Children Of the Earth and Sky
    > Announcements
        > This Just in...again
New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6

Author Comment
narshaadha
Moderator
Posts: 503
(1/10/05 7:54 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again


:Loco

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1058
(1/16/05 12:13 am)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again

Why the Sun seems to be 'dimming'
By David Sington

The Sun
Scientists have been studying solar measurements for decades
We are all seeing rather less of the Sun, according to scientists who have been looking at five decades of sunlight measurements.

They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel.

Cloud changes

Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Dr Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.

"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me." Intrigued, he searched records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked.

Sunlight was falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles.

Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Dr Stanhill called it "global dimming", but his research, published in 2001, met a sceptical response from other scientists.

It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

       
My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon ... We are talking about billions of people
Professor Veerhabhadran Ramanathan
Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution.

Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide - the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming - but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds.

Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds.

Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall.

There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 80s.

There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population.

"My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Professor Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the University of California, San Diego. "We are talking about billions of people."

Alarming energy

But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect.

They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide we have placed there.

What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6 degree Celsius.

This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of six degrees Celsius.

But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out.

This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than previously thought.

If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers.

As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control.

"We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up.

"That means we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Cox.

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards.

That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.

That is unless we act urgently to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases.


This was a BBC article,that I found on the Buzzflash.com website.We really have to take this seriously.

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1059
(1/16/05 3:04 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
Following is the White House transcript of The Washington Post's interview with President Bush, conducted by staff writers Michael A. Fletcher and Jim VandeHei Friday aboard Air Force One en route to Jacksonville, Fla.:

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, let me start off a little bit by answering some questions. I'm looking forward to the inauguration. I'm going to be able to absorb a lot more of the sights, sounds, the drama this time. I think last time I was in awe of the whole moment. Having done it once, if experience is any judge -- the convention experience is any judge about this, I'm really looking forward to kind of being as much a participant and observer at the same time -- a much more heady observer.

On what day in 1789 was the first inauguration?
Jan. 20
Feb. 15
March 4
April 30


_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____
• Daily Politics News & Analysis
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Campaign Report
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Federal Insider
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

I'm excited about the second term. I worked hard to get there, and campaigned on some specific issues that I'm looking forward to working with the Congress on. Priorities for the second term: of course, win the war on terror, spread freedom and democracy. And at home, reform systems that will say that we have recognized we've got problems for future generations that we intend to deal with. One is Social Security, one is the tax system. As well, I'm mindful of the twin deficits we face. The fiscal deficit -- we will address the fiscal deficit in two ways: one, by submitting a budget that will continue to keep the pledge of cutting the deficit in half by five years, and secondly, addressing some of the unfunded liabilities inherent in the fiscal budget.

In terms of the current account deficit, the best way to deal with that is to, one, ensure that currencies around the world are market driven, not controlled by state, and secondly, at home, is to make America an attractive place for people to take risk, a place to invest. That's one of the reasons why I've started talking about legal reform early. One way to make sure America is the best place in the world to do business and the best place in the world to attract capital, therefore, is to reform our legal system.

I'm taking on three issues: asbestos reform, class action and medical liability reform. Today I'm going to be talking about education. We need an energy bill. I'm looking forward to working with the Congress to get an energy bill. We'll continue to be a free trade administration. So those are issues I'm looking forward to working with Congress on, as well. And I'm excited about it -- you can clearly see where I think the country needs to go. I told that to the people when I was running, and I'm looking forward to leading the Congress.

Why don't we start with some questions?

The Post: There was this report -- it was reported in the papers this morning -- from the National Intelligence Council. Always by our front-page stories. (Laughter.) Right there. And it essentially says that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground, it's created terrorists who are going to take those new terrorist talents and go elsewhere after the war. Is this at all contradicting your assertion that you're always making America safer from terrorists?

THE PRESIDENT: The report -- and I welcome these studies -- basically says America must stay on the offense. And there are two ways to stay on the offense. One, use our intelligence services, as well as the intelligence services of friends and allies, to find people and bring them to justice before they hurt us, and secondly, to spread freedom. And it's a -- I think the report was somewhat speculative; this could happen. And I agree. If we're not diligent and firm, there will be pockets of -- parts of the world that become pockets for terrorists to find safe haven and to train. And we have a duty to disrupt that. I firmly believe that a free Iraq will be a major defeat for the Salafist movement and the extremist movement, those who want to use terror as a weapon to impose their will on millions of people throughout the world.

The Post: Secretary Powell said this week that American troops will begin leaving Iraq this year. Is that true?

THE PRESIDENT: The way I would put it is, American troops will be leaving as quickly as possible, but they won't be leaving until we have completed our mission. And part of the mission is to train Iraqis so they can fight the terrorists. And the sooner the Iraqis are prepared -- better prepared, better equipped to fight -- the sooner our troops will start coming home.

The Post: Can you be sure that by the end of your second term, that there will be a significant reduction?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm still on the, as quick as possible.

The Post: Do you disagree with Colin Powell's assessment, then, that he thinks it can be done?

THE PRESIDENT: My assessment is, is that we will -- one of the reasons why the military sent an assessment team to Iraq recently was to assess our training mission, because success in Iraq will depend upon the Iraqis defeating the enemy. And so we're constantly assessing to see whether -- where we can improve training, how we can do things better, and what the Iraqis think they need, in order to do their job.

And so the troops have been helping to provide as much security as possible for the elections. The political process is going on. And at the same time, doing their job and training these Iraqis. So we're constantly assessing, and that's what this is. The panel will report back to determine how best to train the Iraqis. My answer to your question is, as soon as possible, based upon fulfilling the mission.

The elections -- I am pleased that the elections are going forward. I recognize that there are a group of terrorists trying to stop the election process. I have been amazed by the spirit of the Iraqi people. There's a big front-page story; I'm sure you read that. Please don't tell me you haven't.

The Post: I read them all.

THE PRESIDENT: Please don't tell me you haven't.

The Post: Read them all.

THE PRESIDENT: But there is a spirit there that I appreciate. And I talked to President Yawar today. I talked to Prime Minister Allawi earlier in the week. And they recognize that the terrorists are mean and tough, but they also are focused and determined that these elections go forward. And it is that determination which impresses me.

So the political process is unfolding. And it is a process. In other words, this is the election of an assembly, which will choose leadership. And out of that leadership will, obviously, become -- we'll work to develop -- further refine the security strategy, as well as watch a process unfold that will write a constitution. And it's important for people to understand that. Unlike our system, that has "the election," and it defines what America -- how America will be governed for four years, this is a process.

The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.

Listen, in times of war, things don't go exactly as planned. Some were saying there was no way that Saddam Hussein would be toppled as quickly as we toppled him. Some were saying there would be mass refugee flows and starvation, which didn't happen. My only point is, is that, on a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad.

And the point is, there has to be a flexible strategy that will enable our commanders on the ground and our diplomats to be able to adjust strategy to meet the needs on the ground, all aiming at an eventual goal, which is a free and democratic Iraq, not in our image, in their image, according to their customs. See, we haven't been -- we've been there -- sovereignty was transferred in June of 2004. So this has been a sovereign nation in its new form for less than a year. I'm optimistic about it, and so are a lot of other people who were there in Iraq --optimistic about that, being optimistic about the emergence of a free government.

I'm also mindful that it takes a while for democracy to take hold. Witness our own history. We weren't -- we certainly were not the perfect democracy and are yet the perfect democracy. Ours is a constitution that said every man -- a system that said every man was equal, but in fact, every man wasn't equal for a long period of time in our history. The Articles of Confederation were a bumpy period of time. And my only point is, is that I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. And therefore, I am more patient than some, but also mindful that we've got to get the Iraqis up and running as quickly as possible, so they can defeat these terrorists.

The Post: There [are] signs of a manpower squeeze in the regular Army. The National Guard and Reserves have been pressed to their limit. Do you plan to ask Congress to authorize additional National Guard or regular Army units?

THE PRESIDENT: No, what we're going to do is we're going to make sure that the missions of the National Guard and the Reserve closely dovetail with active Army units, so that the pressure that you're speaking about is eased.

The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding.

The Post: Our allies have done all they can do to help catch him?

THE PRESIDENT: We're on the hunt.

The Post: Do you think others are on the hunt, too? Are you happy, content with what other countries are doing in that hunt?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

The Post: Anyone you're not happy with? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Look, bin Laden is elusive, and he is in a remote part of the world. And we are -- I am -- I can't think of anybody in the world who is our ally who isn't willing to do what is necessary to try to find him. And so I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased that he's isolated. I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be.

The Post: How concerned are you about the enormously high levels of anti-Americanism, particularly in the Muslim world? And is that an indication that somehow the terrorists are winning the hearts and minds of those people?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, it's interesting. The people of Afghanistan, which is a part of the Muslim world, are really happy that the government of the United States, along with others, liberated them from the Taliban. I suspect that people in the Muslim world, as we speak, are thrilled that supplies are being delivered by U.S. servicemen and women. The Iranians -- the reformers in Iran are, I suspect, very hopeful that the United States government is firm in our belief that democracy ought to spread. In other words, there are some places we're not popular, and other places where we're liked.

And there's no question we've got to continue to do a better job of explaining what America is all about; that in our country you're free to worship as you see fit, that we honor the Muslim faith, and that if you choose not to -- we don't want territory, we want there to be freedom. And I've talked to Condi [Rice, the nominee for secretary of state] about this, and she agrees that we need to work on a public diplomacy effort that explains our motives and explains our intentions.

I also believe that some of the decisions I've made up to now have affected our standing in parts of the world. I remember in the debates, somebody asked me about Europe. And I said, well, they wanted us to join the International Criminal Court, and I chose -- I said, that's not the right posture for the United States of America, or some saying I should have negotiated with [Yasser] Arafat for the four years I was president -- obviously, prior to his death -- and I chose not to because I didn't feel like he was a person who could deliver peace.

I called Abu Amas the other day, and I told him I'm looking forward to seeing him again and working with him -- or Abu Mazen. So I believe that when it's all said and done, those in the Muslim world who long for peace will see that the policies of this government will lead to peace.

The Post: A parochial question for The Post in D.C.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm trying to stay concentrated.

The Post: What's that?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm just trying to stay concentrated. You've got a whole --

The Post: . . . I've got to ask you at least a couple domestic questions. Your answers are short, though.

THE PRESIDENT: A lot shorter than usual.

The Post: It's good, short is good. Why should D.C., which is a top terrorist threat, why should they have to spend $12 million from their budget -- from their homeland security budget they get from the federal government -- to provide security for the inauguration?

THE PRESIDENT: The inauguration is a high-profile event, like a lot of other events that, unfortunately, in the world in which we live, could be an attractive target for terrorists. And by providing security, hopefully that will provide comfort to people who are coming from all around the country to come and stay in the hotels in Washington and to be able to watch the different festivities in Washington and eat the food in Washington. We've got people coming from all around the country, and I think it provides them great comfort to know that all levels of government are working closely to make this event as secure as possible.

The Post: Only two-thirds of the beneficiaries of Social Security, as you know, are retired people. The rest are disabled and people collecting survivor's benefits. Do you think that the rising costs of disability and survivor's insurance is causing the overall Social Security problem, and can you promise that the benefits will not be touched under your reform plan?

THE PRESIDENT: We will look at all aspects of Social Security, of course, but the main focus I have been on, focusing on -- the main issue I have been focusing on is the retirement system aspect of Social Security, because it is a pay-as-you-go system. The number of payers is declining quite rapidly relative to the number of retirees. And that, thus far, has been our focus, because that is the part where the Congress needs to focus.

And to answer the disability insurance, we have no plans of cutting benefits at all for people with disabilities.

The Post: So they'll definitely remain untouched?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said, we have no plans for cutting benefits.

The Post: Is that just for disability, or for survivors, as well?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're --

The Post: It's a different benefit for --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you're right. Frankly, our discussions in terms of reform have not centered on the survivor/disability aspect of Social Security. We're talking about the retirement system of Social Security. I think that's an accurate statement.

MR. McCLELLAN [Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary]: You're talking about at or near retirees, right?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they're talking about survivor and disability benefits, and we have had no discussions of that, thus far. The best way to put it -- the answer is, we have no discussions of that, so far, in terms of changing them, I think is the best way to describe it.

The Post: When you talk about Social Security, you talk about the crisis being now, given the demographic inevitabilities of the system and the financial strains. Is Medicare in crisis, given that it has the same exact demographic strains?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the difference, of course, is that in Medicare, we began a reform system that hopefully will take some of the pressures off the unfunded liabilities, and that is providing, for example, a drug benefit, that will, hopefully, in cases, replace the need for surgery. I used to tell people a lot on the campaign trail that Medicare would pay for the heart surgery but not for the medicine that would prevent the heart surgery from being needed in the first place. Heart surgery costs nearly $100,000, and the medicine could be $1,000. And that's a reform that not only reflects the new nature of medicine, but it's a reform, hopefully, that has cost benefits for the long run.

Secondly, one of the things we did, we began to provide a market approach to Medicare, by allowing seniors choice. And the more choice consumers have, the more likely it is some costs will come under control. We've just begun the reform process in Medicare, and that hasn't been the case in Social Security.

The Post: Do you think it's in crisis, though? I mean, when you look at Medicare, do you see --

THE PRESIDENT: I think, definitely, we're going to have to make sure that in the long-run the baby boomer bulge is addressed in Medicare, as well. The difference is, is that we've started a reform process in Medicare, unlike Social Security.

The Post: Do you plan to expend any political capital to aggressively lobby senators for a gay marriage amendment?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the situation in the last session -- well, first of all, I do believe it's necessary; many in the Senate didn't, because they believe DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] will -- is in place, but -- they know DOMA is in place, and they're waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a constitutional challenge.

The Post: Do you plan on trying to -- using the White House, using the bully pulpit, and trying to --

THE PRESIDENT: The point is, is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously.

The Post: But until that changes, you want it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate. Do you see what I'm saying?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: The logic.

The Post: Back on Social Security. How can you -- you talk about cutting the deficit in half over the next five years. How can you do that and have personal accounts, which are going to have some sort of transition costs -- we won't debate the number, but most people say it will be at least $100 billion. How can you do that, and do personal accounts?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's what we look forward to working with Congress on, to work with them in such a way that we can handle the concerns of those who say the transition costs may be too much. That's part of the negotiations. I look forward to Congress asking that question. That's not the threshold question. The threshold question is for some who say, we don't have a problem. And once we get people talking about how to fund it, how do you handle the transition costs? I think we're making progress when that happens. It hasn't happened yet, because we're still trying to -- I am making the case that people that have got to understand we have a problem that should be addressed now. But part of the discussions, Jim, that go on, will be how to deal with it -- that particular aspect, as well as a lot of aspects, on how to make the system sound and sound fitting.

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have talked to Senate Democrats, and I will continue to talk to Senate Democrats. And I'll continue --

The Post: Did you --

THE PRESIDENT: We had a meeting with -- I think before Christmas we had the leadership in, didn't we?

MS. DEVENISH [Nicolle Devenish, the White House communications director]: That was Republicans.

MR. McCLELLAN: For Social Security?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: The bipartisan meeting at the end of last year, toward the end of last year.

THE PRESIDENT: And before we went on the Christmas break?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: It was right after, I think Harry --[Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid was there, I know for certain. I'm trying to remember -- I can't remember all who were there. But, yes, I have, and will continue to do so, and continue to speak to the people.

The Post: But you haven't reached out personally to [Senate Democrats] Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu or [Joseph] Lieberman, people that seem open, at least to the idea, because so many Democrats say, no way.

THE PRESIDENT: I will. First step is to make sure people address -- are willing to address the problem. In other words -- in the campaign, you might remember, in going to one of the debates -- Senator [John] Kerry said -- I don't want to put words in his mouth, but basically said, this is something that we can grow the economy and Social Security will be okay. I think he said that. It's not fair for me -- I don't like when people put words in my mouth, and I try not to put in theirs.

But my point is, is that to me, that points at part of the challenge of getting the issue moving forward. That's why I love when you all put it in the front page of your newspaper, the different aspects of Social Security; so and so says this, and so and so says that -- because it means people are at least talking about it. And my view is, the more it's talked about and the more it's debated, the more likely it is people will recognize that we have a problem that we need to address.

And I meant what I said in some of the big speeches I gave, and oftentimes on the campaign trail, where the job of the president is to confront problems, not to pass them on. Plus, I enjoy confronting problems. I enjoy it when hot shot political reports say, can you believe -- sitting around the coffee table -- can you believe old Bush is trying to take this on?

The Post: [Post staff writer Michael A.] Fletcher is the one who does that. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's make this the last question.

THE PRESIDENT: We want you to spend time focusing on the community college initiative.

The Post: That was my focus on today -- that's right here.

THE PRESIDENT: It's a big deal, actually. We've got an interesting initiative on Pell grants, that we want to reform the student loan program, and save a fairly substantial amount of money -- not number of loans, but how it is administered. And that money, the savings, will be placed into Pell grants, increasing the grant over a five-year period of time, as well as enhancing Pell grants for people who take rigorous course loads in high school.

MR. McCLELLAN: Last one over here.

The Post: Oh, this is the last question, okay. Oh, my goodness, okay. Can we get one more after that? We have two we have to have.

THE PRESIDENT: You can do it like the pros do it -- you ask three at once.

The Post: Three at once, okay.

THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, I'm listening.

The Post: Nearly 90 percent of African Americans voted against you in the past election.

THE PRESIDENT: How many?

The Post: Nearly 90 percent, and that was an improvement over 2000. You got 11 percent of the black vote in the exit polls I saw. What could you have done to change that, first of all? And, secondly, how do you plan to win those people over to your policies in your second term?

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I am -- when we worked on the No Child Left Behind law, part of what motivated me on that law, and part of what motivated me as governor to insist upon accountability is I fully understand that oftentimes it was the inner-city black child who just got moved through, and the system just quit on him or her. When we worked to get the reading programs in place, reading programs based upon what actually works, not what might sound good, I kept in mind my -- the one time -- I remember the time when an African American stood up and said, reading is the new civil right. And there's no doubt in my mind that No Child Left Behind Act, when fully implemented, and if not weakened -- and it won't be weakened when I'm the president -- will end up helping young black kids realize their dreams.

And, you know, the answer to your question is, people will see the results of this law, and some point in time realize that George W. Bush cared deeply about failure and mediocrity and did something about it. I did my best to reach out, and I will continue to do so as the president. It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody, and that I don't sit down in the White House and say, these people voted for me, therefore I'm going to focus policy this way.

There's been some amazing statistics during my time as president. More minorities own homes than ever before, which is -- I'll continue to promote an ownership society. I believe the more somebody owns something, the more likely it is that they'll be independent from government and have a prosperous life. The Social Security issue is an interesting issue when it comes to African Americans. After all, the life expectancy of African American males is a lot less than other groups and, therefore, if you really think about that, you have people putting money in the system that aren't -- families won't benefit from the system. And, therefore, it seems to me to make sense, if I were a part of a group of people that were being disadvantaged by the Social Security system, that I'd at least like to have the opportunity to have some of the money I put in the system passable to my family.

And so my point to you is, the policies that we have put forth in this administration are, I think, beneficial to all. And as to why that message hasn't made it through, I don't know, I'm not a pundit. Ask pros like [Post staff writer Jim] VandeHei, who follows all this stuff.

The Post: You've said many times that Washington is a far more polarized place than you imagined, even becoming president.

THE PRESIDENT: One of my regrets.

The Post: What lessons do you draw from that, and how are you going to operate differently to try to break those barriers down?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate you asking that question, because it is tough. It's different from Austin. And the only thing you can do is set out policy and say to people, we want to work together on it. The first year and a half was a period of time when we did work together -- tax cuts and No Child Left Behind and the trade initiative. I think that happened in the first year and a half, the trade initiative. Anyway, there was a spirit of cooperation, people were working together.

Then what happens in Washington is elections start coming up, and that tends to change the dynamic. And, you know, coming into the '04 elections, the mood changed. And I've done my best to try to -- when it came to policy and working with others, to share credit and to give people a chance to participate. And I don't know whether you'll ever be able to break the -- kind of that cycle of a period of relative quiet, and then elections affecting the mood in Congress.

I do know that I am never going to run for office again and, so, therefore, in working with people in Congress, that no longer will there be an excuse if we work with him on this issue, it will make him look good politically -- me, personally, politically. Part of Washington, on both sides, is kind of the zero-sum attitude, it seems like to me -- if we work this way, it helps so and so; if we work that way, it helps so and so. And so what ends up -- what's happening, it's kind of a clash of will.

But I'm mindful of my rhetoric when it comes to the Democrats. I've really checked back. And I'm not talking about the campaign. That was more of a survival mode. (Laughter.) But I wasn't personal. I didn't feel like my rhetoric was harsh. But as president, I have been -- if you go back and look, I think you will find that I've never really personally called anybody out, never tried to vilify because people didn't agree with my position. So, in other words, I think all of us, all of us have got to work to set the right kind of tone. I will continue to do so.

And the inaugural address is a good place to start, which I know you all are looking forward to hearing.

The Post: Very much so. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Enjoyed it.

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1060
(1/16/05 3:08 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
        Babylon wrecked by war

US-led forces leave a trail of destruction and contamination in architectural site of world importance

Rory McCarthy in Baghdad, and Maev Kennedy
Saturday January 15, 2005
The Guardian

Troops from the US-led force in Iraq have caused widespread damage and severe contamination to the remains of the ancient city of Babylon, according to a damning report released today by the British Museum.

John Curtis, keeper of the museum's Ancient Near East department and an authority on Iraq's many archaeological sites, found "substantial damage" on an investigative visit to Babylon last month.

The ancient city has been used by US and Polish forces as a military depot for the past two years, despite objections from archaeologists.

"This is tantamount to establishing a military camp around the Great Pyramid in Egypt or around Stonehenge in Britain," says the report, which has been seen by the Guardian.

Among the damage found by Mr Curtis, who was invited to Babylon by Iraqi antiquities experts, were cracks and gaps where somebody had tried to gouge out the decorated bricks forming the famous dragons of the Ishtar Gate.

He saw a 2,600-year-old brick pavement crushed by military vehicles, archaeological fragments scattered across the site, and trenches driven into ancient deposits.

Vast amounts of sand and earth, visibly mixed with archaeological fragments, were gouged from the site to fill thousands of sandbags and metal mesh baskets. When this practice was stopped, large quantities of sand and earth were brought in from elsewhere, contaminating the site for future generations of archaeologists.

Mr Curtis called for an international investigation by archaeologists chosen by the Iraqis to record all the damage done by the occupation forces.

Last night the US military defended its operations at the site, but said all earth-moving projects had been stopped and it was considering moving troops away to protect the ruins.

Babylon, a city renowned for its beauty and its splendour 1,000 years before Europe built anything comparable, was chosen as the site for a US military base in April 2003, just after the invasion of Iraq.

Military commanders set up their camp in the heart of one of the world's most important archaeological sites and surrounded the enclosed part of the ancient city. At least 2,000 troops were installed, daily passing iconic relics like the enormous basalt Lion of Babylon sculpture.

In September 2003 the base was passed to a Polish-led force, which held it until today's formal handover of the site to the Iraqi culture ministry.

In his report, Mr Curtis accepted that initially the US military presence helped protect the site from looters. But he described as "regrettable" the decision to set up a base in such an important spot.

He found that large areas of the site had been covered in gravel brought in from outside, compacted and sometimes chemically treated to provide helipads, car parks and accommodation and storage areas. "The status of future information about these areas will therefore be seriously compromised," he said.

Archaeologists were horrified by the confirmation of reports which have been filtering out of Iraq for months.

"Outrage is hardly the word, this is just dreadful," said Lord Redesdale, an archaeologist and head of the all-party parliamentary archaeological group. "These are world sites. Not only is what the American forces are doing damaging the archaeology of Iraq, it's actually damaging the cultural heritage of the whole world."

Tim Schadla Hall, reader in public archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, said: "In this case we see an international conflict in which the US has failed to take into account the requirements of the Hague convention ... to protect major archaeological sites - just another convention it seems happy to ignore."

Lieutenant Colonel Steven Boylan, a US military spokes man in Baghdad, said engineering works at the camp were discussed with the head of the Babylon museum. "An archaeologist examined every construction initiative for its impact on historical ruins."

He said plans were being considered to move some of the units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins."

"The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition," he added. "The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, but there are very few visible original remains to the untrained eye."

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1061
(1/16/05 3:27 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
The 50 Dumbest Things President Bush Said in His First Term


What's the dumbest thing President Bush has ever said?
'My answer is bring them on.' —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces
'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.'
'Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'
'There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.'
'If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.'
Current Results

50. "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." —at the President's Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002

49. "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." —Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

48. "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' —Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

47. "We both use Colgate toothpaste." —after a reporter asked what he had in common with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Camp David, Md., Feb. 23, 2001

46. "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 200

45. "I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

44. "I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." —as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War

43. "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport." —Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001

42. "The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." —Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

41. "I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It's pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004

40. "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

39. "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." —presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

38. "Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?" —to economic advisers discussing a second round of tax cuts, as quoted by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, Washington, D.C., Nov. 26, 2002

37. "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." —Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002

36. "After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week — we will have an all-volunteer army!" —Daytona Beach, Fla., Oct. 16, 2004

35. "Do you have blacks, too?" —to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

34. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." —as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002

33. "I got to know Ken Lay when he was head of the — what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken and worked with Ken." —attempting to distance himself from his biggest political patron, Enron Chairman Ken Lay, whom he nicknamed "Kenny Boy," Washington, D.C., Jan. 10, 2002

32. "It is white." —after being asked by a child in Britain what the White House was like, July 19, 2001

31. "I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." —at a White House menorah lighting ceremony, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001

30. "For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." —Philadelphia, Penn., May 14, 2001

29. "I don't know why you're talking about Sweden. They're the neutral one. They don't have an army." —during a Dec. 2002 Oval Office meeting with Rep. Tom Lantos, as reported by the New York Times

28. "You forgot Poland." —to Sen. John Kerry during the first presidential debate, after Kerry failed to mention Poland's contributions to the Iraq war coalition, Miami, Fla., Sept. 30, 2004

27. "I'm the master of low expectations." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

26. "I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003


25. "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right." —Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

24. "We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." —Washington, D.C. Oct. 4, 2001

23. "People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002

22. "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet….I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." —President George W. Bush, after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004

21. "The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." —explaining why high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy, Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004

20. "My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire." —radio address, Feb. 24, 2001

19. "You know, when I was one time campaigning in Chicago, a reporter said, 'Would you ever have a deficit?' I said, 'I can't imagine it, but there would be one if we had a war, or a national emergency, or a recession.' Never did I dream we'd get the trifecta." —Houston, Texas, June 14, 2002 (There is no evidence Bush ever made any such statement, despite recounting the trifecta line repeatedly in 2002. A search by the Washington Post revealed that the three caveats were brought up before the 2000 campaign — by Al Gore.)

18. "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

17. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." —State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false

16. "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard." —repeating the phrases "hard work," "working hard," "hard choices," and other "hard"-based verbiage 22 times in his first debate with Sen. John Kerry

15. "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

14. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

13. "But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me." —summing up his first year in office, three months after the 9/11 attacks, Washington, D.C., Dec. 20, 2001

12. "I try to go for longer runs, but it's tough around here at the White House on the outdoor track. It's sad that I can't run longer. It's one of the saddest things about the presidency." —interview with "Runners World," Aug. 2002

11. "Can we win? I don't think you can win it." —after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004

10. "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." —Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002

9. "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004

8. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." —speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

7. “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." —Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003

6. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" —President George W. Bush, joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 24, 2004

5. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

4. "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

3. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

2. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 (Watch video)
1. "My answer is bring them on." —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

~Compiled by Daniel Kurtzman

Edited by: shadeaux63 at: 1/16/05 3:30 pm
shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1062
(1/18/05 5:11 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
And now, in the "How DARE they" department.

Sunday January 16, 5:13 PM

Villagers furious with Christian Missionaries

Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion.

Samanthapettai, near the temple town of Madurai, faced near devastation on the December 26 when massive tidal waves wiped it clean of homes and lives.

Most of the 200 people here are homeless or displaced , battling to rebuild lives and locating lost family members besides facing risks of epidemic,disease and trauma.

Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water.

Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and managed to leave the village.

Disappointed and shocked into disbelief the hapless villagers still await aid.

"Many NGOs (volunteer groups) are extending help to us but there in our village the NGO, which was till now helping us is now asking us to follow the Christian religion. We are staunch followers of Hindu religion and refused their request. And after that these people with their aid materials are leaving the village without distributing that to us," Rajni Kumar, a villager said.

The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI)

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1063
(1/18/05 5:14 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
New Amendment Used In Defense Against Domestic Violence Charges

Reported by: AP
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
Photographed by: 9News
1/15/2005 6:25:21 PM

Some attorneys are attempting to use Ohio's new gay marriage amendment to defend unmarried clients against domestic violence charges.

The constitutional amendment took effect on December first. It denies legal status to unmarried couples.

In at least two cases last week, the Cuyahoga County public defender's office has asked a judge to dismiss domestic-violence charges against unmarried defendants. The attorneys in the two cases argue that the charges violate the amendment by affording marriage-like legal status to unmarried victims who live with the people accused of attacking them.

Advocates for victims of domestic violence have worried about the effect of the amendment since it passed in November. They fear defense attorneys around the state will copy the tactic used in Cuyahoga County.

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1064
(1/21/05 12:32 am)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
Nobel Peace Prize nominee: Bush re-election may end the human race

By ANI

01/17/05 "ANI" -- The world-renowned anti-nuclear and environmental activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Helen Caldicott, has warned that US President George Bush's re-election does not bode well for mankind, and she fears that the human race may not survive his second term (2005-2009).

"This is the most serious election that has ever occurred in the history of the human race, without a scrag of doubt. I don't know if we'll survive the next four years ... I don't think the Americans have, on the whole, the faintest idea - and I have to say also I don't think most Australians do either. But it's not just the threat from nuclear war. It's the threat of what's happening to the environment, the global warming which is occurring rapidly now, to ozone depletion, to species extinction, to deforestation - it's the whole thing," the Sydney Morning Herald quoted Caldicott as saying.

Speaking from her son Will's Boston home, the Australian paediatrician, who runs the Nuclear Policy Research Institute in Washington, has just spent a frantic two-and-a-half months criss-crossing America to deliver her anti-nuclear and anti-Bush message. She discovered the country was more divided than at any time since she first stepped onto American soil in 1966.

"I don't think I've ever felt so personally, politically devastated in my life and that includes when [former president Ronald] Reagan won a second term of office - which was pretty devastating for me as I was so heavily involved in the anti-nuclear movement in those days.But this is worse, these people are much worse than the Reagan people," Caldicott adds.

Dr Caldicott rose to fame in the American peace movement during the '70s and '80s, her vehement anti-nuclear stance earning her many enemies, some of whom saw her as an apologist for the Soviet Union. She has long warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons, America's "first strike" policy and missile defence.

"The Bush administration have been able to con the American people with their extremely brilliant propaganda and brainwashing, with the help of the media ... they consistently lie. On the whole the American people don't really understand the dynamics of the right at all. They don't know that Bush et al want to go into Iran next and that they want to dominate the world militarily and that they want to put weapons in space. I don't think they [the American public] understand. It is a mandate for Bush to do absolutely anything he wants. I know people don't like me using this word but they're fascists," she concludes.

Copyright: ANI

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1065
(1/21/05 12:35 am)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
Wednesday January 19, 7:56 PM        
Iran issues sharp warning to US over any military action
       
Iran accused the United States of trying to disrupt its nuclear negotiations with the European Union by evoking the threat of a military strike, and warned Washington it would respond to any "unwise measure."

"With reliance on enormous popular support, diplomatic capacity and full military capability, the Islamic Republic of Iran will firmly respond to any unwise measure or plan," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement responding to "recent comments by US officials".

On Monday US President George W. Bush said he could not rule out a resort to military action if the United States failed to persuade Iran to abandon a nuclear energy programme it charges is a cover for developing the bomb.

US secretary of state-designate Condoleezza Rice also called Tuesday for world action to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons, and repeated a threat to haul the Islamic republic before the UN Security Council for sanctions.

"We see such moves as a psychological campaign and political pressure," Asefi said.

He said one of the aims of the US administration was "not to help and enourage Europe to peacefully settle some disagreements through diplomacy and talks, but to disrupt the Iran-EU nuclear talks by pretending they are unsuccessful."

The EU's "big three" -- Britain, France and Germany -- have been spearheading diplomatic efforts with Iran and are in the midst of crucial talks aimed at finding a long-term solution that would ease international worries.

"We recommend the new American foreign minister avoids repeating past mistakes by reviewing America's wrong and unsuccessful policies of unilateralism and oppression," Asefi said of Rice.

"The United States of America has fallen into an abyss of several crises as a result of the wrong attitude of hard line neo-conservatives. There is no way out unless it reviews and corrects past mistakes."

The foreign ministry statement also followed a report in the New Yorker magazine Monday that US commandos had been operating inside Iran since mid-2004 to search out potential targets for attack -- something the magazine said could come as early as mid-2005.

The Pentagon said the report was "riddled with errors."

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1066
(1/22/05 2:39 am)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
This was found on the Mother Jones website,one of my fave underground news sources.

January 21, 2005
What Could Go Wrong in 2005

By Marshall Auerback

Introduction by Tom Engelhardt

On Tuesday, Greg Ip of the Wall Street Journal wrote a front-page piece on the beleaguered U.S. economy, "As Dollar Weakens, Hidden Strength May Stave Off Crisis," that, amid much reassurance, caught something of our fraught economic moment. It held more than the usual number of hints of economic Armageddon as it cited a "growing chorus" of experts warning "that the U.S.'s gaping budget and trade deficits will lead to a crisis in which the dollar falls much more sharply, driving up interest rates and squeezing the economy." Is the United States, the piece wondered, at the edge of the sort of currency collapse followed by deep recession that has in recent years hit lesser powers from Mexico and Argentina to Thailand? While he concluded, as one might expect in the WSJ, that "a review of past crises world-wide suggests the U.S. has enough going for it now to avoid a similar fate," some of the quotes from experts in the piece must have raised an eyebrow or two in financial circles. For instance, Barry Eichengreen, an economic historian at the University of California, Berkeley, is cited as pointing out ominously that "there is no historical precedent for such a large economy being so heavily in debt to the rest of the world. "

It seemed the perfect moment then to call in money manager Marshall Auerback. His assignment: To survey the future for signs of onrushing economic apocalypse. His advantage over Ip is that any unvarnished conclusions on the main screen of Tomdispatch are unlikely to start a panicked rush for the financial exits. With the freedom on non-influence deep in his heart, he now offers a guided tour of the possible best of the worst for the year to come, suggesting for us economic tourists what landmarks to future catastrophe we should keep in sight over the next eleven months.

What Could Go Wrong in 2005?
By Marshall Auerback

In his 1849 novel, Les Guepes, Alphonse Karr penned the classic line: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." In the case of the United States in 2005, however, the opposite might be true: The more things stay the same, the more they are likely to change…for the worse. In that regard, compiling a list of potential threats to the U.S. this year has a strangely déjà-vu-all-over-again feeling. After all, such a list would represent nothing more than a longstanding catalogue of economic policy-making run amok. Virtually the same list could have been drawn up in 2004, or 2003, or previous years.

Such threats would include: a persistent and increasing resort to debt-financed growth and a concomitant, growing imbalance in the trade deficit, leading the U.S. ever further into financial dependency and so leaving it dangerously indebted to rival nations, which could (at least theoretically) pull the plug at any time. This, in turn, is occurring against the backdrop of an increasingly problematic, Vietnam-style quagmire in Iraq, against imperial overstretch, and against a related ongoing crisis in energy prices, itself spurring an ever more frantic competition for energy security, which will surely intensify existing global and regional rivalries.

Just as a haystack soaked in kerosene will appear relatively benign until somebody strikes a match; so too, although America's longstanding economic problems have not yet led to financial Armageddon, this in no way invalidates the threat ultimately posed. For economy watchers in 2005, the key, of course, is to imagine which event (or combination of them) might represent the match that could set this "haystack" alight -- if there is indeed one "event" which has the capability of precipitating the bursting of a historically unprecedented credit bubble.

The odd thing about credit bubbles is that they have no determined resolution, nor is there anything about such a dynamic that specifies the path by which it will be reversed; nor is there some specific level of financial excess guaranteed to eventually put an end to it. The beginning of that end could potentially be set off at any level at any time. Nevertheless, it is possible to sketch out several scenarios which could conceivably, in the eleven months left to 2005, trigger such a reversal or even something approaching economic collapse.

Debt: A Policy on Steroids

The Achilles heel of the American economy is certainly debt. It is generally assumed that increases in credit stimulate consumer demand. In the short run that is true, but the long run is another matter altogether. When debt levels are as high as those the U.S. is carrying today, further increases in debt created by credit expansion can come to act as a burden on demand. Signs of this are already in the air -- or rather in what has been, by historic standards, only feeble economic growth in the U.S. economy over George Bush's first term in office.

Think of the present mountain of national debt as the policy equivalent of steroids. It has so far managed to create a reasonably flattering picture of economic prosperity, much as steroid use in baseball has flattered the batting averages of some of game's stars over the past decade. But unlike major league baseball, forced to act by scandal and Senate threats, America's monetary and financial officials still refuse to implement policies designed to curb the growth of a steroidal debt burden. If anything, addiction has set in and policy has increasingly appeared designed to encourage ever larger doses of indebtedness. Each bailout or promise of a government safety net has only led to more of the same: the Penn Central crisis; the Chrysler and Lockheed bailouts; the rescue of much of the savings and loan as well as commercial banking system in the early 1990's; the 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management; and the persistent reluctance of U.S. officials to regulate the country's increasingly speculative financial system, which has led not only to fiascos like Enron -- the 21st century poster child for what ails the US economy -- but speaks to the dangers of excessive debt, corrupt financial practices, highly dubious accounting, and endless conflicts of interest.

The result of this reluctance to confront the consequences of America's credit excesses -- a federal government debt level that is now at $7.5 trillion. Of this, $1 trillion is ancient history; the other $6.5 trillion has built up over the past three decades; the last $2 trillion in the past eight years; and the last $1 trillion in the past two years alone. According to the economist Andre Gunder Frank, "All Uncle Sam's debt, including private household consumer credit-card, mortgage etc. debt of about $10 trillion, plus corporate and financial, with options, derivatives and the like, and state and local government debt comes to an unvisualizable, indeed unimaginable, $37 trillion, which is nearly four times Uncle Sam's GDP [gross domestic product]." This rising level of indebtedness will become a huge deflationary weight on economic activity if debt growth should seriously slow – which is the economic equivalent of a Catch-22.

The "Blanche Dubois" Economy

The situation of the American economy becomes yet more precarious when you consider that the country's major creditors are foreigners. Today, the U.S. economy is being kept afloat by enormous levels of foreign lending, which allow American consumers to continue to buy more imports, which only increase the already bloated trade deficits. In essence, this could be characterized in Streetcar Named Desire terms as a "Blanche Dubois economy," heavily dependent as it is on "the kindness of strangers" in order to sustain its prosperity. This is also a distinctly lopsided arrangement that would end, probably with a bang, if those foreign creditors -- major trading partners like Japan, China, and Europe -- simply decided, for whatever reasons, to substantially reduce the lending.

China, Japan, and other major foreign creditors are believed willing to sustain the status quo because their own industrial output and employment levels are thought to be worth more to them than risking the implosion of their most important consumer market, but that, of course, assumes levels of rationality not necessarily found in any global system in a moment of crisis. All you have to do is imagine the first hints of things economic spinning out of control and it's easy enough to imagine as well that China or Japan, facing their own internal economic challenges, might indeed give them primacy over sustaining the American consumer. If, for example, a banking crisis developed in China (which has its own "bubble" worries), Beijing might well feel it had no choice but to begin selling off parts of its U.S. bond holdings in order to use the capital at home to stabilize its financial system or assuage political unrest among its unemployed masses. Then think for a moment: global house of cards.

Already China has given indications of its long-term intentions on this matter: Roughly 50% of China's growth in foreign exchange since 2001 has been placed into dollars. Last year, however, while China saw its reserves grow by $112 billion, the dollar portion of that was only 25% or $25 billion, according to the always well-informed Montreal-based financial consultancy firm, Bank Credit Analyst.

Beijing has already made it clear that it will spread its reserves and put less emphasis on the dollar. As one of America's largest foreign creditors, China naturally has the upper hand today, like any banker who can call in a loan when he sees the borrower hopelessly mired in IOUs. If such foreign capital increasingly moves elsewhere and easy credit disappears for consumers, U.S. interest rates could rise sharply. As a result, many Americans would likely experience a major decline in their living standards -- a gradual grinding-down process that could continue for years, as has occurred in Japan since the collapse of its credit bubble in the early 1990s.

Even if China, Japan, and other East Asian nations continue to accommodate American financial profligacy, a major economic "adjustment" in the U.S. could still be triggered simply by the sheer financial exhaustion of its overextended consumers. After all, the country already has a recession-sized fiscal deficit and zero household savings. That's a combination that's never been seen before. In the early 1980's, when the federal deficit was this size, the household savings rate was 9%. This base of savings enabled the government to finance its vast deficits for a time through a huge one-time fall in net savings, the scale of which was historically unprecedented and not repeatable today in a savings-less America.

At the Edge: Imperial Overstretch

A restoration of national savings is fundamentally incompatible with continued economic growth, all other things being equal. And the United States can ill-afford even lagging economic growth, given the magnitude of its burgeoning – and expensive – overseas military commitments, especially in an Iraq that is beginning to look like Vietnam redux.

President Bush likes to compare his combination of economic, military, and diplomatic strategies with President Reagan's blend of tax cuts, military assertiveness, and massive borrowing in the 1980s. His economic advisers, especially Vice President Dick ("deficits don't matter") Cheney, appear to believe that the present huge trade and fiscal deficits will prove no more disruptive in the next decade than they were in the Reagan years.

But if we turn to the Vietnam parallel, we find a less comforting historical precedent: the decision, first by President Johnson and then by President Nixon, to finance that unpopular conflict through borrowing and inflation, rather than higher taxes. The ultimate result of their cumulative Vietnam decisions was not just a military humiliation but also a series of economic crises that first caught up with the country in the late 1960s and continued periodically until 1982.

In a sense, the dollar's continuing fall last year (especially against the euro) in spite of significant interventions by central banks in the global foreign exchange markets, reflects a similar loss of respect for U.S. policy-making – and especially for the linking of the dollar and the Pentagon through an endless series of foreign adventures. In addition, a national economy that cannot itself produce the things it needs and invests instead in military "security" will eventually find itself in a position in which it has to use its military constantly to take, or threaten to take, from others what it cannot provide for itself, which in turn leads to what Yale historian Paul Kennedy has described as "imperial overstretch":

"[T]hat is to say, decision-makers in Washington must face the awkward and enduring fact that the sum total of the United States' global interests and obligations is nowadays far larger than the country's power to defend them all simultaneously."

That descent into imperial overstretch explains how in the early 1940s an America much weaker in absolute terms, fighting more evenly matched opponents, could nonetheless prevail against its enemies more quickly than a state with an $11-trillion Gross Domestic Product and a defense budget approaching $500 billion (without even adding in the $80 billion budgetary supplement for Iraq and Afghanistan that the Bush Administration is reputedly preparing for the current fiscal year) fighting perhaps 10,000-20,000 ill-armed insurgents in a state with a pre-war GDP that represents less than the turnover of a large corporation. The U.S. today is a nation with a hollowed-out industrial base and an increasing incapacity to finance a military adventurism propelled by the very forces responsible for that hollowing out.

Oil: The Dividing Line of the New Cold War

And then there is the problem of crude which, despite predictions from ever optimistic financial analysts has once again begun to approach $50 a barrel. The one thing Mr Bush has never mentioned in relation to his Iraq war policy is oil, but back in 2001 former Secretary of State James Baker presciently wrote an essay in a Council on Foreign Relations study of world energy problems that oil could never lurk far from the forefront of American policy considerations:

"Strong economic growth across the globe and new global demands for more energy, have meant the end of sustained surplus capacity in hydrocarbon fuels and the beginning of capacity limitations. In fact, the world is currently precariously close to utilizing all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades. These choices will affect other US policy objectives: US policy toward the Middle East; US policy toward the former Soviet Union and China; the fight against international terrorism."

The CFR report made another salient point clear: "Oil price spikes since the 1940s have always been followed by recession." In its current debt-riddled condition, further such price spikes could bring on something more than a garden-variety economic downturn for the U.S., especially if some of the major oil-producing nations, such as Russia, follow through on recent threats to denominate their petroleum exports in euros, rather than dollars, which would substantially raise America's energy bill, given the current weakness of the dollar.

The most recent spike in the price of oil was not simply a reflection of rising political uncertainty and conflict in the Middle East. There are other reasons to expect higher energy price levels over the next two to three decades – the most notable among them being strong demand from emerging economies, especially those of China and India.

The parallel drives for energy security on the part of the United States and China hold the seeds of future conflict as well. Yukon Huang, a senior advisor at the World Bank, recently noted that China's heavy reliance on oil imports (as well as problems with environmental degradation, including serious water shortages) poses a significant threat to the country's economic development even over the near-term, the next three to five years.

China's already vigorous response to this challenge is likely to bring it increasingly up against the United States. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, for instance, returned from a Christmas trip to China where he apparently sold America's historic Venezuelan oil supplies to the Chinese together with future prospecting rights. Even Canada (in the words of President Bush, "our most important neighbors to the north") is negotiating to sell up to one-third of its oil reserves to China. CNOOC, China's third largest oil and gas group, is actually considering a bid of more that $13 billion for its American rival, Unocal. The real significance of the deal (which, given the size, could not have been contemplated in the absence of Chinese state support) is that it illustrates the emerging competition between China and the U.S. for global influence -- and resources.

The drive for resources is occurring in a world where alliances are shifting among major oil-producing and consuming nations. A kind of post-Cold War global lineup against perceived American hegemony seems to be in the earliest stages of formation, possibly including Brazil, China, India, Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Russian President Putin's riposte to an American strategy of building up its military presence in some of the former SSRs of the old Soviet Union has been to ally the Russian and Iranian oil industries, organize large-scale joint war games with the Chinese military, and work towards the goal of opening up the shortest, cheapest, and potentially most lucrative new oil route of all, southwards out of the Caspian Sea area to Iran. In the meantime, the European Union is now negotiating to drop its ban on arms shipments to China (much to the publicly expressed chagrin of the Pentagon). Russia has also offered a stake in its recently nationalized Yukos, (a leading, pro-Western Russian oil company forced into bankruptcy by the Putin government) to China.

In a one-superpower world, this is pretty brazen behavior by all concerned, but it is symptomatic of a growing perception of the United States as a declining, overstretched giant, albeit one with the capacity to strike out lethally if wounded. American military and economic dominance may still be the central fact of world affairs, but the limits of this primacy are becoming ever more evident -- something reflected in the dollar's precipitous descent on foreign exchange markets. It all makes for a very challenging backdrop to the rest of 2005. Keep an eye out. Perhaps this will indeed be the year when longstanding problems for the United States finally do boil over, but don't expect Washington to accept the dispersal of its economic and military power lightly.

Marshall Auerback is an international strategist with David W. Tice & Associates, LLC, a USVI-based money management firm. He is also a contributor to the Japan Policy Research Institute. His weekly work can be viewed at prudentbear.com

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1067
(1/22/05 7:58 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
I found this to be incredibly appalling.January 22, 2005
Mix of Quake Aid and Preaching Stirs Concern
By DAVID ROHDE

MORAKETIYA, Sri Lanka, Jan. 19 -A dozen Americans walked into a relief camp here, showering bereft parents and traumatized children with gifts, attention and affection. They also quietly offered camp residents something else: Jesus.

The Americans, who all come from one church in Texas, have staged plays detailing the life of Jesus and had children draw pictures of him, camp residents said. They have told parents who lost children that they should still believe in God, and held group prayers where they tried to heal a partly paralyzed man and a deaf 12year-old girl.

The attempts at proselytizing are angering local Christian leaders, who worry that they could provoke a violent backlash against Christians in Sri Lanka, a predominantly Buddhist country that is already a religious tinderbox.

Last year, Buddhist hard-liners attacked the offices of the World Vision Christian aid group and vandalized or threatened churches and pastors 75 times. They accuse Christians of using money and social programs to cajole and coerce conversions.

Most American groups, including those affiliated with religious organizations, strictly avoid mixing aid and missionary work. But scattered reports of proselytizing in Sri Lanka; Indonesia, which is predominantly Muslim; and India, with large Hindu and Muslim populations, are arousing concerns that the good will spread by the American relief efforts may be undermined by resentment.

The Rev. Sarangika Fernando, a local Methodist minister, witnessed one of the prayer sessions in Sri Lanka and accused the Americans of acting unethically with traumatized people. "They said, 'In the name of Jesus, she must be cured!' " he said. "As a priest, I was really upset."

The Americans in Sri Lanka belong to the Antioch Community Church, an evangelical church based in Waco, Tex. Two members of the church were arrested, and accused of proselytizing, by the Taliban in Afghanistan in August 2001. When the United States invaded the country several months later, pro-American Northern Alliance forces freed the women, who church officials say did speak with Afghans about their personal "relationship with Jesus."

The Antioch Community Church is one of a growing number of evangelical groups that believe in mixing aidgiving with discussing religion, an approach that older, more established Christian aid groups like Catholic Relief Services call unethical.

In Sri Lanka, alarmed local Christian leaders say proselytizing at such a sensitive time could reverse the grass-roots interfaith cooperation that has emerged since the tsunami and endanger Christians, who make up 7 percent of the population. The country also has sizable Hindu and Muslim minorities.

The Rev. Duleep Fernando, a Methodist minister based in Colombo, the capital, brought the Americans to the camp here. Mr. Fernando said they had described themselves as humanitarian aid workers. He and other Sri Lankan Christian leaders say raising religion with traumatized refugees is unethical.

"We have told them this is not right, but now we don't have any control over them," said Mr. Fernando, who called the group's Web site postings "unnecessarily explosive."

"This is a dangerous situation," he said.

In Indonesia last week, reports that a missionary group named WorldHelp planned to raise 300 Muslim tsunami orphans in a Christian children's home in Jakarta brought an outcry from Muslims. The group later said it had never had custody of the children.

Sri Lankan refugees, camp administrators and church officials said the Americans here had identified themselves only as a humanitarian aid group. In an interview here on Wednesday, Pat Murphy, 49, a leader of the team, said the group was a nongovernmental organization, and not a church group. "It's an NGO," Mr. Murphy said. "Just your plain vanilla NGO that does aid work."

But the church's Web site says the Americans are one of four teams - for a total of 75 people - dispatched to Sri Lanka and Indonesia who have persuaded dozens of people to "come to Christ."

When the group's postings were read to Mr. Murphy, he confirmed that the Americans were from the Antioch Community Church, but said the group would never use relief goods and gifts to entice or pressure people into becoming Christians. He denied that the team, which sent about half its 24 members to work in the eastern town of Kalmunai, was trying to convert people. The church has 2,000 members.

"We simply provide people with information," he said, "and they do with that what they like."

A Jan. 18 posting from the team in Indonesia says the country's devastated Aceh Province is "ripe for Jesus!!"

"What an opportunity," it adds. "It has been closed for five years, and the missionaries in Indonesia consider it the most militant and difficult place for ministry. The door is wide open and the people are hungry."

The Rev. Jimmy Seibert, the senior pastor of the Waco church, said in a telephone interview that the church would evaluate whether the group's members should identify themselves as aid workers. But he said the church believes missionary work and aid work "is one thing, not two separate things."

"My hope is that as a follower of Jesus they would bring who they are into the workplace," he said, "whether they are in a workplace in America or a workplace in Sri Lanka."

Older Christian aid groups like Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief and others with religious affiliations say they do not proselytize, abiding by Red Cross guidelines that humanitarian aid not be used to further political or religious purposes. Ken Hackett, president of Catholic Relief Services, said that in the last 20 years there had been an increase of smaller Christian evangelical groups providing relief aid in the wake of disaster.

"I think there are new groups that are driven by missionary zeal," Mr. Hackett said. In the last several weeks, Mr. Hackett said, his group has received anecdotal reports of proselytizing in countries devastated by the tsunami.

"From our partners in India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia we've heard that there have been instances when American and other Christian groups have been proselytizing and casting aspersions on the faith of people there," he said. "Some of these groups raise questions about other faiths, saying that people would be better off if they converted to Christianity immediately."

Several American evangelical aid groups have arrived in Sri Lanka, but no reports of proselytizing by those groups have emerged, according to Sri Lankan church officials. The Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the evangelist Billy Graham, visited Sri Lanka this week to encourage the workers of his evangelical aid organization, Samaritan's Purse, who plan to work in Sri Lanka for the next five years.

Other American evangelical aid groups, including Gospel for Asia and World Relief, are active on the country's devastated east coast, according to Sri Lankan and American aid workers.

Members of Mr. Graham's group said they did not engage in proselytizing, but said if local Christians wanted to build a church they would help them. Officials from World Relief, the aid wing of the National Association of Evangelicals, have said in interviews that they try to first build trust with local people and then look for opportunities for conversions, in some cases years later.

More evangelical groups are apparently on their way. A message posted on the Web site of the Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell says the school he founded, Liberty University, is preparing to send a team to Sri Lanka, India and other countries battered by the tsunami.

"Distribution of food and medical supplies along with the dissemination of thousands of Gospel tracts in the language of the people will keep the L.U. team very busy," the Web site says. "Mission trips to the Asian region by many L.U. students will follow in the months, and perhaps years, to come."

Ron Godwin, president of Jerry Falwell Ministries, confirmed that the Liberty Foundation was organizing a shipment of rice, medication and Scriptural excerpts, but said the primary goal of the effort was relief, not proselytizing. "Everything we do is in the name of Christ," he said. "But we try to be sensitive in areas where it may be politically sensitive, and we have no litmus test for those we give rice to."

According to the Waco church group's Web site, its teams in Sri Lanka and Indonesia are performing "children's ministry," seeing "many people saved" and continuing to "minister to families and children through prayer and evangelism."

According to its Web site, the congregation uses small groups called "cell churches" to attract new members. The reports from Indonesia and Sri Lanka refer to "cells" and "lifegroups" in both countries.

Residents of the camp here reported no healings as a result of the group's prayers. But they said they appreciated the aid and activities for children that the group provided and did not want to see them end.

Organizers in a nearby camp have declared the Americans missionaries and barred them from entering. Camp organizers here said they believed that the group was trying to convert people, but did not want to further upset the tsunami victims by cutting off the aid.

W. L. P. Wilson, 38, a disabled fisherman with a sixth-grade education, said he allowed the Americans to pray three times for the healing of his paralyzed lower leg because he was desperate to provide for his wife and three children again. Mr. Wilson, a Buddhist, said that he believed that the Americans were trying to convert him to Christianity but that he was in "a helpless situation now" and needed aid.

"They told me to always think about God and about Jesus and you will be healed," he said. "Whenever I ask for help they always mention God, but they do not give any money for treatment."

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1070
(1/27/05 12:11 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
Bush's messianic streak, the war index and idealists amok

By TIM DICKINSON

Iraq by the Numbers

1,400 American soldiers dead.

More than 10,000 wounded.

Another $80 billion requested.

More than a quarter of a trillion dollars dedicated to the war effort.

13 million eligible Iraqi voters.

30,000 voting booths.

111 parties.

7,471 candidates.

275 National Assembly seats.

120 international elections observers.

200,000 insurgents.

150,000 U.S. troops.

Days until election: 5.

Minimum days until major troop reductions: 700.

Jesus ...

In his second inaugural address Bush didn't so much lay out his agenda, as he proclaimed His Agenda -- speaking of spreading "freedom" and "human liberty" with a missionary's zeal.

Let's leave aside for the moment the glaring inconsistency of a man who coddles torturous thugs such as Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov or Equatorial Guinea's Teodoro Obiang calling for an end to tyranny. And we'll let lie the fact that one of the administration's most important allies, Pakistan, is ruled by an autocrat who seized power in a coup and has refused to relinquish his control of the Army. Or that Bush says the government of Egypt's dictator Hosni Mubarak "will set the standard" for Middle Eastern democracy.

There's something creepier than rank hypocrisy going on here. "There is only one force of history," our president proclaimed, "that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom."

Call me crazy, but there's another force to which I've heard people of Bush's ilk ascribe these same exalted powers of salvation. That force usually goes by the name of
Jesus.

"Freedom is the permanent hope of mankind," Bush proclaimed, "the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul."

Freedom, Mr. President? Or Christ?

"We have lit a fire," Bush said, "a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."

Liberty? Or The Word?

According to Bush, freedom is an "ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled." History, he said, "has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty."

Make no mistake. Those telling Capital Letters are not my editorializing. They're in the White House transcript. If the "Author of Liberty" is God, what did God author if not The Word. And if the word in this case is "liberty," then it would seem "liberty" is just another synonym for "Jesus."

Think I'm making too much of this? Consider how George Bush recaps the history of the last decade:

"After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical -- and then there came a day of fire."

"Sabbatical," here, isn't the year your college professor took off to write a book. Bush is using sabbatical in the Old Testament sense (in which every seventh year fields were allowed to go fallow to honor God.) In Bush's history, this biblical moment of repose (the Clinton era -- who knew?) was interrupted by "a day of fire."

That's an overt reference to 1 Corinthians 3:13, which describes a day of fire -- that is to say a day of divine judgment -- that will lay bare the quality of each man's work and reveal whether he has indeed built his life on serving Christ.

Day of Fire is also the name of a contemporary Christian rock band, whose 9/11-resonant hit single, also called "Day of Fire", goes like this: "The buildings swaying in the wind / The towers crumble down again / This certainly will be the end / Of them not built on Him."

In Bush's history, 9/11 becomes an apocalyptic test of Christian mettle, perhaps even a sign of the End of Days. Judging by this speech, Bush's response to this Godly test has been to position himself as a crusader for a particularly Christian brand of liberation.

The following exaggeration drives home the point: Take the text of the inaugural address (found here) and sub in the word "Jesus" for each of the 27 times that the president says "freedom" and each of the 15 times he says "liberty" or "human liberty."

With few exceptions the speech scans perfectly, and in some cases it even makes more sense. As when Bush proclaims: "Eventually, the call of [Jesus] comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. [Jesus] will come to those who love [Him]."

I'm no theologian. I don't claim to understand exactly what Bush is doing here. I only know enough to be creeped the fuck out. What's clearly evident here is Bush's messianic streak, front and center. I don't know if Bush sees himself as an agent of God spreading liberty in Jesus' name. Or whether he actually aims to spread Christianity, in the guise of liberty. Either way I'm not happy about it.

Even Republicans are wincing. "It was a God-drenched speech," wrote Peggy Noonan, a former Reagan speechwriter, in The Wall Street Journal, adding that its push for world freedom fell somewhere "between dreamy and disturbing." Quipped Noonan: "Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."

Pat Buchanan denounced the speech for more secular reasons, specifically for asserting the right "to intervene in the internal affairs of every nation on earth and that is, quite simply, a recipe for endless war. And war is the death of republics."

Idealists Amok

Perhaps more than anything else, the tenor of Bush's speech reveals that the trigger-happy neoconservative idealists -- who proclaimed Iraqis would greet us with flowers and who saw Iraq as a domino that would set off a chain reaction of democracy in the Middle East -- continue in ascendance in the administration, despite the fiasco that their war of liberation has become. This signals that guys like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith are just stupid enough to try to keep the "march of freedom" going in places like Iran.

As Seymour Hersh recently reported in the New Yorker, Iran is very much on the front-burner: A "former high-level intelligence official" told Hersh: "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone . . . Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."

Other highlights from Hersh's story:

"The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal," a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency told me. "And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked."

"We're not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "They've already passed that wicket. It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it."

Tyranny in Plain Sight

"They poured cold water over me and applied electric shocks to my genitals. I was also beaten by several people with cables on my arms and back."

"During the first three days there was continuous torture. I was beaten with an aluminum rod and with cables."

These are just two testimonials compiled in a new report by Human Rights Watch that details how Iraqi intelligence and police forces under the Allawi regime have been torturing criminal suspects.

"Typically," the report says, "detainees reported being blindfolded with their hands tied behind their back while undergoing interrogation. They said their interrogators or guards kicked, slapped and punched them, and beat them all over the body using hosepipes, wooden sticks, iron rods, and cables. Some of them bore visible traces of external trauma to the head, neck, arms, legs, and back when examined by Human Rights Watch. These traces appeared consistent with their accounts of having been repeatedly beaten. Several bore fresh bruises and lacerations, while others had scarring that appeared recent. In some cases, detainees also reported that their interrogators had subjected them to electric shocks, most commonly by having electric wires attached to their ears or genitals."

The report recognizes the trying circumstances of trying to create order in the chaos that is Iraq, but says bluntly, "International law is unambiguous in that no government -- not Saddam Hussein's, not the occupying powers and not the Iraqi Interim Government -- can justify ill-treatment of persons in custody in the name of security."

In its most troubling indictment -- particularly in light of the president's rhetorical ebullience about liberty for such prisoners ("the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors") -- the report adds: "International police advisers, primarily U.S. citizens funded through the United States, have turned a blind eye to these rampant abuses."

Tim Dickinson asks you to consider what else the $277,000,000,000 we've dedicated to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might have bought.


(Posted Jan 26, 2005)

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1076
(1/31/05 11:30 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
And in the " If they had done this in the US,Kerry would have won by a landlside,because most of the country's poor are democrats" department;


January 31, 2005
Some Just Voted for Food

Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail

BAGHDAD, Jan 31 (IPS) - Voting in Baghdad was linked with receipt of food rations, several voters said after the Sunday poll.

Many Iraqis said Monday that their names were marked on a list provided by the government agency that provides monthly food rations before they were allowed to vote.

”I went to the voting centre and gave my name and district where I lived to a man,” said Wassif Hamsa, a 32-year-old journalist who lives in the predominantly Shia area Janila in Baghdad. ”This man then sent me to the person who distributed my monthly food ration.”

Mohammed Ra'ad, an engineering student who lives in the Baya'a district of the capital city reported a similar experience.

Ra'ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. ”The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting,” he said. ”Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote.”

”Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote,” said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.

There has been no official indication that Iraqis who did not vote would not receive their monthly food rations.

Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies.

Their experiences on the day of polling have underscored many of their concerns about questionable methods used by the U.S.-backed Iraqi interim government to increase voter turnout.

Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar who owns an auto garage in central Baghdad had said: ”I'll vote because I can't afford to have my food ration cut...if that happened, me and my family would starve to death.”

Hajar told IPS that when he picked up his monthly food ration recently, he was forced to sign a form stating that he had picked up his voter registration. He had feared that the government would use this information to track those who did not vote.

Calls to the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI) and to the Ministry of Trade, which is responsible for the distribution of the monthly food ration, were not returned.

Other questions have arisen over methods to persuade people to vote. U.S. troops tried to coax voters in Ramadi, capital city of the al-Anbar province west of Baghdad to come out to vote, AP reported.

IECI officials have meanwhile 'downgraded' their earlier estimate of voter turnout.

IECI spokesman Farid Ayar had declared a 72 percent turnout earlier, a figure given also by the Bush Administration.

But at a press conference Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying the turnout would be nearer 60 percent of registered voters.

The earlier figure of 72 percent, he said, was ”only guessing” and ”just an estimate” that had been based on ”very rough, word of mouth estimates gathered informally from the field.” He added that it will be some time before the IECI can issue accurate figures on the turnout.

”Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over,” he said. ”It is too soon to say that those were the official numbers.”

Where there was a large turnout, the motivation behind the voting and the processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up north were voting for autonomy, if not independence. In the south and elsewhere Shias were competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member national assembly.

In some places like Mosul the turnout was heavier than expected. But many of the voters came from outside, and identity checks on voters appeared lax. Others spoke of vote-buying bids.

The Bush Administration has lauded the success of the Iraq election, but doubtful voting practices and claims about voter turnout are both mired in controversy.

Election violence too was being seen differently across the political spectrum.

More than 30 Iraqis, a U.S. soldier, and at least 10 British troops died Sunday. Hundreds of Iraqis were also wounded in attacks across Baghdad, in Baquba 50km northeast of the capital as well as in the northern cities Mosul and Kirkuk.

The British troops were on board a C-130 transport plane that crashed near Balad city just northwest of Baghdad. The British military has yet to reveal the cause of the crash.

Despite unprecedented security measures in which 300,000 U.S. and Iraqi security forces were brought in to curb the violence, nine suicide bombers and frequent mortar attacks took a heavy toll in the capital city, while strings of attacks were reported around the rest of the country.

As U..S. President George W. Bush saw it, ”some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens.”

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1077
(2/1/05 9:52 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
       
Lawsuits Over Splenda Marketing Campaign

By Sophie Walker
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Johnson & Johnson is facing a raft of lawsuits over a marketing campaign related to its artificial sweetener Splenda, which accuse the company of misleading buyers to believe Splenda is a natural product.

Splenda, which has enjoyed rapid sales growth on the back of a boom in low-carbohydrate eating in the last couple of years, is marketed by J&J's McNeil Nutritionals Worldwide division with the line: "Splenda No Calorie Sweetener is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar."

But the Sugar Association says the marketing pitch does not accurately reflect the end product and is misleading because it gives the impression that Splenda contains natural sugar.

McNeil faces three class-action suits from individuals, one from the Sugar Association and one from Merisant Worldwide Inc, the maker of rival low-calorie sweetener products including Equal and Canderel.

"Johnson & Johnson is misinforming consumers about the reality of the chlorinated product Splenda," said James Murphy, counsel for the Sugar Association, whose lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, a nationwide injunction and corrective advertising.

"We feel the public needs to be aware that Splenda is an artificial chemical sweetener. Splenda is created with chlorine, and the final product does not have sugar in it," he said.

Splenda's Web Site (www.splenda.com) says the product is made "through a patented process that starts with sugar and converts it to a no calorie, noncarbohydrate sweetener. The process selectively replaces three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms."

A spokeswoman for McNeil Nutritional told Reuters that the lawsuits had no merit.

"Consumers are utilizing no-calorie sweeteners versus other sweeteners like sugar, and you would have to draw your own conclusions about why now these efforts are being launched." said Monica Neufang, director of communications for McNeil,

"We have never represented Splenda as being natural," she said.

Splenda has just over 50 percent of the U.S. market for low calorie sweeteners, based on dollar volume, according to data collected by IRI and made available to Reuters by McNeil.

It is used in products which include Kool-Aid Jammers 10 tropical Punch drink, produced by Kraft Foods .

"Obviously, any organization that represents the sugar growers of the world would like to have people know what they are buying when they are buying a sweetener," said Dan Collister, attorney at Squire, Sanders and Dempsey, acting for the Sugar Association.

Separately, the Texas Consumer Association said on Monday it had asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to investigate the Splenda marketing campaign.

"With consumers across the country concerned about their health and trying to eat more natural foods, it is alarming that McNeil is engaged in an underhanded campaign to confuse consumers into believing Splenda is natural," commented Sandra Haverlah, president of the Texas Consumer Association.

Haverlah said she was working with the Consumer Federation Network and was not associated with the groups bringing suits against Splenda.

No one from Merisant was available for comment.


02/01/05 10:10

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1078
(2/1/05 11:17 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
Freedoms Lost Under G.W. Bush
by Chuck Baldwin

Anyone who dares to oppose or even question Bush must be regarded as enemies of America or even as enemies of God.
February 1, 2005--Supporters and apologists for President G.W. Bush will often assail my assertion that the Bush administration has done more to dismantle constitutional protections of our liberties than any president in modern memory. It seems that these people believe that until federal Storm Troopers knock down the doors of their homes and drag them off to the gulags, they have lost no freedoms. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If history is any teacher, it instructs us in the incremental process that elitists use to implement their totalitarian agenda. The first step is to use an incessant, highly orchestrated propaganda. For all practical purposes, the major media in the United States is providing that propaganda. At the national level, there is hardly any investigative journalism going on. Instead, the national press corps has become little more than lazy lackeys for the White House.

The second step is to lay the foundation for totalitarianism by passing legislation that may later be used against the citizenry. And that is exactly what the Bush administration has very successfully accomplished. It very adroitly succeeded where the Clinton administration failed.

For example, most conservatives would be surprised to learn that the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security was the brainchild of one William Jefferson Clinton. However, a recalcitrant Republican Congress denied Clinton the opportunity to implement these plans. Of course, with the Republican, G.W. Bush, serving as President, that same Republican Congress was all too eager to pass these bills into law.
Whether or not individual Americans have been personally subjected to tyranny as a result of lost freedoms doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms.

The third step is to demonize and marginalize anyone and everyone who opposes the government's plans and ambitions. Such opponents are characterized as "unpatriotic," "obstructionist," "uncompassionate," or even "ungodly." Once again, the Bush minions have very skillfully done just that. Anyone who dares to oppose or even question Bush must be regarded as enemies of America or even as enemies of God.

Of course, the last step is to begin using the power and force of government to physically silence or remove those who are determined to require such treatment. And, as Germany's National Socialists proved, by the time this happens, there is no one around who is capable of coming to the assistance of such people.

For those who are willing to objectively analyze Bush's actions and policies, the truth is clearly seen: this President has systematically put in place laws, policies, and bureaucracies that can, are, and will continue to strip the American citizenry of the constitutional protections of their liberties.

Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
That good citizens are compliant and unconcerned regarding G.W. Bush's propensity to trample constitutional freedoms bespeaks a great ignorance or a great apathy, or both.

These rights have already been lost! Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms! This fact, alone, should be enough for any studious lover-of-liberty to be outraged.

That good citizens are compliant and unconcerned regarding G.W. Bush's propensity to trample constitutional freedoms bespeaks a great ignorance or a great apathy, or both.

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1079
(2/1/05 11:24 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
This is funny,but it's not.



       
Op/Ed - Ted Rall

WHAT WOULD REPUBLICAN JESUS DO?

Tue Feb 1, 7:59 PM ET
       
By Ted Rall

Miracles of the Trickle-Down Messiah


NEW YORK--And it came to pass that Republican Jesus met with His advisers, strategists and corporate cronies. He took them and withdrew apart to a deserted city called Bethesda. But the multitudes followed Him nonetheless. So Republican Jesus asked His cronies to build Him a great stadium where He could welcome members of the multitudes able to pay Him an admission fee and purchase vast quantities of licensed merchandise at exorbitant prices.

He welcomed these people and sent off those who needed medical attention to a land called Canada.

The light of the day began to wane, so His toadies said to Republican Jesus: "Send these stinky riffraff away, that we may cross the Beltway to our home, and get steaks and baked potatoes and double martinis and crème brulées, for here we are in a barren place with naught but a TCBY and a vestigial relic of the Hardee's chain." He answered them: "Stop whining, for God's sake. You will soon have more than enough to eat."

They said to Him: "But we have a mere five Power Bars and two Diet Cokes. We are twelve advisers, strategists and corporate sycophants, and many of us are portly, and with all due respect, that sucks hard."

He told His hangers-on: "Sit down, shut up, and give me all of your money." After exchanging cynical glances, they did dig into their wallets and gave Him their loot. With that Republican Jesus raced to his waiting SUV and ordered his chauffeur to fly like the wind.

"As a rising tide lifts all boats," He cried from his speeding automobile, "so shall you benefit from the increased economic activity generated by the money you have given Me! I will buy Myself a sumptuous banquet and several portable electronic devices and also ho's, creating jobs in the food/electronic/ho sectors that you will take in order to feed yourselves. Give a man a fish and he eats a fish, but teach a man to fish at rock-bottom wages and we all shall eat his fish."

After Republican Jesus performed this miracle, his erstwhile suck-ups drew lots to determine which of them would be eaten first.

Then Republican Jesus turned his attention to household affairs. His mother Republican Mary said to Him: "Your father Republican Joseph is away on business, but do not worry, for he has left us with ample savings. Moreover, positive cash flow is projected for many years to come. Republican Jesus said to her: "What does that have to do with me?"

Now there were six bricks of cash hidden by the elder Mr. Christ in a lockbox, containing one trillion dollars each. Republican Jesus ordered his mother: "Set Dad's money on fire." Republican Jesus had been hitting the sauce and talking crazy, so she complied. "Now go to the temple," He continued, "and borrow ten more bricks from the moneylenders."

When Joseph returned, he didn't know where the extra four bricks of cash had come from. (Mary knew, but didn't dare tell him.) Joseph told Republican Jesus: "I don't know how you did it, but our days of independent carpentry are over. Let's launch a hostile takeover of Home Depot!"

Spying one of the moneylenders walking toward them, Republican Jesus took his leave.

As He was later walking through the grounds of his whites-only country club, behold, there was an African groundskeeper suffering from AIDS (news - web sites). When he saw Republican Jesus, he fell down and begged Him, saying, "Lord, if you want to, you can cure my affliction." Cannily recoiling to avoid infection, Republican Jesus directed the man to a website that pledged millions of dollars to fight AIDS in Africa. "You took that money away from AIDS spending here," the diseased man tried to point out, but the official chroniclers deemed his comment uninteresting and unworthy of investigation. And so it never occurred.

It was at this time that someone came to Republican Jesus to tell Him of the death of a certain man, Lazarus. So Republican Jesus appealed to the Roman military governor, Pontius Pilate. "Proconsul," He said in the city forum, "evildoers from the east have slain Lazarus and other taxpaying citizens. We must therefore assemble a great army of slaves equipped with the sharpest swords to invade Parthia and its allies. Only by making the sands of Parthia run red with Parthian blood shall we avenge Lazarus, liberate Parthia's oppressed vassal states and eliminate the threat posed by their illegal and illicit catapults."

Pilate tried to argue with Republican Jesus. "Our glorious emperor Augustus has exchanged observers with the Parthian court at Nisa as part of a treaty of peace. No one has seen the catapults you describe. And Lazarus died from medical malpractice. Parthia had nothing to do with it."

"Can you take that chance? Do you trust your safety to Parthia?" Republican Jesus goaded the crowd. "Will you stand idly by while Parthia re-arms on the road to a smoky cloud over a burning Rome? Are you wussies?" "No!" the crowd roared as He rolled his eyes. And so one Roman army after another marched east, never to return. And this became known as the miracle of the vanishing soldiers.

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1080
(2/1/05 11:31 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
And just where were all these people who are now questioning Bush's policies,decisions,and the damn war,when there was still time to get behind Kerry?

Posted on Mon, Jan. 31, 2005

Bush will face political reality check after speech

By TAMARA LYTLE

Orlando Sentinel

WASHINGTON - President Bush will have no problem winning applause and accolades Wednesday when he delivers his State of the Union speech to Congress.

It's the next day that Bush needs to worry about - when the state of political reality sets in.

After a first term in which Bush got much of what he wanted from Congress, lawmakers and political scientists expect a different balance of power now. The reasons include the president's lame-duck status, restlessness by conservatives and the enormous skepticism greeting his attempts to overhaul Social Security.

"There are people in the House who feel like they were pulling a sled uphill at times, feeling like we had to re-elect the president," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., of Bush's first four years. Now, Feeney says, "there is more of a sense in Congress it's our responsibility to reassert the congressional prerogative."

Bush will not appear on the ballot again, and Vice President Dick Cheney has ruled out running in four years. That means the Republicans who control Congress "don't see their destinies as closely tied to his anymore," said Karen Hult, political scientist at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

And before long, Bush's agenda will have to compete with those of potential 2008 presidential contenders such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

During Bush's first term, he galvanized support for the war with Iraq and spearheaded sweeping, controversial changes to civil liberties. He also restructured federal agencies aimed at fighting terrorism, pushed through a massive tax cut and won backing for his No Child Left Behind education reforms.

He had so much success with Congress, in fact, that he never once pulled out his veto pen. The last president to serve a whole term and never issue a veto was Martin Van Buren, from 1837-41.

But now Bush is pressing to revamp Social Security and the tax code. He's also seeking billions more in war funding amid a ballooning federal deficit, as well as changes in immigration laws and tort reform. It is an agenda both ambitious and full of potential political land mines.

"The items he's asking for are so much bigger," said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla. "It's a lot easier to carry a chair than a couch."

Bush has the benefit of a Republican-controlled Congress - 55 senators and 232 House members. But heading off filibusters in the Senate takes 60 votes, so Bush will at times need the support of moderate Democrats such as Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. Nelson runs for re-election next year in a state where Bush won with a comfortable 52.1 percent.

Nelson said he will support Bush on issues such as funding for the Iraq war but will be vocal against Bush's Social Security plan. The president, he said, needs to negotiate, not dictate, to Congress.

"I want to see him reach out and start working with the legislative branch and understand the Constitution says you have to govern working with the legislative branch."

Bush will feel the heat not just from the left but from the right in his own party.

"I think you're going to see a lot of thunder on the right to get their agenda enacted," said Democratic consultant Gary Nordlinger.

Some conservatives in Congress are unhappy that after winning re-election with strong support from the right for his stances on social issues, he is not pushing harder for a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Others are fed up with year after year of increases in spending on federal programs under Bush. And others are just eager to seize the moment for a conservative agenda because they have a Republican president and Congress.

Freshman Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said Bush will set the agenda but won't get everything he wants.

"I don't see a lock-step situation," Martinez said. "There are currents out there. Our party is going to speak with several voices."

Conservatives such as Feeney say they don't feel as obligated to "fall in line" behind Bush now. Many of them still are grumbling about the Medicare prescription-drug bill that passed under heavy pressure from the White House. Although Feeney voted against the bill, many conservatives voted for it and then found out weeks later that the cost will be much higher than the White House had promised.

Feeney also blames both Bush and Congress for allowing domestic-spending programs to grow.

Though some conservatives felt burned by Bush on the Medicare vote, some Democrats say his credibility was tainted by pushing for war in Iraq based on weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

"You don't just take what the administration says," said Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., who said she will apply skepticism to Bush's Social Security proposal.

Bush has proposed setting up private stock and bond accounts as part of Social Security. But a study by the senior lobby AARP showed public concern about his proposal. The political activism of seniors has long dissuaded lawmakers from touching the so-called "third rail" of Social Security.

To get that done he will need to use his bully pulpit to persuade Congress to take on the issue, said Robert Jackson, associate professor of political science at Florida State University.

So far, many Republicans are unenthusiastic about it, Democrat Nordlinger said. "It's a feeling: `Hey, wait a minute, this thing is going to explode in our face.'"

Nor are Republicans united behind Bush's particular proposal. The influential chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., has said there's no point for Democrats to focus just on criticizing Bush's plan because that would be beating "a dead horse." Thomas said Congress will have its own ideas. His vision is broader than Bush's and might include combining Social Security reform with an entirely new tax system.

Keller said he spent an hour last week listening to four different GOP Social Security reform proposals. He came away more with a headache than a clear view of one Republican approach.

"It's like listening to a calculus professor," he said. "It's a very complicated issue."

Likewise, Republicans are divided on the best way to change the current income-tax code. Some like a flat income tax. Others prefer to keep deductions for charitable donations and mortgage interest. And another wing wants a national sales tax in place of income taxes. Bush has named a presidential panel to come up with suggestions.

He also is likely to run into stiff opposition on proposals to loosen immigration rules. But other proposals, such as tax cuts and tort reform, are "music to Republican ears" and are likely to pass, Feeney said.

And an additional $80 billion for the war in Iraq is expected to sail through Congress.

But the costs of war and other expenses that have added to the deficit - estimated at a record $427 billion this year - make it harder for the White House and Congress to use money to settle differences about priorities.

"I think he's going to have to pull out the veto pen this term," Keller said.

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1081
(2/1/05 11:35 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
Taking sides in a cultural battle, some of the nation's top artists -- including Mandy Moore, the Dixie Chicks and Dolly Parton -- have contributed to a CD that benefits the nation's largest homosexual activist organization.

All of the proceeds from the CD, "Love Rocks," will go to the Human Rights Campaign -- a homosexual activist organization that has figured prominently in the push to legalize same-sex "marriage" nationwide and works to promote "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights." The two-disk CD set -- which is being released just in time for Valentine's Day -- features some 30 artists, including Yoko Ono, who sings "Every Man Has a Man." Other top artists are Christina Aguilera, Emmylou Harris, Pink and Carole King.

Moore, who in 2002 starred in a movie ("A Walk to Remember") targeted to Christian teens, said she is glad to be a part of the project. "Humankind has its problems, but love isn't one of them," Moore, who sings "I Feel the Earth Move," said in a statement. "When two people -- regardless of gender -- long to care for each other, to protect each other, to treasure each other, we should do everything we can to foster that. I'm proud to be part of this album, which does just that." A statement by the Human Rights Campaign said the artists came together to "celebrate love and commitment regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

But Focus on the Family's Melissa Fryrear, a former lesbian, said the CD's use of the word "love" is deceptive.

"'Love' is one of the Trojan horses for the acceptance of homosexuality," Fryrear, a gender issues analyst, said in an e-mail to Baptist Press. "Gay activists are trying to find an argument that carries emotional weight: 'love,' after all, sounds good to everyone. "The problem, though, is their definition of 'love' is carefully camouflaged to mean more than Cupid ever meant it to mean. Their definition is meant to mean the acceptance and the celebration of homosexuality."


Yoko Ono, Carole King and Dolly Parton are on the hit list of Focus on the Family.

"I just think it's a human rights issue," Ono told Rolling Stone. "The Constitution of this country is based on human rights and justice and freedom.... For [politicians] to say, 'OK, we're going to change the Constitution so the gays can't get married,' I think it is outrageous.... I just immediately started to feel that it was important to send that message out that anybody can fall in love regardless of the difference of religion, or race, or sex, or age. Love is love. It's beautiful."

Fryrear said that Christians should take note of the policies the Human Rights Campaign promotes. "HRC is about more than simply promoting "love," Fryrear said. "As the most aggressive pro-gay lobby organization today, HRC is about accepting, promoting, and encouraging homosexuality combined with silencing any disagreeing opinion."

The artists that participated, Fryrear, deserve criticism. "This is another example of celebrities using their platforms to promote the liberal ideological agenda that equates homosexuality with heterosexuality," she said.

The complete lineup of artists contributing to the CD follows: Christina Aguilera, Pink, Simply Red, Dixie Chicks, Nada Surf, Dido, Jen Foster, the Bootlickers, L.P., Sophie B. Hawkins, Keaton Simons, Rachael Yamagata, Matt Alber, Kinnie Starr, Eric Hinman, Carole King, Mandy Moore, Melissa Etheridge, the B-52's, Cyndi Lauper, Kimberley Locke, Yoko Ono, BT, Dave Koz, Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris, Garrin Benfield, Ari Gold, Jason and deMarco, Randi Driscoll, Billy Porter and Oleta Adams.

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1082
(2/1/05 11:42 pm)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
WHile some of us can't pull ourselves up by our bootstraps,because we have NO boots,corporations get to have a tax"holiday".While some of us are without medical care,due to budget cuts,and the promotion of "faith-based" charity programs,the rich get richer.



Corporate Welfare Runs Amok

Published: January 30, 2005


Earlier this month, Johnson & Johnson became one of the first major American corporations to sign on for a one-year "tax holiday" - a government-sponsored opportunity for American multinationals to bring their foreign profits back to the United States at a puny tax rate of 5.25 percent, compared with the normal corporate rate of 35 percent. Johnson & Johnson intends to repatriate $11 billion. And that is just the beginning of what is shaping up to be an unprecedented government giveaway.

The drug giant Schering-Plough has announced a coming $9.4 billion repatriation, and Eli Lilly has announced one for $8 billion. Many other cash-rich companies, especially in pharmaceuticals and technology, are expected to follow suit. Pfizer is considering whether to repatriate $29 billion in untaxed foreign profits; Hewlett-Packard has $14.5 billion eligible for repatriation; Intel has $6 billion. By the end of 2005, an estimated $100 billion to $500 billion will have found its way home. Over the long run, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the holiday will allow companies to avoid $3.3 billion in taxes, an estimate that many tax experts think is low.

The nation's corporate tax rules - combined with spotty enforcement by an underfunded and outmuscled Internal Revenue Service - provide strong incentives for American companies to shift their profits from the United States to low-tax havens, such as Ireland and Luxembourg. Once there, the profits are allowed to grow untaxed by the United States until they are repatriated. That tax deferral is a hugely munificent gesture - as if the country's biggest businesses had been granted their own special I.R.A.'s.

But it wasn't enough for many companies that have piled up excess cash abroad. The Homeland Investment Coalition, a roster of dozens of America's largest corporations, lobbied vigorously - and successfully - for a tax holiday before deigning to repatriate their overseas profits.

Congress's ostensible purpose for allowing the holiday is to unleash a flood of money for job creation, hence the name of the law that includes the holiday - the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. But few of the approved uses for the repatriated funds - such as debt redemption, advertising and a catchall category of "financial stabilization" - will lead directly, if at all, to more jobs. One approved use - the ability to spend the money to buy other companies - would be more likely to create layoffs, as corporate acquisitions usually do.

Companies can also use the money to help pay legal liabilities, which could prove to be a big boon for companies like the drug maker Merck, which is sitting on some $15 billion in untaxed foreign profits and faces an estimated $18 billion in potential claims arising from the Vioxx debacle. Multinationals cannot use the repatriated profits to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back their own stock or pay executives. But because companies have a lot of flexibility in financing their activities, they will generally be able to use the money as they see fit while still meeting the letter of the law.

So the tax holiday blesses rather than curbs tax avoidance and is structured to encourage little if any new domestic economic activity. It establishes a horrible precedent by encouraging companies to leave profits abroad in anticipation of future holidays. It makes fools of companies that have routinely repatriated foreign profits at the full corporate tax rate. And it disadvantages American companies that have no foreign presence and thus no opportunity to reap profits at a discounted tax rate.

All it will really do is what the drafters probably intended all along - further erode the nation's corporate tax base and impugn the system's integrity, in that way building a case for eliminating corporate taxes altogether. That is a lousy way to make policy. Reforms to the corporate tax system must be debated on their merits, not under cover of some phony label like "job creation."

shadeaux63
Keeper of dreams
Posts: 1083
(2/3/05 12:45 am)
Reply

Re: This Just in...again
And in the "It takes one to know one" department....


Cuban Leader Castro Calls Bush 'Deranged'

By VANESSA ARRINGTON
HAVANA (AP) - In his first public remarks since the United States dubbed Cuba an outpost of tyranny, Fidel Castro called President Bush ``deranged'' and belittled recent improvements in relations between Cuba and Europe.

In a televised address late Tuesday, Castro maintained his trademark go-it-alone attitude, saying his communist-run island is a paradise that is doing fine without the help of the United States or Europe.

Cuba ``doesn't need the United States. It doesn't need Europe,'' he said. ``What a wonderful thing to be able to say, that (Cuba) doesn't need any assistance - it's learned to live without it.''

Speaking at an international pedagogy conference in Havana, Castro referred only briefly to comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who last month identified Cuba, Myanmar, Belarus and Zimbabwe as ``outposts of tyranny'' that would require close U.S. attention. He said if the mission of Bush's administration was to crush tyranny, ``our mission is to defeat empires.''

The Cuban leader, wearing his olive green military uniform, linked Bush's government to corruption and torture. He said he closely watched the U.S. leader's inauguration speech Jan. 20 and saw ``the face of a deranged person.''

``If only it were just the face,'' he said to roars of applause by educators from 52 countries at the conference.

The Cuban leader also warned against a potential invasion by the United States, a theme often repeated in public addresses. Washington has said repeatedly it has no plans to attack the Caribbean island.

``If they make the mistake of attacking this country, well Mr. Bush, or whoever will be there, I recommend to you it would be better if you use 50 nuclear bombs to exterminate all of us,'' he said.

Castro staunchly defended Cuba's socialist system, which the Bush administration has openly said should be replaced with a democratic, free-market one.

``This country is heaven, in the spiritual sense of the word,'' he said. ``And I say (to Bush), we prefer to die in heaven than survive in hell.''

Castro, 78, stood for much of the five-hour speech. After he broke his right arm and shattered his left kneecap in an accidental fall in October, he used a wheelchair before he standing up and walking again in December.

He expressed little enthusiasm for renewed diplomatic ties between Cuba and the European Union, indicating with displeasure that this week's decision by EU foreign ministers to lift sanctions on Cuba was temporary.

Under the decision, high-level governmental visits will resume and embassies will stop inviting Cuban dissidents to their gatherings in Havana. The 25-nation bloc had imposed the sanctions after Castro's government cracked down on opponents in March 2003.

The EU's new policy, which demands the release of all imprisoned dissidents, is up for review in July.

``They are treating us ... as if we were condemned to a death sentence,'' using these months to ``observe how I behave,'' Castro said.


02/02/05 15:22

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- Children Of the Earth and Sky - Announcements - Home -
moon phases
Get your free daily horoscope + free daily forecast below.
Choose your zodiac sign:
Aries
March 21 - April 20
Libra
September 24 - October 23
Taurus
April 21 - May 21
Scorpio
October 24 - November 22
Gemini
May 22 - June 21
Sagittarius
November 23 - December 21
Cancer
June 22 - July 23
Capricorn
December 22 - January 20
Leo
July 24 - August 23
Aquarius
January 21 - February 19
Virgo
August 24 - September 23
Pisces
February 20 - March 20


Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2007 ezboard, Inc.