OPPOSE BUSHY

BEST, ABSOLUTE BEST PROGRAM ON TV IS THE ANCIENT ALIENS SERIES ON HISTORY CHANNEL

2010-05-07T07:58:00.001-07:00

THIS SERIES IS THE VERY BEST SHOW ON TV NOW OR EVER. I AM AGAIN A GIGANTIC HISTORY CHANNEL FAN AND SUPPORTER FOR THIS SHOW ALONE!

PREACHER PRAYS OBAMA GETS CANCER AND DIES

2009-09-03T10:49:00.001-07:00

Preacher Steve Anderson in Arizona "PRAYING" that Pres. Obama gets Cancer and Dies

This guy lisps like he has a mouth full of sperm. He claims to be a pastor and yet, is "Praying" for our President to get cancer and die. Jesus would slap you and say depart from me you worker of iniquity, I never knew you.
Here's this jerk's website http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org
Look at the creepy look on his face holding the baby
http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page2.html
Here's the CONTACT info on this Cretin

Faithful Word Baptist Church

Pastor Steven L. Anderson

2707 W Southern Ave, Suite #105

Tempe, AZ 85282

Phone: (480) 248-4082

E-mail: Info@faithfulwordbaptist.org

Labels: praying for obama's death, prays obama gets cancer, steve anderson

Google Groups: Publishing Trouble

2006-05-18T21:50:00.000-07:00

Google Groups: Publishing Trouble

Sex scandal hits 'Grand Theft Auto' - Games - MSNBC.com

2005-07-09T06:13:00.001-07:00

Sex scandal hits 'Grand Theft Auto' - Games - MSNBC.comSex scandal hits 'Grand Theft Auto'
Ratings board starts inquiry into alleged graphic content

SAN FRANCISCO - A media watchdog group on Friday denounced the maker of the hugely popular video game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" over graphic sexual content that allegedly exists in the game and can be unlocked with an Internet download.

The game's plot is already objectionable to many people: Its main character carjacks for fun and profit and picks up women along the way.

But some say its content becomes sexually explicit if players download and install a modification to the game _ one of many so-called "mods" available on Web sites maintained by video game enthusiasts.

"While San Andreas is already full of violent behavior and sexual themes, the pornographic sex scenes push it over the edge," said David Walsh, founder of The Minneapolis-based National Institute on the Media and the Family, which issued a "nationwide parental alert" Friday.

The controversy has prompted an investigation by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, which determines the rating on every video game sold. Rockstar Games issued a statement Friday, confirming the investigation and avoiding comment on whether its programmers created the sex scenes in the first place.

"We also feel confident that the investigation will uphold the original rating of the game, as the work of the mod community is beyond the scope of either publishers or the ESRB," the company said.

The mod's author — Patrick Wildenborg, 36, of Deventer, Netherlands — told The Associated Press on Friday that his code merely unlocks content that is already included in the code of each off-the-shelf game.

"If Rockstar Games denies that, then they're lying and I will be able to prove that," Wildenborg wrote in an e-mail. "My mod does not introduce anything to the game. All the content that is shown was already present on the DVD."

Sex scandal hits 'Grand Theft Auto' - Games - MSNBC.com

2005-07-09T06:13:00.000-07:00

Penn Jillette's ignorant potty mouth

2005-07-09T05:47:00.000-07:00

Reason: Love and Memory and Humanity: Magician and novelist Penn Jillette on censorship, sock monkeys, and Bullshit!: "Respect"

"I get along so much better with fundamentalist Christians than I do with wishy-washy liberals, who want everyone to get along. I can walk up to a Christian and say, “I’m an atheist. I don’t believe this. State your point.” They state their point. That’s what respect is. Respect can be calling someone “you stupid fucking asshole.”

============SNIP===============
Well Jillette, I DON'T respect you, and I think you are a fat stupid fuckiing rocker wanna be with a pigtail that needs a diet and needs to get a life....

So there. And, tell Teller he's not Harpo for God's sake, you atheist FUCK!

Bush fails to help prevent attack on commuters, says senator Clinton

2005-07-09T05:36:00.000-07:00

Xinhua - EnglishBush fails to help prevent attack on commuters, says senator Clinton

www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-09 06:09:25

NEW YORK, July 8 (Xinhuanet) -- New York senator Hillary Clinton on Friday criticized the Bush administration for failing to deliver needed rail and subway security to deter a London-style attack on commuters.

Clinton, who is pushing for more federal dollars for high-tech terror prevention, said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been slow to distribute most of the 150 million dollars given by Congress for rail and transit protection.

"I'm absolutely outraged by the failure of the administration to release the funding that Congress approved last year," said Clinton. "I just don't understand what the holdup is." Clinton and eight other Democratic senators sent a letter to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff Friday urging him to distribute the unused money quickly.

The agency has looked at high-tech ways to improve transit security but has not instituted anything since testing a system last year.

The United States has earmarked about 300 million dollars for rail security since Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001.

Senator Clinton argued that New York and other metropolitan areas should use more of the security cameras prevalent throughout London. Investigators piecing together clues from Thursday's bombing are reviewing many tapes from those cameras to try to identify the culprits.

Many lawmakers from densely populated areas have complained that since 2001, the federal government has wasted homeland security money by spreading it out to rural areas where the risk of terror attacks is relatively low.

Clinton argued the London attacks are another sign that the government needs to send a greater share of anti-terror money to cities.

"Too much money has been wasted. It's just been sent around the countryside it hasn't been focused on what the major targets are," she said. Enditem

AlterNet: Blogs: Peek: More on Rove

2005-07-09T05:34:00.000-07:00

AlterNet: Blogs: Peek: More on Rove"Let's think this through for a minute. Karl Rove allegedly outed a CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction while we are at war. Everyone is talking about him committing perjury when interviewed by the investigators. What about treason?" writes Morgaine. "He demonstrably impeded the war effort and put agents and others in harm's way.

Does he still have a security clearance? Is he still allowed in the White House?
Why was a political advisor privy to classified information?
Should a traitor have access to our pResident in a time of war? Isn't that a breach of security?
Valerie Plame's contacts may have been murdered; will he be charged with causing any deaths that might have resulted?
Ms. Plame's training cost millions of dollars, as did setting up her cover. Is Karl planning to pay that back?
Did the Justice Department know that Rove was the source of the leak from any of its investigation? How long have they known this and allowed him continued access to the White House?
Why isn't he in jail?
Why isn't Robert Novak in jail? If he rolled over on Rove, then, again, why isn't he in jail?
What did Cheney know and when did he know it?

"London Calling...:"

2005-07-09T05:27:00.000-07:00

If anything is learned from the horrible loss of life due to the London attacks, it is that this bizarre notion that we need to be in Iraq to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

Tell that to the families of British soldiers serving in Iraq that sustained injuries or deaths in the attacks of 7-7-2005.

fox news comments...you have to listen to this clip

2005-07-07T13:49:00.000-07:00

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/foxandfriends-200507070004.wmv

"Fox News' Brian Kilmeade: London terror attack near G8 summit "works to ... Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together"

The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney occurred during breaking news coverage of the attacks on London subways and buses on the July 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

KILMEADE: Yeah."

Fight them THERE so we don't have to fight them here? BULLSHIT

2005-07-07T04:52:00.000-07:00

For those who advocate the Iraqi War by saying that we need to "Fight Them There So We Don't Have to Fight Them Here"...the attacks in London seem to prove you wrong, don't they!

What is it with Bush and Bicycles...did he fall off the wagon again?

2005-07-07T03:23:00.000-07:00

Bush Says He's Fine After Bike Accident

Thursday July 7, 2005 10:31 AM

AP Photo XGLE102

By TOM RAUM

Associated Press Writer

GLENEAGLES, Scotland (AP) - Fresh bandages on his left hand from a mountain biking accident, President Bush said Thursday he's doing well - and so apparently is the Scottish police officer with whom he collided.

``It just goes to show I should act my age,'' Bush, who turned 59 on Wednesday, joked with reporters.

Bush lost control of his bike Wednesday on a slick stretch of pavement and ran into the local officer, who was on foot, knocking him over.

``When you ride hard on a mountain bike, sometimes you fall. Otherwise, you're not riding hard,'' Bush said.

The spill occurred as Bush was exercising after arriving here to attend a summit of the Group of Eight nations.

Bush, who was wearing a helmet, suffered minor scrapes and bruises to his left hand and arm that required bandages by the White House physician, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. The officer, a member of the police department of Strathclyde who was on a security detail, was briefly taken to the hospital and suffered a minor ankle injury.

The president said he called the officer's cell phone later Wednesday and talked to him as he was on his way home from the hospital. ``He's doing fine,'' Bush said.

``I was less concerned about myself and more concerned about him,'' Bush said.

Bush said the accident happened after he had been riding for about an hour on the grounds of the golf resort here that is the site of the summit. Bush said he was ``flying'' on his bike. ``The pavement was slick...The bike came out from under me,'' he said.

Bush's bike was damaged, requiring him to ride back to the hotel in a Secret Service vehicle.

But the fall didn't affect the president's schedule. Dressed in a tuxedo and showing no signs of distress, he attended the summit's opening dinner hosted by Queen Elizabeth on Wednesday night.

On Thursday morning, Bush appeared alongside British Prime Minister Tony Blair with flesh-colored bandages on two fingers of his left hand.

``I think I found my limitation,'' the president said.

A year ago, Bush was cut and bruised when he sailed over the handlebars while riding a mountain bike at his Texas ranch.

========Snip===========
And..taking a trip down memory lane..here's another story from
CodeWarriorz Thoughts about another of his bicycle crashes..

Bush's "Accident Proneness" Goes back a while
"Bush Bruised Diving To Avoid Truck "

Now, more recently we remember poor little Georgy almost choking to death on a pretzel, falling off the couch and hitting this head...he fell off his bike and scraped his face and hands up....
and looking back to 1999...
"AUSTIN, Texas –– Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican presidential front-runner, sustained minor injuries to his right leg and hip Monday when he dived to avoid a truck trailer that overturned near his jogging path.
Bush was treated at the scene and later traveled to New Hampshire for a scheduled campaign swing, said Linda Edwards, Bush's press secretary.
Staff Sgt. Roscoe Hughey, a 39-year-old Texas Department of Public Safety agent who was accompanying Bush on a bicycle, received bruises to his left side, DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange said. He was treated at the Brackenridge Hospital emergency room and released about four hours later, said hospital spokeswoman Stephanie Elsea.
Bush was running on the hike-and-bike trail around Town Lake in downtown Austin when the accident occurred about 12:06 p.m, according to Ms. Edwards and the Austin Police Department,
A truck pulling a dumpster-like trailer was traveling on the street that parallels the jogging trail when the trailer overturned. Debris – including chunks of concrete and wood – were dumped across the jogging path.
"We're not clear what made it lose control, but the truck was out of control," Ms. Edwards said.
She said Bush told her the injuries to his right leg and right hip were suffered when he dived to get out of the way. "
============SNIP=================
For a non-drunk, he sures does have a lot of accidents.

Rogues Gallery

2005-07-07T03:12:00.000-07:00

Maybe this is how Rummie reacts to Bush's speeches

2005-06-28T19:00:00.000-07:00

They're just making it up as they go along

2005-06-28T18:32:00.000-07:00

Hit by friendly fire
With his polls down, Bush takes flak on Iraq from a host of critics--including some in his own party
By Kevin Whitelaw

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

That's strikingly blunt talk from a member of the president's party, even one cast as something of a pariah in the GOP because of his early skepticism about the war. "I got beat up pretty good by my own party and the White House that I was not a loyal Republican," he says. Today, he notes, things are changing: "More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned."

Indeed, there are signs that the politics of the Iraq war are being reshaped by the continuing tide of bad news. Take this month in Iraq, with 47 U.S. troops killed in the first 15 days. That's already five more than the toll for the entire month of June last year. With the rate of insurgent attacks near an all-time high and the war's cost set to top $230 billion, more politicians on both sides of the aisle are responding to opinion polls that show a growing number of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Lindsey Graham have voiced their concerns. And two Republicans, including the congressman who brought "freedom fries" to the Capitol, even joined a pair of Democratic colleagues in sponsoring a bill calling for a troop withdrawal plan to be drawn up by year's end. "I feel confident that the opposition is going to build," says Rep. Ron Paul, the other Republican sponsor and a longtime opponent of the war.

Sagging polls. The measure is not likely to go anywhere, but Hagel calls it "a major crack in the dike." Whether or not that's so, the White House has reason to worry that the assortment of critiques of Bush's wartime performance may be approaching a tipping point. Only 41 percent of Americans now support Bush's handling of the Iraq war, the lowest mark ever in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll. And the Iraq news has combined with a lethargic economy and doubts about the president's Social Security proposals to push Bush's overall approval ratings near all-time lows. For now, most Republicans remain publicly loyal to the White House. "Why would you give your enemies a timetable?" asks House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "[Bush] doesn't fight the war on news articles or television or on polls."

Still, the Bush administration is planning to hit back, starting this week, with a renewed public-relations push by the president. Bush will host Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and has scheduled a major speech for June 28, the anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi government from U.S. authorities. But Congress's patience could wear very thin going into an election year. "If things don't start to turn around in six months, then it may be too late," says Hagel. "I think it's that serious."

Bush's exit strategy--which depends on a successful Iraqi political process--got a boost last week when Sunni and Shiite politicians ended weeks of wrangling over how to increase Sunni representation on the constitution-writing committee. Now, however, committee members have less than two months before their mid-August deadline. And given how long it took to resolve who gets to draft the document, it's hard to imagine a quick accord on the politically explosive issues they face.

With our economy in the trash, and our men and women dying in Iraq...why is this ASSHOLE laughing?

2005-06-25T07:56:00.000-07:00

DUNCAN HUNTER MUST BE AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS, BECAUSE "HE'S DA QUEEN OF DENIAL

2005-06-12T11:25:00.001-07:00

DUNCAN HUNTER MUST BE AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS, BECAUSE "HE'S DA QUEEN OF DENIAL"
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story
"After Rep. Duncan Hunter's eye-opening description of how terrorist suspects are living high on the hog at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, prisoners from around the world will no doubt be clamoring for a 'gulag' cell of their own.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the House Armed Services Committee chairman began by detailing tonight's dinner menu at Gitmo - which all detainees, including one suspected of being involved in the 9/11 plot, will enjoy. "

DUNCAN HUNTER IS AN IDIOT! HE MUST BE AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS 'CUZ HE IS DA QUEEN OF DENIAL !

DUNCAN HUNTER MUST BE AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS, BECAUSE "HE'S DA QUEEN OF DENIAL

2005-06-12T11:25:00.000-07:00

Capitol Hill Blue: Next Controversy: The John Bolton Debacle

2005-05-26T19:17:00.000-07:00

Capitol Hill Blue: Next Controversy: The John Bolton Debacle\Next Controversy: The John Bolton Debacle
By LAWRENCE M. O'ROURKE
McClatchy Newspapers
May 26, 2005, 07:49
Email this article
Printer friendly page

With filibusters currently in disfavor, the Senate opened debate Wednesday on President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.
Bolton, defended by Republicans as a tough, blunt reformer and derided by Democrats as an intemperate abuser of government intelligence analysts, appeared headed to confirmation as one of the nation's top diplomats.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., described Bolton as "a man of strong conviction" who would be effective as Bush's agent at the United Nations for reforming the international organization. "He's not a soft guy, no question about that."

Bolton, according to Senate Democrats, has become a beneficiary of the last-minute decision Monday by a bipartisan group of senators to drop filibusters against three of Bush's judicial nominees. The decision included an agreement by the senators to filibuster less.

"People are going to be reluctant" to filibuster to block a vote on Bolton, said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who has previously hinted at a filibuster and continued to insist Wednesday that he would try to block a vote on Bolton.

Shortly after the deal that opened the way to confirmation of three Bush judicial nominees and curtailed use of the filibuster, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., cleared the way for a Senate floor debate on Bolton when she withdrew a hold, a delaying device similar to the filibuster, on the nomination.

But Dodd and Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said they would not seek to block Bolton's nomination through a filibuster.

South Park: Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes - TV Tome

2005-05-26T19:12:00.000-07:00

South Park: Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes - TV Tome
Cartman bets Kyle $5 that you crap your pants when you die. The town is abuzz; the new Wall-Mart store is having its grand opening. The building is built on the space where Stark's Pond used to be. The doors open and inside we find Grandpa Marsh employed as the greeter and Jimmy help with the carts. There are bargains galore everywhere; Cartman is delighted that he can get 3 copies of "Timecop" for $18. Stan asks his dad why Wall-Mart is able to sell stuff so cheap, his dad says he doesn't know, but he knows he loves it. Later that night Randy Marsh has become obsessed with the store, he goes there late at night hoping to get him some bargains, but finds there are many other people there with the same idea. Kyle doesn't want to go to Wall-Mart but finds out that that Jim's Drug Story has to close down because it can't compete. Cartman, of course is on the side of Wall-Mart. The boys go to the town's Main Street, but find that it is all boarded up and looking much like a ghost town. Stan wants to tell his parents about what is happening to their town. When he returns home he finds his dad is wiped out after a marathon shopping at Wall-Mart. The citizens gather together to confront the manager and tell him they want him to close their store. The manager tells them that it is out of his hands, the store has taken over his life. He gives them a message to meet him out back in 5 minutes, but before that happens the manager commits suicide by hanging himself and as his last act, craps his pants, much to Cartman's delight, Kyle now owes him $5.

The whole town has agreed to not shop at Wall-Mart anymore; but the Marsh family goes to the store and find that everyone is still there doing their shopping. They try to come up with a plan to stop the evil that is the Wall-Mart store and Kyle tells them that it only takes self-control to stop shopping there. The town instead decides to burn the store down; but that doesn't stop the store from getting itself rebuilt. Kyle gets Stan and Kenny to accompany him to Arkansas so they can put a stop to the store. The store reaches out to Cartman, who accompanies the boys on their journey. Kyle knows that Cartman is only coming with them to try stopping their effort to get the store closed. They can't find help at corporate headquarters, but they find one of the founding executives at nearby bar. He tells them the corporation's history and tells them about the store's heart, which is located near the television section. The boys leave and the executive kills himself, and to Cartman's delight he craps his pants; Kyle now owes him $10.

The boys return to town, with the intention of destroying the stores heart and Cartman tries to stop them, much as Kyle knew he would. They battle the store's ever lowering bargains on their way to the television department. They finally make it there and they meet the store in one its many forms. Kyle and Stan look in a mirror at the back of the television department and see their own reflection. It is just possible that we (the consumer's desire) are responsible for making Wall-Mart such a success. The boys decide to break the mirror anyway and the store begins to implode. They all escape as the store craps itself as a last act. The townspeople decide to begin supporting Jim's Drug in earnest, until they make it too much of a success and the cycle repeats itself.

Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

2005-05-25T19:03:00.000-07:00

Note- OFCOM
in the United Kingdom is (from their website)
"Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the
UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television,
radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services"
----------------------------------------------------------------
"http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1491990,00.html
Radio | Special report: Ofcom | Television
2.30pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

John Plunkett
Wednesday May 25, 2005

Clean-up TV campaigners seeking succour in Ofcom's new broadcasting
rules suffered an immediate blow today when the regulator gave the
all-clear to programmes about "sex with animals".
The comments by Richard Hooper, the Ofcom deputy chairman, came at the
unveiling of its long-awaited new broadcasting code and will have had
the regulator's spin doctors holding their heads in their hands.

Although Mr Hooper was at pains to point out that the new regulations
will not give carte blanche to broadcasters, he said certain offensive
material would be OK as long as it was shown at the right time and
with suitable warnings.

"[What about] a programme about sex with animals? Yes, it's
potentially possible. It all comes down to context," he said.

The new code, which will apply across all TV and radio networks,
allows broadcasters to "transmit challenging material, even that which
may be considered offensive by some, provided it is editorially
justified and the audience given appropriate information".

Mr Hooper's comments recalled Channel 4 bestiality documentary, Animal
Passions, which featured a man who admitted have sex with his pony and
a woman who had sex with her dog.

Although it was cleared by Ofcom last year, it generated 75 complaints
from viewers who said it "normalised bestiality" and could encourage
copycat behaviour."

police state

2005-05-24T18:10:00.000-07:00

Capitol Hill Blue: Police State

Police State
By DAN K. THOMASSON
May 24, 2005, 07:12
Email this article
Printer friendly page

Some really scary things are happening around here these days.
Congress has become a place of great incivility and rancor, which threaten to undermine any hope of legislative remedy to a myriad of problems, from Social Security to soaring health-care costs to immigration to a steadily crumbling manufacturing base once the envy of the world.

But perhaps the most frightening prospect for Americans is an unfettered national police force with the sole discretion to determine who can be investigated as a potential terrorist. That's the impact of little-known proposals to greatly expand the powers of the FBI, permitting its agents to seize business records without a warrant and to track the mail of those in terrorist inquiries without regard to Postal Service concerns.

Because the government can label almost any group or individual a terrorist threat, the potential for abuse by not having to show probable cause is enormous, prompting civil libertarians to correctly speculate about who will guard against the guardians. Up until now the answer was the Constitution as interpreted by the judiciary. But it is clear that sidestepping any such restriction is the real and present danger of the post-9-11 era.

A wise man, the late Sen. John Williams of Delaware, once counseled that any proposed legislation should be regarded in the light of its worst potential consequence, particularly when it came to laws that enhance the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the government at the expense of civil rights. This is most likely to occur in times of national stress, when the Constitution is always vulnerable to assault _ i.e., the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The scenario Williams warned about runs something like this.

You are innocently standing on a street corner waiting to cross when you are approached by a complete stranger who politely, but in a low voice, asks directions to a certain address or area. You, of course, are utterly unaware that the person is under surveillance in a terrorist investigation. You respond in a friendly manner. And although the exchange takes only a few seconds, it is enough to make those following the suspect curious about you. You are identified and a background check reveals that you or your spouse has a relative of Middle Eastern extraction or that you recently traveled to a Middle Eastern country or that you contributed to a charity bazaar sponsored by a church or group under suspicion of passing money through to a terrorist cause.

Suddenly, you are caught in a major inquiry, your personal business records are seized and your mail is tracked. It doesn't take long for your friends and neighbors to learn that you are being investigated, and the result of that is predictable. You and your family are shunned. Your business begins to dwindle and before the nightmare has ended, which can take months, your life is in shambles. The truth never catches up with the fiction and the bureau, which has difficulty in saying the word "sorry," leaves you high and dry, twisting slowly in the wind.

Think it can't happen that way? Well, it does all the time. Ask the lawyer in Oregon whom the FBI misidentified as having taken part in the terrorist bombing of the Spanish railway. Ask any number of persons since Sept. 11, 2001, arrested and detained for months without charges or counsel before they were released.

If that isn't enough to satisfy you about the inadvisability of these proposals, think back to the Cold War days when the most casual acquaintance with a group or person on J. Edgar Hoover's anti-communist watch list could land one in water hot enough to make life miserable for a long time _ maybe even put him or her on one of the infamous blacklists.

If you weren't around in those times, read about them. One thing you will learn quickly is that the sole determination of who or what had communist inclinations belonged to the FBI. Even then, however, Congress was smart enough not to rescind the checks and balances that protect our civil liberties. Federal law-enforcement officers outside the FBI have complained of late about the bureau's penchant for seizing jurisdiction over almost any crime by relating it to terrorism.

Both of these over-reactive proposals are as fearsome as the threat of another al Qaeda attack, for they accomplish the same thing: the intrusion on and disruption of the rights of Americans. Like portions of the Patriot Act, which are rightly being challenged by conservatives as well as liberals, they are medicine worse than the cancer.

Lemme Get this Straight- Scientists say the South Korean stem cell research will help folks and Bush condemns it?

2005-05-21T22:57:00.000-07:00

OK..JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT...SCIENCE IS "BAD...BAD"...ACCORDING TO THAT ASS CLOWN BUSHY....AND IF IT HELPS PEOPLE...HE MUST CONDEMN IT. OK...I JUST WANTED TO GET ALL THIS STRAIGHT FOR THE RECORD.

BILL MOYERS SPEAKS OUT

2005-05-21T07:22:00.000-07:00

Moyers Addresses PBS Coup

By Bill Moyers, AlterNet. Posted May 17, 2005.

In this highly anticipated speech the veteran public broadcaster takes on the PBS coup and its right-wing engineers who are 'squealing like a stuck pig.'

I can't imagine better company on this beautiful Sunday morning in St. Louis. You're church for me today, and there's no congregation in the country where I would be more likely to find more kindred souls than are gathered here.

There are so many different vocations and callings in this room -- so many different interests and aspirations of people who want to reform the media -- that only a presiding bishop like Bob McChesney with his great ecumenical heart could bring us together for a weekend like this.

What joins us all under Bob's embracing welcome is our commitment to public media. Pat Aufderheide got it right, I think, in the recent issue of In These Times when she wrote: "This is a moment when public media outlets can make a powerful case for themselves. Public radio, public TV, cable access, public DBS channels, media arts centers, youth media projects, nonprofit Internet news services ... low-power radio and webcasting are all part of a nearly invisible feature of today's media map: the public media sector. They exist not to make a profit, not to push an ideology, not to serve customers, but to create a public -- a group of people who can talk productively with those who don't share their views, and defend the interests of the people who have to live with the consequences of corporate and governmental power."

She gives examples of the possibilities. "Look at what happened," she said, "when thousands of people who watched Stanley Nelson's The Murder of Emmett Till on their public television channels joined a postcard campaign that re-opened the murder case after more than half a century. Look at NPR's courageous coverage of the Iraq war, an expensive endeavor that wins no points from this administration. Look at Chicago Access Network's Community Forum, where nonprofits throughout the region can showcase their issues and find volunteers."

The public media, she argues, for all our flaws, are a very important resource in a noisy and polluted information environment.

You can also take wings reading Jason Miller's May 4 article on Z Net about the mainstream media. While it is true that much of the mainstream media is corrupted by the influence of government and corporate interests, Miller writes, there are still men and women in the mainstream who practice a high degree of journalistic integrity and who do challenge us with their stories and analysis.

But the real hope "lies within the internet with its 2 billion or more Web sites providing a wealth of information drawn from almost unlimited resources that span the globe. ... If knowledge is power, one's capacity to increase that power increases exponentially through navigation of the Internet for news and information."

Surely this is one issue that unites us as we leave here today. The fight to preserve the web from corporate gatekeepers joins media, reformers, producers and educators -- and it's a fight that has only just begun.

I want to tell you about another fight we're in today. The story I've come to share with you goes to the core of our belief that the quality of democracy and the quality of journalism are deeply entwined. I can tell this story because I've been living it. It's been in the news this week, including reports of more attacks on a single journalist -- yours truly -- by the right-wing media and their allies at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

As some of you know, CPB was established almost 40 years ago to set broad policy for public broadcasting and to be a firewall between political influence and program content. What some on this board are now doing today -- led by its chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson -- is too important, too disturbing and yes, even too dangerous for a gathering like this not to address.

We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable.

Let me assure you that I take in stride attacks by the radical right-wingers who have not given up demonizing me although I retired over six months ago. They've been after me for years now, and I suspect they will be stomping on my grave to make sure I don't come back from the dead.

I should remind them, however, that one of our boys pulled it off some 2,000 years ago -- after the Pharisees, Sadducees and Caesar's surrogates thought they had shut him up for good. Of course I won't be expecting that kind of miracle, but I should put my detractors on notice: They might just compel me out of the rocking chair and back into the anchor chair.

Who are they? I mean the people obsessed with control, using the government to threaten and intimidate. I mean the people who are hollowing out middle-class security even as they enlist the sons and daughters of the working class in a war to make sure Ahmed Chalabi winds up controlling Iraq's oil. I mean the people who turn faith-based initiatives into a slush fund and who encourage the pious to look heavenward and pray so as not to see the long arm of privilege and power picking their pockets. I mean the people who squelch free speech in an effort to obliterate dissent and consolidate their orthodoxy into the official view of reality from which any deviation becomes unpatriotic heresy.

That's who I mean. And if that's editorializing, so be it. A free press is one where it's OK to state the conclusion you're led to by the evidence.

One reason I'm in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn't play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.

Jonathan Mermin writes about this in a recent essay in World Policy Journal. (You'll also want to read his book Debating War and Peace, Media Coverage of U.S. Intervention in the Post-Vietnam Era.)

Mermin quotes David Ignatius of The Washington Post on why the deep interests of the American public are so poorly served by Beltway journalism. The "rules of our game," says Ignatius, "make it hard for us to tee up an issue ... without a news peg." He offers a case in point: the debacle of America's occupation of Iraq. "If senator so and so hasn't criticized postwar planning for Iraq," says Ignatius, "then it's hard for a reporter to write a story about that."

Mermin also quotes public television's Jim Lehrer acknowledging that unless an official says something is so, it isn't news. Why were journalists not discussing the occupation of Iraq? Because, says Lehrer, "the word occupation ... was never mentioned in the run-up to the war." Washington talked about the invasion as "a war of liberation, not a war of occupation, so as a consequence, "those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation."

"In other words," says Jonathan Mermin, "if the government isn't talking about it, we don't report it." He concludes: "[Lehrer's] somewhat jarring declaration, one of many recent admissions by journalists that their reporting failed to prepare the public for the calamitous occupation that has followed the 'liberation' of Iraq, reveals just how far the actual practice of American journalism has deviated from the First Amendment ideal of a press that is independent of the government."

Take the example (also cited by Mermin) of Charles J. Hanley. Hanley is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Associated Press, whose fall 2003 story on the torture of Iraqis in American prisons -- before a U.S. Army report and photographs documenting the abuse surfaced -- was ignored by major American newspapers. Hanley attributes this lack of interest to the fact that "it was not an officially sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source."

Furthermore, Iraqis recounting their own personal experience of Abu Ghraib simply did not have the credibility with Beltway journalists of American officials denying that such things happened. Judith Miller of The New York Times, among others, relied on the credibility of official but unnamed sources when she served essentially as the government stenographer for claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

These "rules of the game" permit Washington officials to set the agenda for journalism, leaving the press all too often simply to recount what officials say instead of subjecting their words and deeds to critical scrutiny. Instead of acting as filters for readers and viewers, sifting the truth from the propaganda, reporters and anchors attentively transcribe both sides of the spin invariably failing to provide context, background or any sense of which claims hold up and which are misleading.

I decided long ago that this wasn't healthy for democracy. I came to see that "news is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity." In my documentaries -- whether on the Watergate scandals 30 years ago or the Iran-Contra conspiracy 20 years ago or Bill Clinton's fundraising scandals 10 years ago or, five years ago, the chemical industry's long and despicable cover-up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical data about its toxic products from its workers, I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity is not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference.

I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies as well as the Big Lie of the people in power. In no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.

This is always hard to do, but it has never been harder than today. Without a trace of irony, the powers-that-be have appropriated the newspeak vernacular of George Orwell's 1984. They give us a program vowing "No Child Left Behind," while cutting funds for educating disadvantaged kids. They give us legislation cheerily calling for "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" that give us neither. And that's just for starters.

In Orwell's 1984, the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society's dictionary, explains to the protagonist Winston, "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, to ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy -- or worse.

I learned about this the hard way. I grew up in the South, where the truth about slavery, race, and segregation had been driven from the pulpits, driven from the classrooms and driven from the newsrooms. It took a bloody Civil War to bring the truth home, and then it took another hundred years for the truth to make us free.

Then I served in the Johnson administration. Imbued with Cold War orthodoxy and confident that "might makes right," we circled the wagons, listened only to each other, and pursued policies the evidence couldn't carry. The results were devastating for Vietnamese and Americans.

I brought all of this to the task when PBS asked me after 9/11 to start a new weekly broadcast. They wanted us to make it different from anything else on the air -- commercial or public broadcasting. They asked us to tell stories no one else was reporting and to offer a venue to people who might not otherwise be heard.

That wasn't a hard sell. I had been deeply impressed by studies published in leading peer-reviewed scholarly journals by a team of researchers led by Vassar College sociologist William Hoynes. Extensive research on the content of public television over a decade found that political discussions on our public affairs programs generally included a limited set of voices that offer a narrow range of perspectives on current issues and events.

Instead of far-ranging discussions and debates, the kind that might engage viewers as citizens, not simply as audiences, this research found that public affairs programs on PBS stations were populated by the standard set of elite news sources. Whether government officials and Washington journalists (talking about political strategy) or corporate sources (talking about stock prices or the economy from the investor's viewpoint), public television, unfortunately, all too often was offering the same kind of discussions, and a similar brand of insider discourse, that is featured regularly on commercial television.

Who didn't appear was also revealing. Hoynes and his team found that in contrast to the conservative mantra that public television routinely featured the voices of anti-establishment critics, "alternative perspectives were rare on public television and were effectively drowned out by the stream of government and corporate views that represented the vast majority of sources on our broadcasts."

The so-called experts who got most of the face time came primarily from mainstream news organizations and Washington think tanks rather than diverse interests. Economic news, for example, was almost entirely refracted through the views of business people, investors and business journalists. Voices outside the corporate/Wall Street universe -- nonprofessional workers, labor representatives, consumer advocates and the general public were rarely heard. In sum, these two studies concluded, the economic coverage was so narrow that the views and the activities of most citizens became irrelevant.

All this went against the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I know. I was there. As a young policy assistant to President Johnson, I attended my first meeting to discuss the future of public broadcasting in 1964 in the office of the Commissioner of Education. I know firsthand that the Public Broadcasting Act was meant to provide an alternative to commercial television and to reflect the diversity of the American people.

This, too, was on my mind when we assembled the team for NOW. It was just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We agreed on two priorities. First, we wanted to do our part to keep the conversation of democracy going. That meant talking to a wide range of people across the spectrum -- left, right and center.

It meant poets, philosophers, politicians, scientists, sages and scribblers. It meant Isabel Allende, the novelist, and Amity Shlaes, the columnist for the Financial Times. It meant the former nun and best-selling author Karen Armstrong, and it meant the right-wing evangelical columnist Cal Thomas. It meant Arundhati Roy from India, Doris Lessing from London, David Suzuki from Canada, and Bernard Henry-Levi from Paris. It also meant two successive editors of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley and Paul Gigot, the editor of The Economist, Bill Emmott, The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel and the L.A. Weekly's John Powers.

It means liberals like Frank Wu, Ossie Davis and Gregory Nava, and conservatives like Frank Gaffney, Grover Norquist, and Richard Viguerie. It meant Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Bishop Wilton Gregory of the Catholic Bishops conference in this country. It meant the conservative Christian activist and lobbyist, Ralph Reed, and the dissident Catholic Sister Joan Chittister. We threw the conversation of democracy open to all comers.

Most of those who came responded the same way that Ron Paul, the Republican and Libertarian congressman from Texas, did when he wrote me after his appearance, "I have received hundreds of positive e-mails from your viewers. I appreciate the format of your program, which allows time for a full discussion of ideas. ... I'm tired of political shows featuring two guests shouting over each other and offering the same arguments. ... NOW was truly refreshing."

Hold your applause because that's not the point of the story. We had a second priority. We intended to do strong, honest and accurate reporting, telling stories we knew people in high places wouldn't like.

I told our producers and correspondents that in our field reporting our job was to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth. This was all the more imperative in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. America could be entering a long war against an elusive and stateless enemy with no definable measure of victory and no limit to its duration, cost or foreboding fear. The rise of a homeland security state meant government could justify extraordinary measures in exchange for protecting citizens against unnamed, even unproven, threats.

Furthermore, increased spending during a national emergency can produce a spectacle of corruption behind a smokescreen of secrecy. I reminded our team of the words of the news photographer in Tom Stoppard's play who said, "People do terrible things to each other, but it's worse when everyone is kept in the dark."

I also reminded them of how the correspondent and historian Richard Reeves answered a student who asked him to define real news. "Real news," Reeves responded, "is the news you and I need to keep our freedoms."

For these reasons and in that spirit, we went about reporting on Washington as no one else in broadcasting -- except occasionally 60 Minutes -- was doing. We reported on the expansion of the Justice Department's power of surveillance. We reported on the escalating Pentagon budget and expensive weapons that didn't work. We reported on how campaign contributions influenced legislation and policy to skew resources to the comfortable and well-connected while our troops were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq with inadequate training and armor. We reported on how the Bush administration was shredding the Freedom of Information Act. We went around the country to report on how closed-door, backroom deals in Washington were costing ordinary workers and tax payers their livelihood and security. We reported on offshore tax havens that enable wealthy and powerful Americans to avoid their fair share of national security and the social contract.

And always -- because what people know depends on who owns the press -- we kept coming back to the media business itself, to how mega media corporations were pushing journalism further and further down the hierarchy of values, how giant radio cartels were silencing critics while shutting communities off from essential information, and how the mega media companies were lobbying the FCC for the right to grow ever more powerful.

The broadcast caught on. Our ratings grew every year. There was even a spell when we were the only public affairs broadcast on PBS whose audience was going up instead of down.

Our journalistic peers took notice. The Los Angeles Times said, "NOW's team of reporters has regularly put the rest of the media to shame, pursuing stories few others bother to touch."

The Philadelphia Inquirer said our segments on the sciences, the arts, politics and the economy were "provocative public television at its best."

The Austin American-Statesman called NOW, "the perfect antidote to today's high pitched decibel level, a smart, calm, timely news program."

Frazier Moore of the Associated Press said we were hard-edged when appropriate but never "Hardball." "Don't expect combat. Civility reigns."

And the Baton Rouge Advocate said, "NOW invites viewers to consider the deeper implication of the daily headlines," drawing on "a wide range of viewpoints which transcend the typical labels of the political left or right."

Let me repeat that: NOW draws on "a wide range of viewpoints which transcend the typical labels of the political left or right."

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 had been prophetic. Open public television to the American people -- offer diverse interests, ideas and voices ... be fearless in your belief in democracy -- and they will come.

Hold your applause -- that's not the point of the story.

The point of the story is something only a handful of our team, including my wife and partner Judith Davidson Moyers, and I knew at the time -- that the success of NOW's journalism was creating a backlash in Washington.

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party became. That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth.

This is the point of my story: Ideologues don't want you to go beyond the typical labels of left and right. They embrace a world view that can't be proven wrong because they will admit no evidence to the contrary. They want your reporting to validate their belief system and when it doesn't, God forbid.

Never mind that their own stars were getting a fair shake on NOW: Gigot, Viguerie, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Stephen Moore, then with the Club for Growth, and others. No, our reporting was giving the radical right fits because it wasn't the party line. It wasn't that we were getting it wrong. Only three times in three years did we err factually, and in each case we corrected those errors as soon as we confirmed their inaccuracy. The problem was that we were telling stories that partisans in power didn't want told ... we were getting it right, not right-wing.

I've always thought the American eagle needed a left wing and a right wing. The right wing would see to it that economic interests had their legitimate concerns addressed. The left wing would see to it that ordinary people were included in the bargain. Both would keep the great bird on course. But with two right wings or two left wings, it's no longer an eagle and it's going to crash.

My occasional commentaries got to them as well. Although apparently he never watched the broadcast (I guess he couldn't take the diversity), Sen. Trent Lott came out squealing like a stuck pig when after the midterm elections in 2002 I described what was likely to happen now that all three branches of government were about to be controlled by one party dominated by the religious, corporate and political right.

Instead of congratulating the winners for their election victory as some network broadcasters had done -- or celebrating their victory as Fox, the Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, talk radio and other partisan Republican journalists had done -- I provided a little independent analysis of what the victory meant. And I did it the old-fashioned way: I looked at the record, took the winners at their word, and drew the logical conclusion that they would use power as they always said they would. And I set forth this conclusion in my usual modest Texas way.

Events since then have confirmed the accuracy of what I said, but, to repeat, being right is exactly what the right doesn't want journalists to be.

Strange things began to happen. Friends in Washington called to say that they had heard of muttered threats that the PBS reauthorization would be held off "unless Moyers is dealt with." The chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, was said to be quite agitated. Apparently there was apoplexy in the right-wing aerie when I closed the broadcast one Friday night by putting an American flag in my lapel and said - well, here's exactly what I said:

"I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.

"Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

"So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo -- the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

"But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

"So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash). I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war -- except in self-defense -- is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country."

That did it. That -- and our continuing reporting on overpricing at Haliburton, chicanery on K Street, and the heavy, if divinely guided hand, of Tom DeLay.

When Sen. Lott protested that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "has not seemed willing to deal with Bill Moyers," a new member of the board, a Republican fundraiser named Cheryl Halperin, who had been appointed by President Bush, agreed that CPB needed more power to do just that sort of thing. She left no doubt about the kind of penalty she would like to see imposed on malefactors like Moyers.

As rumors circulated about all this, I asked to meet with the CPB board to hear for myself what was being said. I thought it would be helpful for someone like me, who had been present at the creation and part of the system for almost 40 years, to talk about how CPB had been intended to be a heat shield to protect public broadcasters from exactly this kind of intimidation.

After all, I'd been there at the time of Richard Nixon's attempted coup. In those days, public television had been really feisty and independent, and often targeted for attacks. A Woody Allen special that poked fun at Henry Kissinger in the Nixon administration had actually been cancelled. The White House had been so outraged over a documentary called the "Banks and the Poor" that PBS was driven to adopt new guidelines. That didn't satisfy Nixon, and when public television hired two NBC reporters -- Robert McNeil and Sander Vanoucur to co-anchor some new broadcasts, it was, for Nixon, the last straw. According to White House memos at the time, he was determined to "get the left-wing commentators who are cutting us up off public television at once -- indeed, yesterday if possible."

Sound familiar?

Nixon vetoed the authorization for CPB with a message written in part by his sidekick Pat Buchanan, who in a private memo had castigated Vanocur, MacNeil, Washington Week in Review, Black Journal and Bill Moyers as "unbalanced against the administration."

It does sound familiar.

I always knew Nixon would be back. I just didn't know this time he would be the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Buchanan and Nixon succeeded in cutting CPB funding for all public affairs programming except for Black Journal. They knocked out multiyear funding for the National Public Affairs Center for Television, otherwise known as NPACT. And they voted to take away from the PBS staff the ultimate responsibility for the production of programming.

But in those days -- and this is what I wanted to share with Kenneth Tomlinson and his colleagues on the CPB board -- there were still Republicans in America who did not march in ideological lockstep and who stood on principle against politicizing public television. The chairman of the public station in Dallas was an industrialist named Ralph Rogers, a Republican but no party hack, who saw the White House intimidation as an assault on freedom of the press and led a nationwide effort to stop it.

The chairman of CPB was former Republican Congressman Thomas Curtis, who was also a principled man. He resigned, claiming White House interference. Within a few months, the crisis was over. CPB maintained its independence, PBS grew in strength, and Richard Nixon would soon face impeachment and resign for violating the public trust, not just public broadcasting.

Paradoxically, the very National Public Affairs Center for Television that Nixon had tried to kill -- NPACT -- put PBS on the map by rebroadcasting in primetime each day's Watergate hearings, drawing huge ratings night after night and establishing PBS as an ally of democracy. We should still be doing that sort of thing.

That was 33 years ago. I thought the current CPB board would like to hear and talk about the importance of standing up to political interference. I was wrong. They wouldn't meet with me. I tried three times. And it was all downhill after that.

I was na've, I guess. I simply never imagined that any CPB chairman, Democrat or Republican, would cross the line from resisting White House pressure to carrying it out for the White House. But that's what Kenneth Tomlinson has done.

On Fox News this week he denied that he's carrying out a White House mandate or that he's ever had any conversations with any Bush administration official about PBS. But the New York Times reported that he enlisted Karl Rove to help kill a proposal that would have put on the CPB board people with experience in local radio and television. The Times also reported that "on the recommendation of administration officials" Tomlinson hired a White House flack (I know the genre) named Mary Catherine Andrews as a senior CPB staff member. While she was still reporting to Karl Rove at the White House, Andrews set up CPB's new ombudsman's office and had a hand in hiring the two people who will fill it, one of whom once worked for ... you guessed it ... Kenneth Tomlinson.

I would like to give Mr. Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt, but I can't. According to a book written about the Reader's Digest when he was its editor-in-chief, he surrounded himself with other right-wingers -- a pattern he's now following at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

There is Ms. Andrews from the White House. For acting president, he hired Ken Ferree from the FCC, who was Michael Powell's enforcer when Powell was deciding how to go about allowing the big media companies to get even bigger. According to a forthcoming book, one of Ferree's jobs was to engage in tactics designed to dismiss any serious objection to media monopolies. And, according to Eric Alterman, Ferree was even more contemptuous than Michael Powell of public participation in the process of determining media ownership. Alterman identifies Ferree as the FCC staffer who decided to issue a "protective order" designed to keep secret the market research on which the Republican majority on the commission based their vote to permit greater media consolidation.

It's not likely that with guys like this running the CPB some public television producer is going to say, "Hey, let's do something on how big media is affecting democracy."

Call it preventive capitulation.

As everyone knows, Mr. Tomlinson also put up a considerable sum of money, reportedly over $5 million, for a new weekly broadcast featuring Paul Gigot and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Gigot is a smart journalist, a sharp editor, and a fine fellow. I had him on NOW several times and even proposed that he become a regular contributor. The conversation of democracy -- remember? All stripes.

But I confess to some puzzlement that the Wall Street Journal, which in the past editorialized to cut PBS off the public tap, is now being subsidized by American taxpayers although its parent company, Dow Jones, had revenues in just the first quarter of this year of $400 million. I thought public television was supposed to be an alternative to commercial media, not a funder of it.

But in this weird deal, you get a glimpse of the kind of programming Mr. Tomlinson apparently seems to prefer. Alone of the big major newspapers, the Wall Street Journal has no op-ed page where different opinions can compete with its right-wing editorials. The Journal's PBS broadcast is just as homogenous -- right-wingers talking to each other. Why not $5 million to put the editors of The Nation on PBS? Or Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! You balance right-wing talk with left-wing talk.

There's more. Only two weeks ago did we learn that Mr. Tomlinson had spent $10,000 last year to hire a contractor who would watch my show and report on political bias. That's right. Kenneth Y. Tomlinson spent $10,000 of your money to hire a guy to watch NOW to find out who my guests were and what my stories were. Ten thousand dollars.

Gee, Ken, for $2.50 a week, you could pick up a copy of TV Guide on the newsstand. A subscription is even cheaper, and I would have sent you a coupon that can save you up to 62 percent.

For that matter, Ken, all you had to do was watch the show yourself. You could have made it easier with a double Jim Beam, your favorite. Or you could have gone online where the listings are posted. Hell, you could have called me -- collect -- and I would have told you.

Ten thousand dollars. That would have bought five tables at Thursday night's "Conservative Salute for Tom DeLay." Better yet, that ten grand would pay for the books in an elementary school classroom or an upgrade of its computer lab.

But having sent that cash, what did he find? Only Mr. Tomlinson knows. He's apparently decided not to share the results with his staff, or his board or leak it to Robert Novak. The public paid for it -- but Ken Tomlinson acts as if he owns it.

In a May 10 op-ed piece, in Rev. Moon's conservative Washington Times, Tomlinson maintained he had not released the findings because public broadcasting is such a delicate institution that he did not want to "damage public broadcasting's image with controversy." Where I come from in Texas, we shovel that kind of stuff every day.

As we learned only this week, that's not the only news Mr. Tomlinson tried to keep to himself. As reported by Jeff Chester's Center for Digital Democracy (of which I am a supporter), there were two public opinion surveys commissioned by CPB but not released to the media -- not even to PBS and NPR. According to a source who talked to Salon.com, "The first results were too good and [Tomlinson] didn't believe them. After the Iraq War, the board commissioned another round of polling, and they thought they'd get worse results."

But they didn't. The data revealed that, in reality, public broadcasting has an 80 percent favorable rating and that "the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased." In fact, more than half believed PBS provided more in-depth and trustworthy news and information than the networks and 55 percent said PBS was "fair and balanced."

Tomlinson is the man, by the way, who was running Voice of America back in 1984 when a partisan named Charlie Wick was politicizing the United States Information Agency of which Voice of America was a part. It turned out there was a blacklist of people who had been removed from the list of prominent Americans sent abroad to lecture on behalf of America and the USIA. What's more, it was discovered that evidence as to how those people were chosen to be on the blacklist, more than 700 documents had been shredded. Among those on the blacklists of journalists, writers, scholars and politicians were dangerous left-wing subversives like Walter Cronkite, James Baldwin, Gary Hart, Ralph Nader, Ben Bradlee, Coretta Scott King and David Brinkley.

The person who took the fall for the blacklist was another right-winger. He resigned. Shortly thereafter, so did Kenneth Tomlinson, who had been one of the people in the agency with the authority to see the lists of potential speakers and allowed to strike people's names. Let me be clear about this: There is no record, apparently, of what Ken Tomlinson did. We don't know whether he supported or protested the blacklisting of so many American liberals. Or what he thinks of it now.

But I had hoped Bill O'Reilly would have asked him about it when he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor this week. He didn't. Instead, Tomlinson went on attacking me with O'Reilly egging him on, and he went on denying he was carrying out a partisan mandate despite published reports to the contrary. The only time you could be sure he was telling the truth was at the end of the broadcast when he said to O'Reilly, "We love your show."

We love your show.

I wrote Kenneth Tomlinson on Friday and asked him to sit down with me for one hour on PBS and talk about all this. I suggested that he choose the moderator and the guidelines.

There is one other thing in particular I would like to ask him about. In his op-ed essay this week in Washington Times, Ken Tomlinson tells of a phone call from an old friend complaining about my bias. Wrote Mr. Tomlinson: "The friend explained that the foundation he heads made a six-figure contribution to his local television station for digital conversion. But he declared there would be no more contributions until something was done about the network's bias."

Apparently that's Kenneth Tomlinson's method of governance. Money talks and buys the influence it wants.

I would like to ask him to listen to a different voice.

This letter came to me last year from a woman in New York, five pages of handwriting. She said, among other things, that "after the worst sneak attack in our history, there's not been a moment to reflect, a moment to let the horror resonate, a moment to feel the pain and regroup as humans. No, since I lost my husband on 9/11, not only our family's world, but the whole world seems to have gotten even worse than that tragic day."

She wanted me to know that on 9/11 her husband was not on duty. "He was home with me having coffee. My daughter and grandson, living only five blocks from the Towers, had to be evacuated with masks -- terror all around. ... My other daughter, near the Brooklyn Bridge ... my son in high school. But my Charlie took off like a lightning bolt to be with his men from the Special Operations Command. 'Bring my gear to the plaza,' he told his aide immediately after the first plane struck the North Tower. ... He took action based on the responsibility he felt for his job and his men and for those Towers that he loved."

In the FDNY, she said, chain-of- command rules extend to every captain of every fire house in the city. If anything happens in the firehouse -- at any time -- even if the captain isn't on duty or on vacation -- that captain is responsible for everything that goes on there 24/7."

So she asked: "Why is this administration responsible for nothing? All that they do is pass the blame. This is not leadership. ... Watch everyone pass the blame again in this recent torture case [Abu Ghraib] of Iraqi prisons ..."

And then she wrote: "We need more programs like yours to wake America up. ... Such programs must continue amidst the sea of false images and name-calling that divide America now. ... Such programs give us hope that search will continue to get this imperfect human condition on to a higher plane. So thank you and all of those who work with you. Without public broadcasting, all we would call news would be merely carefully controlled propaganda."

Enclosed with the letter was a check made out to "Channel 13 -- NOW" for $500. I keep a copy of that check above my desk to remind me of what journalism is about. Kenneth Tomlinson has his demanding donors. I'll take the widow's mite any day.

Someone has said recently that the great raucous mob that is democracy is rarely heard and that it's not just the fault of the current residents of the White House and the capital. There's too great a chasm between those of us in this business and those who depend on TV and radio as their window to the world. We treat them too much as an audience and not enough as citizens. They're invited to look through the window but too infrequently to come through the door and to participate, to make public broadcasting truly public."

To that end, five public interest groups including Common Cause and Consumers Union will be holding informational sessions around the country to "take public broadcasting back" -- to take it back from threats, from interference, from those who would tell us we can only think what they command us to think.

It's a worthy goal.

We're big kids; we can handle controversy and diversity, whether it's political or religious points of view or two loving lesbian moms and their kids, visited by a cartoon rabbit. We are not too fragile or insecure to see America and the world entire for all their magnificent and sometimes violent confusion. There used to be a thing or a commodity we put great store by," John Steinbeck wrote. "It was called the people."

Lecturer censored in Spanish University (UPV) for defending P2P networks

2005-05-20T16:41:00.000-07:00

Lecturer censored in Spanish University (UPV) for defending P2P networksLecturer censored in Spanish University (UPV) for defending P2P networks
Date Created: 20 May, 2005, 09:15 AM

[Upon the request of various foreign media that would like to cover this story, and would like a link to the source in English, here is a recap of my ordeal]

This what happened to me when trying to defend the legal use of P2P networks in Spain.

I have been teaching "Intellectual Property" (although I dislike the term) among other subjects at a Masters Degree in the Polytechnic University of Valencia UPV (Spain) for over 5 years. Two weeks ago I was scheduled (invited by the ETSIA Student Union and Linux Users' Group for the celebration of "Culture Week") to give a conference in one of the university's buildings. During that conference I was to analyze the legal use and benefits of the P2P networks, even when dealing with copyrighted works (according to the Spanish Intellectual Property Law, Private Copy provision, and many research papers, books and court rulings). I was even going to use the network to "prove" that it was legal, since members of the Collecting Society "SGAE" had appeared on TV and newspapers saying that "P2P networks are ilegal" (sic) just like that, and to that extent I even contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it.

The day before the conference, the Dean (pressured by the Spanish Recording Industry Association "Promusicae" as I found out later, and he recognized himself in a quote to the national newspaper El Pais, and even the Motion Picture Association of America, as another newspaper quotes) tried to stop it by denying permission to use the scheduled venue. So I scheduled a second one, and that was denied again. And a third time. Finally I gave the conference on the university cafeteria, for 5 hours, in front of 150 people.

Later on that day (May 4th, I will never forget), I received a call from the Director of the Masters Degree Program where I was teaching telling me that the Dean had called and had asked him to "make sure I did not teach there again", and on a second call saying "it's your choice, but also your responsibility".

The Director called me and first asked me to remove any link to the university from my website, and also to "hide" the fact that I was teaching there. Then he told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them). Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did.

But even after I had resigned, when the media (which started to pay attention to the case, as you can see in the attached links) called, the Vice-Dean of communications had the nerve to say that "I was never a teacher in that University, and I only taught a few classes". Sure I was not a Professor (which I never said I was), but I taught several subjects there for over 5 years!

It is not so important that I lost my job even though my ratings from the student satisfaction questionnaire were the highest of the whole Program, and I never violated any rule, contract, or regulation. I don't even mind so much that I never received a direct phone call from anyone objecting to my ideas or procedures. What I regret the most is to have suffered CENSORSHIP inside my own university (in a European Union member state, of all places on earth), and as a result of pressures and threats coming from Collecting Societies and Recording and Movie Industries (on my website you have proof of all that).

When are we going to do something about it? We can't let them impose their failed, outdated, and inefficient business model through threats, pressures and silence. We must speak out. I am wiling to travel the world (as I am doing now in conferences all over Spain) to tell my story, and they will not silence me. The truth has to be known. But I need your help.

This story has already been covered by over 400 Spanish bloggers, national radio stations, magazines and newspapers. But nobody seems to have noticed this outside Spain. Could you please help me spread the word outside Spain?

Should you require any further information, do not hesitate to let me know.

Best regards, and Thank you very much in advance,

Jorge Cortell
jorge (at) cortell (dot) net
jorgecortell (at) mac (dot) com

This website with a lot of information (in Spanish) regarding this issue (including transcripts, screen captures and other proofs):
http://jorge.cortell.net

Particularly:
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041021114344/LHA20050505142849/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041021114344/LHA20050428093531/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041117170647/LHA20050505191504/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041117170647/LHA20050505205536/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041117170647/LHA20050510142036/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041117170647/LHA20050504193150/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041117170647/LHA20050504095812/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041021114344/LHA20050507235615/index.html

List of Blogs that follow the issue:
http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=Cortell

Audio of the conference (recorded outdoors):
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041021114344/LHA20050504184022/index.html

Media coverage.-

NEWSPAPERS:

El Pais (National Newspaper, paid subscription required):
http://www.elpais.es/articulo.html?d_date=&xref=20050512elpcibenr_4&type=Tes&anchor=elpcibred#articulo

El Mundo (National Newspaper):
http://www.elmundo.es/navegante/2005/05/04/esociedad/1115222036.html

20 Minutos (National Newspaper)
http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/22543/0/Politecnica/musica/publico/

NEWS SITES:

Barrapunto (Spanish Slash Dot):
http://barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/04/0629243&mode=nested

Noticias dot com:
http://www.noticias.com/index.php?action=mostrar_articulo&id=65103&seccion=Cultura%20y%20Ocio&categoria=&IDCanal=1

Consumer Magazine:
http://www.consumer.es/web/es/tecnologia/2005/05/09/141815.php

Libertad Digital:
http://www.libertaddigital.com/noticias/noticia_1276251087.html

Spanish NetCitizens Association
http://www.internautas.org/html/1/2897.html
http://www.internautas.org/html/1/2913.html

Indymedia Barcelona:
http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire/display/178812/index.php

RADIO:

COPE national radio (interview):
http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041021114344/LHA20050516145400/Media/LHA20050516145407.zip

Radio 87Mhz (conference):
http://sindominio.net/radio87mhz/

ENGLISH SPEAKING BLOGS:

English speaking blogger:
http://www.protozoo.com/index.php?postId=78

Another English speaking blogger:
http://ayk.textamerica.com/?r=2483560

And many more links:
http://piezas.bandaancha.st/docs/cortell.html

MAKES YOU PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN....OR DOES IT?

2005-05-20T04:37:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116561600&en=8701738ac057aebe&ei=5094&partner=homepage
In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Reprints
By TIM GOLDEN
Published: May 20, 2005
Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.

In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.

In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner is made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning.

The Times obtained a copy of the file from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of the methods used at Bagram and the military's response to the deaths.

Although incidents of prisoner abuse at Bagram in 2002, including some details of the two men's deaths, have been previously reported, American officials have characterized them as isolated problems that were thoroughly investigated. And many of the officers and soldiers interviewed in the Dilawar investigation said the large majority of detainees at Bagram were compliant and reasonably well treated.

"What we have learned through the course of all these investigations is that there were people who clearly violated anyone's standard for humane treatment," said the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita. "We're finding some cases that were not close calls."

(Page 2 of 8)

Yet the Bagram file includes ample testimony that harsh treatment by some interrogators was routine and that guards could strike shackled detainees with virtual impunity. Prisoners considered important or troublesome were also handcuffed and chained to the ceilings and doors of their cells, sometimes for long periods, an action Army prosecutors recently classified as criminal assault.

Some of the mistreatment was quite obvious, the file suggests. Senior officers frequently toured the detention center, and several of them acknowledged seeing prisoners chained up for punishment or to deprive them of sleep. Shortly before the two deaths, observers from the International Committee of the Red Cross specifically complained to the military authorities at Bagram about the shackling of prisoners in "fixed positions," documents show.

Even though military investigators learned soon after Mr. Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the Army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by the same operations officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level Army inquiry last year, Captain Wood applied techniques there that were "remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram.

Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case.

So far, only the seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two Army interrogators were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter.

"The whole situation is unfair," Sgt. Selena M. Salcedo, a former Bagram interrogator who was charged with assaulting Mr. Dilawar, dereliction of duty and lying to investigators, said in a telephone interview. "It's all going to come out when everything is said and done."

With most of the legal action pending, the story of abuses at Bagram remains incomplete. But documents and interviews reveal a striking disparity between the findings of Army investigators and what military officials said in the aftermath of the deaths.

Military spokesmen maintained that both men had died of natural causes, even after military coroners had ruled the deaths homicides. Two months after those autopsies, the American commander in Afghanistan, then-Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, said he had no indication that abuse by soldiers had contributed to the two deaths. The methods used at Bagram, he said, were "in accordance with what is generally accepted as interrogation techniques."

The Interrogators

In the summer of 2002, the military detention center at Bagram, about 40 miles north of Kabul, stood as a hulking reminder of the Americans' improvised hold over Afghanistan.

Built by the Soviets as an aircraft machine shop for the operations base they established after their intervention in the country in 1979, the building had survived the ensuing wars as a battered relic - a long, squat, concrete block with rusted metal sheets where the windows had once been.

Retrofitted with five large wire pens and a half dozen plywood isolation cells, the building became the Bagram Collection Point, a clearinghouse for prisoners captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The B.C.P., as soldiers called it, typically held between 40 and 80 detainees while they were interrogated and screened for possible shipment to the Pentagon's longer-term detention center at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba.

The new interrogation unit that arrived in July 2002 had been improvised as well. Captain Wood, then a 32-year-old lieutenant, came with 13 soldiers from the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade at Fort Bragg, N.C.; six Arabic-speaking reservists were added from the Utah National Guard.

(Page 3 of 8)

Part of the new group, which was consolidated under Company A of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, was made up of counterintelligence specialists with no background in interrogation. Only two of the soldiers had ever questioned actual prisoners.

What specialized training the unit received came on the job, in sessions with two interrogators who had worked in the prison for a few months. "There was nothing that prepared us for running an interrogation operation" like the one at Bagram, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the interrogators, Staff Sgt. Steven W. Loring, later told investigators.

Nor were the rules of engagement very clear. The platoon had the standard interrogations guide, Army Field Manual 34-52, and an order from the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to treat prisoners "humanely," and when possible, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. But with President Bush's final determination in February 2002 that the Conventions did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda and that Taliban fighters would not be accorded the rights of prisoners of war, the interrogators believed they "could deviate slightly from the rules," said one of the Utah reservists, Sgt. James A. Leahy.

"There was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war, but nothing for terrorists," Sergeant Leahy told Army investigators. And the detainees, senior intelligence officers said, were to be considered terrorists until proved otherwise.

The deviations included the use of "safety positions" or "stress positions" that would make the detainees uncomfortable but not necessarily hurt them - kneeling on the ground, for instance, or sitting in a "chair" position against the wall. The new platoon was also trained in sleep deprivation, which the previous unit had generally limited to 24 hours or less, insisting that the interrogator remain awake with the prisoner to avoid pushing the limits of humane treatment.

But as the 519th interrogators settled into their jobs, they set their own procedures for sleep deprivation. They decided on 32 to 36 hours as the optimal time to keep prisoners awake and eliminated the practice of staying up themselves, one former interrogator, Eric LaHammer, said in an interview.

The interrogators worked from a menu of basic tactics to gain a prisoner's cooperation, from the "friendly" approach, to good cop-bad cop routines, to the threat of long-term imprisonment. But some less-experienced interrogators came to rely on the method known in the military as "Fear Up Harsh," or what one soldier referred to as "the screaming technique."

Sergeant Loring, then 27, tried with limited success to wean those interrogators off that approach, which typically involved yelling and throwing chairs. Mr. Leahy said the sergeant "put the brakes on when certain approaches got out of hand." But he could also be dismissive of tactics he considered too soft, several soldiers told investigators, and gave some of the most aggressive interrogators wide latitude. (Efforts to locate Mr. Loring, who has left the military, were unsuccessful.)

"We sometimes developed a rapport with detainees, and Sergeant Loring would sit us down and remind us that these were evil people and talk about 9/11 and they weren't our friends and could not be trusted," Mr. Leahy said.

Specialist Damien M. Corsetti, a tall, bearded interrogator sometimes called "Monster" -he had the nickname tattooed in Italian across his stomach, other soldiers said - was often chosen to intimidate new detainees. Specialist Corsetti, they said, would glower and yell at the arrivals as they stood chained to an overhead pole or lay face down on the floor of a holding room. (A military police K-9 unit often brought growling dogs to walk among the new prisoners for similar effect, documents show.)

"The other interrogators would use his reputation," said one interrogator, Specialist Eric H. Barclais. "They would tell the detainee, 'If you don't cooperate, we'll have to get Monster, and he won't be as nice.' " Another soldier told investigators that Sergeant Loring lightheartedly referred to Specialist Corsetti, then 23, as "the King of Torture."

(Page 4 of 8)

A Saudi detainee who was interviewed by Army investigators last June at Guant�namo said Specialist Corsetti had pulled out his penis during an interrogation at Bagram, held it against the prisoner's face and threatened to rape him, excerpts from the man's statement show.

Last fall, the investigators cited probable cause to charge Specialist Corsetti with assault, maltreatment of a prisoner and indecent acts in the incident; he has not been charged. At Abu Ghraib, he was also one of three members of the 519th who were fined and demoted for forcing an Iraqi woman to strip during questioning, another interrogator said. A spokesman at Fort Bragg said Specialist Corsetti would not comment.

In late August of 2002, the Bagram interrogators were joined by a new military police unit that was assigned to guard the detainees. The soldiers, mostly reservists from the 377th Military Police Company based in Cincinnati and Bloomington, Ind., were similarly unprepared for their mission, members of the unit said.

The company received basic lessons in handling prisoners at Fort Dix, N.J., and some police and corrections officers in its ranks provided further training. That instruction included an overview of "pressure-point control tactics" and notably the "common peroneal strike" - a potentially disabling blow to the side of the leg, just above the knee.

The M.P.'s said they were never told that peroneal strikes were not part of Army doctrine. Nor did most of them hear one of the former police officers tell a fellow soldier during the training that he would never use such strikes because they would "tear up" a prisoner's legs.

But once in Afghanistan, members of the 377th found that the usual rules did not seem to apply. The peroneal strike quickly became a basic weapon of the M.P. arsenal. "That was kind of like an accepted thing; you could knee somebody in the leg," former Sgt. Thomas V. Curtis told the investigators.

A few weeks into the company's tour, Specialist Jeremy M. Callaway overheard another guard boasting about having beaten a detainee who had spit on him. Specialist Callaway also told investigators that other soldiers had congratulated the guard "for not taking any" from a detainee.

One captain nicknamed members of the Third Platoon "the Testosterone Gang." Several were devout bodybuilders. Upon arriving in Afghanistan, a group of the soldiers decorated their tent with a Confederate flag, one soldier said.

Some of the same M.P.'s took a particular interest in an emotionally disturbed Afghan detainee who was known to eat his feces and mutilate himself with concertina wire. The soldiers kneed the man repeatedly in the legs and, at one point, chained him with his arms straight up in the air, Specialist Callaway told investigators. They also nicknamed him "Timmy," after a disabled child in the animated television series "South Park." One of the guards who beat the prisoner also taught him to screech like the cartoon character, Specialist Callaway said.

Eventually, the man was sent home.

The Defiant Detainee

The detainee known as Person Under Control No. 412 was a portly, well-groomed Afghan named Habibullah. Some American officials identified him as "Mullah" Habibullah, a brother of a former Taliban commander from the southern Afghan province of Oruzgan.

He stood out from the scraggly guerrillas and villagers whom the Bagram interrogators typically saw. "He had a piercing gaze and was very confident," the provost marshal in charge of the M.P.'s, Maj. Bobby R. Atwell, recalled.

Documents from the investigation suggest that Mr. Habibullah was captured by an Afghan warlord on Nov. 28, 2002, and delivered to Bagram by C.I.A. operatives two days later. His well-being at that point is a matter of dispute. The doctor who examined him on arrival at Bagram reported him in good health. But the intelligence operations chief, Lt. Col. John W. Loffert Jr., later told Army investigators, "He was already in bad condition when he arrived."

What is clear is that Mr. Habibullah was identified at Bagram as an important prisoner and an unusually sharp-tongued and insubordinate one.

Page 5 of 8)

One of the 377th's Third Platoon sergeants, Alan J. Driver Jr., told investigators that Mr. Habibullah rose up after a rectal examination and kneed him in the groin. The guard said he grabbed the prisoner by the head and yelled in his face. Mr. Habibullah then "became combative," Sergeant Driver said, and had to be subdued by three guards and led away in an armlock.

He was then confined in one of the 9-foot by 7-foot isolation cells, which the M.P. commander, Capt. Christopher M. Beiring, later described as a standard procedure. "There was a policy that detainees were hooded, shackled and isolated for at least the first 24 hours, sometimes 72 hours of captivity," he told investigators.

While the guards kept some prisoners awake by yelling or poking at them or banging on their cell doors, Mr. Habibullah was shackled by the wrists to the wire ceiling over his cell, soldiers said.

On his second day, Dec. 1, the prisoner was "uncooperative" again, this time with Specialist Willie V. Brand. The guard, who has since been charged with assault and other crimes, told investigators he had delivered three peroneal strikes in response. The next day, Specialist Brand said, he had to knee the prisoner again. Other blows followed.

A lawyer for Specialist Brand, John P. Galligan, said there was no criminal intent by his client to hurt any detainee. "At the time, my client was acting consistently with the standard operating procedure that was in place at the Bagram facility."

The communication between Mr. Habibullah and his jailers appears to have been almost exclusively physical. Despite repeated requests, the M.P.'s were assigned no interpreters of their own. Instead, they borrowed from the interrogators when they could and relied on prisoners who spoke even a little English to translate for them.

When the detainees were beaten or kicked for "noncompliance," one of the interpreters, Ali M. Baryalai said, it was often "because they have no idea what the M.P. is saying."

By the morning of Dec. 2, witnesses told the investigators, Mr. Habibullah was coughing and complaining of chest pains. He limped into the interrogation room in shackles, his right leg stiff and his right foot swollen. The lead interrogator, Sergeant Leahy, let him sit on the floor because he could not bend his knees and sit in a chair.

The interpreter who was on hand, Ebrahim Baerde, said the interrogators had kept their distance that day "because he was spitting up a lot of phlegm."

"They were laughing and making fun of him, saying it was 'gross' or 'nasty,' " Mr. Baerde said.

Though battered, Mr. Habibullah was unbowed.

"Once they asked him if he wanted to spend the rest of his life in handcuffs," Mr. Baerde said. "His response was, 'Yes, don't they look good on me?' "

By Dec. 3, Mr. Habibullah's reputation for defiance seemed to make him an open target. One M.P. said he had given him five peroneal strikes for being "noncompliant and combative." Another gave him three or four more for being "combative and noncompliant." Some guards later asserted that he had been hurt trying to escape.

When Sgt. James P. Boland saw Mr. Habibullah on Dec. 3, he was in one of the isolation cells, tethered to the ceiling by two sets of handcuffs and a chain around his waist. His body was slumped forward, held up by the chains.

Sergeant Boland told the investigators he had entered the cell with two other guards, Specialists Anthony M. Morden and Brian E. Cammack. (All three have been charged with assault and other crimes.) One of them pulled off the prisoner's black hood. His head was slumped to one side, his tongue sticking out. Specialist Cammack said he had put some bread on Mr. Habibullah's tongue. Another soldier put an apple in the prisoner's hand; it fell to the floor.

When Specialist Cammack turned back toward the prisoner, he said in one statement, Mr. Habibullah's spit hit his chest. Later, Specialist Cammack acknowledged, "I'm not sure if he spit at me." But at the time, he exploded, yelling, "Don't ever spit on me again!" and kneeing the prisoner sharply in the thigh, "maybe a couple" of times. Mr. Habibullah's limp body swayed back and forth in the chains.

When Sergeant Boland returned to the cell some 20 minutes later, he said, Mr. Habibullah was not moving and had no pulse. Finally, the prisoner was unchained and laid out on the floor of his cell.

The guard who Specialist Cammack said had counseled him back in New Jersey about the dangers of peroneal strikes found him in the room where Mr. Habibullah lay, his body already cold.

"Specialist Cammack appeared very distraught," Specialist William Bohl told an investigator. The soldier "was running about the room hysterically."

An M.P. was sent to wake one of the medics.

"What are you getting me for?" the medic, Specialist Robert S. Melone, responded, telling him to call an ambulance instead.

When another medic finally arrived, he found Mr. Habibullah on the floor, his arms outstretched, his eyes and mouth open.

"It looked like he had been dead for a while, and it looked like nobody cared," the medic, Staff Sgt. Rodney D. Glass, recalled.

Not all of the guards were indifferent, their statements show. But if Mr. Habibullah's death shocked some of them, it did not lead to major changes in the detention center's operation.

(Page 6 of 8)

Military police guards were assigned to be present during interrogations to help prevent mistreatment. The provost marshal, Major Atwell, told investigators he had already instructed the commander of the M.P. company, Captain Beiring, to stop chaining prisoners to the ceiling. Others said they never received such an order.

Senior officers later told investigators that they had been unaware of any serious abuses at the B.C.P. But the first sergeant of the 377th, Betty J. Jones, told investigators that the use of standing restraints, sleep deprivation and peroneal strikes was readily apparent.

"Everyone that is anyone went through the facility at one time or another," she said.

Major Atwell said the death "did not cause an enormous amount of concern 'cause it appeared natural."

In fact, Mr. Habibullah's autopsy, completed on Dec. 8, showed bruises or abrasions on his chest, arms and head. There were deep contusions on his calves, knees and thighs. His left calf was marked by what appeared to have been the sole of a boot.

His death was attributed to a blood clot, probably caused by the severe injuries to his legs, which traveled to his heart and blocked the blood flow to his lungs.

The Shy Detainee

On Dec. 5, one day after Mr. Habibullah died, Mr. Dilawar arrived at Bagram.

Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Mr. Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi.

Mr. Dilawar was not an adventurous man. He rarely went far from the stone farmhouse he shared with his wife, young daughter and extended family. He never attended school, relatives said, and had only one friend, Bacha Khel, with whom he would sit in the wheat fields surrounding the village and talk.

"He was a shy man, a very simple man," his eldest brother, Shahpoor, said in an interview.

On the day he disappeared, Mr. Dilawar's mother had asked him to gather his three sisters from their nearby villages and bring them home for the holiday. But he needed gas money and decided instead to drive to the provincial capital, Khost, about 45 minutes away, to look for fares.

At a taxi stand there, he found three men headed back toward Yakubi. On the way, they passed a base used by American troops, Camp Salerno, which had been the target of a rocket attack that morning.

Militiamen loyal to the guerrilla commander guarding the base, Jan Baz Khan, stopped the Toyota at a checkpoint. They confiscated a broken walkie-talkie from one of Mr. Dilawar's passengers. In the trunk, they found an electric stabilizer used to regulate current from a generator. (Mr. Dilawar's family said the stabilizer was not theirs; at the time, they said, they had no electricity at all.)

The four men were detained and turned over to American soldiers at the base as suspects in the attack. Mr. Dilawar and his passengers spent their first night there handcuffed to a fence, so they would be unable to sleep. When a doctor examined them the next morning, he said later, he found Mr. Dilawar tired and suffering from headaches but otherwise fine.

Mr. Dilawar's three passengers were eventually flown to Guant�namo and held for more than a year before being sent home without charge. In interviews after their release, the men described their treatment at Bagram as far worse than at Guant�namo. While all of them said they had been beaten, they complained most bitterly of being stripped naked in front of female soldiers for showers and medical examinations, which they said included the first of several painful and humiliating rectal exams.

"They did lots and lots of bad things to me," said Abdur Rahim, a 26-year-old baker from Khost. "I was shouting and crying, and no one was listening. When I was shouting, the soldiers were slamming my head against the desk."

For Mr. Dilawar, his fellow prisoners said, the most difficult thing seemed to be the black cloth hood that was pulled over his head. "He could not breathe," said a man called Parkhudin, who had been one of Mr. Dilawar's passengers.

Mr. Dilawar was a frail man, standing only 5 feet 9 inches and weighing 122 pounds. But at Bagram, he was quickly labeled one of the "noncompliant" ones.

(Page 7 of 8)

When one of the First Platoon M.P.'s, Specialist Corey E. Jones, was sent to Mr. Dilawar's cell to give him some water, he said the prisoner spit in his face and started kicking him. Specialist Jones responded, he said, with a couple of knee strikes to the leg of the shackled man.

"He screamed out, 'Allah! Allah! Allah!' and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god," Specialist Jones said to investigators. "Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny."

Other Third Platoon M.P.'s later came by the detention center and stopped at the isolation cells to see for themselves, Specialist Jones said.

It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,' " he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."

In a subsequent statement, Specialist Jones was vague about which M.P.'s had delivered the blows. His estimate was never confirmed, but other guards eventually admitted striking Mr. Dilawar repeatedly.

Many M.P.'s would eventually deny that they had any idea of Mr. Dilawar's injuries, explaining that they never saw his legs beneath his jumpsuit. But Specialist Jones recalled that the drawstring pants of Mr. Dilawar's orange prison suit fell down again and again while he was shackled.

"I saw the bruise because his pants kept falling down while he was in standing restraints," the soldier told investigators. "Over a certain time period, I noticed it was the size of a fist."

As Mr. Dilawar grew desperate, he began crying out more loudly to be released. But even the interpreters had trouble understanding his Pashto dialect; the annoyed guards heard only noise.

"He had constantly been screaming, 'Release me; I don't want to be here,' and things like that," said the one linguist who could decipher his distress, Abdul Ahad Wardak.

The Interrogation

On Dec. 8, Mr. Dilawar was taken for his fourth interrogation. It quickly turned hostile.

The 21-year-old lead interrogator, Specialist Glendale C. Walls II, later contended that Mr. Dilawar was evasive. "Some holes came up, and we wanted him to answer us truthfully," he said. The other interrogator, Sergeant Salcedo, complained that the prisoner was smiling, not answering questions, and refusing to stay kneeling on the ground or sitting against the wall.

The interpreter who was present, Ahmad Ahmadzai, recalled the encounter differently to investigators.

The interrogators, Mr. Ahmadzai said, accused Mr. Dilawar of launching the rockets that had hit the American base. He denied that. While kneeling on the ground, he was unable to hold his cuffed hands above his head as instructed, prompting Sergeant Salcedo to slap them back up whenever they began to drop.

"Selena berated him for being weak and questioned him about being a man, which was very insulting because of his heritage," Mr. Ahmadzai said.

When Mr. Dilawar was unable to sit in the chair position against the wall because of his battered legs, the two interrogators grabbed him by the shirt and repeatedly shoved him back against the wall.

"This went on for 10 or 15 minutes," the interpreter said. "He was so tired he couldn't get up."

"They stood him up, and at one point Selena stepped on his bare foot with her boot and grabbed him by his beard and pulled him towards her," he went on. "Once Selena kicked Dilawar in the groin, private areas, with her right foot. She was standing some distance from him, and she stepped back and kicked him.

"About the first 10 minutes, I think, they were actually questioning him, after that it was pushing, shoving, kicking and shouting at him," Mr. Ahmadzai said. "There was no interrogation going on."

The session ended, he said, with Sergeant Salcedo instructing the M.P.'s to keep Mr. Dilawar chained to the ceiling until the next shift came on.

The next morning, Mr. Dilawar began yelling again. At around noon, the M.P.'s called over another of the interpreters, Mr. Baerde, to try to quiet Mr. Dilawar down.

"I told him, 'Look, please, if you want to be able to sit down and be released from shackles, you just need to be quiet for one more hour."

"He told me that if he was in shackles another hour, he would die," Mr. Baerde said.

Half an hour later, Mr. Baerde returned to the cell. Mr. Dilawar's hands hung limply from the cuffs, and his head, covered by the black hood, slumped forward.

"He wanted me to get a doctor, and said that he needed 'a shot,' " Mr. Baerde recalled. "He said that he didn't feel good. He said that his legs were hurting."

Mr. Baerde translated Mr. Dilawar's plea to one of the guards. The soldier took the prisoner's hand and pressed down on his fingernails to check his circulation.

"He's O.K.," Mr. Baerde quoted the M.P. as saying. "He's just trying to get out of his restraints."

Page 8 of 8)

By the time Mr. Dilawar was brought in for his final interrogation in the first hours of the next day, Dec. 10, he appeared exhausted and was babbling that his wife had died. He also told the interrogators that he had been beaten by the guards.

"But we didn't pursue that," said Mr. Baryalai, the interpreter.

Specialist Walls was again the lead interrogator. But his more aggressive partner, Specialist Claus, quickly took over, Mr. Baryalai said.

"Josh had a rule that the detainee had to look at him, not me," the interpreter told investigators. "He gave him three chances, and then he grabbed him by the shirt and pulled him towards him, across the table, slamming his chest into the table front."

When Mr. Dilawar was unable to kneel, the interpreter said, the interrogators pulled him to his feet and pushed him against the wall. Told to assume a stress position, the prisoner leaned his head against the wall and began to fall asleep.

"It looked to me like Dilawar was trying to cooperate, but he couldn't physically perform the tasks," Mr. Baryalai said.

Finally, Specialist Walls grabbed the prisoner and "shook him harshly," the interpreter said, telling him that if he failed to cooperate, he would be shipped to a prison in the United States, where he would be "treated like a woman, by the other men" and face the wrath of criminals who "would be very angry with anyone involved in the 9/11 attacks." (Specialist Walls was charged last week with assault, maltreatment and failure to obey a lawful order; Specialist Claus was charged with assault, maltreatment and lying to investigators. Each man declined to comment.)

A third military intelligence specialist who spoke some Pashto, Staff Sgt. W. Christopher Yonushonis, had questioned Mr. Dilawar earlier and had arranged with Specialist Claus to take over when he was done. Instead, the sergeant arrived at the interrogation room to find a large puddle of water on the floor, a wet spot on Mr. Dilawar's shirt and Specialist Claus standing behind the detainee, twisting up the back of the hood that covered the prisoner's head.

"I had the impression that Josh was actually holding the detainee upright by pulling on the hood," he said. "I was furious at this point because I had seen Josh tighten the hood of another detainee the week before. This behavior seemed completely gratuitous and unrelated to intelligence collection."

"What the hell happened with that water?" Sergeant Yonushonis said he had demanded.

"We had to make sure he stayed hydrated," he said Specialist Claus had responded.

The next morning, Sergeant Yonushonis went to the noncommissioned officer in charge of the interrogators, Sergeant Loring, to report the incident. Mr. Dilawar, however, was already dead.

The Post-Mortem

The findings of Mr. Dilawar's autopsy were succinct. He had had some coronary artery disease, the medical examiner reported, but what caused his heart to fail was "blunt force injuries to the lower extremities." Similar injuries contributed to Mr. Habibullah's death.

One of the coroners later translated the assessment at a pre-trial hearing for Specialist Brand, saying the tissue in the young man's legs "had basically been pulpified."

"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus," added Lt. Col. Elizabeth Rouse, the coroner, and a major at that time.

After the second death, several of the 519th Battalion's interrogators were temporarily removed from their posts. A medic was assigned to the detention center to work night shifts. On orders from the Bagram intelligence chief, interrogators were prohibited from any physical contact with the detainees. Chaining prisoners to any fixed object was also banned, and the use of stress positions was curtailed.

In February, an American military official disclosed that the Afghan guerrilla commander whose men had arrested Mr. Dilawar and his passengers had himself been detained. The commander, Jan Baz Khan, was suspected of attacking Camp Salerno himself and then turning over innocent "suspects" to the Americans in a ploy to win their trust, the military official said.

The three passengers in Mr. Dilawar's taxi were sent home from Guant�namo in March 2004, 15 months after their capture, with letters saying they posed "no threat" to American forces.

They were later visited by Mr. Dilawar's parents, who begged them to explain what had happened to their son. But the men said they could not bring themselves to recount the details.

"I told them he had a bed," said Mr. Parkhudin. "I said the Americans were very nice because he had a heart problem."

In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command. Until then, he had never been interviewed.

"I expected to be contacted at some point by investigators in this case," he said. "I was living a few doors down from the interrogation room, and I had been one of the last to see this detainee alive."

Sergeant Yonushonis described what he had witnessed of the detainee's last interrogation. "I remember being so mad that I had trouble speaking," he said.

He also added a detail that had been overlooked in the investigative file. By the time Mr. Dilawar was taken into his final interrogations, he said, "most of us were convinced that the detainee was innocent."

###

MUST SEE SITE

2005-05-19T19:03:00.000-07:00

http://filmstripinternational.com/

Janice Rogers Brown- Dangerous Right Wing Nut

2005-05-19T17:24:00.000-07:00

Janice Rogers Brown has some bizarre, and yes, I believe, dangerous views on the world. That's fine if she was just a greeter at Wal*Mart, but it is NOT fine if she were to become Appeals Court Judge. Her kind of bizarre thinking has NO legitimate place on the judiciary at ANY level.

Think she is just a nice black lady who deserves any judicial position Bushy wants to slide her into?

If you think that, examine her positions...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/19/AR2005051900956_2.html

In many ways, Brown's court rulings and speeches mirror the thinking of Bush and conservatives coast to coast.

An outspoken Christian conservative from the segregated South, she supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely upholds the death penalty and opposes affirmative action.

"A lot of judges get to the point they think they were anointed and not appointed," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday during floor debate. "I don't think anyone can contend she has performed other than admirably on the bench. She has written beautifully and thoughtfully."

Brown's views are also why Democrats have used a filibuster since 2003 to block her confirmation for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate's 55 Republicans have a clear majority to confirm but not the 60 votes need to break the filibuster.

"She has criticized the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws. She's questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "No one with these views should be confirmed to a federal court and certainly not to the federal court most responsible for cases affecting government action."

and farther down...
"She defended her faith-based approach to the law again last month, telling a gathering of Roman Catholic legal professionals in Darien, Conn., that "these are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud."

Janice Rogers Brown apparently is one of the right wing nut jobs who is part of the "Constitution in Exile".

http://www.acsblog.org/economic-regulation-employment-1217-jeffrey-rosen-on-athe-constitution-in-exilea.html

" Other potential Bush Supreme Court nominees Rosen discusses as potential adherents of the Constitution in Exile include Janice Rogers Brown (who called 1937, the year in which the Supreme Court stopped striking down New Deal legislation on constitutional grounds “the triumph of our socialist revolution.”), J. Michael Luttig and John Roberts."

More on teh "Constitution in Exile" insane ideas here

http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-700-the-return-of-constitution-in-exile.html

But, Janice Rogers Brown has her little fingers all gooey from ALL KINDS of nut job pies! She's a big one for the "FEDERALIST SOCIETY".

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/1/225323/5346
"The Big Lie: Right Wing Plays the Race Card on Judicial Nominations
by Armando
Sun May 1st, 2005 at 19:53:23 PDT

You knew it was coming because the Right Wing is shameless. And here it is - the shameless playing of the race card by the GOP, right from the bottom of the deck:

Why are Senate Democrats so afraid of conservative judicial nominees who are African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, and women? Because these Clarence Thomas nominees threaten to split the Democratic base by aligning conservative Republicans with conservative voices in the minority community and appealing to suburban women. The Democrats need Bush to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court whom they can caricature and vilify, and it is much harder for them to do that if Bush nominates the judicial equivalent of a Condi Rice rather than a John Ashcroft.
What shameless liars. Indeed, the opposite is true. The GOP chooses African-Americans and women to be the most extreme, out of the mainstream nominees imaginable. And yes Clarence Thomas is Exhibit A of that theory. Why do they do this? To try and cow legitmate opposition to the unbelievably extreme positions they want their nominees to hold, and they believe the only way to get these extreme views confirmed by the Senate is to cynically play the race card - to wit, nominate African-Americans and women who hold these extreme, out of the mainstream views.

The truth is no bar to the GOP's offensive use of the race card. Take this description:

Take Janice Rogers Brown, who won reelection to her state supreme court seat with a stunning 76 percent of the vote in one of the bluest of the blue states, California.
First of all, Rogers Brown was not reelected, rather she was facing the voters for the FIRST time in 1998 on a vote of retention after being named to the California Supreme Court in 1996. Brown would not be up for re-election for another 12 years, in 2008. More importantly, a 76% vote for a California Supreme Court Justice is NOT stunning, particularly one with only 2 years on the Court. For example, from California Appellate Counselor:

Four current members of the California Supreme Court were up for retention in the November 1998 election -- Chief Justice Ronald George, Justice Stanley Mosk, Justice Ming Chin and Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Most of the attention centered on Chief Justice George and Justice Chin, who had incurred the wrath of certain abortion foes by voting to strike down a statute that required unmarried teenagers to obtain the consent of a parent or judge for an abortion. Justices Mosk and Brown dissented from that decision[,] ... American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal. 4th 307 (1997).
As it turned out, the elections were no contest. All four were retained by substantial margins. Here are the final results, as reported in the Los Angeles Times:

Chief Justice Ronald M. George
Confirm 4,131,213 (75 percent)
Reject 1,354,994 (25 percent)

Associate Justice Stanley Mosk
Confirm 3,695,777 (70 percent)
Reject 1,557,390 (30 percent)

Associate Justice Ming W. Chin
Confirm 3,723,584 (69 percent)
Reject 1,669,841 (25 percent)

Associate Justice Janice R. Brown
Confirm 3,884,203 (76 percent)
Reject 1,255,502 (24 percent)

As you can see, distorting the facts is no impediment for the Right Wing. In an election where the Religious Right targetted liberal Justices, Rogers Brown, an afterthought in this election, "stunned" with the same result as the targetted Chief Justice.

More importantly, the Right Wing simply lies about the basis of Democratic opposition to Rogers Brown:

Justice Brown's disdain for government runs so deep that she urges "conservative" judges to invalidate legislation that expands the role of government, saying that it "inevitably transform[s]... a democracy ... into a kleptocracy." Following her own "pro-activist" advice, Justice Brown - always in dissent - uses constitutional provisions or defies the legislature's intent to restrict or invalidate laws she doesn't like, such as California's anti-discrimination statute (which she condemns as protecting only "narrow" personal interests), hotel development fees intended to preserve San Francisco's affordable housing supply, rent control ordinances, statutory fees for manufacturers that put lead-based products into the stream of commerce, and a false advertising law applied to companies making false claims about their workplace practices to boost sales. Justice Brown's colleagues on the court have repeatedly remarked on her disrespect for such legislative policy judgments, criticizing her, in different cases, for "imposing ... [a] personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state"; asserting "such an activist role for the courts"; "quarrel[ing]... not with our holding in this case, but with this court's previous decision ... and, even more fundamentally, with the Legislature itself"; and "permit[ting] a court ... to reweigh the policy choices that underlay a legislative or quasi-legislative classification or to reevaluate the efficacy of the legislative measure."
Need more? Here's a review of the substance of the Roger Brown record, matters the Right Wing liars and cynical players of the race card will NOT discuss:

The report, "Loose Cannon," notes that when Brown was nominated to the state supreme court in 1996, she was found unqualified by the state bar evaluation committee, based not only on her relative inexperience but also because she was "prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions" and based on complaints that she was "insensitive to established precedent."
The report carefully examines Brown's record since she joined the court, especially her numerous dissenting opinions concerning civil and constitutional rights. Brown's many disturbing dissents, often not joined by a single other justice, make it clear that she would use the power of an appeals court seat to try to erect significant barriers for victims of discrimination to seek justice in the courts, and to push an agenda that would undermine privacy, equal protection under the law, environmental protection, and much more.

In speeches, Brown has embraced the extreme states' rights and anti-federal-government positions of the Federalist Society, the organization of lawyers and judges working to push the law far to the right. She has said that what she has called the "Revolution of 1937," when the Supreme Court began to consistently sustain New Deal legislation against legal attack, was a "disaster" that marked "the triumph of our socialist revolution."

More in extended.

Republicans :: :: Trackback ::

More of the Rogers Brown judicial record.

Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity, and Discrimination
According to the report, "Justice Brown's opinions on civil rights law are perhaps the most troubling area of a very troubling body of work. These opinions reveal significant skepticism about the existence and impact of discrimination and demonstrate repeated efforts to limit the avenues available to victims of discrimination to obtain justice. Brown's opinions in this area reveal a troubling disregard for precedent and stare decisis - even in the context of case law that has been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court."

The report examines Brown opinions in cases involving racial discrimination, discrimination against people with disabilities and older Americans, and affirmative action. California's Chief Justice criticized one of her opinions as arguing that "numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court and this court" were "wrongly decided" and as representing a "serious distortion of history."

Free Speech and Association

Brown's free speech opinions illustrate her tendency to rule in favor of corporations and seek to provide broad protections for corporate speech, while sometimes giving short shrift to the First Amendment rights of average citizens.

In one dissent she listed as one of her ten most significant decisions, Brown sought to expand the contexts in which corporations could make false or misleading statements without any effective legal mechanism for holding them accountable. In another case discussed in the report, Brown argued that a corporation should be granted an injunction against a former employee sending emails critical of the company's employment practices to some of his former colleagues. ...

Privacy, Family Rights, and Reproductive Freedom

As a state supreme court justice, Brown has issued only one opinion dealing with abortion, but it raises serious concerns about her judicial philosophy concerning women's constitutional right to privacy and reproductive freedom. In her dissent, Brown argued that the federal Constitution somehow restricts the privacy protections that may be provided by the state constitution, a position far outside the mainstream of judicial thought. She argued that the court majority's decision ruling unconstitutional a restrictive parental consent law for minors seeking abortions would allow courts to "topple every cultural icon, to dismiss all societal values, and to become final arbiters of traditional morality." ...

Worker Rights, Consumer Protection and Private Property Rights

Several cases raise serious questions about Brown's willingness to enforce provisions intended to protect the average person against the power of the government or large corporations. Brown has signaled her approval of broad drug-testing provisions even in situations in which a majority of the California Supreme Court found the tests to be clearly unconstitutional, and even where it would have required explicitly rejecting U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

...In several speeches and one of her opinions, Brown has attacked the long-established principle that governmental action infringing on fundamental rights is subject to strict judicial scrutiny while general social and economic legislation is upheld if it has a rational basis. According to Brown, that fundamental principle is "highly suspect, incoherent, and constitutionally invalid."

The one thing you will not see discussed by the Right Wing racial hucksters is Rogers Brown's judicial record. Just watch. "

Here's an example of L'il Ole Janice Rogers Brown "speechifying" and using here "cogimitation bone"...
http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.htm
""A Whiter Shade of Pale": Sense and Nonsense —
The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics

Speech of Janice Rogers Brown,
Associate Justice, California Supreme Court

The Federalist Society
University of Chicago Law School
April 20, 2000, Thursday
12:15 p.m.

Thank you. I want to thank Mr. Schlangen (fondly known as Charlie to my secretary) for extending the invitation and the Federalist Society both for giving me my first opportunity to visit the City of Chicago and for being, as Mr. Schlangen assured me in his letter of invitation, "a rare bastion (nay beacon) of conservative and libertarian thought." That latter notion made your invitation well-nigh irresistible. There are so few true conservatives left in America that we probably should be included on the endangered species list. That would serve two purposes: Demonstrating the great compassion of our government and relegating us to some remote wetlands habitat where — out of sight and out of mind — we will cease being a dissonance in collectivist concerto of the liberal body politic.

In truth, they need not banish us to the gulag. We are not much of a threat, lacking even a coherent language in which to state our premise. [I should pause here to explain the source of the title to this discussion. Unless you are a very old law student, you probably never heard of "A Whiter Shade of Pale."] "A Whiter Shade of Pale" is an old (circa 1967) Procol Harum song, full of nonsensical lyrics, but powerfully evocative nonetheless. Here's a sample:

"We skipped the light fandango
turned cartwheels cross the floor
I was feeling kinda seasick
but the crowd called out for more.

The room was humming harder
as the ceiling flew away.
When we called out for another drink
the waiter brought a tray."

There is something about this that forcibly reminds me of our current political circus. The last verse is even better.

"If music be the food of love
then laughter is its queen
and likewise if behind is in front
then dirt in truth is clean...."

Sound familiar? Of course Procol Harum had an excuse. These were the 60's after all, and the lyrics were probably drug induced. What's our excuse?

One response might be that we are living in a world where words have lost their meaning. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. It seems to be an inevitable artifact of cultural disintegration. Thucydides lamented the great changes in language and life that succeeded the Pelopennesian War; Clarendon and Burke expressed similar concerns about the political transformations of their own time. It is always a disorienting experience for a member of the old guard when the entire understanding of the old world is uprooted. As James Boyd White expresses it: "[I]n this world no one would see what he sees, respond as he responds, speak as he speaks,"1 and living in that world means surrender to the near certainty of central and fundamental changes within the self. "One cannot maintain forever one's language and judgment against the pressures of a world that works in different ways," for we are shaped by the world in which we live.2

This is a fascinating subject which we do not have time to explore more thoroughly. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon accounts for much of the near hysterical tone of current political discourse. Our problems, however, seem to go even deeper. It is not simply that the same words don't have the same meanings; in our lifetime, words are ceasing to have any meaning. The culture of the word is being extinguished by the culture of the camera. Politicians no longer have positions they have photo-ops. To be or not to be is no longer the question. The question is: how do you feel.

Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people.

Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. Aaron Wildavsky gives a credible account of this dynamic. Wildavsky notes that the Madisonian world has gone "topsy turvy" as factions, defined as groups "activated by some common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community,"4 have been transformed into sectors of public policy. "Indeed," says Wildavsky, "government now pays citizens to organize, lawyers to sue, and politicians to run for office. Soon enough, if current trends continue, government will become self-contained, generating (apparently spontaneously) the forces to which it responds."5 That explains how, but not why. And certainly not why we are so comfortable with that result.

America's Constitution provided an 18th Century answer to the question of what to do about the status of the individual and the mode of government. Though the founders set out to establish good government "from reflection and choice,"6 they also acknowledged the "limits of reason as applied to constitutional design,"7 and wisely did not seek to invent the world anew on the basis of abstract principle; instead, they chose to rely on habits, customs, and principles derived from human experience and authenticated by tradition.

"The Framers understood that the self-interest which in the private sphere contributes to welfare of society — both in the sense of material well-being and in the social unity engendered by commerce — makes man a knave in the public sphere, the sphere of politics and group action. It is self-interest that leads individuals to form factions to try to expropriate the wealth of others through government and that constantly threatens social harmony."8

Collectivism sought to answer a different question: how to achieve cosmic justice — sometimes referred to as social justice — a world of social and economic equality. Such an ambitious proposal sees no limit to man's capacity to reason. It presupposes a community can consciously design not only improved political, economic, and social systems but new and improved human beings as well.

The great innovation of this millennium was equality before the law. The greatest fiasco — the attempt to guarantee equal outcomes for all people. Tom Bethell notes that the security of property — a security our Constitution sought to ensure — had to be devalued in order for collectivism to come of age. The founders viewed private property as "the guardian of every other right."9 But, "by 1890 we find Alfred Marshall, the teacher of John Maynard Keynes making the astounding claim that the need for private property reaches no deeper than the qualities of human nature."10 A hundred years later came Milton Friedman's laconic reply: " 'I would say that goes pretty deep.'"11 In between, came the reign of socialism. "Starting with the formation of the Fabian Society and ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall, its ambitious project was the reformation of human nature. Intellectuals visualized a planned life without private property, mediated by the New Man."12 He never arrived. As John McGinnis persuasively argues: "There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature. As Edward O. Wilson, the world's foremost expert on ants, remarked about Marxism, 'Wonderful theory. Wrong species.'"13

Ayn Rand similarly attributes the collectivist impulse to what she calls the "tribal view of man."14 She notes, "[t]he American philosophy of the Rights of Man was never fully grasped by European intellectuals. Europe's predominant idea of emancipation consisted of changing the concept of man as a slave to the absolute state embodied by the king, to the concept of man as the slave of the absolute state as embodied by 'the people' — i.e., switching from slavery to a tribal chieftain into slavery to the tribe."15

Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism's virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental and profound flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice — including our freedom. Revel notes that Marxism has been "shamed and ridiculed everywhere except American universities" but only after totalitarian systems "reached the limits of their wickedness."16

"Socialism concentrated all the wealth in the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice, reduced peoples to misery in the name of shar[ed] resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created the modern world's most inegalitarian societies in the name of equality, the most vast network of concentration camps ever built [for] the defense of liberty."17

Revel warns: "The totalitarian mind can reappear in some new and unexpected and seemingly innocuous and indeed virtuous form. [¶]... [I]t ... will [probably] put itself forward under the cover of a generous doctrine, humanitarian, inspired by a concern for giving the disadvantaged their fair share, against corruption, and pollution, and 'exclusion.'"18

Of course, given the vision of the American Revolution just outlined, you might think none of that can happen here. I have news for you. It already has. The revolution is over. What started in the 1920's; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960's; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper.

At this moment, it seems likely leviathan will continue to lumber along, picking up ballast and momentum, crushing everything in its path. Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

But what if anything does this have to do with law? Quite a lot, I think. In America, the national conversation will probably always include rhetoric about the rule of law. I have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country's founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document. In his famous, all too famous, dissent in Lochner, Justice Holmes wrote that the "constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire."19 Yes, one of the greatest (certainly one of the most quotable) jurists this nation has ever produced; but in this case, he was simply wrong. That Lochner dissent has troubled me — has annoyed me — for a long time and finally I understand why. It's because the framers did draft the Constitution with a surrounding sense of a particular polity in mind, one based on a definite conception of humanity. In fact as Professor Richard Epstein has said, Holmes's contention is "not true of our [ ] [Constitution], which was organized upon very explicit principles of political theory."20 It could be characterized as a plan for humanity "after the fall."

There is nothing new, of course, in the idea that the framers did not buy into the notion of human perfectibility. And the document they drafted and the nation adopted in 1789 is shot through with provisions that can only be understood against the supposition that humanity's capacity for evil and tyranny is quite as real and quite as great as its capacity for reason and altruism. Indeed, as noted earlier, in politics, the framers may have envisioned the former tendency as the stronger, especially in the wake of the country's experience under the Articles of Confederation. The fear of "factions," of an "encroaching tyranny"; the need for ambition to counter ambition"; all of these concerns identified in the Federalist Papers have stratagems designed to defend against them in the Constitution itself. We needed them, the framers were convinced, because "angels do not govern"; men do.

It was a quite opposite notion of humanity, of its fundamental nature and capacities, that animated the great concurrent event in the West in 1789 — the revolution in France. Out of that revolutionary holocaust — intellectually an improbable melding of Rousseau with Descartes — the powerful notion of abstract human rights was born. At the risk of being skewered by historians of ideas, I want to suggest that the belief in and the impulse toward human perfection, at least in the political life of a nation, is an idea whose arc can be traced from the Enlightenment, through the Terror, to Marx and Engels, to the Revolutions of 1917 and 1937. The latter date marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution. All of these events were manifestations of a particularly skewed view of human nature and the nature of human reason. To the extent the Enlightenment sought to substitute the paradigm of reason for faith, custom or tradition, it failed to provide rational explanation of the significance of human life. It thus led, in a sort of ultimate irony, to the repudiation of reason and to a full-fledged flight from truth — what Revel describes as "an almost pathological indifference to the truth."21

There were obviously urgent economic and social reasons driving not only the political culture but the constitutional culture in the mid-1930's — though it was actually the mistakes of governments (closed borders, high tariffs, and other protectionist measures) that transformed a "momentary breakdown into an international cataclysm."22 The climate of opinion favoring collectivist social and political solutions had a worldwide dimension.

Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and effected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers' conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests. Because the only way to come to terms with an enduring Constitution is to believe that the human condition is itself enduring.

For complex reasons, attempts to impose a collectivist political solution in the United States failed. But, the political failure was of little practical concern, in a way that is oddly unappreciated, that same impulse succeeded within the judiciary, especially in the federal high court. The idea of abstract rights, government entitlements as the most significant form of property, is well suited to conditions of economic distress and the emergence of a propertyless class. But the economic convulsions of the late 1920's and early 1930's passed away; the doctrinal underpinnings of West Coast Hotel and the "switch in time" did not. Indeed, over the next half century it consumed much of the classical conception of the Constitution.

So secure were the intellectual underpinnings of the constitutional revolution, so self-evident the ambient cultural values of the policy elite who administered it, that the object of the high court's jurisprudence was largely devoted to the construction of a system for ranking the constitutional weight to be given contending social interests.

In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned. A judicial subjectivity whose very purpose was to do away with objective gauges of constitutionality, with universal principles, the better to give the judicial priesthood a free hand to remake the Constitution. After a handful of gross divisions reflecting the hierarchy of the elite's political values had been drawn (personal vs. economic rights, for example), the task was to construct a theoretical system, not of social or cultural norms, but of abstract constitutional weight a given interest merits — strict or rational basis scrutiny. The rest, the identification of underlying, extraconstitutional values, consisted of judicial tropes and a fortified rhetoric.

Protection of property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937. The paradigmatic case, written by that premiere constitutional operative, William O. Douglas, is Williamson v. Lee Optical.23 The court drew a line between personal rights and property rights or economic interests, and applied two different constitutional tests. Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status.24 If the right asserted was economic, the court held the Legislature could do anything it pleased. Judicial review for alleged constitutional infirmities under the due process clause was virtually nonexistent. On the other hand, if the right was personal and "fundamental," review was intolerably strict. "From the Progressive era to the New Deal, [ ] property was by degrees ostracized from the company of rights.25 Something new, called economic rights, began to supplant the old property rights. This change, which occurred with remarkably little fanfare, was staggeringly significant. With the advent of "economic rights," the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed. These new "rights" imposed obligations, not limits, on the state.

It thus became government's job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism. The words of Judge Alex Kozinski, written in 1991, are not very encouraging." 'What we have learned from the experience of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union ... is that you need capitalism to make socialism work.' In other words, capitalism must produce what socialism is to distribute."26 Are the signs and portents any better at the beginning of a new century?

Has the constitutional Zeitgeist that has reigned in the United States since the beginning of the Progressive Era come to its conclusion? And if it has, what will replace it? I wish I knew the answer to these questions. It is true — in the words of another old song: "There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear."27

The oracles point in all directions at once. Political polls suggest voters no longer desire tax cuts. But, taxpayers who pay the largest proportion of taxes are now a minority of all voters. On the other hand, until last term the Supreme Court held out the promising possibility of a revival of what might be called Lochnerism-lite in a trio of cases — Nollan, Dolan, and Lucas, Those cases offered a principled but pragmatic means-end standard of scrutiny under the takings clause.

But there are even deeper movements afoot. Tectonic plates are shifting and the resulting cataclysm may make 1937 look tame.

Lionel Tiger, in a provocative new book called The Decline of Males, posits a brilliant and disturbing new paradigm. He notes we used to think of a family as a man, a woman, and a child. Now, a remarkable new family pattern has emerged which he labels "bureaugamy." A new trinity: a woman, a child, and a bureaucrat."28 Professor Tiger contends that most, if not all, of the gender gap that elected Bill Clinton to a second term in 1996 is explained by this phenomenon. According to Tiger, women moved in overwhelming numbers to the Democratic party as the party most likely to implement policies and programs which will support these new reproductive strategies.

Professor Tiger is not critical of these strategies. He views this trend as the triumph of reproduction over production; the triumph of Darwinism over Marxism; and he advocates broad political changes to accommodate it.

Others do not see these changes as quite so benign or culturally neutral. Jacques Barzan finds the Central Western notion of emancipation has been devalued. It has now come to mean that "nothing stands in the way of every wish."29 The result is a decadent age — an era in which "there are no clear lines of advance"; "when people accept futility and the absurd as normal[,] the culture is decadent."30

Stanley Rosen defines "our present crisis as a fatigue induced by ... accumulated decisions of so many revolutions."31 He finds us, in the spirit of Pascal, knowing "too much to be ignorant and too little to be wise."32

I will close with a story I like a lot. It's a true story. It happened on June 10, 1990. A British Airways jet bound for Malaga, Spain, took off from Birmingham, England. It was expected to be a routine flight. As the jet climbed through the 23,000-foot level, there was a loud bang; the cockpit windshield directly in front of the captain blew out. The sudden decompression sucked Captain Lancaster out of his seatbelt and into the hole left by the windscreen. A steward who happened to be in the cockpit managed to snag the captain's feet as he hurtled past. Another steward rushed onto the flight deck, strapped himself into the captain's chair and, helped by other members of the crew, clung with all his strength to the captain. The slipstream was so fierce, they were unable to drag the pilot back into the plane. His clothing was ripped from his body. With Lancaster plastered against the nose of the jet, the co-pilot donned an oxygen mask and flew the plane to Southampton —approximately 15 minutes away — and landed safely. The captain had a fractured elbow, wrist and thumb; a mild case of frostbite, but was otherwise unharmed.

We find ourselves, like the captain, in a situation that is hopeless but not yet desperate. The arcs of history, culture, philosophy, and science all seem to be converging on this temporal instant. Familiar arrangements are coming apart; valuable things are torn from our hands, snatched away by the decompression of our fragile ark of culture. But, it is too soon to despair. The collapse of the old system may be the crucible of a new vision. We must get a grip on what we can and hold on. Hold on with all the energy and imagination and ferocity we possess. Hold on even while we accept the darkness. We know not what miracles may happen; what heroic possibilities exist. We may be only moments away from a new dawn.

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

1 James Boyd White, When Words Lose Their Meaning (Univ. of Chicago Press 1984) p. 4.

2 Ibid.

3 F. A, Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Univ. of Chicago Press 1994).

4 Golembiewski & Wildavsky, The Cost of Federalism (1984) Bare Bones: Putting Flesh on the Skeleton of American Federalism 67, 73.

5 Ibid.

6 Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 1 (Rossiter ed. 1961) p. 33.

7 Michael W. Spicer, Public Administration and the Constitution: A Conflict in World Views (March 1, 1994) 24 American R. of Public Admin. 85 [1994 WL 2806423 at *10].

8 John O. McGinnis, The Original Constitution and Our Origins (1996) 19 Harv. J.L.& Pub. Policy 251, 253.

9 Tom Bethell, Property Rights, Prosperity and 1,000 Years of Lessons, The Wall Street J. (Dec. 27, 1999) p. A19.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 John O. McGinnis, The Original Constitution and Our Origins, supra, 19 Harv. J. L.& Pub. Policy at p. 258.

14 Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal (New American Lib. 1966) pp. 4-5.

15 Ibid

16 Jean Francois Revel, Democracy Against Itself (The Free Press 1993) pp. 250-251.

17 Id. at p. 251.

18 Id. at pp. 250-251.

19 (198 U.S. at p. 75.)

20 Clint Bolick, Unfinished Business (1990) p. 25, quoting Crisis in the Courts (1982) The Manhattan Report on Economic Policy, Vol. V, No. 2, p. 4.

21 Jean Francois Revel, The Flight From Truth (Random House N.Y. 1991) p. xvi.

22 Id. at p. xxxvii.

23 348 U.S. 483.

24 Tom Bethell, The Noblest Triumph (St. Martin's Griffin, N.Y. 1998) p. 175.

25 Id. at p. 176.

26 Alex Kozinski, The Dark Lesson of Utopia (1991) 58 U.Chi. L.R. 575, 576.

27 Buffalo Springfield, For What It's Worth (1966).

28 Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males (Golden Books, N.Y. 1999) pp. 21, 27.

29 Edward Rothstein, N.Y. Times (April 15, 2000) p. A l7.

30 Ibid.

31 Stanley Rosen, Rethinking the Enlightenment (1997) 7 Common Knowledge, p. 104.

32 Ibid."
===============SNIP==============
She's a FUCKIN' NUT!

But, don't just take MY words...

Check out this page
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751

"Janice Rogers Brown On American Government
Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. [“A Whiter Shade of Pale,” Speech to Federalist Society (April 20. 2000)(“Federalist speech” at 8]

Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized....When did government cease to be a necessary evil and become a goody bag to solve our private problems? [“Hyphenasia: the Mercy Killing of the American Dream,” Speech at Claremont-McKenna College (Sept. 16, 1999) at 3,4]

In the last 100 years – and particularly in the last 30 – ...[g]overnment has been transformed from a necessary evil to a nanny – benign, compassionate, and wise. Sometimes transformation is a good thing. Sometimes, though, it heralds not higher ground but rather, to put a different gloss on Pat Moynihan’s memorable phrase, defining democracy down. [“Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom,” Speech to Institute of Justice (Aug. 12, 2000)(“IFJ speech”) at 2]

[W]e no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [IFJ speech at 3-4]

Government acts as a giant siphon, extracting wealth, creating privilege and power, and redistributing it. [Speech at McGeorge School of Law (Nov. 21, 1997) at 18][See also Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, 953 P.2d 1188, 1212 (Cal. 1998)(Brown, J., dissenting)(referring to government as “relentless siphon.”)]
Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on senior citizens and age discrimination
My grandparents’ generation thought being on the government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family’s honor. Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much “free” stuff as the political system will permit them to extract...Big government is...[t]he drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms, for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers, and militant senior citizens. [IFJ speech at 2,3]

I would deny [the senior citizen] plaintiff relief because she has failed to establish the public policy against age discrimination “inures to the benefit of the public” or is “fundamental and substantial”...Discrimination based on age...does not mark its victim with a “stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship”....; it is the unavoidable consequence of that universal leveler: time [Dissenting opinion in Stevenson v. Superior Court, 941 P.2d 1157,1177, 1187 (Cal. 1997)]

Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on the New Deal, the Great Society, and the “transmutation” of the Constitution
I have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country’s founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document...1937...marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution...Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and effected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers’ conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests... In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned [Federalist speech at 8, 10, 11, 12]

In the last 100 years – and particularly the last 30 – the Constitution, once the fixed chart of our aspirations, has been demoted to the status of a bad chain novel. [IFJ speech at2]
Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on the proper “protection” of property
In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned...Protection of property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937…Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status...It thus became government’s job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism. [Federalist speech at 12, 13]

At its founding and throughout its early history, this regime revered private property. The American philosophy of the Rights of Man relied heavily on the indissoluble connection between rationality, property, freedom and justice. The Founders viewed the right of property as “the guardian of every other right”….[IFJ speech at 5]

[P]rivate property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco…I would find the HCO [San Francisco Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance] preempted by the Ellis Act and facially unconstitutional. …Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government. …The right to express one’s individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion. [Dissenting opinion in San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 41 P.3d 87, 120, 128-9 (Cal. 2002)(upholding San Francisco ordinance calling on hotel owners seeking permission to eliminate residential units and convert to tourist hotels help replace lost rental units for low income, elderly, and disabled persons)][See also IFJ speech at 4 (warning that without effective limits on government, “a democracy is inevitably transformed into a Kleptocracy.”)]
Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on the courts, law and the judiciary
We are heirs to a mind-numbing bureaucracy; subject to a level of legalization that cannot avoid being arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. What other outcome is possible in a society in which no adult can wake up, go about their business, and return to their homes without breaking several laws? There are of course many reasons for our present difficulties, but some of our troubles can be laid at the feet of that most innocuous branch – the judiciary…From the 1960’s onward, we have witnessed the rise of the judge militant. [Speech to California Lincoln Club Libertarian Law Council (Dec. 11, 1997)(“Libertarian speech”) at 5-6, 9]

But, alas, the decisions of such [supreme] courts, including my own, seem ever more ad hoc and expedient, perilously adrift on the roiling seas of feckless photo-op compassion and political correctness. [IFJ speech at 15]

Thus, lawyers have secured the right of topless dancers to perform, but have banished prayer from public life. They have won the right for indigents to take over public spaces, even our children’s libraries, and for the mentally ill to live on streets and shout obscenities at passersby. Legal advocates have guaranteed the right of students to be ignorant by opposing competency tests, and ignored their brazen possession and use of weapons in school. [“Politics: A Vision for Change,” Docket (Dec. 1993) at 15]

Politicians in their eagerness to please and to provide something of value to their constituencies that does not have a price tag are handing out new rights like lollipops in the dentist’s office. [Speech to Sacramento County bar Ass’n (May 1, 1996) at 6-7]
Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on strict judicial scrutiny for violations of fundamental constitutional rights and the incorporation doctrine
[Beginning in 1937, t]he court drew a line between personal rights and property rights or economic interests, and applied two different constitutional tests…[I]f the right was personal and “fundamental,” review was intolerably strict. [Federalist speech at 12]

The dichotomy between the United States Supreme Court’s laissez-faire treatment of social and economic rights and its hypervigilance with respect to an expanding array of judicially proclaimed fundamental rights is highly suspect, incoherent, and constitutionally invalid. [Concurring opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer, 2 P.3d 581, 601 (Cal. 2000), cert. denied, 69 U.S.L.W. 3549 (2001)]

[T]he courts overcame these alleged limitations on their powers with ridiculous ease. How? By constitutionalizing everything possible, finding constitutional rights which are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. By taking a few words which are in the Constitution like “due process” and “equal protection” and imbuing them with elaborate and highly implausible etymologies; and by enunciating standards of constitutional review which are not standards at all but rather policy vetoes, i.e., strict scrutiny and the compelling state interest standard. [Libertarian speech at 7-8]

The United States Supreme Court, however, began in the 1940s to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment…The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy…The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that it’s probably not incorporated. [“Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square,” Speech to Pepperdine Bible Lectureship in 1999]
Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on democracy, capitalism, socialism, and “liberalism”:
Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism’s virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance, but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice – including our freedom….1937…marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution. [Federalist speech at 6-7, 10]

In truth, liberalism’s vaunted tolerance and openness is a lie. In America, at least, liberalism is tolerant only of those concerns to which it is indifferent. To those trivialized forms of religious observance which amount to no more than a consumer preference, the culture maintains a posture of tolerance. [Speech to St. Thomas More Society (Oct. 15, 1998) at 8]

Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court’s discredited decision in Lochner v. New York
In his famous, all too famous, dissent in Lochner, Justice Holmes wrote that the “constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire.” Yes, one of the greatest (certainly one of the most quotable) jurists this nation has ever produced; but in this case, he was simply wrong. [Federalist speech at 8]
Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on the right of privacy vs. the “right to keep and bear arms”
Curiously, in the current dialectic, the right to keep and bear arms – a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights – is deemed less fundamental than implicit protections the court purports to find in the penumbras of other express provisions. (citations omitted) But surely, the right to preserve one’s life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve one’s privacy. [Concurring opinion in Kasler, 2 P.3d at 602]
Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on government employers requiring employees to forfeit constitutional rights
In this case and others like it involving the interests of government solely as an employer and the surrender of a constitutional right as a condition of obtaining a mere benefit or “privilege” [i.e. employment], I would argue for a return to an earlier view, pungently expressed by Justice Holmes while a member of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: “The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” (citations omitted) I realize, of course, that for many years Holmes’s view has been out of fashion. …However, to the extent the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions purports to hold that government may not grant a benefit on the condition that the beneficiary surrender a constitutional right, even if the government may withhold the benefit altogether, it seems more a figment of academic imagination than reality. [Concurring and dissenting opinion in Loder v. City of Glendale, 927 P.2d 1200, 1257, 1258 (1997)(striking down city across-the-board testing program for promoted employees while approving requirement for new employees)].
Back to Top

Janice Rogers Brown on natural law
We continue to chip away at the foundations of our success. We dismissed natural law and morality because its unverifiable judgments were deemed inferior to reason. But, then, we drove reason itself from the camp because the most significant of life’s questions defy empiricism. …Only natural law offers an alternative to might makes right and accounts for man’s “unrelenting quest to rise above the ‘letter of the law’ to the realm of the spirit.” [IFJ speech at 15, 17] "

Many black civil rights groups and worker's unions such as the AFL/CIO strongly oppose this asshole!
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/rogers_brown.cfm
"Oppose the Nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Print this
E-mail this

Janice Rogers Brown is an associate justice on the California Supreme Court, a position she has held since 1996. On July 25, 2003, President Bush nominated Justice Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Brown’s nomination should be defeated. She is an extreme conservative who is incapable of keeping her personal and political ideology out of her decision making. Brown’s views are extreme, and if adopted, would seriously undermine civil rights, women’s rights, worker and consumer protections and the environment.

Brown’s speeches and opinions show that she takes an extremely narrow view of the role of government in improving people’s lives and an extremely protective view of private property rights. In one speech, Brown described the Supreme Court’s decisions upholding New Deal legislation such as minimum wage laws as “the triumph of our own socialist revolution.” She compares “big government” to “slavery” and an “opiate.” She goes so far as to say that “[t]oday’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.”[1]

In another speech, she states her view of government as follows:

Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit.[2]

The American Bar Association has given Justice Brown its lowest possible passing grade—a “qualified/not qualified” rating. When Brown was nominated to the California Supreme Court, three-fourths of the California State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees rated her “unqualified” for the position because of her lack of experience and her tendency to inject her own personal views into her judicial opinions.[3] In her seven years on the California Supreme Court, Brown has demonstrated that her critics were right.

Examples of how Janice Rogers Brown’s troubling and extreme views have made their way into her decisions on the California Supreme Court include:

Banning Affirmative Action. Brown authored an opinion that effectively ended meaningful affirmative action in California. Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of Jan Jose, 12 P.3d 1068 (2000). Brown’s opinion was severely criticized, both on and off the court, for its harsh rhetoric and its suggestion that affirmative action resembled racist and segregationist laws that predated landmark civil rights laws.
Denying Effective Remedies to Victims of Unlawful Discrimination. Brown would have barred administrative agencies from awarding compensatory damages for emotional distress in race discrimination cases. Konig v. Fair Employment and Housing Comm’n, 50 P.3d 718 (2002). While couching her decision in separations of powers language, Brown disparaged administrative agencies and implicitly questioned their ability to fairly assess damages, saying that “administrative agencies [are] not immune to political influences, [and] they are subject to capture by a specialized constituency.” 50 P.3d at 732. Brown was the only justice to take this position. And in Aguilar v. Avis Rent-a-Car, 980 P.2d 846 (1999), Brown authored a dissenting opinion that would have struck down, on First Amendment grounds, an injunction that instructed a supervisor not to use racial epithets against Latino employees. The injunction was issued by a trial court judge after the employer was found liable by a jury for maintaining a discriminatory hostile work environment for Latino employees.
Barring Civil Rights Claims. Brown dissented in a civil rights case and said the plaintiff’s race and age bias claims should have been thrown out as preempted by federal banking law. Peatros v. Bank of America, 990 P.2d 539 (2000).
Allowing Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Even If Employees Must Pay for the Cost of Arbitration. Brown authored an opinion saying that she would allow employers to require employees to agree to compulsory arbitration of employment claims (such as discrimination claims or unpaid overtime claims) even if those agreements allowed arbitrators to impose some or all of the cost of the arbitration on the employee. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Servs., 6 P.3d 669 (2000). The majority of the court ruled that a mandatory arbitration agreement containing such a provision would be invalid, because it would discourage employees from exercising their right to bring claims against their employers.
Protecting Private Property Rights at the Expense of Affordable Housing Measures. Brown dissented from a decision that upheld the City of San Francisco’s determination that the owner of a residence hotel needed to retain affordable housing or contribute to an affordable housing fund as a condition of converting its property to a tourist hotel. Brown wrote a sarcastic and blistering dissent, calling the city’s decision “theft,” “extortion” and an unconstitutional “taking” of the hotel owner’s private property. San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 41 P.3d 87 (2002). Brown’s opinion shows that she is skeptical of government action when it impacts private property rights—a view which, if adopted, would put at risk many consumer, environmental and worker protection measures.
Protecting Private Property Owners from Expressive Activity on their Property. Brown authored an opinion that took a narrow view of the California Constitution’s free speech protections, imposing a “state action” requirement as a condition of those protections, even though such a requirement does not appear in the language of the California Constitution. As a result, tenants in a huge residential apartment complex were barred from distributing a tenant newsletter to their neighbors. Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass’n, 29 P.3d 797 (2001). Employers are now using the decision to try to keep union organizers away from their workplaces.
Chilling E-mail Communication with Employees. Brown dissented from a ruling that a company could not sue an ex-employee under the tort of trespass after the ex-employee sent e-mails critical of the company to his former co-workers. The court majority said the company could not sue because there had been no actual damage or disruption to the company’s e-mail system. Brown would have allowed the lawsuit even in the absence of such damage. Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 71 P.3d 296 (2003). Had Brown’s view been adopted, companies throughout California could have used trespass laws to shut down group e-mail contact from outside individuals or organizations.
Denying Schoolteachers Timely Information About Their Employment Status. In Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School, 62 P.3d 54 (2003), Brown authored a dissent that would have allowed school districts to notify teachers of their status well after they began work, meaning that new hires could be subjected to “bait-and-switch” tactics by school employers. The court majority ruled that applicable statutes require school districts to notify teachers of their status (e.g., temporary, probationary, etc.) on their first day of work. Knowledge of this status is important because different categories of teachers have different levels of job security.
Undermining Health and Safety Protections. Prior to joining the California Supreme Court, Brown served on the California Court of Appeal. There, she authored an opinion that would have invalidated a state law that required paint companies to help pay for screening and treatment of children exposed to lead paint. Brown’s opinion was later overturned by the California Supreme Court. Sinclair Paint Co. v. Board of Equalization, 49 Cal. App. 4th 127 (1996), rev’d, 937 P.2d 1350 (1997).
The D.C. Circuit Needs Balance, Not Extremist Judges Like Janice Rogers Brown

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is widely regarded as the second most important court in America, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is a stepping-stone to the U.S. Supreme Court—the D.C. Circuit has produced more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court than any other circuit court.

The D.C. Circuit is the administrative law court. It is the court that most closely oversees the actions of federal agencies that are responsible for worker protections, environmental protections, consumer safeguards, civil rights protections and much more. And because the Supreme Court grants review of so few lower court decisions, the D.C. Circuit is often the final word on the legality of federal agency actions.

In 1999, Senate Republicans prevented Democratic appointees from gaining a majority on the D.C. Circuit when they blocked two highly-qualified nominees, including a nominee who is now the Dean of Harvard Law School, on grounds that the D.C. Circuit’s workload did not justify any additional judges. Since that time, the D.C. Circuit’s caseload has dropped by 28 percent.

When the Bush administration took office, there were four Republican appointees, four Democratic appointees and four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. Rather than reaching out to senators from both parties to find mainstream nominees who would win easy approval, the White House has chosen extreme conservatives for these seats.

The White House is engaged in court-packing. The Bush administration wants to put an ultra-conservative imprint on the D.C. Circuit. If they succeed, the effects on civil rights, workers’ rights, women’s rights, consumer rights and the environment will be felt for decades to come.

Snubbing Local Talent to Nominate an Ideologue
The District of Columbia is home to an incredible wealth of legal talent. Rather than choosing from these ranks to fill a seat on the D.C. Circuit, President Bush has chosen a nominee from 3,000 miles away with no connection to the District of Columbia. Never before has a judge for the D.C. Circuit been imported from such a distance.

Nor does Janice Rogers Brown have any particular experience with the federal administrative law that makes up the bulk of the D.C. Circuit’s caseload. Her experience is exclusively in California agencies and California courts.

Brown’s lack of relevant connections or experience make clear that President Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown not because she holds any unique qualifications for this seat, but because she is an extreme conservative who will tip the balance of the D.C. Circuit further to the right. Her nomination should be rejected, and senators should insist that the president nominate a more mainstream candidate for this important lifetime appointment."

PASTOR SAYS ONLY BUSH SUPPORTERS MAY ATTEND CHURCH

2005-05-08T05:08:00.000-07:00

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44152

A Baptist pastor in North Carolina has touched off an exodus in his church by declaring Democrats are not welcome as members.

The Rev. Chan Chandler of East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville ex-communicated nine members who refuse to support President Bush, according to WLOS-TV in Asheville, N.C.

Another 40 have left in protest in a controversy that began before the election last November and came to a head Sunday.

Chandler insists he's acting according to the Word of God, acknowledging in a sermon Sunday he has upset church members by calling them out for their political loyalties.

But WLOS said Chandler, who could not be reached for comment, has insisted his actions are not politically motivated.

Church member Lewis Inman said to the Asheville station: "[Chandler] told us that if we didn't support George Bush we needed to resign our position and get out, or go to the altar and repent, and support George Bush."

Among the ex-communicated were leaders who had been in the church 30 or 40 years.

"The members that were there even stood up and applauded that we left," an outgoing church member said.

Former member Frank Lowe told WLOS: "He says if we supported John Kerry, we have supported abortion and homosexuality."

But Lowe and other departed members insist they don't agree to those stances.

Responding to the news, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance, a left-leaning group, issued a statement.

"This sad spectacle is the predictable consequence of the Religious Right's insistence on measuring a person’s religion by social-political litmus tests," Gaddy said.

"Not only does the pastor's reported action violate both the spirit and substance of the United States Constitution's provisions of religious liberty, it also offends the conscience of people who understand religion in terms of the realm of the spirit, not votes in a presidential election."

Addressing the Baptist pastor's call for repentance on the part of those who didn't vote for Bush, Gaddy said, "The screaming need is for repentance among those who would tie religion to partisan politics."

A contributor to the leading liberal weblog Daily Kos wrote: "For those that thought that there has not been a full scale war lanched against liberals; for those who didn't take the radical right's promise to "eradicate liberals" seriously, I present to you, Exhibit A: East Waynesville Baptist Church has just kicked out all its Democratic members."

In a later post, the contributor commented: "This isn't a 'culture' war, people. This isn't some sort of political game. This action merely foreshadows what is to come: the radical religious right seeking to impose a theocracy upon this nation. Purge the liberals from society.

"Welcome to the Blue Scare. Welcome to Grade-A, government-sanctioned McCarthyism against liberals and against anyone who doesn't embrace their distorted worldview. Here is the face of the American jihad."
===================================================
MORE...

Minister ex-communicates
Democrat church members
Baptist pastor reportedly insisted
supporting president is God's will

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601317.html

Dempcrats Booted From N.C. Church Over Politics

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. -- A pastor of a small Baptist church led an effort to kick out church members because they didn't support President Bush, members said

The nine members were voted out at a Monday meeting of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte. WLOS-TV in Asheville reported that 40 other members resigned in protest.

"It's all over politics," said Selma Morris, the church's treasurer. "We've never had a pastor like that before."

Pastor Chan Chandler had told the congregation before last year's presidential election that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said Lorene Sutton, who said she and her husband were voted out of the church this week.

"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," she said. "He's real negative all the time."

Morris said some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October.

Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS that the actions were not politically motivated.

North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Meek said.

==========================================
more on this ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505080215may08,1,6246571.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true"WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA -- Some members of a small Baptist church say their pastor led a charge last week to kick out nine members because they don't support President Bush.

They said Pastor Chan Chandler told the congregation before last year's election that they should support Bush and that anyone who planned to vote for Democrat John Kerry should get up and leave.

Selma Morris, a member and treasurer of East Waynesville Baptist Church, said some members of the church left in October when Chandler first made his ultimatum.

Chandler told WLOS-TV in Asheville that the actions were not politically motivated, and then hung up."

HOMELAND SECURITY

2005-04-30T09:13:00.000-07:00

Jobless rate up despite employment gains-

2005-03-05T10:07:00.000-08:00

Jobless rate up despite employment gains
--------SNIP================
What happens when the White House LIES about the economy and hires spinmeisters to "Manage" the news? Remember the Duckert/Gannon fiasco? Well...try this on for size...more people are jobless..and the spin is that this is GOOD....read on....
LIES LIES and MORE LIES from the ADMINISTRATION

"Jobless rate up despite employment gains
Pleasing to investors, not average person
Saturday, March 05, 2005

By Steve Massey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

When President Bush arrives in Pittsburgh on Monday, he will do so against the backdrop of an economy that is playing better on Wall Street than on Main Street.

The Labor Department yesterday reported that the nation's employers added a better-than-expected 262,000 workers last month, sending stocks soaring. The gains in jobs cut across all industries, from construction and manufacturing to health care, retail and financial services.

But the jobless rate still rose two-tenths of a point to 5.4 percent, and both the length of the average workweek and average hourly earnings were unchanged. There also were increases in the number of part-time workers and people working more than one job.

The employment news was greeted enthusiastically by stock and bond traders. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 107.52 to 10,940.55, its highest close since June, 2001, while prices on 10-year Treasury bonds had their biggest gain in a month, sending yields, which move in the opposite direction, down to 4.32 percent.

Investors viewed the report as a sign that the economy is strong enough to sustain job and profit growth but weak enough to keep inflationary pressures at bay and allow the Federal Reserve to continue raising short-term interest rates in quarter-point increments, but no more.

"This is actually a perfect report for the Fed and the markets," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at Downtown-based PNC Financial Services Group.

"It's one of those nice, balanced reports that made stock and bond investors happy and, for the Fed, warrants another [quarter-point] increase" in the target rate for overnight bank loans later this month "but nothing to up the ante" with even bigger increases, he said.

For many workers and job-seekers, however, the employment situation portrayed by February's figures was hardly the sort of robust picture that would encourage them to demand fatter paychecks and starting wages, or to expect bountiful job opportunities.

Combined with 122,000 jobs in January, down a revised 24,000 from initial estimates, nonfarm jobs the first two months of the year are growing at an annual rate of 2.2 million -- matching last year's growth but well below the average annual gains of nearly 3 million during the comparable stage in the 1990s' expansion.

While slowing in the past year, productivity -- a broad measure of output per employee -- has surged overall the past three years, allowing companies to boost sales and profits without having to add a commensurate number of workers or to significantly raise workers' pay.

"Productivity growth and wage growth indicate the job market is bad for the ordinary working American," said Peter Morici, a professor at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.

"In today's economy, the man or woman with a high school education or just a few years of college cannot get ahead and is lucky not to fall behind," he said.

Adding to the average person's frustrations has been a recent spike in crude oil prices.

After settling back to near $40 late last year after hitting $55 in October, prices have run up again, hitting a 19-week high of $53.78 yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Unexpectedly strong sales at department stores in February suggest consumers so far have shrugged off the higher prices, but much of the latest spike is only starting to show up at the pump. PNC's Hoffman said he would not be surprised to soon see self-serve gas top $2 a gallon at area stations, a sort of bellwether level that in the past has sent shivers through the economy.

"The one fly in the ointment is the run-up in oil prices," Hoffman said, adding that he has slightly toned down his growth forecast for the economy this year because of oil's climb. He is projecting inflation-adjusted gross domestic product to expand 3.5 percent this year, down from last year's 4.4 percent pace, and businesses to add 2 million to 2.5 million jobs.

Concerns about higher oil prices may have been a factor in a surprise dip in the University of Michigan's index of consumer sentiment to 94.1 in February from 95.5 in January, analysts said. A preliminary reading in mid-February had put the figure at 94.2, and it has averaged 91 since the recession ended in November 2001.

Treasury Secretary John Snow yesterday acknowledged in an interview with WCBS Radio in New York that at some point, the increase in oil prices is bound to have an effect. But so far, he said, the economy is "so strong and resilient, it appears to be blowing through" the run-up.

Snow is part of a White House contingent, led by President Bush, that has been pressing the case for establishing private accounts as a way to stabilize Social Security's future solvency -- an argument that various polls indicate is losing traction with voters.

In testimony before Congress this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan reiterated support for private accounts but urged the White House to go slow, saying it is not certain how the financial markets may react to the potential massive borrowing that may be required.

A more immediate need, Greenspan said, is to act quickly to shore up both Social Security and Medicare before their future funding shortfalls become a crisis. He suggested benefit cuts before baby boomers start retiring, significantly adding to the burdens of both programs.

Greenspan also called on Congress to begin attacking federal budget deficits that are threatening the nation's long-term economic security. As he has in the past, he pressed for reenactment of pay-as-you-go rules requiring lawmakers to match any increase in spending in one area with spending cuts elsewhere or with tax increases."

Teenage Brain: A work in progress

2005-03-05T06:24:00.000-08:00

Teenage Brain: A work in progress

Teenage Brain: A work in progress

New imaging studies are revealing—for the first time—patterns of brain development that extend into the teenage years. Although scientists don't know yet what accounts for the observed changes, they may parallel a pruning process that occurs early in life that appears to follow the principle of "use-it-or-lose-it:" neural connections, or synapses, that get exercised are retained, while those that don't are lost. At least, this is what studies of animals' developing visual systems suggest. While it's known that both genes and environment play major roles in shaping early brain development, science still has much to learn about the relative influence of experience versus genes on the later maturation of the brain. Animal studies support a role for experience in late development, but no animal species undergoes anything comparable to humans' protracted childhood and adolescence. Nor is it yet clear whether experience actually creates new neurons and synapses, or merely establishes transitory functional changes. Nonetheless, it's tempting to interpret the new findings as empowering teens to protect and nurture their brain as a work in progress.

The newfound appreciation of the dynamic nature of the teen brain is emerging from MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) studies that scan a child's brain every two years, as he or she grows up. Individual brains differ enough that only broad generalizations can be made from comparisons of different individuals at different ages. But following the same brains as they mature allows scientists a much finer-grained view into developmental changes. In the first such longitudinal study of 145 children and adolescents, reported in l999, NIMH's Dr. Judith Rapoport and colleagues were surprised to discover a second wave of overproduction of gray matter, the thinking part of the brain—neurons and their branch-like extensions—just prior to puberty.1 Possibly related to the influence of surging sex hormones, this thickening peaks at around age 11 in girls, 12 in boys, after which the gray matter actually thins some.

Prior to this study, research had shown that the brain overproduced gray matter for a brief period in early development—in the womb and for about the first 18 months of life—and then underwent just one bout of pruning. Researchers are now confronted with structural changes that occur much later in adolescence. The teen's gray matter waxes and wanes in different functional brain areas at different times in development. For example, the gray matter growth spurt just prior to puberty predominates in the frontal lobe, the seat of "executive functions"—planning, impulse control and reasoning. In teens affected by a rare, childhood onset form of schizophrenia that impairs these functions, the MRI scans revealed four times as much gray matter loss in the frontal lobe as normally occurs.2 Unlike gray matter, the brain's white matter—wire-like fibers that establish neurons' long-distance connections between brain regions—thickens progressively from birth in humans. A layer of insulation called myelin progressively envelops these nerve fibers, making them more efficient, just like insulation on electric wires improves their conductivity.

Advancements in MRI image analysis are providing new insights into how the brain develops. UCLA's Dr. Arthur Toga and colleagues turned the NIMH team's MRI scan data into 4-D time-lapse animations of children's brains morphing as they grow up—the 4th dimension being rate-of-change.3 Researchers report a wave of white matter growth that begins at the front of the brain in early childhood, moves rearward, and then subsides after puberty. Striking growth spurts can be seen from ages 6 to 13 in areas connecting brain regions specialized for language and understanding spatial relations, the temporal and parietal lobes. This growth drops off sharply after age 12, coinciding with the end of a critical period for learning languages.

While this work suggests a wave of brain white matter development that flows from front to back, animal, functional brain imaging and postmortem studies have suggested that gray matter maturation flows in the opposite direction, with the frontal lobes not fully maturing until young adulthood. To confirm this in living humans, the UCLA researchers compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16.4 They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. As expected, areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. This increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex likely relates to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions. Parietal and temporal areas mediating spatial, sensory, auditory and language functions appeared largely mature in the teen brain. The observed late maturation of the frontal lobe conspicuously coincides with the typical age-of-onset of schizophrenia—late teens, early twenties—which, as noted earlier, is characterized by impaired "executive" functioning.

Another series of MRI studies is shedding light on how teens may process emotions differently than adults. Using functional MRI (fMRI), a team led by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd at Harvard's McLean Hospital scanned subjects' brain activity while they identified emotions on pictures of faces displayed on a computer screen.5 Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on the task, activated the amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and other "gut" reactions, more than the frontal lobe. As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance. Similarly, the researchers saw a shift in activation from the temporal lobe to the frontal lobe during a language skills task, as teens got older. These functional changes paralleled structural changes in temporal lobe white matter.

While these studies have shown remarkable changes that occur in the brain during the teen years, they also demonstrate what every parent can confirm: the teenage brain is a very complicated and dynamic arena, one that is not easily understood.

For More Information
Please visit the following links for information about organizations that focus on children and adolescents and the human brain.

References
1 Giedd JN, Blumenthal J, Jeffries NO, et al. Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 1999; 2(10): 861-3.

2 Rapoport JL, Giedd JN, Blumenthal J, et al. Progressive cortical change during adolescence in childhood-onset schizophrenia. A longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1999; 56(7): 649-54.

3 Thompson PM, Giedd JN, Woods RP, et al. Growth patterns in the developing brain detected by using continuum mechanical tensor maps. Nature, 2000; 404(6774): 190-3.

4 Sowell ER, Thompson PM, Holmes CJ, et al. In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 1999; 2(10): 859-61.

5 Baird AA, Gruber SA, Fein DA, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of facial affect recognition in children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1999; 38(2): 195-9.

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

All material in this fact sheet is in the public domain and may be copied or reproduced without permission from the Institute. Citation of the source is appreciated.

USATODAY.com - Is 16 too young to drive a car?

2005-03-05T06:11:00.000-08:00

USATODAY.com - Is 16 too young to drive a car?Is 16 too young to drive a car?
By Robert Davis, USA TODAY
Raise the driving age. That radical idea is gaining momentum in the fight to save the lives of teenage drivers — the most dangerous on the USA's roads — and their passengers.

Jessie Bell, 16, died July 6, 2003, after she lost control of her car on a Missouri highway.

Brain and auto safety experts fear that 16-year-olds, the youngest drivers licensed in most states, are too immature to handle today's cars and roadway risks.

New findings from brain researchers at the National Institutes of Health explain for the first time why efforts to protect the youngest drivers usually fail. The weak link: what's called "the executive branch" of the teen brain — the part that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulsive behavior.

Scientists at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Md., have found that this vital area develops through the teenage years and isn't fully mature until age 25. One 16-year-old's brain might be more developed than another 18-year-old's, just as a younger teen might be taller than an older one. But evidence is mounting that a 16-year-old's brain is generally far less developed than those of teens just a little older.

The research seems to help explain why 16-year-old drivers crash at far higher rates than older teens. The studies have convinced a growing number of safety experts that 16-year-olds are too young to drive safely without supervision.

"Privately, a lot of people in safety think it's a good idea to raise the driving age," says Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association. "It's a topic that is emerging."

Americans increasingly favor raising the driving age, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found. Nearly two-thirds — 61% — say they think a 16-year-old is too young to have a driver's license. Only 37% of those polled thought it was OK to license 16-year-olds, compared with 50% who thought so in 1995.

A slight majority, 53%, think teens should be at least 18 to get a license.

The poll of 1,002 adults, conducted Dec. 17-19, 2004, has an error margin of +/-3 percentage points.

Many states have begun to raise the age by imposing restrictions on 16-year-old drivers. Examples: limiting the number of passengers they can carry or barring late-night driving. But the idea of flatly forbidding 16-year-olds to drive without parental supervision — as New Jersey does — has run into resistance from many lawmakers and parents around the country.

Irving Slosberg, a Florida state representative who lost his 14-year-old daughter in a 1995 crash, says that when he proposed a law to raise the driving age, other lawmakers "laughed at me."

Bill Van Tassel, AAA's national manager of driving training programs, hears both sides of the argument. "We have parents who are pretty much tired of chauffeuring their kids around, and they want their children to be able to drive," he says. "Driving is a very emotional issue."

But safety experts fear inaction could lead to more young lives lost. Some sound a note of urgency about changing course. The reason: A record number of American teenagers will soon be behind the wheel as the peak of the "baby boomlet" hits driving age.

Already, on average, two people die every day across the USA in vehicles driven by 16-year-old drivers. One in five 16-year-olds will have a reportable car crash within the first year.

In 2003, there were 937 drivers age 16 who were involved in fatal crashes. In those wrecks, 411 of the 16-year-old drivers died and 352 of their passengers were killed. Sixteen-year-old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly five times the rate of drivers 20 or older.

Gayle Bell, whose 16-year-old daughter, Jessie, rolled her small car into a Missouri ditch and died in July 2003, says she used to happily be Jessie's "ride." She would give anything for the chance to drive Jessie again.

We were always together, but not as much after she got her license," Bell says. "If I could bring her back, I'd lasso the moon."

Most states have focused their fixes on giving teens more driving experience before granting them unrestricted licenses. But the new brain research suggests that a separate factor is just as crucial: maturity. A new 17- or 18-year-old driver is considered safer than a new 16-year-old driver.

Even some teens are acknowledging that 16-year-olds are generally not ready to face the life-threatening risks that drivers can encounter behind the wheel.

"Raising the driving age from 16 to 17 would benefit society as a whole," says Liza Darwin, 17, of Nashville. Though many parents would be inconvenienced and teens would be frustrated, she says, "It makes sense to raise the driving age to save more lives."

Focus on lawmakers

But those in a position to raise the driving age — legislators in states throughout the USA — have mostly refused to do so.

Adrienne Mandel, a Maryland state legislator, has tried since 1997 to pass tougher teen driving laws. Even lawmakers who recognize that a higher driving age could save lives, Mandel notes, resist the notion of having to drive their 16-year-olds to after-school activities that the teens could drive to themselves.

"Other delegates said, 'What are you doing? You're going to make me drive my kid to the movies on Friday night for another six months?' " Mandel says. "Parents are talking about inconvenience, and I'm talking about saving lives."

Yet the USA TODAY poll found that among the general public, majorities in both suburbs (65%) and urban areas (60%) favor licensing ages above 16.

While a smaller percentage in rural areas (54%) favor raising the driving age, experts say it's striking that majority support exists even there, considering that teens on farms often start driving very young to help with workloads.

For those who oppose raising the minimum age, their argument is often this: Responsible teen drivers shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of the small fraction who cause deadly crashes.

The debate stirs images of reckless teens drag-racing or driving drunk. But such flagrant misdeeds account for only a small portion of the fatal actions of 16-year-old drivers. Only about 10% of the 16-year-old drivers killed in 2003 had blood-alcohol concentrations of 0.10 or higher, compared with 43% of 20- to 49-year-old drivers killed, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Instead, most fatal crashes with 16-year-old drivers (77%) involved driver errors, especially the kind most common among novices. Examples: speeding, overcorrecting after veering off the road, and losing control when facing a roadway obstacle that a more mature driver would be more likely to handle safely. That's the highest percentage of error for any age group.

For years, researchers suspected that inexperience — the bane of any new driver — was mostly to blame for deadly crashes involving teens. When trouble arose, the theory went, the young driver simply made the wrong move. But in recent years, safety researchers have noticed a pattern emerge — one that seems to stem more from immaturity than from inexperience.

"Skills are a minor factor in most cases," says Allan Williams, former chief scientist at the insurance institute. "It's really attitudes and emotions."

A peek inside the brain

The NIH brain research suggests that the problem is human biology. A crucial part of the teen's brain — the area that peers ahead and considers consequences — remains undeveloped. That means careless attitudes and rash emotions often drive teen decisions, says Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging in the child psychiatric unit at the National Institute of Mental Health, who's leading the study.

"It all comes down to impulse control," Giedd says. "The brain is changing a lot longer than we used to think. And that part of the brain involved in decision-making and controlling impulses is among the latest to come on board."

The teen brain is a paradox. Some areas — those that control senses, reactions and physical abilities — are fully developed in teenagers. "Physically, they should be ruling the world," Giedd says. "But (adolescence) is not that great of a time emotionally."

Giedd and an international research team have analyzed 4,000 brain scans from 2,000 volunteers to document how brains evolve as children mature.

In his office at the NIH, Giedd points to an image of a brain on his computer screen that illustrates brain development from childhood to adulthood. As he sets the time lapse in motion, the brain turns blue rapidly in some areas and more slowly in others. One area that's slow to turn blue — which represents development over time — is the right side just over the temple. It's the spot on the head where a parent might tap a frustrated finger while asking his teen, "What were you thinking?"

This underdeveloped area is called the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. The underdeveloped blue on Giedd's screen is where thoughts of long-term consequences spring to consciousness. And in teen after teen, the research team found, it's not fully mature.

"This is the top rung," Giedd says. "This is the part of the brain that, in a sense, associates everything. All of our hopes and dreams for the future. All of our memories of the past. Our values. Everything going on in our environment. Everything to make a decision."

When a smart, talented and very mature teen does something a parent might call "stupid," Giedd says, it's this underdeveloped part of the brain that has most likely failed.

"That's the part of the brain that helps look farther ahead," he says. "In a sense, increasing the time between impulse and decisions. It seems not to get as good as it's going to get until age 25."

This slow process plays a kind of dirty trick on teens, whose hormones are churning. As their bodies turn more adultlike, the hormones encourage more risk-taking and thrill-seeking. That might be nature's way of helping them leave the nest. But as the hormones fire up the part of the brain that responds to pleasure, known as the limbic system, emotions run high. Those emotions make it hard to quickly form wise judgments — the kind drivers must make every day.

That's also why teens often seem more impetuous than adults. In making decisions, they rely more on the parts of their brain that control emotion. They're "hotter" when angry and "colder" when sad, Giedd says.

When a teen is traveling 15 to 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, the part of his or her brain that processes a thrill is working brilliantly. But the part that warns of negative consequences? It's all but useless.

"It may not seem that fast to them," Giedd says, because they're not weighing the same factors an adult might. They're not asking themselves, he says, " 'Should I go fast or not?' And dying is not really part of the equation."

Precisely how brain development plays out on the roads has yet to be studied. Giedd says brain scans of teens in driving simulations might tell researchers exactly what's going on in their heads. That could lead to better training and a clearer understanding of which teens are ready to make critical driving decisions.

In theory, a teen's brain could eventually be scanned to determine whether he or she was neurologically fit to drive. But Giedd says that ethical crossroad is too radical to seriously consider today. "We are just at the threshold of this," he says.

Finding explanations

The new insights into the teen brain might help explain why efforts to protect young drivers, ranging from driver education to laws that restrict teen driving, have had only modest success. With the judgment center of the teen brain not fully developed, parents and states must struggle to instill decision-making skills in still-immature drivers.

In nearly every state, 16-year-old drivers face limits known as "graduated licensing" rules. These restrictions vary. But typically, they bar 16-year-olds from carrying other teen passengers, driving at night or driving alone until they have driven a certain number of hours under parental supervision.

These states have, in effect, already raised their driving age. Safety experts say lives have been saved as a result. But it's mostly left to parents to enforce the restrictions, and the evidence suggests enforcement has been weak.

Teens probably appear to their parents at the dinner table to be more in control than they are behind the wheel. They might recite perfectly the risks of speeding, drinking and driving or distractions, such as carrying passengers or talking on a cell phone, Giedd says. But their brains are built to learn more from example.

For teenagers, years of watching parents drive after downing a few glasses of wine or while chatting on a cell phone might make a deeper imprint than a lecture from a driver education teacher.

The brain research raises this question: How well can teen brains respond to the stresses of driving?

More research on teen driving decisions is needed, safety advocates say, before definitive conclusions can be drawn.And more public support is probably needed before politicians would seriously consider raising the driving age.

In the 1980s, Congress pressuredstates to raise their legal age to buy alcohol to 21. The goal was to stop teens from crossing borders to buy alcohol, after reports of drunken teens dying in auto crashes. Fueled by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, public support for stricter laws grew until Congress forced a rise in the drinking age.

Those laws have saved an estimated 20,000 lives in the past 20 years. Yet safety advocates say politicians remain generally unwilling to raise the driving age.

"If this were forced on the states, it would not be accepted very well," Harsha says. "What it usually takes for politicians to change their minds is a series of crashes involving young people. When enough of those kind of things happen, then politicians are more likely to be open to other suggestions."

Telegraph | Money | Greenspan proposes scrapping income tax

2005-03-03T19:20:00.000-08:00

Telegraph | Money | Greenspan proposes scrapping income taxScrapping income tax and replacing it with a "consumption tax" on spending would be the best way to boost the US economy, Alan Greenspan said yesterday.

The Federal Reserve chairman said that the current tax code, which was revamped in 1986, had once again become too unwieldy and should be reformed.

"A simpler tax code would reduce the considerable resources devoted to complying with current tax laws and the freed-up resources could be used more productively," he said.

A consumption tax could take the form of a value-added tax, similar to that in the UK and Europe, or a national retail sales tax.

Mr Greenspan, who was talking to President Bush's tax reform advisers, said he thought it would promote saving and encourage capital formation.

However, he said a hybrid approach would avoid difficult transition issues.

Order from Chaos, No Supernatural Watchmaker Needed

2005-03-03T18:52:00.000-08:00

Order from Chaos

Those of a more religious bent, are often prone to use the "unseen Watchmaker" argument to argue in favor of there being an invisible intelligence that created the world. They use the analogy of finding a watch in the forest, and argue that it could not just have "evolved", but that there must be an "invisible watchmaker" (GOD?) that created this marvel.

Then of course, they say the human body is far more complex than a watch, and that obviously, something this wondrous and complex, also would demand the existence of an "invisible watchmaker" to explain the creation of something this intricate.

This of course begs the introduction of natural phenomena that has been studied by scientists, in which an apparent higher "order" comes spontaneously from chaotic movement.

One such spontaneous order from chaos is from a " Benard cell ". For more on this, we can look at a web site.

"The Benard cell

The "Benard instabilty" is another striking example of the instability of a stationary state giving rise to the phenomena of spontaneous self-organisation. The instability is due to a vertical temperatire gradient set up in a horizontal liquid layer. The Benard instabilty is a spectacular phenomenom. The convection motion produced actually consists of the complex spatial organisation of the system. Millions of molecules move coherently, forming hexagonal convention cells of characteristic size.

Dissipative Structures
In far from equilbrium conditions, the concept of probability that underlies Boltzmann's order principle is no longer valid in that the structures we observe do not correspond to a maximum number of complexions. Neither can they be related to a minum of the free energy F = E - TS. The tendency towards levelling out and forgetting initial conditions is no longer a general property. In this context, the age-old problem of the origin of life appears in a different perspective. It is certainly tru that life is incompatible with Boltzmann's order principal but not with the kind of behaviour that can occur in far-from-equilbrium conditions.

Classical thermodynamics leads to the concept of "equilibrium structures" such as crystals. Benard cells are structures too, but of a quite different nature. That is why we have introduced the notion of "dissipative structures", to emphasise the close association, at first paradoxical, in such situations between structure and order on the one side, and dissipation or waste on the other. Heat transfer was consdered a source of waste in classical thermodynamics. In the Benard cell it becomes a source of order.

The interaction of a system with the outside world, its embedding in nonequilibrium conditions, may become in this way the starting point for the formation of new dynamic states of matter - dissipative structures. Dissipative structures actually correspond to a form of supramolecular organisation."

Here is another site dealing with such a phenomenon.
http://www.mpi-dortmund.mpg.de/departments/swo/markus/hp1.php3

" OSCILLATING REACTIONS AND CHEMICAL WAVES

We have investigated periodic and turbulent waves in excitable media and, in particular, in the Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction. We found that turbulence can be induced by high light intesity or low catalyst concentrations (in the Ru-catalyzed reaction) by oxygen, or by methanol.

The different spatiotemporal modes were analyzed by correlation analysis of video images, and they were simulated both by cellular automata (CA) and by partial differential equations. The figure below shows CA-simulations of three-dimensional waves.

There exist conditions for which a short light pulse can cause splitting into a forwards and a backwards running wave. If this is done with a spiral wave, the two resulting spirals annihilate each other.

Due to the formal analogy (analogous form of differential equations) between the BZ reaction and heart muscle, BZ-turbulence is comparable to the fatal heart fibrillation. Moreover, considering that light in the BZ-reaction corresponds to electrical current in the heart, the annihilation of spirals points to a method of controlling heart tachycardia. Formerly, we investigated the physiological clock (of yeast) due to oscillating enzymatic breakdown of sugar. Considering the coupling to membrane transport, one obtains, under certain conditions, chaotic biorhythms.

Examples of 3D waves in an excitable medium (simulations)

"

The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction is indeed an interesting and well studied example of this "order out of chaos" phenomenon. Here is an interesting page on it. http://online.redwoods.cc.ca.us/instruct/darnold/deproj/Sp98/Gabe/

Here is a mathematical explanation of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction.
http://www.cheng.cam.ac.uk/~mkraft/pages/teaching/CETIIB-StoMo/WebModule/bz/node7.html

"

Algorithm for the Belousov-Zhabotinsky system

(1)
Initialize variables , , , for and .

(2)
Calculate

where .

(3)
Generate
waiting time

reaction index

(4)
Perform reaction

(5)
Update time:

(6)
If then goto (2). "
And, here is yet another page on this fascinating reaction
http://www.ux.his.no/~ruoff/BZ_Phenomenology.html
Ways how the BZ Reaction is Studied:
Chemical Wave Propagation
Study of the BZ reaction in a thin unstirred layer of reacting solution, where concentric waves ("target patterns") or spiral waves are developed. This system is almost exclusively studied with ferroin and malonic acid as substrates. Note that chloride ions have to be avoided because they may act as inhibitors. The reacting solution is normally spread out as a thin film with a few millimeters thickness in a petri dish (diameter ca. 10 cm). After a certain time blue oxidation fronts which propagate on the red background (reduced ferroin) develop.

From left to right: Propagating oxidation waves in an unstirred layer of the ferroin-malonic acid BZ reaction. When the wave is broken at a certain point (for example by a gentle airflow through a pipette) a pair of spiral waves develop at this point.

AN EAGLE WITH ONLY A RIGHT WING CAN'T FLY

2005-02-19T07:01:00.000-08:00

An Eagle With Only A Right Wing Can't Fly
2005-02-19 09:01:06
http://enewsblog.com/codewarriorz/post/2005-02-19_09:01:06/
Texas has a problem with two particularly destructive insects which, although outwardly they LOOK like their productive, non-destructive cousins, are bellicose, and tend to kill off competitors, and in general, endanger the natural balance.

The first animal is the "FIRE ANT" (imported fire ants) Solenopsis invicta (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~gilbert/research/fireants/faqans.html.
Fire ants look very similar to other ants, but their aggressiveness and intensity of the venom they inject with an attack, makes them almost pathologically bellicose. When they move into an area, they attack other, more peaceful ants and kill them off, soon becoming the dominant ant in an area,.

The other is the so-called "KILLER BEE" or Africanized Bee.(Apis mellifera scutellata). As with the fire ant, the killer bee, although it looks outwardly very much like the European bees that are more docile and produce honey commercially, the warlike, territorially aggressive killer bee, tends to move into an area, kill or drive off the other bees, and become the dominant form of bee.

Interestingly, the country from which both of these insects came from to the USA, was South America..

The title of this article is "AN EAGLE WITH ONLY A RIGHT WING CAN'T FLY". The Eagle of course, is the United States. The Congress is now dominated by just one party, and the executive brance is rule by that same party.

Republicans often may look like democrats, like a killer bee may look like a European bee or a fire ant may look like another ant, but, like these aggressive, predatorial insects, seem to want to wipe out the opposition, and show little real interest in co-existing, or working in a truly bipartisan manner.

As with the EAGLE, the United States needs BOTH wings, Right AND Left, not only to fly at all, but certtainly to fly toward a forward destination.

Anyone paddling a boat only on the RIGHT, is never going to reach their destination on the other side, but will instead, merely go in a circle.

This country MUST head toward a positive destination, and for that, we need BOTH wings!
~CodeWarriorz Thoughts

The Bizarre State of the Union Event

2005-02-06T07:56:00.000-08:00

The Bizarre State of the Union Event
2005-02-06 10:49:56

I watched the State of the Union address old Bushy made again this morning....actually, am watching it as I write this. As usual, it was a surreal event, though it couldn't surpass that surreal of the surreal, the mother of all surreal parades, that Inauguaral Big Brother event.

I am watching the Repubs hopping up clapping, sitting again, hopping up and clapping like glorified Jacks-in-the-Box.

Watching the Repubs clapping in approbation to the bizarre things he says, gives new meaning to the term, Folie à deux (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%E0_deux ). In the case of Bushy, it should technically be called "Folie imposée " which is " where a dominant person (known as the 'primary', 'inducer' or 'principal') initially forms a delusional belief during a psychotic episode and imposes it on another person or persons (known as the 'secondary', 'acceptor' or 'associate') with the assumption that the secondary person might not have become deluded if left to their own devices. If the parties are admitted to hospital separately then the delusions in the person with the induced beliefs usually resolve without the need of medication. "

As usual, he rants and includes his little agenda buzz words like "a culture of life". Wanna know more on this "culture of life"?

The Culture of Life Foundation & Institute

http://www.christianity.com/cultureoflife

This is the kind of vile crap they spew there...

"Reintroduced Fetal Pain Bill Garners Unlikely Supporter

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback reintroduced a bill on Wednesday that requires abortionists to notify women who want abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy that their unborn baby can likely experience extreme pain. Following the bill's introduction came mystifying news that pro-abortion advocate Frances Kissling, president of "Catholics" for a Free Choice (CFFC), was offering conditional support for the proposed legislation.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act requires the abortionist to verbally inform and to provide a brochure to the woman seeking an abortion about the medical evidence of pain experienced by an unborn child 20 weeks after fertilization. The proposed law also requires that the pregnant woman be given the option of providing anesthesia for the unborn baby."

The other buzzwords he likes is "faith based"...which is a euphemism for right wing religious zealots who want nothing less than a theocracy it seems, and that that theocracy would install THEIR version of fundamentalist Christianity as the state religion.

And, without further waiting, here is the transcript from CSPAN of this "Resident's Ramblings"...

"PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S ADDRESS BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF THE CONGRESS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION

February 2, 2005

9:10 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, fellow citizens:

As a new Congress gathers, all of us in the elected branches of government share a great privilege: We've been placed in office by the votes of the people we serve. And tonight that is a privilege we share with newly-elected leaders of Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, Ukraine, and a free and sovereign Iraq. (Applause.)

Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home and around the world.

Tonight, with a healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work, with our nation an active force for good in the world -- the state of our union is confident and strong. (Applause.)

Our generation has been blessed -- by the expansion of opportunity, by advances in medicine, by the security purchased by our parents' sacrifice. Now, as we see a little gray in the mirror -- or a lot of gray -- (laughter) -- and we watch our children moving into adulthood, we ask the question: What will be the state of their union? Members of Congress, the choices we make together will answer that question. Over the next several months, on issue after issue, let us do what Americans have always done, and build a better world for our children and our grandchildren. (Applause.)

First, we must be good stewards of this economy, and renew the great institutions on which millions of our fellow citizens rely. America's economy is the fastest growing of any major industrialized nation. In the past four years, we provided tax relief to every person who pays income taxes, overcome a recession, opened up new markets abroad, prosecuted corporate criminals, raised homeownership to its highest level in history, and in the last year alone, the United States has added 2.3 million new jobs. (Applause.) When action was needed, the Congress delivered -- and the nation is grateful.

Now we must add to these achievements. By making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and more competitive, we will keep America the economic leader of the world. (Applause.)

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. (Applause.) My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all. (Applause.)

To make our economy stronger and more dynamic, we must prepare a rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21st century. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we're closing the achievement gap for minority students. Now we must demand better results from our high schools, so every high school diploma is a ticket to success. We will help an additional 200,000 workers to get training for a better career, by reforming our job training system and strengthening America's community colleges. And we'll make it easier for Americans to afford a college education, by increasing the size of Pell Grants. (Applause.)

To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. (Applause.) Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year. (Applause.)

To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage -- (applause) -- and more control over their health decisions. (Applause.) I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor country, improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees -- (applause) -- expanded health savings accounts -- (applause) -- and medical liability reform that will reduce health care costs and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need. (Applause.)

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. (Applause.) Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home -- including safe, clean nuclear energy. (Applause.) My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. (Applause.) And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. (Applause.) Four years of debate is enough: I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy. (Applause.)

All these proposals are essential to expand this economy and add new jobs -- but they are just the beginning of our duty. To build the prosperity of future generations, we must update institutions that were created to meet the needs of an earlier time. Year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. I've appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom. And when their recommendations are delivered, you and I will work together to give this nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all. (Applause.)

America's immigration system is also outdated -- unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border. It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists. (Applause.)

One of America's most important institutions -- a symbol of the trust between generations -- is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. (Applause.) The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security. (Applause.)

Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement -- and for them the system is sound and fiscally strong. I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you; for you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. (Applause.) For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time. Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days, people did not live as long. Benefits were much lower than they are today. And a half-century ago, about sixteen workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits.

Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and, therefore, drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of sixteen workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers. And over the next few decades that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.

So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

I recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem a long way off. But those dates are not so distant, as any parent will tell you. If you have a five-year-old, you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road. If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter. And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. (Applause.) You and I share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.

Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table.

I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics. (Applause.) I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. (Applause.) We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower-income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.

As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. (Applause.) Here is how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees. If you're a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.

Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away. (Applause.)

The goal here is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We'll make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We'll make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. We'll make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement. We'll make sure a personal account cannot be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits. And we'll make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal retirement accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.

Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds. It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans. (Applause.)

Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. (Applause.)

Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities -- and I thank the Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. (Applause.) To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree -- (applause) -- we should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity. (Applause.) America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical.

Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. (Applause.) As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well-qualified to serve on the bench -- and I have done so. (Applause.) The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote. (Applause.)

Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America. Our government will continue to support faith-based and community groups that bring hope to harsh places. Now we need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail. Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. (Applause.) Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.)

Because HIV/AIDS brings suffering and fear into so many lives, I ask you to reauthorize the Ryan White Act to encourage prevention, and provide care and treatment to the victims of that disease. (Applause.) And as we update this important law, we must focus our efforts on fellow citizens with the highest rates of new cases, African American men and women. (Applause.)

Because one of the main sources of our national unity is our belief in equal justice, we need to make sure Americans of all races and backgrounds have confidence in the system that provides justice. In America we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit -- so we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction. (Applause.) Soon I will send to Congress a proposal to fund special training for defense counsel in capital cases, because people on trial for their lives must have competent lawyers by their side. (Applause.)

Our third responsibility to future generations is to leave them an America that is safe from danger, and protected by peace. We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy -- and chief among them is freedom from fear.

In the three and a half years since September the 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans. We've created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half-million first responders. Police and firefighters, air marshals, researchers, and so many others are working every day to make our homeland safer, and we thank them all. (Applause.)

Our nation, working with allies and friends, has also confronted the enemy abroad, with measures that are determined, successful, and continuing. The al Qaeda terror network that attacked our country still has leaders -- but many of its top commanders have been removed. There are still governments that sponsor and harbor terrorists -- but their number has declined. There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction -- but no longer without attention and without consequence. Our country is still the target of terrorists who want to kill many, and intimidate us all -- and we will stay on the offensive against them, until the fight is won. (Applause.)

Pursuing our enemies is a vital commitment of the war on terror -- and I thank the Congress for providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed. During this time of war, we must continue to support our military and give them the tools for victory. (Applause.)

Other nations around the globe have stood with us. In Afghanistan, an international force is helping provide security. In Iraq, 28 countries have troops on the ground, the United Nations and the European Union provided technical assistance for the elections, and NATO is leading a mission to help train Iraqi officers. We're cooperating with 60 governments in the Proliferation Security Initiative, to detect and stop the transit of dangerous materials. We're working closely with the governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and nine other countries have captured or detained al Qaeda terrorists. In the next four years, my administration will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time. (Applause.)

In the long-term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. (Applause.) Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the "evil principle" of democracy. And we've declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. (Applause.)

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace. (Applause.)

That advance has great momentum in our time -- shown by women voting in Afghanistan, and Palestinians choosing a new direction, and the people of Ukraine asserting their democratic rights and electing a president. We are witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty. And in the coming years, we will add to that story. (Applause.)

The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure. Tomorrow morning, Secretary of State Rice departs on a trip that will take her to Israel and the West Bank for meetings with Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas. She will discuss with them how we and our friends can help the Palestinian people end terror and build the institutions of a peaceful, independent, democratic state. To promote this democracy, I will ask Congress for $350 million to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms. The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, is within reach -- and America will help them achieve that goal. (Applause.)

To promote peace and stability in the broader Middle East, the United States will work with our friends in the region to fight the common threat of terror, while we encourage a higher standard of freedom. Hopeful reform is already taking hold in an arc from Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain. The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future. And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.)

To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act -- and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. (Applause.) Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you. (Applause.)

Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq. That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren.

We will succeed because the Iraqi people value their own liberty -- as they showed the world last Sunday. (Applause.) Across Iraq, often at great risk, millions of citizens went to the polls and elected 275 men and women to represent them in a new Transitional National Assembly. A young woman in Baghdad told of waking to the sound of mortar fire on election day, and wondering if it might be too dangerous to vote. She said, "Hearing those explosions, it occurred to me -- the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing. So I got my husband, and I got my parents, and we all came out and voted together."

Americans recognize that spirit of liberty, because we share it. In any nation, casting your vote is an act of civic responsibility; for millions of Iraqis, it was also an act of personal courage, and they have earned the respect of us all. (Applause.)

One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, "We were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost, but most of all, to the soldiers." Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country -- and we are honored that she is with us tonight. (Applause.)

The terrorists and insurgents are violently opposed to democracy, and will continue to attack it. Yet, the terrorists' most powerful myth is being destroyed. The whole world is seeing that the car bombers and assassins are not only fighting coalition forces, they are trying to destroy the hopes of Iraqis, expressed in free elections. And the whole world now knows that a small group of extremists will not overturn the will of the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

We will succeed in Iraq because Iraqis are determined to fight for their own freedom, and to write their own history. As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech to Congress last September, "Ordinary Iraqis are anxious to shoulder all the security burdens of our country as quickly as possible." That is the natural desire of an independent nation, and it is also the stated mission of our coalition in Iraq. The new political situation in Iraq opens a new phase of our work in that country.

At the recommendation of our commanders on the ground, and in consultation with the Iraqi government, we will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepare more capable Iraqi security forces -- forces with skilled officers and an effective command structure. As those forces become more self-reliant and take on greater security responsibilities, America and its coalition partners will increasingly be in a supporting role. In the end, Iraqis must be able to defend their own country -- and we will help that proud, new nation secure its liberty.

Recently an Iraqi interpreter said to a reporter, "Tell America not to abandon us." He and all Iraqis can be certain: While our military strategy is adapting to circumstances, our commitment remains firm and unchanging. We are standing for the freedom of our Iraqi friends, and freedom in Iraq will make America safer for generations to come. (Applause.) We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

Right now, Americans in uniform are serving at posts across the world, often taking great risks on my orders. We have given them training and equipment; and they have given us an example of idealism and character that makes every American proud. (Applause.) The volunteers of our military are unrelenting in battle, unwavering in loyalty, unmatched in honor and decency, and every day they're making our nation more secure. Some of our servicemen and women have survived terrible injuries, and this grateful country will do everything we can to help them recover. (Applause.) And we have said farewell to some very good men and women, who died for our freedom, and whose memory this nation will honor forever.

One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, "When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said, 'You've done your job, Mom. Now it is my turn to protect you.'" Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood. (Applause.)

In these four years, Americans have seen the unfolding of large events. We have known times of sorrow, and hours of uncertainty, and days of victory. In all this history, even when we have disagreed, we have seen threads of purpose that unite us. The attack on freedom in our world has reaffirmed our confidence in freedom's power to change the world. We are all part of a great venture: To extend the promise of freedom in our country, to renew the values that sustain our liberty, and to spread the peace that freedom brings.

As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, "Each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth." And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream -- until it was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream -- until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism was only a dream -- until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable -- yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom.

Thank you, and may God bless America. (Applause.)

END 10:03 P.M. EST "

From http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=2005

====SNIP=============

...HMMM...DO TELL !

Marine General Says 'It's Fun to Kill'

2005-02-05T09:24:00.000-08:00

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6133.shtml
Marine General Says 'It's Fun to Kill'
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
Feb 4, 2005, 08:15

A decorated Marine Corps general said, "It's fun to shoot some people" and poked fun at the manhood of Afghans as he described the wars U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His boss, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said Thursday that the comments reflected "the unfortunate and harsh realities of war" but that the general has been asked to watch his words in public.

Lt. Gen. James Mattis, a career infantry officer who is now in charge of developing better ways to train and equip Marines, made the comments Tuesday while speaking to a forum in San Diego.

According to an audio recording, he said, "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. ... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling."

He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

His comments were met with laughter and applause from the audience. Mattis was speaking during a panel discussion hosted by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, a spokeswoman for the general said.

Thursday, Gen. Mike Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement saying, "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor. I have counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully."

Hagee also said, "While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war."

Among Marines, Mattis is regarded as a fighting general and an expert in the art of warfare. Among his decorations are the Bronze Star with a combat distinguishing device and a combat action ribbon, awarded for close-quarters fighting.

He is currently the commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va., and deputy commandant for combat development.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it was up to Mattis to address his own comments, but he added, "All of us who are leaders have a responsibility in our words and our actions to provide the right example all the time for those who look to us for leadership."

Pace spoke to a Pentagon press conference. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had not read Mattis' words and deferred to Pace.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil liberties group, called on the Pentagon to discipline Mattis for the remarks.

"We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event," said the council's executive director, Nihad Awad. "These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life."

Pace and Hagee praised the general's service.

"His actions and those of his troops clearly show that he understands the value of proper leadership and the value of human life," Pace said.

Hagee called him "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."

He said the commitment of Marines "helps to provide us the fortitude to take the lives of those who oppress others or threaten this nation's security. This is not something we relish, yet we accept it as a reality in our profession of arms."

Hagee said he was confident Mattis would continue to serve with distinction.

Mattis' comments were reported by the television station KNSD in San Diego, and the audio recording was posted on its Web site www.nbcsandiego.com .

As a lieutenant colonel, Mattis led an assault battalion into Kuwait during the first war with Iraq. During the war in Afghanistan, he commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade and subsequently Task Force 58, which fought in southern Afghanistan as the Taliban fell.

During the second war in Iraq, he commanded the 1st Marine Division during the invasion and also when the unit returned to Iraq for counterinsurgency operations last year.

In a letter to his troops before they redeployed to Iraq last March, Mattis warned them of "hard, dangerous work."

"The enemy will try to manipulate you into hating all Iraqis," he wrote. "Do not allow the enemy that victory. With strong discipline, solid faith, unwavering alertness, and undiminished chivalry to the innocent, we will carry out this mission."

He is not the first senior military officer since the Sept. 11 attacks to stir controversy with his comments.

Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a senior military intelligence officer, was criticized for speeches he made at evangelical Christian churches. He said that America's enemy was Satan, that God had put President Bush in the White House and that one Muslim Somali warlord was an idol-worshipper.

Boykin later issued a written statement apologizing and saying he did not mean to insult Islam.

A Pentagon investigation concluded that Boykin violated regulations by failing to make clear he was not speaking in an official capacity in the speeches beginning in January 2002.

Trent Lott, Swearing by Mississippi (washingtonpost.com)

2005-01-22T08:21:00.000-08:00

Trent Lott, Swearing by Mississippi (washingtonpost.com)Trent Lott, Swearing by Mississippi
Senator's Inaugural Plan Includes a Large Dose Of His Home State

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page C04

When Sen. Trent Lott fell from grace with his Republican colleagues two years ago and resigned as majority leader, he was given a variety of lesser assignments that included heading up the arrangements for the next inauguration -- the swearing-in, not the fun parts like the balls and parade.

But Lott had his fun, anyway. The senator held a conference call yesterday to detail his program, which is packed with gospel music, Mississippians and even a gospel singer from Mississippi.

Sure, there are standards such as "God of Our Fathers" and the national anthem. There is also "Let the Eagle Soar," written by soon-to-be-former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Alas, Gen. Ashcroft, as his staff calls him, will not be singing

Let the Eagle Soar- GUY HOVIS SINGS and elicits vomiting

2005-01-22T08:12:00.000-08:00

The Political Puzzle v2.0: Let Eagles Soar
"The Political Puzzle v2.0

Surviving in the Bizzaro world of Bush
contact home | about | posting privileges | become a columnist | master archives | 30 minute IQ test | Bandwidth Test
« Voting reform | Main | Does Being Truthful Matter »

January 05, 2005
Let Eagles Soar

Filed under: Can't stop laughing

Dick Cheney will be sworn in by Dennis Hassert, the House Speaker.

Guy Hovis, a vocalist from Tupelo, Miss., who performed on the Lawrence Welk show, will sing, "Let the Eagles Soar," a song written by Attorney General John Ashcroft."
========SNIP============
I almost lost my breakfast watching that Guy Hovis clown sing that Ashcroft tune. Ashcroft has a much better vibratto and falsetto in his version.
~Code

The Inaugural Parade

2005-01-21T04:08:00.000-08:00

The 2005 Coronation of King George the Cowardly.

Well, our national trip down the Rabbithole of Alice in Wonderland was made complete with the Coronation of King George the Cowardly. As I watched the "parade", it was bizarre to say the least. There were vehicles moving in a V formation like the flying phalanx of ancient Sparta...there were Matrix like guys in dark sunglasses and long, black overcoats flanking the "Presidential limo", and at one point, there was a truck that came rolling along that had armed thugs hanging on the side that a friend watching the procession remarked to me, looked like the Mob, much like something you would see from the Al Capone era, when armed thugs would be festooning a vehicle's exterior, with their feet implanted on the running boards of the truck or car.

It looked less like a Presidential inauguration parade (I've never seen one of them), and more like Hitler's triumphant march into Poland or Paris. Actually, if some of the Men in Black had been sporting the traditional silver SS pins or Death's Head pins, the picture would have been complete....all Bushy would need would be a tiny little moustache (but perhaps, he cannot muster enough testosterone to generate one).

In another portion of the program, Hitler...er, uh, BUSHY, was addressing / commanding people from a large white podium, which was reminiscent of something you saw Il Duce (Mussolini) or Hitler do, in old film reels. His Effete Foppishness was. for all the world, an effeminate version of Big Brother re-enacted for all the world to see.

To say that the Inauguration Parade looked like the New World Order in all its "glory" would be to understate the matter.

As the tanks and troops marched down the road, even the commentators on ABC said it looked like something you would see in a Banana republic, at the direction of some dictator. As they say..."TRUE DAT".

Along the parade route, it was teeming with people, held behind great fences which, for some reason, looked like the fences at Auschwitz . And, we saw the police running along the fences, often spraying pepper spray into the eyes of these law abiding citizens whose only crime was exercising their right of free speech.

While our own citizens are starving, and troops don't have what they need, Marie Antoinette...er...Mrs. Bush, was prancing around in a solid white Oscar de la Renta that costs TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. Talk about letting them eat cake and fiddling while Rome burned...surely, their little pageant needs to reserve a rank in the history books as at least as outrageous as these. Estimates of forty to forty four MILLION dollars for this little debacle, are said to be low.

To me, it certainly adds up to a new definition of an obscene waste of money...but of course, the money is from "private" sources, which is the easy way of saying it oozes from the teats of the Pigopolists, each vying for the ability to muzzle in on the treasure trove which will be available to Bushy's toadies.

So, as Alex in Clockwork Orange might say in Nadsat, "Yes my little droogies, even the melodies of the Glorious Ludwig von....were soured by that scene. Bushy is a baddiwad chelloveck!".

During one scene, the "Presidential Limo" rolled through a tremendous cloud of smoke/fog, coming from a heating vent or something in the road. As it emerged eerily from the grey cloud, it looked like Dracula tooling around Transylvania, with his black coated, black sunglassed Familiars in attendance.

And so, the New Nightmare Begins.

~CodeWarriorz Thoughts

What planet is CONDOLEEZA From?

2005-01-19T04:45:00.000-08:00

MLK HAD A DREAM,BUSH GIVES US A NIGHTMARE

2005-01-17T04:44:00.000-08:00

Sunday, January 16, 2005
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | 'I have a dream'
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | 'I have a dream'
"The dream

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed - we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope.

With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day, this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning: "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California.
But not only that.
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" "
===============SNIP====================
The dream died with the election of GWB...

Bush replaced the dream with his version of Alice Cooper's tune...
"WELCOME TO MY NIGHTMARE"

http://inauguration-of-bush.blogspot.com/

2005-01-16T11:46:00.000-08:00

http://inauguration-of-bush.blogspot.com/

US PONDERED USE OF A "GAY BOMB"

2005-01-16T10:58:00.000-08:00

"US military pondered love not war"
US military pondered love not war

The unconventional proposals were made by the US Air Force
The US military investigated building a "gay bomb", which would make enemy soldiers "sexually irresistible" to each other, government papers say.
Other weapons that never saw the light of day include one to make soldiers obvious by their bad breath.

The US defence department considered various non-lethal chemicals meant to disrupt enemy discipline and morale.

The 1994 plans were for a six-year project costing $7.5m, but they were never pursued.

The US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals".

The plans were obtained under the US Freedom of Information by the Sunshine Project, a group which monitors research into chemical and biological weapons.

'Who? Me?'

The plan for a so-called "love bomb" envisaged an aphrodisiac chemical that would provoke widespread homosexual behaviour among troops, causing what the military called a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale.

Scientists also reportedly considered a "sting me/attack me" chemical weapon to attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats towards enemy troops.

A substance to make the skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight was also pondered.

Another idea was to develop a chemical causing "severe and lasting halitosis", so that enemy forces would be obvious even when they tried to blend in with civilians.

In a variation on that idea, researchers pondered a "Who? Me?" bomb, which would simulate flatulence in enemy ranks.

Indeed, a "Who? Me?" device had been under consideration since 1945, the government papers say.

However, researchers concluded that the premise for such a device was fatally flawed because "people in many areas of the world do not find faecal odour offensive, since they smell it on a regular basis".

Captain Dan McSweeney of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate at the Pentagon said the defence department receives "literally hundreds" of project ideas, but that "none of the systems described in that [1994] proposal have been developed".

He told the BBC: "It's important to point out that only those proposals which are deemed appropriate, based on stringent human effects, legal, and international treaty reviews are considered for development or acquisition."

Down the Rabbit Hole with President Queeg

2005-01-16T10:28:00.000-08:00

A couple of posts back, we see the article where, performers at the inauguration are being warned 1)Not to look at Bush directly, and 2)Not to make sudden moves.

This whole thing is getting crazier and crazier. As if Bush and whatever the hell was stuck on his back during the debates was not enough, it really seems that the Mad Queen, or Captain Queeg, or King George the Cowardly, has really gone off the deep end, and with him, all the security staff.

So, has Resident BUSHY become Medusa or something suddenly, and those who look directly at him may turn to stone? Do people need to carry mirrors, or highly polished shields to get a virtual glance...or, does he NOW think he is indeed royalty, and no commoner must meet his gaze with theirs?

Folks, I told you this nut would get nuttier, way BEFORE the election of 2004.

Now, you have the nut embedded in the White House like a tick under the saddle of a horse....whatcha gonna do when they come knocking at your door to take your personal guns, and brand 666 in your hide?

Winning Souls to Christ in The World of Warcraft

2005-01-16T09:59:00.000-08:00

Winning Souls to Christ in The World of WarcraftBilly Houston, a Landover Baptist Senior High youth, has been sharing Jesus in the virtual gaming world for over three years. "I evangelized in Lineage 2, Everquest, Diablo, and a bunch of other games," he says, "but I haven't seen nearly as many people who are as open to hearing the Gospel message as I have inside the World of Warcraft." Billy has what gamers call, a Level 57 Undead Priest with Holy Focus. "I'm also in one of the largest Christian guilds on our server," he says. "I think the reason so many people are open to hearing about Jesus in the World of Warcraft is because the majority of people who play the game are lonely kids who don't have any friends. I doubt any of them play sports so you can pretty much guess that there are lots of gay boys and fat little pale-faced Wiccan girls on the servers who hate themselves and escape into virtual characters so they don't have to deal with their pathetic lives. When they hear that someone loves them, even if it is just the Lord Jesus Christ, they always want to hear more!"

The World of Warcraft is ripe for eager young Christian evangelists to ply their trade. "I'm studying to be a missionary at Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia," says one gamer (who prefers to remain anonymous) and sharing the Good News of Jesus in Azeroth is a great way to practice soulwinning in Arkansas, where I'm from originally. I think that when Jesus said in Mark 16:15, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, He knew that True Christians™ like me in the future, would be called into virtual worlds where we'd be witnessing to gnomes, trolls, night elves and all sorts of other creatures. I also think that verse applies to Christian astronaut missionaries in the future who will encounter and evangelize unsaved alien life forms on other planets. I believe with my whole heart that Christian gamers are sincerely answering the Great Commission of Jesus and we are able to do it without getting out of our chairs or leaving our bedrooms. I bet the Apostle Paul is so jealous!"
===========SNIP===================
note- Landover Baptist is a satire site

Police State Inaguration for King Bush

2005-01-16T09:11:00.000-08:00

Police State Inaguration for King BushPolice State Inaguration for King Bush
Unprecedented Security & Cost for Bush's Second Inauguration

The Guardian | January 14, 2005
By Julian Borger

A few square miles of central Washington will be transformed into an armed camp next week as the biggest security operation in the city's history is mounted for President Bush's inauguration.

When Mr Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, are sworn in for the second time on the steps of the Capitol building at midday on Thursday, the US government will be at its most vulnerable. Just about every member of the executive, Congress and the supreme court will be in the same place.

To protect them, 6,000 police officers, 2,500 soldiers and hundreds of secret service officers will flood the area around Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue, the route of the inaugural parade, scanning the expected 750,000-strong crowd of supporters and protesters.

Air traffic into the city will be restricted, replaced by fighter jets and Black Hawk helicopters.

The outgoing homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, overseeing the last grand event of his career, promised it would be the most secure ceremony in history.

"We're as prepared as possible to thwart any attempts at terrorism," he said. Troop carrying helicopters have been flying over Washington for days, but the security operation will begin in earnest on Tuesday when fireworks, parades and parties - costing a total of $40m (about £21m) - begin. The government has not yet put a price on the security, but it will cost tens of millions more.

Related:

Ridge describes unprecedented security for Bush swearing-in

Soldiers practice security for Inauguration

Inauguration Shutdown Of Downtown Extensive

Some Now Question Cost of Inauguration

Inauguration to have 6,000 guards

Inauguration prompts unprecedented levels of security

Inauguration security will be the tightest in U.S. history

There have been complaints from both ends of the political spectrum about civil liberty. The secret service has banned anything that could conceal, or be used as, a weapon. That includes poles supporting placards, the coffins some demonstrators had wanted to bring to symbolise the Iraqi war dead, and the crosses and American flags that the faithful had intended to wave.

Kristinn Taylor, the head of the Washington branch of a conservative group Free Republic, disagreed with the ban, for the left and the right:

"If we're allowed to hold our American flags, then they can hold their hammer and sickle flags or whatever."

But others believe the security threat has not been taken seriously enough.

The conservative commentator Norman Ornstein wrote in the New Republic magazine that the inauguration was "the single most vulnerable moment for our constitutional system - far more dangerous than either the conventions or the general election".

Mr Ornstein said a catastrophic terrorist attack on Thursday, such as a nuclear suitcase bomb, would plunge the country into chaos, as no clear contingency plans had been made for the possibility that everyone in the chain of succession was killed at once.

The cost of the event has also provoked controversy.

Washington's mayor, Anthony Williams, has complained that the city will have to spend $17.3m to help pay for security. The federal government normally reimburses the city for such costs, but this year it has told Mr Williams to take most of the money from Washington's homeland security budget, draining its defences for the rest of the year.

Democrats have criticised the $40m celebrations as a tasteless display of excess, saying tradition dictates that wartime inaugurations are restrained affairs. The Republicans' response has been that the whole event is dedicated to US soldiers serving abroad.

The inauguration has been officially subtitled "Celebrating Freedom and Honouring Service". The party also pointed out that the bill would be paid entirely by private contributions.

That sponsorship has, in its turn, attracted scrutiny. Election rules do not allow firms to make direct campaign donations to candidates, and they place strict limits on individual contributions.

These restrictions do not apply to inaugurations, and a host of corporations have lined up to demonstrate their support. They are permitted to give up to $250,000.

Some companies, like the Marriott hotel chain, have got around the nominal $250,000 limit by arranging donations from subsidiary firms. Other big givers include Ford, Exxon Mobil, and the defence contractor Northrop Grumman.

In return, company executives will be given tickets to the ceremony and to the black-tie balls. Political watchdogs are asking what else they will receive once the administration gets down to making policy.

An expensive do

·An estimated $40m (about £21m) will be spent on parties and parades in Washington next week - an inauguration record

·About 250,000 people will watch the swearing-in ceremony, and twice that number will line the parade route. It will take President Bush less than a minute to take the oath

·With security paramount, 6,000 police officers and 2,500 military personnel will protect the guests

·Packages offered to guests include a $1m deal, for which they get four nights in a hotel a stone's throw from the White House, return travel from any city in the US, a chauffeur and a butler on 24-hour call for the duration, his-and-her diamond watches and designer outfits, spa treatment and monogrammed bathrobes

·An exclusive lunch with Mr Bush and the vice president, Dick Cheney, and two tables for 19 friends at an eve-of inauguration banquet is not cheap either, at $250,000

Inauguration Shutdown Of Downtown Extensive

Washington Post | January 12, 2005
By Spencer S. Hsu and Sari Horwitz

Federal officials announced plans yesterday to close roughly 100 square blocks of downtown Washington to vehicles on Inauguration Day and to restrict traffic on another 100 square blocks.

Motorists should prepare for detours and delays even before President Bush is sworn in for a second term Jan. 20. Some streets will be closed Sunday for a dress rehearsal of the inaugural parade. Others will be closed from time to time starting Tuesday as Bush and other dignitaries head to concerts, receptions and other events.

Pennsylvania Avenue NW -- the parade route -- will be closed after 6 p.m. Jan. 19 for security, as workers remove streetlights and weld shut manhole covers, D.C. police said.

Bush is to take the oath of office in a noontime ceremony at the Capitol on Jan. 20. Throughout the day and into the night, much of downtown will be off-limits to motorists. The restrictions cover Second Street east of the Capitol to 23rd Street to the west, extending roughly between E Street south of the Capitol and K Street to the north, plus an area around the Washington Convention Center.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge acknowledged yesterday that security plans go well beyond those undertaken in 2001 for Bush's first inauguration. This is the widest planned shutdown of the core business district in memory, and Ridge said authorities intend to be "as prepared as possible."

"You can well imagine that the security for this occasion will be unprecedented," said Ridge, who gave an overview of plans in a briefing near the Capitol. "Our goal is that any attempt on the part of anyone or any group to disrupt the inaugural will be repelled by multiple layers of security."

For the first inauguration after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, officials plan to deploy 6,000 law enforcement officers and 7,000 U.S. troops. Roughly 60 federal, state and local agencies will handle security, led by the U.S. Secret Service.

Ridge's announcement came amid criticism from D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) that the federal government was forcing the District to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects to pay for the inauguration. Williams was scheduled to appear with Ridge yesterday but did not; aides said he was ill.

Ridge said the department had approved the District's use of homeland security grants intended for contingencies, such as police overtime when the national terror alert level is raised. Aides added that the District has received $240 million in homeland security aid over three years and that many federal assets were also being used this month.

Asked how much the federal government was paying for inauguration security, Ridge said: "It's in the millions, and I don't know how many millions. . . . We haven't calculated it yet."

To illustrate the magnitude of the undertaking, he and other Homeland Security officials literally assembled a dog-and-pony show for yesterday's briefing.

Ridge not only was surrounded by federal law enforcement, members of the military and local police chiefs, but he also was flanked by explosives-sniffing dog teams from the Army and by U.S. Park Police officers on horseback. Also on display: mobile command centers belonging to the Secret Service, the Federal Protective Service, the joint military command for Washington, the D.C. Emergency Management Agency and others.

Combat-ready troops with the 3rd Infantry Regiment showed off M-4 assault rifles and night-vision goggles, joining troops with a Marine Corps rapid chemical and biological agent reaction force and the Military District of Washington engineering company specializing in rescues from collapsed buildings.

Ridge acknowledged that U.S. authorities have received no information for several weeks to even consider raising the national terror threat level. Last spring, authorities predicted a high "election-year threat" continuing through the inauguration.

"There is no specific threat directed toward the inaugural or the inaugural activities," Ridge said. "But the fact that . . . the decibel level is down doesn't really mean that we would ever be less vigilant. . . . This is the most visible manifestation of our democracy."

Later, Secret Service officials announced the first details of the many restrictions to take effect.

The list of items prohibited from all event sites includes weapons of any kind, aerosols, supports for signs and placards, packages, coolers, thermal or glass containers, backpacks, laser pointers, bags larger than 8 inches by 6 inches by 4 inches and "any other items determined to be a potential safety hazard," the Secret Service said.

A dozen public entry points have been set for the tens of thousands of people who will be coming downtown for the parade, mostly within two blocks of the parade route, to open at 9 a.m. Jan. 20.

Some restrictions already are drawing complaints. The Christian Defense Coalition, a Washington-based advocacy group, protested a ban on carrying crosses that could be used as weapons.

D.C. police announced the limits on vehicle traffic. All vehicles will be barred from a security zone starting late Wednesday, "no ifs, ands or buts," D.C. police Capt. Jeff Herold said. Hotel and office building garages will be inspected and shut inside the zone, which includes the area around the White House to the Capitol, plus around the Convention Center.

Most street parking will be barred from wider vehicle-restricted zones, and only people who can show they live or have legitimate "business that you can articulate" inside will be permitted to drive in, Herold said.

Authorities urged people to walk or use Metro on Inauguration Day. Limits will be relaxed in phases as Inauguration Day proceeds.

"We realize it is an inconvenience for one day, one partial day, even. We really hope everyone can wrap their arms around it and deal with the event as it is, and help us keep it as safe as possible for every citizen, business, attendee and demonstrator," Herold said.

Inauguration to have 6,000 guards
Unprecedented security to include larger no-fly zone

CNN | January 12, 2005

There will be several thousand police officers from several jurisdictions on duty during the inauguration.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Security for President Bush's inauguration -- the first swearing-in since the September 11, 2001, attacks -- will be unprecedented with some 6,000 law enforcement personnel, canine bomb teams and close monitoring of transportation.

In describing the plans for the January 20 event, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said that while the decibel level was down on terrorism chatter, the 55th quadrennial presidential inauguration was such a high-profile event that security would be at its highest level.

"This is the most visible manifestation of our democracy," Ridge said at a news conference near the Capitol, where Bush will take the oath on the West Front.

Ridge detailed some of the security plans, including patrols of harbors, mobile command vehicles, round-the-clock surveillance of the key facilities, a record number of canine bomb teams and thousands of security personnel. He likened the resources to those used during the political conventions last year.

"Security will be at the highest levels of any inauguration," Ridge said.

The Federal Aviation Administration has announced that it will expand the no-fly zone, now a 15-3/4-mile radius around the Washington Monument, to a 23-mile radius around Reagan National, Dulles and Baltimore-Washington International airports. The temporary flight restrictions will be in effect from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on January 20.

Roughly 2,500 military personnel will also be on hand to bolster security, with another 4,700 involved in ceremonial duties, said Maj. Gen. Galen Jackman, who commands the Army's military district of Washington.

Jackman said he did not think all the security would detract from the experience of the 250,000 people expected to watch the swearing-in and the estimated 500,000 expected along the parade route from the Capitol to the White House.

"I don't think people will notice kind of an encampment mentality here," Jackman said. "I think they'll feel very comfortable with what we've arranged."

Ridge noted that intelligence picked up in March and April suggested terrorists may be interested in attacking during the election year. He and other counterterrorism officials have said that threat could extend through the inauguration.

On Tuesday, he sought to play down the warnings issued last year. "There is no specific threat directed toward the inaugural or inaugural activities," he said.

City officials in Washington are still working with the Homeland Security Department to sort out who will pay some of the bills. The district's total cost for the event is expected to be $17.3 million, which includes overtime for members of the more than 60 law enforcement agencies that will be brought in to help.

Among other charges: almost $3 million to build viewing stands and $43,260 to develop special license tags, according to a letter Washington Mayor Anthony Williams sent to federal officials late last month.

City officials are seeking permission to dip into the district's $240 million allotment from the federal government to pay for other costs it will incur during the inauguration.

When asked if he thought it was appropriate to use city dollars for basics such as bleachers, Ridge said he was not aware of city money going toward infrastructure improvements, but said the district is eligible for federal reimbursement for overtime expenses.

"We believe there are significant resources available to help the district with costs associated with increased security," Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.

Inauguration prompts unprecedented levels of security

The Orlando Sentinel | January 15, 2005
BY TAMARA LYTLE

WASHINGTON -(KRT) - President Bush's second inauguration will draw unprecedented wartime security, from airspace closed to all but government aircraft to screening everyone, even parade-goers, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge promised Tuesday.

While the inauguration marks the first such gathering in the nation's capital since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Ridge said intelligence forces have picked up no specific threats aimed at such a tempting symbol of American democracy.

"We wanted to ... assure all of you that the local, state and federal government is as prepared as possible to thwart any attempts at disruption of this celebration of democracy," Ridge said in a news conference on the National Mall.

He was surrounded by troops with night-vision goggles, chemical-response teams showing off their gas masks and a half-dozen bomb-sniffing dogs - all, Ridge said, aimed "to thwart terrorists and to protect the hallmark of our democratic and constitutional traditions."

When Bush raises his hand to take the oath on Jan. 20, members of Cabinet, Congress and the Supreme Court, foreign dignitaries and 250,000 other people will be gathered on the West Front of the Capitol. Another half-million will be waiting along the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route.

About, 6,000 police from all over the country as well as federal agencies will fan out over the inaugural sites. Florida Highway Patrol will send a contingent on its first-ever security mission outside the state, said Lt. John Bagnardi, who will lead the group.

"It's nice to be involved in something of this magnitude - to showcase your agency in front of the world and to be exposed to this type of security on such a large scale," Bagnardi said.

Florida troopers get lots of opportunities to work with Secret Service when the president or presidential candidates come to the state because of the state's political stature.

But, he said, one thing they're not quite prepared for is the bitter weather expected in Washington. "Our uniforms are not that conducive to that hard, cold weather," he said, noting Highway Patrol had ordered uniform sweaters and plan to pack long johns.

Ridge said that intercepted intelligence information last year indicated a potential terrorist attack during the election year. But now "the decibel level is down," so the nation's security threat rating will not be changed. Still, he said, this inauguration will have unprecedented security.

Some of the measures include: monitoring ventilation systems of hotels, keeping 24-hour surveillance of all facilities involved in the festivities, using portable x-ray machines to check delivery trucks and even requiring parade-watchers to go through security checkpoints.

As Ridge spoke Tuesday, a convoy of recreational vehicles was parked behind him - each one a mobile command center for a different agency.

Charles Ramsey, chief of police for the District of Columbia, said his agency was ready for protesters, although they don't know how many to expect. "I know we'll have a few. We'll handle it."

The military will have 2,500 troops working on security and another 4,700 performing ceremonial roles and ready to jump in if there is an emergency, said Army Maj. Gen. Galen Jackman, who commands the military district here and will escort Bush down the East Front of the Capitol to review the military units before the parade.

"I don't think people will notice an encampment mentality," he said, noting many of the security measures will be invisible.

Jackman said that although the security is tighter than any previous inauguration, it is comparable to recent events such as the Republican and Democratic national conventions and the funeral for former President Ronald Reagan.

Jackman said the inaugural crowd will be smaller than the May gathering for the dedication of the World War II Memorial.

The Reagan funeral included a security scare that caused a panicked evacuation of the Capitol when the military became alarmed by an unknown airplane approaching Washington. The plane, carrying Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher, turned out to be traveling legitimately but with a broken transponder.

William Shumann, spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said the FAA knew Fletcher's plane was not a threat, but a lack of communication between the FAA and the military led to the misunderstanding.

That won't happen again, he said.

In addition to the usual no-fly zone that extends nearly 16 miles in every direction from the Washington Monument, the FAA on Inauguration Day will enforce a separate ban on private aircraft within 23 miles of the three major airports in the region - Reagan National, Dulles International and Baltimore-Washington International. And exemptions for elected officials will be canceled that day.

Private donors pay the tab for the $40 million in balls and other festivities. But the security costs fall to the government.

Washington Mayor Anthony Williams has complained that his city is not getting enough help with its $17.3 million in costs.

Ridge said he's not sure how many millions all the security will cost.

"It is the greatest manifestation as to who we are and what we stand for in our country," he said. "And whatever we need to do to ensure the safety of the participants and the citizens of the city around the inaugural, we will do."

Unprecedented security planned for Bush's inauguration next week

Canadian Press | January 14, 2005
By BETH GORHAM

WASHINGTON - With coast guard boats patrolling the Potomac and bomb-sniffing dogs roaming the crowds, security at next week's inauguration of President George W. Bush will be the tightest in U.S. history.

There will be about 6,000 police, mobile command vehicles and portable X-ray units, with extra manpower scouring downtown hotels and transportation areas under an expanded no-fly zone around the capital during the Jan. 20 event, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Tuesday.

While there's been "no specific threat" from terrorists to stage an attack during the 55th inaugural events, "this is the most visible manifestation of our democracy," he said.

"Security will be at the highest level of any inauguration."

Ridge and other officials warned last year of terrorist threats to disrupt events during the U.S. electoral season, prompting accusations from critics that they were trying to bolster support for Bush.

"The decibel level is down" on intelligence chatter about potential strikes that reached a high point last spring, said Ridge.

About 2,500 military personnel are also expected to help secure events next Thursday, including the official swearing-in and a parade from the Capitol to the White House that's likely to attract an estimated 500,000 people.

The gala day is costing $40 million US before security costs are factored in.

Not everyone will be celebrating, however.

Several organizations that opposed Bush's re-election plan marches and rallies designed to disrupt the inauguration.

"Americans of conscience must shun any president who so arrogantly shuns democracy, civil rights, the environment and the poor," said Morrigan Phillips of the DC Resistance Media Collective.

Officials held a dress rehearsal Sunday for the big event to ensure that the timing of music and speeches would lead to Bush's swearing-in at noon as scheduled.

The ceremony will take place on the Capitol's west terrace, where it's been held since former president Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Soldiers practice security for Inauguration

Army News Service | January 12, 2005
By Spc. Justin Nieto

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Jan. 12, 2005) -- Elements of the Joint Forces Headquarters-National Capital Region gathered at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., Jan. 11 to participate in a public demonstration of some of the biggest and best tools being used for security in the upcoming Inauguration.

Among those present for the event were Charles H. Ramsey, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, Tom Ridge, secretary of Homeland Security and Maj. Gen. Galen B. Jackman, commander of the JFHQ-NCR.

Lining the street in front of the Capitol were various mobile command centers, booms raised, doors opened and personnel ready for a brief tour by the senior officials.

On the Mall itself were representatives of the various security and ceremonial agencies, including Soldiers from the Military District of Washington, members of the Metropolitan Police Department and Marines from the Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force stationed at Indian Head, Md.

“It’s important to note that the people and the organizations represented here in person and with this equipment have been working together for years and years,” said Ridge during the press conference following the demonstration. “They work together all the time on all the events in the National Capital Region.

“These organizations represent what the Department of Homeland Security tries to do nationally,” said Ridge: “Integrate capacities, abilities and all jurisdictions, because together, they are an extremely strong force.”

Ridge said the reason for the display was to assure public that all the levels of government are ready and prepared to deter and defend against any threat to the inaugural events.

“These resources will cover all aspects of the Inauguration, including the oath of office, the parade and any inaugural balls,” said Ridge. As many as 6,000 police officers from different agencies will be present, augmented by Homeland Security personnel, Ridge added.

Among those joining the police and other security personnel in defense of the inaugural events are the troops of the JFHQ-NCR.

“We have a Joint Task Force within the National Capital Region, which is responsible for providing support to a lead federal agency,” said Jackman, who commands the task force as well as the Military District of Washington and the Joint Task Force, Armed Forces Inaugural Committee, which coordinates the military support “on the ceremonial side … like for the swearing-in ceremony and the parade.”

Jackman went on to outline some of the security measures his commands are responsible for during this event.

“We coordinate all of the air defense for the air space around the National Capital Region, we coordinate the maritime security on the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, and the Washington Channel,” Jackman said. “In support of the Secret Service,” he add, “we’re providing significant medical capability, robust explosive ordinance disposal and detection capabilities.

“Also, we provide a special technical rescue ability for collapsed structures and then, stationed a little bit further away from the Metropolitan area, we have forces that are stationed to respond,” said Jackman.

Jackman also fielded questions about his organization’s readiness and planning.

“We’ve worked just about every threat tendency that we could think of here,” said Jackman. “We worked through all of the ‘What ifs’ -- how we would respond, how we would work with the agencies and this team together in what we call ‘tabletop exercises’.

“We’re very confident in our preparations for this event,” Jackman said.

Inauguration Performers Ordered NOT to look directly at Bush

2005-01-16T09:09:00.000-08:00

Inauguration Performers Ordered NOT to look directly at Bush
Inauguration Performers Ordered NOT to look directly at Bush

Scripps Howard | January 11, 2005
By Joan Lowy

WASHINGTON - The nation's 55th presidential inauguration, the first to be held since 9/11, will take place this month under perhaps the heaviest security of any in U.S. history.

Dozens of federal and local law enforcement agencies and military commands are planning what they describe as the heaviest possible security. Virtually everyone who gets within eyesight of the president either during the Jan. 20 inauguration ceremony at the U.S. Capitol or the inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue later in the day will first go through a metal detector or receive a body pat-down.

Thousands of police officers and military personnel are being brought to Washington from around the country for the four-day event. Sharpshooters will be deployed on roofs, while bomb-sniffing dogs will work the streets. Electronic sensors will be used to detect chemical or biological weapons.

Anti-abortion protesters have been warned to leave their crosses at home. Parade performers will have security escorts to the bathroom, and they've been ordered not to look directly at President Bush or make any sudden movements while passing the reviewing stand.

"It's going to be very different from past inaugurals," said Contricia Sellers-Ford, spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police, which is responsible for the Capitol and grounds. "A lot of the security differences will not be detected by the public - there will be a lot of behind the scenes implementation - but the public will definitely see more of a police presence."

The Department of Homeland Security has designated the inaugural a National Special Security Event under a protocol introduced by President Bill Clinton that calls for especially heavy security during events of national significance at which large numbers of government officials and dignitaries are present.

There have been 20 previously designated special security events, including Bush's first inaugural, last year's Democratic and Republican conventions, former President Ronald Reagan's funeral and the 2002 Super Bowl.

Under the protocol, the Secret Service takes the lead in drawing up the security plan, while the FBI gathers intelligence and the Federal Emergency Management Agency oversees response scenarios to possible terror attacks.

The Secret Service also works closely with the Defense Department, the National Park Service, and local police agencies, especially the Washington police department and the Capitol police. About 40 agencies are involved.

The Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region, which was created two years ago to bring coordination to the many disparate military units in the Washington area, will provide more than 4,000 troops to help.

Washington, D.C., police chief Charles Ramsey has sent invitations to police departments across the country inviting them to send squads of officers to help with inauguration security. The federal government is paying for officers' hotels, meals and air travel.

Several thousand officers are expected, Ramsey said. That includes squads from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, Bradenton, Fla., Charlotte and Greensboro, N.C., the North Carolina state highway patrol, several law enforcement agencies in Texas and other parts of the country.

"This is the first post 9/11 (inauguration) so obviously there are some more security concerns this time than in past years," Ramsey said.

The extra officers from around the country will free up Washington police officers so that they can form "mobile platoon civil disturbance units" to prevent protest demonstrations from getting out of hand, Ramsey said.

Groups planning demonstrations during the inauguration festivities are already smarting from security restrictions. Anti-war protesters with the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition have complained that large sections of the parade route have been set aside for Bush's political contributors and supporters and will be closed to the general public.

The anti-abortion Christian Defense Coalition, which is also planning a demonstration, has threatened to sue the government because the Secret Service recently added crosses to its list of objects that are banned from the parade route.

"I think it's censorship no matter how you look at it," said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the defense coalition.

Besides weapons, other items on the banned list include coolers, folding chairs, bicycles, pets, papier-mache objects, displays such as puppets, mock coffins, props and "any items determined to be a potential safety hazard."

Parade performers said they also have been warned to expect unprecedented security.
"They've told us right out that it's going to be very, very tight," said Peter LaFlamme, executive director of the Spartans Drum and Bugle Corps in Nashua, N.H. LaFlamme said he has been receiving almost daily phone calls from inaugural organizers to apprise him of new security procedures.

Thousands of performers - marching bands, color guards, pompon dancers, hand bell-ringers, drill teams on horseback and Civil War re-enactors - will be bused early in the morning to the Pentagon parking lot across the Potomac in Virginia. While performers disembark and go through metal detectors, bomb-sniffing dogs will search the buses.
Then everybody will get back on the buses for a trip to the National Mall, where they will spend most of the day in heavily guarded warming tents. Participants have been warned that they will not be allowed to leave the tents except to go to portable toilets accompanied by a security escort.

Other instructions given performers include a warning not to look directly at Bush while passing the presidential reviewing stand, not to look to either side and not to make any sudden movements.

"They want you to just look straight ahead," said Danielle Adam, co-director of the Mid American Pompon All Star Team from Michigan, which also performed in the 2001 inaugural parade.

"Last time we went security was really tight," Adam said. "This time we got almost like a book of things we needed to fill out beforehand."

Anti-Inauguration Action and Protest in San Antonio, Thurs. Jan. 20

2005-01-16T09:07:00.000-08:00

Anti-Inauguration Action and Protest in San Antonio, Thurs. Jan. 20

Join in the funeral procession to mourn the death of democracy, peace, tolerance, civil liberties, and the thousands of people who have died due to the policies of the Bush Administration.

10,000 Jesuses

2005-01-16T09:05:00.000-08:00

10,000 JesusesWe're looking for a few good Jesuses. Men or women who are willing to wear a robe, grow a little hair and travel to Washington D.C. for the Presidential Inauguration on January 20th.

AlterNet: War on Iraq: The Meaning of One Thousand

2005-01-16T09:03:00.001-08:00

AlterNet: War on Iraq: The Meaning of One ThousandThe Meaning of One Thousand

By Tai Moses, AlterNet. Posted September 10, 2004.

A thousand U.S. soldiers dead and a thousand candles at a vigil. Our anguish should not be our only response. Story Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
BUY
ALSO IN WAR ON IRAQ

An Appeal to Global Conscience

Rethinking Iraq: A Debate Among Progressives

Twin Golems of Violence
Mark LeVine

Lakshmi Chaudhry

Tom Hayden

Jonathan Schell

More stories by Tai Moses

We were participating in that most ancient of human rituals – communal mourning. Strangers sharing the lighting of candles and mingling of flames, our thoughts unified by a single theme: grief for the dead and longing for peace.

Like thousands of other Americans around the country, I was at a candlelight vigil Thursday evening to remember the more than 1,000 U.S. service members killed in Iraq and the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead. Coordinated by MoveOn.org, Win Without War, Military Families Speak Out and other groups, the vigils took place in 900 cities and drew upwards of 40,000 people.

Nearly 250 people from neighborhoods around Lake Merritt, in Oakland, Calif., gathered at the colonnade on the edge of the lake to stand quietly, candles in hand. A few held placards reading "1,000 Dead," "Quagmire," or "No End In Sight." Some were still in work clothes; other came in exercise outfits. An organizer made a brief announcement at the start of the vigil and again halfway through, but other than that, there were no speeches, only whispering and then silence.

onethousandcoffins.org

2005-01-16T09:03:00.000-08:00

onethousandcoffins.orgPlease join us in Washington on Thursday, January 20. We will install over 1,363 flag-draped coffins to protest the inaugural. Contact One Thousand Coffins or Iraq War Memorial for more information.

Visit Hostelling International DC for low-cost housing. The Chinatown Bus leaves from 88 East Broadway in NYC at 7am and 8 am. The roundtrip cost is $35. One-way is $20. The trip takes 4 to 5 hours

The Obscenity of the Second Infection Inauguration

2005-01-16T06:18:00.000-08:00

Well...thanks to dead people voting, the help of Diebold, throwing away of many Democrative votes and not counting them, BUSHY is set to be the RESIDENT of the White House again.

And boy oh boy, does he want to rub the collective nose of the nation in it!

See this page...
http://www.inaugural05.com/

In a country with people going to bed hungry, when old people have to decide between their medications and FOOD, this ostentatious (or should I say, AUSTINTATIOUS) display is really, a new definition of an obscene use of money.

God Help Us.

Want a REAL conservative viewpoint?
Check http://www.infowars.com

Fatcat Inaugural Contributors Have a Lot to Gain

2005-01-16T06:17:00.000-08:00

By THOMAS HARGROVE
Jan 14, 2005, 07:38

Many of President Bush's largest corporate contributors to this month's $40 million inaugural bash are also some of the nation's biggest government contractors, getting at least $2.9 billion from Uncle Sam last year.
Forty-four corporations, groups and individuals have each pledged $250,000 - the maximum under voluntary guidelines set by the White House - to defray costs for the most expensive inauguration ever held for a second-term president.

At least five are corporations that got $286 million or more in federal contracts last year, according to a Scripps Howard News Service study of the Federal Procurement Data System computer files maintained by the Office of Management and Budget.

"This is something the public ought to be looking at. It's a giant loophole because it's a way for special interests to maximize their clout with the administration," said Steven Weiss of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. "They are hoping to extend their influence."

Other contributing firms have important legislative or regulatory issues pending before Congress or the White House this year.

"When we look at the list of donors, we see a number of companies that have pending business, shall we say, before the administration," said James Benton, a research analyst for Common Cause, a nonpartisan public interest lobbying group. "The corporations will say it's all about being a good corporate citizen. But it's also about getting access and influence."

The largest federal contractor to give to the president's inaugural is United Technologies Corp., which last year had active federal contracts worth $1.2 billion. The company produces Pratt & Whitney F119 jet engines used in the F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter, although exactly how many of these $350 million aircraft will be built is still under debate by Pentagon policymakers.

A spokesman said United Technologies wanted to show "strong support for a national tradition" through its donation.

"Presidential inaugurations transcend partisan politics," said spokesman Scott Seligman from the company's Washington office. "We're delighted to do our part in a tangible way that helps make public tickets to inaugural events more affordable for everyone."

Other top contractors who have given the maximum allowable to Bush's inaugural include Exxon-Mobil Corp., which signed a single deal worth $390 million to provide petroleum products for the Defense Logistics Agency. Exxon had 120 contracts totaling at least $649 million for a variety of goods and services.

There were other energy-related donors that gave the maximum allowed, including Texas oilman Boone Pickens, former Enron president Richard Kinder who now runs the natural gas company and utility giant Southern Co.

Also giving $250,000 for the inauguration were AT&T, which had contracts worth $366 million, Michael Dell of Dell Computer with federal sales of $362 million and Ford Motor Co. with government sales of $286 million.

Critics said special interest groups have other motivations for currying the White House's favor besides federal contracts. "Many of these groups are regulated industries that clearly want to influence how the government regulates them," Weiss said.

Petroleum and electric companies will want to influence the national energy bill still pending in Congress, while financial institutions like Bank of America will be impacted by Bush's proposal to privatize part of the Social Security Administration's funds and to create tougher bankruptcy laws.

"There are reasons to be concerned by all of this," Benton said. "These people aren't giving money from the bottom of their hearts. The bottom line is they want something, some kind of consideration."

The individuals and groups giving to the inauguration are considerably less Texas-oriented than was the case for Bush's political and inaugural fundraising four years ago. This year, 21 donors from California gave $3.2 million, followed by 15 donors from the District of Columbia who gave $2.4 million. Texans come in third with 12 donations worth $1.6 million, followed by nine New Yorkers worth $1.2 million.

The donor report issued this week by the president's inaugural committee totals $17.8 million, well below the $40 million goal. Bush faced a similar problem four years ago when donations were slow for the $40 million target he set then, as well.

Bush's 2001 inaugural committee solved the shortfall by offering special "underwriter packages" of inaugural tickets for groups that contributed at least $100,000.

On the Net: www.inaugural05.com

Big Brother is Alive, Well and Watching Your Travel Habits

2005-01-16T06:16:00.000-08:00

Capitol Hill Blue: Big Brother is Alive, Well and Watching Your Travel Habits
Big Brother is Alive, Well and Watching Your Travel Habits
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jan 15, 2005, 10:40
Email this article
Printer friendly page

If you're among the millions of Americans who took airline flights in the months before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI probably knows about it - and possibly where you stayed, whom you traveled with, what credit card you used and even whether you ordered a kosher meal.
The bureau is keeping 257.5 million records on people who flew on commercial airlines from June through September 2001 in its permanent investigative database, according to information obtained by a privacy group and made available to The Associated Press.

Privacy advocates say they're troubled by the possibility that the FBI could be analyzing personal information about people without their knowledge or permission.

"The FBI collected a vast amount of information about millions of people with no indication that they had done anything unlawful," said Marcia Hofmann, attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which learned about the data through a Freedom of Information Act request.

"The fact that they're hanging on to the information is inexcusable," Hofmann said on Friday.

FBI spokesman Bill Carter said the bureau was required to retain its records.

"There are rules that have been set by the National Archives with regard to the retention of records by government agencies," Carter said.

Hofmann, though, said the FBI still had a legal responsibility to tell people that it had obtained information about them and to let them have access to it.

As part of its investigation into the terrorist attacks, the FBI asked for, and got, the records from a number of airlines shortly after Sept. 11. The FBI also got one set of data through a federal grand jury subpoena.

The privacy center in May requested records of the FBI's acquisition of the data. The bureau last week turned over 12 pages of information, much of it blanked out for security reasons.

The 12 pages do show that the bureau obtained 82.1 million passenger manifests, or lists of people who flew on planes, between January and September 2001, in addition to the 257.5 million passenger name records.

Citing privacy concerns, the FBI didn't reveal which airlines turned over the information, which airline employees turned it over and which FBI special agents got it.

The data are called passenger name records, or PNR, and can include a variety of information such as credit card numbers, travel itineraries, addresses, telephone numbers and meal requests.

David Hardy, the FBI's chief of the record/information dissemination section of the records management division, said in a legal document dated Jan. 5 that the data were being stored and combined with other information from the Sept. 11 investigation, dubbed PENTTBOMB.

"I have been advised that the Airline Data Sets have been entered by the Cyber Division into a 'Data Warehouse' and have been intertwined for analytical purposes with the information from several other PENTTBOMB Data Sets," Hardy wrote in a statement to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the privacy center filed its suit.

Hofmann, the attorney for the privacy group, said the FBI had a legitimate reason for collecting information to get a better picture of the hijackers' travel patterns and possible associates.

But, she said, "it wouldn't seem that there's any reason to keep that information now."

The FBI's Carter said he couldn't comment on what may be happening to the data because the bureau is involved in a lawsuit by the privacy center.

Daniel Solove, a George Washington University Law School professor and author of a book on privacy, said not enough is known about what the FBI is doing with the data to determine if there is a problem.

"Data just sits around and who knows what people are doing with it?" Solove said. "The public is left completely out of the loop, not told what this data is for. The agency is basically saying 'Trust us.'"

Solove suggested there was irony in Congress last year ordering the FBI to more quickly purge information obtained in background checks of gun buyers. That, he said, can be useful in tracking down criminals.

"Congress wants to protect guns at great cost, but when it comes to privacy and civil liberties generally, it doesn't register on the same level," Solove said

Bushism Video - OB-GYNs Kept From Practicing Their Love

2005-01-16T05:56:00.000-08:00

"Bushism Video - OB-GYNs Kept From Practicing Their Love
Video Page

From Daniel Kurtzman,

Bushism Video - "OB-GYNs Kept From Practicing Their Love"
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushismobgyn.htm
(CLICK ON LINK TO VIDEO)

Here's another link to this video
http://www.independent-media.tv/images/story/obgyn.wmv

2004: Business year in review

2005-01-16T05:52:00.000-08:00

"By Martin Webber
BBC World Business Report editor

The economy took a backseat to security as the US went to the polls

For much of 2004, the world has looked on as the US dollar dropped in value against the euro and the pound.

In the first of a two-part review of the year, World Business Report asks if the greenback's days as the top global currency are numbered?

In the world's biggest economy, most attention centred on the fiercely fought Presidential election.

The re-election of George Bush for four more years meant no radical shift of economic priorities for companies and markets to cope with.

But what was highly unusual about this US Presidential race was that the economy failed to top voters' concerns. Three years after the attacks on the World Trade Center, it was security that loomed largest in voters minds.

In any case, some of Americans' fears about the US economy did ease during the past year. At the start of 2004, the US revival had been dubbed the "jobless recovery", but - as the year wore on - job creation did accelerate, even if many of the new jobs were part time.

Fading currency

However, as economic concerns took a backseat inside America, outside the country it was a different story.

Some economists are predicting the dollar will fall further

Concern about where the US economy was heading led to a sharp fall in the value of the dollar, heralding suggestions that the dollar is on the way out as the global top currency.

The last century saw the demise of gold as the world's key store of value. It was replaced by the dollar as the asset most central banks around the world wanted to hold.

But since April this year, the dollar has slid by 12% against the euro and by 10% against the pound.

Not surprisingly, tourists around the globe are now regularly being asked for payment in euros rather than dollars."
===============SNIP======================
HOLY COW BATMAN....Wait, Bushy says the economy is doing great....
and said that last year...how can this be?

HE WOULDN'T LIE TO US WOULD HE?

GROUP WANTS ECONOMIC BOYCOTT ON INAUGURATION DAY

2005-01-16T05:35:00.000-08:00

Groups nationwide are discussing staging a one-day economic boycott to protest President Bush`s inauguration. Organizer and writer David Livingstone says if people don`t work or buy things, companies lose money that can`t be taxed to fund the war and programs people don`t support. Livingstone admits a boycott probably won`t have much economic impact, but he says it might get the President`s attention.

Start making your plans for Inauguration Day

2005-01-16T05:27:00.000-08:00

"“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” — George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

On Wednesday, Jan. 12, the White House officially announced that, after an extensive investigation, there were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

On the third Thursday of each month, I usually spend a couple of hours with some friends of mine over dinner. We catch up on recent events, talk about our college days, and enjoy each other’s company. We meet at a local restaurant, and wind up spending $15 or $20 each on food and drink.

But this Thursday will be different. This Thursday will be Jan. 20. On that day, King George II will go through the ceremonies of state that mark the beginning of his second, and thankfully last, term of office. There will be millions spent in Washington on food and drink, on overpriced hotel rooms, first-class plane tickets, champagne and caviar, tuxes and wear-once dresses. Millions will be spent to strut the stuff of power. It will be a veritable orgy of the rich and powerful in Republican America, a day to see and be seen in Washington.

The inauguration will be a stark contrast to the plight of many Americans. There is a growing divide between the wealthy and the poor. More people are working unskilled, non-union jobs to make ends meet, to clothe their kids and fend off bill collectors. Record numbers of people are turning to bankruptcy for a fresh start.

Many young men and women serve in the military and National Guard, enticed by a steady paycheck and educational benefits. Most volunteered with pride and a sense of patriotic duty. Instead, they’ve inherited two and three long tours of duty in unfriendly foreign territory. Twelve hundred of them have inherited a casket.

The situation is even worse in Iraq. Already oppressed by a ruthless dictator, their situation has gone from bad to worse. The economy was reduced to shambles, homes and businesses destroyed by senseless American attacks. Families are subject to midnight raids in search of “insurgents,” meaning anyone who resists the Western occupation. Al Qaeda never had a foothold before, but more Iraqis are viewing resistance as their best chance for peace.

Economic stability, after all, is the bedrock of peace. Islamic fundamentalism prospered among poor young Arabs who felt they had no hope for the future. The Soviet Union fell because of empty shelves and long lines. A bad economy cost Jimmy Carter his second term in 1980, and a good economy assured two terms for Bill Clinton. In Iraq, the people have seen their businesses and a hundred thousand friends and relatives disappear. They do not see a bright future, certainly not like George Bush will envision on Jan. 20.

So, there is a grassroots national campaign underway for an economic boycott in America on Jan. 20. Those who oppose what is happening in Iraq will just not spend any money on that day. No gasoline, no groceries, no home closings.

In a way, we’re empathizing with the Iraqi people who are victims of George Bush’s war. We’re also empathizing with the American families whose sons and daughters are no longer part of our economy. We’ll be expressing our frustration over an administration racking up record deficits that will haunt future generations of Americans.

Will this project hurt the economy? Nope. Buy your groceries on the 19th instead of the 20th. Wait until Friday to go out to eat. At best, it will be a blip on the radar screen, but that’s fine. It’s a chance to vote with your pocketbooks for one day, to make others sit up and think about the impact that economic stagnation can have.

Instead of standing in line like cattle to buy Chinese imported goods, let it be known that you’re not happy with our trade deficit.

Instead of sitting in line to fill your gas tank, let it be known that you’re sick of paying the Arabs for imported oil.

Instead of buying that big-ticket item on Thursday, remember that many people, here and in Iraq, cannot afford the luxuries we take for granted.

There’s no rally to attend, no marching, no registration, no pickets, no public embarrassment. Simply resolve to spend nothing, as many families and many soldiers have no choice but to do.

Not one dime. "
==========================SNIP===============================
AMEN...RIGHT ON...I'M DOING IT!

In first inauguration, Bush Limo Pelted with EGGS

2005-01-16T05:09:00.000-08:00

"FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “On the day George W. Bush was inaugurated, tens of thousands of Americans poured into the streets of D.C. They pelted Bush’s limo with eggs.”

“Shouting slogans like ‘Hail to the Thief’ and ‘Selected, Not Elected,’ tens of thousands of protesters descended on George W. Bush's inaugural parade route yesterday to proclaim that he and Vice President Dick Cheney had ‘stolen’ the election.” Michael Kranish and Sue Kirchhoff, “Thousands Protest ‘Stolen’ Election,” Boston Globe, January 21, 2001.
“Scuffles erupted between radicals and riot police while an egg struck the bullet-proof presidential limousine as it carried Mr. Bush and wife Laura to the White House.” Damon Johnston, “Bush Pledges Justice as Critics Throw Eggs,” The Advertisers, January 22, 2001."
==================SNIP=================
No major media showed this. The ONLY place we saw this documentary film footage was in the Michael Moore film . How about it CNN...when the demonstrations begin, have you got the GUTS to show how people REALLY feel about King George the Cowardly?

Bush says he is confused (We agree BUSHY!)

2005-01-16T04:53:00.000-08:00

"On the election Bush said he was puzzled that he received only about 11 percent of the black vote, according to exit polls, about a 2 percentage point increase over his 2000 total.

"I did my best to reach out, and I will continue to do so as the president," Bush said. "It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody."

=====================SNIP=======================
News Flash Bushy...mystery solved...no need to bring in Sherlock Holmes back
to active duty on this one...check this out...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40255-2004Jul10.html
"But he castigated the group's officers, who include President Kweisi Mfume and Chairman Julian Bond. "I would describe my relationship with the current leadership as basically nonexistent," Bush said, as reported by Knight Ridder Newspapers. "You've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me."
====================SNIP=================
Bush refused to speak in front of the NAACP...Kerry did speak and embraced the
support of the NAACP. Point 1 as to why maybe the black vote did not pour in Bushy!

Point TWO
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7433-2004Oct28.html
"NAACP Faces IRS Investigation

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A08

The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to revoke the NAACP's tax-exempt status because the civil rights group's chairman, Julian Bond, "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush" during a speech this summer, according to documents the group provided yesterday."
===============SNIP====================

So, Georgy Porgy, you snub the NAACP, you criticize the leaders, and then, when they just criticize you, you sic the IRS on them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even a retard like BUSHY should be able to figure this one out, right?

"I'M THE PRESIDENT OF EVERYBODY, NOT JUST A FEW." SAYS BUSHY

2005-01-16T04:48:00.000-08:00

http://www.ssa.gov/history/gwbushstmts2.html
"See, I'm the President of everybody, not just a few. I'm the President of people whether they voted for me or not."
==============snip=====================
This is like Bushy declaring himself king of the world.
Hey Village Idiot...News Flash...you aren't the president of Iraq,
not the president of the Soviet Union...so see, you're a LIAR!

PS...you're the Resident, not the President, and you are NOT my president you
idiot!

Krugman: Bush's Dirty Delusional Doctrine Will Collapse

2005-01-16T04:45:00.000-08:00

"Halliburton is profiteering in Iraq — will apologists finally concede the point, now that a Pentagon audit finds overcharging? And reports suggest a scandal in Bechtel's vaunted school-repair program. But I've always found claims that profiteering was the motive for the Iraq war — as opposed to a fringe benefit — as implausible as claims that the war was about fighting terrorism. There are deeper motives here. Mr. Wolfowitz's official rationale for the contract policy is astonishingly cynical: "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts" — future efforts? — and "should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members." Translation: we can bribe other nations to send troops.

But I doubt whether even Mr. Wolfowitz believes that. The last year, from the failure to get U.N. approval for the war to the retreat over the steel tariff, has been one long lesson in the limits of U.S. economic leverage. Mr. Wolfowitz knows as well as the rest of us that allies who could really provide useful help won't be swayed by a few lucrative contracts.
If the contracts don't provide useful leverage, however, why torpedo a potential reconciliation between America and its allies? Perhaps because Mr. Wolfowitz's faction doesn't want such a reconciliation.

These are tough times for the architects of the "Bush doctrine" of unilateralism and preventive war. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow Project for a New American Century alumni viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that would validate their views and clear the way for further regime changes. (Hence Mr. Wolfowitz's line about "future efforts.")

In short, this week's diplomatic debacle probably reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups from regaining control of U.S. foreign policy. And initial indications are that the ploy is working — that the hawks have, once again, managed to tap into Mr. Bush's fondness for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations. "It's very simple," Mr. Bush said yesterday. "Our people risk their lives. . . . Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. . . . The contracting is going to reflect that."

In the end the Bush doctrine — based on delusions of grandeur about America's ability to dominate the world through force — will collapse. What we've just learned is how hard and dirty the doctrine's proponents will fight against the inevitable.

Excerpted from "A Deliberate Debacle" in the Op-Ed section of the Decmber 12, 2003 New York Times "

Iraq Invasion Was 'Worth It' Bush Says

2005-01-16T04:43:00.000-08:00

"President Bush says he was right to topple Saddam Hussein even though there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That was the president's biggest justification for invading Iraq. Mr. Bush says he is looking forward to a second term where he will continue the fight against terrorism and will try to be more careful about what he says.
President Bush says he is excited about the opportunities ahead, hopeful for peace, and appreciative of the chance to serve a second term as he prepares to take the Oath of Office again next week.

In an interview with ABC television, Mr. Bush said it was worth it to invade Iraq even though U.S. inspectors have concluded there were no chemical or biological weapons as the president warned.

"I felt like we would find weapons of mass destruction," he said. " Like many here in the United States and around the world, like the United Nations thought there would be weapons. We need to find out what went wrong. Saddam Hussein had the desire to reconstitute a weapons program, and the world is safer without him in power."
==============================SNIP=========================
DELUSIONAL and CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE!

US voters 'endorsed Iraq policy'

2005-01-16T04:35:00.000-08:00

"President George W Bush has said his re-election has vindicated his administration's policy on Iraq.
Mr Bush said there was no need to hold any of his officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgements in pre-war planning or managing the aftermath.

In an interview in Sunday's Washington Post he said that his re-election was an "accountability moment".

The publication of the interview comes as Mr Bush prepares for the start of his second term on Thursday.

The newspaper asked Mr Bush why no-one had been held responsible for wrong information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or mistakes made after the US-led war.

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election," he replied.

"And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and they chose me, for which I'm grateful."

==================SNIP=========================
Hmmmmm....dead people voting, Diebold machines, votes for Kerry just tossed..yeah,
real mandate Bushy...LOLOLOL.....

Who gave the orders Graner followed?

2005-01-16T04:25:00.000-08:00

""I didn't enjoy it," Graner testified. "A lot of it was wrong. A lot of it was criminal."

Graner said he was obeying his superiors."
=========SNIP================
Let's see...usually, the top guy is ultimately accountable for what the underlings do if he or she is in charge,....who would ultimately be responsible?

The Commander-in-Chief...George W. Bush. He has said he is the commander-in-chief and doesn't HAVE to explain his reasons for doing things. As Lucille Ball (Lucy Ricardo) used to hear from Ricky...."BUSHY..you got some 'splaining to do!"

http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/qualified.html

" But as commander in chief he quickly became imperious. Answering a question from Bob Woodward in 2002 about whether he was listening to staff and advisers as he prepared for war, Bush said: "Of course not. I'm the commander. See, I don't have to explain why I say things. ... I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

A Nation in CRISIS? Social Security Broke? BUSH AT FAULT

2005-01-15T07:32:00.000-08:00

Before the election, it was fearmongering about the terrorists. After the election, they suddenly stop looking for WMD and castigate the "evil Sadaam" for telling the truth!

Now, suddenly, your favorite little village idiot, King George the Cowardly, suddenly comes up with this idea that the Social Security system will be "flat broke"
if Congress doesn't lube up their virtual orifices, bend over, and let Bushy drive his pointed proposal home deep into the economy.

Bush is a liar, AND the village idiot. It's just that simple folks!

ECONOMIC BOYCOTT OF THE INAUGURATION OF KING GEORGE THE COWARDLY

2005-01-15T07:15:00.000-08:00

There is a national call for an economic boycott to be carried out on January 20th, 2005. This means, try not to buy anything on that date. The resultant sudden drop in the economic profile for that day will help to show our opposition to Bushy and his corrupt Cartel in Washington.

http://www.counter-inaugural.org

2005-01-15T07:14:00.000-08:00

There are several events planned to oppose the inauguration of King George the Cowardly, and this site, i.e. counter-inaugural.org, is able to keep you advised of those ongoing.

Why this blog exists

2005-01-15T07:10:00.000-08:00

In four years, GWB has managed to thrust us in war, ruin the economy, polarize the nation, try to drag us toward a theocracy, threaten our rights and liberties , and to make this country the worse for his infection of our land.

Someone has to speak out, and this site is a venue for speaking out against the idiot in the White House, also known as King George the Cowardly.

Our vitriol though, is not without reasonable discussion of the news which bring the rightminded, thinking person, to come to the decision that we must OPPOSE BUSH.
~CodeWarriorz Thoughts