Editor & Publisher has a piece up concerning the New York Times excoriating the White House for distorting Iraqi intelligence while, failing to acknowledge The Times' own complicity in hyping the threat.

Sure, the piece is accurate..as best as I can tell, but it wasn't just The Times that was guilty of not fact-checking sources, and data mining on exiled Iraqis such as the nefarious Ahmed Chalabi.

Pre-war reporting from almost all quarters was equally guilty. The Times does have a special place in American journalism, and should be held to the highest of standards.

Judith Miller is of course at the center of this finger pointing maelstrom. She was The Times' head cheerleader prior to the war, and an embed with Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, the U.S. military group sent into Iraq to search for WMD.

There were lots of people that knew about the real nature of Iraq's likely capability. But these people weren't going to sway the Bush Administration's pre-determined plans for war.

The foreign press was much better. If you search through the early archives of this site, there are numerous articles from the foreign press that directly contradicted the public statements of Bush Administration members.

The tacit 'contract' the White House and reporters seems that you'll be granted access as long as you don't veer from the script.

Just try and do some real investigative reporting like Seymour Hersh did in this New Yorker piece critical of Richard Perle's alleged war-profiteering and you just might get smeared with the label of, "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist".

Worse yet, your vaunted White House 'unnamed officials' will no longer return your calls, or like long time White House reporter Helen Thomas, you'll be relegated to the back row during White House Press Conferences.

I am not writing this in any way to forgive the conduct of most of the American press corps. American journalism, with a few wonderful exceptions values speed over accuracy, and shine over substance. The consolidation of American media into corporate giants where quarterly profits are paramount would lend credence to speculation that American journalism is likely to get even worse.

So, while William Jackson gives the NYT a needed browbeating, it is clear that The Times' behavior is a snapshot of an endemic issue with American journalism. One which doesn't appear likely to be solved anytime soon.

Contributing to this article was, well, no one. :)

In the SUV-Crazed-Bigger-Is-Better U.S., we find a financial commentator gushing over the latest planet despoiling Dodge.

2004 Dodge Durango

FEATURES:[?? ed.]

• - Compared to the old Durango, this new one is 5 inches wider, 7 inches longer and about 400 pounds heavier. Curb weight is about 5,464 pounds, and the Durango is roughly the size of a Tahoe.[I think that's Lake Tahoe. ed.]



• - 5.7-liter eight-cylinder engine cranks out 330 horses, and combined with a winning five-speed automatic, hustles this rather heavy truck down the road with gusto.



• - The suspension is a winner; the truck is tight and solid, and right at home hustling over winter-ravaged back roads.



• - While we think the hemi is the only engine to order here, be sure you are ready for the gas mileage it will rack up, especially if you feel it needs to be exercised periodically. The EPA rates it at 14 to 19 miles per gallon. We averaged about 13. [I think it's genius to have the writer tout the engine with the worst fuel mileage -- the Manhattanintes buying this truck sure need all the power they can get. Dirtbag. ed.]



• - Handling was better than expected, but the steering was too light, and over the shoulder visibility was hampered on both sides by the Durango's thick B pillars. The feeling was always that you were driving a big, heavy vehicle.[The feeling was always that you were driving a big, heavy vehicle? This thing's bigger than some New England states. ed.]



• - Our two-wheel drive SLT test vehicle listed for $34,855, and we think it's worth a test drive if you are SUV-shopping.

It's utter nonsense like this that makes me cringe to be an American. Thoughtless, environmentally unconcious people espousing the purchase and use of the most resource depleting beasts to roll out of Detroit in decades.

I have a lot more to say, but this is family friendly site for the most part.

No, thanks. I'll keep my 40+ mpg Toyota Tercel.

pure bs POP QUIZ!

"Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole?" he asked in a recent interview with USA Today. "It's a nice way to operate, actually."

Who is this person? First one to answer correctly wins...well, nothing actually.

On Edit: Gary at Bibb's Revenge correctly answered :Dick Cheney(from an undisclosed location)

It looks to be: "What the Heck is Going on in Iraq Friday?"

UPDATE: al-Sistani Hints at Ok'ing Election Delay, U.S. still waits on U.N.

It's a career just trying to keep up with the 'power transfer' and election timeline in Iraq.

Okay, CNN reports that the caucus plan has been shelved. I'm not surprised. In fact, I was going to scoop the major media over this little tidbit, but the wider world took precednce over my blogging. Next time. Oh yeah.


First, I'd like to acknowledge that George H.W. Bush got the Iraq equation more correct than anyone in the current administration when he said:

"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability." - George H.W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998

I'd also like to point out that Mahmoud Othman and Adnan Pachachi are both newly returned Iraqi exiles. Everything you read should be viewed through the lens of critical thought. These two men may have different views than those that lived through Hussein's rein. Just a little pure bs caveat. :)

The U.S.' plan to cede 'power' -- something of a moving target in Iraq's case -- by or on 30 June 2004 is still being clung vigorously. Lest I be accused of misleading the reader, I should note that this is not the date by which a general election is to be held, but a date by which the Iraqi Governing Council(IGC) is slated to take 'power.' Although the U.S will still likely have in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq at that time, and much later. (more on this tomorrow)

Paul Bremer, the senior U.S. civilian in Iraq, told reporters yesterday that while there is at present, no agreed upon option to even choose the initial 'independent' Iraqi form of governance, after which elections must be held, the 30 June 2004 date is set in stone.

Bremer:

"There are literally dozens of ways in which to carry out this complicated task, including caucuses, or other kinds of elections -- partial elections."

(CNN subsequently reported that caucuses are off the table. I have comments on that to follow)

Kofi Annan agrees with the U.S. position that direct elections in Iraq are not feasible soon. In typical Annan fashion, he did not elaborate on what 'soon' means. (that's by no means a dig. I think he's a great Sec. Gen.) They are working out timelines and so forth perhaps as I type this.

Sec. Annan:

"We shared with them(the U.S. I presume) our sense that -- and the emerging consensus or understanding -- that elections cannot be held before the end of June, that the June 30 date for the handover of sovereignty must be respected, and that we need to find a mechanism to create a caretaker government and then prepare the elections...........sometime later."

I may be mistaken, but sorting through "literally dozens of ways in which to carry out this complicated task" simply in order to amounts to restructuring a system that isn't working for ordinary Iraqis is a stretch. As I hopefully make clear later, the members of the IGC do not see the "dozens of ways" that Mr. Bremer does. If you have been following this story, it is hoped by all parties to have a real general election by early 2005.

It has been reported that the U.S. Administration favors U.N. approval of further empowering the IGC so that the IGC would assume some sort of interim control. This would allow the 30 June 2004 date to be upheld. I think it's both the easiest thing to do, and also the only possible solution that can possibly be arrived by 30 June. (no, this isn't at all political)

In what may be a breakthrough of sorts -- since it is now clear that direct elections are farther into the future than what some members of the IGC were demanding -- several Iraqi leaders have responded positively to expand the IGC from its current level of membership of 25 to as many as 125 and keep this structure in power until U.N. assisted elections can be held. This maintains the U.S. time-table to transfer power and seems to be acceptable to at least some members of the IGC. There are caveats of course.

This potential breakthrough only appears to have happened with the tacit approval of Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, reportedly Iraq's most powerful and influential Shi'ite cleric. Al-Sistani's approval allegedly hinges upon the plan's recommendation by the U.N. It should be noted that it was al-Sistani's call for early elections that forced the U.S.' hand to bring the U.N. into Iraq in the first place.

The expansion of the IGC which has been under consideration for some three weeks now is reportedly really gaining traction. As noted earlier, the U.S. reportedly approves of this plan amongst competing plans. This approval, like so many other things about Iraq isn't without a hitch. The U.S. appears ready to rubber-stamp IGC expansion if the U.N. approves it. As this plan seems to have been gaining acceptance amongst all concerned parties -- at least in their public admissions -- at this time it looks to be viable.

Yonadan Kanna, IGC member and head of the Assyrian Democratic Party seems pretty certain as to the direction the parties are headed in. In his own words:

"We have no other choice now. We are in the middle of a process and we cannot have Iraq go in a random direction. The key now is to reach out to more groups, so the people feel we represent them."

Although there is much disagreement as to how new members might be selected, there is a general consensus that the IGC needs to demonstrate autonomy from the U.S. in order to win the trust of the people.

The manner in which new members are selected is likely to be the subject of careful negotiations amongst the concerned parties. Think Sharia Law.

(this is where I was going to scoop the press on the breakdown of the caucuses..damn. If only I had finished this thing yesterday :)) Here's the bit:

"While I haven't seen any news from the U.N., Bremer, or the U.S. Administration, Adnan Pachachi -- whom Bush praised in both his SOTU address and during his hour long chat with Tim Russert on Meet The Press -- declared yesterday that "the caucuses have been discarded."

The reasons cited were that caucuses are too cumbersome and to 'foreign a concept' to work in Iraq.

During Bremer's press conference in Baghdad yesterday, he repeatedly deferred to the U.N., and said that the U.S. isn't going to make any decision about the IGC until the U.S. hears what Kofi Annan has to say. In my view, deferring to the U.N. puts to rest the whole crazy notion of the U.N. being relegated to 'debating society' status. How utterly odd that the mighty U.S. requires the assistance of a bunch of orators.

All kidding aside, the past three weeks, with its shift in policy towards more normal relations with the U.N. are meritorious and pragmatic. With GIs and Iraqis involved in deadly and frequent skirmishes, it seems likely that the Iraqis would neither accept nor trust the U.S. to do what is in Iraq's best interest. I know. That is two-by-four-to-the-head obvious. But I needed some filler :)

One can't help but glance at a calendar and note that yup, it's an election year, and the inverse proportion between Bush's faltering in the polls and the increased role of the U.N. is unlikely to be mere coincidence. If things continue to go badly in Iraq, one can't help but think the Mr. Rove will attempt to shift the blame to Kofi and Co.

But I digress.

Central to the issue of the 'form' of the IGC is that a settlement needs to be reached before an interim Constitution can be developed and ratified. The catch here is that The Constitution must define the nature and terms of the nascent government, as well as a host of other issues. (for reference see: U.S. Constitution and Articles of Amendment) I liken this concept to Newton's development of the theory of gravity. Objects didn't suddenly suspend themselves in mid-air while he was working out the details. There are obviously some very bright people working on the details of the transition. Let's hope that that the 'reasoners' win out over the 'faithful.'

In both Bush's Remarks on Meet the Press of 8 Feb. 2004, and Bremer's remarks last evening, the U.S. is still holding onto what I have been calling the 'conditional democracy' model. Simply, this is an exclusion of Sharia, or Islamic law from being inserted into the Constitution. Regardless of what Bush said on Meet The Press about the nature of the type of government that the Iraqi's want, the smart money's on Sharia. More in a bit.

It has been reported by the NYT amongst others that some members of the IGC have expressed concerns that their fellow members are more interested in keeping their positions within the council than doing what is best for Iraq. Again, this should be sledgehammer-blow-to-the-cranium obvious, but I need a segue. :)

According to Mahmoud Othman, IGC member and founder of the Kurdish Democratic Party, some IGC members tried to leverage Bremer and the U.S. using an accelerated election schedule to hold on to their positions. This move would have effectively left the council intact. According to Othman, when the IGC signed their formative agreement in Nov. 2003, many members hoped to negotiate in order to keep their jobs.

According to published reports when Bremer and Co. declined them the accelerated elections the discontented IGC members sought out the assistance of al-Sistani. This group allegedly al-Sistani to call for immediate elections, all the while knowing that the U.S. would have none of that. Al-Sistani bought the ruse, the U.S. balked and asked the U.N. to intercede. A very good move indeed.

Mr. Pachachi claims that the leading plan for power transfer is in fact the expansion of the IGC in both numbers and 'power' to preside over the country while the U.N. performs the logistical hoop-jumping required for elections. He further says this probably means that direct elections for the first truly Iraqi government could be held early in 2005, to be followed by a Constitutional Convention, and elections for a more 'permanent' Iraqi government later in the year.

Depending on the size of the as yet agreed upon size of the new and improved IGC, there is talk that form this body might emerge a form of Iraqi National Assembly, which then would choose a cabinet and prime minister. I should note here that this is but one many possibilities.

In a move that's sure to please the U.S., it seems that the Iraqis would like tribal and religious leaders to call upon candidates to nominate. Hey, if this was a bunch of fundamentalist Baptists, I'm sure this would be a go. :)

It's no secret that Iraqis see the current members and structure of the IGC as a tool of the U.S. and our interests.

I'll let Abdil Adbul Mahdi, a member of a leading Shi'ite Party have the last word:

"Now the Americans have to stay away. Anything we do, we have to be able to defend in front of our people."

WORLD EXCLUSIVE

Banned Weapons Found!

Nedra Pickler
Disassociated Press

WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 - Following the release of a statement critical of a highly sensible Bush policy to add additional layers of pro-industry peer review to the scientific process, 20 Nobel Laureates, as well as 19 other prominent members of the scientific community are being held on what hunky Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is calling "Weapons of Mass Destruction Knowledge."

Mr. Wolfowitz said at a press conference following the arrests; "We know that these people have the knowledge, skill and chutzpah to create and tactically use weapons banned under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NNPT), The Chemical weapons Ban(CBC) as well as the Bioweapons Convention(BWTC). Furthermore, many of these so-called distinguished individuals have spent their entire careers thinking about these horrible weapons."

"At this early juncture, it is too early to tell just how far the thought processes of these individuals went, but rest assured this is a vital blow to those who harbor terrorists, to the countries that support their work, and to the thought processes of those that harbor thoughts and views which differ materially from the rubber-stamped thoughts of goodness that emanate from the White House.

"I can also divulge at this time that is a definite link between the horrific events of 9-11 and many of these men. Long time White House reporter Helen Thomas, asked if my dumpling the dignified Deputy could "add some color" to his statement about the 9-11 connection. In a truly manly display he responded, with chest puffed, "Aren't you supposed to be in the back row?" and motioned for a secret service member to remove her from the room. She was escorted out the door hastily.

Another reporter covering the story asked Deputy Wolfowitz, if the scientists "had actually been found with any banned materials". Paul Deputy Wolfowitz magnificently responded, "What is it about America that you hate so very much?"

The reporter, visibly shaken, meekly replied; "Don't you recognize me? I'm George Bush. 'George H.W. Bush.'"

"Never heard of you, Bush. However you do look remotely familiar," deputy Love Buns Wolfowitz superhumanly answered.

"No further questions. Thank you for attending," my stallion Mr. Wolfowitz roared as he stepped from the dais and concluded the meeting.

Then he looked my way and winked. I had trouble removing myself from the seat.

I don't know what to make of this. I remain skeptical..WMD Knowledge? Isn't that stretching things a bit?

I'm missing something here In this Op-Ed Ms. Cocco claims that there are "rumors of President George W. Bush's cooperation with the panel probing the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

I have seen no such rumors. I read the piece, and gleaned a bit of fresh data that panelist Bob Kerrey had to say, but other than that it was the same old stonewalling that is one of the hallmarks of this administration.

The soft-pedaling continues abated on every issue of substance with which the administration is facing scrutiny. Not much new here.

I guess this is: "Politicization of Science Thursday"

The NYT is running the headline: "Bush Climate Plan Rated Somewhat Improved"

As if Bush's climate record could get worse. As a standards bearer for the planet's stewardship under Bush, the grade of "F" must be assigned to the U.S. Or maybe "CF" The "CF" is not for complete failure. Let's leave it that it's what future generations will be unless we move NOW to reverse the damage we're inflicting upon the Earth.

The Earth will be fine without humans, but humans -- it could be argued -- are dependent upon the Earth for our survival.

Screw copyright protection. This article needs to available to any that wishes to view it in the future.

Here's the link

Here's the article:

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

President Bush's plan for clarifying the causes and effects of climate change has been improved over the past year but can succeed only if the research is shielded from political pressures and if more money is spent on it, an independent panel of experts said yesterday.

Administration officials, who requested the outside review of the plan, welcomed the findings, but said no significant budget increases were possible. They said climate research goals would be met mainly through improved organization.

"We can't practically expect short-term massive increases in funding; it's just not in the cards these days," said James R. Mahoney, an assistant secretary of commerce who directs the Climate Change Science Program.

The federal government currently spends about $1.7 billion a year on climate research, officials said, and there are no significant shifts in spending in the administration's 2005 budget.

The panel, assembled by the National Research Council of the National Academies, the country's leading scientific advisory group, said there was an urgent need to move from planning an expanded push in federal climate research to financing it and moving ahead.

"This is an issue where the science is pretty clearly telling us that the longer we wait to consider some of these issues, the more dramatic the impacts may turn out to be," said Thomas E. Graedel, a professor of industrial ecology at Yale and chairman of the 17-member panel.

The administration's plan for climate research is available at www.climatescience.gov, and the critique is at nationalacademies.org.

Mr. Bush first announced plans to intensify climate research in June 2001, shortly after he was criticized by many climate experts for abandoning a campaign pledge to limit power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that many scientists have linked to global warming.

Mr. Bush said more research was needed before he would consider any measures beyond voluntary programs to slow growth in emissions.

The first version of the administration's subsequent research plan was issued in November 2002. It was criticized by the same panel last February as lacking clear priorities and neglecting to take stock of existing studies pointing to risks posed by rising global temperatures. The plan was revised and released last July.

In its review of the revised plan, the panel found clearer goals, but saw few signs that enough money would be allocated for new initiatives like improving satellite observations and computer simulations of the changing atmosphere and oceans.

"There is no evidence in the plan or elsewhere of a commitment to provide the necessary funds for these newer or expanded program elements," the panel said.

It also recommended that the administration ensure the credibility of government climate research by establishing a standing review committee of outside parties with a wide variety of views.

Many environmentalists and political opponents of Mr. Bush, and some scientists at government agencies, have expressed strong concern about the potential for political interference in climate science.

They have cited a string of instances in which the White House has edited climate-related documents in ways that amplified uncertainties and eliminated references to studies pointing to significant risks.

Just before the final version of the research plan was released last summer, for example, senior Commerce Department officials shaping the document threatened to resign over last-minute efforts by senior administration officials to adjust wording, several scientists and officials involved in the dispute said.

Dr. Mahoney said a firm boundary would be maintained between science and policy. "We've got a very clear vision," he said. "Let's get the science right, and the policy gets debated in its own right."

The review panel said the plan's strongest element was its architecture for organizing the dispersed efforts of 13 agencies to focus on a few central goals, including improving knowledge of past and current climate shifts and the influences ? both natural and human ? that shape them and reducing uncertainties in projections of how Earth's climate may shift in coming decades.

"Although the plan was developed for a 10-year time frame, it could effectively guide climate change research for decades," provided it is revised every three to five years to reflect advances in the science, the panel said in a statement.

One of the biggest weaknesses in the administration's plan, the panel said, was the absence of any significant reference to existing research examining the potential effects of climate change around the United States.

Particularly notable, it said, was the omission of any reference to the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. That 2001 report, done at the request of Congress, was compiled by academic and government scientists over several years.

White House officials have been continually pressed by industry lobbyists and antiregulatory groups to remove references to the assessment from government documents.

The assessment provides "important contributions," the panel said, and the independent peer review it went through was exemplary.

Yeah, this really tees me off. I can just see Bush asking the scientific community the hard questions about the ramifications of climate change, and sincerely asking what he can do as president to avert, or slow down a global calamity.

I'll be doing as thorough a job as possible(being a layperson in the field) dissecting the policies and proposals at a later date. I have lots of material to go through, so it may be a month..blogging isn't a paying gig for me.

If you're concerned about both the government and the environment, you've no doubt heard about Bush's plans to add an additional layer of peer review or in their words to provide "broad new standards for federal regulatory agencies that would require them to seek independent appraisals of the scientific basis for many new rules before issuing them."

How odd that the broad proposals were cheered by "groups linked to industry."

Then there are the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Bush's environmental policies are like a tornado in a mobile home park. Nah. He's worse than that.

My regular reader :) knows how I feel about the politicization of science. I feel badly about it. Very badly.

Again, the NYT confirms my worst suspicions..or at least lends them credence.

A nibble:

Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts

By JAMES GLANZ

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page report detailing its accusations.

The two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke during the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried, who is also chairman of the board of directors at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the administration had a "cavalier attitude towards science" that could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

Much more at link

Am I the only one struck by the irony that a president that wants to build a moon base, and send a manned vehicle to Mars is so utterly contemptuous of the very people that would make this possible?

My brain hurts.

I think that it is fabulous that this is getting some press. It deserves to be the major campaign issue.

This is another one of those issues that people that only casually follow things will remark that it's 'politics as usual', or that 'they all do it.' Sure that's true to a degree, but this administration is so unresponsive and so irresponsible that these casual observers are continually and demonstrably wrong.

Educate them. I do.

I often get a blank stare after rattling of a litany of issues that the Bush administration differs by orders of magnitude from those that came before.

I'm going to see if I get a copy of the report. The site is being overwhelmed right now. Most of my pings are timing out, and there is no way, I can open the homepage.

Skilling Surrenders to Feds. Most excellent. I guess this means that Fastow's plea bargain included 'spilling the beans' on Skilling. Now if we can just get Kenny Boy before a jury, it'll restore some of my faith in our imbalanced justice system.

The NYT:

....Flanked by a pair of attorneys, Skilling turned himself in at the Houston FBI offices just before daybreak. About 15 minutes later, his hands behind him in cuffs, he was placed in a car for the trip to the federal courthouse in downtown Houston. He was expected to appear later in the day before a federal judge on charges related to Enron's collapse, according to two sources close to the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"Under the circumstances, he is doing extraordinarily well,'' said Dan Petrocelli, one of his lawyers.

Almost exactly two years ago, Skilling bucked the trend of former Enron executives invoking their Fifth Amendment rights before Congress, telling two panels he knew nothing about serious problems at the energy trader before he quit after serving as CEO for only six months.

Barring any last minute delays, Skilling, 50, would be the highest-profile former Enron executive to date to face criminal charges. He would be the 28th individual to be charged and one of the most anticipated in the Justice Department's methodical investigation, which passed its two-year mark last month.

Another of his lawyers, Bruce Hiler, visited the federal courthouse in Houston Wednesday afternoon to familiarize himself with its layout.

Skilling's former boss, Enron founder and former chairman Kenneth Lay, has not been charged, and the sources said it was unclear if he would become a defendant.

Both men, through their lawyers, have maintained their innocence of any wrongdoing related to Enron's failure.

It was not immediately clear what charges Skilling would face, although the sources said they likely would be similar to conspiracy and fraud counts filed last month against former top Enron accountant Richard Causey.

Two years ago, Skilling maintained during testimony before two congressional panels that he believed Enron was financially healthy when he stepped down, citing personal reasons he has not explained.

The rest of the story

One has to wonder if Kenny boy is about to take a ride in an unmarked late model sedan. It may just be that Fastow was needed to get Skilling, and Skilling is needed to get Mr. Lay. I don't think that this is the case. I think Fastow knows enough to get Kenny Boy as well.

These people are criminals of the highest order, short of a few egregious offenses. Accomodations courtesy of the Federal Government will give them some time to reflect.

The NYT is reporting that the Administration's plan to transfer power to the Iraqis by 30 June of this year is not politically motivated. Really?

This transfer, in which the U.S. will have military superiority over 'new Iraq' for an indeterminate amount of time is beginning to sound an awful lot like the lack of the Pentagon's wholesale discarding of scenarios for post-war Iraq. A planning fiasco.

Here's a bit:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — In the Bush administration, it is considered heresy to suggest postponing the planned return of sovereignty to Iraq. Turning over control by June 30, administration officials say, is crucial to assuaging Iraqi distress over living under American occupation.

Yet in recent weeks, diplomats and even some in the administration have begun to worry that the date reflects more concern for American politics than Iraqi democracy. Their fear is that an untested government taking power on June 30 may not be strong enough to withstand the pressures bearing down on it.

"When we went into Iraq, our plan was to have a government, build a structure and write a constitution that would be a source of longterm stability," said an administration official. "Now that's out the window."

Many in the administration say that while they have no proof that the urgency to install a government is politically motivated, it feels to them like part of a White House plan to permit President Bush to run for re-election while taking credit for establishing self-rule in Iraq.

"I can make all kinds of arguments about why we need to establish democracy in Iraq on an urgent basis," said another administration official. "But when you hear from on high that this is what we must do, and there can be no questioning of it, it sounds like politics."

This week, the administration is in the odd position of insisting on Iraqi self-rule by June 30, while awaiting a recommendation from the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, on how the interim government should be chosen and the form it should take.

Mr. Annan's special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi leaders, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to work out some sort of consensus on the shape of an interim government.

The United States wants that government to rule while elections are held later in the year or in 2005 for a constitution-writing legislature. Eventually, elections are to be held to ratify the constitution and establish a permanent Iraqi government.

Administration officials say that Mr. Brahimi was told that one option he must not accept is postponement of the June 30 date for the transfer of power.

"It is holy writ," said an administration official.

Yet many experts, including some in the administration, also say they are worried that such a rapid transition entails enormous risks. What happens, some worry, if a major crisis were to occur, resulting from an assassination or bomb explosion in which many Iraqis die?

What happens, moreover, if by accident American forces — which are still likely to retain wide autonomy and authority over security throughout the country — kill a large number of Iraqi citizens? Would a shaky Iraqi government lacking in perceived legitimacy survive a blow like that?

It makes no sense, many experts say, to set a fixed date to hand over sovereignty before having any idea of what sort of government will be given power on that date.

"This is entirely a schedule dictated by Karl Rove," said an Arab diplomat who maintains close contacts with the administration, referring to the White House's political director. "Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive."

More at link above.

War is the ultimate political expression. There is enough material in this portion of the article from which to mine quotes from for a whole week of blogging.

I'll choose what I see as a non-controversial statement:

"When we went into Iraq, our plan was to have a government, build a structure and write a constitution that would be a source of longterm stability," said an administration official. "Now that's out the window."

You have to wonder just how much of this is true. It seems likely that the 'war game' was on and the dates decided before we could build any sort of real coalition. So we end up with a mess in Iraq that's ours, and ours alone to clean up.

Things to consider:

1) Why did the civilian's at the Pentagon 'circular file' scenarios from the intelligence agencies and the State Dept. regarding troop numbers to thwart chaos in post-war Iraq?

2) Why have our efforts to 'build a structure' proven so fruitless?

3) Why are 'we' writing a constitution for Iraq? This, along with the continued presence of occupying forces is a textbook definition of empire.

These are questions drawn from two sentences by a White House official. Anyone that has been following this closely has a good idea what the likely answers are.

More later.

More on Google and Limbaugh. I see the fabulous Google news site has linked to the nonsensical rushlimbaugh.com...as if Limbaugh could write an unbiased hard news story.

I did grab some of Rush's quotes while I was there. This man is a mental giant. His words are in green, mine are in red. You can go check this out. Google has directly linked to it. I won't.

"All of this media stuff about John Kerry is just razzmatazz. There isn't any genuine excitement for this guy out there. There are no really excited people for John Kerry because he doesn't affect people that way."

Wow. Rush knows the minds of every Kerry voter. Impressive. We know Bush excites people. The mere thought at his election -- not to be confused with re-election -- has brought Democrats and Independent voters out in recoed numbers in some states. I can back up my statement. The Hot Air Hindenburg cannot. It would be really interesting to know just how many Kerry voters Rush has spoken to...none is a ballpark figure.

"For a year Howard Dean has been trying to take the flag back from me, and he's gotten out of the race before he got my flag. So we'll send him a flag. Get his address in Burlington."

*scanning Nexis* Nope. No mention of any flag here. Your flag wouldn't have a certain symbol of the Third Reich on it would it? I think I can speak for Dean, and say "halten Sie Ihr Markierungsfahnenherrlimbaugh."

"These people who will not take this terrorist threat seriously - who are trying to politicize it and make this the issue over which they seek power - if there were justice, wouldn't get 10% of the vote in
November."

Who exactly are 'these people?' If they are soft on terror why would you want to give them 90% or more of the vote? You did say they don't deserve 10%. 90% sound more like it?

Of course this is a special category of logical fallacy that we at pure bs refer to as: Argumentum ad populum. Simply, appeal to the people. In Rush's special case, it is particularly galling because he has 5 million or so listeners that won't be able, or moved to, get the facts. See: Justice Dept. lawsuit against Ashcroft for "gross mismanagement" in the war on terrorism

Who's not taking the WOT seriously, Rush?

"I'll be honest with you, it's a little depressing to see all of this fringe, wacko and just absolutely off-the-ball stupid stuff being supported or apparently supported by so many people. It really makes you wonder what kind of country we have."

Which stupid stuff? The felonious purchase of thousands of prescription narcotics? Money laundering? Or the abysmal foreign and domestic policies of George W. Bush? I agree. It does make one wonder what kind of country we have.

"I've been trying to do a much better job recently of getting in touch with my feelings, and it's hard, because my whole life I've shoved them away.

Aren't feelings a wonderful thing. I'll give you hint. If you stop lying to others, you may find being more honest with yourself easier. And no more meetings with Kline at Denny's. Those are the first steps.

"With the amount of money we spend on education, when I hear there are parents who can't read, I'm sorry, I don't have sympathy. My fellow citizens and I have paid through the nose to fix this problem since the 1960's, and it sounds like it's only getting worse. Why we say we need another program to deal with this?"

I think the last sentence is supposed to read, "Why do we say we..." I'd say proper sentence structure on the part of multimillionaire shlock jocks is reason enough. (too easy)

But seriously, education in the states is pretty bad. This is typical Limbaugh open ended verbal flatulence. The reason we need different programs is simply because we are falling further behind the rest of the West, and Asia in science and mathematics.

It could be argued that we have a surplus of talk-radio hosts.

For references see Laura Bush.

"It's as I thought. There aren't any credible sources in Maine."

Without context, it's difficult to know what Rush is on about..and that can be chore with context. I think he must still be going on about Edmund Muskie when he was the democratic nominee for VP in 1968..boy time flies when you're jacked up on hill-billy heroin.

"The grinding sound that you hear is the intellectual leader of the left being ground down by the powerful liberal establishment. They just couldn't have Howard Dean run, folks. Howard Dean had to be
destroyed."

No, Rush. That's tinnitus from your uncontrolled opiate binging. "Powerful liberal establishment." Wow. Conspiracy too. PLE: "Taking over a planet near you." I should listen to your show. I have a nice new roll of Alcoa™ aluminum foil with which to construct my listening hat from. Fun!

"I don't hate the government. I just think it's in way too many areas of lives and it's screwing things up instead of the so-called objective being accomplished.

Yeah. I know. It's getting so a guy can't go buying thousands of illegal opiates without coming under suspicion. I guess I'll miss tomorrow's segment on "the so-called objective" of our government. And how about that ACLU, eh? Oh yeah, you need them now. One day Rush's liberal pariah, the next his bedfellow. At least he isn't consistent.

"This was my fantasy last night. Edwards wins in Wisconsin, and this causes a shakeup and a panic throughout the DNC because the DNC is a fluid organization. You have to understand they don't stand for anything other than beating Bush. Whatever it takes to beat Bush that's what they'll be."

Maybe I'm crossing a line here, but Rush Limbaugh and fantasy should never inhabit the same paragraph, much less the same sentence.

I guess his fantasy about Rick Santorum, a Great Dane and overripened bananas didn't come true either.

I hope Rush is correct about the levels that the democrats will go to dethrone King George. The DNC is a fluid organization? What the hell does that mean? I would think it means that they are intellectually nimble. I'm certain Rush means it in some defamatory fashion.

Hugs and liberal Kisses,


I had fun. I hope you do too. Drop a comment, and I'll add your entry.

It's now -- realistically -- a race between Kerry and Edwards. There isn't a whole lot of policy difference between the two. I'd say it's more of an issue of geography than anything else. Kerry has shown strength in the South, while Edwards was strong in Wisconsin. So both have proven that they can win in each other's backyards. I think that Edwards jobs/protectionism hammering got him the votes in Wisconsin.

There is, of course a problem with this approach. It's one of dissonance between reality and rhetoric. GATT and NAFTA aren't likely to disappear. So what are some commonsense solutions to attenuate the 'outsourcing' issue. I'd say that it is limited to job retraining at this juncture. Other countries aren't going to be seeking dramatic increases in pay for their workers. If they do, than there is always someone who'll do it cheaper. I see this as a very long term issue. Enough bout that.

I'm going to speculate about the rest of the primaries. Kerry is likely to win the coasts. That should wrap it up for him. Edwards will do well in heartland.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket looks to be a good bet at this juncture.

Note: If commonsense truly was, we'd all be a lot better off than at present.

First of all, I would like to announce that I, or the press were wrong about Howard Dean. I speculated that Dean would make his departure from the race either Sunday PM, or Monday. I missed it by three days. That is simply unacceptable. The press accounts must be faulty. Those folks are always a few days behind pure bs. :)

All kidding aside, I'd like to congratulate Dr. Dean for giving the Democrats a voice of their own. They are no longer servile to the GOP. He also energized a large group of voters that I suspect wouldn't have felt obliged to assist another candidate. These voters are now likely to vote in November.

If Dean comes my way again, I'll get a photo and post it. I really like the guy.

On the other side of the aisle, storm clouds are moving in. In this USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll if the election was to held today, both Kerry and Edwards would win

This is partly explained by all the press given the democrats this primary season.

More ominously, Bush's only 'real' asset, his 'trustworthiness' amongst narcoleptic sheep Americans is in freefall. Here's the bit:

Continuing a decline that has gone on for more than a year, 55% of those surveyed said Bush was honest and trustworthy. That compares to 59% the last time the question was asked in November, and 70% when the question was asked in early January 2003. Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said Kerry was honest and trustworthy.

That would make a juicy graph :) I'm sure Gallup already has one up. And then there's this bit:

The poll indicated Americans felt better about Bush the person than they did about his job performance.¹.Majorities said Bush has strong moral character and is a strong and decisive leader² , but less than a majority said Bush generally agrees with them on important issues and has a clear plan for solving the country's problems.³

pure bs translation:

1. He's a nice guy and all, good for a few chuckles, but man, does he suck at his job.

2. He clears brush and stuff around the ranch. I saw him leading a pony down there in Crawford. And the pretzel was an isolated incident.

3. Tax cut? You mean the one that was more than offset by my increase in local and state taxes? I gutcha tax cut right heyah.

Google: Inconsistent

Editor & Publisher notes:Google Drops Activist Group's Ads Now this, in and of itself is no big issue. Here's the bit(with context) that I find controversial:

Oceana, a 2 1/2-year-old nonprofit group, said Google dropped the text-based ads displayed in shaded boxes along the right side of its Web page because they were critical of Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines.

Washington D.C.-based Oceana believes Royal Caribbean pollutes the oceans by improperly treating the sewage on its ships. It hoped to publicize its complaints by paying to have its ads appear when terms like "cruise vacation" and "cruise ship" were entered into Google's search engine.

The ad, which said "Help us protect the world's oceans," appeared for two days last week before Google pulled it from its page.

When Oceana challenged the ban, Mountain View, Calif.-based Google responded with an e-mail advising the group that it doesn't accept ads with "language that advocates against Royal Caribbean."

Oceana's ad didn't mention Royal Caribbean directly, but the link directed Google visitors to a Web page critical of the Miami-based cruise line.

The decision stunned Oceana because it reeked of censorship and favoritism, said Andrew Sharpless, the group's chief executive.

"We were surprised because the answer they gave certainly raises the question whether they got a phone call from Royal Caribbean," Sharpless said Thursday. "We can't prove that, but it certainly smells that way."

Both Google and Royal Caribbean denied there was any pressure applied to remove the Oceana ad.

Google's policy prohibits ads criticizing other groups or companies, said spokeswoman Cindy McCaffrey. "We do reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site," she said.

Oh really? The policy would not allow an ad that tells atheists that they are going to hell unless they accept christ, would it not? The answer must be yes, the ad would be disallowed as being critical of people who place reason over 2,000 year old myths.

Go to Google, and type in 'atheism' as a search term. The second ad is for this page on Anointed-one.net. Its message is pretty clear. Convert to the one true religion, or you're going straight to hell. If you have a good scientific background, the entire site is a hoot.

It seems plausible that Google was 'talked to' by Royal Carribean.

I think hell is going to be cool.

BIG TEN IS BACK!

POLITICS!

Only a couple of entries. I've got primary burn-out.

Lots of speculation about Howard Dean's future. It was Dean that really energized Democrats. He made them believe that they can win the big one. Dean can still raise cash. As to what he'll do, I haven't a clue. I've talked to Howard Dean on a couple of ocassions, and he's a pretty impressive guy as politicos go...living in NH, I have access to everyone. Except Bush..Gee.

Johnny Asscroft gets sued..heh I am so mature.

Suit against Ashcroft claims department has bungled war on terror I'll give you a tease..then go and read!!!!

WASHINGTON - The federal prosecutor who won convictions in the government's first and only terrorism trial after the Sept. 11 attacks has filed a lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft accusing the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" in the war on terrorism.

The highly unusual complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington by Richard Convertino, the lead prosecutor in the conviction of three members of an alleged terrorism sleeper cell in Detroit.

Convertino is facing an internal Justice Department investigation for failing to turn over a document to the defense until long after the trial had ended.

Convertino claims the Justice Department is retaliating against him because he has attacked its efforts in the war on terrorism and cooperated with the Senate Finance Committee, led by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a vocal critic of the department.

In his lawsuit, Convertino said the Justice Department has exaggerated its success in fighting terrorism. He said heavy-handed officials at Justice Department headquarters in Washington have hindered prosecutors in the field.

In the case he handled in Detroit, which Ashcroft has frequently praised as a success in the war on terrorism, Convertino said the government failed to provide the needed federal law enforcement manpower to help review documents, interview witnesses and prepare for trial.

Convertino claims he worked the case for months with the help of only one FBI special agent.

Convertino said he repeatedly asked for additional help.

In the suit, Convertino alleges there was a "lack of support and cooperation, lack of effective assistance, lack of resources and intradepartmental infighting" in terrorism cases.

"These concerns directly related to the ability of the United States to effectively utilize the criminal justice system as a component in the `war on terrorism,' " the lawsuit said.

There is much more at link. This is most unusual. My SO is an attorney, and she says it's nearly unprecedented. She is also very pleased with this. I share her joy.

Knight Ridder is on lots of this stuff before anybody else gets it. Bookmark it.

******************************

SCIENCE!

Go check out the latest exploits from the newest Martians Opportunity and Spirit. On a somber note, the fight to save the Hubble goes on. At this stage, it looks like without a real grass roots push to send a shuttle back up for maintenance, it's over. Get Involved Anything you can do will help.

Need a reason to get involved? I'll give you two of them

Most Distant Galaxy Hints at Dark Ages The obligatory tease:

Astronomers seeking to glimpse the very beginnings of the universe announced this weekend they may have spotted the most distant galaxy yet, one that could shed light on the end of the so-called Dark Ages of cosmology that preceded the well-lit universe we know today.

Nearby galaxy cluster Abell 2218 acts as a powerful lens, magnifying galaxies beyond it. The lensed galaxies are all stretched along the cluster's center and some of them are multiply imaged. The new apparent record-setter shows up as a faint red pair of images, encircled in the larger version of this image.

The scientists are unsure of the exact distance to the galaxy but know it is near the limit of what can be found with current telescopes. It is estimated to be 13 billion light-years away, seen at a time when the universe was just 700 million to 750 million years old.

Now if that's not seriously cool, maybe Cindy Crawford covere....Oh, sorry. Maybe you'll think this is:

Astronomers Find a Huge Diamond in Space Your tease:

The newly discovered cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallized carbon 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus. (A light-year is the distance light travels in a year, or about 6 trillion miles.) It is 2,500 miles across and weighs 5 million trillion trillion pounds, which translates to approximately 10 billion trillion trillion carats, or a one followed by 34 zeros.

"It's the mother of all diamonds!" says Metcalfe. "Some people refer to it as 'Lucy' in a tribute to the Beatles song 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.'"

The diamond star completely outclasses the largest diamond on Earth, the 530-carat Star of Africa which resides in the Crown Jewels of England. The Star of Africa was cut from the largest diamond ever found on Earth, a 3,100-carat gem.

The huge cosmic gem (technically known as BPM 37093) is actually a crystallized white dwarf. A white dwarf is the hot core of a star, left over after the star uses up its nuclear fuel and dies. It is made mostly of carbon and is coated by a thin layer of hydrogen and helium gases.

For more than four decades, astronomers have thought that the interiors of white dwarfs crystallized, but obtaining direct evidence became possible only recently.

Sorry about the use of bright yellow. But I hope it got your attention! Help save the Hubble!

That Bitch! New Scientist reports:

Women judge the attractiveness other women more harshly when at their most fertile, suggests a new study. The phenomenon could be a strategy to devalue potential rivals, says the psychologist behind the work - being bitchy about others could help a woman win the attention of a desirable man.

Theories of sexual selection in most species usually concentrate on how males compete for females. But recent theories for humans suggest there is intrasexual competition among females as well, as males can vary markedly in their abilities as providers and protectors.

Much more female bare knuckled competition at link.

See, I had a reason to use that lead-in :)

******************************

INTERNET!

Google wants 6..billion pages ondexed that is.

Google Inc. on Tuesday upped the ante in the increasingly competitive search-engine market, announcing that it has increased its venerable Web index to 6 billion Web pages, images and other documents.

In its core search area, Web sites, Google said that it had increased the number of Web pages in its index to 4.28 billion, up from about 3 billion previously. Google's index of images has doubled in size to about 880 million images, said Peter Norvig, Google's director of search quality.

Google's image search is currently pretty lame compared to Overture/AllTheWeb/AltaVista(all one Co.) I'm sure in no time Google will surpass its competitors.

As you know, or maybe you don't, I'm a semicon engineer. I don'r blog for a living :) This next piece goes way beyond my chiphead status, and right into your living room. This could prove to be hugely disruptive technology.

Intel Preps for WiMax Chips It's a newly established standard IEEE 802.16a. You needn't know that, but this other bit shows the potential:

Chip making giant Intel Wednesday said it would begin shipping silicon with the standard, known as 802.16a, or WiMAX by the second half of this year.

In a room full of eager broadband and networking professionals at the Wireless Communications Association (WCA) annual symposium in San Jose, the company said it expects service providers to deploy the standard 2005. So the announcement signals to product designers that they should sit down at their CAD stations and begin thinking about products to roll out next year.

Intel executive vice president and general manager of the Intel Communications Group Sean Maloney said the company's vision includes a three-stage deployment of WiMAX that would begin with fixed outdoor antenna installations to bring wireless to emerging markets and speed the installation of broadband services without the need to lay wire or cable.

"The technology will then rapidly progress to indoor antenna installations, broadening its appeal to carriers seeking simplified installation at user sites," Maloney said. "Finally, in the third phase, WiMAX-Certified hardware will be available in portable solutions for users who want to roam within or between service areas."

Of course the big thing here is no wires, no cable. 70mbps. Read the story. I can provide a lot more color on this, as it's my turf, but I'll refrain...for now. :)

That makes eight!

******************************

POT POURRI!

Yeah, you know. Like Jeopardy. Without Alex Trebek. And prizes. And questions. And stuff.

Wanna keep your grey from greying? Move it!

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Being physically fit may be good for the aging brain, researchers report.

In a new study of older adults, higher levels of physical fitness were associated with improved mental abilities.

The results highlight the importance of staying in shape, according to one of the study authors.

"Fitness training can enhance brain and mental function," Dr. Arthur F. Kramer, of the Beckman Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told Reuters Health.

Even moderate physical activity may keep the brain in tip-top shape, according to Kramer.

"By increased fitness we are not talking about going from a sedentary lifestyle to running a marathon but instead to walking a couple of miles a few times a week," he said.

"Older adults can maintain and indeed enhance cognitive and brain function with modest amounts of aerobic exercise," Kramer said.

I'd love to be more physically active. I tried lifting weights. Man, those things are heavy! Fuggedaboutit.

******************************

I'm done.

Lest you think Mr. Bush isn't a fearful man, read:

"My administration looked at the intelligence information and we saw danger. "Members of Congress looked at the same intelligence, and they saw danger. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw danger."

Looks like today's vocabulary word is "danger."

I guess danger is a relative thing. Most accidents occur in the home. In the bathroom in fact. That doesn't stop anyone from ummm...I hope it doesn't.

I don't make this stuff up, folks.

President Bush spoke those words to a Guard Unit headed to Baghdad today.

Uninterestingly, he also quipped:

He also revived his assertion that Iraq had become "the central front in the war on terrorism," citing the interception of a letter that American officials have concluded was written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has long been under scrutiny by the United States for suspected ties to Al Qaeda.

I'm really wondering if this man is stable. Iraq is now the 'central front on the war on terrorism?" Aren't we supposed to giving these folks their independence on 30 June of this year? Maybe I'm the one not thinkng clearly. Nah. I'm not.

Bush fears regular people. That's where the real danger lies...no pun intended.

Limbaugh shags ACLU

In what has to be the most ironic story of the day, The Dallas Morning News is reporting that:

....Limbaugh, his attorneys and the ACLU have argued that the seizure violated Limbaugh's right to privacy and the confidentiality of the relationship between patients and doctors. The attorneys want the state 4th District Court of Appeal to rule that the records should remain sealed.

"What meaning would the patient protections in the Constitution and the law have if prosecutors could disregard them any time they wanted to?" Limbaugh attorney Roy Black said in a statement.

Palm Beach prosecutors seized the records in November for their investigation into whether Limbaugh illegally went "doctor shopping" to obtain pain pills. The crime refers to visiting several doctors to receive duplicate prescriptions of controlled narcotics. Limbaugh sought treatment for his admitted addiction in October and has not been charged with a crime.

Prosecutors had no immediate comment Tuesday but Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer has repeatedly insisted that investigators have followed the law and "scrupulously protected" Limbaugh's rights.

A circuit court has kept the records sealed since investigators obtained the medical records. But prosecutors had a brief opportunity to review the documents Dec. 22 after Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jeffrey A. Winikoff ruled to unseal the records and before Limbaugh's attorneys won a delay to keep them sealed.

The investigation is now on hold until the appeals court rules.

Limbaugh told listeners to his afternoon radio show Tuesday that the investigation "is all political, disguised as a legal case" and that it was a "search- and-destroy mission."

He accused prosecutors of leaking details about the investigation to plant "false stories in the press."

"How many of you people think I was drug trafficking? How many of you people think I was laundering money? Pure leaks," Limbaugh said. "And there's nothing to it."

Limbaugh kept his comments brief, saying, "It's tough for me to talk about it. I mean, I can, but it's uncomfortable for me to do so."

Prosecutors have drawn criticism for other actions in the case. Last month, the state Attorney General's office questioned the motives of Krischer and his staff after they released letters from Black about negotiating a guilty plea. Prosecutors cited support from the Attorney General's office and the Florida Bar, but both groups contradict those claims.

Krischer's office began investigating more than a year ago after his former maid, Wilma Cline, told them she sold Limbaugh "large quantities of hydrocodone, Oxycontin and other pharmaceutical drugs" for years. She provided investigators with e-mails and answering machine recordings to support her claims......

More at link above. So, Rush is now calling on the ACLU to assist him. The irony is delicious. I know it's an older story, but it is getting some more air today.

Rush Limbaugh has got to be the biggest hypocrite that the RWEC has..okay, so he has lost a few pounds. Boy those lefties sure are handy when you need them, eh Rush? Cerebrum melting irony.

I have been watching the nascent Iraqi election process since the US disclosed that it wanted elections by 30 June 2004.

I've been referring to Iraqi democracy as 'conditional democracy.' That is, democracy on our terms..which isn't democracy at all.

It seems that we have no plan at this juncture that is being carefully considered by all parties.

Kirk Troy, reporting for the VOA writes this:

Most members of the Iraqi Governing Council have said they no longer support a U.S. plan for choosing an interim government before power is handed over later this year. The U.S. coalition says it is opposed to any plan to include Islamic law in an interim constitution.

Most members of Iraq's U.S.-appointed governing council have said they no longer support a U.S. plan they endorsed last November that calls for regional meetings to choose an interim government.

Several council members, representing Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds, say the caucus system is too controversial. Some back a proposal for the U.S.-led coalition to hand power to the current Governing Council until elections can be held. Others have suggested a national conference of political and religious figures from which a new leadership would emerge.

The current plan has been in question for some time and was one aspect being scrutinized by a U.N. fact finding team that visited Iraq last week. The team all but ruled out the possibility of early elections.

Meanwhile, Iraqi Shi'ite groups have criticized comments by U.S. top administrator Paul Bremer who, they say, would oppose any use of Islamic law as the basis of Iraq's new constitution. The coalition says this was part of a long-standing agreement the United States has had with the Iraqi council.

"It is not Ambassador Bremer's position, it is the position of the Governing Council that they took when we reached agreement on how the political process would move forward, which is that Islam, the recognition of Islam, as the identity of the majority of Iraqis," said Dan Senor, the coalition spokesman in Baghdad. "But at the same time, ensuring there are protections for freedom of religious worship in this country for all Iraqis. The statements made by Ambassador Bremer yesterday are consistent with the agreement reached in the fall of last year."

Much more at link.

That the U.S. isn't allowing any Islamic law to be written into the Constitution is a bit odd. I say this because the IGC under the auspices of the U.S. has already allowed Sharia in Iraq. In this entry from 01 Jan 2004 I noted the following:

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.

I'm sure that the Iraqis must be really angry and confused by all of this. By all of this, I mean from the invasion to today. They have no real security, the infrastructure is a bloody mess, and now they aren't going to be allowed to govern in the way that they wish. They have thousands dead over nothing, and some wonder why they aren't appreciative. I'll tell you why. It's because they're human beings. I'd be pissed too.

Hanoi Jane and John Kerry.

Many people have been taken in by a photoshopped(or other process) of Kerry and Fonda. The problem is, according to the photographer that took the shot, it's a fake.

Here's the real poop:

1971 Photo of Kerry Doctored

By Michael Rothfeld
Staff Writer

As a 20-year-old photographer documenting the country's struggle over the Vietnam War, Ken Light snapped the picture of John Kerry at a peace rally in Mineola. It captured the future senator alone at a podium, squinting into the sun.

Light did not photograph Jane Fonda on that warm June Sunday in 1971. The actress, who is reviled by many Vietnam veterans for her vocal stance against the war, did not even attend.

But when opponents of the Democratic presidential hopeful began e-mailing Light's picture to one another four days ago, it depicted Fonda standing by Kerry's side. The photo had been doctored.

"I'm horrified," said Light, 52, who grew up in East Meadow and now heads the graduate photojournalism program at the University of California at Berkeley. "I think this kind of alteration is probably one of the scariest forms of trickery, particularly when it's done against a political candidate."

Dag Vega, a spokesman for Kerry's campaign, said, "The smear tactics have started already."

Kerry, who co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War, spoke at the Register for Peace Rally on June 13, 1971, when thousands gathered for "the largest anti-war demonstration ever held on Long Island," according to a story in Newsday the next day. Light recalled Long Islanders of all ages sprawled across the State Supreme Court mall in Mineola, with American flags and peace symbols. Former members of Congress who attended included Bella Abzug, Allard Lowenstein and Lester Wolff. Folk singer Peter Yarrow entertained, and the rally ended with a burst of thunder and lightning.

Light, a student in Ohio at the time, took the picture of Kerry but never published it, and it sat in his files until two weeks ago when he shipped it to Corbis, his Seattle-based agent, which placed it in its online archives.

That is apparently where someone found it, and attempted to capitalize on the attention garnered by an authentic photo of Kerry and Fonda at a Vietnam-era rally -- seated some distance apart -- posted early this month on a Web site called www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com. The Web site's creator, Ted Sampley, a Vietnam veteran from North Carolina, said he received the doctored photo by e-mail on Wednesday from a woman in Richmond, Va.

"Thought you might want to include this pic on your site," said the note from Loree Siemek, with an attachment called "HanoiJohn.jpg," a takeoff on "Hanoi Jane," the derisive nickname given to Fonda by her critics during the Vietnam era. It is made to look like a newspaper clipping, headlined "Fonda Speaks to Vietnam Veterans at Anti- War Rally," with an Associated Press photo credit. Sampley said he was immediately skeptical, and e-mailed it to some friends who concluded it was faked. He did not post it.

"I looked at it and it didn't feel right," Sampley said in an interview. "It just looked too good."

Siemek, 34, reached by phone, said she found the picture on a conservative Internet message board and had no idea it was phony.

"This thing has spiraled out of control," Siemek said. "If I had any thought that photo was not real, I would never have forwarded it to the veterans' group."

Link

I'm not particularly fond of Kerry. However, I have great disdain for anyone that knowingly twists facts, uses things out of context or otherwise misrepresents issues. I am really non-partisan. I vote both sides of the aisle.

My disdain for the Bush Administration isn't entirely policy based. I loathe the Administration for its lack of forthrightness on virtually every issue. If your policy sucks, and you don't lie about it, I respect that. If your policy sucks and you misrepresent it, I will not likely ever trust you.

For what it's worth, I had a loathing for Clinton as well. He lied about a certain affair of state, and I lost all respect for him as well.

UPDATE: I went to vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com and the so called 'hate mail' is a treasure -- NC-17 :)

Krugman! Plus a little graph. (always a bonus here at pure bs)

The Health of Nations

February 17, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The Economic Report of the President, released last week, has drawn criticism on several fronts. Let me open a new one: the report's discussion of health care, which shows a remarkable indifference to the concerns of ordinary Americans — and suggests a major political opening for the Democrats.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 82 percent of Americans rank health care among their top issues. People are happy with the quality of health care, if they can afford it, but they're afraid that they might not be able to afford it. Unlike other wealthy countries, America doesn't have universal health insurance, and it's all too easy to fall through the cracks in our system. When I saw that the president's economic report devoted a whole chapter to health care, I assumed that it would make some attempt to address these public concerns.

Instead, the report pooh-poohs the problem. Although more than 40 million people lack health insurance, this doesn't matter too much because "the uninsured are a diverse and perpetually changing group." This is good news? At any given time about one in seven Americans is uninsured, which is bad enough. Because the uninsured are a "perpetually changing group," however, a much larger fraction of the population suffers periodic, terrifying spells of being uninsured, and an even larger fraction lives with the fear of losing insurance if anything goes wrong at work or at home.

The report also seems to have missed the point of health insurance. It argues that it would be a good thing if insurance companies had more information about the health prospects of clients so "policies could be tailored to different types and priced accordingly." So if insurance companies develop a new way to identify people who are likely to have kidney problems later in life, and use this information to deny such people policies that cover dialysis, that's a positive step?

Having brushed off the plight of those who, for economic or health reasons, cannot get insurance, the report turns to a criticism of health insurance in general, which it blames for excessive health care spending.

Is this really the crucial issue? It's true that the U.S. spends far more on health care than any other country, but this wouldn't be a bad thing if the spending got results. The real question is why, despite all that spending, many Americans aren't assured of the health care they need, and American life expectancy is near the bottom for advanced countries.

Where is the money going? A lot of it goes to overhead. A recent study found that private insurance companies spend 11.7 cents of every health care dollar on administrative costs, mainly advertising and underwriting, compared with 3.6 cents for Medicare and 1.3 cents for Canada's government-run system. Also, our system is very generous to drug companies and other medical suppliers, because — unlike other countries' systems — it doesn't bargain for lower prices.

The result is that American health care, which at its best is the best in the world, offers much of the population a worst-of-all-worlds combination of insecurity and high costs. And that combination is getting worse: insurance premiums are rising, and companies are becoming increasingly unwilling to offer insurance to their employees.

What would an answer to the growing health care crisis look like? It would surely involve extending coverage to those now uninsured. To keep costs down, it would crack down both on drug prices and on administrative costs. And it might well cut private insurance companies out of the loop for some, if not all, coverage.

But the administration can't offer such an answer, both because of its ideological blinders and because of its special interest ties. The Economic Report of the President has only negative things to say about efforts to hold down drug prices. It talks at length about insurance reform, but it mainly complains that we rely too much on insurance; it says nothing about either expanding coverage or reducing insurance-company overhead. Its main concrete policy suggestion is a plan for tax-deductible health savings accounts, which would be worth little or nothing to a vast majority of the uninsured.

I'll talk more about alternatives for health care in future columns. But for now, let's just note that this is an issue the public cares about — an issue the administration can't address, but a bold Democrat can.

Link

Oh, my little chart:



I hate to beat a dead horse, but it wouls seem sound to move some of the $401+ Billion from the military to the health of our citizens. We are so vasmilitarilyrily superior to any other country at this point, it is foolhardy to spend even more dough on the military..and then there is the issue of no money in the White House's budget for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we have a pretty warped sense of priorities in this country.

"Bush recently described himself as 'a war president.' But more of those polled said he has that title because of the choices he makes, 51 percent, rather than because world events forced him into that role, 40 percent."

Ouch. That's gotta hurt. Credibility chasm.

Well, it looks like Kerry didn't have any relationship with the AP reporter Alexandra Polier. If he did, no one is coming forward.

Why can't Limbaugh use the language correctly?

"It's a Democrat doing it, it's not us conservatives." That's 'we' conservatives. Dumbass.

Since when is Matt drudge a Democrat? News to me.

The rumor of the affair has been categorically denied by all parties, and friends and acquaintances thereof.

Ms. Polier's parents get to lay the smackdown:

"We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."

More on Greenspan's testimony before Congress last week. Text via FDCH Washington Transcript Service. Today's focus: "PAYGO" and discretionary caps.

"The first thing I would do is something I regret we haven't done in the last year or two -- is restore PAGE and discretionary caps, because unless you get a budget process system in place, which enables you to handle decision-making so that priorities can be constructed in the manner which will ultimately get you to where you want to go, I don't know how you do it."

We ought to be looking at getting as much as we can in the longer run in the way of expenditure restraint before we look at the issue of filling the gap on the tax side in order to get a viable fiscal policy."

It has been widely reported in the media that Greenspan is supportive of Bush policy. If you look at the two above statements they seem to disagree with that assessment on some levels. After having read all that I can regarding Greenspan's testimony, his endorsements come with caveats.

If You want to make the tax cuts permanent, you need to get your financial house in order. Greenspan's statement about "filling the gap on the tax side in order to get a viable fiscal policy," can only mean that we do not have a viable fiscal policy in place. I agree with this. Record deficit spending concurrent with record trade deficits does not sound fiscal policy make.

PAYGO(the way most of us responsible people handle our finances..on a pay as you go basis) is what I consider sound fiscal policy.

This being an election year, Greenspan doesn't want to rock the boat too much.

Greenspan knows that the Bush tax policy is absurd, but he can see it justified if we rein in discretionary spending to give us a balanced budget. He knows it'll take years, maybe decades of a new policy to recover from the hole we've dug for ourselves, but in an election year, his primary function is that of a soothing grandparent. Don't worry too much, it'll be okay.

Alan made his famous 'irrational exuberance' statement in December of 1996 -- towards the middle of Clinton's second term. While not expressly a politician, he certainly expresses himself like a politician.

Bush tax cuts only good if you can balance them with limits on discretionary spending. It really is that simple.

Another fuel related entry.

Bush the anti-environment crusader.

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 million to Republicans.

The Environmental Protection Agency's decision had its origin in the early days of President Bush's tenure when his administration decided not to move ahead with a Clinton-era regulatory effort to ban the clean-air additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE.

The proposed regulation said the environmental harm of the additive leaching into ground water overshadowed its beneficial effects to the air.

The Bush administration decided to leave the issue to Congress, where it has been bogged down by a proposal to shield the industry from some lawsuits. That initiative is being led by the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas.

"The use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline presents an unreasonable risk to the environment," said a draft of the proposed regulation the EPA sent to the White House on the last full day of the Clinton administration in January 2001. The EPA document went on to say that "low levels of MTBE can render drinking water supplies unpotable due to its offensive taste and odor" and that the additive should be phased out over four years.

"Unlike other components of gasoline, MTBE dissolves and spreads readily in the ground water . . . resists biodegradation, and is more difficult and costly to remove."

People say MTBE-contaminated water tastes like turpentine.

In Santa Monica, Calif., the oil industry will pay hundreds of millions of dollars because the additive contaminated the city's water supply.

"We're the poster child for MTBE, and it could take decades to clean this up," said Joseph Lawrence, assistant city attorney.

In 2000, the MTBE industry's lobbying group told the Clinton administration that limiting MTBE's use by regulation "would inflict grave economic harm on member companies."

Three MTBE producers account for half of the additive's daily output.

The three contributed $338,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Republican Party, and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000, twice what they gave Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since then, the three producers have given just over $1 million to Republicans.

Much more at link

In a logical fallacy known as a Red Herring, Valero Energy spokeswoman Mary Rose Brown states: "Nobody's talking about the trial lawyers' campaign contributions to their supporters in Congress, and it's the trial lawyers who are the force behind these unjustified lawsuits."

Well Val, this issue isn't about trial lawyers now is it? It is about a rollback of federal standards that may impact the health of our citizenry. Sheeesh.

I know, we'll do the responsible thing. We'll kowtow to the MTBE producers at the potential peril of our citizenry's health.

Here is a position neutral piece on MTBE Drink up.

Fuel prices.

A confluence of factors are likely to give consumers sticker shock at the gasoline pump this summer. Seasonal driving habits, the 'expanding economy,' limited supplies of certain blends and unexpected output cuts by major producing nations will likely propel U.S. retail prices well past their record high.

Note: Under Bush -- the MBA president, and whose policies have been 'oil friendly' have somehow already managed to drive gasoline prices to their highest levels ever.

"OPEC's decision ... is one more reason on an already lengthy list of why U.S. consumers are likely to pay the highest gasoline prices on record this year," AAA spokesman Geoff Sundstrom said.

Gas prices "will certainly breach" the $2 mark on the back of OPEC's announcement, said Kevin Kerr, a senior trading director at KWEST Trading International. "At the same time, the economic recovery in the United States and other parts of the world ... and the draw on existing energy supplies could be disastrous."

Since the oil market didn't anticipate OPEC's dramatic moves, "the shockwave will be felt all the way to the pumps," Kerr said.

A survey of the five market analysts found all agree that retail gas prices will, at the very least, hit a new record this year.

Indeed, if crude inventories don't increase, and if OPEC votes to cut another 5 percent from its output, unleaded gas prices could reach the "upper limits of $2.75 to $3 this summer," said John Person, head financial analyst at Infinity Brokerage Services.....

......"Over and over again, OPEC raised crude oil prices ... saying the weaker dollar brings member nations lower revenues because oil is traded in dollars," Kerr said. "It isn't rocket science to figure out they will likely do this again with the dollar reaching new lows."

Fimat USA analyst John Kilduff sees a different driver. He said the dollar's decline coincides with a much bigger factor for oil prices: "The lowest U.S. crude-oil inventories in a generation."

Yet Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service in Lakewood, N.J., believes the 2004 gasoline price rally won't be about crude, but about the level of gas supplies. "When traders fear a product may be 'short' as the season approaches, or when it actually is short or tight within [the] season, prices tend to migrate toward hyperbolic numbers.".....

......While Infinity's Person sees prices peaking at $3 in some metro areas in the worst of circumstances, OPIS' Kloza sees average prices rising above $2 but reaching the high-$2 range for only a brief period if at all. If any region sees prices near $3 a gallon, it would be already high-priced markets like California and Chicago and would occur only after a refinery outage or two, he said.

"The gasoline market will have an irregular heartbeat ... racing at times and resemble brachyadia at others," Kloza said. "The overall retail average for the year will be the highest ever," but there will a huge gap between the highest and lowest prices, which could still run as low as $1 a gallon in some states.

Fimat's Kilduff said it would be difficult for average prices to climb much higher than $2. "Some sort of government intervention would occur at levels around $2.25," he said, though he did accept the possibility of $3 gas in certain snag-prone areas, such as California.

Enercast's Ameko argued that federal and state politicians would likely intercede rather than sit idly by should prices skyrocket.

"Going into an election year, $3 retail prices would spell disaster," Ameko said. He doesn't expect demand to be strong enough to lift prices above $2.25, and suggested prices will average around $2.15.

Much more at link

I have a 50mpg vehicle as a back-up. I think I'll keep it.

If petroleum prices spike, there is no sector of the economy that is immune. Higher energy costs raise the prices for all goods. Given the weak dollar, this scenario is almost certain to play out at some level. When people are already at record levels of consumer debt, they aren't likely to spend on goods and services if their energy costs are far greater.

Will politicians intercede? Those anti-regulation Republicans will surely do some hand-wringing and soul searching before taking action. Given that this is an election year, I'd say that the odds are good for government intervention. This taxpayer subsidy will have to be reflected in higher taxes at some point in the future.

This has the potential to put the skids on the recovery. A few months of gas prices in the $2+ dollar range will be a huge burden to the economy. I wish I could tell you in dollar terms, but even that would be using forecast numbers. These include where the dollar is likely to be against other currencies, and how much higher prices will stifle demand.

It could be a long summer for an incumbent president.