BREAKING: BUSH DOCTRINE NIXED!

No more "Strut Proudly and Carry a Codpiece" New Doctrine: "Peace Available. Only 500 Carrots"

Runaway costs cited as reason for policy shift.

U.S. to free 500 Iraqi prisoners as peace "carrot"

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States said on Wednesday it would launch a carrot-and-stick drive to secure lasting peace in Iraq by cracking down harder on guerrillas while freeing hundreds of prisoners deemed low-security threats.

"It is time for reconciliation, time for Iraqis to make common cause," Iraq's U.S. governor Paul Bremer told a news conference.

About 500 Iraqis held as low-level security threats in the last eight months are due to be released. Some 9,000 prisoners are being held by U.S.-led forces and many more have been detained and released since Saddam Hussein was ousted in April.

"In a gesture to give impetus to those Iraqis who wish to reconcile with their countrymen, the (U.S-led) coalition will permit some currently detained offenders to return to their homes and families," said Bremer.

He said those suspected of serious violent crimes would not be freed. "This is not a programme for those with blood-stained hands. No person directly involved in the death or serious bodily harm to any human being will be released."

Adnan Pachachi, president of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, said 100 prisoners would be freed on Thursday and thousands more soon. More at link, doc.

Hard to know what to say. Oops? Those zany Iraqis. They must be lovin' the freedom we've given them.

Mass exctinction underway

Global warming threatens mass extinctions - study

By Alister Doyle

OSLO (Reuters) - Global warming could wipe out a quarter of all species of plants and animals on earth by 2050 in one of the biggest mass extinctions since the dinosaurs, according to an international study.

The United Nations said the report, highlighting threats to creatures ranging from Australian butterflies to Spanish eagles, showed a need for the world to back the Kyoto protocol, meant to brake rising temperatures linked to human pollution.

"A quarter of all species of plants and land animals, or more than a million in all, could be driven to extinction," said Chris Thomas, professor of Conservation Biology at England's University of Leeds.

Thomas, lead author of the study published in the science journal Nature, told Reuters that emissions from cars and factories could push temperatures up to levels not seen for one million to 30 million years by the end of the century, threatening many habitats.

The survey, the largest of its kind to date, studied global warming links to 1,103 species of plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and insects in South Africa, Brazil, Europe, Australia, Mexico and Costa Rica and extrapolated findings as far as 2050. It did not examine the oceans.

"Climate change is the biggest new extinction threat," said Lee Hannah, a co-author, at Conservation International in Washington DC. Many species would simply be unable to adapt or migrate to new habitats.

Thomas said the feared extinctions could be one of the worst since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. "This could be on a par with some of the geologically significant extinctions," he said. Much more at link.

When asked about the phenomon, President Bush said only this, "I've taken mass extinction from the world of them egghead scientists, and brought it right out front of everyday Americans with my sweeping reforms of environmental laws. In fact, it's a cornerstone of my administration."

Meanwhile.....

France Faces Superstitions Head On

PARIS (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac said on Wednesday civil servants should not display religious symbols at work, widening a heated debate as France prepares to ban Islamic headscarves in public schools.

It was the first time Chirac specifically addressed the issue of religious symbols in the civil service though he has made similar comments on schools and hospitals. He said workers in public services had to adhere to principles of neutrality.

"It is evident that no civil servant should display his religious beliefs while carrying out his job," Chirac said in a speech to civil servants.

"It is also evident that basic rules of community life have to be respected: nothing justifies, for example, a patient in hospital refusing to be treated by a doctor of the opposite sex."

France's conservatives plan to rush through a ban on religious symbols such as Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses in public schools, sparking criticism from many religious leaders.

The planned law, aimed mainly at veiled Muslim schoolgirls, split France's main Muslim group on Wednesday. The group's nominal head warned that protests against the law would be dangerous but other leaders said they approved of them.

A first protest march in Paris last month drew over 3,000 people, many of them veiled young women.

If only ANOTHER leader would follow Chirac's lead, and keep his superstitions private.

John's Snow Job

Snow: rebounding economy expected to help cut federal deficit in half by 2005

While concerned about soaring budget deficits, the Bush administration is confident that a rebounding economy will help cut the deficit in half by 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow said Wednesday.

Snow rejected calls by many of the Democratic presidential candidates to roll back some or all of the president's massive tax cuts, which they blame as a major factor in the exploding federal deficits.

Snow said that instead of rolling back the tax reductions, which Democrats contend have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthy, they should be made permanent. He said if the 2001 and 2003 tax cut bills had not been passed, 109 million taxpayers would face tax bills this April 15 that would be on average $1,544 higher.

"Let me be perfectly clear: Failure to make the tax relief permanent would be a huge mistake and would put our recovery in jeopardy," Snow said in prepared remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

More fun at link

Keep your eyes on YOUR tax return. Remember, how much the top few percent of wage earners make in this country. It's puts true caste systems to shame..The wage disparity that is.

Failure to abolish the Bush cuts leads to huge burdens down the road, Mr. Snow. But you'll be pushin' up daisies then, and won't be crushed under mountainous debts, and worthless greenbacks.

Whose an Expert?

Okay. The U.S. Gov't's official word and this 'expert' opinion seem to be at odds.

First, the story:

Al-Qaida-linked groups planning attacks, expert says

Associated Press
Jan. 7, 2004 07:50 AM

SINGAPORE - Al-Qaida-linked groups are training and recruiting militants to carry out suicide attacks that have become Osama bin Laden's "greatest achievement" as his brand of extremist Islam spreads around the world, a terrorism expert said Wednesday.

The greatest threats include Al Ansar Al Islami in Iraq, Jemaah Islamiyah in Southeast Asia, Al Ansar Mujahidin in Chechnya, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Salafi Group for Call and Combat in Algeria, Rohan Gunaratna told a Southeast Asian outlook forum.

Gunaratna said a fresh batch of Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists will graduate Jan. 15 from a camp in the southern Philippines. Based in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah is an al-Qaida funded regional group believed responsible for the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings that killed 202 people, among other terrorist attacks in the region.

The camp is run by the secessionist Moro Islamic Liberation Front, or MILF, which is fighting for an independent Muslim homeland in Mindanao, Gunaratna said. He did not elaborate on the number of graduates or where he got his information, but Indonesia intelligence has also said there's a recruiting drive for the group, thought to have about 3,000 members.

Sidney Jones, the Indonesian project director for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, supported Gunaratna's assessment on the Philippines being a Jemaah Islamiyah training ground.

"There are several MILFs, all using the same name," Jones said, adding that these factions were not the same as the group now conducting peace negotiations with Manila.

Despite the arrest of Jemaah Islamiyah's alleged operations chief Hambali in Thailand last year, Jones said there were a number of key group operatives still at large, including Azahari Husin and Nordin Mohamed Top. The two men are accused of planning the Bali bombings.

Gunaratna, author of "Inside al-Qaida: Global Network of Terror," said the bulk of the terrorist attacks expected in 2004 will come from these groups - trained and financed by bin Laden and not the network itself.

"Small, disparate organizations mounting operations are in many ways Osama bin Laden's greatest achievement," said Gunaratna.

Before the Sept. 11, 2001 strikes in the United States, the al-Qaida network launched an attack every two years; since then, there has been one al-Qaida-linked attack every three months, Gunaratna noted.

He predicted that pace will continue through this year, with the growing threats coming from the smaller, regional terrorist organizations.

"As the memory of 9/11 recedes, the West is likely to witness another mass casualty attack on Western soil," Gunaratna said.

In a paper presented at the forum, he said: "The threat of terrorism and its associated groups will persist throughout 2004."

Maritime targets are vulnerable to attack, he said, adding "almost all the attacks will be suicide vehicle bombings, an al-Qaida hallmark."

If left unchecked, Iran could emerge as a training ground for al-Qaida terrorists, Gunaratna predicted. Link

Okay, here we have what appears to be a true expert on these matters entirely contradicting what the U.S. Gov't. has told us. Furthermore, Ahmed Rashid, perhaps the foremost English speaking journalist covering the Middle-East, and author of Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia, and Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia was on NPR's Fresh Air, has estimated Al Ansar al Islam's numbers at no more than a few hundred, and that their activity was confined to the area in Iraq that we'll detail in a moment.

Al Ansar al Islam articles chronicling U.S. successes during the Gulf War redux:

US claims victory against Ansar al-Islam

A US special forces team has asserted that a joint operation with local Kurds against an alleged Al Qaeda-linked group in northern Iraq had been a resounding success, with initial investigations turning up evidence of chemical weapons production.

Speaking during a rare appearance before the press, seven special forces officers said Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) was now "neutralised", even though many of the group's fighters may have escaped over the border to neighbouring Iran.

"It was pretty damn successful. In a period of one-and-a-half days, a terrorist organisation that has had a grip on this region was rooted out and neutralised," said one of the officers during the briefing in Halabja, a town in the south-east of the Iraqi Kurd autonomous zone.

"There was a lot of fighting. The Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda were not a pushover," the officer said. None of the team, decked out in battle fatigues, gave their names.

Citing "anecdotal evidence", the team said there were "several hundred" Ansar casualties. The group had an estimated 700 members, of which 75-100 were believed to be Al Qaeda veterans from Afghanistan. Much more at link

And this:

The rise and fall of Ansar al-Islam

Former members of Ansar al-Islam talk to the Monitor about the militant group's ties to Al Qaeda, the foreign fighters that joined its ranks, and its eventual destruction.

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

SARGAT AND SULAYMANIYAH, NORTHERN IRAQ -- As the American air attack pulverized the mountain base of Ansar al-Islam last March, Mohamed Gharib let his video camera roll - just as he had done during countless operations of the northern Iraq-based militant group.

"I filmed the missiles falling," says Mr. Gharib, a Kurdish militant and the Ansar media chief. Gharib's footage had for years recorded the violent history of the Al Qaeda-linked fighters, and served as a fundraising tool. "You wouldn't believe if I told you we were happy [to be attacked]. They gave us the sense that we were so true, so right, that even America had to come fight us."

Washington fingered Ansar as a terrorist group experimenting with poisons, and used its tenuous links to Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to help justify the war against Iraq.

US officials were triumphant last spring, even as the broader Iraq invasion was still underway, after a three-day assault. Gen. Tommy Franks declared that a "massive terrorist facility in northern Iraq" had been "attacked and destroyed" by a joint US-Kurdish operation. Much more at link

What to believe? I honestly do not know. My gut tells that the CS Monitor and Ahmed Rashid's account in the Fresh Air segment's are more likely to be true. I think Rashid is more of an expert on the Taliban, and the Taliban certainly do appear to be regrouping along the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Rashid has said this himself. The Taliban was never a direct threat to the U.S. It was their harboring of al-Qaeda that made them a menace.

As for the other groups that Mr. Gunaratna has named, they all appear at this time to involved in local terrorism. I am always leery of murky ties to al-Qaeda. Our own government has attempted to connect the Ba'athist regime to al-Qaeda, and this has thus far been debunked by our own intelligence agencies.

I remain skeptical. If Mr. Gunaratna's assertions are true, and "Al-Qaida-linked groups are training and recruiting militants to carry out suicide attacks" are indeed taking place, what is the international community doing about it? Cannot we find these camps and eradicate them? Or have our forces been so thinly stretched as to not have sufficient strength to carry out such operations? If the latter is the case, it is yet more evidence that the Gulf War redux was truly a sideroad in the war against terrorism.

Worse yet is the possibility that if all of this new activity is indeed occurring, our involvement in Iraq may directly have been responsible.

Press Suckered Again?

Consider this:

Tax Cut Repeal Plans Assailed

By Rick Pearson

CHICAGO TRIBUNE; The Chicago Tribune is a Tribune Co. newspaper.

January 7, 2004

Des Moines - Democrats looking to extend their presidential campaigns through New Hampshire and beyond attacked Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt yesterday for their plans to repeal President George W. Bush's tax cuts and thus raise taxes on middle-class Americans.

But in a radio debate featuring six of the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, Dean and Gephardt separately maintained that their proposals to use revenues gained by ending the tax cuts to pay for health care and other initiatives would provide benefits to the middle class.

Dean, a former Vermont governor, said charges that he was raising taxes on the middle class were "hogwash."

Dean and Gephardt, who are at the top of polls in Iowa, also clashed over Medicare funding. And while the candidates said they would work to represent all Americans, including conservative Republicans, if they won the White House, Dean said, "You cannot accommodate right-wing zealots. There's no accommodation to be had." More at Link.

It is abundantly clear that the Bush tax cuts have done two things. The tax cuts have shifted much of the burden for services normally subsidized by the federal government to that states. The other thing the cuts have done is to mortgage our future. It's really that simple.

Dean is the only major candidate from either party to have actually balanced a budget. Granted it was the small state of Vermont's, but it should be noted.

The repeal of Bush's tax cuts would immediately give more money to the states. Those that are fiscally responsible will benefit greatly. The federal government under GWB has been a mass of pork spending. Bush has yet to veto any spending bill. When you're born with a silver spoon up your in your mouth, you're not likely to have had the experiences of one developing under different circumstances. Dean was blessed as well, but he has a proven record of fiscal responsibility.

"Now Get your ass to Mars"

That's for making me come to Mars. [Kicks Ahnuld's groin.] You know how much I hate this fahking planet!

I have been stunned by the footage coming back from Mars. Please forgive the "Total Recall" quotes. :)

More Bovine Buffoonery available by clicking cartoon

CAP hits another one!

What Flavor of Progressive are You?

Progressivism in 2004: Transcending the Liberal-Conservative Divide

by John Halpin
January 5, 2004

As we look at the 2004 political year and the divisive struggles ahead, it seems like a good time to re-examine our roots and see how progressive values can help lead the way out of the liberal and conservative divide that leaves so many Americans disillusioned with our political system in general and Washington in particular.

At its core, progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society.

The original progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century sought to improve American life by encouraging personal and moral responsibility among citizens; by providing the carrots and sticks to promote efficient and ethical business behavior; and by reforming government to provide a level playing field for all citizens and groups.

Theodore Roosevelt’s brand of progressive reform appealed to a broad coalition of Americans and created a legacy of social and political change that battled social decay and modernized urban politics; reined in corporate corruption and abuse; expanded voting rights and democratic input; and – despite its jingoistic enterprises – set the stage for American intervention in defense of democracy.

Progressivism offers a panoply of strong, concrete ideas for today’s America, ideas that can help us move beyond the debilitating ideological debates that dominate our political discourse. Four stand out as we look to 2004:

The role of government. First and foremost, progressives believe the typical liberal-conservative fight over big government versus small government misses the point. We want to focus instead on finding the best solution – public or private – to a given problem, a proven approach that marries American pragmatism and our history of taking all challenges head on. Much more at link.

Whatever your political stripe, you should take the few minutes and read the whole article. Given today's lack of civil debate, untethered foreign and domestic policy, and general malaise amongst our citizenry, the points raised in the article just might offer something tangible onto which to grasp.

More on Code Orange

This from P.J. Crowley at The Center for American Progress

When the Department of Homeland Security elevated the threat level over the holidays, it did more than add the color orange to the traditional holiday colors of red and green or blue. The banter between Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg over the wisdom of being in Times Square on New Year’s Eve illustrated the government’s mixed message of buying plastic sheeting and duct tape while proceeding with holiday travel and celebrations.

The heightened security level will remain at least through January but we have learned three things from this latest alert. The elevated terrorism threat is real. Conspicuous gaps remain in our ability to protect ourselves and find out what our adversaries are planning. In 2004 we must devote more money to homeland security if we are to overcome the challenges we face today.

In 2003 there was progress in disrupting potential attacks, arresting terrorists associated with al Qaeda and its offshoots. But al Qaeda still conducted significant attacks in Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey while the United States did little to repair its image in the Islamic world.

In fact, there are a number of reasons to believe that we are in graver danger entering 2004 than at any time since Sept. 11. First, al Qaeda’s leadership has not abandoned its goal of launching significant attacks against highly visible and symbolic targets in the United States. Second, as the videotape released Sunday by al Jazeera demonstrates, Osama bin Laden remains at large and continues to incite his followers. Release of such videos have coincided with attacks in the past. Third, we know that al Qaeda and others are still underwriting training camps in southeast Asia and, more ominously, have not stopped their search for chemical or biological weapon technology.

I don't believe that our efforts to thwart al-Qaeda have been that successful. I have no evidence of this, but the lack of evidence showing real progress in thwarting al-Qaeda internationally would lead to this conclusion. The fall-out in post-war Iraq, and the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian issue make me less sanguine than Mr. Crowley regarding our 'successes' regarding the reining in of international terrorism. The fact that we are at Code Orange would support this view.

More....

Finally, there is the simple question of the bottom line: are we spending enough to properly counteract the threats. Consider:

• The Department of Homeland Security’s budget for the current fiscal year is $31 billion, less than one tenth that of the Department of Defense.



• The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that the last time DHS went to orange alert, cities and counties across the country had to spend another $70 million a week in response. As anyone who pays property taxes today can testify, this burden comes at a time when communities already under extreme budget pressure are laying off police or cutting back on hospital services, two critical homeland security components.



• Private sector projections indicate that corporations, which own 85 percent of our nation’s critical infrastructure, today spend roughly $50 billion on security and have failed to increase security beyond pre-September 11 levels.

Even accepting the administration estimate in last year’s Homeland Security Strategy that, as a country, we are spending roughly $100 billion on homeland security, these funds are clearly insufficient. Terrorism remains a relatively low-cost business, with a handful of potential hijackers posing a threat that requires us to spend millions in response. It may be a matter of increasing budgets but it also is a matter of setting priorities that match the threat we face. Much more at link

I knew roughly what the figures were, as I have delved into this issue a bit. I am sure that homeland security will be either the number one, or the number two issue on people's minds during election 2004. As to why the DHS is so woefully underfunded, yet the Department of Defense is flush with cash is readily apparent. The Bush Admininstration convinced enough of the American people and Congress that Saddam Hussein was a real threat. We now know that this was a fantasy. Between UN inspections and 10+ years of sanctions, Saddam was a though criminal on the world stage. Sure he was a bad man and his removal seems a good thing. But what hath we wrought in his absence? Few people dare ask this question.

The Bush administration, guided by a small group of neo-conservatives have really turned U.S. foreign policy on its head. The ramifications of this are for another day.

What we need to do today, is to shift money from the Department of Defense to the Department of Homeland Security. Today.

Another in our, "why do we have to get this stuff from the foreign press" series

How the war machine is driving the US economy
Military Keynsianism¹ might get Bush re-elected, but it is starting to worry economists

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
06 January 2004

What do the war in Iraq and the economic recovery in the United States have in common? More than one might expect, to judge from the last couple of rounds of US growth figures.

The war has been a large part of the justification for the Bush administration to run ever-widening budget deficits, and those deficits, predicated largely on military spending, have in turn pumped money into the economy and provided the stimulus that low interest rates and tax cuts, on their own, could never achieve.

The result, according to economists, is a variant on Keynesianism that has particular appeal for Republicans. Instead of growing the government in general - pumping resources into public works, health care and education, say, which would have an immediate knock-on effect on sorely needed job creation - the policy focuses on those areas that represent obvious conservative and business-friendly constituencies. Which is to say, the military and, even more specifically, the military contractors that tend to be big contributors to Republican Party funds.

"It may be very inefficient and obviously not fair, but it is nevertheless causing almost 5 per cent more money to be pumped into the economy than is being taken out in tax revenues," observed Robert Pollin, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "At the same time, it fits into the broader ideological goals of the administration because they can paint it as part of a national emergency, the fight against terrorism, the fight against Saddam Hussein, and so on."

During the second quarter of 2003, when the war in Iraq was in full swing, some 60 per cent of the 3.3 per cent GDP growth rate was attributable to military spending. Expenditure on manpower and weaponry was relatively flat, according to Professor Pollin's analysis, while the lion's share of the stimulus came from the multi-billion dollar contracts handed out to Halliburton, Bechtel and other private contractors.

A smaller proportion of the roaring 8.2 per cent growth recorded for the third quarter was directly attributable to the military, but Professor Pollin and others argue that it is still the military that is driving the deficit, and the deficit - budgeted at about $500 billion (£270bn) for next year - that is driving the recovery.

Just last month, the Pentagon awarded a $4 billion contract to California company Northrop Grumman to work on the Star Wars missile defence programme. It is the sort of figure that can regenerate the economy of an entire region. California - the state where US economic booms have a tendency to begin and end - is also a beneficiary of the boom in security-related spending, since much modern security paraphernalia depends on Silicon Valley computer technology.

The Bush administration itself prefers to attribute the recovery to its tax cuts, targeted disproportionately towards the richest Americans. Many non-administration economists, however, say this is nonsense, and that the tax cuts are far more political than they are stimulative. A more significant role has been played by buoyant household spending, helped by low mortgage interest rates which have inspired many homeowners to borrow against the rising value of their properties. But there are signs that interest rates are now on their way back up and that the refinancing fad has ended.

"The administration is conducting a highly irresponsible fiscal policy, and there is no legitimate economist on the face of the earth who doesn't say the tax cuts are just loony," said Kent Sims, a San Francisco economic consultant and public policy expert. "The chosen weapon for dragging the economy off the floor - now that an election is coming - is the deficit. Military expenditure is usually the least effective of short-run ways of spending money, because it doesn't build infrastructure that give you returns over time. But it does create a short-term lift." Much more at The Independent.

Both parties are fond of military spending increases. This is partly why I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist². The only way that military spending adds real value to the economy is when the goods produced are exported at a profit. It seems like the theme today is "borrowing our way into depression", but this needn't be so. Reining in traditional military spending, and pouring a fraction of that sum into the intelligence services seems a more than reasonable way to confront the threats of the early 21st century.

Although I am prime benfactor of the Bush tax cuts, I cannot see how they can become permanent, and have a vibrant economy. There are lots of unfunded, or underfunded programs in this country that could use an infusion of cash. Where is that money going to come from? Should we allow our national governance to further mortgage away our children's futures, or should we adopt a more 'pay as you go' spending policy? I think the answer is clear to anyone that has had to balance a budget..But this may not be as obvious to someone that has never had to worry about where money comes from. The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue certainly fits this mold. Let us have both the wisdom and the courage to make well reasoned, responsible choices.

1 | Keynesianism - A school of economics inspired by the theoretical contributions of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), an English economist. Keynes argued that government spending and investment function as means of disbursing purchasing power into the economy and, hence, affect the demand for consumer goods in the same way as private investment. He suggested increasing government expenditures during deflationary periods and decreasing it during inflationary periods as a means of manipulating aggregate spending and income. By prescribing governmental intervention to maintain adequate levels of employment, Keynesianism paved they way for the growth of the welfare state in the wake of the Great Depression.

2 | Libertarian Socialism - A social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

So kids, the next time your mom says you're reading "pure bs, " tell her that it's educational!

The Bush Administration's Labor Department and You Score: Employers 1 Peons 0

Labor Department offers employers tips to avoid overtime pay

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year.
The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms, which Labor Secretary Elaine Chao called long overdue.

Among the options for employers: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible.

The department says it is merely listing well-known choices available to employers, even under current law.

Most excellent! There's more!

Employers' options include:

Adhering to a 40-hour work week.

Raising workers' salaries to a new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible for overtime pay.
If employers raise a worker's salary "it means they're getting a raise -- that's not a way around overtime," Frank said. The current threshold is $8,060 per year.

Making a "payroll adjustment" that results "in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in labor costs," the department said. Workers' annual pay would be converted to an hourly rate and cut, with overtime added in to equal the former salary.
Essentially, employees would be working more hours for the same pay.

The department does not view the "payroll adjustment" option as a pay cut. Rather, it allows the employer to "maintain the pay at the current level" with the new overtime requirements, said the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division administrator, Tammy McCutchen, an architect of the plan. More Compassionate Conservatism™ at link.

I don't see how ANYONE could see this as a boon to employees, and a blow to employers.(heavy sarcasm) This is really good policy for the Bush Administration in an election year. About the only thing that Americans fear more than terrorism is the government actively f***ing with their paychecks. I hope that this gets major airtime. It's one issue that really effects millions.

Krugman!

Robert Rubin, shrill?

Rubin Gets Shrill
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Argentina retained the confidence of international investors almost to the end of the 1990's. Analysts shrugged off its large budget and trade deficits; business-friendly, free-market policies would, they insisted, allow the country to grow out of all that. But when confidence collapsed, that optimism proved foolish. Argentina, once a showpiece for the new world order, quickly became a byword for economic catastrophe.

So what? Those of us who have suggested that the irresponsibility of recent American policy may produce a similar disaster have been dismissed as shrill, even hysterical. (Hey, the market's up, isn't it?) But few would describe Robert Rubin, the legendary former Treasury secretary, as hysterical: his ability to stay calm in the face of crises, and reassure the markets, was his greatest asset. And Mr. Rubin has formally joined the coalition of the shrill.

In a paper presented over the weekend at the meeting of the American Economic Association, Mr. Rubin and his co-authors — Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution and Allan Sinai of Decision Economics — argue along lines that will be familiar to regular readers of this column. The United States, they point out, is currently running very large budget and trade deficits. Official projections that this deficit will decline over time aren't based on "credible assumptions." Realistic projections show a huge buildup of debt over the next decade, which will accelerate once the baby boomers retire in large numbers.

All of this is conventional stuff, if anathema to administration apologists, who insist, in flat defiance of the facts, that they have a "plan" to cut the deficit in half. What's new is what Mr. Rubin and his co-authors say about the consequences. Rather than focusing on the gradual harm inflicted by deficits, they highlight the potential for catastrophe.

"Substantial ongoing deficits," they warn, "may severely and adversely affect expectations and confidence, which in turn can generate a self-reinforcing negative cycle among the underlying fiscal deficit, financial markets, and the real economy. . . . The potential costs and fallout from such fiscal and financial disarray provide perhaps the strongest motivation for avoiding substantial, ongoing budget deficits." In other words, do cry for us, Argentina: we may be heading down the same road.

Lest readers think that the most celebrated Treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton has flipped his lid, the paper rather mischievously quotes at length from an earlier paper by Laurence Ball and N. Gregory Mankiw, who make a similar point. Mr. Mankiw is now the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, a job that requires him to support his boss's policies, and reassure the public that the budget deficit produced by those policies is manageable and not really a problem.

But here's what he wrote back in 1995, at a time when the federal deficit was much smaller than it is today, and headed down, not up: the risk of a crisis of confidence "may be the most important reason for seeking to reduce budget deficits. . . . As countries increase their debt, they wander into unfamiliar territory in which hard landings may lurk. If policymakers are prudent, they will not take the chance of learning what hard landings in [advanced] countries are really like."

The point made by Mr. Rubin now, and by Mr. Mankiw when he was a free agent, is that the traditional immunity of advanced countries like America to third-world-style financial crises isn't a birthright. Financial markets give us the benefit of the doubt only because they believe in our political maturity — in the willingness of our leaders to do what is necessary to rein in deficits, paying a political cost if necessary. And in the past that belief has been justified. Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when the budget deficit soared.

But do we still have that kind of maturity? Here's the opening sentence of a recent New York Times article on the administration's budget plans: "Facing a record budget deficit, Bush administration officials say they have drafted an election-year budget that will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies." Needless to say, the proposed spending cuts — focused only on the powerless — are both cruel and trivial.

If this kind of fecklessness goes on, investors will eventually conclude that America has turned into a third world country, and start to treat it like one. And the results for the U.S. economy won't be pretty. Link.

I have often wondered about the pundits -- who do not seem to have any economic credentials -- that have argued that the U.S. is not Argentina, hence it can't happen here. Well, it can. The decline of the dollar vs. the world's major currencies, while orderly at present, could in the future go into free-fall. I do not have the economic background to postulate what a precipitating event might be. Debt as a percentage of GDP cannot be a good thing. At some point dollar holders as well as those holding treasuries, will likely be moved to alter their asset allocations potentially leaving the U.S. in a very ugly position.

Lieberman...

Lieberman Works To Set Himself Apart
Two New Ads, A New Hampshire Push, And Speech Are Planned

11:26 AM EST,January 6, 2004
By DAVID LIGHTMAN, The Hartford Courant

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign today said it would intensify its effort in New Hampshire with two new ads and a "major speech" Wednesday outlining the senator's differences with President Bush and Howard Dean.

Lieberman, who was heading for Iowa and a radio debate with his rivals that begins at 2 P.M. EST, plans to illustrate in the speech how Dean and Bush represent the extremes of American politics -- Dean on the left, Bush on the right.

Lieberman, said deputy campaign director Brian Hardwick, "is in a unique position between the extremes."

It's a theme he has been using in debates, in ads and previous speeches. Today, he unveiled two new ads that will run in New Hampshire, both pegged to the idea that Lieberman is a problem-solver unbound by rigid ideology.

One 30 second spot calls him "the only one who's proposed a new cut in rates for the middle class, not tax increases.

Dean wants to repeal all of President Bush's tax cuts, and use the savings to reform health care, college tuition relief and other programs that burden middle and lower class taxpayers.

Lieberman also insists in the ad he's "the only one who's consistently taken a clear stand against terrorism and tyranny."

The key pieces of evidence are two congressional votes, one in 1991 on the Gulf War, the other 11 years later on the Iraq war. Only Lieberman, his staff says, voted for both.

That's true, but only two of his rivals, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, were in Congress both years. North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who voted for the Iraq war, was not elected until 1998. Neither retired Gen. Wesley Clark nor Dean ever served in Congress, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, elected to the House in 1996, opposed the Iraq war.

Lieberman's other ad, which will play only on radio, cites a reported Bush comment from last month to the prime minister of Australia.

"Hey," the announcer asks, "want to know a secret? Shh. It's from a private closed door meeting between George W. Bush and the Prime Minister of Australia.

"Newspapers report that George Bush told the Prime Minister who he thinks would be the toughest Democrat for him to run against. What do you think he said? Howard Dean? No way. George Bush said that Joe Lieberman would be the toughest to beat. That's right. Lieberman's the one that Bush says he worries about the most."

Lieberman staffers said they believed the report to be true because, among other things, it has not been denied. The White House today did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

But, said Lieberman consultant Mandy Grunwald, "It did happen in private. That's the thing that makes it so credibleÂ….those of us who live in Washington hear it from the White House all the time."

Note: I've posted the entire article from the Hartford Courant, sparing you the onerous registration process.(I felt I sold my soul to read this article)

Lieberman will say anything to keep his chances alive. You want to know about Liberman, don't buy the rhetoric. Lieberman's Voting Record is the clearest indicator of his true stances on positions.

Lieberman is no centrist. Although he is trying to paint himself as one.

From my perspective, Dean does not represent the extreme left. That position isn't one taken by any of the major candidates. Dennis Kucininch is furthest left by a wide margin.

Lieberman is, as noted by his voting record, much closer to Bush than he would like us to believe. Howard Dean is not so 'left' as Lieberman portrays him. Being a New Hampshirite, I have talked to all of the major candidates -- save for GWB :) and I questioned Lieberman on his sudden centrist moves. He asked me what I was talking about. I replied, "come on, Senator. You have a voting record that would peg you as neo-conservative." He smiled, and told me that I was mistaken. I told him that I would meet him again with a copy of his voting recoed and discuss the matter further, but he told me that, "I was not a member of the press."

I am a citizen, and unlike the fawning lapdogs masquerading as our press corps, I have no issue with the truth, wherever it may lead. Furthermore, I don't make shit up to suit my desires.

It is now unlikely that I'll se Lieberman before the NH primary, but if I do, I'll have an updated copy of his voting record with me.

More Lieberman: He highlights his 'Uniqueness'

Primary follies, via the AP

From the same Associated Press that has given rise to Nedra Pickler comes this via needlenose. Hat tip to the ever resourceful Atrios.

The author of that sterling bit of journalism is one Calvin Woodward. The truth has been an issue for Mr. Woodward for some time. As Bob Somerby noted back in October of 2000:

There simply can't be an easier job than being a Washington journalist. Under the current rules of the game, any time you have nothing to say, you can type up the "Gore embellishes" story. You throw together some jumbled version of favorite alleged misstatements by Gore. On October 5, for example, the AP's Calvin Woodward sampled the genre. Early on, he offered this:

WOODWARD: Whether claiming to have been an inspiration for a "Love Story" character years ago or recently recalling the strains of a childhood song that wasn't written until he was grown, Gore has tended to go off track on peripheral things.

Woodward's passage is simply astonishing. Author Erich Segal told the New York Times (three years ago!) that Gore was a model for the Love Story character. Woodward's implication that Gore embellished this simply flies in the face of reality. And Gore has explained that the "childhood song" remark was a joke (made to a labor audience that is plainly heard laughing on the videotape). Woodward doesn't even mention that, to let readers judge the facts for themselves. When the Washington press corps tells treasured old tales, they tend to serve up "novelized" news—stories in which favorite tales are shaped to be pleasing and simple-minded. The Gore embellishment story is one of their favorites. As Woodward does, they'll routinely embellish the facts themselves, just to keep stories lively and pleasing.

Calvin Woodward's latest dissembling

Calvin Classic™ via Somerby.

Job Bleeding Continues

As has been chronicled on these pages, technology concerns from Accenture to Yahoo have moved much of their design and development to the Bangalore technology center. India's Silicon Valley™ has gone from being basically a technology support call center to burgeoning design and development center. It now produces everything from basic business software to semi-conductor design.

India has many advantages over the U.S. when it comes to consideration as a place to conduct all manner of technology business. India produces approximately 2/3 more engineers and computer scientists than the U.S, and this highly competent workforce is available to employers at as little as one tenth the cost of their American counterparts.

India is especially attractive to U.S. firms as the vast majority of high technology workers speak English. I found the following in a Goldman-Sachs report.

"In the next decade, as many as six million jobs might be sent to India and other nations by US companies in search of lower costs and a tech-savvy, English-speaking workforce."

"The shift of North American technology jobs to low wage countries like India cannot be stopped because not only are Indian companies a third of the cost, but they actually are better," said Pradeep Sood, president of Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce.

I am in the process of compiling a report detailing the American 'brain drain.'

The peril here is that the world's second largest country in gross human numbers, and the highest in desirable human capital is entirely capable of absorbing every technology job at less cost and equal skill.

One can only believe that as India's technology sectors grow, more and more of the young will be drawn into engineering as a field of study compounding this troublesome trend in the future. Remember, India has a very young population, and can grow its engineering base organically, whereas the U.S.'s supply of engineers is in decline. Both in real numbers, and as a percentage of the population. Our population growth comes largely via immigration, and these people are largely laborers. Successive generations produce higher numbers of technology workers, but this path has a low trajectory.

I have a lot more on this phenomenon, but as noted above, I am going to compile it and present it as an overall picture of the displacement of the American technology worker, and the acceleration rates of these trends.

On Edit: NYT Performs Nice Analysis on Manufacturing. Call it "The China Syndrome."

How the Terrorists Win

First a news item:

Crying Wolf On Terrorism?

Jan 4, 2004 12:20 pm US/Central

(CBS) Concerned with terrorism threats in the air and on the ground, the British government delayed a London-to-Washington flight for three hours -- after canceling the flight altogether for two days in a row.

CBS News Correspondent Joie Chen reports Flight 223 only carried half it's typical passenger load, raising the questions: How many more flights can the airlines afford to cancel? How long can this level of scrutiny and security go on?

Even as they demonstrated stepped up security at their airports, foreign governments expressed frustration with U.S. demands for greater scrutiny of their flights.

Terrorism expert Paul Beaver tell Chen, "We've got to the stage in Western Europe where nobody actually takes any notice of American alerts anymore because there's so many of them."

One French police official said that bad U.S. intelligence information resulted in six cancellations from Paris' Charles De Gaulle airport.

The New York Times reported in its Saturday editions that the cancellation of the British Airways flights was not in response to U.S. safety concerns, but was prompted by the refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board.

The British government has declined to provide details of its security concerns about Flight 223. The department said it took action Saturday following discussions with a variety of sources, including U.S. authorities. Much more at link.

It should be abundantly clear that all a terrorist entity need do is to disrupt any system of large enough scale to be effective. In an township, this could be something as small a called-in bomb threat against a commercial, residential or municipal target. Use your imagination to scale up to the threat of an event that would disrupt a system on an international scale.

Any time that the populace feels threatened by the possibility of a terrorist event, and subsequently changes their behavior to avoid this perceived threat the terrorists win.

I do not wish to make this a manual on how to terrorize a population. I am merely pointing out that ofttimes the mere threat of an attack can be psychically and financially damaging with no expenditure of resources by the terrorist entity.

The real threat of terrorism on U.S. soil post 9/11, has come from our very own homegrown terrorists in tragically underreported stories.

Unless you're name is Mohammed or you practice Islam, apparently the media deems you unworthy of coverage. As I wrote in an earlier piece, Jose Padilla -- John Ashcroft's "dirty bomber" -- is/was far less a threat than the media coverage he was given would imply. I am of the opinion that Padilla was used by agents sympathetic to al-Qaeda, or perhaps al-Qaeda itself as a cheap and easy way to instill fear in the populace.

This opinion dovetails nicely with the fairly obvious fact that terrorists would much rather do their harm without the expenditure of capital. Why fly jets into buildings in expensive long term operations that remove valuable assets, when well placed faux information can be used to similar effect? This is essentially a large part of what state sponsored actors(militaries) do when they employ 'psyops.'¹

Of course, after a time, a successful operation must be conducted or else the threats not followed through by actions lose their value to the terrorist. This is precisely what is happening in Europe and to a lesser extent in the U.S. In the U.S. we have been subjected to only two alert levels post September 11, 2001. These levels are two out of a possible five.

The five threat levels from highest probability of an event to lowest are: Red -- Severe, Orange -- High, Yellow -- Elevated, Guarded -- Blue, and Low -- Green

I asked dozens of people earlier today what the threat levels are, both color and value, and what the current threat level is. No one, and this includes two members of the national media, could answer all of these important questions.

Currently we are at "Threat Level Orange," the second highest threat level. It is unknown when this threat level is going to be changed. The only other level that we have been subjected to is, "Threat Level Yellow." Threat Level Yellow is the level that which we have spent the most time since 9/11 2001. I think it reasonable that most Americans now view "Threat Level Yellow" as the common background level.

It is not known by this author the financial costs of the latest update to "yellow," but numerous flights have been cancelled, and rescheduled and there is evidence that the current series of flight disruptions will further hurt an already weakened airline industry.

Speaking to the Toronto Star, Dexter Koehl, a spokesman for the Travel Industry Association of America, said the cancelled and disrupted flights are "bothersome and worrisome" but he predicted the effect on the industry will be short-term. With the exception of cut-rate Southwest Airlines, the immediate outlook is bleak. U.S. airlines lost more than $18 billion in 2001-02 and are expected to post losses of another $3 billion in 2003.

One can only hope. The airline industry does not operate in a vacuum, and the hotel and tourism sectors are certain to feel this pinch as well. One can see how inter-related the economy really is. When one industry is directly effected, all of the adjunctive industry groups are effected as well, and this trend continues in a snowball effect.

I need to wrap this up. Anytime the terrorists disrupt systems it can objectively be said that their goals have been achieved. If terrorists can do this without using valuable assets, all the better for the terrorists. This leaves them with two future possibilities to further their agenda. The first, and much more preferable is to stage another mock attack, and if successful, continue this until no one believes in their threats. The second obviously, is to conduct a true attack expending assets, and 'resetting' the terror threat so that mere threats illicit the same manner of response as an actual attack.

1. Psyops. Shorthand for 'Psychological Operations'

Planned psychological activities in peace and war directed to enemy, friendly, and neutral audiences in order to influence attitudes and behavior affecting the achievement of political and military objectives. They include strategic psychological activities, consolidation psychological operations and battlefield psychological activities.

Media: Wrong Again?

Yes.

In this S.F. Chronicle article, the paper is claiming that, "Dean Faces Stiffest Test Yet." This is absurd. Dean has been compaigning for umm, it seems like forever.

I live in New Hampshire, and Dean has been all over this state for well over as year. Dean has already overcome his toughest battle. I recall the early U.N.H. polls conducted in the past year plus, and Dean was polling at 3% or even less. That was in NH where he seemingly spent all of his time. On the national level Dean's numbers were so low as to be off the radar.

Governor Dean has overcome his 'stiffest test.' His challengers' now face theirs.

On Edit: I was wrong. Badly. Dean's stiffest test does lie ahead. But it is not coming from his challengers in the upcoming primary, it is coming from that model of objectivity, collectively known as The American Press. More later.

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.

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.