Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

All things outside of Burning Man.
Locked
User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:47 pm

I remember this.
DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:
or maybe it was actually bought with "Food for Oil" program monies...

there are no auto manufacturers in the middle east, of course the vehicles are imported... and usually imported as "used"
You know something....I hope they do a thourogh investigation so that we can shut Joel and his goon squad up so he can find out that the U.S. had the biggest hand in taking the most money.

They always do.

Old news


IRAQ: Oil-for-Food probe hits U.S. Oil Companies

Exxon, Chevron and El Paso Are Named in CIA Report On Hussein-Era Program

by By Jess Bravin in New York, John D. Mckinnnon in Washington and Russel Gold Dallas, Wall Street Journal
October 13th, 2004


Federal investigators are focusing on four American oil companies and three U.S. citizens who allegedly received vouchers for oil from Saddam Hussein as he sought to flout United Nations sanctions.


The U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan also is investigating corruption allegations against the former head of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan, according to a person familiar with the case.

The U.S. companies -- including Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. and El Paso Corp. or their predecessors -- and individuals were identified in the Central Intelligence Agency's 1,000-page report on the Hussein regime's campaign, though their names were redacted from the publicly released version. While confirming that sanctions had prevented Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, the report by arms inspector Charles Duelfer, released last week, described efforts by the Hussein regime to manipulate the Oil-for-Food program in its favor, circumventing U.N. mandates, and possibly U.S. law.

A federal grand jury in Manhattan is investigating whether there was corruption in the Oil-for-Food program. Exxon, El Paso, and Chevron previously confirmed that they were among companies to receive subpoenas. Others identified in the Duelfer report as receiving the vouchers include Bayoil, a closely held Houston oil company, and three individuals who campaigned to end the Iraq sanctions: Oscar Wyatt, of Houston; Shakir al Khafaji, of West Bloomfield, Mich.; and Samir Vincent, of Annandale, Va. Together, the companies and individuals received vouchers valued at 111 million barrels of oil, according to the Duelfer report.

Officials stressed that the allocation of vouchers -- negotiable instruments that could be traded for Iraqi oil -- wasn't necessarily criminal and that no one has been charged with an offense.

In May 2002, a page one article in The Wall Street Journal reported that the Hussein regime had skimmed hundreds of millions of dollars and that several U.S. companies had been major consumers of Iraqi oil. The Duelfer report, which relied on captured Iraqi documents and interrogations of Mr. Hussein and officials of his regime, estimated the former Baghdad government had illegally collected $11 billion, in part by selling the oil below market price and receiving the difference through kickbacks. It also says Mr. Hussein gave oil vouchers to influential people and organizations overseas.

The U.N. Security Council blocked Iraqi oil sales to punish Mr. Hussein following his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. During the 1990s, however, Security Council members such as France and Russia sought to end sanctions, contending they were harming Iraq's civilian population. As a compromise, the U.S. and Britain agreed to the Oil-for-Food Program, which was intended to allow carefully monitored sales of Iraqi oil to pay for humanitarian supplies. A U.S. Treasury spokeswoman said the department is reviewing the license it granted to those who participated in the Oil-for-Food program.

A Chevron spokesman said yesterday that the San Ramon, Calif., company was cooperating with the investigation and added that "all purchases of Iraqi crude by ChevronTexaco were made in full compliance with all applicable laws."

El Paso, of Houston, in 2001 took over the assets of Coastal Corp., a company once run by Mr. Wyatt. It has since sold off all its refining assets, according to an El Paso spokesman, who said the company is cooperating with the investigation. Exxon, of Irving, Texas, couldn't be reached; it previously said it was "responding appropriately" to the subpoena. In recent days, a lawyer for Bayoil, John Kotelly, wouldn't say whether that company had received a subpoena.

The individuals named couldn't be reached for comment.

It is unclear how the investigation will affect the companies named. Big publicly traded oil companies have been under increasing pressure to line up new supplies as reserves in more-stable regions have declined, and this search often puts them in contact with countries with unstable political systems and histories of corruption. It isn't unusual for the companies to face subpoenas and investigations as a result. Major oil companies have extensive written policies prohibiting bribing officials or violating international sanctions.

The Duelfer report lists hundreds of foreign companies and individuals who allegedly received Iraqi oil vouchers -- including Mr. Sevan -- but not the U.S. companies and citizens. The names were included in versions sent to congressional committees, however, and officials confirmed their accuracy. Many of the names were disclosed in January, when documents purportedly taken from Iraqi oil-ministry files were published in an Iraqi newspaper.

Mr. Sevan, a Cypriot and a career U.N. official, has denied wrongdoing. Although high-ranking U.N. officers enjoy diplomatic immunity from prosecution, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said he will waive the immunity for any U.N. employee an independent panel appointed by Mr. Annan and headed by Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, finds has broken the law.

Citing former Iraqi officials, the Duelfer report says Mr. Sevan received vouchers for 13 million barrels of oil and redeemed 7.3 million barrels.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.





SUCKERS!
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:51 pm

oh yeah, and I found that one on Google.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:13 am

As stupid as those that believe in Bush.

Is the Associated Press legitimate enough for ya. :lol:


England's Lawyers Try to Get Photos Thrown Out

By Allen G. Breed
Associated Press
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A29

FORT BRAGG, N.C., Dec. 1 -- Lawyers for Pfc. Lynndie R. England sought Wednesday to throw out evidence at the heart of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal -- the now-infamous photos showing her smiling and pointing at naked Iraqi detainees.

England's attorneys, who were set to argue the issue later in a three-day pretrial hearing, have questioned the way investigators handled the two computer disks containing the digital images, saying chain-of-evidence problems and the date-stamping on the pictures suggested opportunities for tampering.


The motion was among four offered in advance of England's Jan. 18 court-martial on abuse and indecent-conduct charges. If convicted, the reservist clerk, 22, could be sentenced to as much as 38 years in prison.

Most of Wednesday's hearing focused on a defense request to throw out statements England made when first questioned about Iraqi prisoner abuse, including that reservists were just "joking around, having some fun." The defense is seeking to bar three of England's statements, including one made after she invoked her right to an attorney.

Special Agents Paul Arthur and Warren Worth testified that England never asked for an attorney during two interviews at Abu Ghraib prison last January, three months before the photos were publicly released.

Arthur interviewed England for more than four hours before dawn Jan. 14, after a soldier from the 372nd Military Police Company turned in compact discs containing the photos. Called by the prosecution, Arthur testified that he read England her rights and had her initial them.

He said England was cooperative and did not appear fearful. He said if she had asked for a lawyer, he would have ended the interview. At the end of the questioning, he said, she wrote and signed a statement detailing her actions.

Worth re-interviewed England on Jan. 19, saying she again waived her right to an attorney.

Lead defense attorney Rick Hernandez suggested in cross-examination that England might not have been in a proper frame of mind after being awakened around 2 a.m. on Jan. 14.

At one point, he asked Arthur whether the agent was trained to recognize if someone with "developmental disabilities" -- even if "high functioning" -- could understand the rights he was describing. Hernandez did not elaborate, but Arthur said he was confident England understood the proceedings.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:19 am

Ya see......I belive in science. Dumb dumbs buy what the intelligent ones have to sell to them that works.

Call me stupid all you like, but I still make money on those that need what I have to offer. Like it or not, the ones that are right, are the ones that understand how the world really works.

Rob may have a problem with this.(what I have just said.) He's not dumb so I trhink you (those of you that dont agree with me.) may have to look to him for advise..
:lol:

(I like Rob. as in Rob the wop.)
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:22 am

DVD Burner wrote:I remember this.
Simply Joel wrote:Or maybe it was actually bought with "Food for Oil" program monies...
there are no auto manufacturers in the middle east, of course the vehicles are imported... and usually imported as "used"
DVD Burner wrote: You know something....I hope they do a thourogh investigation so that we can shut Joel and his goon squad up so he can find out that the U.S. had the biggest hand in taking the most money.
They always do.
yes, i do recall the above post as it related to a vehicle with a texas registration found in Fullja, yet i don't see a truck with texas registration found toed to the "oil for food" crimes. and if US companies did in fact commit violations of US law, then yes, they should be brought to justice.
DVD Burner wrote:Old news

IRAQ: Oil-for-Food probe hits U.S. Oil Companies

Exxon, Chevron and El Paso Are Named in CIA Report On Hussein-Era Program

by By Jess Bravin in New York, John D. Mckinnnon in Washington and Russel Gold Dallas, Wall Street Journal
October 13th, 2004

Federal investigators are focusing on four American oil companies and three U.S. citizens who allegedly received vouchers for oil from Saddam Hussein as he sought to flout United Nations sanctions.

The U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan also is investigating corruption allegations against the former head of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan, according to a person familiar with the case.

The U.S. companies -- including Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. and El Paso Corp. or their predecessors -- and individuals were identified in the Central Intelligence Agency's 1,000-page report on the Hussein regime's campaign, though their names were redacted from the publicly released version. While confirming that sanctions had prevented Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, the report by arms inspector Charles Duelfer, released last week, described efforts by the Hussein regime to manipulate the Oil-for-Food program in its favor, circumventing U.N. mandates, and possibly U.S. law.

A federal grand jury in Manhattan is investigating whether there was corruption in the Oil-for-Food program. Exxon, El Paso, and Chevron previously confirmed that they were among companies to receive subpoenas. Others identified in the Duelfer report as receiving the vouchers include Bayoil, a closely held Houston oil company, and three individuals who campaigned to end the Iraq sanctions: Oscar Wyatt, of Houston; Shakir al Khafaji, of West Bloomfield, Mich.; and Samir Vincent, of Annandale, Va. Together, the companies and individuals received vouchers valued at 111 million barrels of oil, according to the Duelfer report.

Officials stressed that the allocation of vouchers -- negotiable instruments that could be traded for Iraqi oil -- wasn't necessarily criminal and that no one has been charged with an offense.

In May 2002, a page one article in The Wall Street Journal reported that the Hussein regime had skimmed hundreds of millions of dollars and that several U.S. companies had been major consumers of Iraqi oil. The Duelfer report, which relied on captured Iraqi documents and interrogations of Mr. Hussein and officials of his regime, estimated the former Baghdad government had illegally collected $11 billion, in part by selling the oil below market price and receiving the difference through kickbacks. It also says Mr. Hussein gave oil vouchers to influential people and organizations overseas.

The U.N. Security Council blocked Iraqi oil sales to punish Mr. Hussein following his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. During the 1990s, however, Security Council members such as France and Russia sought to end sanctions, contending they were harming Iraq's civilian population. As a compromise, the U.S. and Britain agreed to the Oil-for-Food Program, which was intended to allow carefully monitored sales of Iraqi oil to pay for humanitarian supplies. A U.S. Treasury spokeswoman said the department is reviewing the license it granted to those who participated in the Oil-for-Food program.

A Chevron spokesman said yesterday that the San Ramon, Calif., company was cooperating with the investigation and added that "all purchases of Iraqi crude by ChevronTexaco were made in full compliance with all applicable laws."

El Paso, of Houston, in 2001 took over the assets of Coastal Corp., a company once run by Mr. Wyatt. It has since sold off all its refining assets, according to an El Paso spokesman, who said the company is cooperating with the investigation. Exxon, of Irving, Texas, couldn't be reached; it previously said it was "responding appropriately" to the subpoena. In recent days, a lawyer for Bayoil, John Kotelly, wouldn't say whether that company had received a subpoena.

The individuals named couldn't be reached for comment.

It is unclear how the investigation will affect the companies named. Big publicly traded oil companies have been under increasing pressure to line up new supplies as reserves in more-stable regions have declined, and this search often puts them in contact with countries with unstable political systems and histories of corruption. It isn't unusual for the companies to face subpoenas and investigations as a result. Major oil companies have extensive written policies prohibiting bribing officials or violating international sanctions.

The Duelfer report lists hundreds of foreign companies and individuals who allegedly received Iraqi oil vouchers -- including Mr. Sevan -- but not the U.S. companies and citizens. The names were included in versions sent to congressional committees, however, and officials confirmed their accuracy. Many of the names were disclosed in January, when documents purportedly taken from Iraqi oil-ministry files were published in an Iraqi newspaper.

Mr. Sevan, a Cypriot and a career U.N. official, has denied wrongdoing. Although high-ranking U.N. officers enjoy diplomatic immunity from prosecution, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said he will waive the immunity for any U.N. employee an independent panel appointed by Mr. Annan and headed by Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, finds has broken the law.

Citing former Iraqi officials, the Duelfer report says Mr. Sevan received vouchers for 13 million barrels of oil and redeemed 7.3 million barrels.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
SUCKERS!
<plonk>

So, DVD, you have already found them guilty? without the benefit of trial?

that seems so.... so... so typical of you.

<plonk>

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:27 am

yes, i do recall the above post as it related to a vehicle with a texas registration found in Fullja, yet i don't see a truck with texas registration found toed to the "oil for food" crimes. and if US companies did in fact commit violations of US law, then yes, they should be brought to justice.
You are gonna fall into the trap again.

I'm disappointed in you Joel.
You are supposed to be smarter than that..........so I thought. Hey I could be wrong but at least I am man.....human enough to admit when I am wrong.


I dont remember you ever doing that.

Please point that out.


(I always win…..sucks being awesome. I hate games.)
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:32 am

<plonk>

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:45 am

Simply Joel wrote:<plonk>

Plonk me all you want when you don’t want to face the facts.

Place the facts to me, then plonk me.

Pleeeease get your facts straight before you plonk me, then and only then will I accept the plonks.

In fact, I will make the plonk that EPLAYA has been asking for.

( exactly the reason why I have not even lifted a finger creating code to make an ignore function for eplaya until the bullshit artists such as PP and 3 made one first to plonk me……. literally.)

Suckers.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:49 am

DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:<plonk>
Plonk me all you want when you don’t want to face the facts.
Place the facts to me, then plonk me.

Pleeeease get your facts straight before you plonk me, then and only then will I accept the plonks.
In fact, I will make the plonk that EPLAYA has been asking for.
( exactly the reason why I have not even lifted a finger creating code to make an ignore function for eplaya until the bullshit artists such as PP and 3 made one first to plonk me……. literally.)

Suckers.
if anyone can determine the meaning of the above post, please PM your explanation to me.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:55 am

Simply Joel wrote: if anyone can determine the meaning of the above post, please PM your explanation to me.
Yes....get as much help as you can. You will need it.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:19 am

DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote: if anyone can determine the meaning of the above post, please PM your explanation to me.
Yes....get as much help as you can. You will need it.
Simply Joel wrote:how about your credentials, DVD?

i'd like to see a side by side comparison.... maybe your resume' against the president's, the VP's, Colin Powell's??

hell, i am willing to place mine side by side of yours here on the e-playa and let others be the judge of our credentials.
yes, this is a dupicate post challenge, of which DVD has declined....

<mimicking DVD's faux outrage>

"What does he have to hide?"

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:24 am

Simply Joel wrote:how about your credentials, DVD?

i'd like to see a side by side comparison.... maybe your resume' against the president's, the VP's, Colin Powell's??

hell, i am willing to place mine side by side of yours here on the e-playa and let others be the judge of our credentials.
yes, this is a dupicate post challenge, of which DVD has declined....

<mimicking DVD's faux outrage>

"What does he have to hide?"[/quote]

Speaking of dupicates, I know you are not comparing your resume with the president and Powell's? :shock:

:lol:


DVD Burner wrote:Your resume cant compete with mine.

You and your buddies are still gonna buy whatever we make.

You need it and you and those like you are not smart enough to figure out how to do it.

Our trade’s secret
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:25 am

Should have been seperate:
Speaking of dupicates, I know you are not comparing your resume with the president and Powell's?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:25 am

This is really getting boring.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:49 am

www.monster.com

Resume ID: 14592652

here is my base resume'

does my resume compare to Colin Powell's, no, it isn't as quite as impressive...

this is where i say...

"put up or shut up"
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:55 am

Simply Joel wrote:www.monster.com

Resume ID: 14592652

here is my base resume'

does my resume compare to Colin Powell's, no, it isn't as quite as impressive...

this is where i say...

"put up or shut up"
Hummm,

Desperate to use Monster.com?

Dice is where the money is at and you are not there.

anyhoo,

The election in ohio has flaws. Just found out. How? Through Diebold. Votes were merged allowing votes from Kerry to be merged to Bush.

Dont need to provide cites. There will be pleanty of cites today, tomorrow and everyday afterwards.

Good night.....or good morning.....woops wrong thread.

( Yes the papers will be filed by cliff arnebeck in a few hours with proof.)

:lol:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:51 am

does it matter where i store my base resume'?
and regarding the election... Kerry conceded it you don't recall.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:27 am

A Second Term of Surprises?
By David S. Broder

Anyone who thinks it possible to predict the course of President Bush's second term needs to think again. History says you never know what may happen next.

The last two-term Republican president was Ronald Reagan, and I well remember my astonishment when the start of his second term was marked by massive and successful protests in Washington against the administration's tolerance of apartheid in South Africa.

Anyone who knew that president's general indifference to racial issues in this country -- let alone South Africa -- would have said the demonstrations were futile. But the picketing of the South African Embassy built on its own momentum and produced a change in U.S. policy toward that country, eventually leading to the freeing of Nelson Mandela.

Equally unexpected to anyone covering Washington today is the spectacle of Republican conservatives on Capitol Hill standing up to President Bush on the plan for overhauling the intelligence services.

What began as a rare disagreement inside the normally disciplined House Republican conference has grown into the first full-scale test of the credibility of the second-term administration.

On the Sunday talk shows, those supporting the Senate version of intelligence reform repeatedly invoked the names of President Bush and Vice President Cheney in an effort to cow the critics. One set of opponents claims that the plan would jeopardize the lives of troops in combat by denying their commanders direct control of battlefield intelligence. A second group says it is weak in its safeguards against would-be terrorists crossing the border into the United States.

Senators of both parties said it is unthinkable that the president and vice president could be so misguided as to put the lives of soldiers and the safety of the nation in jeopardy. But instead of withering, Chairmen Duncan Hunter of the House Armed Services Committee and James Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary Committee reiterated their objections, brushing aside the notion that whatever George Bush wants, George Bush should get.

Even if -- as some suggest -- Bush was initially lukewarm to the intelligence reorganization endorsed by the Sept. 11 commission, he has been put squarely in the middle of this fight. And the stakes have grown. On one hand, it has become a test of whether Bush will override the objections of the Pentagon or allow the White House to be thwarted by the uniformed and civilian bureaucracy of that other building.

On the other hand, it has become an early -- and unwanted -- test of basic legislative strategy. The plan the president has endorsed and the Senate almost unanimously favors can be passed in the House by combining most Democrats' votes with those of some Republicans. But House Speaker Dennis Hastert does not want to split his own caucus, even to give Bush a victory, so the pressure is on the president to find some way to accommodate Hunter and Sensenbrenner and their allies.

Here we are, just a month beyond Election Day with Bush's inauguration still weeks away, and already the political plot has taken a totally unexpected turn. Be prepared for more -- and bigger -- surprises.



The job of a television network anchor is like nothing else in American journalism. It requires a combination of strong reporting skills, a winning personality and the kind of self-control that can cope with crises and maintain enough calm so that others on that news team can do their jobs as well.

Tom Brokaw, who winds up his career at NBC this week, has all those qualities. In addition, he has the kind of innate decency and generosity of spirit the Midwest produces in its people. Despite the celebrity that TV gave him, he never has gotten a swelled head or confused himself with the Voice of Authority.

Over the years, I had the pleasure of his company on many assignments and during many dinners. Print reporters are supposed to look on TV stars with a mixture of envy (for their salaries) and scorn (for their showbiz shallowness). Brokaw is much too down-to-earth to allow the first and much too knowledgeable on politics to occasion the second.

As with his predecessor, the late John Chancellor, his only visible weakness was a liking for the companionship of newspaper people. And that flaw is easy to forgive.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:42 am

a now a few words from a mean-mouthed white woman lawyer...


IT'S DR. RICE, NOT DR. DRE
by Ann Coulter

In light of their reaction to the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, I gather liberals have gotten over their enthusiasm for multiculturalist milestones. It's interesting that they dropped their celebrations of the "first woman!" "first black!" "first Asian!" designations at the precise moment that we are about to get our first black female secretary of state.

When Madeleine Albright was appointed the FIRST WOMAN secretary of state, the media was euphoric. (And if memory serves, Monica Lewinsky was the first Jewish female to occupy her various positions on the president's, uh, staff.)

With Albright at the helm of the State Department, Osama bin Laden ran wild throughout the Middle East, the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes under her nose, and we staged a pre-emptive attack solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people by Albright about a world leader who was not an imminent threat to the United States. Slobodan Milosevic wasn't even a latent, long-term, hypothetical threat.

But the girls in the mainstream media were too smitten with Albright's brooch collection and high heels to notice the shambles she was making of foreign policy.

The New York Times raved about Albright's brooches in an article titled, "A Diplomat Who Says 'Read My Pins.'" In the San Francisco Chronicle, Leah Garchik was amazed by Albright's "jewel-encrusted flag" pin -- Albright's clever ruse to prove that Republicans did not have "dibs on patriotic jewelry." Perhaps Rice could impress American journalists if she talked more about her accessorizing.

People magazine quoted an aide gushing that Albright "stays in her heels all day." Albright herself told Harper's Bazaar, "I've kidded that the advantage of being a woman secretary of state is makeup." This was a great leap forward for feminism? At this point even Paris Hilton was rolling her eyes and saying, "Oh, come on now!"

But Bush nominates a brilliant geopolitical thinker who happens to be black and female and all of a sudden she's Butterfly McQueen, who don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no Middle Eastern democracies.

Earlier this year, the flamboyant Richard Clarke claimed that when he briefed Rice in early 2001 about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." It's good to know that Clinton's chief terrorism "expert" believes himself to possess paranormal abilities such as ESP.

Why couldn't Dick Clarke have used some of those mind-reading skills on Osama before al-Qaida blew up the USS Cole in October 2000? Or after? To the bitter end, the official position of the Clinton administration was that it couldn't say for sure who was responsible for the Cole attack.

Apparently, liberals believe Rice compares unfavorably to Madeleine Albright, whose principle accomplishment before becoming secretary of state was managing to attain the age of 60 without realizing she was Jewish. That was raw competence.

I take that back: Albright also taught at Georgetown University. Of course, American universities make professors of people like Eldridge Cleaver's wife. (Kathleen Cleaver is currently at Yale law school; Susan Rosenberg, a participant in a Brinks car robbery, teaches at Hamilton College; former Weatherman Bill Ayers is a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago; and former Weatherman Bernardine Dohrn is the director of a legal clinic at Northwestern University.)

Or how about Clinton's first secretary of state, Warren Christopher, a lawyer whose dazzling foreign policy experience consisted of being President Carter's chief negotiator for the hostages in Iran? That's almost as impressive a resume entry as "Chief Iceberg Lookout, the Titanic," "Senior Design Engineer, the Edsel," "Navigator, Exxon Valdez," or "Writer/Executive Producer, 'Alexander.'"

The closest black woman to Bill Clinton was his secretary, Betty Currie -- whose principal function was penciling in "Monica" on Clinton's "To Do" list every morning. The closest black woman to most of the liberals accusing Rice of being incompetent is the maid they periodically accuse of stealing from the liquor cabinet.

George Bush chose a black woman to be his top adviser on national security. Now he wants her as his secretary of state. And when she becomes the first black female secretary of state, Rice will replace the first black secretary of state -- both appointed by right-wing Republican George Bush. The entire Bush cabinet is starting to look like an Image Awards telecast minus the fisticuffs and gunplay.

Democrats are terrified that black people might start to notice.

Say, there's a black woman standing next to President Bush ... who is that?

Never mind! It's probably somebody he's arresting!


It's extremely valuable for Democrats to be able to campaign in black neighborhoods while talking about the "white boys" running the Republican Party. When she was managing Al Gore's 2000 campaign, Donna Brazile said she was not going to "let the white boys win in this election." (If I had a nickel for every time I've confused Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Terry McAuliffe, Paul Begala and James Carville for the Jackson Five ...)

Sure enough, Brazile was instrumental in not letting a couple of white boys -- named Al and Joe -- win the election. I guess that's liberals' idea of a "competent" black woman.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:27 am

EXIT DANFORTH -- ENTER DANFORTHISM?
by Wm F. Buckely Jr

Plop in the middle of the entangled, entangling, impossible mess of the United Nations, where Kofi Annan's ego attempts achingly to overswell diurnal scandals (this morning's -- "Swiss Firm Suspected of Fraud/Paid U.N. Chief's Son $50,000"), enters John C. Danforth. This resolute human being, who only four months ago became U.S ambassador to the United Nations, announced that he was quitting. Why? And why at this time? Because, he said, he wants to be home. He needs to spend more time with his wife, Sally.

"Forty-seven years ago," Mr. Danforth wrote to the president, "I married the girl of my dreams, and, at this point in my life, what is most important to me is to spend more time with her. Because you know Sally, you know my reason for going home."

Well, if we knew Sally like John knows Sally, we'd perhaps simply ignore all other considerations before the house. But we don't, and are therefore driven to pause over other matters that might have entered the mind of John Danforth when he decided to pull out.

Pause, first, for an aerial view of the scene:

The secretary general is pretty universally discredited by a money scandal which some estimate as perhaps the largest in human history. It is a scandal that has so immobilized normal respiratory practices that Paul Volcker himself, the most direct and fearless public official in recent history, is tongue-tied. He appears to be hiding behind remote technicalities in order to serve the U.N., whose secretariat is of course the agent of Kofi Annan, who is the primary defendant in the whole mess.

There are no less than five congressional committees living on the tether's end of patience for failure to get cooperation from the U.N. on a matter of far-reaching concern. Is it possible that some of the $20 billion routed and re-routed from the sale of Iraqi oil, ostensibly collected to buy bread for starving Iraqis, has ended up by financing the insurgents who kill U.S. Marines every day?

But the framework is even wider, as the files on Sen. Danforth quickly reveal. New York Times correspondent Warren Hoge advises that it was actually the day after he wrote his private letter of resignation that Danforth publicly criticized the United Nations "in an unusually brash denunciation of a move in the General Assembly to cut off a motion that would have criticized human rights violations in Sudan, which the United States has called genocide."

Danforth declaimed: "One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly on days like this. One wonders if there can't be a clear and direct statement on matters of basic principle, why have this building (in New York City)? What is it all about?"

The question of legitimacy dogs the U.N. For years it has been so, living lopsidedly on the arbitrary allocations of membership in the Security Council done in San Francisco in 1945. But these distortions, and others -- notably the victimization of Israel and the coddling of Castro-Cuba -- diminished in strategic consequence because the Cold War swept away everything in its path, generating among other things the undenied and undeniable legitimacy of U.S. leadership of the free world.

That has changed. Europe's security from Soviet imperialism has led to the delegitimization of the U.S. as inherent and singular leader in policy-making on international problems. That is the reason for Europe's refusal to back our venture in Iraq. It isn't that Germany and France objected to troops in Iraq. They objected to their being dispatched there other than by an organization, the U.N., in which France exercised a veto power.

The survival, in its present shape, of a U.N. pockmarked by the charter of 1945 may not be in question: Nobody's about to rescind the U.N. But its prestige is at rock-bottom low. Its hypocrisy was sensed and indeed articulated by John Danforth, and its bureaucratic self-interest is reinforced by Kofi Annan's refusal to resign. It is a true mess, and whatever our concern for Sally, the world joins in asking, with John Danforth, "What is it all about?"

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Conservative Writer's Support Medicinal Marijuana

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:33 am

A CONSTITUTIONAL CASE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA
MAGGIE GALLAGHER
Hard cases make bad law, the old adage goes. But in the case of Ashcroft v. Raich, the medical marijuana case recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, the opposite may turn out to be true: A hard case may lead to a revival of a key principle of constitutional government: Congress has only limited powers over the states.

Angel Raich's case is certainly a hard one, at least if you believe her account. Smoking marijuana keeps her alive and able to care for her daughter. Without it she couldn't eat or get out of a wheelchair, the pain and nausea of her brain tumor and other illnesses were so bad. Medical authorities may dispute her claim (and her doctor has made medical marijuana consultations a suspiciously large part of his practice), but in law the case turns on an entirely different question: Not whether medical marijuana is effective or not, but whether growing marijuana in your own home for your own medical use constitutes "interstate commerce."

Do federal laws banning marijuana usurp California's state law permitting homegrown medical marijuana?

The glitch is a 1942 case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which a federal law limiting wheat production was held up, banning Mr. Filburn from growing and using wheat on his own farm, on the grounds that if you added up all the wheat grown and consumed on family farms, it might have an indirect effect on interstate commerce (i.e., the wheat that might have been sold across state lines if they hadn't grown and consumed their own wheat). By this tortuous logic, the Supreme Court transferred to Congress the right to tell a farmer what he could grow and eat on his own property. So expansive was this reading that for 30 years, any law passed by Congress was held to automatically qualify as "interstate commerce" because just about any act could potentially affect commerce, however indirectly.

Which is why Justice Souter in the oral arguments focused on the potential volume of marijuana that could be grown and consumed by sick people in California. (I've condensed the argument from legal scholar Lawrence Solum's report on his legal theory blog: www.lsolum.blogspot.com.) Justice Souter is questioning Ms. Raich's lawyer, Randy Barnett:

Justice Souter: Suppose that 100,000 people are in chemotherapy in California. Then couldn't there be 100,000 users of medical marijuana?

Barnett: There could be. ... Wickard v. Filburn's aggregation principle does not apply if the activity involved is noneconomic.

Justice Souter: But isn't it economic activity if it has a sizable effect on the market?

Barnett: No. The effect on the market is only relevant if it is market activity. ... The point is that economic activity and personal liberty are two different categories.

Justice Souter: That is not a very realistic premise.

Barnett: The premise is that it is possible to differentiate economic activity from personal activity. Prostitution is economic activity, and there may be some cross substitution effects between prostitution and sex within marriage, but that does not make sex within marriage economic activity. You look at the nature of the activity to determine whether or not it is economic.

Barnett is right, of course: Sex within marriage is not economic activity, and therefore regulating it is not regulating "interstate commerce" even though marital sexual activity may affect say, the purchase of lingerie, sheets or even prostitutes.

So is growing marijuana in your own home for your own medical consumption "interstate commerce," as the government alleges?

I think the answer is clear: No, it isn't. Therefore Congress has no power to restrict Ms. Raich's personal consumption activity, no matter how much you or I or a majority of voters disapprove of the California law that permits it.

As conservatives control national government, liberals (including those on the Supreme Court) may in general acquire a newfound respect for the virtues of at least some constitutional restrictions on the power of the federal government. Perhaps.

COPYRIGHT 2004 MAGGIE GALLAGHER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:23 am

is the challenge to the US to create a 21st centurt fuel to replace our dependence on oil/fosile fuels?
personally i think Freidman is correct.
it is time to re-invest in our scientific community and future generation's education in science and math.
your thoughts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 5, 2004
Fly Me to the Moon
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Of all the irresponsible aspects of the 2005 budget bill that the Republican-led Congress just passed, nothing could be more irresponsible than the fact that funding for the National Science Foundation was cut by nearly 2 percent, or $105 million.

Think about this. We are facing a mounting crisis in science and engineering education. The generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians who were spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the challenge by President John Kennedy to put a man on the moon is slowly retiring.

But because of the steady erosion of science, math and engineering education in U.S. high schools, our cold war generation of American scientists is not being fully replenished. We traditionally filled the gap with Indian, Chinese and other immigrant brainpower. But post-9/11, many of these foreign engineers are not coming here anymore, and, because the world is now flat and wired, many others can stay home and innovate without having to emigrate.

If we don't do something soon and dramatic to reverse this "erosion," Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me, we are not going to have the scientific foundation to sustain our high standard of living in 15 or 20 years.

Instead of doubling the N.S.F. budget - to support more science education and research at every level - this Congress decided to cut it! Could anything be more idiotic?

If President Bush is looking for a legacy, I have just the one for him - a national science project that would be our generation's moon shot: a crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation to make America energy-independent in 10 years. Imagine if every American kid, in every school, were galvanized around such a vision. Ah, you say, nice idea, Friedman, but what does it have to do with your subject - foreign policy?

Everything! You give me an America that is energy-independent and I will give you sharply reduced oil revenues for the worst governments in the world. I will give you political reform from Moscow to Riyadh to Tehran. Yes, deprive these regimes of the huge oil windfalls on which they depend and you will force them to reform by having to tap their people instead of oil wells. These regimes won't change when we tell them they should. They will change only when they tell themselves they must.

When did the Soviet Union collapse? When did reform take off in Iran? When did the Oslo peace process begin? When did economic reform become a hot topic in the Arab world? In the late 1980's and early 1990's. And what was also happening then? Oil prices were collapsing.

In November 1985, oil was $30 a barrel, recalled the noted oil economist Philip Verleger. By July of 1986, oil had fallen to $10 a barrel, and it did not climb back to $20 until April 1989. "Everyone thinks Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviets," said Mr. Verleger. "That is wrong. It was the collapse of their oil rents." It's no accident that the 1990's was the decade of falling oil prices and falling walls.

If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up revenue for terrorism; force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform - which they will never do with $45-a-barrel oil - strengthen the dollar; and improve his own standing in Europe, by doing something huge to reduce global warming. He would also create a magnet to inspire young people to contribute to the war on terrorism and America's future by becoming scientists, engineers and mathematicians. "This is not just a win-win," said the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. "This is a win-win-win-win-win."

Or, Mr. Bush can ignore this challenge and spend the next four years in an utterly futile effort to persuade Russia to be restrained, Saudi Arabia to be moderate, Iran to be cautious and Europe to be nice.

Sure, it would require some sacrifice. But remember J.F.K.'s words when he summoned us to go to the moon on Sept. 12, 1962: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

Summoning all our energies and skills to produce a 21st-century fuel is George W. Bush's opportunity to be both Nixon to China and J.F.K. to the moon - in one move.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:31 am

December 7, 2004
Inventing a Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.

I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems important to take a break from my break, and debunk the hype about a Social Security crisis.

There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.

It's true that the federal government as a whole faces a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall, however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security.

But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.

My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government.

If the trust fund is meaningless, by the way, that Greenspan-sponsored tax increase in the 1980's was nothing but an exercise in class warfare: taxes on working-class Americans went up, taxes on the affluent went down, and the workers have nothing to show for their sacrifice.

But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest.
They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.

For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
the question that comes to my mind is, "Where are the champions of the workingman, if what Paul Krugman says is true?"

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:23 pm

Wm F. Buckely Jr. wrote: NUKE TALK

It isn't to disavow our Iraqi venture to ponder what is to be done if it fails. It would not have been disloyal to the Vietnamese enterprise to have asked, in 1973, what we would do if we failed to arrest the Vietcong. We begin by asking: What critical event, or consolidation of events, would tell us that we had failed in Iraq?

The question needs to be asked with reasonable perspectives in mind.

The best way to solve the poverty of Brazil, someone commented a dozen years ago, would be to transport 5 million Swiss to live and work there. One way to solve the Iraq problem is to evacuate Iraqis and import Germans: such-scale solutions, mutatis mutandis, occurred to Adolf Hitler when he pondered the elimination of world Jewry.

No, the road signs will be different, more modest, even ambiguous. But they are there directly ahead. Most prominently, the Iraqi elections. Thought on that subject can be placed on a democratic blackboard more or less as follows:

Ninety percent of eligible Iraqis vote for non-Baathist parties.
Score: A.

Fifty percent vote for democratically oriented parties pledging the separation of church and state.
Score B if the non-voters are acquiescent. Score D if the non-voters resist.

An "A" vote for democracy in Iraq would be a great event; but the exercise today is to consider U.S. action in case it does not work out with the elections. One alternative is to try to think of Iraq as a kind of outpost of U.S. strategic concern, as India was for the British for a hundred years, so that a parent might point to a third son, age 10, and say, "Reginald, here, will go to India, and perhaps return after 40 years' service."

That is only a conceptual alternative, because the world is too fast-paced to proceed to such a drumbeat of historical rhythms, and the American temperament does not accommodate resident colonialism. We can fight hard for Cuba or the Philippines, but we want then to get out, and that inclination grows firmer as the years go by.

If the election in Iraq fails to bring on organic democratic reorientation, we will need to find words to describe the tergiversation. They'll boil down to: We tried and we failed. This is not an argument against trying. We will be trying through the life of the republic to promote peace and liberty.

But the hard target will not be less visible whatever happens in the Iraqi elections. It is of course the problem of what is happening, or might be happening, in Iran. There are in this world myriad weapons of mass destruction, but one of them is unique, the nuclear weapon. And that weapon is fondled in the apocalyptic imagination of men who seem to have the liberty to proceed.

The actual development of a nuclear bomb is by no means masturbatory arms talk. The things exist; and whereas one might feel an itchy confidence that they will never get out of the hands of reliable people in India, Pakistan and Israel, it is by no means safe to assume that such weaponry, merchandised by profit-seekers and terrorists, will not one day, the curtains dramatically parted, make known its presence in Iran, as it has all but made its presence known in North Korea.

That is a concern that shoves Iraq to one side, because nuclear weapons close off alternatives, and trade in a million deaths.

That challenge has to occupy the American strategic imagination, which must not be hobbled by equivocations traceable to the Iraqi enterprise. It is one thing to endorse and encourage ongoing military efforts in Iraq, another to permit, based on what happens there, an impotent fatalism about the nuclear question, a fatalism already visible in our half-dealings with North Korea and Iran.
COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:20 pm

AP. San Francisco
December 8, 2004

Today forces bent on convincing some opposition that their opinions and beliefs were wrong, felt the wrath of other forces bent on using force and media manipulation to achieve their goals. Officials maintained an eerie silence over rumors that unknown contributors, using questionable financing devices, were using the weight of their financial outlays to influence a few select individuals. Meanwhile religious groups battled each other over interpretations of sacred texts from another millennium. No one emerged from the debate a clear winner. Pollsters were convinced that early analysis of the feuds pointed to a saturation of ideas put forth from numerous sources, further noting that according to public perception, those who appeared to be right were in fact wrong and those who appeared to be wrong, were in fact right. Social scientists were unable to reach agreement on how to interpret the results. Congress is studying inclusion of a new item to the Patriot Act, to ban public opinion in such cases..
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:52 am

cowboyangel wrote:AP. San Francisco
December 8, 2004

Today forces bent on convincing some opposition that their opinions and beliefs were wrong, felt the wrath of other forces bent on using force and media manipulation to achieve their goals. Officials maintained an eerie silence over rumors that unknown contributors, using questionable financing devices, were using the weight of their financial outlays to influence a few select individuals. Meanwhile religious groups battled each other over interpretations of sacred texts from another millennium. No one emerged from the debate a clear winner. Pollsters were convinced that early analysis of the feuds pointed to a saturation of ideas put forth from numerous sources, further noting that according to public perception, those who appeared to be right were in fact wrong and those who appeared to be wrong, were in fact right. Social scientists were unable to reach agreement on how to interpret the results. Congress is studying inclusion of a new item to the Patriot Act, to ban public opinion in such cases..
uh huh.

The article below makes me proud of and to have been a "citizen-soldiers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 9, 2004
Rumsfeld Says Hearing Troops' Questions Was Good
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:12 a.m. ET

NEW DELHI, India (AP) -- A day after being challenged by a soldier on the Army's failure to provide adequate armor for vehicles used in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he expects the Army to do its best to resolve the problem.

Thousands of miles away, President Bush echoed Rumsfeld's sentiments.

``The concerns expressed are being addressed and that is -- we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment,'' Bush said at the White House. ``If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question. And that is, 'Are we getting the best we can get us?' And they deserve the best.

``And I have told many families I've met with, we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones in a mission which is vital and important. And that mission is to spread freedom and peace,'' Bush said.

Rumsfeld, on a visit to the Indian capital, said it was good that ordinary soldiers are given a chance to express their concerns to the secretary of defense and senior military commanders.

``It's necessary for the Army to hear that, do something about it and see that everyone is treated properly,'' Rumsfeld said, referring not only to the complaint about insufficient armor but also another soldier's statement about not getting reimbursed for certain expenses in a timely way.

Those complaints, and others, were aired on Wednesday when Rumsfeld held a ``town hall'' style meeting with about 2,300 soldiers at Camp Buehring in northern Kuwait, a transit camp for troops heading into Iraq.

Spc. Thomas Wilson had asked Rumsfeld, ``Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?'' Shouts of approval and applause arose from other soldiers who had assembled in an aircraft hangar to see Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

``We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,'' Wilson, 31, of Nashville, Tenn., concluded after asking again.

``You go to war with the Army you have,'' Rumsfeld replied, ``not the Army you might want or wish to have.''

Asked on Thursday about that exchange, the defense secretary said he believed the session in general was ``very fine, warm (and) enjoyable.'' As for Wilson's statement, Rumsfeld said it could be constructive.

``I don't know what the facts are, but somebody is certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know,'' Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld gave no indication that the soldier would face any kind of disciplinary action for speaking up. Indeed, the defense secretary said he found it healthy for soldiers to feel free to express their views.

He also said military vehicles that go into Iraq without full armor are used only inside U.S. compounds, rather than used on street patrols where they are vulnerable to roadside bombs. And he said those vehicles without full armor are moved into Iraq on transport vehicles rather than being driven.

More broadly, Rumsfeld said people should understand that the military has done all that can reasonably be expected to adjust to changing circumstances in Iraq as the insurgents have refined their tactics.

``That is the way war and insurgencies and combat operate,'' he said. ``You go in, you have an enemy with a brain that does things, and then you make adjustments.'' He added, ``Does everything happen instantaneously as the brain in the enemy sees things and makes changes? No, it doesn't happen instantaneously.'' But, he said, the Army has adjusted ``pretty rapidly'' to the evolving tactics of the insurgents, including the need to have more armor on vehicles like the Humvee.

Rumsfeld spoke after meeting Thursday with Indian Defense Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee. At the Ministry of Defense, Rumsfeld read a brief statement to reporters on U.S.-Indian military cooperation.

``The defense relationship is a strong one and something we intend to see is further knitted together as we go forward in the months and years ahead,'' he said.

Later he was meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then flying back to Washington.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press
The underlying reason for the lack of armor is the cost.
The money simply wasn't appropriated by your congressional representatives.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Worth A Read.

Post by Simply Joel » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:45 am

December 10, 2004
Trees for Democracy
By WANGARI MAATHAI

Nairobi, Kenya

WHEN I was growing up in Nyeri in central Kenya, there was no word for desert in my mother tongue, Kikuyu. Our land was fertile and forested. But today in Nyeri, as in much of Africa and the developing world, water sources have dried up, the soil is parched and unsuitable for growing food, and conflicts over land are common. So it should come as no surprise that I was inspired to plant trees to help meet the basic needs of rural women. As a member of the National Council of Women of Kenya in the early 1970's, I listened as women related what they wanted but did not have enough of: energy, clean drinking water and nutritious food.

My response was to begin planting trees with them, to help heal the land and break the cycle of poverty. Trees stop soil erosion, leading to water conservation and increased rainfall. Trees provide fuel, material for building and fencing, fruits, fodder, shade and beauty. As household managers in rural and urban areas of the developing world, women are the first to encounter the effects of ecological stress. It forces them to walk farther to get wood for cooking and heating, to search for clean water and to find new sources of food as old ones disappear.

My idea evolved into the Green Belt Movement, made up of thousands of groups, primarily of women, who have planted 30 million trees across Kenya. The women are paid a small amount for each seedling they grow, giving them an income as well as improving their environment. The movement has spread to countries in East and Central Africa.

Through this work, I came to see that environmental degradation by poor communities was both a source of their problems and a symptom. Growing crops on steep mountain slopes leads to loss of topsoil and land deterioration. Similarly, deforestation causes rivers to dry up and rainfall patterns to shift, which, in turn, result in much lower crop yields and less land for grazing.

In the 1970's and 1980's, as I was encouraging farmers to plant trees on their land, I also discovered that corrupt government agents were responsible for much of the deforestation by illegally selling off land and trees to well-connected developers. In the early 1990's, the livelihoods, the rights and even the lives of many Kenyans in the Rift Valley were lost when elements of President Daniel arap Moi's government encouraged ethnic communities to attack one another over land. Supporters of the ruling party got the land, while those in the pro-democracy movement were displaced. This was one of the government's ways of retaining power; if communities were kept busy fighting over land, they would have less opportunity to demand democracy.

Land issues in Kenya are complex and easily exploited by politicians. Communities needed to understand and be sensitized about the history of land ownership and distribution in Kenya and Africa. We held seminars on human rights, governing and reducing conflict.

In time, the Green Belt Movement became a leading advocate of reintroducing multiparty democracy and free and fair elections in Kenya. Through public education, political advocacy and protests, we also sought to protect open spaces and forests from unscrupulous developers, who were often working hand in hand with politicians, through public education, political advocacy and protests. Mr. Moi's government strongly opposed advocates for democracy and environmental rights; harassment, beatings, death threats and jail time followed, for me and for many others.

Fortunately, in 2002, Kenyans realized their dream and elected a democratic government. What we've learned in Kenya - the symbiotic relationship between the sustainable management of natural resources and democratic governance - is also relevant globally.

Indeed, many local and international wars, like those in West and Central Africa and the Middle East, continue to be fought over resources. In the process, human rights, democracy and democratic space are denied.

I believe the Nobel Committee recognized the links between the environment, democracy and peace and sought to bring them to worldwide attention with the Peace Prize that I am accepting today. The committee, I believe, is seeking to encourage community efforts to restore the earth at a time when we face the ecological crises of deforestation, desertification, water scarcity and a lack of biological diversity.

Unless we properly manage resources like forests, water, land, minerals and oil, we will not win the fight against poverty. And there will not be peace. Old conflicts will rage on and new resource wars will erupt unless we change the path we are on.

To celebrate this award, and the work it recognizes of those around the world, let me recall the words of Gandhi: My life is my message. Also, plant a tree.

Wangari Maathai, the 2004 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is Kenya's assistant minister for environment and natural resources and the founder of the Green Belt Movement.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:26 pm

There ain't anything wrong with Social Security except the Government's
"borrowing" from the fund




Anti-Social Security
by Dean Baker


Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
T he battle for Social Security's survival is under way. In a key maneuver recently, N. Gregory Mankiw, George W. Bush's chief economic adviser, explicitly floated the idea of cutting benefits, a necessary but unmentioned part of the White House's privatization plan. More details will be presented to the public in the weeks ahead, but the outlines of the Bush plan are already clear, having been laid out by his 2001 Social Security Commission. As Mankiw suggested, the Bush plan would require a large reduction in the benefits provided by the existing system. A worker who is 20 today would see a cut of approximately one-third in his or her retirement benefit, although workers would theoretically more than recoup this loss by investing a portion of their Social Security taxes in a private account.

The President's main pitch is that these accounts will yield higher returns than Social Security does. The pitch also includes rhetoric about the accounts being "your money," and giving every worker a stake in the "ownership society." These claims are mostly bad math, faulty logic and deception. Advocates of private accounts assume that the stock market will give the same returns in the future as it has in the past, even though price-to-earnings ratios in the stock market are far higher now than in the past, and the Social Security trustees project that profits will grow at about half the rate they did in the past. None of the proponents of privatization have yet passed the "no economist left behind test," which asks them to show the set of dividend yields and stock price increases that add up to the stock returns they assume in their analysis.

ADVERTISEMENT
Private accounts also have high administrative costs. According to Bush's Social Security Commission, their private accounts will cost about ten times as much to administer as in the current system if they're handled through a single government-managed system. If Wall Street gets its hands on this money, with everyone going to his or her local bank or brokerage house--as is the case with the privatized systems in England and Chile--the costs could be thirty times as high as the cost of our Social Security system. When the administrative costs are combined with real numbers on stock returns, the individual accounts will provide no better returns on average than the government bonds currently held by the Social Security trust fund. The accounts just add risk--individuals may invest poorly or retire during a market downturn, leaving them with much less money than they'd have under the current system.

The faulty logic is telling workers that the dollars in their accounts are "your money." When money is genuinely "your money," you do what you want with it. This is a real problem--restrictions on existing private retirement accounts have consistently been relaxed to allow withdrawals for education, starting a business or other purposes. These are legitimate uses of workers' money, but not the way to secure money for retirement. The only way to preserve money for retirement is if the government requires that it stay in the account--but then it is not really "your money."

Under Bush's plan, workers will even be able to pass their private accounts on to their children, which raises the same problem. If the account will be there to support a worker's retirement, then the money can't also be passed down to children. While a small number of wealthy people may be in a position of not needing their accounts, creating this opt-out option will add further to the administrative costs for everyone--reducing benefits by another 5 to 10 percent, according to an extensive body of research.

Of course, the only reason anyone is even talking about cutting benefits and privatizing the program is that the right has managed to convince the public that Social Security is on its last legs. For more than two decades they have spread stories about the baby boomers bankrupting the system and multitrillion-dollar debts left to our children and grandchildren. In reality the program can pay all scheduled benefits long past the boomers' retirement. According to the Social Security trustees report, it can pay full benefits through the year 2042 with no changes whatsoever. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts the date at 2052. And even after those dates, Social Security will always be able to pay a higher benefit (adjusted for inflation) than what retirees receive today. Those scary multitrillion-dollar debts translate into a deficit equal to 0.7 percent of future income--presented in very precise form in the Social Security trustees report for those who care to look.

Social Security is the country's most important and successful social program. It provides a large measure of economic security to the whole country, uniting the interests of the poor and the middle class. The program not only keeps tens of millions of retirees out of poverty, it also provides disability and survivors insurance to almost the entire working population. More children receive benefits from Social Security than from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (the revamped welfare program). Social Security is also extremely efficient and has a minimal amount of fraud and abuse.

It's a hugely popular program. Close to 90 percent of the public regularly affirms that we spend either too little or the right amount on Social Security. While polls also show majority support for private accounts, that's only when the question is asked, Would you like a private account? When the real-world question, Would you like a private account if it means a cut in your Social Security benefits? is asked, substantial majorities say no. Bush's Social Security plans are grounds for a decisive battle early in the Administration's second term. The public is overwhelmingly on our side; they just need to know the truth.

Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!

If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:55 pm

Greenspan's Con Job
by William Greider


Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
I t is not exactly that he lies, but Alan Greenspan certainly ranks among the most duplicitous figures to serve in modern American government. Using his exalted status as economic wizard, the Federal Reserve chairman regularly corrupts the political dialogue by sowing outrageously false impressions among gullible members of Congress and adoring financial reporters. These distortions are not harmless; they become solemn writ for lawmakers and opinionmongers. Greenspan is especially destructive when he opines on public matters outside his supposed expertise as a central banker. His thinking is still anchored by Ayn Rand's brittle social philosophy: Let the strong prevail, let the weak pay for their weakness.

The Fed chairman's recent remarks on Social Security and the federal budget deficits offer a particularly chilling example. In a House budget hearing, he elided the two subjects in a way that produced predictable scare headlines and chin-wagging editorials. The deficits must be dealt with promptly, he warned, because the baby boomers are about to retire. Then Social Security will be in trouble. And so government must cut benefits now, before it's too late. "I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," he explained. "You don't have the resources to do it all."

ADVERTISEMENT
That sounds like manly wisdom. Greenspan was widely praised for courage. He should more properly be pilloried for gross mendacity. He is proposing a con job on ordinary working Americans--a bait-and-switch game on a grand scale--in which the payroll taxes they paid into Social Security over many years will now be diverted to other purposes, including the generous tax reductions G.W. Bush has enacted for the very wealthy and the corporations. It doesn't sound so noble when you put it that way. Greenspan knows these facts but also knows his big lie will probably endure as conventional wisdom. Typically, the media shorthanded his comments to create a larger fallacy--that Social Security is part of the deficit problem, therefore future retirees deserve to take the hit.

Here is the truth: Social Security is not in deficit, not now and not for at least the next forty years. The trust fund will have a surplus next year of $1.8 trillion. In 2011 when, Greenspan warns, the baby boomers will start retiring in large numbers, the surplus will be $3.2 trillion. These stored savings, plus future payroll-tax revenue, are sufficient to pay all retirees the current level of benefits through 2042, according to the fund's very conservative actuaries.

The problem is, the government borrowed this money and has spent it on other projects. But the trust fund, despite what right-wingers like to claim, is not an accounting gimmick. The government is legally obligated to pay back the money (as surely as it is obliged to repay Treasury bonds). The borrowed trillions, in fiduciary terms, belong to the "beneficial owners"--every worker who has paid higher payroll taxes for the past twenty years.

Greenspan is familiar with the accounting because he was chairman of the bipartisan commission that supposedly "fixed" the Social Security problem back in 1983 by imposing a huge increase in FICA payroll taxes--extra revenue that produced the still-growing surpluses. This historic tax shift (I think of it as the "crime of '83") was most convenient to the Reagan Administration because Reaganomics had just created huge budget deficits by cutting income taxes for the monied interests and pumping up the military budget. The burgeoning surpluses from the Social Security payroll tax would help offset the economic impact of the deficits. Hardly anyone noticed at the time, since Democrats cooperated in the "solution." Now Bush Jr. has done the same thing. And Greenspan is proposing another "fix": Double-cross the workers who paid the extra trillions; don't disturb the new monster tax cuts delivered to the rich. Any con artist would appreciate the bait-and-switch as a nifty piece of work.

But the epic swindle may yet fail. Politicians, even the right-wing variety, hesitate to close the deal for fear the "marks"--workers, young and old--might figure it out. Meanwhile, there's one simple and just solution for any long-term fiscal problems Social Security might face: Eliminate the income cap of $87,000 on FICA taxes so that every highly paid worker, even Bill Gates, would pay the full freight. Since wealthy earners have benefited disproportionately from tax reduction, this would be their personal contribution to restoring fiscal order. Why doesn't someone ask the Fed chairman about that? If Democrats were more attentive to their constituencies, they would be aggressively promoting this reasonable alternative to Greenspan's sordid double talk, attacking him for duplicity and filing resolutions of impeachment. Did the Federal Reserve chairman knowingly deceive Congress and the public? What did the chairman know and when did he know it? Let the hearings begin.

Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!

If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:34 pm

or

December 11, 2004
Real Reform for Social Security
By DAVID BROOKS

Before we get lost in the policy details, let's be clear about what this Social Security reform debate is really about. It's about the market. People who instinctively trust the markets support the Bush reform ideas, and people who are suspicious oppose them.

The people setting the tone for the opposition to the Bush Social Security effort depict the financial markets as huge, organized scams where the rich prey upon the weak. Their phrases are already familiar: a risky scheme, Enron accounting, a gift to the securities industry, greedy speculators preying upon Grandma's pension.

Gone is the day when President Clinton could propose another plan diverting 15 percent of Social Security reserves into the stock market. Now the Democratic Party's tone is much more populist and even antibusiness. Harry Reid has begun his tenure as Senate minority leader by doing his best imitation of Huey Long: "They are trying to destroy Social Security by giving this money to the fat cats on Wall Street, and I think it's wrong!"

What you hear these days is not liberalism. It's conspiracyism. It's the belief that the Bushite corporate cabal is going to do to domestic programs what the Bushite neocon cabal did in the realm of foreign affairs. It's the belief in malevolent and shadowy forces that will grab everything for their own greedy ends. This is Michael Moore-ism applied to domestic affairs, and it will leave the Democrats only deeper in the hole.

I don't deny that many business and Wall Street types would like to capture the system for their own benefit. As Theodore Roosevelt observed, every new social arrangement begets its own kind of sin, which has to be punished by law. But as Roosevelt and his great hero Alexander Hamilton understood, corruption is the price we pay for economic freedom, and the benefits of that freedom vastly outweigh the costs.

Hamilton and Roosevelt championed markets because they arouse energies, channel information, allocate resources and create enormous wealth. Plans to create private Social Security accounts aren't sops to the securities industry. They use the power of the market to solve an otherwise intractable problem.

The outline of the problem is clear. When the Social Security program was created, there were 42 workers for each retiree. Now there are about three workers per retiree, and in 2030 there will be two.

The White House is heading toward a reform plan that would tie the benefit levels to prices rather than wages, which is a serious benefit cut. It would then use the power of the markets to compensate retirees for those cuts and to create a reserve fund to make the system solvent.

The government would essentially borrow at 2 percent in real terms, invest that money through regulated private accounts in the market and get a return, based on conservative historical averages, of about 4.6 percent. Those returns would, over time, cover the $11 trillion in liabilities that threaten to bring down the system.

People who think the markets are a rigged game, or who think financial profits are just paper profits, won't like this approach. But the fact is that over the next decade - whether we are talking about pensions, health care or even schools - the central argument is not going to be over whether to apply market competition to these problems. It's going to be over how to structure competition to produce the most dynamic results.

I may be a complete idiot, but I actually believe that Democrats and Republicans can reach a grand bargain that includes personal Social Security accounts while addressing Democratic objections.

You already see some Democrats growing concerned over the perception that their party is trying to build a bridge to the 1930's. On Thursday, the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, struck a very different tone than her Senate colleague. She is willing to enter into discussions about Social Security reform with no preconditions. Meanwhile, a Democratic underground is forming, made up of members of Congress willing to consider a grand compromise with Bush to make the system solvent.

Even the White House folks seem to know they can't do this without Democratic support. They will have to protect the system's progressivity and have mechanisms built in to combat the corruption. They're going to have to do something about the deficit.

This is not 1932 any more. This is not the age of big, static state institutions. This is actually about building a bridge to the 22nd century.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Locked

Return to “Open Discussion”