Saturday, January 03, 2004

GWB has a Blog

I had a hearty chuckle over this one.

WHOIS info:

Registrant:
Bush-Cheney '04, Inc. (GEORGEWBUSH18-DOM)
P.O. Box 10648
Arlington, VA 22210
US

Domain Name: GEORGEWBUSH.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Bush-Cheney '04, Inc. (35436379O) Chuck@georgewbush.com
P.O. Box 10648
Arlington, VA 22210
US
703-647-2700

Record expires on 06-May-2008.
Record created on 05-May-1997.
Database last updated on 3-Jan-2004 22:33:41 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.CHA.SMARTECHCORP.NET 65.172.162.66
A.NS.TRESPASSERS-W.NET 209.61.172.168

Torture Chuck

More giggles. Job growth in 2004

Here's the actual blog entry:

Leading Economists: Strong Growth, 1.5 Million New Jobs in Store for 2004

According to a survey of 54 leading economists in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required), 2004 is already shaping up to be a great year for the economy. The forecast calls for steady economic growth and sustained job creation over the next 12 months:

The jobless recovery may need a new nickname in 2004. That's because rising corporate profits and steady economic growth are expected to prompt companies to hire workers more aggressively in the months ahead.
That's the consensus view of 54 economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal, who as a group believe the U.S. unemployment rate will slowly descend to 5.5% by November. That could translate into more than 1.5 million new jobs in a 12-month period. And while a 5.5% unemployment rate would still be far above the 3.8% rate achieved in April 2000, it would nevertheless represent a notable decline from the 6.4% level reached last summer and could provide a psychological boost to workers and an electoral boost to President Bush.

And even those who were relatively cautious before are calling for sustained growth:

"The outlook is very good in the near term," says Ethan Harris, chief U.S. economist with Lehman Brothers. "You're going to have solid growth." Those are strong words coming from Mr. Harris, who has tilted toward the bears among forecasters. Yet even the most bearish forecasters are now calling for growth of at least 3% in the months ahead, while the biggest bulls say the economy can grow at an annual rate of more than 5% in the months ahead.


According to this data, I see a big oops. Someone forget to do their math. Probably the 'MBA' president.

So Bush's no doubtedly rosy estimates are for 1.5 million new jobs in 2k4. That's not meaningful job growth. It takes ~175,000 new jobs per month to MAINTAIN the employment level. Let's do the math..175,000 X 12 = 2,100,000.

Survey says: Job growth projections for 2k4 do not pass the BS smell test. Expect no employment growth in 2k4.

Link: W's rosefree forecast

You can read Colin Powell's new year's resolution right here.

If you can't wait to read Colin, we offer you this short version: no mention of telling the truth in 2004. Thank god you can count on some things! Glory!


Let's hope those zany Iraqis don't try and exercise those very freedoms that they hate us for!

"They Hate Us Because Of Our Freedoms!" -- GWB

The leader of the free world. Sad.

Well, we went to Iraq to, ummmm, well. I forget. Something about active waepons of mass destruction programs, was that it?

I'll snap out of my drug induced reverie for a moment.

It looks kinda grim on the ground in Iraq. Rinse, repeat.

A reader sent me this:

U.S. Restricts Demonstrations In Iraq

By Aws Al-Sharqy, IOL Correspondent

BAGHDAD, January 1 - U.S. occupation authorities in Iraq have imposed strict restrictions on the right of the Iraqi people to demonstrate, particularly in the capital Baghdad, in what Iraqi political analysts described as the real face of sugar-coated democracy clichés.

A statement issued by the U.S.-led authority and broadcast by the Iraqi media network Wednesday, December 31, said no individual or group is allowed to organize marches or demonstrations or even gather in streets, public places or buildings at any time without a prior from the occupation command.

It demanded those who want to demonstrate or organize a meeting to submit a written request to the occupation authorities no less than a day before.

The request, according to the statement, must include the purpose and duration of the demonstration, an estimate of the maximum number of demonstrators and names and addresses of the organizers.

Detention Threat

If a permit is granted, the American statement said, demonstrators would not be allowed to wear the traditional galabiya (a loose shirt-like garment), helmets, hoods or even cover their faces.

Would-be Iraqi demonstrators must also not carry guns, even the licensed, stones or sticks, added the statement.

Last but not least, any demonstration must not last more than four hours and should not be organized less than 500 meters away from the headquarters of the occupation forces and the affiliated institutions.

According to the statement issued by the U.S.-led occupation forces any "breach" of these restrictions will result in the detention and trial of the "violator".

Ridicule

Iraqi political analysts lashed out at the watertight restrictions, stressing they unmask the ugly face of the occupation, justified by sugar-coated clichés of bringing democracy to the oil-rich Arab country.

"It is unbelievable that a country boasting a democracy record would clamp such rigid restrictions on the simplest forms of freedom of expression, which is the right to demonstrate," said Dr. Abdel-Sattar Gawwad, a political expert, told IslamOnline.net.

"If the Americans are afraid of popular demonstrations, what would they do with spiraling resistance against their presence?

"Isn't it strange enough that the U.S. troops impose restrictions on demonstrators? Why assuming protestors will attack armed-to-the-teeth soldiers with stones?" Gawwad wondered.

"Does this tell you something about claims by the U.S. forces they were hardheartedly welcomed by Iraqis?" added the political analysts.

He also underlined "the repressive practices of the occupation troops in Iraq such as the raiding of houses, killing of innocents and random detention of Iraqi citizens."

Such practices, Gawwad added, fanned armed resistance against the U.S.-led occupation of the country.

False Promises

Mohiel-Din Ismail, an Iraqi writer, agreed that such restrictions unveil the logic of occupation.

They give the people hollow promises, restrict their freedoms and now deprive them of the simplest right to demonstrate, he added.

"Where, then, is the (U.S.-sanctioned) Governing Council? Isn't it - as claimed - the highest authority in Iraq? Should it wait instructions from (U.S. administrator of Iraq) Paul Bremer and the White House?" Ismail wondered.

U.S.-led occupation forces have repeatedly opened fire at Iraqi demonstrators, killing and wounding many of them.

Amnesty International said Friday, November 21, U.S. forces appeared to be destroying houses in Iraq as a form of collective punishment for attacks on U.S. troops and warned that the practice would violate the Geneva Conventions.

Iraqi civilians are often exposed to random shooting by American forces whenever occupation troops are attacked.

The New York-based Human Right Watch accused the American occupation forces of "excessive or indiscriminate use of force" against civilians in Baghdad as well as failing to conduct proper investigations in cases of civilian deaths in the Iraqi capital.

In a 56-page report released Monday, October 20, the group documented 20 cases of Iraq civilians deaths between May 1, when U.S. President George Bush declared an end to the major combat operations in Iraq, and September 30.


As this was sent two days ago without a link, I didn't know if this came from a print paper, or from an online source. My sister Melissa, who has been helping out with things while I work under the evils of deadline pressure, did a quick search, and couldn't find a link.

The purported author, Aws Al-Sharqy, is apparently a Middle-Eastern journalist. He(?) generally reports from Iraq as best as I can tell. I kept getting hits with his(?) name attached to "IOL." It took me a moment to realize that this is "Islam OnLine."

So I managed to find the IOL English site. I still cannot find the above article. But as I was searching, I came across this most amazing side bar of textual links. The links are a chronology of events in Iraq from September 2003 to present.

They are as follows:

Resistance Songs Best-Seller In Iraq: U.S. Paper

Iraqis protest Bush’s Visit, Vow Continued Resistance

Angry Iraqis protest U.S. Soldiers' Throwing Of Qur'an

5 Iraqi protestors Killed By Occupation Forces: Jazeera

Iraqi Shiites Want U.S. Out, Threaten Resistance

Under Occupation.. Iraqis Celebrate Eid At Home

U.S. 'Ali Babas' Inspire Iraqis Into Hiding Valuable Things

Against my better judgement I followed a couple of the links. They lead to other links, and now I've a fresh pile of reading material at a most unfortunate time.

A couple of quick links.

This may seem like preaching to the choir -- at least here in states where it matters -- but it is nonetheless another example of just how much the Bush Administration has gotten away with without a functioning Congress and a complicit media.

Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein

Shrill title, but a solid read. What I garner most from reading these articles that the mainstream press will never pick-up, is that I learn about institutions like The American Society of International Law.

I know I'll be digging around in there, looking for something that has gone unreported, or underreported.

The other came my way via the D.U. forums.

It looks like Tom DeLay, well here's a tease, and I see that the The Smirking Chimp has the article up so you can forego that onerous registration process at the L.A. Times.

Political Fundraising in Texas Is Target of Probe
Officials look at whether money linked to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay improperly financed Republican campaigns.


By Scott Gold
Times Staff Writer

January 3, 2004

AUSTIN, Texas — Authorities are conducting a criminal investigation into whether corporate money, including hundreds of thousands of dollars linked to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, improperly financed the Republican Party's takeover of the Texas Capitol.

The probe is focused on several political and fundraising organizations run by Republican activists, investigators said. One of the organizations, the political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority, has direct ties to DeLay, a Texas Republican and one of the most powerful politicians in Washington.

At issue is whether the organizations improperly used corporate contributions to help finance the campaigns of more than 20 Republican candidates for the Texas House of Representatives in 2002, according to documents and interviews with prosecutors and government investigators.

Many campaign finance watchdog organizations believe the investigation is a test of whether "soft money" — unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals — will begin playing a more direct role in state and local elections.

Such donations were outlawed at the national level by a campaign finance reform law, recently upheld by the Supreme Court, but the measure does not ban the contributions at the state level. Reform advocates worry that soft-money donors will begin contributing at the state level to curry favor and advance their causes.

Texas law bans corporations from contributing money to candidates for office. Corporations are allowed to fund many ancillary costs of a political campaign, such as office rental or telephone lines, and in many cases are allowed to educate voters through advertisements and other programs, provided they do not specifically advocate a candidate's defeat. Scads more at link.


PBS announcement: If you have emailed me since Dec. 24th or thereabouts, I will get to you. I have had so much going on this holiday season, I have fallen delinquent in my responding to emails, and a great bit more.

Thank you for your patience!

another Todd
Some things are simply too amazing to overlook. Fun, too. I'm sure that you've all heard, seen and/or read about Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin's stupid human trick. For the one person that hasn't here's the blunder from down under. Note infant clutched by Irwin.

We think that while foolhardy, it doesn't make for really BIG news. For really BIG reptilian news, you need to familiarize yourself with what is undoubtedly a world record reticualted python. First a text clip:


Python tips the scales at 447kg

January 2, 2004

Jakarta: Indonesian villagers claim they've captured a python that is nearly 5m longer than the longest captured snake recorded in The Guinness Book of World Records.

Local newspaper Republika splashed two photographs on its back page of a large, fat reptile lying coiled in a box. But it was difficult to confirm the claim as there were no measuring tapes or objects alongside the snake to compare its size.

Hundreds of people have flocked to see the snake at a zoo in Curugsewu village on the country's main island of Java.

A local government official said the reticulated python measured 14.85m and weighed in at 447kg.

The Guinness Book of World Records lists the longest captured snake to be 9.75m.

The heaviest - a Burmese Python kept in Gurnee, Illinois - weighs 182.76kg.

Republika said the snake, only recently put on public display, ate up to four dogs a month.

Reticulated pythons are the world's longest snakes.

They are capable of eating animals as large as sheep, and have been known to attack and consume humans.

The species is native to the swamps and jungles of South-east Asia. - Sapa-AP link

I believe that it is pretty widely accepeted that the Anaconda is the world's heaviest snake, as they tend to be much larger in girth for a given lenght than the reticualted python. This discovery however, may change everything.

Text not enough to sate your sweet tooth for super sized serpents? How about a movie of the menacing mammoth?

It is REALLY BIG!

And finally for those of you who want your own entry into the brothers Guiness book of the absurd, order a set of Gempler's Snake tongs. (I think the ones in the photo are a bit on the wee side for 50 foot jungle denizens, beeter get two).

I just did a quick search on the anaconda and it is still regarded as the heaviest snake in the world. If this python 'specs out' to its hype, we'll have a new king.



Compassionate Conservatism? Hearts and Minds?

Landmines for U.S. troops, maybe.

Iraq Women Alone, Distraught as U.S. Rounds Up Men

Fri January 02, 2004 09:10 AM ET

By Suleiman al-Khalidi
BAQUBA, Iraq (Reuters) - Khadija's eldest son Ahmad was killed in battle during the war that toppled Saddam Hussein. Now U.S. troops have rounded up her husband and four other sons, leaving the impoverished Iraqi woman to fend for herself.

"What do I do now? They took my husband and my kids and it's only me now," said Khadija, who like all women in her small hamlet on the outskirts of the flashpoint town of Baquba wears a black veil.

"My son is a martyr. My husband was taken and they took the rest of my children," she said in her mud and stone-brick house, which has plastic in the windows because the glass was shattered during the U.S. raid which captured her husband and sons.

Baquba lies in a predominantly Sunni Muslim area, where support for Saddam is relatively strong and resentment of the U.S.-led occupation runs deep. Under constant attack from guerrillas, U.S. troops have rounded up dozens of Iraqis they say are linked to the insurgency.


U.S. troops arrested several men during a raid in Bab el-Darb this week, leaving distraught women to fend for themselves, a rare situation in a conservative Muslim community with strong family ties.

Khadija's story is echoed by many women in Bab el-Darb, a farming area of orchards and palms trees watered by tributaries of the Tigris river.

SHIVERING

Talia, 53, recounted how American soldiers dynamited her front gate before taking away her husband Abed, 65, and three sons.

"The women were left. My sons and their father were tied up and taken away. For three hours they were tied holding their heads to the wall. Abed was barefoot and without his headdress," Talia said.

"The Americans entered when we were asleep. They encircled us and blew up our door. They took us out and the women were left in the cold, shivering." said Talia, who is now left with her daughters-in-law and their young children.

Locals say the raid left smashed windows, walls damaged by shrapnel and some children injured.

One woman, Fatima, said her son Ismail, 12, was wounded in the chest and that her 50-year-old husband, a retired army major, had nothing to hide even though he was detained.

The U.S. military says the raids are necessary to crush an insurgency that has killed more than 200 U.S. troops.

But the incensed and humiliated men left behind warn the raids could lead to more attacks.

"When I see my wife pushed like a dog against the wall, as an Iraqi Muslim, will I keep silent?" said Mohammad Obeid, a trader.

A growing nationalist spirit is coupled with support for Saddam, himself a member of Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority.

"In Saddam's era we never saw this," said retired civil servant Ahmad Jibouri. "We will not stay with our hands tied for ever."

Mansour Saleh, a shopkeeper, warned: "If these raids continue we will all become terrorists."
Link


It is now beyond time to do whatever it takes to get more international cooperation in occupied Iraq. Bush needs to go to anybody that will listen with hat in hand and say: "We don't know what we're doing. We need your help. Our guys don't know the culture of these people, and the situation is growing bleaker."

Of course a certain mythical hot spa will freeze over before this happens.

I don't think anyone that knows anything about who the Iraqi resistance really are, is saying much. All you hear about the Iraqi resistance is that they are Saddam loyalists, dead-enders, groups with links to al-Qeada, and the like. In a country of 25 million, if 90% of the populace are either neutral at the moment, or pro-American, that leaves 2.5 million people that may be sympathetic to, or are involved in direct action against the occupying forces.

We have, what 150,000 coalition forces in Iraq? Let's run the numbers. 2,500,000 divided by 150,000(carry the eight, minus one makes nine, aw shit) The numbers aren't promising. It works out to one 'coalition' person to cover 167 people.

I strongly suspect that I have skewed the numbers in favor of the coalition, and that the percentage of Iraqis opposing us is a far greater number.

It's the same old black/white overly simplistic bs as, "they hate our freedoms." Does anyone believe that shit anymore?

Bush to Veterans: We Got What We need Out of Them. Fuck 'em.

Bush drug proposal enrages veterans
Plan may alienate military retirees by imposing higher fees for prescriptions


By DALE EISMAN

Copyright 2004 The Virginian-Pilot
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is considering dramatic increases in the fees military retirees pay for prescription drugs, a step that would roll back a benefit extended 33 months ago and risk alienating an important Republican constituency at the dawn of the 2004 campaign season.

Pentagon budget documents indicate that retirees may be asked to pay $10 -- up from $3 -- for each 90-day generic prescription filled by mail through Tricare, the military's health insurance program. Tricare's current $9 co-pay for a three-month supply of each brand-name drug would jump to $20.

The proposal also would impose charges for drugs the retirees now receive free at military hospitals and clinics. There would be a $10 fee for each generic prescription and a $20 charge for brand-name drugs dispensed at those facilities.

A Pentagon spokesman declined Wednesday to comment on the drug plan, calling it "pre-decisional." But word of the proposal was being spread at the speed of light by veterans service organizations, who were urging their thousands of members to send calls and letters of protest to the White House and members of Congress.

"It's something that we're going to look at very closely when we return," said Tom Gordy, chief of staff for Rep. Ed Schrock, R-Va. The House is to reconvene Jan. 20.

"You're tampering with a benefit that was earned by people putting their lives on the line," said James F. Lokovic, a retired Air Force chief master sergeant and deputy director of the Air Force Sergeants Association.

Lokovic's 136,000-member association already has sent Bush a letter warning of "significant backlash from millions of retired military voters" if the plan is included in the 2005 defense budget the administration will unveil in a few weeks.

"Somebody just isn't paying attention," the Military Officers Association of America said in "special alert" sent to its 390,000 members. "The war on terrorism is reminding the nation of servicemembers' sacrifices every night on the evening news ... and yet the administration seems to continue going out of its way to penalize the military community." Much more at link.


So, once again, BushCo. is entertaining the idea of trimming veteran's benefits. Now this is a pretty hard core GOP voting bloc. I think know exactly who the "somebody" in the MOAA statement is....An unelected president who is trying his darnedest to be a 'one-termer,' but the media and their corporate masters keep shielding us form the awful truth. See CNN rant below.


CNN: Lost in the Wilderness?

I do not watch any television save for CNN during the morning whilst eating breakfast at my local haunt.

The anchor whose name I didn't catch was obviously channeling Karl Rove. While he was reading his GOP Approved™ script concerning the various squabbles amongst the Democratic presidential hopefuls, he had to interject that, "this comes at a time when the White House is full of good news, from the capture of Saddam Hussein to the economy." If CNN, a Time-Warner company, were truly objective they might have mentioned the Plame Affair, the stubborn WMD in hiding, Bush's failure to do anything of substance regarding the Israeli/Palestinian issue, Afghanistan, the conditions in occupird Iraq, the numbers of U.S. service personnel injured and killed in the neo-cons, "war of choice," 9/11 comission stonewalling, or any number of the dozens of negatives that would -- in a real democracy -- be topics that the press would be filling the front pages of every newspaper and headlining televised news programs.

American democracy, a nice concept.

I may get out today or tomorrow to meet some of the candidates. Dean was in Concord, NH yesterday. I missed his stumping due to my stinkin' job.

I do have some information on what Dean said courtesy of my friend and Concord Monitor staff reporter, Jennifer Skalka.

pure bs world exclusive

Apparently Dean was grilled on his lack of foreign policy experience by a Laconia, NH resident, Ms. Mary Hutchins.

"You're getting a tremendous amount of tutoring about foreign affairs, and frequently you've come up with a lot of misstatemants to show your lack of knowledge." Ms. Hitchins said of Dean. She also told Dean that hadn't made up her mind about which of the nine Democratic candidates she'd support for president. "At this point we need somebody who is strong, and I haven't seen you come forth as strong and knwledgable about it."

"Are you sure you haven't made up your mind?" Dean replied, prompting laughter in a hall packed largely with fans.

"I have as much foreign policy as Bill Clinton did when he took over," Dean added. "I have much more foreign policy experience than George Bush did.....I have more foreign policy(experience) than Ronald Reagan did. I think I'm in a reasonable spot."


I personally think that Dean's statements are accurate. The current occupant of the White House relies on others to give him news fer chrissakes. Sheesh.

I should have split and been there. It sounds like it was a lot of fun.

More Dean stuff, in Jennifer skalka's own words.


Dean was lobbying yesterday to convince New Hampshire voters like Hutchins that he had the know-how to handle international affairs. Though he's challenged President Bush's decision to preemptively strike Iraq, largely building his campaign on an anti-war platform, Dean said yesterday that "we have the right to use force if an attack is imminent."

Dean also pointed to the heightened terror alert and recently canceled international flights as evidence that his statements after Saddam Hussein's capture - he'd said that United States isn't safer with Saddam out of power - are accurate.

"All those Democrats criticize and criticize," he said. "Oh Howard Dean doesn't know anything about foreign policy....I don't think I was right, and they were wrong."

Flanked by banners for the Service Employees International Union and the American Federal of State, County and Municipal Employees, Dean also ripped into President Bush for promoting policies that make the nation's wealthy wealthier and for padding bank accounts of corporations. Dean - who moved the podium, opting instead to use a hand held microphone - noted that 3 million jobs have been lost on Bush's watch and the country's deficit has skyrocketed. He said the Republicans haven't balanced a budget in 30 years.

"This is the borrow and spend, borrow and spend president," Dean said. "His spending rates's higher than even Bill Clinton's who is not supposed to be known for spending....The fact is that Democrats balance budgets, Republicans don't. You can't trust Republicans with your money.

"Dean said the Bush administration has neglected the nation's chlildren by not fully funding No Child Left Behind, which he called "No Behind." A Dean administration, the former governor said, would also fully fund special education. Dean said it was essesntial - and cost efficient - to invest in children from birth to age 3. He said an early effort in education and adequate care for new mothers would lead to a reduction in tha nation's prison population. In Vermont, Dean said, new mothers were offered a home visit by a nurse. At $100 a pop, Dean said they were worth every penny.


One last bit.

Ms. Dottie Bragdon, a Dean supporter, had some comments about Dean's very public gaffes. Bragdon said they remind her of when Bush gets tongue-tied or misspeaks. "I hate Bush's, but I don't mind his," she said of Dean. "He seems to speak out of it." Ms. Bragdon also also said that he(Dean) is an honest man, a sincere man who is well-intentioned.


Thanks for this piece go to the aforementioned Jennifer Skalka, and to my sister Melissa for helping me to assemble this piece. A round of pure bs drinks to all.

Friday, January 02, 2004

JSwift sent me these two related links.

WaPo reported yesterday, according to the article date, that there may not have been a crime committed in the outing of Valerie Plame by the still mysterious 'senior White House Officials.'

Here's a nibble:


Justice Could Decide Leak Was Not a Crime


CRAWFORD, Tex., Jan.1 -- The Justice Department investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity could conclude that administration officials disclosed the woman's name and occupation to the media but still committed no crime because they did not know she was an undercover operative, legal experts said this week.

"It could be embarrassing but not illegal," said Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when Congress passed the law protecting the identities of undercover agents.

The three-month-old investigation entered a new phase Tuesday when Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself and the Justice Department announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago. Democratic presidential candidates complained that the change came too late and did too little to protect against a conflict of interest.

President Bush, when asked Thursday about the probe, said he did not know why Ashcroft had recused himself now.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 specifies that the revelation is a crime only if the accused leaker knew the person was a covert agent. The July newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that touched off the investigation did not specify that Valerie Plame was working undercover, but said she was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." That raises the possibility that the senior administration officials he quoted did not know Plame's status.

"The fact that she was undercover is a classified fact, so it would not be unusual for people to know that she was agency but not know she was undercover," Toensing said. ...Double linked for your protection


I'm sure that others have commented on this. I don't know whether or not the White House is floating this to see how it plays, or just what the hell is going on. Bush is claiming that he doesn't know why his AG has recused himself at this juncture? I don't claim to know the law well enough to know what is actionable, but this really stinks. Reaganitis in Bush the younger?

And I also received a link to this Time article:

The CIA Agent Flap: FBI Asks for Reporters to Talk

Investigators are pressing Administration officials to let journalists tell whatever they know about the leak of a CIA agent's identity

By JOHN F. DICKERSON AND VIVECA NOVAK

FBI investigators looking into the criminal leak of a CIA agent’s identity have asked Bush Administration officials including senior political adviser Karl Rove to release reporters from any confidentiality agreements regarding conversations about the agent. If signed, the single-page requests made over the last week would give investigators new ammunition for questioning reporters who have so far, according to those familiar with the case, not disclosed the names of administration officials who divulged that Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, worked for the CIA.

While irregular, the move is not unprecedented. Various officials were told from the start that such a request might be made. Along with the recusal this week of Attorney General John Ashcroft, this suggests that investigators are ready to enter the next stage of the probe. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been named special prosecutor to oversee the inquiry. The FBI has already extensively re-interviewed some White House officials using emails and phone logs from their search to press for the identity of the leaker. “They are taking this very seriously,” says one close to the case.


Here's a bit more:

It's plain that White House officials are under some pressure to sign the documents. "They can't refuse," said one individual who's familiar with the case. "The worst thing to be accused of here is not cooperating with the investigation." But reporters are not likely to feel the same pressure. Journalists rarely divulge the identities of confidential sources even when threatened with contempt citations so the releases may make little difference. Still, in a post-9/11 world, a case involving the disclosure of a covert agent's identity could be taken very seriously by a judge, who would have the power to jail a member of the press for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury.
Same drill, more at link.


Two articles, two rather different perspectives. In the first, it appears that we'll only have a crime if the leaker can be proven to have known that Ms. Plame was a covert operative before the leak took place.

In the second article the reporting seems a but more forceful. How this relates to the investigation I've nary a clue. It does make for more exciting reading.

As an American citizen, it is my hope that the leaker(s) are brought to justice. It has appeared from the beginning that the Bush administration would try to soft-pedal this issue. I would not be surprised if this investigation resulted in a no-fault outcome. I don't think that there's much disagreement as to why Valerie Plame's name was leaked. Is it now going to fall to murky issues of who knew what, and when they knew it? Is one dot, unable to be connected, going to foil all of this?

The above scenario looks to be a good possibility.

If this makes no sense, it is partly due to the fact that I am working in a client's project and wanted to at least get the links out there for you to peruse.


I was just at Eschaton and Atrios linked to this.

I don't know if Atrios knows what "eschaton' actually means(although I strongly suspect that he does). I know he has that little "Why Eschaton?" link on the bottom left corner of his site, which brings you here, but eschatology is that rather bizarre branch of theology -- basically Christian I believe -- that concerns itself with the Second Coming and The End Times.

Echaton comes for the Greek "eschatos" which means last. And Eschaton is the worldly return of Jesus.

I am anything but a Bibliophile. I have no supernatural beliefs whatever. Pure bs is a non-prophet weblog.

It is time. Time for me to give a shout to the Center for American Progress. They've done a great job in a very few short months.

On their front page, you'll find one of my personal interests(no pun intended). That is a personal savings plan. Personally, I pay myself, in the form of retirement savings prior to paying any other bills. I truly do consider my allocations for retirement bills due. This way, I always pay them.

For most Americans this is not the case. The Center has some well though out plans to get everyday Americans to save. Or save more.

If you want to jump right to the articles regarding personal savings, the links are here(main), here, and here.

I think that this is an issue that Congress should take the lead on. Anything that can work towards giving one peace of mind during the latter stages of their lives is an issue that all of us can understand.

If we do not act soon, retirement for most Americans will no longer be known as the 'golden years.' It may just be the most frightening time of their lives. No one needs that. Particularly when faced with physical and mental declines as well.

Let us act now. For all of our futures.

Yes, Mars has been all the rage as of late, but there is a lot more going on in astronomy than the familiar red planet. According to this short piece in The Australian, offers the following:

....According to Charles Lineweaver, writing in Science, there are four ingredients needed to create complex life: the presence of a host star (such as the Sun), enough heavy elements (carbon, oxygen and nitrogen) to form a planet, sufficient time for biological evolution (at least four billion years in the case of Earth) and the absence of life-destroying supernovae (the explosive deaths of massive stars). Using a computer program developed by Yeshe Fenner, an astrophysics PhD student at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, the pair, with colleague Brad Gibson, threw these ingredients into the mix and came up with the "Galactic Habitable Zone".

Earth's solar system falls within the habitable zone, but is younger and further from the galactic centre than the average complex-life-bearing planet. Dr Lineweaver, a research astronomer at the University of NSW, compared their findings with the search for signs of life on Mars.

"Ten years ago, the people who knew the surface of Mars the best said where water was most likely to be - Mars missions are now following their maps," he said. "We are publishing the same thing here for the entire galaxy."


Ambitious, no? Continuing:

Swinburne's Professor Gibson said no one had observed any of the Earth-like stars pinpointed in the study.

But two, billion-dollar-plus satellite missions planned for 2015 - by NASA and the European Space Agency - will target Earth-like planets.


With all of the strife and useless expenditure of energy on devising ever more efficient ways of killing one another(mini nujes, Mr. Bush and Congress?), it does one good to know that there are those that are expanding the frontiers in the honorable pursuit of knowledge.

On Edit: It just occurred to me that the late great Stephen J. Gould might add another condition necessary to promote the evolution of higher life forms. This condition would be irregular impact events, such as that of a comet or asteroid. I state this because at all of the major extinction boundaries recorded in the strata, there is at least some evidence of an impact event. The very last event at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary set the stage for human evolution. What does this have to do with Gould? It was Gould and Niles Eldridge that first proposed "punctuated equilibria" as an adjunctive position to classical Darwinian evolution. As you can infer from the term, punctuated equilibria is a theory that more or less states, that species, once adapted to their environment, are likely to stay in that form for extended periods of time until environmental pressures, -- an impact event would certainly alter the environment with great immediacy -- or geographic seperation leads to extinction of the formerly well suited forms and their replacement by new forms. I know that this is very wordy, but I really haven't touched the surface of the topic. See the link above for more color.

In keeping with our financial tone for the day -- at least to this point -- I offer you this, via The Nation

Cheney, Halliburton, alleged bribery..You know the drill. Follow the money.

(I saw this last week, and somehow neglected to make an entry. Hat tip for the wake-up call to The Smirking Chimp)

Will the French Indict Cheney?

by Doug Ireland

Yet another sordid chapter in the murky annals of Halliburton might well lead to the indictment of Dick Cheney by a French court on charges of bribery, money-laundering and misuse of corporate assets.

At the heart of the matter is a $6 billion gas liquification factory built in Nigeria on behalf of oil mammoth Shell by Halliburton--the company Cheney headed before becoming Vice President--in partnership with a large French petroengineering company, Technip. Nigeria has been rated by the anticorruption watchdog Transparency International as the second-most corrupt country in the world, surpassed only by Bangladesh.

One of France's best-known investigating magistrates, Judge Renaud van Ruymbeke--who came to fame by unearthing major French campaign finance scandals in the 1990s that led to a raft of indictments--has been conducting a probe of the Nigeria deal since October. And, three days before Christmas, the Paris daily Le Figaro front-paged the news that Judge van Ruymbeke had notified the Justice Ministry that Cheney might be among those eventually indicted as a result of his investigation. More at link.


Ah, yes. That liberal media at work again. Please take the few minutes to read the entire article, and then reread it until you have all of the players and their positions right. If our media were a watchdog rather than a lapdog(no offense to lovers of lapdogs), they'd be all over this. I have stored the article on a local drive, so that I can bring this issue to the attention of some folks. Living in New Hampshire during a presidential election year has a few perks.
Pure bs ahead of the curve again!

Last week after John Ashcroft recused himself from the Plame investigation, we at pure bs noted that Ashcroft's successor was another Bush appointed lackey, and as much as we wanted to think differently, would not "be a Hyde-Jeckyll transformation. We also noted that the media was doing staying with the script by not asking any hard questions, and that much of the starch had gone out of this issue due to the Bush Administration's, "soft-pedaling" of the issue. Now we have company.

Don't Be Fooled

It seems it is all too easy to get caught up in the holiday spirit. How else to explain the reaction of the normally astute Senator Charles Schumer to the news that Attorney General Ashcroft has finally done what the New York Times lauds as "the right thing."

Schumer is quoted in today's Times as seeing the glass "three-quarters full" in light of Ashcroft's decision to recuse himself from the investigation of the deliberate blowing of the cover of CIA official Valerie Plame, and the decision to appoint US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as "special counsel" to investigate that felony.

Howard Dean labeled the maneuver "too little, too late." I fear Dean is right.

Even the Times, in its "Right Thing" editorial, notes that "there are still serious questions about the investigation," namely, will Fitzgerald have "true operational independence." The odds are strongly against it.

Let not yesterday's maneuver obscure the fact that in naming Fitzgerald, who remains under the authority of Ashcroft's deputy, the Bush administration has rejected the only appropriate course – naming a complete outsider to be special counsel.

Why has that path been rejected? One need not be paranoid to see this latest move as evidence the White House has something very sensitive to hide. Has one of their senior officials committed a felony, endangered lives, and vitiated the ability of a senior intelligence official to use her net of agents to acquire critical information on weapons of mass destruction (Valerie Plame's portfolio)?

But a fellow named Patrick Fitzgerald, like myself from Irish immigrant stock in New York City? And out of Harvard Law School? Surely, one should be encouraged, I caught myself thinking. I truly wish I could be. But I have seen far too many FBI lawyers of New York Irish stock with misplaced loyalty to the organization over the law; over the truth; over personal conscience. Respect for and fealty to hierarchy was drummed into us; individual conscience generally played second fiddle.

Past experience strongly suggests that if Fitzgerald is told to string the investigation out until after the November election, he may well oblige. If he is told to pin the blame on White House small fry willing to take the fall, he may do it.

Besides, Fitzgerald arrives on the scene months after the Ollie North memorial shredder has done its work. Recall that when it was announced that the Justice department would investigate it was made clear that the formal order requiring administration officials to save all relevant documents would come a day or two later. Imagine the heat rising from the shredder machines that weekend. And recall how the White House counsel then insisted on reviewing all documents before they could be given to the Justice department. More at link.


The U.S. Economy: Always confusing, Always Amusing

Forget about the Snow job you'll be fed by our train conductor in the Administration. If you really want to effectively gauge how the economy is doing, you can do so by looking at a very few key trends. Numbers mean nothing. They are static and only give you a snapshot, rather than a movie.

Today's better than expected ISM Report(Institute for Supply Management) is encouraging, but it is the trend that moves markets. The trend in U.S. manufacturing looks very healthy, but will at some point stall. There is even an uptick in the ISM's employment index, which has now been positive for two months.

It appears that the much discussed 'economic recovery' is indeed a reality.

It is the quality of the recovery that is troubling. The housing boom appears to have a few cracks in its quite remarkable armor, as evidenced by slowing growth in single family mortgage applications reported by the Economic Cycle Research Institute. Although still very strong, this important indicator has slipped. Consumers are burdened with record levels of personal debt, and our real earning power is in decline. I don't see earnings power improving in any reasonable time period.

All of this is well and good, but what are those few indicators, Todd? Okay, I'll tell you. The one leading indicator that will tell you as much as any ten economic theories is the trend in the price of copper. Yes, that reddish common metal is a very strong indicator of economic trends. Copper is still trending upward, and is almost always correct as a leading indicator of economic trends.

The other one indicator is actually two rolled into one. Jobs, and earnings. A trailing indicator, as companies wait to see 'real' improvement before they begin new, or replacement, hires.

Contrary to much of the rhetoric of the GOP, U.S. real jobs and earnings growth isn't anywhere near historical levels this far into a recovery. This is going to really test the strength of this economic cycle. The quality of earnings -- the amount that one earns, and what those earnings will purchase -- is troubling as well. In order to remain competitive in world makrets, many of the best paying jobs have left the U.S. and are simply not going to return. The service sector has been bleeding jobs over the past couple of years, whilst the manufacturing sector has been loding jobs over the past 30 years.

Short term, this is what I see. A slowdown of economic growth beginning in the second quarter of 2004. A marked decline in housing prices at some point. I have no idea how long the current bubble in housing prices will last, but I am confident that the market will correct. This is the short term view. Pretty neutral overall.

Big wildcard: The U.S. dollar. I have no idea how fast and how far the buck will go. Currency devaluation could easily undermine any recovery.

Longer term, I see trouble. Once the boomers start retiring in droves, you will see a period of rapid economic change. Social Security increases will be a certainty given the massive voting bloc of retiring boomers. Housing prices are likely to fall precipitously as the boomers move into smaller quarters. Some areas of the country will be a true depression due to the exodus of the boomers.

Of course you can plan for this transition. Keep your eyes focused on both the big picture and the smaller details. The aging of America will be dampened by immigration, but this is likely to be a small part of the economic picture.

That's the view from a completely armchair economist. I know I'll be wrong about some of this, perhaps all. But some of these are real trends and are not going to go away.


Does Krugman Read Pure Bs?

Evidence that the Princeton Professor Populist Pundit Peruses Pure!

From today's NYT editorial page comes this:

Who's Nader Now?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 2, 2004

In the 2000 election, in a campaign that seemed driven more by vanity than by any realistic political vision, Ralph Nader did all he could to undermine Al Gore — even though Mr. Gore, however unsatisfying to the Naderites, was clearly a better choice than the current occupant of the White House.

Now the Democratic Party has its own internal spoilers: candidates lagging far behind in the race for the nomination who seem more interested in tearing down Howard Dean than in defeating George Bush.

The truth — which one hopes voters will remember, whoever gets the nomination — is that the leading Democratic contenders share a lot of common ground. Their domestic policy proposals are similar, and very different from those of Mr. Bush.

Even on foreign policy, the differences are less stark than they may appear. Wesley Clark's critiques of the Iraq war are every bit as stinging as Mr. Dean's. And looking forward, I don't believe that even the pro-war candidates would pursue the neocon vision of two, three, many Iraq-style wars. Mr. Bush, who has made preemptive war the core of his foreign policy doctrine, might do just that.

Yet some of Mr. Dean's rivals have launched vitriolic attacks that might as well have been scripted by Karl Rove. And I don't buy the excuse that it's all about ensuring that the party chooses an electable candidate.

It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same to any Democrat — even Joseph Lieberman. Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads.

Mr. Dean's character will also come under attack. But this, too, will happen to any Democrat. If we've learned anything in this past decade, it's that the right-wing scandal machine will find a way to smear anyone, and that a lot of the media will play along. A year ago, when John Kerry was the presumptive front-runner, he came under assault — I am not making this up — over the supposed price of his haircuts. Sure enough, a CNN host solemnly declared him in "denial mode."

That's not to say that a candidate's qualifications don't matter: it would be nice if Mr. Dean were a decorated war hero. But there's nothing in the polling data suggesting that Mr. Dean is less electable than his Democratic rivals, with the possible exception of General Clark. Mr. Dean's rivals may well believe that he will lose the election if he is nominated. But it's inexcusable when they try to turn that belief into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Let me suggest a couple of ground rules. First, while it's O.K. for a candidate to say he's more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn't pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance. Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a "conventional Washington politician" was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark.

More important, a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival. Yet after Mr. Dean declared that Saddam's capture hadn't made us safer — a statement that seems more justified with each passing day — Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's "spider hole" was completely beyond the pale.)

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president. Link


The evidence is startling. I really can't go back through my periods of relatively few posts and dig up the pertinent data, but I can elucidate the positions put down on hard drive by pure bs.

1) The "Goring" of Howard Dean. I had never seen the term used before, and I use it repeatedly as a verb to describe both the attacks upon Dean and any democrat by the press or others. "Goring" is a mis-representation of an individual's postion. I used campaign 2000 as a template for the definition. You may remember the RWEC(Right Wing Echo Chamber) and the SCLM(So Called Liberal Media)'s very effective campaign to smear Gore by telling us that he was constantly "re-inventing" himself to saying he had a pathology. See Bob Somerby's Daily Howler for details of the Beltway Brats' campaign 2000 smearing of Gore.

2) Nader. Not only his spoiling of the 2000 election, but his continued meddling in the 2004 election. Nader's "Exporatory Committee" even after Nader's pledge NOT to run unless he garnered 5% of the vote in 2000. Nader got something on the order of 3.5% of the vote. Pure bs has also asked, "where are Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan?" Buchanan should be up for another run, as he has lost his TV gig.

3) The democrat's determined auto-destructiveness. Here at pure bs, we have chronicled the similarity of the declared democrats positions on the issues. Even Lieberman, a man many have called "Republican Lite" has many progressive stances, although this would rightly be looked upon with a skeptical eye. Lieberman's obsequiousness to the GOP, and the difference between his current rhetoric, and his past voting record leave one to question his commitment to progressive causes. But his current stance on most key democratic issues is similar to the other delared candidates.

Of course I was joking about Krugman reading this obscure blog. But I thank the 800 or so visitors I've had since I installed the site meter on December 24, 2003.

Thursday, January 01, 2004

From the Dept. of "all you people who said it was about oil are moonbat conspiracy theorists" comes this from that other ultra-secretive administration of the last 30 years.

Petrochemical Crisis from Another Time

Documents Show U.S. Considered Using Force During Oil Embargo

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

LONDON, Jan. 1 — The United States government seriously contemplated using military force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during the Arab oil embargo of 30 years ago, according to a declassified British government document made public today.

The top-secret document reveals that the United States government, under President Richard M. Nixon, was prepared to act more aggressively than previously thought to secure America's oil supply, if tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors continued to escalate after the October 1973 Mideast war or the oil embargo did not abate. In fact, the embargo did peter out, by March 1974.

If this "dark scenario" played out, the British memorandum continued, the United States would consider launching airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi. The use of military force would be a measure of "last resort," the document said.

Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger delivered the warning to the British Ambassador in Washington, Lord Cromer, the documents show. Lord Cromer quoted Mr. Schlesinger as saying "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."

The seizure of the oil fields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking when they refer to the use of force," said the intelligence memorandum. This "has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning."

The potential for conflict was taken so seriously by British intelligence that it wrote a report assessing the situation and listing the likeliest scenarios for the use of force and their consequences. The report, dated Dec. 12, 1973, was titled "U.K. Eyes Alpha" and was sent to Prime Minister Edward Heath, a Conservative, by Percy Cradock, head of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee. But a few months later, in March 1974, the embargo petered out.

The memorandum was one of hundreds of documents released by Britain's National Archives under a law that makes government papers public after 30 years. Details of the declassified document were reported in today's issue of The Washington Post.

The exchange between Mr. Schlesinger and Lord Cromer came on the heels of the three-week war between Israel and Egypt and Syria in October 1973. Arab members of OPEC imposed the oil embargo to try to pressure the United States and other Western nations to force Israel to withdraw from Arab land.

The oil embargo lasted almost half a year. It led to sharp increases in the price of fuel and long lines at gasoline stations, and prompted Washington to question its reliance on Arab oil in a region long known for its instability and insularity.

As recounted by Lord Cromer, Mr. Schlesinger said the United States was unwilling to abide threats by "under-developed, under-populated" countries.

The documents did not rule out the possibility that Washington would consider pre-emptive strikes if Arab governments, "elated by the success of the oil weapon," began issuing greater demands. "The U.S. government might consider that it could not tolerate a situation in which the U.S. and its allies were in effect at the mercy of a small group of unreasonable countries."

As outlined, military action would be relatively straightforward; two brigades were seen as needed to seize the Saudi oil fields and one each for Kuwait and Abu Dhabi. In the case of Abu Dhabi, the Americans would perhaps ask for British military cooperation.

The greatest threat would arise in Kuwait, "where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene," the document stated.

The British warned in their assessment that any occupation of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi might have to last as long as 10 years. The use of force would also anger and alienate Arab countries and irritate the Soviet Union, although a military confrontation with the country would be unlikely, the document stipulated.

Discontent among Western allies was also cited as a possible consequence of military intervention. "Since the United States would probably claim to be acting for the benefit of the West as a whole and would expect the full support of allies, deep U.S.-European rifts could ensue," it said.

The oil embargo fizzled in March 1974 and Israel and Egypt later went on to sign a peace agreement.

A separate document, also just released, illustrated Mr. Heath's profound anger toward President Nixon, when Mr. Nixon failed to inform him he was putting United States forces on a global nuclear alert during the war in the Middle East.

Mr. Heath went so far as to suggest that Mr. Nixon was attempting to deflect attention away from Watergate. "An American president in the Watergate position apparently prepared to go to such lengths at a moment's notice without consultation with his allies," Mr. Heath wrote in the document, adding that there was no "military justification" for it at the time.

The alert was ordered after Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev warned that he might send Soviet forces into the Middle East after Israeli forces crossed the Suez Canal. The Israelis eventually pulled out. NYT Link


I wonder what sort of actual dialogue took place outside of earshot during this affair. Oh, to be a fly on a wall.

Nah, the U.S. would never consider using military force if 'our' strategic interests were at stake. Never.

Semantics shemantics! -- Or maybe something more.

What is the difference between a terrorist/freedom fighter/insurgent/opposition force/guerilla and Superman?

The difference is in how another person/group sees them. That's essentially all there is. Ideologically all of the above believe that their mission is the one that is just. The same can be said for state actors as well. Much of the rest of the world views the U.S. government as the biggest sponsor of terror that has ever existed. Americans typically do not see themselves as terrorist sponsors, but to dismiss this out of hand is truly arrogant.

These pages have chronicled the disconnect between the two opposing viewpoints. Today's 'sole supporter in the region,' becomes tomorrows most hated opponent without any real change in either camps policies or ideologies.

I have been a critic of U.S. foreign policy all of my adult life. We make monsters, and then have to expend many lives -- the vast majority of which are innocents -- to eradicate them when they no longer suit the purpose de jour.

When nearly all of the balance of the planet believes -- rightly or wrongly -- that the U.S. is the biggest danger to world peace, shouldn't we be obligated as citizens of planet earth to ask ourselves why this is so? I think the glaring answer is yes.

The world came crashing in on 11 September 2001. Do we as a society have any more of a clear sense as to what motivated these admittedly crazed people to do what they did? No. We do not. Our leaders react with infantile phrases such as, "they hate our freedoms." We deserve better than this.

We went to war against two countries, and have killed tens of thousands of people -- both combatants and innocents -- and still our most basic questions remain unanswered. Blind nationalism is not very far removed from religious extremism.

The jingoistic fervor in the US and our taste for blood have left us no safer after the overthrow of two governments. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and the blood of our countrymen for what? Your government either can't or won't tell you the real reasons we went into Iraq. It was not to remove a threat to the west, or even a threat to the region. We are an angry nation, and someone has to pay. Iraq has been at the top of a short list of strategic opponents to remove since 1991. I do not think it mattered that Saddam Hussein had fallen into disfavor with Washington.

Saddam had a few more interesting vulnerabilities to exploit. He, and his Ba'athist regime had once not only possessed chemical weapons, but actually used them at least twice. Once against a common foe, Iran, and then against his own populace. It is on record that then President Ronald Reagan sent a younger special envoy, a Donald Rumsfeld, to Iraq post gassing in part to allay Saddam's concerns that Saddam had over the use of war gases. It was the Congress that had the most serious objections, but Reagan held those lily livered congresspersons at bay, and the issue soon fell off the radar. Saddam's once vaunted military machine had also been effectively neutered by the 1991 Gulf War and a decade of US imposed sanctions, and thus was supposed to be an easy test of the, 'Bush Doctrine.' Third, Iraq sits atop the second largest known reserves of oil in the world. A few military bases in this important area could prove invaluable. All of these factors were known and the wrath of a gullible, angry US populace and Congress took the bait and we went to war under spurious conditions. By playing off of our collective fear, we sent our young to die, and to kill others.

Rarely are things as simple as those outside of the loop of knowledge appear to be. Iraq is now in a fight to stay together as a country, and with Bush seeking election -- he really didn't win the election last time round, but was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5 - 4 ruling -- we have moved up the timetable in Iraq from some number of years to this June to hand over power to some form of Iraqi governing body. This is unabashed election year posturing. Iraq is by all accounts in jeopardy of fracturing into three states, Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Once the US withdraws the reasons for these groups to stay together in a unified Iraq are likely to be trumped by tribal differences and civil war may ensue.

This is a sobering bit of history. Now, an objective observer can only be ingenuos in labeling the Gulf War redux, a dismal, expensive, and bloody experiment. An experiment in a bold, new U.S.-centric policy that failed. All evidence points to a less stable, more dangerous world since our invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is early, and this situation may change, but without any evidence that this has occurred, we must accept the fact that the Iraq war was damaging to our vital allies in the true battle against terrorism, and that the expenditure of resources in Iraq has left us more vulnerable as a result. It is multilateralism, in the form of increased intelligence, and intelligence sharing that is the best bet to stem the tide of international terrorism. The U.S. needs to mend fences with our true allies, those that didn't go into Iraq because their intel was correct. If these other intelligence services had better information then, it makes sense from any standpoint to utilize and share intelligence with them now...More importantly than at any time since World War II.

But even now, while Baghdad still burns, we are on notice that Richard Perle, who is on record as saying that the Iraq war was illegal under international law to which the U.S. is a signatory, has come out with a neo-con wish list of countries with which to get tough. I'll post links to the two articles at the end of this screed.

If I may condense all of this into an easy 'made for TV' soundbite, it would be this: Your government may not be lying to you, but it's a certainty that you are not being told the entire truth.

Links:

Richard Perle's admission that the Iraq war was illegal

Perle again -- his "manual for victory" in the war on terror(Neo-con wish list).

Please don't forget to look with skepticism at those that beat the drums for war most loudly in a time when wars 'of choice' are being debated. These are likely to be of two camps. Those that can profit in some way, and those who themselves have never seen real combat. By profit, I do not necessarily mean financially, either directly or indirectly, but also those wishing to have their theories validated. If you look VERY closely, you'll often find the key players have all of these characteristics.

Before I close, I'd like to add this:

Eight killed in New Year's Eve bombing of popular Baghdad restaurant

The New Year's Eve car bombing of an upscale Baghdad restaurant, which killed eight people, was a sign that opponents of the U.S.-led occupation forces may be shifting to civilian targets, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

The so-called "hard targets" in Baghdad -- like coalition complexes and Iraqi police stations -- are increasingly well guarded, pushing insurgents toward soft targets, like Nabil Restaurant, said a U.S. military officer with the 1st Armored Division. He spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"When terrorists can target coalition forces or Iraqi police," they will, said Lt. Gen. Ahmed Kadhem, deputy Iraqi interior minister and Baghdad chief of police. "If they can't, they go to an easier target, aiming at civilians."

He said security was being increased around hospitals and government buildings and called on schools to put up checkpoints and keep cars off their campuses.

Assailants have previously bombed civilian targets, including the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Both organizations pulled most of their foreign staff out of Iraq after those deadly attacks. Much more.


The situation on the ground in Iraq is not remotely safe for man nor beast.

I did not mention Afghanistan in the above. That is due to two reasons. One, I was supporter of military action against al-Qaeda. Two, I wrote this as a stream of conscience and 'that other hell' that is Afghanistan, never entered my mind.

I'll try and be more cogent in the future(it was New Year's eve just last night) I'm a bit off today.

What future opponents are we supporting today?


Happy New Year!

Wednesday, December 31, 2003

From the Dept. of "No, That's not What We Meant, " comes this:

Hawks tell Bush how to win war on terror
By David Rennie in Washington


President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.

In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.

Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.

Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities. Much more at link.


Okay, so let me get this straight. Richard Perle, who bluntly said the invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal, and his ideological comrades, are NOW telling the ever pliable Mr. Bush that what they are now proposing is the way to win the war on terror. I see. I think that the country should pass on this one. The neo-cons haven't been correct on a sinlge issue. From the costs/forces needed to enforce a police action in Iraq to 'welcomed with flowers.'

These cold war relics should be dumped onto the garbage heap of 20th century failed ideologies. Of course Perle and Co. want perma war. They'll personally profit handsomely, whilst the country is crushed under a mountain of debt. Fuckin' traitors.


From pure bs' Dept. of Odd Facts v2003 we offer this list, courtesy of the Washington Post. pure bs' comments in quotation marks.

One Life

HOT SPRINGS, Ark. -- The former Robert Craft, who changed his legal name to Jack Ass in 1997 and founded the Hearts Across America campaign that encouraged people to put up big red "healing hearts" along highways, shot himself with a hunting rifle last week in a yard used for automobile storage. He was 45.

"Winning hearts and guns for Jesus since 1997." (sorry, that was off-color)

Super Di

NEW YORK -- A U.S. comic book publisher has decided to let Princess Diana rest in peace, dropping plans to reincarnate her as a mutant comic superhero.

"They won't let Di just."

All Together Now

PENSACOLA, Fla. -- A police officer resigned after a teenager complained that he made her do jumping jacks while topless to avoid arrest.

"A moving violation." Bad cop. Bad.

Plastic Faith

ESHER, England -- The world's first inflatable church opened its Gothic arches to worshipers to reveal a blow-up organ, a polyvinyl pulpit, an air-filled altar and fake stained glass windows.

"'A blow up organ?' The perfect companion for the pneumatic woman in your life."

Special Request

YOKOHAMA, Japan -- A man was arrested for intimidation after repeatedly threatening to blow up a pop radio station for failing to play his favorite songs.

"Intimidation, eh? You must have really bad taste in music to be arrested for it."

Getting Religion

PUTNEY, Ky. -- A man converted his sex toy shop to a Christian bookstore.

"Oh, oh, ohhhhhhhh, GLORY!!"

Shallow Proposal

DANVILLE, Va. -- A city councilman intent on cost-cutting argued that cash-strapped Danville could realize major savings by making graves at city cemeteries only five feet deep instead of the standard six.

"They split the difference." Ugh.

They Have Noses?

BERLIN -- Human sperm become excited when exposed to the scent of lily of the valley, doubling their speed and homing in on the aroma, a German scientist said last Wednesday.

An entire years worth of weirdness for the taking.


Happy New Year.

I have just been noticed by Google..Yay!! I blog purely for fun. Blogging does give me a better sense of what is happening in the world. I'm always looking for stories that the mass media either doesn't report, or underreports, therefore I do a lot more reading of lengthy and short news items during the course of the day than would otherwise be the case.

As of late..Say in the past few days, I have been made aware of a whole new blogging sub-culture. This group of bloggers, and there are many as this has grown into a cottage industry, have been playing Google for PageRank in order to turn their blogs into money making enterprises. There are blogs that are worthy of 'pay per view,' but like all media, these are few in number.

The rest are merely easy entertainment at best, and hateful vile things at worst. The best writing quality seems to stem from left of center blogs(is it really left of center, or just in the US?). Of the unpaid bloggers, Dave Neiwert's Orcinus, Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, Marcos Zuniga's daily KOS, and Bob Somerby's Daily Howler are standouts, but by no means is this a definitive list. I rarely have a chance to read other peoples' blogs, but when I do, these are at the top of a very short list.

There are of course paid bloggers. The only two that I read on regular basis are Eric Alterman's Altercation on MSNBC and Joe Conason's Joe Conason's Journal hosted by Salon.com. Speaking of Salon, an extra special mention goes out to Michelle Goldberg for her always entertaining yet informative prose.

What is the point to this post? The point is that a good many people are publishing some exceptional material with nothing but a tip-jar out, while others post blather and hope to be recognized(I'd be in this list, an engineer out of his element) by gaming Google and -- believe it or not -- selling advertising and/or links due to their unwarranted PageRank. Then there are those professional journalists talented enough to make a living, or at least supplement their income, by professional blogging.

If you want to do something nice in 2004, give to charity. And give to those bloggers that have enriched, entertained or educated you....maybe even accomplishing a 'hat-trick.'

Happy New Year to all,

Todd


This Just In: N.Y. police official: "Don't let terrorists win"

Lock-up Limbaugh now! Because every time a shlock jock gets a buzz from Oxycontin, you know who wins.

All kidding aside here's more:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- With tightened security across the nation for New Year's Eve celebrations, officials in New York are urging people to go out and party despite a heightened terror alert.

CNN's Soledad O'Brien discussed security with New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly as preparations got under way Wednesday for one of the best-known New Year's events, the gathering at Times Square.

A rather boring Q & A follows.


In the "You Don't Always Get your Money's Worth" Dept. comes this via the ever dubious al-Jazeera.

An Israeli soldier who three days ago mistakenly shot and seriously wounded a Jewish demonstrator in the northern West Bank has told interrogators he thought he was shooting a Palestinian, not a Jew.

"I am sorry, I never thought I was shooting at Jews, I would never shoot a Jew," the soldier reportedly said.

It continues......

Shooting Palestinians is "different"

However, when another Knesset member further asked YaÂ’alon if shooting a Palestinian would have been legitimate under the same circumstances, he sought to dodge the question, arguing that "the army deals differently with the Palestinians."

"Soldiers feel threatened by Palestinians and open fire when they feel threatened. This is not the same when soldiers deal with Jews."

Israeli occupation troops have shot and killed hundreds of Palestinians and a number of international activists in controversial circumstances, prompting human rightsorganizationss to accuse the Israeli army of adopting a “shoot-to-kill” policy in the occupied territories.

Earlier this year, the Israeli Hebrew paper Ha'aretz, published a report showing up to 80% of Palestinians killed by the Israeli army since the outbreak of Al-Aqsa Intifada, were either innocent civilians or people who played no role in the hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians.


I have always tried to remain neutral in the Palestinian/Israeli issue. However, it has become increasingly clear to me that both sides are too afraid to sit down and hammer out a settlement(no pun intended).

At this juncture I propose giving no further aid to either side until an agreement has been reached. Draconian? Sure. But I believe it to be the only effective way to deal with this issue. I'll bet that an agreement could be worked out in one day.

Cutting funding is a tremendous motivator. I know, I have relied on grant money in the past to fund research.

No one is Washington is really serious about ending this war. If they were, it could be done with remarkable speed and permanancy.

Our special relationship with Israel is, and always has been a pretty much one way street. The answer to this absurd loss of life on both sides is crystal clear. It is time for action. End this strife now.
Dr. Tim Berners-Lee to be Knighted

Very cool. I have read all of the news announcements concerning his contribution to the World Wide Web, and in typical media fashion, the accounts are part truth, part myth. Dr. Lee continues to be involved in W3, the World Wide Web Consortium standards body.

For a full bio. of Sir Tim's accomplishments, try W3's truer version here. To show you that no man is an island, try Internet Pioneers.

Tuesday, December 30, 2003

pure bs -- breaking news!

U.S. Upgrades Nation's Mad Cow Defenses

Mad Cows to be equipped with missile defense systems such as the Raytheon Patriot II..Oh wait. Nevermind.

Here's the story:

WASHINGTON - The Agriculture Department dramatically upgraded the country's defenses against mad cow disease Tuesday, banning meat from all so-called downer cows and promising to create a nationwide animal tracking system, steps long advocated by critics.

These are "very aggressive actions," Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said Tuesday, one week after the first case of mad cow disease surfaced on U.S. soil in a Washington state Holstein slaughtered on Dec. 9.

The changes will produce more rapid testing of cattle for the presence of mad cow disease, and meat will not be processed until test results are back.

Veneman also said small intestines from cows will no longer be allowed into the U.S. food supply, nor head and spinal tissue from cattle older than 30 months. In addition, the Bush administration is ordering changes in slaughterhouse techniques to prevent meat from being accidentally contaminated with brain or spinal cord tissue that can spread mad cow disease.


Two thing here.

1) If that one animal from the Northwest had made it under the radar, you'd never have herd(har har) of this story.

2) It was international pressure and a promised American beef boycott that brought about these changes.

It's time for ten links of interest!!

1) David Brooks in a synapse stoppingly boring column about public figures changing religious sects. I mean how utterly inane. The Times is paying this guy for coming up with this drivel? Sheesh. In rereading Brooks, I can't help but notice how helplessly out of his element he is in discussing religion.

Snapshot:

"That's because many Americans have tended to assume that all these differences are temporary. In the final days, the distinctions will fade away, and we will all be united in God's embrace. This happy assumption has meant that millions feel free to try on different denominations at different points in their lives, and many Americans have had trouble taking religious doctrines altogether seriously."

Master Brooks obviously hasn't embraced a large GOP voting bloc..The Born Agains. Please send him back to the Weakly Substandard. I'll pay you.

2) Iranian Quake toll estimates soar. Reuters is reporting that the death toll in Iran may exceed 50,000. It's good to see that the U.S. has, for the moment put aside political differences and allowed aid. U.S. military aircraft arrived over the weekend, the first in over 20 years..23 years, I believe.

3) In what has to be one of the oddest headlines the day, The Mercury News is reporting that the current strain of influenza: "Flu deadly, but it lacks star power" How very odd. The article then goes on to detail how skewed our spending priorities are(and this is without taking into account the amount lavished on our military):

WASHINGTON - The flu kills 36,000 Americans a year, but the federal government spends only about half as much money on research to fight it as it spends to attack the boll weevil, a pest that eats cotton.

Other diseases that grab headlines or have advocacy groups or celebrity representatives -- such as AIDS, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease -- kill far fewer people than the inseparable duo of influenza and pneumonia. But the National Institutes of Health spends eight to 100 times more money researching those more prominent diseases than it spends for flu.

This year the federal government is spending about $50 million on flu research at NIH and on tracking and fighting the flu at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That's $100 million less than it spends on persuading people to commute in non-peak traffic hours.

The NIH spends on average about $700 a flu fatality. In contrast, it spends about $12,000 an Alzheimer's death, $14,000 a Parkinson's death and $158,000 an AIDS death. NIH spends $25 million a year on flu research, but it spends $79 million a year researching anthrax, which killed five people in 2001. Flu spending is so modest that it isn't listed on the NIH budgetary breakdown for disease spending.


It looks like the cotton lobby, and the various groups advocating for the BIG diseases are doing a far more effective job than the Flu Dudes. America, what a country. Oh, much more at link.

4) New Scientist is reporting that U.S. beef producers are resisting the banning of crippled cattle. I wonder who's madder, the cattle or the USDA?

Snippet:

The US meat industry is resisting the banning of crippled cattle from human food, despite the discovery of the first case of BSE in an American cow. The infected cow was a crippled or a "downer" cow, injured by the birth of a large calf.

The cow confirmed positive for BSE on 25 December, after it was slaughtered for food in Washington state earlier in the same month. Meat from the cow was recalled and its herd and offspring were quarantined.

The discovery confirms the longstanding warnings of European veterinary experts that BSE could be present in the US. But stringent controls, including banning crippled cattle from human food, have been resisted.

The US Department of Agriculture has been testing some 30,000 US cattle a year for BSE since 2001, targeting downers because European scientists found such cows were most likely to reveal the presence of BSE in a herd. A downer first revealed the presence of BSE in Canadian cattle in May 2003.

Some 20,000 downers are eaten yearly in the US. Canada and European countries have banned such cattle from human consumption. But the US National Cattlemen's Beef Association told journalists this week that it would continue to resist efforts to declare all downers unfit to eat. More Madness at link
.

With a six year incubation period, I'm certainly glad that I don't consume beef. I don't need any malevolent prions messing with my grey matter.

Quick Score: Beef Industry 1 Consumers 0

5) New Scientist at the plate again. 2003: the year in technology. The year gave us everything from novel network nemises AKA worms to weapons acronyms. Lots of links to all the major tech stories from my one link. This internet thing is kinda neat.

6) From the, "Dept. Of Certain to be used as Propaganda," comes this late breaking bit from Iraq via CNN: "BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces operating in the so-called Sunni Triangle -- the region of Iraq most loyal to captured former dictator Saddam Hussein -- found a significant weapons cache that included al Qaeda literature and videotapes, the U.S. military said Tuesday." Surprisingly little more at link. Al Qaeda "literature and videotapes." Hmmmm. Oh, there is a bit more about the large weapons cache, but I think the Qaeda angle is a dead horse. Just a hunch.

7) Cheney may be losing grip over Iraqi oil.

WASHINGTON - The Defense Department is removing the Army Corps of Engineers from overseeing oil imports into Iraq, acting just weeks after Pentagon auditors said Halliburton -- Vice President Dick Cheney former firm -- may have overcharged taxpayers under the Corps' supervision.

The Defense Energy Support Center, which buys fuel for the military throughout the world, will supervise the replacement of Halliburton and the award of a new contract for the imports, the center said Tuesday.

"We're taking over the mission," said the center's spokeswoman, Lynette Ebberts. She would not comment on whether the audit prompted the change, which was ordered Dec. 23.


Lynne Ebberts: 1 Dick Cheney's pacemaker: new Duracell™ batteries.

8) ABC news via the AP reports: Iraq Arms Hunt May Hinder Other U.S. Aims -- AP Enterprise: Fruitless Weapons Search in Iraq Could Hurt Efforts to Curb N. Korea, Other Nations.

BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec. 30 — In nine months, not a single item has been found in Iraq from a long and classified intelligence list of weapons of mass destruction which guided the work of dozens of elite teams from Special Forces, the military, the CIA and the Pentagon during the most secretive, expensive and fruitless weapons hunt in history.

For U.S. allies, arms control experts and some involved in the hunt, the lack of evidence in a war premised on the threat of proliferation will have far reaching consequences in the coming year for the United States in its efforts to curb Iran, North Korea, Syria and others.


Read the whole article. It's really odd. Really.

9) An Army of One. This is a truly bizarre case. Read on.

Army drops charge facing Colorado GI

FORT CARSON - The Army effectively dropped a charge of dereliction of duty against a 32-year-old soldier with the 10th Special Forces Group, a charge that could have put him behind bars for six months.

But Staff Sgt. Georg-Andreas Pogany's military career remains in limbo.

The five-year veteran, who up until this fall had a stellar service record, is waiting to see if the Army will reinstate the charge or bring new ones.

That's because the charge was dropped as part of an offer by the Army to resolve the matter in a so-called Article 15 hearing rather than a court-martial - an offer Pogany refused because of the consequences it could have for his reputation and military career.

Now, it's up to the Army to decide whether to reinstate the charge and proceed with a court-martial.

The matter "could go forward or it could die," said Richard Bridges, a public affairs officer at Fort Carson.

Pogany's legal woes date from early October, when he returned to the United States from Iraq just days after arriving in the U.S.-occupied country and seeing a badly mangled body stuffed inside an open body bag.

Pogany could not purge the image from his mind and began vomiting, shaking and thinking about impending doom. After asking for counseling, he was put on a plane and sent home.

Once back in the U.S., on Oct. 14, Pogany was hit with the rarely used charge of cowardice, a charge that could have been punishable by death. Less than a month later, under the glare of national publicity, the Army decided against going ahead with that charge and replaced it with the lesser dereliction-of-duty charge.

The new charge, too, stung Pogany, and he isn't backing down in a quest to restore his name.

Two weeks ago, he decided against going through with the Article 15 hearing. He asked that his case instead be brought to court- martial - much like a trial in the civilian world, in which a judge or jury decides the suspect's fate.

An Article 15 hearing is a gamble. Although they're often thought of as a slap on the wrist, most Article 15 cases result in a conviction. Not only could a conviction have resulted in military confinement and reduction in pay and rank for Pogany, but a guilty verdict also could have gotten him kicked out of the military.

Moreover, had Pogany gone through with the hearing, his fate would have been decided by the same officer who brought the dereliction charge against him.

"To have the same person now be the judge of an Article 15 I think would make the average person uncomfortable to say the least," said Richard Travis, Pogany's attorney.

Travis, a former military prosecutor, said Pogany is grateful the charge was dismissed and is willing to gamble with a court martial to clear his name should new charges surface.

"It continues to be very stressful on him. Not knowing what the ultimate disposition is, that is stressful," Travis said. But he says Pogany is "ready to go forward," no matter what the Army decides.

Two Army psychologists who spoke with Pogany at length said he has no psychological disorders but showed symptoms consistent with normal combat stress reactions.


I guess a re-up isn't looking like my best career route at present.

10) Wesley Clark, who just last week said he, "would beat the shit out of," anyone questioning his partriotism, today came out swinging for voters' rights. The NYT has the dirt:

In Southern Stop, Clark Promises to Enforce Voting Rights

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Dec. 29 -- Forty years after four black girls were killed in a church bombing here, Gen. Wesley K. Clark visited the same church on Monday and said African-Americans were still in danger of having their votes go uncounted and their voices unheard.

Speaking at the 16th Street Baptist Church on a two-day campaign visit to the South, General Clark said voting rights were a "very personal issue for me," as someone who had grown up in the South and who had supported affirmative action in the armed forces.

He said that if he became the Democratic presidential nominee he would appoint a legal team to monitor the 2004 elections to ensure that problems reported in the contested 2000 election in Florida would not be repeated.

"If anyone is intimidated or turned away from the polls illegally, we will push to prosecute the perpetrators to the full extent of the law," he said. More at link.



And if he has to bust a few heads while he's at it, all the better! Dean/Clark 2K4?

11) I have always believed in many small unmanned space vehicles to that unwieldy space shuttle. Definitely more for your money. It isn't as if NASA has the unlimited budget that the Pentagon does!! On that note, here's the latest on the Mars Probes:

U.S. probes may put Mars back on map -- NASA hopes to land first of 2 craft on Red Planet this week

After five years of American space disasters coupled with triumphant interplanetary discoveries, the first of two new Mars-bound spacecraft will attempt to land on the planet this week and roam the landscape in search of signs that abundant water may once have flowed there -- perhaps to support some unknown forms of life.

Scientists and NASA engineers are buoyed by fresh images showing that the cold and arid Red Planet may once have been warm and wet. Despite all outward appearances, they say, it's possible that liquid water may still lie just beneath the frigid, dusty, bone-dry Martian surface.

Scientists again were unable Sunday to establish communications with Britain's tiny Beagle 2, a space probe that was supposed to begin its search for life on Mars on Christmas Day. If the European effort fails, America's newest robot rover missions may mark the first ventures onto the Martian landscape since the tiny vehicle named Pathfinder first explored a cluster of rocks there for nine months in 1997.

The hazardous and extremely complex effort at two new landings puts the American space program and Mars very much back in the public spotlight, inspiring educational programs and special events celebrating everything Martian at venues across the country, including the Exploratorium science center in San Francisco, the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, and NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View. Scads more red planet stuff at link.


Space Missions: Unmanned and many, not manned and few.

Those are today's ten eleven links of interest somewhat randomly pulled from the web.