets, roughly two-thirds of the CEOs were covered by a company-sponsored pension plan. (Roughly one-third had no pension plan coverage at all, though they may instead participate in a deferred compensation plan -- another type of retirement plan favorable to executives that bypasses public scrutiny.)
It may not shock you to learn that the average payout for CEOs that are already collecting retirement checks is $1.1 million a year. Those CEOs who hadn't begun collecting checks yet are set to get $1.5 million annually.
Bebchuk and Jackson then determined the total pension values of the CEOs' packages, which takes into account their life expectancies as well as those of their spouses, if applicable. The average "actuarial value" of CEO pensions in today's dollars was $15 million for retired CEOs and $19 million for those approaching retirement in the second sample studied.
As an aside, it may interest you to know that firms that are going through bankruptcy proceedings "often choose to assume fully such obligations, even when executives' pensions are unsecured," note the authors.
The averages belie the wide variety in total pension values, which range from $3.3 million (Symbol Technologies) to $73.4 million (Exxon Mobile). "Across our sample of more than 50 S&P 500 companies, the value of executives' pension plans added on average more than 48 percent to total pay during the executive's service as CEO," say the researchers.
Now mind you, these guys aren't exactly hurting for cash to begin with. Without these pensions, if they set aside a mere fraction of their pay, they could easily afford a fantastic retirement with annual trips to Cote d'Azur and round-the-world cruises aboard the QE II, among other extravagant whims.
Among the individual CEOs named in the study were those heading Aon Corp. and Motorola, which recently froze their pension plans to new hires. The retirement plans of these CEOs were valued at $4.8 million and $41.3 million, respectively. Clorox Co. had converted its pension plan to a cash-balance plan some time ago. The value of the top guy's pension? About $23 million, according to the researchers.
Bebchuk and Jackson argue that investors need to have a clear picture of how much the top executives of a firm are getting in compensation that is not linked to their performance. They advocate that firms be required to disclose the value of all retirement plans, whether defined benefit or deferred benefit, as well their increase in value each year.
Yes, they need to be accountable to shareholders. But they also need to be accountable to their employees. The hush-hush deals made in stately boardrooms need to come out in the open. But even beyond that, the top leadership of companies need to, well, lead by example. If defined-benefit plans must get phased out for employees so that a company can be more competitive, then they should get phased out for the top brass, too.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/boomerbucks/20060215a2.asp
tale of two pension plans: regular vs. CEO
Corporate promises for a traditional pension benefit can be easily broken for the average worker, but not so for the top brass.
Traditional pension plans for the average Joe are creeping into the Ice Age, as more companies have announced the decision to deep-freeze their pension plans to current or new employees -- or both. General Motors Corp. and Alcoa are among the latest to jump on the frozen-pension bandwagon that includes IBM, Verizon, Sears, Circuit City, Hewlett-Packard, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Aon Corp. and NCR. Most of these companies are not on the verge of bankruptcy, mind you.
This freeze phenomenon spells disaster for boomers who had been promised a pension and who have 10 years or more left till retirement. That's because benefits under the traditional pension formula ordinarily accrue at accelerated levels for older employees as they approach retirement. The last 10 years are absolutely crucial. With frozen plans, benefits stop building up altogether.
Another trend among companies is to convert defined-benefit plans into cash-balance plans, which substantially reduces a pension's value because the benefit buildup is calculated differently than with a traditional pension plan. Hundreds of companies have chosen to do this in recent years.
But the retirement plans of highly paid executives are not affected at all by these trends. That's because they're a different breed. I mean the retirement plans, not the execs, though I suppose that statement could apply to either. Most top executives have so-called "supplemental executive retirement plans," or SERPs, that are governed by a different set of rules, because they're nonqualified plans.
Qualified pension plans have tax benefits for both employer and employee and have to pass rigorous IRS nondiscrimination tests that ensure some semblance of fairness among highly compensated employees and those that are not highly compensated. Nonqualified plans have no tax benefits and no such fairness standards.
Congress suddenly appalled
Recently, some members of Congress have voiced objections to the retirement pay disparity between top executives and their employees. One bill, introduced by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., would disallow companies from funding pensions for the top brass if they're unable to adequately fund their workers' pensions. Other bills along similar lines have surfaced.
"This huge disparity between ... protected pensions that CEOs have versus production workers is really immoral," Miller told the Los Angeles Times.
Just how lavish are the retirement deals for top execs? It's not all that transparent because current rules allow their retirement packages to be obscured from investors, financial analysts, the media and everyone else. That might change in the future, as the Securities and Exchange Commission last month proposed that disclosure requirements be improved concerning executives' pay, including their retirement benefits.
As it stands now, shareholders rarely get wind of just how generous executive retirement packages can be until it's too late -- when the executive already starts drawing payments. This information is not included in the summary compensation tables required under current law that are readily available to the public.
Those tables list various forms of compensation awarded to the top five executives in a company, but the retirement plan is not on the radar screen, Lucian Bebchuk wrote in a recent commentary for the Wall Street Journal.
Retirement plans for the rich
Bebchuk, director of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School, co-wrote a white paper called "Executive Pensions" with Robert J. Jackson Jr., which was released in December. They collected information from the SEC filings of 51 large corporations.
"We use these disclosures to make estimates of the value of pension plans awarded to the CEOs in our sample," the authors say in the white paper. "But such estimates are not accessible to outsiders without closely analyzing company disclosures and making a series of actuarial assumptions and calculations."
In other words, you and I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of these filings. - advertisement -
SERPs take the form of defined-benefit plans -- yes, the very same plans that are heading toward extinction for the average worker. For these plans, the company promises a specific benefit based on tenure and assumes all investment risk.
Except that, for the CEO, tenure is one of those variables that can be fudged. Extra years, in the form of "service credits," can be added on an executive's tenure for the purpose of awarding a larger retirement benefit.
Time Magazine reported last fall on this phenomenon in its cover story, "The Great Retirement Ripoff." The article pointed out that, for example, Leo Mullin, former CEO and chairman of Delta Air Lines, received service credits amounting to 21 years that were added to his actual tenure of about 7.5 years, an allowance that greatly augmented his retirement benefits.
And here's the corker: "Under Mullin's stewardship, Delta killed the defined-benefit pension of its nonunion workers and replaced it with a less generous plan," Time reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele noted.
What stunning leadership!
Anyway, Bebchuk and Jackson set out to determine how much a CEO's retirement benefit compares to his or her total compensation. Was it just a teeny weeny fraction of the big picture, or was it major? They discovered that it was rather significant, not only as a percentage of the CEO's total compensation, but sometimes even as a percentage of the total value of the companies they headed.
The researchers looked at two sets of data. The first comprised CEOs who retired during 2003 and the first five months of 2004. The second included all CEOs between the ages of 63 and 67 at the end of 2003 who would retire soon and who headed companies listed in the S&P 500. In both sets, roughly two-thirds of the CEOs were covered by a company-sponsored pension plan. (Roughly one-third had no pension plan coverage at all, though they may instead participate in a deferred compensation plan -- another type of retirement plan favorable to executives that bypasses public scrutiny.)
It may not shock you to learn that the average payout for CEOs that are already collecting retirement checks is $1.1 million a year. Those CEOs who hadn't begun collecting checks yet are set to get $1.5 million annually.
Bebchuk and Jackson then determined the total pension values of the CEOs' packages, which takes into account their life expectancies as well as those of their spouses, if applicable. The average "actuarial value" of CEO pensions in today's dollars was $15 million for retired CEOs and $19 million for those approaching retirement in the second sample studied.
As an aside, it may interest you to know that firms that are going through bankruptcy proceedings "often choose to assume fully such obligations, even when executives' pensions are unsecured," note the authors.
The averages belie the wide variety in total pension values, which range from $3.3 million (Symbol Technologies) to $73.4 million (Exxon Mobile). "Across our sample of more than 50 S&P 500 companies, the value of executives' pension plans added on average more than 48 percent to total pay during the executive's service as CEO," say the researchers.
Now mind you, these guys aren't exactly hurting for cash to begin with. Without these pensions, if they set aside a mere fraction of their pay, they could easily afford a fantastic retirement with annual trips to Cote d'Azur and round-the-world cruises aboard the QE II, among other extravagant whims.
Among the individual CEOs named in the study were those heading Aon Corp. and Motorola, which recently froze their pension plans to new hires. The retirement plans of these CEOs were valued at $4.8 million and $41.3 million, respectively. Clorox Co. had converted its pension plan to a cash-balance plan some time ago. The value of the top guy's pension? About $23 million, according to the researchers.
Bebchuk and Jackson argue that investors need to have a clear picture of how much the top executives of a firm are getting in compensation that is not linked to their performance. They advocate that firms be required to disclose the value of all retirement plans, whether defined benefit or deferred benefit, as well their increase in value each year.
Yes, they need to be accountable to shareholders. But they also need to be accountable to their employees. The hush-hush deals made in stately boardrooms need to come out in the open. But even beyond that, the top leadership of companies need to, well, lead by example. If defined-benefit plans must get phased out for employees so that a company can be more competitive, then they should get phased out for the top brass, too.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Soldiers for the Truth
Armor Money Can't Buy: "01.14.2006
Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits
By Nathaniel R. Helms
Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.
The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.
On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that 'all' commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.
'We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) i"
Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits
By Nathaniel R. Helms
Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.
The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.
On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that 'all' commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.
'We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) i"
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
how do civilizations collapse?
Try failure to recognize changes in the ecosystem, failure to react, and ineffective reactions...
Off Southern California, zooplankton are down 70 percent, fish larvae 50 percent, and there have been massive die-offs of kelp.
In Puget Sound, the number of seabirds has dropped by nearly half since the 1970s.
At Triangle Island in British Columbia and California's Farallon Islands, scientists saw a third seabird, the Cassin's auklet, show signs of starvation, said Bill Sydeman of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory.
The Farallon auklets started the breeding season late. Only half as many as normal even tried. Then they abandoned the nests.
Researchers recorded low catches of juvenile salmon and rockfish, and there were sightings of emaciated gray whales. Those findings were preceded by the first appearance in Washington waters of thousands of squid normally not found north of San Francisco. And a plankton typically found near San Diego bloomed along Northwest beaches.
In Washington, the state's largest colony of glaucous-winged gulls suffered when the normal fledge count plummeted from 8,000 chicks to 88 last year.
... tick, tick, tick...
Off Southern California, zooplankton are down 70 percent, fish larvae 50 percent, and there have been massive die-offs of kelp.
In Puget Sound, the number of seabirds has dropped by nearly half since the 1970s.
At Triangle Island in British Columbia and California's Farallon Islands, scientists saw a third seabird, the Cassin's auklet, show signs of starvation, said Bill Sydeman of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory.
The Farallon auklets started the breeding season late. Only half as many as normal even tried. Then they abandoned the nests.
Researchers recorded low catches of juvenile salmon and rockfish, and there were sightings of emaciated gray whales. Those findings were preceded by the first appearance in Washington waters of thousands of squid normally not found north of San Francisco. And a plankton typically found near San Diego bloomed along Northwest beaches.
In Washington, the state's largest colony of glaucous-winged gulls suffered when the normal fledge count plummeted from 8,000 chicks to 88 last year.
... tick, tick, tick...
Don't cry for Natalie
She's going to a better place ...
'Every day a soldier dies, I am more proud that I spoke out. For the last three years, I am at a loss for words as to... what this country is. Who we are. I really think people have just gone insane. And they think we've gone insane. I think it's sad that you have to truly seek out the truth these days, because CNN and Fox News don't give it to you. So you can't really point a finger at individuals, because it's exhausting to seek out fact from fiction. I used to try and make sense of it but when Bush got reelected, I just didn't know what to do. Keep livin'. It's gotta change back. Politics ? I just think it's all corrupt. The entire country is controlled by money. And I think that's what people feel, their voice isn't heard. They don't have a say. It's corporate America.'
... No, Natalie, it DOESN'T have to change back. Things are always darkest just before they go completely black."
'Every day a soldier dies, I am more proud that I spoke out. For the last three years, I am at a loss for words as to... what this country is. Who we are. I really think people have just gone insane. And they think we've gone insane. I think it's sad that you have to truly seek out the truth these days, because CNN and Fox News don't give it to you. So you can't really point a finger at individuals, because it's exhausting to seek out fact from fiction. I used to try and make sense of it but when Bush got reelected, I just didn't know what to do. Keep livin'. It's gotta change back. Politics ? I just think it's all corrupt. The entire country is controlled by money. And I think that's what people feel, their voice isn't heard. They don't have a say. It's corporate America.'
... No, Natalie, it DOESN'T have to change back. Things are always darkest just before they go completely black."
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Army has become a 'thin green line'
My Way News: "WASHINGTON (AP) - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a 'thin green line' that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump - missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 - and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives."
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump - missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 - and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives."
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade)
Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade)
The third button on the Daou Report's navigation bar links to the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution many Americans believe is on life support - if not already dead. The cause of its demise is the corrosive interplay between the Bush administration, a bevy of blind apologists, a politically apathetic public, a well-oiled rightwing message machine, lapdog reporters, and a disorganized opposition. The domestic spying case perfectly illuminates the workings of that system. And the unfolding of this story augurs poorly for those who expect it to yield different results from other administration scandals.
Here's why: the dynamic of a typical Bush scandal follows familiar contours...
1. POTUS circumvents the law - an impeachable offense.
2. The story breaks (in this case after having been concealed by a news organization until well after Election 2004). [A nice added touch, to be sure, but we certainly couldn't have the liberal media attempting to influence public opinion with facts while the Swift Boat ads were circulating, now could we? - ed.]
3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.
4. Rightwing attack dogs on talk radio, blogs, cable nets, and conservative editorial pages maul Bush's critics as traitors for questioning the CIC.
5. The Republican leadership plays defense for Bush, no matter how flagrant the Bush over-reach, no matter how damaging the administration's actions to America's reputation and to the Constitution. A few 'mavericks' like Hagel or Specter risk the inevitable rightwing backlash and meekly suggest that the president should obey the law. John McCain, always the Bush apologist when it really comes down to it, minimizes the scandal.
6. Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.
7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers.
8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.
9. Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on.
10. The story starts blending into a long string of administration scandals, and through skillful use of scandal fatigue, Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness. Congressional hearings might revive the issue momentarily, and bloggers will hammer away at it, but the initial hype is all the Democratic leadership and the media can muster, and anyway, it's never as juicy the second time around...
Rinse and repeat.
It's a battle of attrition that Bush and his team have mastered. Short of a major Dem initiative to alter the cycle, to throw a wrench into the system, to go after the media institutionally, this cycle will continue for the foreseeable future. [And it's too late to make enough of a difference other than to prolong the inevitable anyway. -ed.]
http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=a6da2e05-c808-4f7e-9ab2-3d2a01a82a15
The third button on the Daou Report's navigation bar links to the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution many Americans believe is on life support - if not already dead. The cause of its demise is the corrosive interplay between the Bush administration, a bevy of blind apologists, a politically apathetic public, a well-oiled rightwing message machine, lapdog reporters, and a disorganized opposition. The domestic spying case perfectly illuminates the workings of that system. And the unfolding of this story augurs poorly for those who expect it to yield different results from other administration scandals.
Here's why: the dynamic of a typical Bush scandal follows familiar contours...
1. POTUS circumvents the law - an impeachable offense.
2. The story breaks (in this case after having been concealed by a news organization until well after Election 2004). [A nice added touch, to be sure, but we certainly couldn't have the liberal media attempting to influence public opinion with facts while the Swift Boat ads were circulating, now could we? - ed.]
3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.
4. Rightwing attack dogs on talk radio, blogs, cable nets, and conservative editorial pages maul Bush's critics as traitors for questioning the CIC.
5. The Republican leadership plays defense for Bush, no matter how flagrant the Bush over-reach, no matter how damaging the administration's actions to America's reputation and to the Constitution. A few 'mavericks' like Hagel or Specter risk the inevitable rightwing backlash and meekly suggest that the president should obey the law. John McCain, always the Bush apologist when it really comes down to it, minimizes the scandal.
6. Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.
7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers.
8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.
9. Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on.
10. The story starts blending into a long string of administration scandals, and through skillful use of scandal fatigue, Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness. Congressional hearings might revive the issue momentarily, and bloggers will hammer away at it, but the initial hype is all the Democratic leadership and the media can muster, and anyway, it's never as juicy the second time around...
Rinse and repeat.
It's a battle of attrition that Bush and his team have mastered. Short of a major Dem initiative to alter the cycle, to throw a wrench into the system, to go after the media institutionally, this cycle will continue for the foreseeable future. [And it's too late to make enough of a difference other than to prolong the inevitable anyway. -ed.]
http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=a6da2e05-c808-4f7e-9ab2-3d2a01a82a15
Thursday, December 22, 2005
GOP = Debt
The legacy of GOP administrations is written in the federal deficit history ...
Title: Federal Government Debt: Total Public Debt
Series ID: GFDEBTN
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN/downloaddata
Release: Treasury Bulletin
Seasonal Adjustment: Not Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Mar Jun Sep Dec
Units: Billions of Dollars
Date Range: 1966-03-31 to 2005-09-30
Last Updated: 2005-12-06 2:36 PM CT
Notes: Monthly data reported for March, June, September and December.
Annl
DATE VALUE % of GDP Change % of GDP GDP
1966-03-31 317 41.2% 771
1966-06-30 316 40.6% 780
1966-09-30 321 40.4% 793
1966-12-31 326 40.4% 807
1967-03-31 328 40.1% 10.6 1.3% 818
1967-06-30 323 39.3% 6.7 0.8% 823
1967-09-30 333 39.8% 12.2 1.5% 837
1967-12-31 342 40.1% 16.3 1.9% 853
1968-03-31 347 39.4% 19.0 2.2% 880
1968-06-30 345 38.2% 22.0 2.4% 904
1968-09-30 353 38.4% 20.0 2.2% 919
1968-12-31 356 38.0% 14.0 1.5% 936
1969-03-31 359 37.4% 12.0 1.2% 961
1969-06-30 353 36.2% 8.0 0.8% 976
1969-09-30 360 36.1% 7.0 0.7% 997
1969-12-31 367 36.5% 11.0 1.1% 1,005
1970-03-31 371 36.5% 12.0 1.2% 1,017
1970-06-30 370 35.8% 17.0 1.6% 1,033
1970-09-30 378 36.0% 18.0 1.7% 1,051
1970-12-31 388 36.9% 21.0 2.0% 1,053
1971-03-31 391 35.6% 20.0 1.8% 1,098
1971-06-30 397 35.5% 27.0 2.4% 1,119
1971-09-30 412 36.2% 34.0 3.0% 1,139
1971-12-31 423 36.7% 35.0 3.0% 1,152
1972-03-31 427 35.9% 36.0 3.0% 1,191
1972-06-30 426 34.7% 29.0 2.4% 1,226
1972-09-30 433 34.6% 21.0 1.7% 1,250
1972-12-31 448 34.8% 25.0 1.9% 1,287
1973-03-31 458 34.3% 31.0 2.3% 1,336
1973-06-30 457 33.3% 31.0 2.3% 1,372
1973-09-30 461 33.1% 28.0 2.0% 1,391
1973-12-31 469 32.7% 21.0 1.5% 1,432
1974-03-31 474 32.8% 16.0 1.1% 1,447
1974-06-30 474 31.9% 17.0 1.1% 1,485
1974-09-30 481 31.8% 20.0 1.3% 1,514
1974-12-31 493 31.7% 24.0 1.5% 1,553
1975-03-31 510 32.5% 36.0 2.3% 1,570
1975-06-30 533 33.2% 59.0 3.7% 1,606
1975-09-30 554 33.3% 73.0 4.4% 1,663
1975-12-31 577 33.7% 84.0 4.9% 1,715
1976-03-31 600 33.8% 90.0 5.1% 1,773
1976-06-30 620 34.4% 87.0 4.8% 1,805
1976-09-30 635 34.5% 81.0 4.4% 1,838
1976-12-31 654 34.7% 76.5 4.1% 1,885
1977-03-31 669 34.5% 69.0 3.6% 1,939
1977-06-30 674 33.6% 54.0 2.7% 2,006
1977-09-30 699 33.8% 64.0 3.1% 2,067
1977-12-31 719 34.0% 65.4 3.1% 2,112
1978-03-31 738 34.3% 69.0 3.2% 2,150
1978-06-30 749 32.9% 75.0 3.3% 2,276
1978-09-30 772 33.0% 73.0 3.1% 2,336
1978-12-31 789 32.7% 70.3 2.9% 2,417
1979-03-31 797 32.3% 59.0 2.4% 2,464
1979-06-30 805 31.8% 56.0 2.2% 2,528
1979-09-30 827 31.8% 55.0 2.1% 2,601
1979-12-31 845 31.8% 55.9 2.1% 2,661
1980-03-31 864 31.7% 66.5 2.4% 2,725
1980-06-30 878 32.2% 72.6 2.7% 2,729
1980-09-30 908 32.6% 80.7 2.9% 2,787
1980-12-31 930 31.9% 85.1 2.9% 2,917
1981-03-31 965 31.6% 101.0 3.3% 3,053
1981-06-30 971 31.5% 93.6 3.0% 3,086
1981-09-30 998 31.4% 90.2 2.8% 3,179
1981-12-31 1,029 32.2% 98.5 3.1% 3,196
1982-03-31 1,061 33.3% 96.8 3.0% 3,187
1982-06-30 1,080 33.3% 108.4 3.3% 3,243
1982-09-30 1,142 34.9% 144.1 4.4% 3,276
1982-12-31 1,197 36.1% 168.4 5.1% 3,314
1983-03-31 1,245 36.8% 183.2 5.4% 3,383
1983-06-30 1,320 37.9% 240.0 6.9% 3,484
1983-09-30 1,377 38.4% 235.2 6.6% 3,589
1983-12-31 1,411 38.2% 213.6 5.8% 3,690
1984-03-31 1,464 38.4% 219.2 5.8% 3,810
1984-06-30 1,513 38.7% 193.1 4.9% 3,909
1984-09-30 1,572 39.5% 195.1 4.9% 3,978
1984-12-31 1,663 41.2% 252.3 6.3% 4,036
1985-03-31 1,711 41.5% 247.0 6.0% 4,120
1985-06-30 1,775 42.5% 261.9 6.3% 4,178
1985-09-30 1,823 42.8% 250.8 5.9% 4,261
1985-12-31 1,946 45.0% 282.9 6.5% 4,322
1986-03-31 1,987 45.3% 276.1 6.3% 4,386
1986-06-30 2,059 46.5% 284.8 6.4% 4,426
1986-09-30 2,125 47.3% 302.2 6.7% 4,494
1986-12-31 2,215 48.7% 268.9 5.9% 4,546
1987-03-31 2,247 48.7% 259.9 5.6% 4,614
1987-06-30 2,309 49.2% 249.9 5.3% 4,690
1987-09-30 2,350 49.3% 225.0 4.7% 4,768
1987-12-31 2,432 49.8% 216.9 4.4% 4,886
1988-03-31 2,488 50.2% 240.9 4.9% 4,952
1988-06-30 2,548 50.3% 238.4 4.7% 5,063
1988-09-30 2,602 50.6% 252.0 4.9% 5,147
1988-12-31 2,684 51.1% 252.7 4.8% 5,254
1989-03-31 2,741 51.1% 253.3 4.7% 5,367
1989-06-30 2,800 51.3% 252.2 4.6% 5,454
1989-09-30 2,857 51.7% 255.1 4.6% 5,532
1989-12-31 2,953 52.9% 268.6 4.8% 5,584
1990-03-31 3,052 53.4% 311.1 5.4% 5,716
1990-06-30 3,144 54.2% 343.9 5.9% 5,798
1990-09-30 3,233 55.3% 375.9 6.4% 5,849
1990-12-31 3,365 57.5% 411.8 7.0% 5,849
1991-03-31 3,465 58.9% 413.2 7.0% 5,888
1991-06-30 3,538 59.3% 394.2 6.6% 5,964
1991-09-30 3,665 60.7% 432.0 7.2% 6,036
1991-12-31 3,802 62.4% 436.9 7.2% 6,096
1992-03-31 3,881 62.6% 416.1 6.7% 6,196
1992-06-30 3,985 63.3% 446.7 7.1% 6,290
1992-09-30 4,065 63.7% 399.3 6.3% 6,381
1992-12-31 4,177 64.4% 375.3 5.8% 6,484
1993-03-31 4,231 64.7% 349.3 5.3% 6,543
1993-06-30 4,352 65.8% 367.3 5.6% 6,612
1993-09-30 4,412 66.1% 346.9 5.2% 6,675
1993-12-31 4,536 66.7% 358.7 5.3% 6,800
1994-03-31 4,576 66.2% 345.3 5.0% 6,911
1994-06-30 4,646 66.1% 293.8 4.2% 7,031
1994-09-30 4,693 66.0% 281.3 4.0% 7,115
1994-12-31 4,800 66.4% 264.5 3.7% 7,232
1995-03-31 4,864 66.6% 288.2 3.9% 7,298
1995-06-30 4,951 67.5% 305.6 4.2% 7,338
1995-09-30 4,974 66.9% 281.2 3.8% 7,432
1995-12-31 4,989 66.3% 188.5 2.5% 7,523
1996-03-31 5,118 67.1% 253.7 3.3% 7,624
1996-06-30 5,161 66.4% 209.7 2.7% 7,777
1996-09-30 5,225 66.4% 250.8 3.2% 7,866
1996-12-31 5,323 66.5% 334.5 4.2% 8,000
1997-03-31 5,381 66.3% 263.1 3.2% 8,114
1997-06-30 5,376 65.2% 215.1 2.6% 8,250
1997-09-30 5,413 64.6% 188.4 2.2% 8,382
1997-12-31 5,502 65.0% 179.2 2.1% 8,471
1998-03-31 5,542 64.5% 161.5 1.9% 8,587
1998-06-30 5,548 64.1% 171.7 2.0% 8,658
1998-09-30 5,526 62.9% 113.0 1.3% 8,790
1998-12-31 5,614 62.7% 111.8 1.2% 8,954
1999-03-31 5,652 62.3% 109.2 1.2% 9,067
1999-06-30 5,639 61.5% 90.9 1.0% 9,174
1999-09-30 5,656 60.7% 130.1 1.4% 9,314
1999-12-31 5,776 60.7% 161.9 1.7% 9,520
2000-03-31 5,773 60.0% 121.8 1.3% 9,629
2000-06-30 5,686 57.9% 47.1 0.5% 9,823
2000-09-30 5,674 57.5% 17.9 0.2% 9,862
2000-12-31 5,662 56.9% -113.9 -1.1% 9,954
2001-03-31 5,774 57.6% 0.3 0.0% 10,022
2001-06-30 5,727 56.5% 40.9 0.4% 10,129
2001-09-30 5,808 57.3% 133.3 1.3% 10,135
2001-12-31 5,943 58.1% 281.2 2.7% 10,226
2002-03-31 6,006 58.1% 232.3 2.2% 10,333
2002-06-30 6,127 58.8% 399.7 3.8% 10,427
2002-09-30 6,228 59.2% 420.7 4.0% 10,527
2002-12-31 6,406 60.5% 462.3 4.4% 10,591
2003-03-31 6,461 60.3% 454.8 4.2% 10,717
2003-06-30 6,670 61.5% 543.6 5.0% 10,845
2003-09-30 6,783 61.2% 555.0 5.0% 11,087
2003-12-31 6,998 62.3% 592.3 5.3% 11,236
2004-03-31 7,131 62.2% 670.3 5.9% 11,457
2004-06-30 7,274 62.4% 604.2 5.2% 11,666
2004-09-30 7,379 62.4% 595.9 5.0% 11,819
2004-12-31 7,596 63.3% 598.1 5.0% 11,995
2005-03-31 7,777 63.8% 645.8 5.3% 12,199
2005-06-30 7,837 63.3% 562.2 4.5% 12,378
2005-09-30 7,933 62.9% 553.6 4.4% 12,606
Title: Federal Government Debt: Total Public Debt
Series ID: GFDEBTN
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN/downloaddata
Release: Treasury Bulletin
Seasonal Adjustment: Not Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Mar Jun Sep Dec
Units: Billions of Dollars
Date Range: 1966-03-31 to 2005-09-30
Last Updated: 2005-12-06 2:36 PM CT
Notes: Monthly data reported for March, June, September and December.
Annl
DATE VALUE % of GDP Change % of GDP GDP
1966-03-31 317 41.2% 771
1966-06-30 316 40.6% 780
1966-09-30 321 40.4% 793
1966-12-31 326 40.4% 807
1967-03-31 328 40.1% 10.6 1.3% 818
1967-06-30 323 39.3% 6.7 0.8% 823
1967-09-30 333 39.8% 12.2 1.5% 837
1967-12-31 342 40.1% 16.3 1.9% 853
1968-03-31 347 39.4% 19.0 2.2% 880
1968-06-30 345 38.2% 22.0 2.4% 904
1968-09-30 353 38.4% 20.0 2.2% 919
1968-12-31 356 38.0% 14.0 1.5% 936
1969-03-31 359 37.4% 12.0 1.2% 961
1969-06-30 353 36.2% 8.0 0.8% 976
1969-09-30 360 36.1% 7.0 0.7% 997
1969-12-31 367 36.5% 11.0 1.1% 1,005
1970-03-31 371 36.5% 12.0 1.2% 1,017
1970-06-30 370 35.8% 17.0 1.6% 1,033
1970-09-30 378 36.0% 18.0 1.7% 1,051
1970-12-31 388 36.9% 21.0 2.0% 1,053
1971-03-31 391 35.6% 20.0 1.8% 1,098
1971-06-30 397 35.5% 27.0 2.4% 1,119
1971-09-30 412 36.2% 34.0 3.0% 1,139
1971-12-31 423 36.7% 35.0 3.0% 1,152
1972-03-31 427 35.9% 36.0 3.0% 1,191
1972-06-30 426 34.7% 29.0 2.4% 1,226
1972-09-30 433 34.6% 21.0 1.7% 1,250
1972-12-31 448 34.8% 25.0 1.9% 1,287
1973-03-31 458 34.3% 31.0 2.3% 1,336
1973-06-30 457 33.3% 31.0 2.3% 1,372
1973-09-30 461 33.1% 28.0 2.0% 1,391
1973-12-31 469 32.7% 21.0 1.5% 1,432
1974-03-31 474 32.8% 16.0 1.1% 1,447
1974-06-30 474 31.9% 17.0 1.1% 1,485
1974-09-30 481 31.8% 20.0 1.3% 1,514
1974-12-31 493 31.7% 24.0 1.5% 1,553
1975-03-31 510 32.5% 36.0 2.3% 1,570
1975-06-30 533 33.2% 59.0 3.7% 1,606
1975-09-30 554 33.3% 73.0 4.4% 1,663
1975-12-31 577 33.7% 84.0 4.9% 1,715
1976-03-31 600 33.8% 90.0 5.1% 1,773
1976-06-30 620 34.4% 87.0 4.8% 1,805
1976-09-30 635 34.5% 81.0 4.4% 1,838
1976-12-31 654 34.7% 76.5 4.1% 1,885
1977-03-31 669 34.5% 69.0 3.6% 1,939
1977-06-30 674 33.6% 54.0 2.7% 2,006
1977-09-30 699 33.8% 64.0 3.1% 2,067
1977-12-31 719 34.0% 65.4 3.1% 2,112
1978-03-31 738 34.3% 69.0 3.2% 2,150
1978-06-30 749 32.9% 75.0 3.3% 2,276
1978-09-30 772 33.0% 73.0 3.1% 2,336
1978-12-31 789 32.7% 70.3 2.9% 2,417
1979-03-31 797 32.3% 59.0 2.4% 2,464
1979-06-30 805 31.8% 56.0 2.2% 2,528
1979-09-30 827 31.8% 55.0 2.1% 2,601
1979-12-31 845 31.8% 55.9 2.1% 2,661
1980-03-31 864 31.7% 66.5 2.4% 2,725
1980-06-30 878 32.2% 72.6 2.7% 2,729
1980-09-30 908 32.6% 80.7 2.9% 2,787
1980-12-31 930 31.9% 85.1 2.9% 2,917
1981-03-31 965 31.6% 101.0 3.3% 3,053
1981-06-30 971 31.5% 93.6 3.0% 3,086
1981-09-30 998 31.4% 90.2 2.8% 3,179
1981-12-31 1,029 32.2% 98.5 3.1% 3,196
1982-03-31 1,061 33.3% 96.8 3.0% 3,187
1982-06-30 1,080 33.3% 108.4 3.3% 3,243
1982-09-30 1,142 34.9% 144.1 4.4% 3,276
1982-12-31 1,197 36.1% 168.4 5.1% 3,314
1983-03-31 1,245 36.8% 183.2 5.4% 3,383
1983-06-30 1,320 37.9% 240.0 6.9% 3,484
1983-09-30 1,377 38.4% 235.2 6.6% 3,589
1983-12-31 1,411 38.2% 213.6 5.8% 3,690
1984-03-31 1,464 38.4% 219.2 5.8% 3,810
1984-06-30 1,513 38.7% 193.1 4.9% 3,909
1984-09-30 1,572 39.5% 195.1 4.9% 3,978
1984-12-31 1,663 41.2% 252.3 6.3% 4,036
1985-03-31 1,711 41.5% 247.0 6.0% 4,120
1985-06-30 1,775 42.5% 261.9 6.3% 4,178
1985-09-30 1,823 42.8% 250.8 5.9% 4,261
1985-12-31 1,946 45.0% 282.9 6.5% 4,322
1986-03-31 1,987 45.3% 276.1 6.3% 4,386
1986-06-30 2,059 46.5% 284.8 6.4% 4,426
1986-09-30 2,125 47.3% 302.2 6.7% 4,494
1986-12-31 2,215 48.7% 268.9 5.9% 4,546
1987-03-31 2,247 48.7% 259.9 5.6% 4,614
1987-06-30 2,309 49.2% 249.9 5.3% 4,690
1987-09-30 2,350 49.3% 225.0 4.7% 4,768
1987-12-31 2,432 49.8% 216.9 4.4% 4,886
1988-03-31 2,488 50.2% 240.9 4.9% 4,952
1988-06-30 2,548 50.3% 238.4 4.7% 5,063
1988-09-30 2,602 50.6% 252.0 4.9% 5,147
1988-12-31 2,684 51.1% 252.7 4.8% 5,254
1989-03-31 2,741 51.1% 253.3 4.7% 5,367
1989-06-30 2,800 51.3% 252.2 4.6% 5,454
1989-09-30 2,857 51.7% 255.1 4.6% 5,532
1989-12-31 2,953 52.9% 268.6 4.8% 5,584
1990-03-31 3,052 53.4% 311.1 5.4% 5,716
1990-06-30 3,144 54.2% 343.9 5.9% 5,798
1990-09-30 3,233 55.3% 375.9 6.4% 5,849
1990-12-31 3,365 57.5% 411.8 7.0% 5,849
1991-03-31 3,465 58.9% 413.2 7.0% 5,888
1991-06-30 3,538 59.3% 394.2 6.6% 5,964
1991-09-30 3,665 60.7% 432.0 7.2% 6,036
1991-12-31 3,802 62.4% 436.9 7.2% 6,096
1992-03-31 3,881 62.6% 416.1 6.7% 6,196
1992-06-30 3,985 63.3% 446.7 7.1% 6,290
1992-09-30 4,065 63.7% 399.3 6.3% 6,381
1992-12-31 4,177 64.4% 375.3 5.8% 6,484
1993-03-31 4,231 64.7% 349.3 5.3% 6,543
1993-06-30 4,352 65.8% 367.3 5.6% 6,612
1993-09-30 4,412 66.1% 346.9 5.2% 6,675
1993-12-31 4,536 66.7% 358.7 5.3% 6,800
1994-03-31 4,576 66.2% 345.3 5.0% 6,911
1994-06-30 4,646 66.1% 293.8 4.2% 7,031
1994-09-30 4,693 66.0% 281.3 4.0% 7,115
1994-12-31 4,800 66.4% 264.5 3.7% 7,232
1995-03-31 4,864 66.6% 288.2 3.9% 7,298
1995-06-30 4,951 67.5% 305.6 4.2% 7,338
1995-09-30 4,974 66.9% 281.2 3.8% 7,432
1995-12-31 4,989 66.3% 188.5 2.5% 7,523
1996-03-31 5,118 67.1% 253.7 3.3% 7,624
1996-06-30 5,161 66.4% 209.7 2.7% 7,777
1996-09-30 5,225 66.4% 250.8 3.2% 7,866
1996-12-31 5,323 66.5% 334.5 4.2% 8,000
1997-03-31 5,381 66.3% 263.1 3.2% 8,114
1997-06-30 5,376 65.2% 215.1 2.6% 8,250
1997-09-30 5,413 64.6% 188.4 2.2% 8,382
1997-12-31 5,502 65.0% 179.2 2.1% 8,471
1998-03-31 5,542 64.5% 161.5 1.9% 8,587
1998-06-30 5,548 64.1% 171.7 2.0% 8,658
1998-09-30 5,526 62.9% 113.0 1.3% 8,790
1998-12-31 5,614 62.7% 111.8 1.2% 8,954
1999-03-31 5,652 62.3% 109.2 1.2% 9,067
1999-06-30 5,639 61.5% 90.9 1.0% 9,174
1999-09-30 5,656 60.7% 130.1 1.4% 9,314
1999-12-31 5,776 60.7% 161.9 1.7% 9,520
2000-03-31 5,773 60.0% 121.8 1.3% 9,629
2000-06-30 5,686 57.9% 47.1 0.5% 9,823
2000-09-30 5,674 57.5% 17.9 0.2% 9,862
2000-12-31 5,662 56.9% -113.9 -1.1% 9,954
2001-03-31 5,774 57.6% 0.3 0.0% 10,022
2001-06-30 5,727 56.5% 40.9 0.4% 10,129
2001-09-30 5,808 57.3% 133.3 1.3% 10,135
2001-12-31 5,943 58.1% 281.2 2.7% 10,226
2002-03-31 6,006 58.1% 232.3 2.2% 10,333
2002-06-30 6,127 58.8% 399.7 3.8% 10,427
2002-09-30 6,228 59.2% 420.7 4.0% 10,527
2002-12-31 6,406 60.5% 462.3 4.4% 10,591
2003-03-31 6,461 60.3% 454.8 4.2% 10,717
2003-06-30 6,670 61.5% 543.6 5.0% 10,845
2003-09-30 6,783 61.2% 555.0 5.0% 11,087
2003-12-31 6,998 62.3% 592.3 5.3% 11,236
2004-03-31 7,131 62.2% 670.3 5.9% 11,457
2004-06-30 7,274 62.4% 604.2 5.2% 11,666
2004-09-30 7,379 62.4% 595.9 5.0% 11,819
2004-12-31 7,596 63.3% 598.1 5.0% 11,995
2005-03-31 7,777 63.8% 645.8 5.3% 12,199
2005-06-30 7,837 63.3% 562.2 4.5% 12,378
2005-09-30 7,933 62.9% 553.6 4.4% 12,606
Friday, December 02, 2005
GOP Hypocrisy, Where to Begin?
How about fiscal restraint?
"Consider the fiscal health of the country (and thus, also, of your wallet). The Republicans bill themselves as the party of fiscal discipline, but when Ronald Reagan came into office he spent so much, and cut taxes on the wealthy so much, that he had to quadruple the national debt to (not) pay for it. Democrats managed to reverse that decline in the 1990s, generating the largest surpluses in American history, but then Bush administration policies made Reagan's recklessness look like kid's stuff. Spending like crazy - much of it on foolish priorities like an unnecessary war in Iraq, a prescription drug plan which primarily benefits drug and insurance companies, and pork-barrel legislation like multi-million dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska - while also taking a meat-axe to taxes formerly paid by the wealthy, George W. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress have created the biggest pile of debt in American history.
Indeed, Mr. Bush has now borrowed more money from foreign governments to finance his (well, actually, your) fiscal nightmare than have all the 42 presidents who have come before him - combined! Just how much is that, and why should you care? The national debt has now surpassed $8 trillion. That is about two-thirds the size of what the entire American economy produces (GDP) in a given year. All this, and more, has to be paid back. What is the 'more'? Well, we're adding to this mountain of debt to the tune of $350-450 billion every single year, digging ourselves further in. And, of course, we not only have to pay all this back, but the accumulating interest on this debt as well.
All told, each American, including any just born this second, and including each reader of this article, will spend some good portion of their lives paying off their share of this national blow-out, that share at the moment equaling more than $27,000 per American. But since only about half of us work, at least enough to pay taxes, the reality is that any American with a job owes over $54,000 to cover for the Republican Party's party at your expense. Plus the approximately $2,600 being added to the pile each year, every year. Plus interest on all that. How do you feel about coming out of school with $60,000 worth of debt hanging over your head, for something you didn't even benefit from?
Meanwhile, here's the real kicker. We used to have a somewhat fair system of tax distribution prior to the Bush program, but nowadays the rich pay far less in taxes than they used to, and the middle class pays just slightly less (and that's only if you don't count increases in state and local taxes, tuition, fees for government services, and more, all of which have gone up to fill in for the loss of federal revenues). Since these tax 'cuts' have been financed by borrowing, however, what that means is that the middle class will continue to have to pay their own share of the national debt in future years, plus the taxes that the rich won't be paying in the future, plus the taxes that the wealthy also didn't pay in the past (now) when this problem was created. Americans should therefore understand that this was never really a tax cut, but simply a tax transfer, from the rich to the middle class..."
http://www.hofstrachronicle.com/media/paper222/news/2005/12/01/EditorialopEd/From-The.Faculty.Its.Your.Life-1119456.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.hofstrachronicle.com
... If Bush were a Dimmocrat, the pubbies would almost certainly have impeached him by now. Instead the Coalition of the Conniving and the Clueless continue to praise him as if he were the Second Coming.
"Consider the fiscal health of the country (and thus, also, of your wallet). The Republicans bill themselves as the party of fiscal discipline, but when Ronald Reagan came into office he spent so much, and cut taxes on the wealthy so much, that he had to quadruple the national debt to (not) pay for it. Democrats managed to reverse that decline in the 1990s, generating the largest surpluses in American history, but then Bush administration policies made Reagan's recklessness look like kid's stuff. Spending like crazy - much of it on foolish priorities like an unnecessary war in Iraq, a prescription drug plan which primarily benefits drug and insurance companies, and pork-barrel legislation like multi-million dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska - while also taking a meat-axe to taxes formerly paid by the wealthy, George W. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress have created the biggest pile of debt in American history.
Indeed, Mr. Bush has now borrowed more money from foreign governments to finance his (well, actually, your) fiscal nightmare than have all the 42 presidents who have come before him - combined! Just how much is that, and why should you care? The national debt has now surpassed $8 trillion. That is about two-thirds the size of what the entire American economy produces (GDP) in a given year. All this, and more, has to be paid back. What is the 'more'? Well, we're adding to this mountain of debt to the tune of $350-450 billion every single year, digging ourselves further in. And, of course, we not only have to pay all this back, but the accumulating interest on this debt as well.
All told, each American, including any just born this second, and including each reader of this article, will spend some good portion of their lives paying off their share of this national blow-out, that share at the moment equaling more than $27,000 per American. But since only about half of us work, at least enough to pay taxes, the reality is that any American with a job owes over $54,000 to cover for the Republican Party's party at your expense. Plus the approximately $2,600 being added to the pile each year, every year. Plus interest on all that. How do you feel about coming out of school with $60,000 worth of debt hanging over your head, for something you didn't even benefit from?
Meanwhile, here's the real kicker. We used to have a somewhat fair system of tax distribution prior to the Bush program, but nowadays the rich pay far less in taxes than they used to, and the middle class pays just slightly less (and that's only if you don't count increases in state and local taxes, tuition, fees for government services, and more, all of which have gone up to fill in for the loss of federal revenues). Since these tax 'cuts' have been financed by borrowing, however, what that means is that the middle class will continue to have to pay their own share of the national debt in future years, plus the taxes that the rich won't be paying in the future, plus the taxes that the wealthy also didn't pay in the past (now) when this problem was created. Americans should therefore understand that this was never really a tax cut, but simply a tax transfer, from the rich to the middle class..."
http://www.hofstrachronicle.com/media/paper222/news/2005/12/01/EditorialopEd/From-The.Faculty.Its.Your.Life-1119456.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.hofstrachronicle.com
... If Bush were a Dimmocrat, the pubbies would almost certainly have impeached him by now. Instead the Coalition of the Conniving and the Clueless continue to praise him as if he were the Second Coming.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
The magic iraqi "6 months" < Tartarin > 12/01 10:25:52
"You only have about the next six months.”
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Nov. 21, 2005
I think that you get them out of there in six months.
U.S. Reprsentative John Murtha (D-PA), Nov 17, 2004
“We've got, I think, six months.”
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Nov. 17, 2005
“We are entering a make-or-break six-month period.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Oct. 26, 2005
“The next six months will really tell the story”
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb), Aug 18, 2005
“The next six to seven months are critical.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Dec. 1, 2003
“The next three-to-six months will be critical.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sept. 10, 2003
And before the war…
“It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 7 2003
And the best for last:
"We would probably need six months to complete inspections of Iraq's nuclear programs."
Mohamed ElBaradei, Feb 14, 2003
... How's the next 6 months look to you?
"You only have about the next six months.”
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Nov. 21, 2005
I think that you get them out of there in six months.
U.S. Reprsentative John Murtha (D-PA), Nov 17, 2004
“We've got, I think, six months.”
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Nov. 17, 2005
“We are entering a make-or-break six-month period.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Oct. 26, 2005
“The next six months will really tell the story”
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb), Aug 18, 2005
“The next six to seven months are critical.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Dec. 1, 2003
“The next three-to-six months will be critical.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sept. 10, 2003
And before the war…
“It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 7 2003
And the best for last:
"We would probably need six months to complete inspections of Iraq's nuclear programs."
Mohamed ElBaradei, Feb 14, 2003
... How's the next 6 months look to you?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES
KGO-AM 810 NewsTalk: "
FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 ? COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: 'I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.' He added Saddam 'is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors' and that 'he threatens not the United States.' [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01]
SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 ? CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that 'Saddam Hussein is bottled up' ? a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]
SEPTEMBER 2001 ? WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans 'in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States?The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community.' The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically 'cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest' while officials deliberately 'bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence.' [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]
2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case
Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy "
FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 ? COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: 'I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.' He added Saddam 'is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors' and that 'he threatens not the United States.' [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01]
SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 ? CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that 'Saddam Hussein is bottled up' ? a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]
SEPTEMBER 2001 ? WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans 'in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States?The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community.' The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically 'cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest' while officials deliberately 'bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence.' [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]
2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case
Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy "
Friday, November 11, 2005
In the wake of the week
Forget the CEO testimony, it's the FTC, stupid!
They're the ones who can find and prosecute collusion ...
WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (Reuters) - The Federal Trade Commission has sent subpoenas to Big Oil companies in its investigation of gasoline price manipulation and oil refining capacity constraints, and hopes to complete the probe next spring, the agency's head told a U.S. Senate hearing on Wednesday.
The agency sent out "dozens of subpoenas" to companies, including oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp. , Chevron Corp. , ConocoPhillips , and the U.S. units of BP Plc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. , FTC Chairwoman Deborah Majoras said.
She spoke following a hearing on energy profits held by the Senate's energy and commerce committees. "It is a major investigation."
... Remember, markets only do what the Law of Supply and Demand requires. It's restraint of trade that's illegal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberals get no respect, even in Canada
"On Monday, the Liberals are expected to deliver a fiscal update that will detail its pre-election platform. Wiseman said Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will announce a projection of a $10 billion surplus. [... remember what a surplus felt like? I do]
...The Conservatives, meanwhile, are reacting positively to Layton's proposal [to force early elections] and said all opposition parties are joining forces to bring down the minority Liberals."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold is a voting machine in Egypt?
CAIRO, Egypt Nov 10, 2005 — President Hosni Mubarak's strongest challenger in the presidential race two months ago lost his parliamentary seat in an upset in the first round of Egypt's legislative elections, according to initial returns Thursday.
Ayman Nour, a key mainstream opposition figure, was defeated Wednesday by a candidate of the ruling National Democratic Party for the south Cairo seat he had held for 10 years, the results said.
... Abdul! Every time I try to touch Nour's picture, Mubarak's winks at me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dems hopes rise but futures dim
Even in their improved position, Democrats will have limited numbers of targets. Because congressional boundary lines place most lawmakers in districts clearly favoring one party or the other, fewer than 10% of House seats held by Republicans currently are considered at risk. Most Senate Republican incumbents facing re-election next year remain favored to win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAUNEL: Yet Another Unelectable Northeastern Liberal
Anyone else looking forward to '08 the way I am? I can hardly wait to see the next YAUNEL the Dimmocrats decide to put up against whatever cretinous proto-facsist the pubbies settle on.
---------------------------------------------------------
Random Thots:
The State shouldn't be involved in marriages. They should recognize civil unions for legal purposes and let the clergy handle the marrying.
If Dubya were a Democrat he'd have been impeached by now.
ANWR spared? HA! That oil isn't going anywhere --They'll get it next time.
Paris, City of Light (as in lightweight gov't)
Re CA props: Straight "no". No, no, NO, NO, NO, dammit! I hope that message got thru. (Any other year, several props would have passed in CA. There was a larger issue at stake this time)
Prop 13's Dirty Little Secret:
...It applies to businesses, too! That means when there's competition, firstcomers can prices and undercut latecomers' costs. And when the latecomers go bust, well, you know what happens then.
Judith Miller retires from NY Times. Kinda like Eagles losing Owens.
Scott McClellan does a pretty good Ron Ziegler immitation.
If only 25% of Kansans believe in evolution and over 50% in the pentefundegelical version of Creation, why should they be forced to teach evolution in their schools? Willful ignorance is as willful ignorance does.
They're the ones who can find and prosecute collusion ...
WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (Reuters) - The Federal Trade Commission has sent subpoenas to Big Oil companies in its investigation of gasoline price manipulation and oil refining capacity constraints, and hopes to complete the probe next spring, the agency's head told a U.S. Senate hearing on Wednesday.
The agency sent out "dozens of subpoenas" to companies, including oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp. , Chevron Corp. , ConocoPhillips , and the U.S. units of BP Plc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. , FTC Chairwoman Deborah Majoras said.
She spoke following a hearing on energy profits held by the Senate's energy and commerce committees. "It is a major investigation."
... Remember, markets only do what the Law of Supply and Demand requires. It's restraint of trade that's illegal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberals get no respect, even in Canada
"On Monday, the Liberals are expected to deliver a fiscal update that will detail its pre-election platform. Wiseman said Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will announce a projection of a $10 billion surplus. [... remember what a surplus felt like? I do
...The Conservatives, meanwhile, are reacting positively to Layton's proposal [to force early elections] and said all opposition parties are joining forces to bring down the minority Liberals."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold is a voting machine in Egypt?
CAIRO, Egypt Nov 10, 2005 — President Hosni Mubarak's strongest challenger in the presidential race two months ago lost his parliamentary seat in an upset in the first round of Egypt's legislative elections, according to initial returns Thursday.
Ayman Nour, a key mainstream opposition figure, was defeated Wednesday by a candidate of the ruling National Democratic Party for the south Cairo seat he had held for 10 years, the results said.
... Abdul! Every time I try to touch Nour's picture, Mubarak's winks at me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dems hopes rise but futures dim
Even in their improved position, Democrats will have limited numbers of targets. Because congressional boundary lines place most lawmakers in districts clearly favoring one party or the other, fewer than 10% of House seats held by Republicans currently are considered at risk. Most Senate Republican incumbents facing re-election next year remain favored to win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAUNEL: Yet Another Unelectable Northeastern Liberal
Anyone else looking forward to '08 the way I am? I can hardly wait to see the next YAUNEL the Dimmocrats decide to put up against whatever cretinous proto-facsist the pubbies settle on.
---------------------------------------------------------
Random Thots:
The State shouldn't be involved in marriages. They should recognize civil unions for legal purposes and let the clergy handle the marrying.
If Dubya were a Democrat he'd have been impeached by now.
ANWR spared? HA! That oil isn't going anywhere --They'll get it next time.
Paris, City of Light (as in lightweight gov't)
Re CA props: Straight "no". No, no, NO, NO, NO, dammit! I hope that message got thru. (Any other year, several props would have passed in CA. There was a larger issue at stake this time)
Prop 13's Dirty Little Secret:
...It applies to businesses, too! That means when there's competition, firstcomers can prices and undercut latecomers' costs. And when the latecomers go bust, well, you know what happens then.
Judith Miller retires from NY Times. Kinda like Eagles losing Owens.
Scott McClellan does a pretty good Ron Ziegler immitation.
If only 25% of Kansans believe in evolution and over 50% in the pentefundegelical version of Creation, why should they be forced to teach evolution in their schools? Willful ignorance is as willful ignorance does.
Ahhhh, Paris in the fall ...
A collection of news reports tell a compelling story...
PARIS (AP) - Authorities imposed curfews in the French Riviera cities of Nice and Cannes on Wednesday to prevent rioting, while the interior minister called for the deportation of foreigners convicted in the wave of unrest that has spread throughout France.
Looters and vandals defied a state of emergency with attacks on superstores, a newspaper warehouse and a subway station. Arson attacks continued after sundown, with a nursery school going up in flames in the southern city of Toulouse, RTL radio reported.
.. Take that, kiddies!
The unrest began Oct. 27 and has grown into a nationwide insurrection by disillusioned suburban youths who complain of discrimination and unemployment. Although many of the French-born children of Arab and black African immigrants are Muslim, police say the violence is not being driven by Islamic groups.
.. OK, if Islamic groups aren't driving it, who is? SANTA?
The extraordinary 12-day state of emergency, which began at midnight Tuesday, covered Paris, its suburbs and more than 30 other French cities from the Mediterranean to the border with Germany and to Rouen in the north - an indication of how widespread arson, riots and other unrest have become.
The measures imposed in Nice also require some bars to close from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. for the next 10 days, the regional government said.
.. no way, man, not the bars too!!
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who previously inflamed passions by referring to troublemakers as "scum," said 120 foreigners have been convicted for roles in the violence, and he called on local authorities to expel them.
"I have asked regional prefects to expel foreigners who were convicted - whether they have proper residency papers or not - without delay," he said during a National Assembly session.
.. If they really want to get serious about restoring order, they'd better invite the Wehrmacht.
"Protestors set fire to 315 cars in the Paris area overnight, half of them in Seine-Saint-Denis, where nine people were injured, officials said.
Simone: Your jacket!
Clouseau: Yes, I kneaw it iz my jacket.
Simone: No... It's on fire!
"The violence has once more trained a spotlight on the poverty and lawlessness of France's rundown big-city suburbs and raises questions about an immigration policy that has, in effect, created sink ghettos for mainly African minorities who suffer from discrimination in housing, education and jobs.
...
Today, France's government was in crisis mode with Mr de Villepin calling a string of emergency meetings with government officials throughout the day.
One was a working lunch with the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been accused of inflaming the crisis with his tough talk and police tactics. Mr Sarkozy has called troublemakers "scum" and vowed to "clean out" troubled suburbs, language that some say further alienated their residents [...hmmm... I guess he forgot to call for their total eradication. ]
The unrest was triggered by last Thursday's accidental death in Clichy-sous-Bois, five miles from Aulnay, of two African teenagers who were electrocuted while hiding in a power substation from what they believed, apparently wrongly, was police pursuit. An interior ministry official described the clashes as "more like sporadic harassment, lightweight hit-and-run urban guerrilla fighting, than head-to-head confrontation". Small, highly mobile groups of up to a dozen youths emerge, hurl stones or petrol bombs, and disperse. "It's hard to contain," the official said.
The minister of social cohesion, Jean-Louis Borloo, said the government had to react "firmly" but added that France must also acknowledge its failure to deal with anger simmering in poor suburbs for decades.
"We cannot hide the truth: that for 30 years we have not done enough," he told France-2 television.
Fran?ois: Do you know what kind of a bomb it was?
Clouseau: Yes, the exploding kind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paris, City of Light
PARIS — The French government declared a state of emergency Tuesday, enabling police to impose curfews and other extraordinary measures to combat the worst riots in recent history.
President Jacques Chirac's Cabinet decided at a special meeting to invoke an emergency powers law first imposed during the Algerian war of independence against France 50 years ago. Starting at midnight, the authorities had the right to declare curfews in targeted areas, restrict the movement of people and vehicles, request police searches and place suspects under house arrest. "
... "Too little, too late" again, Jacques. How's that workin for ya?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better late than never, France ?
PARIS (AP) - The French government declared a state of emergency Tuesday after nearly two weeks of rioting, and the prime minister said the nation faced a "moment of truth."
The extraordinary security measures, to begin Wednesday and valid for 12 days, clear the way for curfews to try to halt the country's worst civil unrest since the student uprisings of 1968.
... and after only 12 days!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very slow learners, these French...
PARIS (AP) - France will impose curfews under a state-of-emergency law and call up police reservists to stop rioting that has spread out of Paris' suburbs and into nearly 300 cities and towns across the country, the prime minister said Monday, calling a return to order "our No. 1 responsibility."
The tough new measures or what passes for tough there... came as France's worst civil unrest in decades entered a 12th night, with rioters in the southern city of Toulouse setting fire to a bus after sundown and pelting police with gasoline bombs and rocks.
Outside the capital in Sevran, a junior high school was set ablaze, while in another Paris suburb, Vitry-sur-Seine, youths threw gasoline bombs at a hospital, police said. No one was injured. Earlier, a 61-year-old retired auto worker died of wounds from an attack last week, the first death in the violence.
Asked on TF1 television whether the army should be brought in, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We are not at that point." meaning "my car has not firebombed yet"
But "at each step, we will take the necessary measures to re-establish order very quickly ...or what passes for very quickly there... throughout France," he said. "That is our prime duty: ensuring everyone's protection."
...Oh, please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French discovering the Awful Truth: Self-inflicted Wounds are Always the Most Painful
What catches many French leaders in a bind is their belief that the alternative to their strong state intervening to ensure color-blind equality is the cut-throat capitalism and ethnic segregation they say prevails in English-speaking countries.
When Sarkozy says the best social system is the one that produces jobs and that the French model is not doing that, his comments are met not with approval but retorts that the French model is fine and needs only to be better applied.
In a scene that spoke volumes, National Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre -- a close Chirac ally and passionate defender of the republican model -- was shocked and almost speechless on Sunday as he surveyed riot damage in Evreux, where he is mayor.
"A hundred people have smashed everything and strewn desolation," he commented. "Well, they don't form part of our universe."
... and denial is not a river in Egypt, pal.
PARIS (AP) - Authorities imposed curfews in the French Riviera cities of Nice and Cannes on Wednesday to prevent rioting, while the interior minister called for the deportation of foreigners convicted in the wave of unrest that has spread throughout France.
Looters and vandals defied a state of emergency with attacks on superstores, a newspaper warehouse and a subway station. Arson attacks continued after sundown, with a nursery school going up in flames in the southern city of Toulouse, RTL radio reported.
.. Take that, kiddies!
The unrest began Oct. 27 and has grown into a nationwide insurrection by disillusioned suburban youths who complain of discrimination and unemployment. Although many of the French-born children of Arab and black African immigrants are Muslim, police say the violence is not being driven by Islamic groups.
.. OK, if Islamic groups aren't driving it, who is? SANTA?
The extraordinary 12-day state of emergency, which began at midnight Tuesday, covered Paris, its suburbs and more than 30 other French cities from the Mediterranean to the border with Germany and to Rouen in the north - an indication of how widespread arson, riots and other unrest have become.
The measures imposed in Nice also require some bars to close from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. for the next 10 days, the regional government said.
.. no way, man, not the bars too!!
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who previously inflamed passions by referring to troublemakers as "scum," said 120 foreigners have been convicted for roles in the violence, and he called on local authorities to expel them.
"I have asked regional prefects to expel foreigners who were convicted - whether they have proper residency papers or not - without delay," he said during a National Assembly session.
.. If they really want to get serious about restoring order, they'd better invite the Wehrmacht.
"Protestors set fire to 315 cars in the Paris area overnight, half of them in Seine-Saint-Denis, where nine people were injured, officials said.
Simone: Your jacket!
Clouseau: Yes, I kneaw it iz my jacket.
Simone: No... It's on fire!
"The violence has once more trained a spotlight on the poverty and lawlessness of France's rundown big-city suburbs and raises questions about an immigration policy that has, in effect, created sink ghettos for mainly African minorities who suffer from discrimination in housing, education and jobs.
...
Today, France's government was in crisis mode with Mr de Villepin calling a string of emergency meetings with government officials throughout the day.
One was a working lunch with the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been accused of inflaming the crisis with his tough talk and police tactics. Mr Sarkozy has called troublemakers "scum" and vowed to "clean out" troubled suburbs, language that some say further alienated their residents [...hmmm... I guess he forgot to call for their total eradication. ]
The unrest was triggered by last Thursday's accidental death in Clichy-sous-Bois, five miles from Aulnay, of two African teenagers who were electrocuted while hiding in a power substation from what they believed, apparently wrongly, was police pursuit. An interior ministry official described the clashes as "more like sporadic harassment, lightweight hit-and-run urban guerrilla fighting, than head-to-head confrontation". Small, highly mobile groups of up to a dozen youths emerge, hurl stones or petrol bombs, and disperse. "It's hard to contain," the official said.
The minister of social cohesion, Jean-Louis Borloo, said the government had to react "firmly" but added that France must also acknowledge its failure to deal with anger simmering in poor suburbs for decades.
"We cannot hide the truth: that for 30 years we have not done enough," he told France-2 television.
Fran?ois: Do you know what kind of a bomb it was?
Clouseau: Yes, the exploding kind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paris, City of Light
PARIS — The French government declared a state of emergency Tuesday, enabling police to impose curfews and other extraordinary measures to combat the worst riots in recent history.
President Jacques Chirac's Cabinet decided at a special meeting to invoke an emergency powers law first imposed during the Algerian war of independence against France 50 years ago. Starting at midnight, the authorities had the right to declare curfews in targeted areas, restrict the movement of people and vehicles, request police searches and place suspects under house arrest. "
... "Too little, too late" again, Jacques. How's that workin for ya?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better late than never, France ?
PARIS (AP) - The French government declared a state of emergency Tuesday after nearly two weeks of rioting, and the prime minister said the nation faced a "moment of truth."
The extraordinary security measures, to begin Wednesday and valid for 12 days, clear the way for curfews to try to halt the country's worst civil unrest since the student uprisings of 1968.
... and after only 12 days!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very slow learners, these French...
PARIS (AP) - France will impose curfews under a state-of-emergency law and call up police reservists to stop rioting that has spread out of Paris' suburbs and into nearly 300 cities and towns across the country, the prime minister said Monday, calling a return to order "our No. 1 responsibility."
The tough new measures or what passes for tough there... came as France's worst civil unrest in decades entered a 12th night, with rioters in the southern city of Toulouse setting fire to a bus after sundown and pelting police with gasoline bombs and rocks.
Outside the capital in Sevran, a junior high school was set ablaze, while in another Paris suburb, Vitry-sur-Seine, youths threw gasoline bombs at a hospital, police said. No one was injured. Earlier, a 61-year-old retired auto worker died of wounds from an attack last week, the first death in the violence.
Asked on TF1 television whether the army should be brought in, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We are not at that point." meaning "my car has not firebombed yet"
But "at each step, we will take the necessary measures to re-establish order very quickly ...or what passes for very quickly there... throughout France," he said. "That is our prime duty: ensuring everyone's protection."
...Oh, please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French discovering the Awful Truth: Self-inflicted Wounds are Always the Most Painful
What catches many French leaders in a bind is their belief that the alternative to their strong state intervening to ensure color-blind equality is the cut-throat capitalism and ethnic segregation they say prevails in English-speaking countries.
When Sarkozy says the best social system is the one that produces jobs and that the French model is not doing that, his comments are met not with approval but retorts that the French model is fine and needs only to be better applied.
In a scene that spoke volumes, National Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre -- a close Chirac ally and passionate defender of the republican model -- was shocked and almost speechless on Sunday as he surveyed riot damage in Evreux, where he is mayor.
"A hundred people have smashed everything and strewn desolation," he commented. "Well, they don't form part of our universe."
... and denial is not a river in Egypt, pal.
Monday, October 31, 2005
College football
For 52 minutes Saturday, I witnessed the worst football game ever played by a major college undefeated team as UCLA managed to dig themselves deep into a well-deserved 24-3 hole. A deader bunch of losers I couldn't imagine. "Who are these imposters, where are you holding my 7-0 team, and how much do you want for them?" I shouted. I was packed and ready to make a run for the car but my son insisted on seeing the bitter end. For the next 8 minutes, I witnessed something truly extraordinary...
Oct 29, 11:21 PM (ET)
STANFORD, Calif. (AP) - Maurice Drew and Marcedes Lewis sat at their lockers and looked at each other in disbelief. UCLA was down and disheveled at halftime, its powerful offense sputtering and its perfect season in big trouble. [nah! They were only down 7-3 at halftime, but let's not quibble...]
Two hours later, Drew and Lewis looked at each other again with even more amazement - because UCLA was still unbeaten, thanks to the cardiac Bruins' most unlikely escape yet.
Brandon Breazell caught a 23-yard TD pass from Drew Olson in overtime after No. 8 UCLA scored 21 points in the final 7:04 of regulation to stun Stanford 30-27 on Saturday.
UCLA (8-0, 4-0 Pac-10) has specialized in fantastic finishes during conference play, rallying from double-digit deficits against Washington, California and Washington State earlier in October - but none was as dramatic or unlikely as the Bruins' escape from Stanford Stadium.
"It doesn't seem real. I still can't believe what we did," said Drew, who ran for two late scores, including a 1-yard tumble across the goal line with 46 seconds left to force OT.
Olson, soundly outplayed in the first 52 minutes by workout buddy Trent Edwards, went 24-of-35 for 293 yards and two TDs while leading his latest jaw-dropping comeback. He led fourth-quarter scoring drives of 65, 72 and 66 yards - and all three took a combined 3:40.
Joe Cowan caught a 31-yard TD pass with 4:43 to play, and Drew shook off a bruised right knee to score on UCLA's final play of regulation. Though Olson celebrated wildly along with his teammates, the quarterback knew his team might not have deserved its outrageous fortune.
"For 3? quarters, we played horrible football," Olson said. "I was surprised we were only down 7-3 at halftime. I've got no explanation for this."
UCLA 30, Stanford 27, OT
Has there ever been a season of finishes like this?
Oct 29, 11:21 PM (ET)
STANFORD, Calif. (AP) - Maurice Drew and Marcedes Lewis sat at their lockers and looked at each other in disbelief. UCLA was down and disheveled at halftime, its powerful offense sputtering and its perfect season in big trouble. [nah! They were only down 7-3 at halftime, but let's not quibble...]
Two hours later, Drew and Lewis looked at each other again with even more amazement - because UCLA was still unbeaten, thanks to the cardiac Bruins' most unlikely escape yet.
Brandon Breazell caught a 23-yard TD pass from Drew Olson in overtime after No. 8 UCLA scored 21 points in the final 7:04 of regulation to stun Stanford 30-27 on Saturday.
UCLA (8-0, 4-0 Pac-10) has specialized in fantastic finishes during conference play, rallying from double-digit deficits against Washington, California and Washington State earlier in October - but none was as dramatic or unlikely as the Bruins' escape from Stanford Stadium.
"It doesn't seem real. I still can't believe what we did," said Drew, who ran for two late scores, including a 1-yard tumble across the goal line with 46 seconds left to force OT.
Olson, soundly outplayed in the first 52 minutes by workout buddy Trent Edwards, went 24-of-35 for 293 yards and two TDs while leading his latest jaw-dropping comeback. He led fourth-quarter scoring drives of 65, 72 and 66 yards - and all three took a combined 3:40.
Joe Cowan caught a 31-yard TD pass with 4:43 to play, and Drew shook off a bruised right knee to score on UCLA's final play of regulation. Though Olson celebrated wildly along with his teammates, the quarterback knew his team might not have deserved its outrageous fortune.
"For 3? quarters, we played horrible football," Olson said. "I was surprised we were only down 7-3 at halftime. I've got no explanation for this."
UCLA 30, Stanford 27, OT
Has there ever been a season of finishes like this?
Thursday, October 27, 2005
None dare call it treason
(... but a rose by any other name wouldn't smell this bad)
I suspect the Plame leak was just someone forgetting what was classified when smearing yet another enemy to a friendly reporter. Obstruction of Justice is also naughty but probably not impeachable.
What was really, REALLY bad was what triggered the whole sordid chain of events -- the administration (maybe Michael Ledeen) forged documents purporting to show Saddam got uranium from Niger and fed them to allied intelligence agencies, who dutifully fed it back to the CIA so we could go to war under false pretenses!
This is the most treasonous act in US history since the Rosenbergs, and certainly qualifies as a High Crime and Misdemeanor.
http://caribmon.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/19/41429/846 ">Politics - World - s.f. bayarea forums - craigslist: "None dare call it treason < RoughJustice > 10/27 13:54:00
I suspect the Plame leak was just someone forgetting what was classified when smearing yet another enemy to a friendly reporter. Obstruction of Justice is also naughty but probably not impeachable.
What was really, REALLY bad was what triggered the whole sordid chain of events -- the administration (maybe Michael Ledeen) forged documents purporting to show Saddam got uranium from Niger and fed them to allied intelligence agencies, who dutifully fed it back to the CIA so we could go to war under false pretenses!
This is the most treasonous act in US history since the Rosenbergs, and certainly qualifies as a High Crime and Misdemeanor.
http://caribmon.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/19/41429/846 "
I suspect the Plame leak was just someone forgetting what was classified when smearing yet another enemy to a friendly reporter. Obstruction of Justice is also naughty but probably not impeachable.
What was really, REALLY bad was what triggered the whole sordid chain of events -- the administration (maybe Michael Ledeen) forged documents purporting to show Saddam got uranium from Niger and fed them to allied intelligence agencies, who dutifully fed it back to the CIA so we could go to war under false pretenses!
This is the most treasonous act in US history since the Rosenbergs, and certainly qualifies as a High Crime and Misdemeanor.
http://caribmon.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/19/41429/846 ">Politics - World - s.f. bayarea forums - craigslist: "None dare call it treason < RoughJustice > 10/27 13:54:00
I suspect the Plame leak was just someone forgetting what was classified when smearing yet another enemy to a friendly reporter. Obstruction of Justice is also naughty but probably not impeachable.
What was really, REALLY bad was what triggered the whole sordid chain of events -- the administration (maybe Michael Ledeen) forged documents purporting to show Saddam got uranium from Niger and fed them to allied intelligence agencies, who dutifully fed it back to the CIA so we could go to war under false pretenses!
This is the most treasonous act in US history since the Rosenbergs, and certainly qualifies as a High Crime and Misdemeanor.
http://caribmon.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/19/41429/846 "
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
AlterNet: War on Iraq: Who Forged the Niger Documents?
Vincent Cannistaro, the former CIA head of counterterrorism operations and intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan:
... The Italian intelligence service, the military intelligence service, was acquiring information that was really being hand-fed to them by very dubious sources. The Niger documents, for example, which apparently were produced in the United States, yet were funneled through the Italians.
[Do we know who produced those documents? Because there’s some suspicion ... ]
I think I do, but I’d rather not speak about it right now, because I don’t think it’s a proven case ...
[If I said “Michael Ledeen” ...?]
You’d be very close . . .
[do you believe that this process worked out in such a way to exonerate the White House and to lay the blame with the wrong . . .]
I think that’s certainly the objective. To lay it off to the intelligence community. But, it’s very disingenuous. It’s like saying, OK, the intelligence community that we whipped into a frenzy in order to provide information to sustain our policy conclusions that Saddam had a WMD program and that he was an imminent danger — that intelligence community provided information that now turns out not to be correct. And that’s why we were misled into saying what we did say, and doing what we did do. That’s very disingenuous, because that’s not the case at all.
The case was that this was not a fact-based policy that the U.S. government adopted. It was a policy-based decision that drove the intelligence, and not the other way around...You had a lot of people who played along to get along, and they understood that in that kind of administration, you couldn’t say exactly what it is that you really believed.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21704/?comments=view&cID=1127&pID=1077#c1127
... The Italian intelligence service, the military intelligence service, was acquiring information that was really being hand-fed to them by very dubious sources. The Niger documents, for example, which apparently were produced in the United States, yet were funneled through the Italians.
[Do we know who produced those documents? Because there’s some suspicion ... ]
I think I do, but I’d rather not speak about it right now, because I don’t think it’s a proven case ...
[If I said “Michael Ledeen” ...?]
You’d be very close . . .
[do you believe that this process worked out in such a way to exonerate the White House and to lay the blame with the wrong . . .]
I think that’s certainly the objective. To lay it off to the intelligence community. But, it’s very disingenuous. It’s like saying, OK, the intelligence community that we whipped into a frenzy in order to provide information to sustain our policy conclusions that Saddam had a WMD program and that he was an imminent danger — that intelligence community provided information that now turns out not to be correct. And that’s why we were misled into saying what we did say, and doing what we did do. That’s very disingenuous, because that’s not the case at all.
The case was that this was not a fact-based policy that the U.S. government adopted. It was a policy-based decision that drove the intelligence, and not the other way around...You had a lot of people who played along to get along, and they understood that in that kind of administration, you couldn’t say exactly what it is that you really believed.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21704/?comments=view&cID=1127&pID=1077#c1127
Thursday, October 20, 2005
cabal hijacked US foreign policy
Cheney cabal hijacked US foreign policy
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19
Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.
In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”
Transcript: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson
Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran.
It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions.
“If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.”
The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year.
Among his other charges:
¦ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”
¦ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.
¦ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.
Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”.
“There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19
Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.
In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”
Transcript: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson
Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran.
It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions.
“If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.”
The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year.
Among his other charges:
¦ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”
¦ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.
¦ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.
Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”.
“There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Arctic Ice Disappearing
(AP) New satellite observations show that sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster while air temperatures in the region are rising sharply, scientists say.
Since 2002, satellite data have revealed unusually early springtime melting in areas north of Siberia and Alaska. Now the melting trend has spread throughout the Arctic, according to a national collaboration of scientists.
The latest observations through September show that melting in 2005 began a record 17 days earlier than usual.
The observations showed 2.06 million square miles of sea ice as late as Sept. 19. That's the lowest measurement of Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, the researchers said. It's also 20 percent less than the average of end-of-summer ice pack cover measurements recorded since 1978.
At the same time, average air temperatures across most of the Arctic region from January to August 2005 were as much as 5.4 degrees warmer than average temperature over the last 50 years, said the team of researchers from two universities and NASA.
'The melting and retreat trends are accelerating,' Ted Scambos, of the University of Colorado at Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, said in a statement released by the university. " ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/29/tech/main889404.shtml
... I'm still wrestling with the twin fundamental questions: what evidence would it take to (1) convince enough people there's a problem and (2) we can and should do something to fix it?
Since 2002, satellite data have revealed unusually early springtime melting in areas north of Siberia and Alaska. Now the melting trend has spread throughout the Arctic, according to a national collaboration of scientists.
The latest observations through September show that melting in 2005 began a record 17 days earlier than usual.
The observations showed 2.06 million square miles of sea ice as late as Sept. 19. That's the lowest measurement of Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, the researchers said. It's also 20 percent less than the average of end-of-summer ice pack cover measurements recorded since 1978.
At the same time, average air temperatures across most of the Arctic region from January to August 2005 were as much as 5.4 degrees warmer than average temperature over the last 50 years, said the team of researchers from two universities and NASA.
'The melting and retreat trends are accelerating,' Ted Scambos, of the University of Colorado at Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, said in a statement released by the university. " ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/29/tech/main889404.shtml
... I'm still wrestling with the twin fundamental questions: what evidence would it take to (1) convince enough people there's a problem and (2) we can and should do something to fix it?
Monday, September 19, 2005
Meanwhile, back at the deficit ...
"Q:You hold cash in your fund, not bonds. Can you hold corporate bonds or agencies?
We can hold bonds, but we think long-term bond yields at the 4% level are a bad deal. They do not compensate you for the uncertainties of inflation of the massive deterioration in the fiscal integrity of the United States. And I do mean that. It is a travesty to witness what the federal government is doing to the balance sheet of the U.S. "
-- Robert Rodriguez, head of $2 billion FPA Capital fund
http://www.thestreet.com/_iwon/mutualfundmonday/mutualfundmondaygg/10243125_3.html
... don't say I didn't warn you.
Monday, September 12, 2005
For the record: KATRINA TIMELINE
A full recounting of the sorry mess thru 9/3/05
http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline
Think Progress ? KATRINA TIMELINE: "KATRINA TIMELINE
Comment on the timeline here.
Friday, August 26
GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA [Office of the Governor]
GULF COAST STATES REQUEST TROOP ASSISTANCE FROM PENTAGON: At a 9/1 press conference, Lt. Gen. Russel Honor?, commander, Joint Task Force Katrina, said that the Gulf States began the process of requesting additional forces on Friday, 8/26. [DOD]
Saturday, August 27
GOV. HALEY BARBOUR DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN MISSISSIPPI [Office of the Governor]
5AM CDT ? KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE [CNN]
GOV. BLANCO ASKS BUSH TO DECLARE FEDERAL STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA: ?I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster.? [Office of the Governor]
FEDERAL EMERGENCY DECLARED, DHS AND FEMA GIVEN FULL AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO KATRINA: ?Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.? [White House]
Sunday, August 28
2AM CDT ? KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE [CNN]
7AM CDT ? KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE [CNN]
MORNING ? LOUISIANA NEWSPAPER SIGNALS LEVEES MAY GIVE: ?Forecasters Fear Levees Won?t Hold Katrina?: ?Forecasters feared Sunday afternoon that storm driven waters will lap over the New Orleans levees when monster Hurricane Katrina pushes past the Crescent City tomorrow.? [Lafayette Daily Advertiser]
9:30 AM CDT ? MAYOR NAGIN ISSUES "
http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline
Think Progress ? KATRINA TIMELINE: "KATRINA TIMELINE
Comment on the timeline here.
Friday, August 26
GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA [Office of the Governor]
GULF COAST STATES REQUEST TROOP ASSISTANCE FROM PENTAGON: At a 9/1 press conference, Lt. Gen. Russel Honor?, commander, Joint Task Force Katrina, said that the Gulf States began the process of requesting additional forces on Friday, 8/26. [DOD]
Saturday, August 27
GOV. HALEY BARBOUR DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN MISSISSIPPI [Office of the Governor]
5AM CDT ? KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE [CNN]
GOV. BLANCO ASKS BUSH TO DECLARE FEDERAL STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA: ?I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster.? [Office of the Governor]
FEDERAL EMERGENCY DECLARED, DHS AND FEMA GIVEN FULL AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO KATRINA: ?Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.? [White House]
Sunday, August 28
2AM CDT ? KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE [CNN]
7AM CDT ? KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE [CNN]
MORNING ? LOUISIANA NEWSPAPER SIGNALS LEVEES MAY GIVE: ?Forecasters Fear Levees Won?t Hold Katrina?: ?Forecasters feared Sunday afternoon that storm driven waters will lap over the New Orleans levees when monster Hurricane Katrina pushes past the Crescent City tomorrow.? [Lafayette Daily Advertiser]
9:30 AM CDT ? MAYOR NAGIN ISSUES "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)