No ten links o' fun tonight :(

I'm a slacker. No 10 links tonight. I'll shoot for fifteen on both Saturday and Sunday. As you can see, I'm messing with a new look for the blog. It works as advertised in Gecko engined browsers, Mozilla, NS6+, Firebird(my personal fav) and should in the others. I have an I.E. bug. if you hover(mouseover) a link in the main page body, you'll note that the text jumps left. This is not, I repeat NOT a feature.

I looked at my code, and yes it is still something of a mess, as I add and remove features, but I cannot fathom why I.E. is exhibiting this behavior. I suspect that it may be related to the script for either the permalink, or Haloscan's commenting.

This only started when I went to the box model to enclose the entries. I'll figure it out. I always do. I did add a search function today, as well as the misbehaving box model, so it wasn't a total waste, just a less than fully productive day.

Ciao for now..your humble blogger,

Todd

George "not a scientist" Bush's absurdly named, "President's Council on Bioethics" [Ed. Snickers aloud] fails to take a stance on embryonic stem cell research.

I'm almost certain that this is an election year political move, designed to make the anti-science, anti-progess Bush seem more the moderate. In this administration, if you don't agree with the boss, they summarily dismiss you after a round or two of derision.

The Scientist's biomed central has more.

US President's Council on Bioethics takes no position in 400-page report | By Eugene Russo

WASHINGTON, DC - The President's Council on Bioethics released its first report on stem cell research at a meeting here yesterday (January 15). But unlike one of its noteworthy predecessors, the new report, Monitoring Stem Cell Research, made no recommendations and took no particular ethical or policy position.

Instead, the 400-page-plus report, which includes four chapters and several appendices, summarizes the most recent developments in stem cell science, outlines the ethical issues surrounding stem cells—in particular embryonic stem cells—and provides an overview of the current federal policy.

Responding to a query by one puzzled audience member, Council Chair Leon R. Kass said that the council declined to make specific recommendations because the stem cell research field is young, and the president's policy and its implementation are even younger. In August 2001, President Bush announced that under his policy, only the approximately 60-plus stem cell lines that already existed would be eligible for funding.

400 pages, and who knows how much taxpayer money to say 'we have no position on the issue?' WTF?!?!

Read the highlighted paragraph, and tell me that this is not Bush's hand-picked nutcases bowing to election year pressures. Fuckin' sad.

George WTF Bush. I think Gore is spot on for calling Bush a moral coward.

U.S. not a 'free trader' says WTO

From the UPI:

WTO finds some trade barriers in U.S.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- The World Trade Organization, in its first report on U.S. trade policies in two years, said Friday that though the United States is a largely open economy, barriers still persist in important areas of trade.

According to the WTO report, "recent U.S. macroeconomic policy has been directed, increasingly successfully, towards recovering and sustaining growth, with benefits to the global economy, including through trade."

However, the report said that barriers facing other nations to gaining access to U.S. markets persist in a few, but important, areas in the U.S. economy. These include large agriculture subsidies, the recently ended steel tariffs and the ongoing protectionist tariff policies in the textiles and clothing sectors. The report added that these measures have distorted the U.S. market and "has burdened U.S. consumers, taxpayers and trade." More at link

Under the deregulatory GOP, you'd think we would have the freest trade polices on the planet. We do not. I think we rank around 6th or 7th in overall free trade. This is not a bad thing. Policies restrictive of trade generally only delay the inevitable. You cannot 'restrict' your economy into competition. It musy happen organically through innovation.

I don't fear globalization. I think it inevitable in a freer world. Of course, in the long run, the U.S. will be a lesser player on the world stage. It's simply a matter of extending the dynamics that are now in play. We are only a mass exporter of food and weapons. I'm referring to things that are actaully made here, rather than have the components made elsewhere and assembled here. Much of the 'value added' processes are done elsewhere.

There are ways to plan for outsourcing, a permanently crippled currency and the loss of our manufacturing base. This is not the stuff of fantasy. It is here and now. I have ideas as to how to flow with trends, and I'll write more as this trend accelerates.

Bush Gored on Environment and More!

It's really good to see a high visiblilty political figure take Bush to task over utter contempt for the environment.

Gore Environmental Speech Becomes an Assault on Bush

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

Former Vice President Al Gore said yesterday that the Bush administration was "wholly owned by the coal, oil, utility and mining industries" and that President Bush was a "moral coward" for not standing up to his campaign contributors when their interests conflicted with those of the public.

Mr. Gore's speech in New York, billed as an attack on Mr. Bush's environmental record, proved to be a far broader critique.

The former vice president used environmental issues to highlight what he called moral failures and deceptions by the Bush administration.

"While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the real truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors he is a moral coward, so weak that he seldom if ever says 'no' to anything, no matter what the public interest might mandate," Mr. Gore said to a standing ovation.

The speech, co-sponsored by the group MoveOn.org, was his fourth in a series that takes the administration to task while helping keep Mr. Gore in the nation's political dialogue. He is not a candidate for office, but he looked and sounded like one with a speech that blended humor with outrage.

The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie, called Mr. Gore's remarks "political hate speech" and said in a statement: "Instead of repudiating these tactics, Al Gore chose to embrace the vile tactics that are becoming the hallmark of the Democrat Party at its highest levels.

"Like the Democrat presidential candidates, Al Gore has once again chosen to use his time at the podium to attack the president rather than put forward a positive agenda of his own."

But Mr. Gore appeared to give the crowd what it wanted. Organizers said they had distributed 3,500 tickets in just two hours via the Internet and despite frigid temperatures, the Beacon Theater on Broadway was packed. On several occasions Mr. Gore could hardly be heard above the applause.

The speech began as a familiar tutorial on climate and mankind, of the kind Mr. Gore has been giving for two decades. But it soon encompassed foreign policy and the president's recent proposal to try to build a base on the moon, which Mr. Gore called an "unimaginative and retreated effort." He accused the Bush White House of often operating in secret, of intentionally deceiving the public and of "radical changes that reverse a century of American policy designed to protect our natural resources."

Mr. Gore assailed Mr. Bush as having criticized the concept of "nation building" during the campaign in 2000 only to invade and occupy Iraq. He said Mr. Bush's promise as a candidate to regulate carbon dioxide as a polluting greenhouse gas "was instantly transformed by the inauguration into a promise to the generators of CO2 that it would not be regulated at all."

Mr. Gore's impassioned delivery prompted several people in the audience to remark afterward that had he been as forceful as a candidate in 2000, he might have won.

Doug Hattaway, Mr. Gore's national spokesman in 2000, said he believed that Mr. Gore was speaking out with one goal in mind: to help defeat Mr. Bush in 2004. "He is helping to add fuel to the fire and keep issues in the news that are problematic for the administration," Mr. Hattaway said.

But while Mr. Gore may have helped rally the Democratic faithful, the political cast to his speech drew concern that he might be undermining the very cause he said he was addressing.

"In many ways it is the politicization of the climate issue that has stifled discussions of new and innovative policy options," Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado commented after reading the speech. "As opposing sides use the issue for political gain, it is very difficult for new ideas to enter the discussion. The politics is all well and good, but meanwhile we lack effective options on climate."

In this instance, there is no more at link. Why does the GOP and RWEC use the phrase. "politcal hate speech" with such frequency? The anwser is that they cannot point errors of fact and have nothing but vacuous retorts.

I agree that the specch would have been more effective if Gore stuck to hammering Bush on his utter recklessness regarding the environment.

However, the balance of his comments were essentailly factaul. You know that when Gillespie has to resort to the 'PHS' defense, that the GOP does not have any rebuttal.

Protesters Chant and Boo as Bush Honors Dr. King

Shocking!

Protesters Chant and Boo as Bush Honors Dr. King

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

ATLANTA, Jan. 15 — President Bush made a swing through the South on Thursday with an appeal to black voters, but encountered emotional protests when he stopped here to lay a wreath at the grave of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Bush was met by hundreds of demonstrators when he arrived at The King Center to mark the 75th anniversary of Dr. King's birth. He was shielded from their view by a row of transit-authority buses with police officers in riot gear atop them, according to the pool reporter who accompanied the president into the center.

But the chants and boos of the protesters were audible as Mr. Bush, accompanied by Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, and his sister, Christine King Farris, approached the crypt, laid the wreath and paused briefly in prayer before leaving without making any public remarks.

Outside, the protesters chanted "Bush go home" and "Peace, not war."

Before Mr. Bush's arrival for the 15-minute stop, some of the protesters broke through barriers around the center. Two arrests were made, the Atlanta police said, and the incident prompted the authorities to place the buses between the demonstrators and the president.

The White House had arranged for Mr. Bush to stop at Dr. King's grave on a day when the president was scheduled to be in Atlanta for a fund-raiser. Sheriee Bowman, a spokeswoman for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said the group respected the president's right to pay tribute to Dr. King. But she suggested that the civil rights organization saw Mr. Bush's presence as politically motivated.

"We question the integrity of the timing of the move because last year at this time he took a stand against affirmative action, the Michigan case, which is part of Dr. King's legacy," Ms. Bowman said, referring to the Supreme Court case that considered the use of race in college admissions.

Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's spokesman, said before Mr. Bush's arrival here that the visit was intended as a tribute to Dr. King.

"Dr. King had a tremendously positive influence in shaping the world we live in today for the better, and this is a way to honor a lifetime dedicated to fighting for opportunity and equal justice for all people," Mr. McClellan said.

Much more at link.

Unless, "This is scripted?" is the format for Bush visits around the country, I expect a lot more of the same. Democracy can be so very messy.

Okay, two final items. This is it. I promise.

Those whacky Christians.

Bush's Push for Marriage Falls Short for Conservatives

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: January 15, 2004

Some major conservative Christian groups said yesterday that they were pleased but not satisfied by a new White House initiative to promote marriage, and they stepped up pressure on President Bush to champion a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage in his State of the Union speech next week.

"This is like lobbing a snowball at a forest fire," said Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women of America, one of the largest conservative Christian advocacy groups. "This administration is dancing dangerously around the issue of homosexual marriage."

The conservative Christians' insistence on an amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage may put President Bush in a political bind as he starts his re-election campaign, caught between wooing potential swing voters and turning out his core evangelical supporters. Some conservative strategists warn that pushing to amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions could turn off some potential Republican voters like suburban women, who might find excessive talk about the perils of same-sex marriage as intolerant, mean-spirited or weirdly obsessive.

"I think there are a lot of people that don't want to endorse a lifestyle contrary to their personal values, but they want to be tolerant," said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster who is working with the Bush re-election campaign, "and quite frankly they don't like being put in a position where they look to be intolerant." More at link

Christians, particularly of the 'born-again' ilk are very intolerant creatures. They'll tell you that they're against homosexual unions, or homosexual anything because it says it's an 'abomination' in the Bible. Well, so is eating shellfish. And the big invisible sky guy's handbook doesn't tell you which is worse.

The real reason that Christians are against homosexual unions is that it doesn't produce new little minds to be molded to believe in 2000 year old myths. They may not know this, and don't count on any moments of cognitive dissonance. These folks are happy believing that they're doing that sky guy's work. I wonder if they'll do my work?

********

Also from the NYT:

Bush's Power to Plan Trial of Detainees Is Challenged

Ed: It really wasn't my idea to put 'Bush and 'challenged' in the same headline..honest!

By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 — Five uniformed military lawyers assigned to defend detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, challenging the basis of President Bush's plan to use military tribunals without civilian court review to try some of the detainees there.

In their 30-page brief, filed late Wednesday, the lawyers assert that President Bush worked to "create a legal black hole" and overstepped his constitutional authority as commander in chief in the way he set up the program for military tribunals.

The administration has argued that the 660 detainees at Guantánamo are not only illegal enemy combatants who are not entitled to protections of international law, but that they are also not entitled to United States constitutional protections because the naval base, on the southeastern tip of Cuba, is not on United States territory.

As such, the government says, the prisoners may not petition the civilian courts for any relief like filing habeas corpus petitions in which people under arrest challenge their detentions before federal judges.

The government has tried to create a military tribunal system thoroughly insulated from the civilian court system. But in their brief, which civilian and military legal experts consider extraordinary because the defense lawyers are military officers challenging their commander in chief's authority, the lawyers are, in effect, trying to jump over the fence into the civilian system.

"Under this monarchical regime, those who fall into the black hole may not contest the jurisdiction, competency or even the constitutionality of the military tribunals," the defense lawyers wrote. They said they were not taking a position on whether the president may deny habeas corpus to people simply detained at Guantánamo, but once he puts them before a tribunal as the government is contemplating, "he has moved outside his role as commander in chief."

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, who represents one of two detainees who have been assigned lawyers, said in an interview that though the brief was extraordinary, "It was unavoidable as part of our duty to represent the interests of our clients."

The brief was filed after the justices agreed to review the constitutionality of the Guantánamo detentions, which have been upheld by lower courts.

Other briefs objecting to the detentions include one on behalf of 175 members of the British Parliament who said "the exercise of executive power without possibility of judicial review jeopardizes the keystone of our existence as nations, namely the rule of law."

The Guantánamo situation has been a major irritant in United States-British relations. Anthony Lester, a barrister who filed the brief, said it was unusual for so many members of both houses of Parliament to have rushed to sign the brief, including five former law lords, the rough equivalent of United States Supreme Court justices, two of them former chief law lords.

"This is a remarkable thing and it goes right across any party lines," Lord Lester of Herne Hill said, noting that the signers included many prominent Tories, Labor members and Liberal Democrats.

"One could have gotten a couple of hundred more if one had a few more days," he said.

I suppose you ought to expect the unexpected when you just make the rules up as you go along. Right on!

Short posting day. I'm beat. You'll notice a change in appearance of the page. I'm working on a new template without interrupting the daily stuff. I thought it was going to take me a couple of days, but I think I'll have it done tomorrow.

This page uses no tables or cells of any kind. No absolute positioning either. I have a three column design as well, but is pretty unwieldy at resolutions of less than 1024x768. It works perfectly, just hard to read.

The new format will be in accord with the box model. Essentially, each entry will have it's own 'box.' it tales up only a tiny amount of bandwidth, and this site has no images to load..save for the few kb that the Blogger and Haloscan images use.

Well, enough of that. On to the pbs exclusive.

Ten Links o' the Day Time!

Hah. The Boston Globe has a pretty well researched op-ed on Colin Powell's Shrinking Credibility on Iraq. Curious. It cites the Carnegie Report along with the usual, 'this is what he said' vs. 'these are the facts.' at pbs, we just use the Powell's own words from 2001. He knew he was talking bs, not 'pbs' when he whored himself at the U.N. Sad that we keep revisiting the same lies.

********

EPA Sued for Illegally Taking Direction from Chemical Industry Group

Quickie :) (there is more at link)

SEATTLE, Jan. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Conservation and pesticide- watchdog groups today filed a lawsuit to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from giving illegal special access to a group of chemical corporations. Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and other sources reveal that the corporate insider group has met regularly with EPA officials in secret and has urged EPA to weaken endangered species protections from pesticides. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Seattle Washington.

The chemical companies are pushing EPA to weaken pesticide safeguards by cutting expert biologists in the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries out of consultations determining the effects of pesticides on wildlife. At the companies' urging, EPA has starting a rulemaking to reserve authority over such evaluations to itself.

"EPA is letting the pesticide industry have inside influence over the fate of endangered species poisoned by toxic pesticides," said Patti Goldman of Earthjustice, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of the conservation and watchdog groups.

Federal law prohibits the government from using and meeting in secret with such insider groups. Congress has established good government standards that prevent secret and one-sided advisory bodies of wealthy special interests. The Federal Advisory Committee Act prohibits the federal government from obtaining advice from committees comprised of only the regulated industry. That act also requires that the meetings of advisory groups be open to the public.

"EPA has an open door policy to the biggest chemical companies in America while excluding the rest of us," said Mike Senatore of Defenders of Wildlife. "That's not right. In America all voices are supposed to be heard, not just wealthy interests that make campaign contributions."

Regular readers know that the environment is my number one issue. Why? Because habitable planets are hard to find. Special considerations given to the Pesticide lobby..I'm shocked.

The U.S, needs to LEAD on environmental issues. If this is the kind of leadership we're going to show, spaceship Earth has a leaking airlock.

********

SCIENCE!

New scientists reports today that a robotic scientist outperforms humans in lab.

Don't hang up your lab coat just yet. Here's a tease:

"An intelligent robot that could free genomics researchers from routine lab chores has proven as effective as a human scientist. The robot not only performs genetics experiments, it also decides which ones to do, interprets the results and comes up with new hypotheses.

"Fields such as genomics are crying out for better and more intelligent automation because they are generating data much faster than it can be analysed. Stephen Muggleton, a computer scientist at Imperial College London, UK, and a member of the team that developed the system, says that scientists in genomics are becoming overwhelmed. Data is increasing almost exponentially, he adds, making more automation inevitable."

********

Sorry. Yoo-Essay Today makes it onto the list with some economic news. Factories suffer 41 months of layoffs

WASHINGTON ? Manufacturers still aren't producing the one item the economy needs most: jobs.
Despite recent sharp jumps in orders and shipments, factories shed 26,000 workers in December, the Labor Department said Friday. The December figures mark the 41st consecutive month of layoffs, and bring overall manufacturing job losses to 2.8 million since mid-2000.

The pace of layoffs has slowed since summer, but more than 500,000 factory jobs evaporated in 2003 alone. The figures are a disappointment for workers and many analysts, who had predicted the beleaguered manufacturing sector was turning the corner.

"The loss of 26,000 more manufacturing jobs in December shows that the manufacturing recovery is still in its infancy," said Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Much more at above link.

It appears that manufacturing is going bleed jobs into the foreseeable future. This is partly why I'm concerned about the duration and fragility of this 'recovery.' It's hard to see that a large percentage of these jobs lost are ever going to return to American workers.

********

Daniel Gross is at least as enamored as I am concerning Bush's fundamental lack of fiduciary forthrightness. In this piece for Slate, he writes:

"Back in 1983, as part of a deal to save Social Security from impending demographic doom, Congress enacted legislation to essentially increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits. As a result, the government began to collect more Social Security payroll taxes than it paid out to beneficiaries each year. The theory was that the government would use these surpluses to pay down the national debt. That way, when baby boomers retire?and comparatively more people are collecting benefits while comparatively fewer people are working?the government would be in a better position to borrow the necessary funds to provide the promised benefits.

"So much for theory. The reality? For the first 15 years, every penny of the surplus was spent, first by Republican presidents and then by a Democratic president. According to figures provided by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the surpluses were relatively insignificant for much of this period. Between 1983 and 2001 a total of $667 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes was spent?about $35 billion per year. It was only in fiscal 1999 and 2000, when the government ran so-called on-budget surpluses, that excess Social Security funds were actually used to retire debt.

"In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations?about $160 billion per year!"

There is, of course, much more at link. Including the IMF concerns we looked at here two days ago, and Treasury Secretary John 'Choo Choo" Snow's sanguine outlook that is long on rhetoric, but short on substance.

********

You know, my astute readers, that U.S. debt isn't the only debt that is at record levels. Regular readers know that consumer debt levels in the US are also at record levels.

Nice synopsis of the situation:

"US consumer debt has reached staggering levels after more than doubling over the past 10 years. According to the most recent figures from the Federal Reserve Board, consumer debt hit $1.98 trillion in October 2003, up from $1.5 trillion three years ago. This figure, representing credit card and car loan debt, but excluding mortgages, translates into approximately $18,700 per US household.

"Outstanding consumer credit, including mortgage and other debt, reached $9.3 trillion in April 2003, representing an increase from $7 trillion in January 2000. The total credit card debt alone stands at $735 billion, with the household card debt of those who carry balances estimated to average $12,000.

"The levels of consumer debt have increased as millions of jobs have been destroyed. Unlike past recessions, consumers continued to borrow during the last downturn, which began in March 2001 and officially ended in November 2001. The prime lending rate set by the Federal Reserve is at an historic low, allowing mortgage rates to drop to their lowest recorded levels. The automobile companies, which have offered zero percent financing for the past two years, have begun doing the same for 2004."

In this part of the Northeast, there was another rosy forecast for the wildly inflated real estate market in the region. Essentially, the person..an independent EXPERT ANALYST stated that this boom was different than other booms. Of course that rationale has been used to describe earlier real estate collapses in the past, as well as the stock market bubble(s). I'll mine some quotes and write a small piece about the striking similarities. The consumer debt levels with the decline in real earning power over the last few decades should cause any rational person to lift a brow.

It's only a boom if followed by a bust. :)

********

I haven't been in a job that paid overtime in my post-university life..yet. :) But it frosts my ass that the lackeys in the Bush Administration have to be pressed to enforce existing laws. WTF kind of 'public service' is that? The public's being 'serviced' alright. I would almost kill for OT pay, but it just ain't gonna happen.

On to the link and story.

Overtime Pay For Millions of Americans in Peril

NEW YORK -- An electronic technician with the U.S. Navy, John Garrity has two young children and another on the way. He often works extra hours to help make ends meet, but worries that under new overtime pay rules proposed by the Labor Department, he will lose about six thousand dollars a year.

"It's a pay cut and an attack on workers' rights," he said in an interview. "They're trying to roll the clock back. People fought and went to jail to have a 40-hour work week so they could spend more time with their families. The president just wants to pay back his corporate friends."

Overtime pay is very hard to get even if you are entitled to it. The fact that the Bush administration would rather take away this right than enforce this law is an obvious sign of their domination by corporate interests.

Jonathan Rees, a history professor at Colorado State University
On Wednesday, an international trade union criticized the United States for having ratified only two of eight global conventions on core workers' rights, calling that one of the "worst rates of ratification in the world."

....."Overtime pay is very hard to get even if you are entitled to it," says Jonathan Rees, a history professor at Colorado State University who has written extensively on labor issues.

"The fact that the Bush administration would rather take away this right than enforce this law is an obvious sign of their domination by corporate interests."

Compassionate Conservatism in action. Lovely.

********

In a story where neither side gives a Shi'ite about the other:

Bush and Bremer Meet as Iraqi Shi'ites Demand Poll

Tens of thousands of Iraq's majority Shi'ite Muslims marched through Basra to chants of "No to America" on Thursday and an aide to the Shi'ites' spiritual leader warned of wider protests if the long-oppressed group's demand for elections was not met.

Bremer will also hold talks with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday in an effort to convince the United Nations to send staff back to Iraq to help with the transition process.

A U.S. plan for a handover of power by July has run into stiff opposition from Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a Kurdish drive for autonomy in the north and a warning of bloodshed from a leader of the minority Turkmen.

Bremer's talks at the White House would cover "the political dynamic (in Iraq), the ongoing discussions with Sistani and the Kurds," said a U.S. official.

Sistani has objected to the U.S. plan for a transitional assembly to be selected by regional caucuses. The assembly will choose an interim government for sovereignty by the end of June. Full elections are due to follow next year.

U.S. SEEKS TO WIN OVER SISTANI

Bremer has said he respects Sistani but that there is not enough time to hold elections before a handover of sovereignty due to lack of electoral registers and polling laws.

U.S. officials say they are reviewing the planned regional caucuses to make the process as open as possible.

In Iraq's mainly Shi'ite south, tens of thousands protested in the country's British-controlled second city of Basra in support of Sistani's call for elections.

"If (Sistani) issues a fatwa (edict) all the Iraqi people will go out in protest marches and demonstrations against the (U.S.-led) coalition forces," an aide to the cleric, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Mohri, told Reuters in Kuwait.

This is going to show the American people that Dear Leader is 'engaged' in negotiations with who? The Iraqis? He's not in Iraq. Paul Bremer? He seems a much a puppet as Bush. The answer is: no one. Bush is going to do exactly what his polling numbers suggest.

********

(radio interference) "I can't copy you. Rebroadcast, over."

"uh, copy that, Spirit. You are free to roam."

Six Wheels on Mars! Spirit Free to Roam

The Mars Exploration Rover was commanded by the click of a mouse button to exit down a lander petal at 12:21:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST). It was ordered to head in a north-northwest direction. The six-wheeled robot is now resting in the stark, rock strewn and geologically rich landscape that is Gusev Crater.

Driving range

"Data is streaming in," said Rob Manning, Entry, Descent and Landing Development Manager for the rover effort. "It looks like the egress went very well."

Controllers called it the most significant 10 feet (3 meter) drive in history. The drive took 78 seconds, ending with the back of the rover about 2.6 feet (80 centimeters) from the foot of the egress ramp.

The first image relayed from the rover on Mars, snapped from the backend of the robot, showed the left-behind lander hardware -- now a useless piece of space junk.

I'll say it one more time. This is exactly the kind of missions that we should be planning. Lots of unmanned, inexpensive missions. Just say no to Manned Spaceflight!

These are the missions that work. And should a rocket fail, you don't tie-up the program for months to years doing an investigation.

********

Meanwhile, in Iraq:

Iraqi council endorses rollback of women's rights

First an observation. Pamela Constable writes in this piece that Iraqi women have had some of the 'most modern' legal protection in the Muslim world. Iraq was not a Muslim country in the sense that it had Sharia laws and courts. Iraq's government was secular, like our own. But different. You know what I mean. Read on to see how we're promoting women's rights in Iraq.

BAGHDAD -- For the past four decades, Iraqi women have had some of the most modern legal protections in the Muslim world, under a civil code that prohibits marriage below age 18, arbitrary divorce and male favoritism in child custody and property inheritance disputes.

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out, ordering in late December that family laws shall be "canceled" and such issues placed under the jurisdiction of Islamic legal doctrine, called sharia.

This week outraged Iraqi women -- including judges and Cabinet ministers -- denounced the decision in street protests and at conferences, saying it would set back their legal status by centuries and could unleash clashes among various Islamic strains that have differing rules for marriage, divorce and other family issues.

"This will send us home and shut the door, just like what happened to women in Afghanistan," said Amira Hassan Abdullah, a Kurdish lawyer. Some Islamic laws, she noted, allow men to divorce their wives on the spot.

"The old law wasn't perfect, but this one would make Iraq a jungle," she said. "Iraqi women will accept it over their dead bodies."

The order, narrowly approved by the 25-member council in a closed-door session Dec. 29, was made while Abdul Aziz Hakim, a conservative Shiite Muslim who heads the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was chairing the council under a rotating leadership system. The order is being opposed by several liberal members as well as by senior women in the Iraqi government.

So, the U.S backed IGC has seen to turn the clock back on Iraq's women by several hundred years. Sharia law is fundamentalist Islamic law as practiced in such places as Afghanistan under the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Libya. All shining examples of democracy. More about Sharia. This flatly sucks. We do not know what the fuck we are doing over there.

********

I do not know if I made this clear enough, but all of the quoted articles have a lot more text for you to read. Thanks!

Those are tonight's ten. A bit on the sober side. Tomorrow - humor. I promise!!

Gimme some o' that ole GOP conventional wisdom.

Most voters polled back hike in taxes

By Harrison Sheppard and SteveGeissinger
Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO -- In Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's first report card since taking office, Californians give him high ratings but the majority of voters would support tax hikes, which he opposes, as part of the state's fiscal recovery plan.

Six out of 10 likely voters say they favor tax increases as part of the solution to the deficit, according to the public opinion survey released today by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

At the same time, 64 percent approve of the way Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor. Still, only 35 percent of likely voters say they would vote for his $15 billion March 2 bond measure if the election were held today.

"Popularity does not necessarily translate into influence," said poll director Mark Baldassare. "Voters have to like the message, not just the messenger. Given the bitter residue of this past year's financial fiasco, they are understandably wary about incurring more debt." More sanity at link

It would leave Bush comletely baffled if he knew that voters thought. I'm with these folks. Repeal the Bush cuts. All that fuckin' money spent to create how many American jobs? I expect this 'recovery' to the shortest on record. It's already the weakest in terms of job creation 34 months on.

California's fiscal crisis can largely be placed on the shoulders of energy deregulation, and Bush's tax cuts. These people know it.

Another in our technology brain drain series:

Outsourcing Is Key As IT Salaries Spiral Downward Jan. 14, 2004

A study by Foote Partners shows salaries for IT workers with specific skills was 23% lower in 2003 than in 2001, and that the number of jobs moving overseas will continue to grow.

The growing number of companies moving IT work to low-wage foreign countries has driven down salaries for many IT jobs in the United States, and that trend is expected to continue, a salary-research group said Wednesday.

Overall, the premium paid for IT workers with specific skills was 23% lower in 2003 than in 2001, and the pay for certification in particular skills dropped 11%, Foote Partners said. It also found that while the general economic downturn contributed to salary deflation, outsourcing pushed compensation down even further.

In a yearlong study of 400 major companies, researchers found that by 2006, those companies expected 35% to 45% of their current full-time IT jobs to go to workers overseas, said David Foote, president and chief research officer at Foote Partners. "That showed a definite declining onshore workforce--fewer jobs for IT people in this country," he added.

The exodus of jobs has caused U.S. salaries in many IT areas to plummet, particular application development and maintenance, call centers for tech support, and some database work. In general, jobs that are related to implementation of IT strategies are the most severely affected.

"What we found is a lot of correlation between a decline in pay for skills and certification in areas that are actually moving offshore," Foote said. "There's no need anymore for premium pay for those skills ... and also, a lot of bonuses have quite frankly been redirected to a very small number of people."

In 2002, the high-tech industry lost 540,000 jobs in the United States, dropping to 6 million, according to the AeA, formerly known as the American Electronics Association. In 2003, the industry is expected to shed another 234,000 jobs.

More at link.

I really have nothing to add - except that if you're looking for pbs articles and commentary concerning IT outsourcing, use the search function. It works very well.

Afghanistan - the real war on terror.

From CAP comes this:

Afghanistan: Urgent and Unresolved

Afghanistan - the original battleground against al Qaeda - the coming year will help answer critical questions about the nation's long-term stability and political future. Last month's adoption of a new constitution was an encouraging step, as are recent signs of an expanded role for NATO allies.

Afghanistan's leaders and people face enormous challenges, however, as they attempt to rebuild their nation. Most ominous of all is the lack of physical security in vast parts of the country, where warlords and their militias have seized and are exercising power. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border remains both dangerous and porous - a likely hiding place for al Qaeda operatives. Outside Kabul, reconstruction efforts have been slow and fragmented, in large part due to instability. And there are warnings from the U.N. and others that security concerns could delay planned elections. As CNN concluded in a special report last week, "Two years ago President Bush vowed that Afghanistan would never again become a haven for terrorism. He promised to rebuild this country into a free and safe democracy. But those hopes and dreams may be in jeopardy as violence is increasing and the Taliban are regrouping."

The U.S. focus on Iraq has severely limited our ability to meet challenges in Afghanistan, where the United States has stationed around 10,000 troops to cover a country with 647,500 sq km of territory and over 28 million people, compared to some 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. It is clear that the United States must move quickly and decisively - not only for the sake of meeting our responsibilities in Afghanistan, but also because we cannot allow al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to regain their footing.

With this in mind, the Center for American Progress asked two leading scholars to offer their perspectives on what lies ahead for Afghanistan - and the challenges for Afghans, the United States and the international community.Much more at link.

Many quarters have reported that the Taliban are regrouping. To what extent is still unclear. In February, 2003 we linked to Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview of Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid. Rashid is widely regarded as the foremost English speaking authority on the Taliban, and has authored several books, including: Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. The link to the interview was the first entry I made in this blog. :)

We're still ahead of the pack! Remember, pure bs is educational.

The RWEC has been takinf shots at the left for what they obviously see as unfair comparisons of GWB to one Adolph Hitler. I too think that this is an unfair comparison. It was Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush that had a cozy relationship with the Third Reich.

Atrios has a lot of color on the sheer hypocrisy of some RW commentators.

A little pbs humor.

Received in today's mailbag:

(Thanks Lauren!)

Why Buy The Cow?

For all those men who say, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free", here's an update for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage.

Why? . . . Because women realize it's not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage.

We here at pbs are equal opportunity madcaps. :) We do appreciate the lighter side of life, and given enough medication, someday er'll be able to enjoy it as well.

Hey kids, what time is it? Right! Ten Links of Interest™ Time!

In defense of Margaret Cho.

It appears that due to Matt Drudge, a true internet oddity, that Ms. Cho has been freeped. What country is this? This woman is a comedienne for chrissakes. Apparently half of the populace thinks three things.

1) If you're critical of Bush, you're not entitled to express your opinion.

2) If No. 1 applies, you automatically fellate Bill Clinton.

3) That 'immigrant' only applies to someone with a different skin tone than yours.

I loathed Clinton. I loathe Bush much more. As for the reasons why, see the balance of this blog. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. But if I state something as fact, I am ready to defend my position. I do get a bit of hate mail. But after I reply, it is rare to have the person send another.

Ms. Cho has every bit as much a right to express her opinion as any citizen. No more, no less. She has as much a right to dwell here as any other citizen. No more, no less.

Jefferson, Madison and Adams didn't break their balls just so we could pick and choose to whom we give rights. In the U.S, it's still rule of law. You want to disagree. Fine. In a healthy democracy this is as it should be. Civil discourse was never as civil as history books would like us to believe. But if we are to have a history worth preserving, we must take the discourse to a much higher degree of civility.

Yes, I know I'm breaking with the usual format here, but this item stays atop the page for over twelve hours in a typical day. And this is important.

A definition: Freeper. n. jingoistic non-thinker, typically a Caucasian male inhabiting a red state.

Matt Drudge. He has a radio show that I once listened to..it was odd that his callers, who weren't very well versed in the topics I heard discussed, were nonetheless more articulate than Drudge. Hence the 'internet oddity' remark.

*****

Ted Kennedy. Lots of history. Iraq war a 'political product' Maybe.

As a result[of invading Iraq], Bush and the Republicans in Congress "put the state of our nation at risk, and they do not deserve another term in the White House or in control of Congress."

In a speech sponsored by the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group, Kennedy said the administration's decisions to target Saddam Hussein, go to war in Iraq and transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people have all been made for Republican political gain and timed to influence American elections in 2002 and 2004.

Two quick comments.

1) I agree with Kennedy that Bush deserves to go. As for Congress, I think a lot of them were duped.

2) The Center for American Progress isn't all that liberal. It is to Americans at this point in history. But historically it would better described as 'moderate.'

*****

The Palestinian/Israeli issue. I don't care where you sit in the political spectrum, or how you view American/Israeli relations. It has to strike you as disturbing when a 22 year old woman, and mother of two blows herself and four others up. That's a sign of deep distress.

*****

Bush and Space via the CS Monitor.

While some Americans support Bush's plan, others question the cost or possible political motives.

Select quote:

"If the Democrats are going to come after Bush after his speech and say, 'At a time with record deficits, why are you proposing spending the money?' that will resonate to some degree with the public, no question about it," says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll. "But on the other hand, the psychological lift that comes from the concept will also resonate with the public on the Bush side, so who knows?"

It all depends on how you frame the cost. If you ask Americans in a non-partisan purely dollars and cents way, if they would like to go to space, or to fund things like, say, SCHOOLS, or for the ENVIRONMENT..because we know we can't have it all, you'll likely get a thumbs down to space.

Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. Not one. Nada. Zip. Zilch. For that matter, he hasn't vetoed ANY bill.

*****

I suspect that there are X-tians amongst you, so maybe you can tell me what the furor over Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is all about.

"I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day." --M.C. Hawking

I don't touch on religion much. It's all foreign to me.

*****

This is interesting.

The Jerusalem Post reports: US considering armed intervention in Syria

George Bush instigate military actions against Syria due to its continued support for Hizbullah and enabling terrorists to enter Iraq from its border.

"Reports received by the Night Rider[sic] news group in Washington, operations will not include large-scale military intervention, in spite of several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the next to go after Iraq. The Defense Department is considering punitive aerial attacks and Special Forces incursions.

"The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin Powell and the State Department."

It should be noted that this is a former asset of disgraced British neo-con Lord Conrad Black. They need spell check. And reporters. This is just not going to happen with the current debacle over Iraq coming to a boil, and the 9/11 commission reporting. Psst. It's an election year as well.

*****

DHS BULLETIN: PORTLAND, Maine -- The musical instrument that caused the evacuation of Portland International Jetport on Tuesday and was described by airport officials as looking like an electric flute was actually a bagpipe training tool.

"Pipers learn by practicing with a chanter, which they use to play the melody on their bagpipes while the inflatable drones

"US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that President harmonize. Practice chanters are narrow cylinders with a reed at one end and finger holes that can be covered to change the pitch. Some players use battery-operated electric chanters to practice.

No one at the Portland office of the Transportation Security Administration had seen an electric chanter before, security director Robert Dyer said, and its battery and wires looked suspicious. But a member of a bomb-disposal team in Washington, D.C., who saw an X-ray image of the plastic pipe protecting the instrument, recognized the object."
Link

Glad they caught this one. I fear bagpipes.

*****

New EPA Head?

This is why scientists should stick to their field of expertise. I am a layman in the areas of geology and climatology. I can read and parse literature, but I have no idea as to whether or not the facts are correct.

I have a friend with a bagful of PhDs. He's an evolutionary biologist and Doctor of philosophy. He is a Dawkins critic, and meets the Oxford Don several times per year. He has special knowledge in one area of evolutionary biology, that being 'phenotype plasticity.' If someone asks him about the evolution of sexuality, he tells them that the evolution of sexuality is not his field, and he only knows about it from what he has read in the literature. Exactly what an honest scientist should do.

In the above reference, I offer it as a way to see - and in the future, avoid - traps. A retired geologist studying one mountain in North America cannot extrapolate that data and apply it in any meaningful way to the issue of global warming. He doesn't have the credentials or data sets to be taken seriously by the climatology community.

Science doesn't work that way. Good thing, too.

*****

Dean losing ground in New Hampshire Yeah, I knew this. He'll be around a lot. If anyone has a question that they'd like me to ask Dean, email me. My gut tells me that it's going to Dean and Clark nationally. I'll speculate a bit more. I think they'll both be on the general ticket.

*****

Today's O'Neill Moment™

Leafing through the CIA documents, Mr O'Neill was astonished to read plans for covert assassinations around the globe designed to remove opponents of the US Government. The plans had virtually no civilian checks and balances.

"What I was thinking is, 'I hope the President really reads this carefully', Mr O'Neill said. "It's kind of his job. You can't forfeit this much responsibility to unelected individuals. But I knew he wouldn't." That's tommorow's news from the Sydney Morning Herald.

*****

That's all for tonight. I hope I was harsh, but not too harsh :)

Neo-cons circling the wagons..

From the NRO(Rupert Murdoch's neo-con piching board)

"Those listening to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill might think there's no rational hand on the national economic tiller. But fear not. O'Neill's recent attacks on President Bush and the formulation of U.S. economic policy amount to nothing more than a big plate of sour grapes.

"For two years in the Bush administration, O'Neill never agreed with supply-side tax cuts, the centerpiece of the president's economic policy. He was a static-deficit bean counter, not a growth advocate. Capitol Hill sources say he was ineffectual in negotiations, leading to a weak tax bill in 2001. Instead of immediate tax-rate cuts for investors — who would have aided an economic rebound by investing more — we got a one-time tax rebate and some back-loaded tax breaks."

That's Larry Kudlow supply sider neo-con. NRO link. The piece could be picked about for its logical fallicies, but I don't have the time.

BUT,

Unfortunately as reported earlier, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Peter Orszag, and CEO and Chief Global Economist of Decision Economics, Inc., Allen Sinai believe differently. (I thought about a self-congratulatory link, to the entry below, but only for a moment)

Kudlow is a rich guy. He's late middle-aged(or is that middle ages?). He'll never have to contend with the long term consequences of Bush's excesses.

Suicides on the rise in Iraq

Suicides of U.S. Troops Rising in Iraq - Pentagon

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least 21 U.S. troops have committed suicide in Iraq, a growing toll that represents one of every seven American "non-hostile" deaths since the war began last March, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

"Fighting this kind of war is clearly going to be stressful for some people," Assistant Defense Secretary for Health Affairs Dr. William Winkenwerder told reporters in an interview.

He said the military was taking steps to prevent suicides, ascribed by one defense analyst to a perception among young soldiers that the U.S. force in Iraq was spread thin and faced an endless task.

"What you're really talking about here more than anything else is the perception that the future just looks indefinite and there are not enough troops coming in. It can look awfully bleak for an awful long time," said Ken Allard, a retired Army colonel who now works with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Winkenwerder said that of 21 confirmed suicides during the past year associated with the war in Iraq, 18 were in the Army and three others in the Navy and Marine Corps.

The suicide toll is probably higher than 21 because some "non-hostile" deaths are still being investigated, he added.

14 PERCENT OF 'NON-HOSTILE' DEATHS

A total of 496 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the war began last March, 343 of them in combat and 153 in non-hostile incidents ranging from accidents to suicide, according to the Pentagon.

The 21 suicides represent nearly 14 percent of non-hostile deaths reported by the military, an increase over the proportion of 11 percent as of three months ago when the suicide number totaled 13.

Winkenwerder added that that nearly 400 troops had been evacuated from Iraq for stress-related problems.

Sad. Read the whole story.

Dean wins D.C. This does matter if you live in D.C.

"The former Vermont governor got 43% of the votes, followed by Al Sharpton with 34%, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun with 12% and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, with 8%.

The other five major Democratic candidates for the party's presidential nomination were not on the ballot. No delegates were selected; that comes later in caucuses on Feb. 12.

Turnout was higher than in previous presidential primaries with 12% of registered voters casting ballots compared to 8.4% in 2002."

Of interest is that USA today appears to be under the impression that 2002 was a presidential primary year. I could definitely do a more accurate reporting job. Sheesh.

Source

Given the fact that some 90% of the voters in D.C. are black, it does say something about Dean's appeal.

0 down 50 to go.

Oh, George. Not everyone was born with a silver coke spoon in their nose. Or up their ass.

Congress wants to know where the money for Bush's vastly expanded space exploration proram is going to come from.

Money Row Here

"It's highly unlikely Congress is going to appropriate this kind of money, considering the budget situation today," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

DeWine and others said that with so much pressure on the federal budget, space exploration will have to take a back seat.

Military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal deficit, education and health care programs and other domestic priorities are competing for scarce dollars.

"This kind of money (for a lunar program) is not possible under the current budget constraints," DeWine said. "Maybe sometime in the future, but certainly not now."

Many lawmakers welcomed Bush's vision, but couldn't avoid returning to the money question.

Hey, pbs is a step ahead of the pack again.

You see, George. Not everyone was born into American aristocracy. Unlike you, your family, and your cronies, most Americans have to live by something called a "budget."

Pure bs' long term economic forecast gets rubber stamped by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Peter Orszag, and CEO and Chief Global Economist of Decision Economics, Inc., Allen Sinai.

See, pure bs is educational.

From CAP's daily Talking Points:

Bush’s Fiscal Meltdown

The Effects of Big Budget Deficits on Family Finances

January 14, 2004

A new bipartisan report by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Peter Orszag, and CEO and Chief Global Economist of Decision Economics, Inc., Allen Sinai, warns that the Bush Administration’s record deficits will have “severe adverse consequences” for all Americans. “The U.S. federal budget is on an unsustainable path,” they write, adding, “In the absence of significant policy changes, federal government deficits are expected to total around $5 trillion over the next decade.” What does this mean for hard-working American families and individuals?

• When the Bush check comes due, younger generations can expect a weaker job market, fewer public services, and a declining standard of living.
  To put the deficits in perspective, five years from now the average family’s share of the national debt will be more than $84,000, compared to a projected $500 per family when Bush took office. The picture for America’s children is grim. Large, sustained deficits eventually suck up national savings, meaning less money for education and training of young people and workers and lower investment in other economic sectors. As deficits continue, huge chunks of taxpayer dollars will be diverted from education and health programs to service the national debt. Interest rates will rise and living standards will decline.


• Big deficits today affect family budgets tomorrow.
  As the Rubin report shows, Bush Administration economic policies are sharply increasing the chance of financial chaos. "Taken to the extreme, such a path could result in an economic crisis. Foreign investors could stop investing in U.S. securities, the exchange value of the dollar could plunge, interest rates could climb, consumer prices could shoot up, or the economy could contract sharply," according to a 2003 Congressional Budget Office report. Just last week, the IMF issued a strong warning about U.S. fiscal policies stating, "large U.S. fiscal deficits also pose significant risks for the rest of the world."


• We can change course – the President’s tax cuts for the very wealthiest must be repealed now.
The Bush Administration believes spending cuts alone will cure its ballooning deficits but economists agree that’s wishful thinking. By repealing the tax cuts for the top 1 percent of earners, and letting other tax cuts expire, the U.S. can begin restoring fiscal discipline and begin preparing for the huge expenses of the coming Baby Boomer retirement.

Get your Daily Talking Points here .

I always respected Robert Rubin. I didn't know he read pure bs. ;)

No Blister agents found. I used FAIR.org's most likely to mislead Faux News to gather a report on the Danish shells.(mmmm, sounds yummy)

If Faux is reporting that there is nothing there, you can be pretty sure there isn't. While chemical weapons would strike fear into most sane networks, Faux News has a side bar of HORROR! Hold your breath and open the link. See right hand side bar for the terrorist's favorite links.

"Dandy Andy" Fastow and wife, Lea.

Deal Reportedly Reached in Fastow Plea Talks

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: January 13, 2004

HOUSTON (AP) -- Former Enron finance chief Andrew S. Fastow and his wife have agreed to plead guilty for their roles in a massive accounting scandal that brought down the energy giant in 2001, sources told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said an impasse that erupted last week over a judge's refusal to give Lea Fastow only a five-month prison sentence had been resolved.

Fastow will become the highest ranking executive to plead guilty in the federal government's criminal investigation into the Enron collapse.

It wasn't immediately clear whether Fastow's negotiated plea involves an agreement to help the government develop cases against Enron's former top executives, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Neither Lay nor Skilling has been charged; both maintain their innocence.A bit more here

The last two sentences are going to be what makes or breaks this plea bargain in the eyes of Americans that would like to believe the post-Enron world differs in some meaningful way. If Fastow is able to remain mute, I'll be outraged. I'm also not going to hold my breath.( I don't look good in blue :) )

Fun! Courtesy the RNC

You have to wonder why someone that tells the truth is admonsihed for it. I mean, after all, as childern we were told, "honesty is best policy." Am I wrong?

I'm ripping this directly form the RNC website!

Is Clark Unprepared or Unprincipled – or Both?

Something to Yak About: Is Clark Unprepared or Unprincipled – or Both?
Remember when Howard Dean was busy shopping around those wacky left-wing conspiracies? Looks like the former governor of Vermont has some competition in the race for the Tin Foil Hat Award. Wesley Clark is now telling voters in New Hampshire that the Clinton Administration had a plan for fighting al Qaeda and gave it to the Bush Administration, which Clark claims ignored it!

No, We Are Not Making This Up
The fired Army general is extensively quoted in The Boston Globe as saying, among other things, that Clinton’s folks "built a plan (to fight al Qaeda) and turned it over to the Bush Administration," which, according to the general, "failed to do its duty to protect the United States of America before 9/11."

Hold the Phone - Sandy Berger Says No Dice
But roughly 16 months before Wesley Clark trotted out this freshly hatched conspiracy theory, former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told Congress flat out, "there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush Administration during the transition." Click here to read the operative sections of Berger’s remarks to the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence back in the Fall of 2002! So does all this make Clark sloppy or deceptive? You make the call!

How Does Anyone Say There Will Be No More Attacks?
It’s a bird… it’s a plane… no, it’s… Wesley Clark who was quoted by the Concord Monitor as saying that all we have to do to prevent a 9/11-style attack is to elect him president. "We are not going to have one of these incidents," Clark told a Monitor editorial board late last week. How, pray tell, does a president stop wackos with C4 strapped to their bodies from blowing themselves and others up? And you thought the Patriot Act was tough!

Overstating The Point
The Yak is confident Wes Clark would try his level best to keep America safe, but who in their right mind tells voters he won’t let any more 9/11-style attacks happen? Clark rivals John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Richard Gephardt aren’t buying it either.

Just how 'unprincipled' is Clark?

From Rebuplicons:

"They [the Clinton administration] built a plan and turned it over to the Bush administration," Clark told the Globe. “[The Bush] administration failed to do its duty to protect the United States of America before 9/11."

How wild and spurious are these claims? In October 2001, CNN reported that the CIA trained and armed about 60 Pakistani commandos in 1999 with plans for them to enter Afghanistan and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. CNN’s sources were unnamed US officials.

The plan apparently unraveled in the wake of the Musharraf coup and the stronger Pakistani ties with the Taliban. On September 23, 2001, President Clinton told reporters he had authorized a plan to arrest, and if necessary, kill bin Laden and had even contacted a group in Afghanistan to carry out the plan according to CNN.

And according to a 2002 article in Time magazine Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger and terrorism expert Richard Clarke outlined Al-Qaeda threats in briefings they provided for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in January 2001, a few weeks before she and her team took up their posts.

According to Time, at the briefing, Clark presented proposals to "roll back" Al-Qaeda which closely resemble the measures taken after September 11, 2001. Its financial network would be broken up and its assets frozen. Vulnerable countries like Uzbekistan, Yemen and the Philippines would be given aid to help them stamp out terrorist cells.

Clarke's plan detailed how the US would go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Plans would be drawn up for combined air and special forces operations, while support would be channeled to the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban and its Al-Qaeda allies.

Clarke, who stayed on in his job as White House counter-terrorism expert, repeated his briefing for vice president Dick Cheney in February 2001. However, the proposals got lost in the clumsy transition process, turf wars between departments and the separate agendas of senior members of the Bush administration.

It was, the Time article concluded, "a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat".

The Time report quotes Bush officials as well as Clinton aides as confirming the seriousness of the Clarke plan. The sources said it was treated the same way as all policies inherited from the Clinton era, and subjected to a lengthy "policy review process."

The proposals were not re-examined by senior administration officials until April, and were not earmarked for consideration by the national security heads of department until September 4.

All of this is a matter of public record. The 9/11 commission has yet to finish its job - given the latest revelations about Iraq, fiscal policy etc. one can conclude that we haven't seen the last of the GOP's logical fallacies. Utter rubbish.

Fear is often a motivator for misrepresentation. I am not about to say that the RNC fears Wesley Clark, but to dismiss that they do not is not responsible. Until we know what the facts are, we can not draw conclusions.

Our regular readers know that here at pure bs we have no issue with partisanship when it is backed up by verifiable evidence.

However, when partisans lie, we take serious issue with this.

Sadly, no takes the WSJ editorial page to task over just an issue.(hat tip to Atrios)

I have a huge problem with dishonesty. I am as honest with you as I can be. If I'm speculating about something, you'll know it. I don't much care if a guy like Bush is an incompetent ass. I can deal with that. It's the lying that rankles this observer. Even if I agreed with every policy position of the Bush Administration, I could not support them for their incessant lying.

Ten Links of Interest™ Time Again!

For something completely different, we offer this entry from Jim Jubaks's Journal. Yes, it's a stock picking column, but much more as well. The ramifications of huge trade and budget deficits are covered in a non-partisan, easy to follow way.

And then there were nine. Yes, that's the number of American helicopters now downed, "as a result of hostile fire since the end of major combat operations in Iraq on May 1." Four of them were brought down by guerrilla fire in the Fallujah area. WTF are we doing over there?

O'Neill..yes, again. Well, the Treasury may be launching an investigation into the "SECRET DOCUMENT" seen on 60 minutes, but O'Neill says: "No dice". No classified info. was used in the book.

The ever charming Donald "Skeletor" Rumsfeld had this to say about his boss, and bestest friend: "I have just enormous respect for his brain, his engagement, his interest, his probing questions, his constructive and positive approach to issues." Well, there you have it. Rummy respects Bush's brain. Enormously. Does anybody believe a fucking word Rumsfeld says? I hope not.

Monkey business. Gary Hart may run this fall in an attempt to reclaim his seat in the U.S. Senate. I like Hart. He's smart and thoughtful. Pure bs likes smart thoughtful people.

"Iraqtion," says Clark. Or rather, Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. Of course he's been saying this since he declared, but following O'Neill's weekend bombshell it's now okay for the press to write stuff about it.

The usually shrill Will Pitt has some things to say about the publicly declared reason for invading Iraq that are important. He has pulled some quotes that are precious.

I think this is short enough to just dump in as an entry. I hate the L.A. Times registration procedure.

Bush Signs Anti-Corruption Proclamation

By Associated Press

6:58 AM PST, January 13, 2004

MONTERREY, Mexico ? President Bush acted Monday to bar people involved in corruption from the United States, a move that coincides with one of his goals at a summit meeting of 34 Western Hemisphere nations.

Corruption of public institutions hampers U.S. efforts to promote security and strengthen democratic institutions and free-market systems, Bush said in a proclamation the White House released at the two-day summit, which began Monday.

He said the United States is acting to restrict international travel and prevent entry into the country of people who have committed, participated in or benefited from corruption conducted while performing public functions.

The restrictions apply, he said, when corruption has had a "serious adverse" effect on the international activity of U.S. business, U.S. foreign aid goals, the security of the United States against transnational crime and terrorism or the stability of democratic nations and institutions.

"We think that fighting corruption is a good way to strengthen democracy," said Sean McCormack, a national security spokesman at the White House. "It's an important part of our discussion down here."

Nice color combo, eh? No? :(

I wonder what the Bush definition of corruption is? No. I can't go there. :)

Oh, what the heck. I'll link to Yoo-Essay Today. "Spirit" is ready to boogie around a bit on the red planet. I am going to repeat this again. Many small unmanned missions, GOOD. Big, expensive irregular missions, BAD.

I know that this has gotten a lot of ink, but it's important. The CS Monitor has a slightly different take.

"The limits of America's volunteer army are showing, revealing a need to rethink this country's troop levels.

"To keep enough forces in the hot spots of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army this month blocked the pending reassignment or retirement of 7,000 soldiers from the region. It also offered bonuses of up to $10,000 (tax free) to encourage active-duty personnel deployed in the area or headed to it to re-enlist. This on top of the largest deployment of Reserve and National Guard units since World War II."

You should really give this a read. In the accompanying side panel, are Should US draw down troops in Iraq?, Iraq war's human toll could be felt for decades and finally The other battle: coming home.

Yeah. I have an issue with the name, "Christian Science" as well. But the paper is amongst the very best U.S. papers.

pure bs Breaking:

Official Confirms Claims That Saddam Was Bush’s Focus Before 9/11
The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

Rut-Ro.

Those are today's links..*extra edition* :)

O'Neill, untethered.

"This meeting was like many of the meetings that I would go to over the course of two years. The only way I can describe it is that, well, the president is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection." -- Paul O'Neill, describing a March 19, 2001, Cabinet meeting to discuss the California energy crisis.


"There's been too much gaming of the system until it is broke. Capitalism is not working! There has been a corrupting of the system of capitalism." -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, speaking of mounting corporate scandals during a February 2002 meeting of the president's working group on corporate governance.


"If you can't do the right thing when you're at 85 percent approval, then when can you do the right thing? I think it's time to say no." -- Mitch Daniels, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, arguing unsuccessfully at a Feb. 11, 2002, White House meeting that the administration should reject requests by the steel industry for protective tariffs.


"Won't the top-rate people benefit the most from eliminating the double taxation of dividends? Didn't we already give them a break at the top?" -- President Bush, during a Nov. 26, 2002, White House meeting, questioning the wisdom of eliminating taxes individuals pay on corporate dividends.


"I'm not willing to say I want to return to private life because I'm too old to begin telling lies now." -- Paul O'Neill, after being informed by Vice President Dick Cheney of Bush's decision to remove his as treasury secretary with the suggestion that O'Neill say he wanted to return to private life.

Gee, hard to guess where those quotes came from. Buy the Book.

Two things from The Independent.

Iraqis shoot down third American helicopter

By Patrick Cockburn in Fallujah
14 January 2004


An American army helicopter was shot down near the militantly nationalist town of Fallujah yesterday, the third to be downed by guerrillas in the area in two weeks.

In the centre of Fallujah itself, three men in a car and an elderly woman were killed when US soldiers returned fire after two rockets were fired at them.

Earlier, hundreds of demonstrators had taken to the streets after a newly wed 17-year-old woman was detained. They chanted "Bush, you coward" and "Free our woman". She was later released. The soldiers had arrested her because they were looking for a relative who they suspected might know the whereabouts of Khamis Sarhan, the leader of the Baath party in Fallujah under Saddam Hussein. *snip*

...Iraqis accuse the US army of randomly using its massive firepower, leading to frequent civilian casualties which in turn feeds the insurgency.

The loss of the American AH-64 Apache aircraft, which was shot down near Habbaniyah, 12 miles west of Fallujah, is part of a worrying trend for the army. The two crew members were uninjured, but the downing of the Apache demonstrates the guerrillas' capacity over the past three months to hit US military helicopters with ground-to-air missiles or rocket-propelled grenades. *snip*

....

US helicopter pilots at the old Iraqi airforce base at Habbaniyah are conscious that the loss of a helicopter has political repercussions in the US in a way which losses on the ground do not. One pilot said, that just as Afghan guerrillas in the 1980s tried to find the moment when Russian helicopters were vulnerable, so local insurgents study the movements of helicopters around Fallujah. "The helicopters fly low at 100 feet, so by the time anybody on the ground can react, they are gone," said Specialist Stephen Sadeo, standing beside a helicopter which had just landed. A device on top of the helicopter prevents heat-seeking missiles locking on. "It works 85 per cent of the time," he said.

A lot more depth at article. Thank you, foreign press!

It seems at times as though the U.S. and the rest of humanity inhabit two different planets. That's propaganda for you. I can hardly wait for the wholly unbiased, "C-Span Baghdad." I'll have to miss that.

Here's the rest of humanity:

After five Iraqi demonstrators are killed, MoD examines role of 'trigger-happy' police

By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
12 January 2004

It started out as a protest by Iraqi civilians outside city hall, furious that local authorities in the southern city of Amarah had reneged on promises to give them jobs.

By the end of the day, at least five Iraqis were dead, including at least one shot by a British soldier, in the most serious incident involving British troops since the summer.

Who fired the first shot? The Ministry of Defence, which is investigating Saturday's events, will have to explain how a demonstration demanding jobs deteriorated into a shooting match.

The trouble started when Iraqi police believed they came under fire in front of the provincial government offices in Amarah, an impoverished town on the banks of the Tigris.

Police officers opened fire and British troops with armoured vehicles were deployed to support them, according to the Ministry of Defence.

The British troops, in riot gear, also fired after grenades were hurled at them, the ministry said.

According to the Army, five protesters were killed. The local hospital said the toll was six dead and 11 wounded. All the dead were civilians and there were no police or military casualties.

"One, maybe two [of the dead] were possibly killed by British troops," Major Tim Smith, a British Army spokesman, said in Amarah yesterday. "Those troops were firing in self-defence. It was quite clear that a number of objects were thrown at the British troops, possibly grenades. I can assure everybody that they only fired in self-defence." Much more.

This should not be a remarkable story. It should be the norm in any occupied country. Sadly, this is the exception rather than the rule. U.S. troops seem to be able to conduct all manner of killing without any admonishment. If there is a substantial amount of military inquiry going on regarding the conduct of U.S. troops, it has not reached me. That is certainly a possibility. But I think it not the case.

Compare and Contrast:

U.S. to Send India Nuclear, Space Technology with U.S. Could Lose Technology Dominance, Executives Say.

I have seen the beginnings of this tranformation. India is ramping up capacity to employ every one of our graduating engineers. India already graduates 70% more engineers than the U.S. As Indian's see that they can earn subtantially more money in technology -- than in tradional Indian industries -- it doesn't take a missile guidance engineer to figure that more and more Indians will pursue engineering degrees.

Clark rips Bush.

Clark: Bush more concerned with 'political security' than national security

Now that's a headline!

I would have used: "Clark Peels Teflon from Bush -- naked Texan exposed by ALUMINUM MAN!" :)

TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Tuesday, January 13, 2004
(01-13) 12:05 PST MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP)

Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Tuesday criticized the timing of an investigation of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and suggested President Bush was more concerned with "political security" than national security.

Campaigning in New Hampshire two weeks before its primary election, Clark called for a full congressional investigation into why the United States went to war in Iraq.

"We don't know what the motivation was. We just don't know. We've spent $180 billion on it, we've lost 480 Americans, we've got 2,500 with life-changing injuries," the retired general told reporters.

Clark contended that Bush was obsessed with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and with establishing a national missile defense, in the months leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- and did not do enough to protect the nation against such an attack.

In a book released Tuesday, O'Neill criticized Bush's leadership style and suggested he planned to go after Saddam even before the attacks... *snip*

...Clark contrasted the speed of the O'Neill investigation with the slow pace of an inquiry into who last summer divulged the name of a CIA official whose husband had criticized the president's Iraq policy.

"They didn't wait 24 hours in initiating an investigation on Paul O'Neill," Clark said. "They're not concerned about national security. But they're really concerned about political security. I think they've got their priorities upside down." more good stuff

Clark really hits a grand slam with this stump speech. He nails the Bush Administration more effectively that I have yet heard or read about. Of course given the CEIP report and O'Neill's bombshells, I expect to see this sort of hard line questioning right up to November.

Clark raises some obvious things that those voted alongside the GOP simply cannot ask.

Clark is asking questions that every American should want to know the answers to. Damn fine set of comparisons as well. NH voters like this sort of thing. It'll be interesting to see how Bush, who can't effectively use the, "I'm the national security guy" bs anymore will spin all of this.

When I used "effectively" in the above sentence, I meant that Bush couldn't use the argument against informed voters. Let's hope the sheep awaken.

Bush's Press Problem

Fascinating reading.

Posted 2004-01-13
This week in the magazine, Ken Auletta writes about the George W. Bush Administration’s relationship with the American press, and about how the President manages to keep reporters at a distance. Here, with The New Yorker’s Daniel Cappello, Auletta discusses how that relationship affects the public.

DANIEL CAPPELLO: All Presidents complain about the press. How is the Bush White House different?

KEN AULETTA: In two ways. They are more disciplined. They reject an assumption embraced by most reporters: that we are neutral and represent the public interest. Rather, they see the press as just another special interest. The discipline flows down from President Bush, who runs the White House like a C.E.O. and demands loyalty. This is a cohesive White House staff, dominated by people whose first loyalty is to Team Bush. When Bush leaves the White House, most of his aides will probably return to Texas. They are not Washington careerists, and thus they have less need to puff themselves up with the Washington press corps. In fact—and this leads to the second difference—from Bush on down, talking to the press off the record is generally frowned upon and equated with leaking, which is a deadly sin in the Bush White House (unless it is a leak manufactured to advance the President's agenda).

[Ed. Valerie Plame anyone?]

Members of the Bush Administration complain that the media are too liberal, and too biased. Do they have a point?

Sometimes. Although the press’s surveys of the Washington press corps are less scientific than many conservative critics proclaim they are, privately many White House reporters concede that they are probably somewhat more liberal than the majority of American voters. One often glimpses the bias in abortion stories, in which right-to-life proponents are sometimes portrayed as fanatics, while those who are pro-choice are portrayed as human-rights advocates. But these are rarely conscious biases. Most reporters, I think, strive to be fair. In fact, while White House officials think there is a liberal bias in the press, they don't believe this is terribly important. They describe the press as critical of every President, not just a conservative President.

[Ed. It's well documented that the higher a level of education a person has, the more likely they are to associate themselves with 'liberal' positions]

You write that George W. Bush is influenced by his mother, Barbara Bush, who has a famous distrust of the press—she never spoke off the record to reporters when she was First Lady. Does someone in such a position have an obligation to be available?

I believe they do have that obligation. In a nonparliamentary system such as ours, close questioning of the President is supposed to come from the press, usually in the form of press conferences. Yet Bush has held only eleven solo press conferences, fewer than almost any modern President. Over a comparable period, his father held seventy-one and Bill Clinton thirty-eight. The Bush White House claims that they have answered thousands of press questions, but the bulk of those answers come from the handful of questions allowed a couple of times a week after photo opportunities, and from joint press conferences, where the President gets only one-quarter the number of questions and few follow-up questions are permitted.

[Ed. "This is scripted?" -GWB March 6, 2003 see link below*]

New Yorker Online Exclusive - Go. Read. Learn.

Here's the CNN transcript from the, "this is scripted?" Press conference. Of course it has been scrubbed.

Pure bs, where there are no scripts. Ever. Obviously.