Bushwhacked!

I guess it's payback time for former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. (hat tip to SC)

In today's Boston Globe he ends his silence since being canned along with Larry "war with Iraq could fall between 100 billion to 200 billion dollars" Lindsey.(I suppose McClellan will say Lindsey was dismissed for an erroneous estimate..he was after all, at least 300 million dollars off ;))

Today's Boston Globe:

Ex-treasury chief takes aim at Bush in new book

By Martin Crutsinger, Associated Press, 1/10/2004

WASHINGTON -- Former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, pushed out of the administration for not being a team player, says President Bush was so disengaged during Cabinet meetings that he was like a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

O'Neill, who has kept silent about the circumstances surrounding his ouster from the Cabinet 13 months ago, is now ready to give his side of the story in a tell-all book that paints Bush as a disengaged president who didn't encourage debate either at Cabinet meetings or in one-on-one meetings with his Cabinet secretaries.

To promote the book, which will be out Tuesday, O'Neill will appear tomorrow on CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview with correspondent Lesley Stahl.

In an excerpt released by CBS, O'Neill said that a lack of real dialogue characterized the Cabinet meetings he attended in the administration's first two years.

O'Neill said that the atmosphere was similar during the one-on-one meetings he had with Bush.

Of his first meeting with the president, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [Bush] on. . . . I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

O'Neill is described as the principal source for the book, "The Price of Loyalty," being published by Simon and Schuster and written by Ron Suskind, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

In addition to interviews with O'Neill, Suskind drew on 19,000 documents O'Neill provided, according to CBS, which said Suskind also interviewed dozens of Bush insiders to flesh out his account of the administration's first two years.

In response, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters yesterday, "I think it's well known the way the president approaches governing. . . . The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our biggest priorities and that is exactly what he'll continue to do."

Asked about the administration's opinion of the upcoming book, McClellan said, "I don't do book reviews."

O'Neill, the former head of aluminum giant Alcoa, did not immediately respond to phone messages left at his office in Pittsburgh. But in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, O'Neill said he hoped his inflammatory comments did not overshadow the substantive issues he discusses in the book.

"If the 'red meat,' taken out of context, is all that people get out of this book, it will be a huge disappointment to me," he said. "Ideally, this book will cause people to stop and think about the current state of our political process and raise our expectations for what is possible."

O'Neill gained a reputation during his two years in the Bush Cabinet for frequently shooting from the lip with incendiary comments that shook up financial markets and antagonized Wall Street. O'Neill said he was just trying to discuss complicated public policy issues in greater depth than the television sound bites so often used by the typical Washington politicians.

O'Neill was fired in December 2002 when Bush shook up his economic team in search of better salesmen for a new round of tax cuts the president hoped would stimulate the economy.

O'Neill had publicly questioned the need for the cuts in light of growing budget deficits. He was replaced by John Snow, former head of CSX Corp., who became a staunch advocate for new tax cuts, which Bush signed into law in May.

Well. Hard to know what to say.

Bush cans O'Neill for trying to raise the level of dialogue above that of a sound bite? That O'Neill's got some nerve!

And how dare he question the vaunted BUSH TAX CUTS! Those tax cuts, once made permanent, will provide a land of plenty for all Americans well into the sunset.

"I'll have to take a half-hour out of my schedule tomorrow night and watch this, what's it called? 60 Minutes?"

(aide whispers in ear)

"That's what I said. I'll take an hour out of my schedule. You don't have anything on tape!" :P

Aide: "Yes, Mr. President."

Bush, polls, and the internet gap.

I just left the online Newsweek online pre-presidential polling site.

Link to the poll and attendant article is below.

Go and enjoy the fun!

First an excerpt:

"Bush's approval rating has climbed to 54 percent (from around 51 percent prior to Saddam's capture) and 50 percent of Americans say they approve of the way things are going in Iraq, an increase from 45 percent before the Iraqi leader's arrest. Meanwhile, after a holiday season marked by fears of terror attacks in the United States, 70 percent of registered voters say they approve of the way Bush has worked to prevent or minimize terrorism at home, his highest approval rating in that category since last May. This could prove significant in coming months because 60 percent of voters say they are more likely to vote for Bush because of his handling of terrorism."

I'd just like to point out a few obvious things about the above numbers and how they bear no semblance to reality.

1) Americans do not have any tangible evidence of how things are going in Iraq. Another helicopter shot down. A new rising tide of attacks against U.S. forces and Iraqis. From what the press has been able to get out, things are worsening. That's what is being reported. Why don't people see this?

2) Bush and terrorism. On Dec. 17 -- less than a month ago, Mr. Kean, the chair of the 9/11 commission said, "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed." Then there is the Administration's handling of the President's Daily Briefs. There is a lot of smoke here.
The media has utterly failed as a watchdog. For people to harbor these sorts of unsupported beliefs either means that Americans don't know, or that the continuous line of propaganda coming out of the White House is overriding their mental functioning. Or that we have become those sheep that fella Nietzsche was always going on about.

I just took the first paragraph to parse. I could've taken any one of them. Now, onto the big Qs.

The questions are as follows:

NEWSWEEK: "In general, would you like to see George W. Bush re-elected to another term as president, or not?"

pure bs: "In general, who would you like to see elected as president in 2004? GW Bush lost the vote by over a half-million votes last time around, and was appointed president in a 5 - 4 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Who would you like to see elected in 2004, a Democrat or a Republican? "

NEWSWEEK: "Does the current state of the economy and the job situation make you more likely or less likely to vote to re-elect George W. Bush next year?"

pure bs: "Thinking about the current economic climate, are you better off than you were three years ago? Do you feel that your job is safe? Do you feel that GW Bush has your best economic interests at heart? Do you think a Democrat would do a better job?"

NEWSWEEK: "Do you think a Democratic president would handle economic conditions in this country better than George W. Bush?"

pure bs: "Do you know how far into debt the U.S. is currently? Does it bother you that under GW Bush the country will be running deficits for the foreseeable future? Do you want your children to pay for wars of choice? Do you think a Demaocrat would do a be a better choice?"

NEWSWEEK: "Do you think a Democratic president would handle this country's foreign policy better than George W. Bush?"

pure bs: "Do you know that GW Bush's foreign policy was engineered by a small group of men known as neo-conservatives? Do you know what the "Project for A New American Century is? Do you agree with its stated goals? Do you trust these men? Do you think a Democrat would be a better choice?"

NEWSWEEK: "Do you think Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is too liberal to defeat Bush if he is the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year?"

pure bs: "Do you think that GW Bush is too reactionary to serve another term? Do you feel betrayed by Bush's pledge of, "compassionate conservatism," and subsequent move to a hard right agenda?" Do you think Howard Dean is too moderate to represent the Democratic party?"

NEWSWEEK: "Based on what you know about Howard Dean, do you think he has the kind of temperament to make a good president?"

pure bs: "Because your only exposure to Howard Dean has been through the mass media, do you feel qualified to make a statement about Howard Dean's temperament? Did GW Bush's "Deer in the Headlights" look on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 give you any insight into the character of the man?"

NEWSWEEK: "How confident are you that the United States will successfully establish a stable democratic government in Iraq over the long term?"

pure bs: "How confident are you that the United States will successfully establish a stable democratic government?" (don't you mean in Iraq?)

No. Iraq is a different question.

Come on. Dean's temperament? Sure my poll is almost as silly. Criminy. Our press corps. at work. *heavy sigh*

At least the majority of the online voters have likely framed the issues properly. Or at least, not as improperly.

Kilroy wasn't here...

I've been reading the BBC's reports on the fall-out from the BBC's very own, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk.

Short version via Aussie paper The Age

Anti-Arab slurs cost BBC host
January 11, 2004

The BBC yesterday suspended a popular British talkshow after its presenter branded Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators and women repressors" in an article in a London newspaper.

Presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk, a former British Labour MP, later expressed "very deep regret" over the column, which questioned whether Arab nations had contributed anything to civilisation.

The BBC said it would suspend the daily talkshow Kilroy, which records audience ratings of 1.2 million, while it conducted a probe.

Kilroy-Silk said the column was written in April last year in response to opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq. "It is not what I would have said today," he said in a statement.

The article, headlined "We owe the Arabs nothing", asked: "What do (Arabs) think we feel about them? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?"

The Commission for Racial Equality said it would refer the article to police.

- Reuters

I think what Mr. Kilroy-Silk allegedly wrote was in very poor taste. Mr. Kilroy-Silk appears a racist.

Balancing his statements are some facts. There is the fact that a tiny fraction of Arabs do turn to suicide bombing missions, and under Sharia Law, which is maintained alongside secular courts in many predominantly Muslim countries¹ amputation is a penalty for some offenses.²

The overt or covert repression of women has been a part of most societies and continues today. It must be noted that in countries that practice Sharia Law, this repression is often overt, and very pronounced.

So, what to do? Mr. Kilroy-Silk was stating facts. Sometimes facts are ugly things. The things of which he wrote are not the exclusive domain of Muslims under Sharia law. All of these practices - or their analogues - have pretty much been with us since the dawn of civilization. They have ebbed and flowed in societies and religions worldwide. What gets people like Mr. Kilroy-Silk into trouble is not what they say is factually in error, it is because it is said of a distinguishedly different group.

Kilroy-Silk's words loosely fit the definition of racism as, 'discrimination or prejudice based on race.'

I am a Caucasian male. I have never been exposed to what I perceive as racism. The internet is awash in Causcasian racism as defined by the above definition. Every Red-neck joke, trailer park epithet, and in my particular case, atheism crack is an affront to my 'race' or lack of religious belief. Yes, Me personally! It is only because, by and large these slurs are made by white Americans for white Americans(jokes about each other are just about the only thing we make these days) are they not only tolerated, but encouraged.

The closest that I came to feeling discriminated against was when George H.W. Bush uttered this:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

He uttered that pearl of wisdom to American Atheists' reporter Robert Sherman in 1987 while serving as Vice President.

At the time I thought this guy believes in an invisible sky-guy, and gets his moral guidance from a book that talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all this other stuff not only for which there is no evidence, but pretty convincing evidence that it's ALL a load of pure bs(I added the 'pure bs' thing as a plug for the site ;)), and I am the one whose citizenship should be questioned?

I'll share this with you. I wasn't going to touch this issue. I only decided to if I could frame it sans emotion. I hope that I have succeeded.

Although Kilroy-Silk's words were printed in an unaffilated newspaper, I would 'sack him.' He has, as is said, "a history."

Full text of "We Owe Arabs Nothing"

Much more Kilroy-Silk here

1. Most countries of the Middle East and north Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain only religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence. Sharia is also used in Sudan, Libya and for a time in modern Afghanistan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts.


2. I searched for a source that is neutral on the issue of Sharia Law. This Wikipedia page, while short on facts, appears to be neutral.

Saddam to be declared, "POW"

This is really good news. Sure he is by all accounts a really bad guy, but the U.S. -- I'm not using the "and our allies" line, because it's simply rhetoric -- after having illegally invaded and now occupied Iraq, should treat Saddam as one of our guys should be treated if the situation was reversed.

Here's the AP's take on this:

Hussein declared to be a POW

The general counsel office in the Pentagon has determined that Saddam Hussein is a prisoner of war because of his status as former commander in chief of Iraq's military.

BY MATT KELLEY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Pentagon lawyers have determined that Saddam Hussein has been a prisoner of war since American forces captured him Dec. 13, a Defense Department spokesman said Friday.

Despite that determination, aides to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were grappling Friday with what to say publicly about the issue. A senior defense official who insisted he not be named said Hussein's legal status was still under review.

Similarly, Secretary of State Colin Powell told CBS News: ''I don't know that he has been formally declared a prisoner of war.'' It was up to the Pentagon, Powell said.

However, Powell said, "We are certainly treating everybody in our custody in accordance with basic rights and expectations of international agreements that we have.''

Whether or not Hussein is a prisoner of war could be key to how he is treated in captivity and eventually put on trial. The Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war forbid any kind of coercion in POW interrogations, for example.

Rumsfeld said earlier in the week that Hussein and all Iraqi captives are being treated in compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

He said Hussein's legal status was being reviewed by several U.S. agencies and that no determination had been made.

The general counsel office in the Pentagon -- the Defense Department's top civilian lawyers -- has determined that Hussein is a prisoner of war because of his status as former commander in chief of Iraq's military, spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said Friday. More at link

I thought that democracy, where it concerns rule of law had been abolished in the post 9/11 climate. The detainees at Guantanamo, and Jose Padilla's treatment certainly pointed in this direction.

As all the partisans on both sides of the issue as so fond of saying, "everything changed on Sept. 11." Well, if rule of man trumps rule of law, then this is certainly the case. In a democracy model that has withstood civil war, two world wars, and a host of other crises, that statement is incompatible. As noted above, we have been successfully able to contend with crises orders of magnitude greater than 9/11. Suspension of the rule of law would be the death knell of American democracy.

A democracy is not worth the breath used to utter the word when allowed to be shaped by emotional responses to events, however frightening they may be.

Appeals to emotion can be powerfully motivating and cause us to wander from the path that has served us so well. Black and white versions of the world are both inaccurate, and defeatist to long term goals. As we have seen over the last year in particular, submitting to these appeals can have grave consequences. This has been clearly demonstrated in the build-up to, and subsequent prosecution of the second Gulf War. We have damaged relationships with the very states that we will need to share information with, if the scourge of international terrorism is to be depreciated. Not just for today, but for extended periods. Logic and reason are the tools by which to best illuminate our future. But I digress.

Saddam's treatment as a POW is a small but very valuable victory for democracy in a country that has been governed in a de-facto manner by an odd jingoism, as some corners continue to recklessly beat the drums of war.

Most Americans(and that includes your author) know very little of Saddam Hussein. We are told a great many things about this man. Some are assuredly true. Perhaps most or all. But there is nothing that nearly 100% of the U.S. population knows about Hussein that hasn't been through a governmental filter of one variety or another.

I am a skeptic because of my academic background. In science one takes no novel information at face value. I may be too harsh on governmental sources of information, but like a poor scientist once the government has been shown to be in error, their subsequent information should be first viewed with skepticism. This administration, like most all others, has been shown to be deceitful.

I would not be doing anyone a favor by accepting information provided to me by the government -- or any source for that matter -- if I took it at face value without scrutiny. The true scientific method cannot be used in many instances where information is provided, but the tools of critical thinking can. I would say that they must.

In the coming days, weeks and months, I suspect that information about Saddam Hussein will make its way to the public. All information should be viewed with the same scrutiny that one might use if told that there are an army of sequined turquoise chameleons replete with gold lamé covered toe pads were about to take over your neighborhood.

It will be difficult, but not impossible to assess the available information with a high likelihood of accuracy. Here's a good place to hone your critical thinking skills.

Covertly, the U.S. largely made Saddam, and I am fairly certain that Saddam has more detail to add to the published accounts of who, how, why, and what the U.S. did, or did not do for him, and for Iraq during his ascendancy to power, and in assisting him in solidifying and retaining that power.

In closing, I'll offer you the words of true renaissance man, Sir Francis Bacon. In 1605 he wrote: "For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth; as having a mind nimble and versatile enough to catch the resemblances of things ?… and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their subtler differences; as being gifted by nature with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture."

We should all aspire to view novelty with the same degree of reason.

I just had a moment to pop over to Atrios', Eschaton blog, and found a link to this Nedra Pickler article.

Dean Criticizes Bush Over Stem Cells

By NEDRA PICKLER
The Associated Press
Friday, January 9, 2004; 2:02 PM

ROCHESTER, N.H. - Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on Friday criticized President Bush for restricting stem-cell research based on religious beliefs even though his own faith affected his decision to extend legal rights to gay couples.

In 2001, Bush limited research that destroyed human embryos. Many Christian organizations and abortion-rights opponents were against the research.

"I think we ought to make scientific decisions, not theological and theoretical decision," Dean told voters at a town hall meeting. "I think that what the president did on stem-cell research was based on his religious beliefs and I think that is why."

Earlier this week Dean said his Christian faith contributed to his decision to sign the civil unions bill four years ago when he was governor of Vermont. The bill gave gay couples the same legal rights as married couples without allowing them to wed.

"The hallmark of Christianity is to reach out to people who have been left behind," Dean told reporters Tuesday night. "So there was a religious aspect to my support of civil unions."

Dean told the town hall meeting Friday that if elected president he would allow stem-cell research. He said he has a nephew with diabetes who could benefit from it.

"We'll give hope back to people with diabetes and other diseases who could be cured by stem-cell research," Dean said.

Bush, in announcing his decision in August 2001, said the use of human embryos had led different people of different faiths to different conclusions. He said he himself had given the question thought and prayer.

"I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator," Bush said in a national address. "I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world." Link

In this particular instance Ms. Pickler is technically correct. However, Dr. Dean's endorsement of stem cell research is known to be medically valuable. Mr. Bush's stance on stem cell research is reactionary. Mr. Bush's worldview is not far removed from that which caused Galileo to be a prisoner in his own home until his death.

Ms. Pickler fails to parse the nuanced words of Dr. Dean when he says that, "there was a religious aspect to my support of civil unions." Of course primarily it was a civil rights issue.

Mr. Bush has no medical or scientific background to come to a well-informed reasoned decision about the necessity of embryonic stem-cell research to further medicine and human healing. It is most likely that Mr. Bush does indeed have great personal reservations about embryonic stem-cell research. He also would have to answer tough questions from the 'Christian Right' if he was to do the medically responsible, yet religiously troubling thing and sponsor embryonic stem-cell research.

Essentially, Dr. Dean's position was bolstered by his Christian beliefs, whereas Mr. Bush's decision was formed entirely by his.

Bad reporting by agencies with as much prestige as the AP and WaPo should not go unchallenged.

I was unable to find an AP ombudsman email contact, but did find this: info@ap.org

The Washington Post's online news ombudsman can be reached here.

MSNBC has just reported that Bush wanrts a Moon base..nice.

Bush to announce return to the moon
Long-range space strategy to be revealed Wednesday

WASHINGTON - President Bush is preparing to unveil a new space initiative with a long-range goal of returning humans to the moon and establishing a permanent presence there, then moving on to Mars, NBC News has confirmed.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Friday that the president would make remarks about the space program next Wednesday in Washington.

"The president is strongly committed to the exploration of space," McClellan said.

McClellan declined to discuss the contents of the upcoming speech, as did NASA spokesman Glenn Mahone.

"We're not going to pre-empt the president," Mahone said, "but we're excited about the news of the announcement next week and what it means for the future direction of NASA."More bs at link.

Senior White House officials have told pure bs, on condition of anonymity, that the President is "hoping for its(Moon base) completion prior to November of next year, so he'll have a reasonably safe to stay once he's out of office."

"Hey you eggheads! There aren't going to be any pretzels up there on that hunka cheese, are there? Great! Once I'm done building my new fort, you brainiacs ain't gonna have a penny left over."

Rumors are rampant about Bush making an announcement to send a manned mission to Mars, amongst a few other things. While I appreciate the notion of such a mission, I have what I think is better idea.

Let's continue with the relatively inexpensive unmanned missions and spend the estimated Half-a-Fuckin'-Trillion-Dollars on some pragmatic things...oh, like Getting our own planet's environment under control before we go and fuck up Mars, and then..THE UNIVERSE!!

I love this shit.

Bush Will Propose a "Responsible Budget"

January 9, 2004 ? The White House says President Bush will propose a "responsible budget" even though he's reportedly about to propose two hugely expensive manned space missions.
Senior officials say in a speech next week, the president will unveil plans to send U-S astronauts to build a permanent station on the moon. They say he'll also set the goal of sending Americans to Mars.

Estimates of the costs of these ventures top half a (T) trillion dollars -- which is roughly the size of the federal deficit for the current year alone.

But Press Secretary Scott McClellan says Bush intends to keep to a course that funds important national priorities, and then -- in his words -- "holds the line elsewhere."

Among those criticizing Bush's plan is Nobel prize-winning physicist Douglas Osheroff. He'd rather see NASA concentrate on more affordable robots, like the "Spirit" rover that just arrived on Mars.

This is what you reap when you have a "C" student in the oval office. Bush has never met a spending bill he didn't like. Vetoes? Nary a one.

Fortunate son's should be excluded from handling the affairs of State until they have demonstrated leadership ability.

Let's run down the list quickly.

1) Without additional spending, deficits extending into the foreseeable future

2) Unfunded or underfunded Bush domestic programs

3) DoD budget equal to the rest of the planet combined

4) World markets cashing out of dollars -- gradually now, but if a panic ensues -- look out below!

5) Iraq. No one knows how much money we're going to throw at that country because of the neo-cons little experiment 500 billion is a reasonable estimate.

6) Another 500 + billion for something that Bush knows nothing about, yet apparently spends most of his waking there.

Plus there is Afghanistan, and potentially more neo-conquests.

McSmellan is a bald faced liar. This sort of BS puts Ari to shame. (yeah, the "McSmellan" bit is juvenile)

America needs to keep fiscally baffled fucktards like this out of office.

Revised alert level -

Yellow

I am not alone.

The Independent seems to allow its journalists a pretty wide berth. How else would they keep Robert Fisk?

I give them the pure bs gold star for this bit.

I'm also going to try some new formats today. You have been warned!!

'US climate policy bigger threat to world than terrorism'

Bravo!!

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
09 January 2004


Tony Blair's chief scientist has launched a withering attack on President George Bush for failing to tackle climate change, which he says is more serious than terrorism.

Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, says in an article today in the journal Science that America, the world's greatest polluter, must take the threat of global warming more seriously.

"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," Sir David says.

The Bush administration was wrong to pull out of the Kyoto protocol, the international effort to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, and wrong to imply the protocol could adversely affect the US economy, Sir David says. "As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States is accustomed to leading internationally co-ordinated action. But the US government is failing to take up the challenge of global warming.

"The Bush administration's strategy relies largely on market-based incentives and voluntary action ... But the market cannot decide that mitigation is necessary, nor can it establish the basic international framework in which all actors can take their place."Much more at link

Bush Climate policy could, if left unchecked, mean the end of civilzation as we know it. This is not an alarmist position. It is one shared by anyone with a long term view, and working knowledge of the issues. Earth Trends is a great resource. I learned about it while watching PBS' fabulous Earth on Edge.

It has always been short sighted not to put the environment first. If the U.S. is going to be the model for environmental regulation, this planet will become a very sterile place with virtually nothing but pests, livestock and human beings as it inhabitants. We deserve better than this. The first step in responsible global climate stewardship is replacing that fellow residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Our future truly is at stake.

U.S. job growth disappointingly flat

The Employment number is just a number. It's the trend that matters. That being said, today's numbers are quite a shock.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 1,000 in December, far below forecasts.

Job growth in the previous four months was revised lower by a total of 66,000. Over the past five months, payrolls have increased by 278,000, according to the survey of some 300,000 business establishments.

The separate household survey showed employment fell by 54,000 in December to 138.5 million. Unemployment fell by 255,000 to 8.4 million, the lowest since October 2002. The labor force decreased by 309,000.

The weak labor market is holding down pay increases. Average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent to $15.50. Over the past year, earnings are up 2 percent, the lowest year-over-year gain since 1987.

Poor weather during the survey week may have depressed the workweek. The average workweek dropped by 12 minutes to 33.7 hours, while hours in manufacturing fell by 6 minutes to 40.7 hours despite a 6-minute increase in overtime to 4.6 hours.

Total hours worked in the economy fell 0.6 percent.

Hiring weakened in December after job gains of 43,000 in November and 100,000 in October. In December, 50.4 percent of industries were hiring, down from 54.3 percent in November.

Goods-producing industries cut 12,000 jobs, including 26,000 in manufacturing. Hopes had risen among economists that the long drought of hiring in the factory sector might finally be ending after the employment index of the Institute for Supply Management index hit a three-year high.

Services-producing industries added 13,000 jobs. Retail jobs fell by 38,000, as cautious retailers kept staffs lean heading into the holiday season. Fewer hires in November and December will likely mean fewer layoffs than expected in January, which could boost the seasonally adjusted data.

Professional and business services added 45,000 jobs, including 30,000 temporary help workers. Health services added 14,000 jobs.

The average length of unemployment fell to 19.6 weeks in December from 20 weeks in November. Of the 8.4 million counted as unemployed, 1.9 million or 22.3 percent have been out of work longer than six months.

I see the unemployment number pegged at 5.7%. I think you'll see a downward revision here.

Much of the data is troubling. Wage and hours worked are cause for concern, as is the sheer size of the 'employment miss.'

Of course the data do not include the large number of Americans that are no longer seeking work, but does give a rough idea of the strength of the job market as reflected in the earnings report, and the hours per week worked.

In case you're wondering where all of this data is mined from, see the U.S. Dept. of Labor's Employment Situation tables and summary.

I just peeked at the opening on Wall Street and it appears that in reaction to the jobs report, the major indices are approximately .75% lower.

I'm sure that the employment numbers will be very closely monitored after today's weak showing. The shocking weakness in the employment report is likely to keep the Fed from moving rates at their next meeting..expect the January 24 release notes to read like the following:

"The Committee continues to believe that an accommodative stance of monetary policy, coupled with robust underlying growth in productivity, is providing important ongoing support to economic activity. The evidence accumulated over the intermeeting period confirms that output is expanding briskly, and the labor market appears to be improving modestly. Increases in core consumer prices are muted and expected to remain low.

"The Committee perceives that the upside and downside risks to the attainment of sustainable growth for the next few quarters are roughly equal. The probability of an unwelcome fall in inflation has diminished in recent months and now appears almost equal to that of a rise in inflation. However, with inflation quite low and resource use slack, the Committee believes that policy accommodation can be maintained for a considerable period."

In simple terms, no change in bias or rate movement at this time.

On Edit: The dollar is trading at yet another all time low vs. the Euro.

Bush creates, "Low wage Job War" -- according to critics.

Note to readers: I haven't had the time to look into this issue at all. This is one of two stories that I need to bring myself up to speed on. The other story is Libya, and just what Muammar Gaddafi is offering for his excusal for past misdeeds. As well as the nexis between Libyan posturing and N. Korea's game of poker.

On to the story.

January 9, 2004

The Bush immigration reform will fan competition between groups of low-wage workers, undermining the advancement of African-Americans, Puerto Ricans and other legal U.S. residents from economically depressed groups, critics of the proposal say.

"It pits foreign-born and native-born workers against one another and lowers the standards for everybody," said Hector Figueroa, a spokesman for Service Employees International, Local 32BJ, which represents 70,000 doormen, custodians and other building workers.

Low-wage workers born in the United States "are already suffering because immigration policy that has gone unchanged since 1965 has succeeded in delivering into the U.S. millions of low-skilled, low-wage people year after year," said John Keeley of the Center for Immigration Studies.

The Bush plan would allow foreign workers to enter the country and take unfilled jobs here, as long as American employers first offered the jobs to U.S. citizens by posting them on a government Web site.

Critics say that could threaten the upward mobility of even middle-class workers, because employers would no longer have to offer higher wages or better working conditions to find workers for less desirable jobs.

Critics also say the guest worker program does not address issues such as lack of low-income housing, crowded schools and a lack of opportunities for minorities to advance into higher-skilled employment, issues that have caused friction in communities from Jackson Heights to Farmingville.

But Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, disagreed, saying the program would allow workers who are now employed illegally to enter the mainstream economy.

Once they did, she said, guest workers could insist on fair wages and decent working conditions. And they would be more willing to seek government services and better schooling that would improve their lives and those of their families.

Gordon Hanson, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexico Studies, said the proposed policies would mean immigrants could put down at least temporary roots, lending greater stability to communities feeling besieged by itinerant workers.

But critics say because the Bush plan only extends legal status to workers who are employed, employers would wield vast coercive powers over them. Guest workers who quit or were fired would be stripped of their right to remain in the United States.

Some immigrants believe the new policy will induce a deluge of new immigrant workers that would eat into their opportunities for employment.

One such worker is Miguel Sanchez Flores. Flores, 75, came from Mexico four years ago and said he was ousted from a job in a Chinese noodle shop by more recent Mexican immigrants who were willing to work for even less. More at link

I can certainly see this as a win win situation for the Bush Administration. Bush mollifies business by fomenting wage competition for the very lowest paid of American workers, and the large numbers of Latin Americans will likely see this as a positive development.

I need to read more about the Bush's "Immigration Reform" before bludgeoning it. 'Reform' is a GOP codeword for 'screw the average person, whilst lining businesses pockets.'

Krugman!

Enron and the System

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Two years after Enron, then one of America's most admired companies, was revealed as a fraud, prosecutors finally seem to be getting somewhere. Andrew Fastow, the company's former chief financial officer, and his wife, Lea, are reported to be engaged in plea-bargaining. Mr. Fastow's testimony will probably lead to charges against other former Enron executives.

But it would be a big mistake to conclude that the system is working. It isn't.

For one thing, the progress in the Enron case is something of a fluke — sort of like convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion. The charges against Mrs. Fastow don't focus on dubious corporate deals; they focus on her failure to report the personal kickbacks she received from participants in those deals. And it's still unclear whether the company's top executives will ever face charges.

More important, in political terms the statute of limitations may already have run out. The political figures with the most direct ties to the Enron scandal, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White and former Senator Phil Gramm, are no longer in office. War and a rising market have, at least for the time being, diverted attention from the role of other political figures whose deference to corporate demands aided and abetted Enron and other corporate malefactors.

And that's unfortunate. The wave of scandal was made possible, if not caused, by a political climate in which corporate insiders got pretty much whatever they wanted. Since the politicians who did their bidding haven't paid any price, that climate hasn't changed.

A November profile of Lea Fastow in Business Week was, among other things, a reminder of just how important a permissive political environment was to the company's growing sense that it could get away with just about anything. One of Mrs. Fastow's earliest high-profile deals involved the creation of an elaborate tax shelter. It was obvious from the beginning that this type of shelter was a scam, and the Treasury Department tried to get this maneuver banned in 1994 — but Congress refused to act. In 1998 Treasury tried a different tack, getting the I.R.S. to disallow Enron's tax deduction, but the agency backed down in the face of an intense lobbying campaign.

So have things changed? No. In October the I.R.S. backed off its challenge to another transparent scam, the synfuel tax credit. The agency denies that it was buckling under political pressure. Uh-huh.

Meanwhile, what about stock options? Just about every analysis of the emergence of widespread accounting fraud stresses the distorting role of huge options grants to top executives, which gave insiders a strong incentive to do whatever it took to push up stock prices. (A fixation on the stock price was central to the Enron scandal.) Companies might have issued fewer options, and accounting fraud might have been less of a problem, if accounting rules had required companies to count the issue of stock options as a cost, rather than pretending that they were somehow free.

But in 1994, when the Financial Accounting Standards Board tried to issue a rule to that effect, companies that issued lots of options mounted a lobbying campaign. And politicians rushed — in a fully bipartisan manner — to be of service. Senator Joseph Lieberman took the lead: he introduced a resolution opposing the change, the resolution was approved 88 to 9, and the board backed down.

So now it's clear that options were a big motivator for corporate fraud, has Congress moved to require that issuing them be counted against profits? No. In fact, the politicians who led the charge against reform back in 1994 haven't budged.

"The best comparison I can think of is the one the N.R.A. uses about guns — which is that guns don't kill people, criminals do," Senator Lieberman said on "Frontline" on PBS. "Options were not the problem with Enron; it was the way in which the executives at Enron sold their options."

Yesterday Gen. Wesley Clark made an appearance with Sherron Watkins, the Enron whistle-blower, and promised to crack down on corporate tax shelters. Howard Dean has also made a crackdown on tax shelters a central plank of his campaign. If these or other candidates actually succeed in making corporate abuse into a successful campaign issue, we may finally see some real reform. But right now, two years after Enron imploded, we have to say that the system is still broken.

And of course, Kenny Boy Lay, a Bush 'Pioneer' is still not charged in relation to the Enron implosion. America. What a country!

If you just popped in and see this awful high contrast text block and are mortified, fret not. As has always been my creed, build it better. I'm satisfied with the very general box properties and am going to be working on the text colors, and padding, etc.

But first, I'm going to feed. Thanks for your patience.

pure bs - Exclusive feature! ten daily links of interest

Link 1 Richer, stouter, and no happier

Short version: There's more and more of more and more of us

Link 2 Farmed Salmon Are Higher in Toxins Than Wild Ones, Study Finds

When the conditions of aquacultured fish are examined, it isn't hard to see why. Read.

Link 3 Not really news, but the Bush Administration is Pushing to Make Those Tax Cuts Permanent

That awful sound is your children and their children's children paying for our fiscal recklessness

Link 4 Bush Acts to Reward Companies Who Cut off Seniors' Drug Coverage

Read. Get angry. Email every senior you know. Now.

Link 5 Bush Plans Major Space Announcement

Was he the guy at Morton-Thiokol that designed those "O" rings? I think not. I think W's out of loop at NASA :)

Link 6 Jane Goodall On Our Commander-in-Chief

No. I'm sorry. That's just wrong on so many levels. Although the programme is called, "Demonic Ape."

Link 7 Bill Gates wants to visit YOUR living room

Well, okay. He wants to OWN your living room.

Link 8 That homicidal kidnapper guy offed himself after a police chase

Hard to know what really happened here. Girls are safe, though.

Link 9 Huge Movement of Troops Is Underway

Rotation in the Persian Gulf to get those folks some R & R. There's more there. Read. Learn. Know stuff. Impress chicks.

Link 10 Think those 'low tar' butts are saving your lungs? Think again

Low-tar cigarettes do not reduce a smoker's risk of developing lung cancer and are as deadly as regular brands, researchers said Friday.

Some of these we'll explore in greater depth. The salmon story is espercially intriguing. I'll continue to try and get the Carnegie report, and a host of other things big and small on the morrow.

More on Iraq via The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

A personal anecdote: Jessica Tuchman Mathews is my hero. Whenever Richard Perle gets a spot on PBS, Ms. Mathews takes him on and does a terrific job. I told her so.

You can read the two page summary of CEIP's findings here.

I have been trying to download the entire .pdf for some time now, and I keep timing out. I'm on a 3Mb line, and I just ran a speedtest here and my speed seems good. I'll keep trying.

You can contrast the Carnegie findings with Powell's assertions below, or you can parse the information here for a tease.

One tidbit that Powell himself says in another of today's entries is found in the above linked article. Ready?

.....Years of U.N. inspections to determine whether Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction were working well, and the United States should set up jointly with the United Nations a permanent system to guard against the spread of dangerous technology, the report said.

It recommended that consideration be given to making the job of CIA director a career post instead of a political appointment.

Mathews is president, Cirincione is director of the proliferation project, and Perkovich is vice president for studies at Carnegie, an independent research group.

Meanwhile, an unscientific State Department survey released this week showed most residents in five Iraqi cities believed attacks against Iraqi civilians, police and international organizations are more harmful than helpful for Iraq's future. About a third of Iraqis said attacks against the U.S. forces are helpful.

The survey also showed about two-thirds of those surveyed say the attacks emphasize the need for the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. A majority thought that troops should depart after a permanent government is elected by the Iraqi people....

Iraq is still a very nasty, dangerous place.

As I'm looking for all things Iraq related, I came across this in that Lefty rag, Stars and Stripes.

...."After we knew the Chinook had gone down and we flew at night in a darkened helicopter, we knew this was a dangerous place and we're at war," said Democrat Ed Case of Hawaii.

However, he said: "Whatever increased risk we faced, it was nothing compared to what the frontline troop goes through every day."

The delegation made a stop at the military hospital in Landstuhl, which has treated more than 7,000 injured and ill servicemembers from the Iraq war. The congressmen met with several injured soldiers, one whose arm had been amputated by a rocket-propelled grenade, and another who was injured by a homemade bomb.

Although this could just have easily been a report about today's Black Hawk downing, it was an earlier incident involving a Chinook. The 7,000+ injury figure was reported 5 November, 2003. Two full months ago. Link.

It is somewhat disconcerting that CentCom has removed the tallies from their usual location. I suspect this a bow to political pressure. Now that we're in a post-war, post-Saddam situation any additional deaths/casualties are likely to seen as a greater political liability.

I now use the numbers compiled at the excellent Lunaville.org site.

Today's downing of the UH-60 Black Hawk brings the total of downed helicopters as a result of hostile fire to eight if confirmed since the declaration of Mr. Bush on May 1 that major combat operations has ended.

Additional information on today's chopper crash. CentCom has confirmed that nine G.I.s were killed.

In another Iraqi story, it was reported that a military cargo plane may have been hit by a missile and had to make an emergency landing at Baghdad airport. I can't find the link now, .........I just found a link at Boeston.com. Good thing, I thought I might have hallucinated the entire incident. :)

Iraq is just a long string of bad news. I wonder if BushCo's plans to launch C-Span Baghdad are still go?

WTF? Powell overdosing on Ambien?

Powell, Back After Surgery, Defends His Call for Iraq War

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

Published: January 8, 2004

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 ? Secretary of State Colin L. Powell today offered a vigorous defense of his United Nations presentation last year on the need to wage war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, even as new criticism emerged and some American weapons inspectors have left Iraq empty-handed.

In a rare, wide-ranging news conference, Mr. Powell voiced some optimism on several other issues that have bedeviled the Bush administration, including North Korea, Sudan and Brazil. There are indications from allies that six-way talks aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear program may resume, he said.

The secretary, appearing vigorous and in good spirits just three weeks after undergoing surgery for prostate cancer, did not yield an inch in defense of his justification for the war in Iraq. He was fully aware that "the world would be watching," as he painstakingly made the case that Mr. Hussein's regime presented a threat to the United States and its interests.

But, a central tenet of his argument ? that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction ? has, in the absence of evidence, stirred criticism that the administration may have exaggerated its case in order to win support for military action.

A report released today by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a non-partisan Washington research center, concluded that Iraq's weapons programs constituted a long-term threat that should not be ignored, but that they did not "pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region, or to global security."

The imminence of the risk presented by Iraq was at the core of debates in the United Nations last winter over how to proceed against Mr. Hussein, who by all accounts had flouted the international community by failing to cooperate with weapons inspectors and come clean about his programs. The Security Council ultimately balked at authorizing war, agreeing to give negotiations more time to work.

Mr. Powell's presentation -- complete with audiotapes and satellite photographs -- made the administration's strongest case for urgent action. Link

See entry below and link to Powell's declaration that Iraq is WMD free/not athreat to its neighbors/not a threat to the U.S./sanctions effective. I guess that the truth is a moving tartget for Colin 'Mai Lai" Powell.

The U.S. Secretary of State recommends: Ambien For those difficult out wash memories.

From the pure bs Dept. Of "How the Hell Did I Miss This?" comes this via the WaPo:

Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper
Since Gulf War, Nonconventional Weapons Never Got Past the Planning Stage

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 7, 2004

BAGHDAD -- Of all Iraq's rocket scientists, none drew warier scrutiny abroad than Modher Sadeq-Saba Tamimi.

An engineering PhD known for outsized energy and gifts, Tamimi, 47, designed and built a new short-range missile during Iraq's four-year hiatus from United Nations arms inspections. Inspectors who returned in late 2002, enforcing Security Council limits, ruled that the Al Samoud missile's range was not quite short enough. The U.N. team crushed the missiles, bulldozed them into a pit and entombed the wreckage in concrete. In one of three interviews last month, Tamimi said "it was as if they were killing my sons."

But Tamimi had other brainchildren, and these stayed secret. Concealed at some remove from his Karama Co. factory here were concept drawings and computations for a family of much more capable missiles, designed to share parts and features with the openly declared Al Samoud. The largest was meant to fly six times as far.

"This was hidden during the UNMOVIC visits," Tamimi said, referring to inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. Over a leisurely meal of lamb and sweet tea, he sketched diagrams. "It was forbidden for us to reveal this information," he said.

Tamimi's covert work, which he recounted publicly for the first time in five hours of interviews, offers fresh perspective on the question that led the nation to war. Iraq flouted a legal duty to report the designs. The weapons they depicted, however, did not exist. After years of development -- against significant obstacles -- they might have taken form as nine-ton missiles. In March they fit in Tamimi's pocket, on two digital compact discs.

The nine-month record of arms investigators since the fall of Baghdad includes discoveries of other concealed arms research, most of it less advanced. Iraq's former government engaged in abundant deception about its ambitions and, in some cases, early steps to prepare for development or production. Interviews here -- among Iraqi weaponeers and investigators from the U.S. and British governments -- turned up unreported records, facilities or materials that could have been used in unlawful weapons.

But investigators have found no support for the two main fears expressed in London and Washington before the war: that Iraq had a hidden arsenal of old weapons and built advanced programs for new ones. In public statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered no work on former germ-warfare agents such as anthrax bacteria, and no work on a new designer pathogen -- combining pox virus and snake venom -- that led U.S. scientists on a highly classified hunt for several months. The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a "grave and gathering danger" by President Bush and a "mortal threat" by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s.

A review of available evidence, including some not known to coalition investigators and some they have not made public, portrays a nonconventional arms establishment that was far less capable than U.S. analysts judged before the war. Leading figures in Iraqi science and industry, supported by observations on the ground, described factories and institutes that were thoroughly beaten down by 12 years of conflict, arms embargo and strangling economic sanctions. The remnants of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile infrastructures were riven by internal strife, bled by schemes for personal gain and handicapped by deceit up and down lines of command. The broad picture emerging from the investigation to date suggests that, whatever its desire, Iraq did not possess the wherewithal to build a forbidden armory on anything like the scale it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Five pages, and pre-school drawings at link

I know, it's old news. It was old news to Powell and Rice pre-sept 11, 2001. Our watchdog press. Good thing they're not watching my home.

Pure bs pounding swing voters! (Gently)

Earlier today, it was sometime around noon, I was at my local lunchtime haunt. (sorry, no gratuitous plug -- soup was on the cold side today) I was sitting next to my erstwhile junior high school shop teacher. We were discussing the finer points of woodworking - now his vocation since he retired a few years ago, and a favorite pastime of your humble author - when Bush appeared on the TV. The TV was tuned to CNN. This life-long GOPer, and I suspect closet authoritarian started bashing Bush.

His grousing was over Bush's lack of real funding for No Child Left Behind and subsequent asking for Congress for an additional 75 billion dollars to fight a war that he now sees as unnecessary caused me to grin just a bit. I asked him what he thought about Bush's overall job handling as Commander-in-Chief. He quickly retorted, "if only Clark(Gen. Wesley Clark) was a Republican."

Sensing vulnerability I asked him, "what difference does it make what party a candidate is in, if you agree with their agenda?"

He honestly replied, "none."

I then proceeded to ask him if he would vote for Bush in 2004. He replied, "there is no way in hell I am going to vote for that [expletive removed]. I'd sooner vote for Dean."

This was too good to be true. I queried further, "what about a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket?"

We then chatted a bit about Bush's ties to mega-corporations and how money, while always a part of politics, has been brought to a new level in the past few years.

He then proclaimed quite unexpectedly, "I'm voting for Clark in the primary."

I asked him about his decades of devotion to the GOP and how he felt about being betrayed by Bush. He responded, "all these guys are bought and paid for by the time they reach Governor, or Senator, much less President. Clark doesn't owe anybody anything."

I just had to ask about the general election -- in NH we can vote, in any election, and immediately register with another party -- so I asked him, "Norm, are you really going to leave the GOP in November, or are you just angry for the moment?"

He laughed a bit, and said that he hadn't actually said that he was going to vote Democrat in the general election.

"Fair enough." I said. "Let's say the election was held tomorrow, would you vote for the Democratic nominee?"

"Tomorrow?" he asked, with a raised brow. "Yeah, I would. Absolutely," he averred, as he took an enormous bite out of his ham on rye.

I'll keep working on Norm. You have to know this guy. At one point when I brought up the fact that no WMD had been found in Iraq, he quickly rebuked me with, "So?"

We then had the discussion that I'm sure millions of Americans have had, regarding the Bush Administration's constantly shifting rationale for war. At this point, June or July of last year he was an ardent Bush supporter. How quickly things can change.

Bush and Stupidity

First this op-ed:

The S factor explains Bush's popularity

By NEAL STARKMAN
GUEST COLUMNIST

Millions of words have been written as to the motivations of voters. Particularly in close elections, as in the 2000 presidential contest, pundits and laypeople alike have speculated on why people voted for whom. The exit poll has been a major tool in this speculation.

But the speculation misses the mark by far. It's increasingly obvious, for example, that none of the so-called theories can explain President Bush's popularity, such as it is. Even at this date in his presidency, after all that has happened, the president's popularity hovers at around 50 percent -- an astonishingly high figure, I believe, given the state of people's lives now as opposed to four years ago.

What can explain his popularity? Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America?

Is that likely?

Granted, there are certain subsections of the American polity that have substantially benefited from this presidency. Millionaires and charismatic Christians have accrued either material or spiritual fortification from Bush's administration. But surely these two groups are a small minority of the population. What, then, can account for so many people being so supportive of the president?

The answer, I'm afraid, is the factor that dare not speak its name. It's the factor that no one talks about. The pollsters don't ask it, the media don't report it, the voters don't discuss it.

I, however, will blare out its name so that at last people can address the issue and perhaps adopt strategies to overcome it.

It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.

It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.

You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace.

Politicians have been aware of this forever; they cater to these people. They offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. They evade directed questions with non-sequiturs. They offer meaningless, jingoistic pap instead of thoughtful policy. And these people, the "S" people, eat it all up with a ladle.

I don't have a solution to this problem. To claim I did would belie my previous arguments. But I do have some modest suggestions that might provide a start for discussion: an intelligence test to earn the right to vote; a three-significantly-stupid-behaviors-and-you're-out law; fines for politicians who pander to the lowest common denominator and deportation of media representatives who perpetuate such actions.

It's well past time that people confront this issue, no matter who's offended. We are on the way to becoming a nation of imbeciles. I'm certain that a plethora of "George W. Bush" jokes is already being circulated in every capital of the world. We can stop this sapping of our national integrity but we must do it soon, lest the morons become the norm and those of us who use our brains for more than memorizing advertising jingles are ourselves ostracized from society.

Let's start talking. Let's bring the S factor out of the closet and into the daylight where we can all see it, gulp at its hideousness and finally make serious attempts to bring it to bay. Link

This op-ed is an over-simplification. It is not so much stupidity, as it is the very obvious fact that Americans by and large, lack critical thinking skills. Joe and Josephine six-pack swallow all manner of rubbish and harbor downright weird beliefs because of this. Early adoption into fundamental religion, and parents that are/were unable to equip their children to cope with the novelty of the world using logic and reason are better explanations as to why Bush is held in relatively high regard. Of course such rigidity of thinking is part of being intellectually bereft, but it is not the sole domain of those of less than average intelligence. Many really bright people like Bush, and harbor many other beliefs strongly despite a complete lack of evidence.

Religion, and 'group think' had some form of adaptive advantage in our distant past. Now, it has become a hindrance to continued scientific inquiry and all other higher order thought processing. Richard Dawkin's 'meme' hypothesis can show how people believe -- even otherwise high functioning people -- can hold utterly bizarre beliefs. I would say that Bush's popularity is due to a combination of factors.

Anyone that is well known is bound to have some level of popularity, regardless of what they may have done. The media, which is largely the propaganda arm of Bush Administration almost never fails to show 'their guy' in a positive light. Media consolidation is a huge hindrance to offering the whole spectrum of thought on any given issue. Corporate giants have morphed Bush into an 'everyday' guy, when it is clear that Bush comes from American royalty. Our media have transformed this 'fortunate son' into the guy next door, albeit with a speech impediment.

Yes, of course in any population 50% of the populace is of below average intelligence, but this fails to properly address Bush's popularity.

What we need in this country is true, open and elevated debate. It doesn't take a high IQ to sift through facts in a reasonable manner. All that is required is access to alternative viewpoints and a willingness to take a bit of time to assess options on an even playing field. People are busy. They want easy answers to hard questions. The biggest success of the Bush Administration -- and I would argue Republicans since Teddy Roosevelt -- is to frame issues in a black and white nature, when in reality everything is nuanced in shades of gray. If you do not believe that this is true, name me one issue that doesn't require a trade-off of some kind. There isn't one.

I am willing to concede that a person's intelligence does play a factor in how they view Bush. A person's cognitive and reasoning abilities color everything which one comes into contact. Yet, I think it both unreasonable and irresponsible to offer the simplistic conclusion that Bush's popularity is due to the stupidity of the masses. Bush has been merchandised to a degree that he has ceased to be anathema to half of our citizenry. It is no one person's fault that he/she lacks the proper skills to make a valid quantitative judgment about a political person.

Remember, this 50% of America is just as sure that Bush is a positive force, as the other 50% is that he is altogether something different. Some people cannot experience cognitive dissonance. This is true regardless of intellect, but is not neutral to those that have well developed critical thinking skills. Such people deal with cognitive dissonance in a healthy way. As citizens, it is our duty to try and bridge the gap and knock down those long held beliefs without evidence.

In closing, I'll offer a bit of pure bs speculation. If Bush fades in the polls, Karl Rove and his handlers will off up a myriad of demonstrably false assertions about their guy that will disappear under the least bit of scrutiny. These will be new revelations that have already been 'put out to pasture' by those not beholden to the GOP(Goering's Own Party) The reason that the GOP resorts to propaganda is that it works.

It should be obvious that this is an issue that I find fascinating. I hope that you at least made it through this screed.

For further reading, I recommend the following web material:

Iain Murray's : Living with the consequences of innumeracy, or Why Americans suck at math

A bit on memes, by Susan Blackmore

An Introduction to Psychological Warfare and Propaganda

IMF Still Miffed With Bush Aministration Their Suggestion: Try Budgeting You Neophytes!!!!

IMF continues warning on US deficit

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. budget deficit is burgeoning from rising defense and security spending, even as tax cuts are lowering government revenue, amid increasing demands on the budget from the retiring baby boom generation, the International Monetary Fund cautioned once again Wednesday.

But the IMF's warnings and its prescriptions for dealing with the budgetary as well as trade deficits are unlikely to have much impact on U.S. policymakers, if any, particularly in a presidential election year.

Since the Bush administration took over in 2001, the federal budget balance has deteriorated rapidly, and the government deficit is expected to exceed 4 percent of gross domestic product for the current fiscal year.

"And that deficit is likely to be sustained...which raises longer-term issues," not just for the U.S. economy, but for overall global economic prospects, said Charles Collyns, deputy director of the IMF's western hemisphere department in a phone conference with reporters. The group released a study Wednesday on U.S. fiscal policies and priorities for long-run stability, which Collyns said was based on discussions with U.S. authorities over the summer.

The IMF warned that the large fiscal deficits will likely continue over the next decade as the administration keeps on cutting taxes on the one hand, while increasing defense and social spending on the other. That, in turn, could lead to a rise in interest rates, even though the international agency did not specify by just how much monetary policy could be tightened. It also noted that higher interest rates would crowd out private sector investments and ultimately hamper business and productivity growth as well as consumer spending.

In the near-term, of course, prospects for the U.S. economy and indeed the world economy, appear to be looking much better than they did a year ago. With U.S. asset prices on the rise once again and GDP outpacing analysts' expectations in the third quarter, a brighter outlook for the U.S. economy has been key to improving prospects for both Japan and Europe.

Still, the IMF said that in the longer-term, the ballooning budget deficit and net foreign liability position in the United States will be the biggest dark spot in the global economy moving forward, and could "eventually" raise real interest rates in industrialized nations by 0.50 to 1.00 percentage points.

"The United States is on course to increase its net external liabilities to around 40 percent of GDP within the next few years...this trend is likely to put pressure on the U.S. dollar, particularly because the current account deficit increasingly reflects low savings rather than high investment," the IMF stated.Much more at link

Read the entire story. It details much of what we here at pure bs have been saying about U.S. debt in the longer term. The IMF is notorious for underestimating the fallout of events. Essentially, the IMF can only make suggestions about U.S. policy because the U.S is the largest single donor to the IMF, and is free to do what is pleases.

I am not an economist, but I do have the ear of an economist friend that works in Zurich. She is really at a loss to come up with a plan for the U.S. to balance its budget in the foreseeable future without a repeal of Bush's tax cuts, and a more robust growth engine. She sees a very dark future for middle America in the coming decades. She's also a real looker :)

Of course the issue with 'the dismal science' is as has oft been said, "put ten economists in a room and you'll end up with eleven interpretations."

Hmmm. I'm having IE issues. This abbeviated post is being made using my bestest favorite browser Mozilla Firebird.

More to follow shortly. Stay tuned.

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.