Why I Left the New York Times

It's all about the ads.

I gave up the Times over a year ago, weighted down with glossy advertising "special reports" loaded with smelly samples that just gave me the sneezes. I read it on-line now, where my sinuses and allergies aren't at risk. Are they going to notice that a bunch of us have retreated in the same fashion (yo-hoo WashPo and LAT!), I got tired of paying for advertising, which is what the bulk of the book has become.

I want news, thanks. I'll get it online, where I don't have to deal with the constant assault.

I'm sure that the ad people will one day find a way to spritz "egoiste" fragrance into my living room in a way I will not be able to prevent because they will piggy-back it onto some other technology that I can't live without. It is only a matter of time. But you dead tree people, you are so out of here. If you want me to pay for subscriptions, you are going to have to give me a product superior to what you printed before: with open source technology, so much of the world is already open to me that you are going to have to give a big leg up before I'm going to send a buck your way. My emailers already know more than you do, for heaven's sake.

Far beneath your radar is an entire economy of information you've not even thought of yet, much less surveyed. We've been in the newsgroups for decades and we've documented everything you've gotten wrong. We have history, and you totally don't know about us. You are both fools and knaves, and we've been telling the world for a long time.

With the blogs, we have an audience. Go ahead and shut your sites down tight to subscribers. One of us will get around that and share the crack with the world.

There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in. (Leonard Cohen)

And you are not the exception.(Me)

That's my final contribution for the day, I've got laundry to do and the trash and recycling to take to the curb before I can hit the sheets. Wait, I can't hit the sheets until I've washed them, too. Damn. Can't do that on the computer. Yet.

It Gets Worse

I've commented earlier that with each new pass by the press, the news about this possible Avian Flu pandemic gets worse. This one is the worst so far, but take with a grain of salt: this paper has a reputation for being somewhat sensationalist.

Avian flu lurks as possible pandemic

By Mike Wereschagin
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, November 30, 2004

A monster lurks in Asia.

Epidemiologists who have seen the worst natural biological menaces of the late 20th century suddenly can't seem to get to sleep at night, as their thoughts swirl fearfully around two letters and two numbers: H5N1.

Avian flu, it's more commonly called.

The virus has infected at least 44 people in the past year. Thirty-two of them died. The human immune system has never seen this particular bug before, so it doesn't know how to fight back.

Isolated infections happen all the time, but they stay isolated because most viruses can't jump easily between species. H5N1 can. Right now, its genetics let it move from a bird to a person, but it can't easily jump from one person to another. Scientists worry that because it's so widespread among Asian animals, it's only a matter of time before it picks up the gene that will let it spread between people like any other flu virus.

If that happens, up to one-third of the world's 6.2 billion people could catch it. About 1 percent of those infected would die, according to World Health Organization estimates.

With tens of millions of deaths, a panicked population would be afraid to go outside, let alone overseas. Global trade would slow. Hospitals would be overwhelmed. Basic services such as food delivery and law enforcement could run low on workers.

This nightmare scenario isn't the stuff of wild-eyed doom-sayers.

"In my public health career, in 39 years, I've been involved in some horrible epidemics," said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "This is the one thing that keeps me awake at night. The potential number of cases we could see is almost beyond comprehension."

Osterholm has earned recognition for his work in the macabre world of biological terrorism research.

Scientists and drug companies are working frantically to develop and produce the anti-virals and vaccines to combat the H5N1 virus.

For all of the fretting this year over the shortage of vaccine to keep less exotic flu viruses in check, people aren't influenza's main victims, said Julius Youngner, professor emeritus of molecular genetics and biochemistry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Youngner was on the research team that created the polio vaccine.

"Man is just a secondary species for influenza," Youngner said. "It's really a virus carried by aquatic birds. Man is just an incidental host."

In reality, all flu strains are avian -- birds are infected first by the viruses. H5N1 is different in that it's a new strain we now are defenseless against. Like other viruses, H5N1 is evolving and ultimately could mutate into a bug that can be passed easily from person to person.

Actually, the epidemiological profile of the virus so far would make predictions of 1 billion deaths within the realm of statistical probabilities. Chances are that it will lose some of its lethality if the virus mutates to human to human transmissibility. It's current lethality is above 70%. If we drop that to 50%, times 2 billion infected, such a number is in the realm of the possible (if not the thinkable.) A virus as lethal as the 1918 Spanish Flu (2-5%) would still cost 150,000,000.

Keep in mind, none of this may happen. We are paying attention because of the known propensity for influenza viruses to mutate and do so easily.

There is some excellent science reporting in this article--click on the link and get an education on how the virus works and how it causes illness.

Canada Blog

CBC Online Ottawa journalist Paddy Moore is reporting live by Blackberry from the demonstrations. The blog is here.
President Bush on the reception he received while the motorcade drove from the airport:
"I'd like to thank the Canadians who came out to greet us, waving - with all five fingers."

Happy Holidays

Dollar Dips to New All - Time Low Vs. Euro

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 30, 2004
Filed at 1:13 p.m. ET

BERLIN (AP) -- The U.S. dollar dropped to a new all-time low Tuesday against the euro, which rose to $1.3335 even as new figures showed that U.S. economic growth in the third quarter was stronger than previously estimated.
The dollar's persistent slide has been fueled by concern over the U.S. trade and budget deficits, and analysts say markets are paying only limited attention to other economic data against that background.

The weak dollar also makes life tougher for Americans living abroad, and the U.S. military announced this week that troops stationed in Europe would receive a significant cost of living increase to help provide some relief.

Stocks Slip Despite Positive G.D.P. Report
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 30, 2004
Filed at 1:30 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (AP) -- Stocks sagged Tuesday as sliding consumer confidence trumped the latest report on the nation's gross domestic product, which grew at a faster pace than expected.

Economists keep a close watch on consumer confidence measures because consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of all U.S. economic activity.
One of the factors analysts are keeping an eye on is the impact high energy prices are having on economic activity. Oil prices hit a record high of just over $55 a barrel in late October, but skidded recently. Crude futures lately have been hovering near $50 a barrel.
Crude Oil Prices Hover Near $50 a Barrel
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 30, 2004
Filed at 10:01 a.m. ET
LONDON (AP) -- Crude oil futures prices hovered near $50 a barrel Tuesday as the market weighed the effects of production outages in the North Sea and an expected rise in U.S. distillate fuel inventories.

In London, Brent for January delivery was up 35 cents at $46.10 on the International Petroleum Exchange.

Above the 49th Parallel

Bush visit, new relationship with U.S. fraught with political risk for Martin

Bruce Cheadle
Canadian Press

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Whether it be war in Iraq and U.S. unilateralism, missile defence, American trade protectionism, border security, same-sex marriage or marijuana laws, pollsters say there's a continental divide in mainstream public opinion that breaks along the 49th parallel.

For Prime Minister Paul Martin, that divide represents a political knife edge.

If he stands too close to Bush this week, Martin could get tarred by the anti-Republican sentiment that pervades even his own Liberal party. If the prime minister is too cool, he'll be accused of neglecting Canada's most vital economic partner and of abandoning a campaign promise to improve cross-border relations.

Paul Nesbitt-Larking, a politics professor at the University of Western, Ont., says the Bush visit presents 50-50 odds of burnishing Martin's prime ministerial credentials or burying them.

"He's rolling the dice, as a former prime minister used to say.

"There's a possibility it could work well for him, but it really has to be very carefully stage-managed. He has to hope against all hope that the protests are not too loud or vociferous or detracting of media attention."

Those protesters cover the waterfront of special interests, from secular environmentalists and anti-globalization advocates to religion-based peaceniks, Muslim groups inflamed by U.S. aggression in the Middle East and the social left, including pro-choice and gay rights advocates. Thousands are expected to hit the streets in Ottawa and Halifax.

Working in favour of a seamless presidential visit are the deeply vested interests of both the Bush and Martin administrations.

The president is using Canada as a test run for a post-Iraq, goodwill tour that will take him to Europe in the new year. An ugly international incident in Bush's northern backyard would not auger well.

I'll be posting links through the day as I can find them. I have one browser window open that already has a dozen tabs in it. Big demonstrations are planned for Parliament Hill in Ottawa at noon and 5 PM today, along with others all over the country. Another will greet Bush in Halifax tomorrow.

That Other War Heads South

'I had soldiers break into tears'

BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA - Canada's troops patrolling war-torn Kabul have sent a sobering message home — "we are overtasked, overburdened and worn out."

The messenger, military ombudsman André Marin, is adding his voice to the alarm after spending two days with the soldiers last week.

"In the short period I was there I saw them very focused, motivated to do their job but they're just plain exhausted and overrun by the burden," Marin told the Toronto Star in his first interview following his visit.

Cutbacks to the Canadian contingent have meant that the soldiers are doing double duty and working flat-out, Marin said.

Marin said everyone is feeling the load. However two Edmonton-based units in particular are feeling the pinch — the Lord Strathcona's Horse regiment, which is doing reconnaissance, and the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, which provides the force protection.

Troops call it the "plug and play soldier" — working 10 hours in one job and then being "plugged" in somewhere else for another shift to fill in the staffing gaps.

"It's taking its toll on these people. I saw it first-hand," said Marin, who has served as ombudsman since 1998.

"I had two soldiers break into tears as they were explaining what they were doing. I had never seen that before.

``One of my jobs is to be a voice for the soldiers and what I heard very loudly is ... this is a red flag that they wanted me to carry back."

The situation is so serious that Marin says it's essential that commanders consider a "formal decompression" period for this rotation of troops to give them time to unwind before they're returned home to Canada and their families in February.

Canada cut its troop strength in Afghanistan to 700 from 2,000 in August to give the overstretched army a breather, Gen. Ray Henault, chief of defence staff, said at the time.

But Marin suggested those cuts went too far and says that while the rest of the army recuperates, the soldiers in Afghanistan are paying the price.

"They've gone too far into the withdrawal and they feel that they're left to carry an enormous load," Marin said.

3 die as aid agency is raided in Afghanistan

By Carlotta Gall The New York Times

A large group of suspected Taliban fighters stormed the offices of an aid agency in southwestern Afghanistan, killing three Afghan workers and wounding three security guards, in the heaviest attack since October's elections. A seventh man, also believed wounded, is missing and may have been kidnapped.
.
The police said that at about 5 a.m. Sunday, 20 to 30 gunmen raided the office of the Voluntary Association for the Rehabilitation of Afghanistan in Dilaram, which lies on the main road across southwestern Afghanistan. The gunmen entered the building and shot six of the group's employees, including a cook, who is now missing, as they slept, said Najmuddin Mojadeddi, executive director of the group.
.
He added that an Indian company building a road from Dilaram to Zaranj, on the Iranian border, was sharing the compound with his agency. Another man killed in the attack was working as a cook for the Indian company.

Aid Group Threatens Afghanistan Pullout

An aid group in Afghanistan said it was considering pulling out of part of the country after Taliban militants attacked its compound in a southern town yesterday, killing three people and engaging authorities in a gun battle.

The raid was the latest in a series of attacks on relief organisations that militants say are enemies because they have the backing of US military forces in Afghanistan.

More than 40 aid and reconstruction workers have been killed in attacks this year.

Good Listening

NPR's daily talker, Tavis Smiley, is running a series on the values, morals and religion issue this week. You can catch him live at 9 AM on WNYC or listen to the audio cache at Tavis Smiley Show. Tavis is one of the most literate talk show hosts out there, and I was impressed with the way he handled the show yesterday: those were not softball questions.

The audio cache goes up around noon.

On WNYC, Tavis is followed by WNYC's local talkers Brian Lehrer and Leonard Lopate. As a former public radio talking head myself, I know quality when I hear it.

UPDATE: Oops. The MSNBC story:

Heading North

President Bush is off to Canada today. He will hold high-level trade talks with Prime Minister Paul Martin--we've got a batch of issues. Since American media will probably play down what are likely to be large protests, I'll be tracking the Canadian media and I suggest that you visit with our friend pogge for longer thoughts from a citizen of the greater Toronto metropolitan area. In addition to meeting with Martin in Ottawa, Bush will travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to thank the citizens who took in and cared for so many stranded travelers when the jets were pulled out of the sky on Sept. 11, 2001

pogge has links to The Toronto Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star and the CBC, in case you don't already have them in your bookmarks. He also links to a lot of other Canadian blogs, so you can find eye on the ground reports. I use Peace, Order and Good Government, Eh? as my portal to all things Canadian.

Iraq'd

Iraq health care 'in deep crisis'
Hospitals are unable to cope with Iraq's relentless violence

Iraq's health system is in a far worse condition than before the war, a British medical charity says.

It also says health relief and reconstruction efforts have been bungled through mismanagement and corruption.

The Guardian contributes this:

Iraq is not Bush's Vietnam. But it is becoming Blair's

Public wrath is growing, and the prime minister can do nothing about it

Max Hastings
Monday November 15, 2004
The Guardian

There is a long-standing British belief that we are more robust about war, and its human cost, than are Americans. Yet compare and contrast current national attitudes to what is happening in Iraq. A reverse image is apparent. The British people are very unhappy. Many Americans think everything is going fine.

Falluja is now in US hands, with very modest losses to the assault forces. In addition to an unknown number of civilian casualties, more than a thousand insurgents are allegedly dead. President Bush has achieved extraordinary success in persuading his people that Iraq is a stadium in which the War Against Terror is being decided. In consequence, there is a widespread American belief that every insurgent killed in Falluja represents one fewer prospective assailant of Washington DC or Sioux City, Iowa.

Bushies are proud of what they perceive as a military success story. Recruitment to the armed forces is booming. The Pentagon highlights the fact that, in the most recent troop rotation to and from the combat zone, 250,000 men and women were seamlessly shuttled between continents, while Iraq's embryo security forces grow daily.

Look at the US department of defence website, a study in exuberant patriotism. Here are some headings: "Operation Military Pride"; "Defend America/ Thank You to The Troops"; "Have A Heart/ Adopt a Soldier"; "Salute America's Heroes"...

The US media trumpets a host of little stories such as this one: "About 50 military veterans in California's San Quentin State Prison joined forces with volunteers from 'Operation Mom' over the weekend, to wrap 430 care packages for service members abroad."

A couple of months ago, a senior British officer in Baghdad said to me: "I have been surprised to perceive the moral strength of the Americans here. Before I came, and remembering Vietnam, I thought that by now they would be cracking. Yet I have not met a single American officer or soldier who questions ... what they are doing".

In short, many Americans, including most of those in the armed forces, think that they are doing a great job in the war zone, and are winning - a sharp contrast with the British mood towards Iraq, which grows ever more fractious and cynical. Every death provokes a spasm of anger, driven by disbelief in the value of the sacrifice.

Tony Blair recognises this. How else to explain his maudlin gesture in attending Ken Bigley's funeral in Liverpool? Public dismay is bipartisan. Retired colonels and home counties matrons, usually counted on to stand foursquare behind our boys on the battlefield, regard what is happening as Bush's private folly. They admire our boys as much as ever, but they are as disgusted by the British national role, harnessed haplessly to Washington's chariot wheels, as any Labour backbencher.

A critical question for British politics is whether public wrath will grow in the months ahead and influence the general election. No one seriously supposes that it could cause Labour to lose. But might it cost the 100-plus majority the party wants?

Most of the answer lies in Iraq. Events on the battlefield, together with the outcome of the January elections, will be critical. Blair is at the mercy of decisions made by the Bush administration. He had little choice but to stand shoulder to shoulder with the president at Friday's press conference in Washington, because the two men stand or fall together on this issue.

Iraq's elections will take place as scheduled, because everybody involved has such a powerful stake in them: the Iraqi people, the Americans, the British, even the United Nations. Polling will be impossible in some areas controlled by insurgents, and turnout will be low by international standards. But we should all hope that the outcome possesses credibility.

Whoever is the nominal victor, the most powerful figure in the country will be the Shia cleric Ali al-Sistani, if his health holds out. Most of what happens thereafter is likely to depend on whether Sistani can persuade a majority of Iraqis to rally behind a new government. Let us consider a benign scenario. By early spring, Iraqis and Americans agree that the occupiers should leave. Bush declares victory, announces that democracy has been established and starts bringing the boys home.

I think that last graf wanders off into hopelessly optimistic territory.

Phishing Report

I got phished again last night. My ISP's spam blocker usually catches these, but a couple of times a month they get through to my email. The supposed entity this time was something calling itself TCF Bank.

In Comments over the last few days, several of you have noted that you aren't particularly computer literate. I hope all of you are Net-literate enough to know that you never, ever respond to an email which asks for any of your credit or bank account information.

If you have other phishing reports, add them in Comments.

What is it Worth?

My, this is going well.

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Nears Record

One factor that drove up combat casualties was fierce fighting in Fallujah. Combat injuries also have increased this month due to the Fallujah battle. Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington reported Monday that it received 32 additional battle casualties from Iraq over the past two weeks. One was in critical condition. All 32 had been treated earlier at the Army's main hospital in Europe, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.

Some of the most severe injuries — and many of the deaths — among U.S. troops in Iraq are inflicted by the insurgents' homemade bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

U.S. forces have put extraordinary effort into countering the IED threat, yet it persists. U.S. troops in Fallujah reported finding nearly as many homemade explosives over the past three weeks as had been uncovered throughout Iraq in the previous four months combined.

We are losing to the "insurgents"(stupid word, these are plain Iraqis who are tired and angry over the "group punishments" and other war crimes by the occupiers=us) and they are winning a classic Fourth Gen war.

What I want to ask my Republican friends is: how many souls are you willing to lose before you decide this is a disaster? Anyone who knew anything about military history and tactics knew this was going to be a disaster from the get-go. We tried to warn you.

When are you going to end this expensive and dangerous experiment?

Still Radio After All These Years

At XM, Boldly Going
Under Hugh Panero, Satellite Radio Is a Hit. Just Ask Howard Stern And Mel Karmazin.

By Annys Shin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 29, 2004; Page E01

Hugh Panero has never had much patience for naysayers.

As a young man, after being turned down for a job reporting on the cable industry for a trade journal, Panero created his own version of the publication, complete with original stories and a mock cover. He sent it in and was hired, said Doug Panero, one of three younger brothers.

XM Satellite Radio chief executive Hugh Panero, who joined the company in 1998, keeps his office door open, shouting over to Chairman Gary M. Parsons during the work day. (Katherine Frey -- The Washington Post)

As one of the early pioneers in pay-per-view TV, Panero overcame doubts that consumers would ever pick pay-per-view over the video store.

Six and a half years ago, he believed in subscription radio service when few others did. Secure in that belief, Panero turned a staff of fewer than a dozen working out of a windowless basement office in downtown Washington into the leading satellite radio service, with more than 500 employees and 2.5 million subscribers. Its only direct competitor, Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. of New York, has 800,000 subscribers.

Satellite radio has now come into its own, and competition is sizzling.

XM Satellite Radio Inc. offers more than 100 channels for a $9.95 monthly fee, with highlights that include popular newscaster Bob Edwards from National Public Radio. In the works for the spring is a 24-hour baseball channel -- the result of a broadcasting and marketing deal worth up to $650 million over 11 years that XM signed with Major League Baseball in October. The District-based company last month introduced the first wearable satellite radio receiver, called the MyFi, expanding its service to outside of the car and home.

Sirius this fall lured shock jock Howard Stern away from FM radio with a $500 million, five-year deal. That was after it agreed in December 2003 to pay $220 million in cash and stock to the National Football League to broadcast its games and related content on a new, 24-hour channel. Sirius, which offers listeners more than 100 channels for $12.95 a month, capped its headline-making announcements on Nov. 18 with the news that former Viacom Inc. chief operating officer Mel Karmazin was joining as chief executive, effective immediately.

Analysts called Karmazin's jump to Sirius a blessing for satellite radio. "We believe this news is good for the satellite radio industry overall because it involves the hiring of one of the most respected managers in the entire media industry," Legg Mason media analyst Sean P. Butson wrote in a Nov. 19 research note.

Following the announcement, Sirius's share price rose 38 percent, to $6.51. XM's stock closed Friday at $37.61, up 8.5 percent over the same period.

Panero's reaction to his new official nemesis was more sanguine.

"A short time ago, [Karmazin] was telling anyone who would listen that satellite radio would never amount to anything. All I can say is [Karmazin's appointment] an interesting confirmation of the validity of satellite radio," he said. "We set the groundwork for people realizing this is the new platform for entertainment. I'm glad we could provide Mr. Karmazin with gainful employment."

It's a very long article and frontpaged at the WaPo tomorrow. I am one of those "early adopters" of new technology, but I do my homework before I buy. I'd be interested in Sirius or XM to listen to Bob Edwards, the best radioman working today, and to hear Air America in the car and at work (I listen to the radio at work, the rest of the kids in the office have music on their iPods, while I'm scanning NPR and C-Span radio on a plain old FM.)

Have any of you got experience in this technology and these services before I take myself down to Best Buy to tinker with it? I'd like to know what I'm looking at.

An Ounce of Prevention

Could a Spray Stop the Spread of Flu, TB, SARS?

2 hours, 27 minutes ago

Health - Reuters

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Simply inhaling a saltwater spray could help prevent the spread of diseases including flu and tuberculosis, U.S. and German researchers reported on Monday.

They found a saline spray, administered using a device called a jet nebulizer, reduced the number of germ-spreading droplets by as much as 70 percent for six hours.

The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites), could provide a way to help control epidemics such as the 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome that spread globally and killed many health care workers trying to help patients.

The findings might also help control any global influenza pandemic, which almost all health experts believe is coming and which could kill millions.

The researchers noted much more study was needed before a saline spray device could be marketed to prevent the spread of diseases.

Gerhard Scheuch of Harvard University and colleagues there and at biotechnology firms Pulmatrix and Inamed tested 11 volunteers, giving them the oral spray and then measuring how many particles they released when coughing.

"Viruses known to spread from humans and/or animals through breathing, sneezing, and coughing include measles, influenza virus, adenovirus, African swine fever virus, foot and mouth disease virus, Varicella zoster virus (chickenpox), infectious bronchitis virus and smallpox, among others," they wrote.

Bacteria spread in airborne droplets include anthrax, Escherichia coli and tuberculosis.

Scheuch's team noted some people produced many more little droplets or bioaerosols than others -- something also seen by investigators of the SARS (news - web sites) outbreak that spread from China to cities around the world, killing 800 people.

Such "super-spreaders" were responsible for several clusters of the often deadly viral infection.

That may mean that about half the population generally may produce more than 98 percent of all disease-spreading droplets, the researchers said.

"We found a sharp demarcation between individuals who are 'high' and 'low' producers of bioaerosols, small droplets of fluid exhaled from the lungs that may carry airborne pathogens," said David Edwards, a professor of biomedical engineering at Harvard, who worked on the study.

"Roughly half our subjects exhaled tens of bioaerosol particles per liter, while the other half exhaled thousands of these particles. The number of exhaled particles varied dramatically over time and among subjects, ranging from a low of one particle per liter to a high of more than 10,000."

Given the Avian flu story below, this is the first piece of good news I've heard all day.

I'll tell you a little trick I learned from a co-worker while I was an undergrad: I suffer from chronic sinus trouble because of bi-lateral temporal mandibular joint dysfunction--in lay terms, my jaw is dislocated on both sides, and it causes chronic irritation to my facial muscles and underlying sinuses. I was suffering from my third sinus infection of the winter one October, when my colleague noticed my distess. He showed me how to make a saline solution and use it to rinse out my nasal passages. He was a Hindu business student from India and practiced ayurvedic medicine. It worked and the number of sinus infections and colds and flus I get per year has been dramatically cut back. You can buy the little "neti" pots that ayurvedic practitioners use at health food stores. I've seen them at Whole Foods.

If you don't want to make your own saline solution, buy the unpreserved kind that's used for contact lenses. The small bottles are the best because they'll get used up before the lack of preservatives becomes an issue. While you are in the shower in the morning, let the bottle heat up in a sink of hot water. When you are dried after your shower, open the bottle and pierce the tip (the bottles come with a top that does this) then stick the tip in one nostril and fill your nasal passages with with the warmed solution until it runs out the other nostril. Use a lot. Repeat on the other side. I know this sounds gross, but it appears that this is going to be some of the best protection you can offer your neighbors and it will also cut down on the severity of any flu you might get.

The flu bug is already among us this year. Start this procedure now.

It's Here

WHO aide warns of avian flu pandemic

By Keith Bradsher The New York Times

A global pandemic of avian influenza is "very, very likely" and could kill tens of millions of people around the world, a top World Health Organization official said Monday.
.
Governments should be prepared to close schools, office buildings and factories in case of a pandemic, and should work out emergency staffing to prevent a breakdown in basic public services like electricity and transport, said Dr. Shigeru Omi, the organization's regional director for Asia and the Pacific.
.
Such arrangements may be needed if the disease infects 25 to 30 percent of the world's population, Omi said. That is the WHO's estimate for what could happen if the disease - currently found mainly in chickens, ducks and other birds - develops the ability to spread easily from person to person.
.
Deaths associated with the rapid spread of a new form of influenza would be high, he said.
.
"We are talking at least 2 to 7 million, maybe more - 20 million or 50 million, or in the worst case, 100" million, he said.
.
While many influenza experts have discussed similar figures privately, Omi's remarks represented the first time a top public health official had given such an estimate in public. But his remarks on the likelihood that the disease would start spreading easily went beyond the assessment of many scientists, who say that too little is known about the virus to gauge the odds that it will become readily transmissible.
.
Dr. Malik Peiris, a top influenza researcher at Hong Kong University, said that Omi's range of potential fatalities was realistic and consistent with current research into the A(H5N1) avian influenza virus. The biggest questions, he said, were whether the disease would develop the ability to spread easily from person to person and, if it did, whether it would retain its current deadliness.
.
"H5N1 in its present form has a pretty lethal effect on humans," he said.
.
A few analysts have suggested that the death toll could be considerably higher. Dr. Henry Niman, a medical researcher in Pittsburgh critical of WHO as too conservative, said that with more than 70 percent of the human victims of the disease dying so far, the death toll could, in theory, exceed one billion if the disease were to spread rapidly among people, with little if any reduction in the current mortality rates.
.
But Omi and Peiris each pointed out that the high death rate recorded so far might be overstated, because people with less severe cases of the disease might not be diagnosed as having it.
.
Peiris also pointed out that one likely way for the disease to acquire the ability to pass easily from person to person - the acquisition of human influenza genetic material by the virus - could also reduce the death rate to the range described by Omi.

I guess the WHO has decided that it is here, we are just awaiting that final mutation. I, for one, will be buying an respirator as soon as I can find one. Follow the link to buy it on the web.

Holey Browser

Is Microsoft creating tomorrow's IE security holes today?

By Mark Burnett, SecurityFocus.com
Published Monday 29th November 2004 16:16 GMT

As a security consultant, I constantly see others planting the seeds for future disasters. I see people making the very same mistakes over and over. Up to now, it has been somewhat excusable: much of the software codebase we use every day was written long before we trained developers about things like buffer overflows and canonicalization. Much of the software we have now grew from the extremely competitive environment of an explosive decade of growth where killer apps were the killer app.

One might ask, how do you code for these future threats if you don't even know what they are. The answer is simple: you follow basic best practices for security and never, ever divert from them. In all the history of security vulnerabilities, many issues were foreseeable and could have been avoided by following basic best practices. Follow the fundamentals and you worry less about the major threats. You worry about them less because you have so many layers of protection they either don't exist, or their impact is small.

Bottom line: move to open source. I use and recommend Mozilla.org I would move my entire home box to Open Office if I weren't stuck with Win at work.

Planless, Clueless

Duct Tape Won't Cover This

By William Raspberry
Monday, November 29, 2004; Page A19

I don't have a plan.

I know Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says everyone should have one, and I think Ridge really does want me to be safe in the event of a major terrorist attack.

Last week would have been a good time to start working on a plan. My children were home for Thanksgiving, and we surely could have set aside a few minutes between turkey and football to make at least a rudimentary one.

But this is as far as we got: If we're separated when the terrorists strike, and if the local phone service is not working, we'll all call Aunt Jackie in Fort Wayne, Ind. She doesn't know this yet, but her job will be to relay messages, reassuring each of us that the others are okay. Or not. The assumptions are (1) that while we might not be able to phone each other, even on our cell phones, we will be able to get long-distance, and (2) the terrorists won't hit Fort Wayne.
....
I may as well spill the whole thing: I never laid in my supply of duct tape and plastic, never sealed off a "safe room" at my house. I read the instructions, back when they were issued, but I kept thinking: What is the likelihood that I'll be at home when the terrorists hit? What are the odds that if I hear something weird going on outside I'll herd my family into the safe room instead of going out to see what the devil is going on? How long do I stay in the safe room? Is there any chance that the manufacturers of duct tape are major Republican contributors?

Oh, and Ridge says we should talk to our children about terrorism and how to prepare for it. Well, my kids are all grown-ups, so this doesn't apply to them, but isn't talking to young children about terrorist threats less likely to make them feel safer than to frighten them silly?

I remember back in the 1980s, when half of adult America watched the movie "The Day After," and Brown University students hung "We Are Scared" banners out their dorm windows, and young children had nightmares about the bomb. I wondered at the time: What was the point of scaring everybody?

In the case of the bomb, I suppose the point was to convince the Soviets of our determination not to be blackmailed. If we behaved as though nuclear war was unthinkable, how could they take seriously our nuclear deterrence capability? So we built bomb shelters and stocked apartment house basements with saltines and water (Eisenhower) and had the Federal Emergency Management Agency plot escape routes out of the cities (Reagan). With this latest one (Bush) I don't know what the point is. All I know is we're supposed to make ourselves a plan.

Several plans, actually, since the plan for biological terrorism won't be much help against suicidal airline hijackers or dirty bombs.

What, by the way, would have been the plan if we had known al Qaeda was determined, on a date unknown, to hijack several planes and fly them into tall buildings? Would we have emptied all the buildings? Closed down commercial aviation? Interned all the Arabs? Had everybody call Aunt Jackie?

I'm with Bill Raspberry. The fact of the matter is that Bushco has no plan, and that's what frightens me.

Bumpy Road Ahead

COMEX Gold Rises Above $450 to Over 16 - Year Peak
By REUTERS

Published: November 29, 2004

Filed at 9:59 a.m. ET
A corrected version follows.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Gold futures in New York opened above $450 an ounce, their highest in more than 16 years, after the dollar's fall on Friday to a record low against the euro.

December delivery gold (GCZ4) on the New York Mercantile Exchange's COMEX division was up 80 cents at $450.10 an ounce by 8:23 a.m. EST (1323 GMT), after earlier rising as high as $452.10 which marked the loftiest for futures since July 1988. February 2005 gold (GCG5) gained $1.70 to $453.20.

Spot gold (XAU-) was worth $450.65/451.40 an ounce, versus its 16-1/4-year peak of $455 scaled on Friday when U.S. markets were closed for the Thanksgiving holiday. The euro's rise to an all-time high of $1.3329 on Friday made dollar-priced gold cheaper for non-U.S. buyers.

Consider this the gold bug's votes on the economy. Gold is frequently used as a disaster hedge; the rest of the time, it isn't a particularly productive investment.

Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley writes this morning:

Long ago, I learned that most of the time it doesn’t pay to bet against the American consumer. There are rare occasions, however, when that rule doesn’t apply. That was the case in the early 1970s in the aftermath of the first oil shock. Back then, as a young staffer at the Federal Reserve Board, I was chastised by Fed Chairman Arthur Burns for being too negative on the US consumer. He argued that I didn’t appreciate the unflinching cyclical resilience of the US consumer -- a resilience that, ironically, was about to give way to America’s first consumer-led recession. A lot has changed in the ensuing 30 years. But for very different reasons, I now believe that another exception is in the offing. The American consumer is an accident waiting to happen. The sooner the world comes to grips with this problem, the better the chances of a successful rebalancing.

Add these reports to the AP story about week early-season holiday buying and we are beginning to see warning signs of trouble ahead.

As I noted yesterday, Bush's new budget team is notably light on real economists. CAP's Assistant Director for Tax and Budget Policy notices, as well.

Holly Jolly

Tepid start to holiday shopping season

By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO

Associated Press

NEW YORK - The start of the holiday season was respectable but unimpressive for many of the nation's retailers, with consumers jamming stores and malls on Friday and pulling back as the weekend wore on.

Big chains including J.C. Penney Co. Inc. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. were pleased with their sales. But Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was less fortunate - the industry leader said its sales in the seven days that ended Friday were disappointing, and the company lowered its sales forecasts for November.

"Friday overall was strong, but Saturday was weak and disappointing, so together it was only a modest two-day performance," said Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at International Council of Shopping Centers. "Still, I continue to believe that this is not a bellwether for how the season will end up."

Wally Brewster, spokesman at Chicago-based General Growth Properties, which operates 224 malls in 44 states, said sales and traffic were strong on Friday, but "stabilized" the rest of the weekend. As a result, he expects sales for the weekend to increase in the low single digits, in line with modest expectations.

Wal-Mart's holiday weekend sales suffered because it didn't offer the deep discounts it did in past years, hoping to boost profits, analysts said. Penney and Sears did better by wooing customers with two days of big price breaks.

"Wal-Mart was a big loser because they didn't get the same numbers of early bird shoppers as they did a year ago," said C. Britt Beemer, chairman of America's Research Group, based in Charleston, S.C. "The retailers that won this weekend were the ones that were super aggressive in special purchases and special pricing."

Wal-Mart said Saturday it now expects same-store sales in November to be up only 0.7 percent, instead of the projected 2 percent to 4 percent.

Because I have family in retail small business I have every reason to hope for a strong shopping season, but I don't think the economics are there. Luxury goods sellers are going to be fine, but the mid-level retailers are going to have a tough year, I think.

Another Crappy Headline

Federal Plan to Keep Data on Students Worries Some
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

Published: November 29, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 - A proposal by the federal government to create a vast new database of enrollment records on all college and university students is raising concerns that the move will erode the privacy rights of students.

Until now, universities have provided individual student information to the federal government only in connection with federally financed student aid. Otherwise, colleges and universities submit information about overall enrollment, graduation, prices and financial aid without identifying particular students.

For the first time, however, colleges and universities would have to give the government data on all students individually, whether or not they received financial assistance, with their Social Security numbers.

The bid arises from efforts in Congress and elsewhere to extend the growing emphasis on school accountability in elementary and high schools to postsecondary education. Supporters say that government oversight of individual student data will make it easier for taxpayers and policy makers to judge the quality of colleges and universities through more reliable statistics on graduation, transfers and retention.

The change would also allow federal officials to track individual students as they journey through the higher education system. In recent years, increasing numbers of students have been attending more than one university, dropping out or taking longer than the traditional four years to graduate. Current reporting practices cannot capture such trends; a mobile student is recorded as a new student at each institution.

Under the proposal, the National Center for Education Statistics at the Department of Education would receive, analyze and guard the data. In making its case for the change, the center points to a history of working with student information and says it has never been forced to share it with law enforcement or other agencies. The proposal, first reported in the current issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, is supported by the American Council on Education, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, but opposed by other education organizations, like the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

A department overview of the proposal insisted that data would not be shared with other agencies and that outsiders could not gain access. By law, the summary says in capitals, "Information about individuals may NEVER leave N.C.E.S.," the National Center for Education Statistics.

But Jasmine L. Harris, legislative director at the United States Student Association, an advocacy group for students, said that since the Sept. 11 attacks, the balance between privacy and the public interest had been shifting. "We're in a different time now, a very different climate," Ms. Harris said. "There's the huge possibility that the database could be misused, and there are no protections for student privacy."

She pointed to the National Directory of New Hires, a register of people who re-enter the workforce, which began as an effort to track job trends. Since its creation, however, the database has also been used to track parents who fail to pay child support or who owe the federal government non-tax debt, she said. "The door is wide open," Ms. Harris said.

Luke Swarthout, higher education associate at the State PIRG for Higher Education, said his civic group, which has always monitored consumer issues and privacy rights, was of two minds about the plan. Improving the available data was important for Congress, policymakers and the public, who finance higher education through government loans and grants, Mr. Swarthout said. "But any time you're compiling a list of millions and millions of students, as they go through college, move and have Social Security numbers, we get concerns from a privacy perspective."

For colleges to hand over information on individual students, Congress would have to create an exemption to existing federal privacy laws, said Sarah Flanagan, vice president for government relations at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

"The concept that you enter a federal registry by the act of enrolling in a college in this country is frightening to us," Ms. Flanagan said.

"Worries Some"? If this doesn't scare the crap out of you, you aren't paying attention. There is absolutely no reason for doing this, other than to begin surveillance of ordinary citizens.

Post-secondary schools are already accountable to the public through their track records. There is no reason on earth to apply "No Child Left Behind" type standards to them.

That the Feds are demonstrably incompetent to do anything with these large data collection projects is very little comfort. This supposedly "conservative" government sure doesn't think much of privacy rights.

ID

William F. Buckley will hardly be quoted often on this page, but today he asks a reasonable question, and I think that reasonable questions are good things. On my most recent flight, I was treated to three security searches and two pat-down searches on the return trip. I am an unprepossessing 5'5", 50 year old blue-eyed blonde of mixed Northern European ancestry.

I don't know what the correct answer to this conundrum is, but if hassling people who are obviously no threat is supposed to make us feel safer, it isn't working.

JUST SAY NO

Sun Nov 28,11:47 PM ET

By William F. Buckley Jr.

I have cited before a wonderful passage from a book by Ann Coulter: "In early December 2001, '60 Minutes' host Steve Kroft interviewed (Transportation Secretary Norman) Mineta about his approach to securing the airlines from terrorist attack. Kroft observed that of 22 men currently on the FBI (news - web sites)'s most-wanted list, 'all but one of them has complexion listed as olive. They all have dark hair and brown eyes. And more than half of them have the name Mohammed.' Thus, he asks Mineta if airport security should give more scrutiny to someone named Mohammed -- 'just going down a passenger manifest list: Bob, Paul, John, Frank, Steven, Mohammed.'

"The secretary of transportation said, 'No.' In fact, Mineta was mystified by Kroft's question, asking him: 'Why should Mohammed be singled out?' The Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) had a computer profiling system on passengers, but it actually excluded mention of passengers' race, ethnicity, national origin or religion." One wonders: What DOES the profiling system include?

The objective has to be to reduce reasonably the number of people who are searched, and perhaps the scope of the search. Our computer banks are surely up to the challenge of coming up with a scale from 0 to 100 on the likelihood that a particular traveler is mischievous. Already, our system is disposed to make certain negative inferences. If you buy a one-way ticket, you are suspicious, on the assumption that the reason you didn't buy the round-trip ticket is that you might as well save the money, since you intend to destroy the airliner on the first leg.

But if we are accumulating negative inferences, why not list the name "Mohammed" among them? Answer: Because this would be resented by the 99.99 percent of Mohammeds who have no desire to engage in terrorism.

But the question here becomes, surely, Why not go ahead and offend the Mohammeds -- for reasons absolutely unmotivated by religious or ethnic animus? And the positive inferences: Can we reasonably assume that a passenger who is more than 50 years old edges up in the direction of unlikelihood as a saboteur?

The point is not dismissed by simply finding some 75-year-old who once tried to blow up an airplane. We are talking about likelihood. If the passenger has a clean police record, a family, a job, retirement savings -- add these up, one at a time, as the needle on the dial inches asymptotically toward zero likelihood, and you have accomplished something that translates into fewer strip searches for women -- or, for that matter, men. One passenger stopped in the Midwest a few months ago and searched turns out to have been the same man who ran for president on the Democratic ticket in the year 2000. Al Gore (news - web sites) was a very good sport about it.

An inspiriting contrast was the late Warren Burger, who, even before the nonsense engendered by 9/11, flatly refused to travel on any airline that insisted on probing his crotch. His point was that as former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, he should not be treated as a possible terrorist, never mind what some people have said about Earl Warren.

But progress of any kind here requires the application of intelligence, and this is what the feds are afraid to engage in.

Banning the Professionals

House GOP Resistance Presents Bush a Clear Test of Leadership
Ron Brownstein
November 29, 2004

The sweeping legislation to restructure America's intelligence community didn't collapse this month because it lacked enough support to pass.

The dirty secret is it derailed because it lacked the right kind of support — at least in the eyes of the House Republican leadership. And that sets a precedent with ominous implications for bipartisan cooperation on issues like immigration and Social Security reform during President Bush's second term.

Almost everyone involved agrees that the bill to reorganize the intelligence agencies and centralize authority in a new national intelligence director has enough votes to pass the House and Senate. Today. Without changing a word in the legislation, which implements the principal intelligence-related recommendations of the widely praised independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Yet the bill has little chance of reaching the desk of Bush, who says he supports and would sign it.

"It's highly frustrating when you know you have the votes and you can't get it done," says Lee H. Hamilton, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Why has a bill with majority support in both chambers and the president's blessing fallen into limbo? Because House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has decided he will not bring it to a vote while it faces substantial resistance among House Republicans.

As speaker, Hastert has placed the highest priority on maintaining unity in his caucus. One of his guiding principles has been that no bill should pass the House unless it has support not only from an overall majority but from a majority of Republicans. Call it the Hastert Rule.

In this case, Hastert can't even say for sure that a majority of House Republicans would oppose the intelligence reform bill if it came to a vote. He pulled the plug after a compromise reached by House and Senate negotiators drew opposition from House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) and other critics at a Nov. 20 party meeting.

To a point, Hastert's reluctance to advance legislation that divides House Republicans is understandable. Any legislative leader who routinely pushes bills opposed by many of his members probably won't be a legislative leader for long. The question Hastert should face is whether there is no room for exception within that general rule — no legislation where the national interest demands that he accept some fraternal tension.

The same question applies even more pointedly to Bush. No president relishes legislative fights within his own party. But for any president, one of the clearest tests of leadership is the willingness to stare down his own supporters to protect the national interest.

Bill Clinton promoted and signed the North American Free Trade Agreement even though 60% of House Democrats voted against it in 1993. He promoted and signed welfare reform, even though exactly half of House Democrats (and nearly half of Senate Democrats) voted against it in 1996. Even the 1997 legislation Clinton signed that balanced the federal budget drew opposition from a quarter of House Democrats — including Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

Bush, in his first term, signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law and legislation requiring annual tests for students in reading and math despite opposition from many congressional Republicans. Mostly, though, he has advanced ideas only with broad Republican support. That explains why his first instinct in the intelligence standoff has been to pursue a compromise aimed at soothing House Republicans while holding enough Senate support to avoid a lethal filibuster.

But such a deal is unlikely. And that means Bush could face a stark choice: Pressure the House Republicans to allow a vote on the existing compromise, or permit the failure of security reforms that passed the Senate on a 96-2 vote and have been endorsed by the Sept. 11 commission, by the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and, officially at least, by the president himself.

Cracks in the Elephant House. One of the hazards of one-party rule is the highlighting of cracks in the party. Attempting to tamp down on other opinions,
Bush is canning his economic team:

Bush to Change Economic Team
Candidates Likely To Be From Outside The Administration

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 29, 2004; Page A01

President Bush plans to overhaul his economic team for the second time in two years and wants to tap some prominent replacements from outside the administration to help sell rewrites of Social Security and the tax laws to Congress and the country, White House aides and advisers said over the weekend.

Aides said changing four of the five top economic officials -- including the Treasury and Commerce secretaries, with only budget director Joshua B. Bolten likely to remain -- is part of Bush's preparation for sending Congress an ambitious second-term domestic agenda.

Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans and chief economic adviser Stephen Friedman have announced their resignations, and officials had signaled they would move gradually to replace the team. But the White House is now indicating it may move more quickly to convey a fresh start. Aides also said Bush is considering reaching beyond the kind of administration loyalists who will staff key national security posts in the second term.

Republican officials said Bush's economic team has been weaker than his national security advisers, and that the president believes he needs aides who can relate better to Congress and the markets. A more skilled team is essential, the aides said, because of the complex and politically challenging agenda of overhauling Social Security to add private investment accounts and simplifying the tax code.

"The president knows that he doesn't have the strength in that stable, and he's going to another corral to find it," said a member of Bush's political team who asked not to be identified because it is not his job to talk to reporters.

One senior administration official said Treasury Secretary John W. Snow can stay as long as he wants, provided it is not very long. He might stay as long as six months into the term, officials said. Friends say Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. is one possibility to replace him. Bolten also could move over.

The article fails to mention that Card has no economic credentials whatsoever, and that Josh Bolten is a lawyer, not an economist.

What matters is loyalty, not competence.

Aye, Aye, Sir

This is your Individual Ready Reserve.

Ready Reserve calls up single mom,
Tonya Stewart, 43, of Hellam Township doesn't know where she'll serve her 18-month tour of duty.
By JOSEPH MALDONADO
For the Daily Record/Sunday News
Saturday, November 27, 2004

In 1992, Tonya Stewart left the Army after serving 13 years in uniform, believing her service to her country was over.

Now, 12 years later, she's been recalled to active duty.

"I leave for an 18-month tour of duty in two weeks," the 43-year-old Hellam Township resident said. "And that's about all I really know."

Stewart, visiting her sister's family for Thanksgiving dinner along with her boyfriend and 9-year-old daughter, said she had received letters and phone calls from the military since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 warning her that she may be recalled.

"But to be honest, I never really thought they'd do it," Stewart, who works for Susquehanna Communications, said with a laugh. "I'm a little too old to be running around diving in the sand."

She was recalled from the Army's Individual Ready Reserve, composed of men and women who, even though they have completed their tours of duty, are still obligated to return to service if the government calls for them.

Some former active duty soldiers are required to serve in the ready reserve. For Stewart, when she left the service as part of the military's mid-90s downsizing, she was required to remain on the ready reserve list. She had a choice of accepting a lump sum or an annuity when she volunteered to leave the service. The annuity paid more but also had a greater commitment to the ready reserve.

"If I would have taken the lump sum, they wouldn't have called me," she said.

She's not the oldest former soldier among the 100 ready reservists in her unit recalled to active duty. Currently serving in her unit, the 844th Engineering Battalion, which works out of the Army's Camp Atterbury in Edinburgh, Ind., is one man in his 70s.

"He was an officer who apparently didn't sign his retirement paperwork when he left the Army," Stewart said. "So as far as the military is concerned, he never really retired."

Stewart said she could sense that the military was becoming more serious about recalling the ready reservists. Each letter she received from the Army, each call, sounded more serious and urgent.

With the military calling up single moms in their 40s and senior citizens, Stewart speculated that a draft can't be too far behind.

"I've been saying this for a while that a real draft is coming," she said.

‘Fort Living Room’ soldiers face challenges

By SUSANNE M. SCHAFER

The Associated Press

THE U.S. AND IRAQ

FORT JACKSON — Chief Warrant Officer Margaret Murray, who describes herself as “over 50,” says her small frame and some old back pain made it difficult to fire her M-16 in a marksmanship refresher course.

“With my stature, it was a challenge,” said the 4-foot-10, 95-pound, gray-haired personnel specialist from Schenectady, N.Y. “But I can hit the target now.”

Murray is one of about 4,400 Army soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve who completed their active-duty service but have been notified they must get back in uniform. Most likely, they are headed for Iraq or Afghanistan.

Ranging in age from their 20s to their 60s, the returning soldiers bring valuable experience to the Army. But their advanced ages, weakened eyes and expanded waistlines mean doing things a bit differently.

“Old is the operative word. I joke my contingent just came from Fort Living Room,” said Lt. Col. Douglas Snyder, commander of the training unit here. “They haven’t run in two, four, six, maybe 10 years or more. And that goes for push-ups, too.”

One lieutenant colonel with bifocals had to switch from an M-16 rifle to a 9 mm pistol to qualify. The petite Murray learned to adjust her stance to fire her weapon.

“We don’t give up on them. We haven’t failed to qualify a single person,” said Staff Sgt. Kenneth Calloway, a 29-year-old Army Reserve instructor. “We just give each individual a lot of time — and lots of ammunition.”

Still, of the 1,100 ready reservists who have reported so far to Fort Jackson, the nation’s largest training base, 325 were released from active duty, many for medical grounds, such as bad knees, back pain or irregular heartbeats.

And not all the reservists have returned peacefully. Last month, the Army reported that more than 800 of the former soldiers had failed to comply with Army orders to report for duty.

News reports of ambushed convoys and roadside bombs in Iraq are woven into the daily instruction here, sometimes accompanied by graphic photos of injured soldiers.

Members of the Individual Ready Reserve were honorably discharged after finishing their active-duty tours — usually four to six years — but remained in the IRR for the rest of the eight-year commitment they made when they joined the Army.

The Army's long arm
Sunday, November 14, 2004
By Dennis Roddy

GREENVILLE, Pa. -- Three years after he was honorably discharged from the Army, Frederick Pistorius was surprised to learn he was a deserter.

But there it was, on his doorstep: a letter from Barry W. Kimmons, Deputy Chief, Deserter Information Point Extension Office of the Army Reserve Personnel Command.

"On 12 July 2004 you were involuntarily mobilized to active duty in the United States Army," the letter says. "To date you have not reported to your mobilization station as required by your orders." Possibly Pistorius had not responded for two reasons. The Pistorius family had moved from the address in Sharon, Pa., to which the Army had sent its first letter. More saliently, having served honorably in not one but two branches of the U.S. military, with no additional obligation showing on his discharge papers, Pistorius would have had no reason to think he was subject to anything but his civilian job at a local steel plant.

Wendy Pistorius opened the letter and immediately telephoned an official at the Army reserve command in St. Louis.

"I told him there must be a mistake, because my husband had fulfilled his obligation," she said. "He basically told me that the Army does not make mistakes and that the orders were valid and if he did not show up as per the orders he would be prosecuted and taken to jail."

So began a two-month journey through the Army of Franz Kafka.

The paper trail is fairly straightforward on this one. Pistorius joined the Marine Corps in 1993. When he left the corps, he had a reserve obligation that expired June 25, 2000. The pool into which he would have gone is called the Individual Ready Reserve -- essentially former military available for service in times of emergency. After a few months of knocking around for work, Pistorius decided to go back into the military, get more training in his specialty -- cook -- and complete his reserve obligation with full-time duty. The Marines weren't taking back departed members who'd been out for a year, so, in 1998, he joined the Army, signing a three-year contract.

Pistorius was honorably discharged from the Army in July 20, 2001. His certificate of release attests to his accomplishments: Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Sharpshooter qualification. The upper corner is the spot in which the military lists a departing member's reserve obligation, the amount of time discharged soldiers, sailors and Marines remain subject to recall. For Pistorius, the boxes contain a succession of zeroes.

Because he was discharged well after his prior reserve obligation had passed, the Army laid no further claim to him, until someone in St. Louis ignored those zeroes and went hunting for a fresh body to fill a manpower shortage that grows more painful with every Iraqi sunset.

"They basically told me that my Marine Corps time doesn't count as military service," Pistorius said. Faced with a threat of AWOL charges, and worried that a spotless military record was about to be stained, Pistorius headed last month to Camp McGrady in South Carolina.

"The first thing they did was thank us for showing up," Pistorius said. "They had 150 that were supposed to show up and about 75 did. Of those 75 maybe only 40 or 50 are medically fit."

Here, Pistorius's Army recruitment contract comes into play. It was the one document he says he had not kept, figuring his military days were over. The Army public affairs office did not return phone calls asking about the matter so we have only Pistorius' version. He said he asked for a copy, but was always told the thing was "in transit" from St. Louis. The contract would settle any questions about whether he might have, inadvertently, signed up for another round of reserve duty, but it seems implausible.

Equally implausible were the men who turned up at Camp McGrady last month.

When I first spoke to Pistorius, by telephone from the camp, he said nobody had been given a physical. He told his Army commanders that he had a permanent back injury from a car crash. They were unimpressed by a letter from his chiropractor. His pre-deployment health assessment lists him in this word: "Deployable."

Pistorius spoke with his captain.

"He said everybody here's going to Iraq," Pistorius said. "It's unbelievable some of the guys they're bringing down there."

One man arrived with a hospital identification band still on his wrist. He'd just had knee surgery. One 48-year-old from Alabama had a hip replacement and fused vertebrae in his back.

"He showed them the documents, but they still made him come down to be examined by their doctors," Pistorius said. Pistorius spoke of a man called back from upstate New York.

"He had no teeth and he had arthritis in his leg," he said.

Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and now a professor at Boston University, wasn't surprised at the report.

"The Individual Ready Reserve -- that title is a misnomer. They're not ready," Bacevich said. "It's the equivalent of me walking out here on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston, and taking the first 5,000 people I meet and saying 'you're now in the military.' "

Tours of Duty

Multiple combat tours strain a third of troops

By Bryan Bender The Boston Globe

The breakdown indicates that as of Sept. 30, there were 955,609 members of the armed forces, including active-duty and reserve personnel, who had been deployed for operations in Afghanistan or the Gulf region since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Of those, 303,987 had been sent overseas more than once.
.
The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps have carried much of the load abroad. Of about 500,000 members in the active army, 279,393, or more than half, have been sent overseas in the past three years. And of those, 34.6 percent have served multiple tours, some for a year or more and others several months at a time.
.
For the corps, the percentage of the total force dispatched to Afghanistan or the Gulf is greater: 98,979 of about 120,000 marines. Of those, 27.6 percent have done multiple tours, according to the Pentagon's count. The corps will be adding about 3,000 marines to reduce the burden.
.
For part-time soldiers who leave jobs as well as families behind, the percentage serving multiple tours is even higher. Of the 90,649 Army National Guard soldiers deployed, 35.9 percent have been called up more than once.
.
For the U.S. Army Reserve, 34.6 percent of the 64,978 that have served since the Sept. 11 attacks have returned home, only to be redeployed within months.

I knew the situation was bad but I had no idea that it was this bad. Y'all don't need me to interpret these numbers for you; we've been following this story for the entire history of this blog and you know the drill. I just had no ideas the numbers were this bad.

The story reports that Army Guard recruitment numbers were down by 30% in October. As we all know, we are approaching a crisis in troop strength.

Fake Issues

NYT's Frank Rich is at it again, knocking over the shibboleths of the Right:

The Great Indecency Hoax

OH, the poor, suffering little children.

If we are to believe the outcry of the past two weeks, America's youth have been defiled en masse - again. This time the dirty deed was done by the actress Nicollette Sheridan, who dropped her towel in the cheesy promotional spot for the runaway hit "Desperate Housewives" that kicked off "Monday Night Football" on ABC. "I wonder if Walt Disney would be proud," said Michael Powell, the Federal Communications Commission chairman who increasingly fashions himself a commissar of all things cultural, from nipple rings to "Son of Flubber."

It's beginning to look a lot like "Groundhog Day." Ever since 22 percent of the country's voters said on Nov. 2 that they cared most about "moral values," opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into a landslide by ginning up cultural controversies that might induce censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks. Seizing on a single overhyped poll result, they exaggerate their clout, hoping to grab power over the culture.

The mainstream press, itself in love with the "moral values" story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties. It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).

It looks to me like that whole "culture war" business can be relegated to the unlamented last century.

Frank, you might want to talk to the news side of your operation.

Facing North

Contrary to the whiney, narcissistic opinion piece in today's WaPo, my experience of Canadians is that they display greater ability to be self-critical about the American-Canadian relationship than do we. The Op-Ed in today's left-leaning Toronto Star is a case in point and worth considering as Bush heads north this week for his first visit to Canada since the election of Paul Martin.

Colour us blue, but partners still

RICK ANDERSON

Politically, the Canada-U.S. relationship is at an uneasy pass. Canada has long been plagued by juvenile bipolar disorder in our U.S. relations, as colleague Richard Gwyn so well described in The 49th Paradox: We cherish America's approval, wish to have our views sought, but wouldn't be caught dead caring. There are signs this may be changing. Three years of post-9/11 Bushism, culminating in this month's U.S. election, may be provoking something of a watershed among Canadians.

Without resorting to Parrishism, Canadians may be less certain they entirely recognize themselves in the face of today's America.

Certainly, we are allies and neighbours, and each other's biggest trade partners — but we are not quite identical. We're not so sure that economic prosperity requires a grossly unequal sharing of wealth.

Not so sure that guns in the glove compartment make for safer streets. Not so sure that leaving 40 million people without health insurance makes for a better place. Or that unilateralism is the best approach to the war on terror.

All this may not matter as much as once thought. We may finally be getting comfortable with the idea that differing approaches and priorities are not the end of the world.

In America's so-called culture wars, more Canadians identify with Blue States than with the Bush-friendly Red States, putting us closer to the minority 48 per cent of Americans, and the majority of world opinion. So be it.

We should understand though — and hopefully this, too, is sinking in — that Red State Americans, including one George W., no more appreciate puffed-up moral superiority when it drifts in from north of the border than when delivered by their own fellow citizens.Which gets to the matter of personality, the wild card in this week's visit. Jean Chrétien left Canada-U.S. relations in a chillier mode than he found them.

But he also struck chords with Canadian opinion when famously observing that, when fishing with American presidents, the key thing is not to be the fish. As did Brian Mulroney, who retorted that when golfing with U.S. presidents, it's best not to fall into the role of caddy.

When the books of state are opened years from now, few will be surprised if they show Chrétien and Bush talked less than just about any pair of North American leaders since Trudeau and Nixon, and to no better effect whether they talked or didn't.

While Martin and Bush have the opportunity to warm things up a bit, and it may well be helpful if they do, it's not clear they can. Canada hasn't had as multilateralist a prime minister since Pearson, and Americans as unilateralist a president since before World War WII.

The warmth or not of leaders' relations may matter less with a more assured Canada entering an era of lessened preoccupation with America's approval. Similarly, on the U.S. side, we need to appreciate how little regard Bush's America has for the attitudes of Canadians and other world "wets."

So there seems little likelihood of an outbreak of fishing or golf, regardless of who is caddy or fish.

Sports aside, it would be good to see the two countries and the two leaders working more closely together. Many matters of mutual concern need resolution, a host of world problems demand attention. These are better addressed collaboratively, regardless of politics and personality.

In the news pages of the Star, there is an interesting article on Bush's diplomatic "style" (or lack there-of) which has quite a few telling details I've never seen in the American press:
Diplomacy's just not his style

TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - When George W. Bush brings his second-term diplomatic tour to Ottawa and Halifax next week, Canadians will see a change in tone, but will observe a man for whom diplomacy will never come naturally.

A quick check of his efforts since re-election earlier this month shows a style of diplomacy that sometimes has all the subtlety of a bulldozer and features a president who still carries grudges.

Just ask Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

The socialist leader of Spain called Bush hours after his victory was confirmed on Nov. 3, but the president was too busy to take the call from a man who pulled his troops out of Iraq. Zapatero is still waiting for that return call. White House aides cite "scheduling problems."

Just to ram home a point to the government in Madrid, Bush had Spanish King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia out to the ranch in Crawford, Tex., last week, for a little Thanksgiving lunch; free-range turkey, giblet gravy, prairie chapel bass, mashed sweet potatoes with maple syrup and chipotles and pan-roasted root vegetables stuffing, topped off with pecan and pumpkin pie and washed down with a 2002 Chardonnay.

Zapatero reportedly passed a message to Bush through the king, who holds no political power in Spain, and Bush did finally dash off a written note to the Spanish prime minister. But the White House has nothing to say about the two men actually chatting by phone.

The souring on Spain is reminiscent here of Bush's cold shoulder to Mexican President Vicente Fox, refusing to acknowledge the Cinco de Mayo national holiday in Mexico, a sign of their differences over Iraq, and Bush's cancellation of a May, 2003, trip to Ottawa for the same reason.
....
Santiago, Chile, was the site of a now famously shrunken state dinner last weekend when Bush's security contingent refused to back down on its insistence that all guests — Chilean legislators and Supreme Court justices among them — be put through metal detectors before being allowed to sit down for dinner at La Moneda, the presidential palace.

Chilean President Ricardo Lagos said he would have to withdraw invitations to 200 people if the White House didn't back down. The dinner was cancelled. This came a day after Bush waded into the crowd to stare down a Chilean security officer who was in a standoff with a presidential Secret Service officer. Bush grabbed his man from the melee, dragged him out, then strode over for a photo with Lagos, flashing a self-satisfied grin and a wink to the White House press corps.

That won him the moniker "The Gringo Sheriff" in one Chilean daily. Another dubbed the Secret Service "Bush's Gorillas."

Still, the Bush tone was conciliatory. He told a Chilean reporter that even though Lagos did not agree with his decision to invade Iraq, "I respect that, he's still my friend."

But when Bush was asked about the state dinner fiasco a couple of days later in Colombia, he made no attempt to mask his contempt for the question. He told his startled host, President Alvaro Uribe, that that would be just enough, thank you, after a mere four questions at a joint news conference.

"Do you want to take one more?" Uribe asked Bush.

"That's plenty. No, thank you," Bush replied.

Gasbag Line-up

The Talk Shows

Sunday, November 28, 2004; Page A05

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (WTTG), 9 a.m.: Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.).

THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 9 a.m.: Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.); Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.); Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values; Tony Campolo, professor emeritus at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pa.; Floyd H. Flake, president of Wilberforce University, Ohio; and author George Weigel.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC, WRC), 10:30 a.m.: Former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), vice chairman of the commission, Jerry Falwell, founder, Faith and Values Coalition; Richard Land, president of Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Al Sharpton, founder, National Action Network; and Jim Wallis, convener, Call to Renewal.

FACE THE NATION (CBS, WUSA), 10:30 a.m.: Authors Ron Chernow, Joseph J. Ellis and Bob Woodward.

LATE EDITION (CNN), Noon: Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.); Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the United States; David Manning, British ambassador; Jean-David Levitte, French ambassador; Robert Gallucci, former U.N. weapons inspector; Wendy R. Sherman, former assistant secretary of state; and Richard N. Perle, former assistant secretary of defense.

Press the Meat looks to be the most interesting of the batch. I'll toggle back and forth between that and Deface the Nation, or catch it on the C-Span Radio replay later in the day.

The three national daily papers are having a serious case of the stupids today, so I'm going to go check the foreign press.

Winners and losers

I'm sure that the Sabbath Gasbags will just tell us "this is all so confusing" that they can't provide any context or analysis which goes beyond today's RNC spin-points.

Shiites Reject Election Delay
The majority sect's political and religious leaders say the Iraqi election must be held Jan. 30, despite Sunni and Kurd objections.

By Ashraf Khalil, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD — Shiite Muslim political and religious leaders insisted Saturday that Iraq's parliamentary election must be held as scheduled in January, rejecting calls from Sunnis and ethnic Kurds to postpone the landmark vote six months.

The Shiites' position bolsters the interim government and U.N.-appointed electoral commission, which said Saturday they intended to proceed with balloting on Jan. 30.

The deepening debate over the election date is threatening to aggravate sectarian tensions in a nation already fractured by a raging insurgency that has killed more than 1,230 U.S. troops and many more Iraqis.

The prospect of a delay has outraged leaders of Iraq's Shiite majority, who view the vote as a decisive means of political empowerment after decades of repression by the long-dominant Sunni minority.

Jawad Maliki, a senior official with the Dawa Party, one of the principal Shiite groups, said any postponement would violate the country's interim constitution and diminish the credibility of the political process. It would also embolden insurgents, he said.

"It is a message to the terrorists that they are victorious," Maliki said. "This will encourage them."

A joint statement released Saturday by 42 parties, including Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, another key Shiite party, said any delay would be illegal.

A spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Said Hakim, one of the nation's most prominent clerics and a member of the Shiite religious leadership headed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, also said a delay was unacceptable.

Groups Call for Delay in Iraqi Elections

By Robert H. Reid, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD — Leading Iraqi politicians called Friday for a six-month delay in the Jan. 30 election because of the spiraling violence as U.S. forces uncovered more bodies in the northern city of Mosul, apparent victims of an intimidation campaign by insurgents against Iraq's fledgling security forces.

Asked about the demand for the election to be postponed, President Bush, at his vacation home in Texas, said, "The Iraqi Election Commission has scheduled elections in January, and I would hope they'd go forward in January."

But the country's deputy prime minister told an audience Friday in Wales that sticking to the timetable would be difficult because of the security crisis.

In Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, U.S. officials said six bodies were found Friday, bringing the number discovered there over the last two days to 21. In all, 41 bodies have been discovered in the last week.

On Friday, 17 political parties representing Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Christians and secular groups demanded postponing the vote for at least six months until the government is capable of securing polling places.

However, the clerical leadership of the majority Shiite community has insisted that the government stick to the Jan. 30 date.

Even if you haven't been reading Juan Cole every day, it isn't that hard to figure out what is going on here. At least not for a grown-up with a tiny exposure to the human political process.

But will the Sabbath Gasbags treat you like a grown-up? I think not.

Can't Buy Me Love

We've Gotta Have It
But We Don't Need It, and It's Consuming Us

By Patricia Dalton
Sunday, November 28, 2004; Page B01

On the biggest shopping weekend of the year, many of us are beset by a dilemma: what to buy for the person who has everything. It makes me think of the teenager I heard about in my psychotherapy office, who opened a gift from his 90-year-old great-aunt, tossed it aside and said, "I already have that."

Many of us already "have that." We have become, to borrow a phrase President Bush used while addressing his donors, "the haves and the have mores." That explains why some of us are left feeling spiritually empty during this season of feasting and giving.

There have always been the few who live lavishly, with estates, servants and multiple homes, just as there have always been some who struggle to get by with very little. But having a lot is no longer the province of the few. Acquisition -- and its close companion, acquisition envy -- is a problem not just for the elite but also for the average person. I see the impact day after day among the people who come to my office for counseling. Relationships among family members and between friends are suffering. We've become materially richer but interpersonally poorer.

My colleagues and I talk about the repetitive patterns of acquisitive behavior we observe on a daily basis. We see high school girls carrying Prada bags that are not knockoffs and competing with one another through their apparel. We hear from adolescents who get caught shoplifting and others who get away with it (and these are kids who have disposable money and don't need new clothes). We listen to adults describing patterns of what I call "comfort shopping" -- buying clothes they don't need and never wear and that sit in their closets with the tags on. We hear from single people whose spending habits put them so deeply into credit card debt that they end up declaring bankruptcy. Members of one family told me that they can identify at least three successive generations of compulsive shoppers and still find it hard to resist the siren song of the mall.

There's a change I've witnessed in the 20-plus years I've been in practice. People used to buy things when they needed them; now they buy things when they want them or want their children to have them. Adolescents in the past were rarely presented with new cars on their 16th birthdays, but it's not uncommon today. Kids used to buy cars when they could afford them -- usually of the beat-up, secondhand variety. Now, at a time in their lives when they are both vulnerable and easily influenced, teenagers find themselves behind the wheels of powerful, expensive machines, ill-prepared to handle the repercussions of a fender bender, much less a serious accident.

If there were evidence that increasing affluence made people happier, there might be occasion to rejoice. Even though GDP per capita has tripled since World II, and houses have grown bigger, cars more luxurious, clothing and food easier to afford, we seem to be working mindlessly to acquire more. In fact, there is ample evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, that once people attain a reasonably good standard of living, making more money and buying more has no appreciable positive effect and in some cases has negative effects.

The biggest cost I see is intergenerational. Materialism is taking a drastic toll at home. There is considerable strain involved in generating the money needed to acquire so much. Many of the parents who come to my office describe living on the earn-and-spend, earn-and-spend treadmill that Berkeley sociologist Arlie Hochschild describes. Parents are exhausted. Children are neglected. Marriages get put on hold. One professional woman reported to me that she felt so overwhelmed that she came home one evening and started breaking plates on the floor in front of her three little kids. Stories like this make me realize we are allowing ourselves to be robbed of what is most precious and counts the most: free time.
....
So here we are: a generation of fashionistas and Samurai shoppers with full closets and empty hearts. Instead of listening to our souls, we have fallen for a new field of retail anthropology that advises businesses on how to get people in the mood to buy, buy, buy. I saw a catchy phrase that headlined an article in this newspaper's business section several months ago: Appliance Lust. It referred to hunger for eight-burner Viking ranges, built-in woks and Sub-Zero refrigerators with custom wood paneling and door alarms. Those of us who lived through the '60s seem to have forgotten the warning that everything you buy owns you.

In our increasingly materialistic culture, needs and wants have become one and the same. When I see people in my office who are struggling to figure out what is most important to them, I often ask them to imagine being on their deathbed, looking back over their lives. What will they rejoice in? What will fall in the neutral category? And what will they regret? Does all this stuff make people more contented with their lives? Apparently not. And after all, as the saying goes, you can't take it with you.

Dalton misses quite a lot because she's a therapist, not a spiritual director. Our value, our meaning, as humans doesn't come from things, but psychotherapy doesn't have the language to talk about the transcendent.

The entire New York Times Magazine today is all about how the marketers are turning our kids into machines, consumers rather than human beings. It is extremely distressing reading, and also a must-read. This is Bushworld: the place where national tragedy is met with a presidential prescription to "go shop."

Consumer culture tells us that "you are what you own." As if you could buy love...

The Blogger's Life Gets A Little Balance

I had a lovely evening meeting new people. It's always fun to get together with liberals I haven't met before, who are feeling just as beleaguered as I, but don't know the same stuff as I, and to bring them the news they need to know to protect themselves.

It was a merry lot, for all the bad news we have to live with right now. The food and company were excellent, the dogs were all over everything, and very sweet and friendly.

It's always interesting when a friend you know from one particular part of his life opens up a new part of his life to you. And then you get to admire his good taste again. Thanks, Kenn. (He's going to be on the road Sunday and won't see this picture, so this will be our own little secret.) If you live in the Ft. Myers area and are looking for a religious home and some religious education for your kids, check his church out.

Mandatory Disclaimer: I don't endorse any particular religious tradition. All of them are capable of wondrous good and terrible damage. Your mileage will vary. I simply vouch for this guy and his ministerial skills.

I'll be down to this area later in the winter for some workshops and preaching. The details are still being worked out, email me if you want more.

It was good to step away from the monitor for a few hours, and I'm starting to get conscious of the fact that I haven't taken a day off the blog since early September. I'm going to have to schedule one around Christmas, this is a heads up. Doing this every day in concert with a better-than-full-time job is very taxing and I need to recharge the batteries. Once I figure out the best way to do this (the holiday shopping season is here, and I need time for that, too) I'll keep you in the loop as we negotiate the busy days ahead.

We'll get through it better if we do it together. And I sense a small plate of holiday recipes coming on.

Let's see if we can't make this year's Advent/Hannukah/Diwali a time of preparation, like a good fast should be, instead of one of complete distraction. When it is time for the candles to be lit, and the fireplaces to be decorated, let's make sure we have time to stop and pay attention.

One more ad-fueled frenzy before the apocalypse staring us in the face doesn't seem to have much point, does it?

I'm making as many gifts as I can this year, and what I can't make I'm purchasing from small businesses and avoiding the chains, which will do fine without me. Consider it part of the "shop local" movement, the "eat slow" movement, the "keep the dollars in my community" movement. Once you get away from the big box stores and start scanning the side streets, you begin to notice how much creativity there is in your own town. Local entrepreneurs are doing amazing things. Patronize them.

Unsurprisingly, I give a lot of books at Christmas. Chapters will get that business this year.

What are you up to?

Open Thread

So, what's your holiday weekend like? Did you travel? I've actually got a social engagement this evening, so use this as an open thread.

Even the Good News is Bad News

Joyce Marcel interviews Seymour Hersh for The American Reporter:

PRESIDENT BUSH 'OUT OF TOUCH' WITH REALITY, HERSH SAYS
by Joyce Marcel
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.

"We have put ourselves in an enormous hole," he said. "There's no magic story to get us out. The market will crash. Maybe people will come to their senses. Maybe some Democrat will step forward to do the right thing. And maybe the Easter bunny will turn out to be real."

Well, we've just seen the beginning of the rules changes in both houses of Congress, and the filibuster rule change has already been discussed in the press.

I'm afraid that Hersh's dark vision represents our new reality, and I foresee the same disasters down the road.

Islamic Attitudes

Paul Woodward, at The War in Context, captures a key insight in the report of the Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communication. The Task Force took up the project of attitudes toward the US in the Muslim world, but this key idea applies to views of the US by darn near everyone on the planet, to one degree or another. Paul sums up:

Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic -- namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is -- for Americans -- really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves.

Given the poor coverage of the war by US media outlets, I daresay that Americans could hardly have any different view, since this is the way the war is presented to them. That said, however, the media sell the myth of American exceptionalism because that's what the American consumer is buying. Our mass culture is anti-intellectual, incurious, insular and somewhat xenophobic. Rather like our emblematic chief executive, now that I think of it.

Congressional Imperialism

Thought you lived in a representative democracy? Guess again: only if you live in the reddest of the red states.

Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11 commission and others have sharply criticized the policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would now be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had been humble enough to let a high-profile measure pass with most votes coming from the minority party.

That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the House GOP leader at the time, declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics . . . larger than personal ego."

Such bipartisan spirit in the Capitol now seems a faint echo. Citing the increased marginalization of Democrats as House bills are drafted and brought to the floor, Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) said, "It's a set of rules and practices which the Republicans have taken to new extremes."

Price, a former Duke University political scientist and the author of "The Congressional Experience," acknowledged that past congressional leaders, including Democrats, had sometimes scuttled measures opposed by most of their party's colleagues. But he said the practice should not apply to far-reaching, high-stakes legislation such as NAFTA and the intelligence package, which were backed by the White House and most of Congress's 535 members.

Other House Democrats agree. Republicans "like to talk about bipartisanship," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "But when the opportunity came to pass a truly bipartisan bill -- one that would have passed both the House and Senate overwhelmingly and would have made the American people safer -- they failed to do it."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a White House aide when NAFTA passed, said this week, "What is more comforting to the terrorists around the world: the failure to pass the 9/11 legislation because we lacked 'a majority of the majority,' or putting aside partisan politics to enact tough new legislation with America's security foremost in mind?"

Some scholars say Hastert's decision should not come as a surprise. In a little-noticed speech in the Capitol a year ago, Hastert said one of his principles as speaker is "to please the majority of the majority."

"On occasion, a particular issue might excite a majority made up mostly of the minority," he continued. "Campaign finance is a particularly good example of this phenomenon. The job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority."

I seem to recall much discussion in The Federalist Papers about protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Bush may want "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court, but historical principles have gone by the wayside in Congress.

UPDATE: If you think the last four years have been ugly, you ain't seen nothing yet. Over in the world's greatest deliberative body:

Senator Frist Tightens the Screws

Published: November 27, 2004

Flexing their new muscles, Congressional Republicans seem intent on reigning as a dissent-smothering monolith. First, House G.O.P. members slavishly obeyed the maneuver by Tom DeLay, the majority leader, to render his control of the caucus ethics-proof by making it possible for a party leader to keep his post even if he is under indictment. His counterpart in the Senate, Bill Frist, was more discreet but no less ham-handed. He has engineered a rules change designed to cow the few Republican moderates who may still be willing to nip back at demands for party fealty.

The rule undercuts members' independence by giving Dr. Frist the power to fill the first two vacancies on all committees. This hobbles seniority, which has been the traditional path to power. The leader now has a cudgel for shaping the "world's greatest deliberative body" into a chorus line. Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, chronic Republican maverick, got to the heart of the matter in skewering her leader's accomplishment: "There is only one reason for that change, and it is to punish people."

In the Dark Midwinter

As we head into the darkest weeks in the calendar year, here is something to do with all that dark time. My local astronomy group makes themoses of cocoa and hot cider and heads out of town to Sky Meadow to set up their telescopes at night. If you live in the country, you can use your back yard.

All of these sky features can be seen clearly with binoculars, you don't need a scope. I plan a drive to the country over the next couple of weeks to do a little sky watching.

A Planetary Panorama To Unfurl in December Skies

By Blaine P. Friedlander Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page B08

There are so many planets with which to dance and so little sky.

Venus fills its planetary dance card as it sashays through the early morning southeastern heavens with the red planet Mars early in December.

Now Venus ascends the horizon about 6 a.m. and Mars trails by about 15 minutes. The two planets, with Venus the brightest, move closer each morning over the next several days. On Dec. 5, Venus and Mars conjunct.

On Dec. 8 and 9, the slim sliver of a waning crescent moon will be seen hanging over the Venus-Mars dancing duo. Still effervescent at negative fourth magnitude (very bright), Venus appears to move lower in the sky than Mars (first magnitude, bright enough to see in a dark, urban sky).

While Venus pranced with Jupiter in November and waltzes with Mars now, the bright planet still has dance-card space. Mercury rises in the southeast and will provide a nice jitterbug partner for Venus. The fleet Mercury meets Venus on Dec. 27.

Jupiter rises about 4 a.m. now in the east-southeast. Find the large, gassy planet in the constellation Virgo. By 6 a.m., Jupiter should be easy to spot in the east-southeastern heavens, about 28 degrees above the horizon. We get more Jupiter with each day as the giant planet climbs the horizon about 2:30 a.m. It is a negative second-magnitude object (very bright) at the end of the month.

Ringing out the old year, Saturn climbs the east-northeast about 10 p.m. now, near the constellation Gemini. Heading west, the ringed planet crosses the sky the rest of the night. Saturn is a respectable zero magnitude object, bright enough to see in light-polluted urban skies. By mid-December, Saturn rises at 9 p.m., and by year's end, you can find it as early as 8 p.m.

If you are looking for more daylight, your wait is short. The winter solstice -- on the first official day of winter -- occurs at 7:42 a.m. Dec. 21, according to the U.S. Naval Observatory. That is the moment when the sun meets the Tropic of Capricorn and appears to head back north. (Really, it is the tilted Earth that moves and gives the illusion of a moving sun. The sun remains stationary.) In any case, we'll start to see more noticeable sunlight after the new year.

Someday Catblogging

Someone gave me a webcam. I have cats. I would like to take part in Friday Cat blogging.

Can any of you help me hook the pieces together? I know how to take still photos with the webcam software, but posting them to the site is another matter. I'm told that I need some html and a way to plunk the photo on my server so that my home computer doesn't get hammered.

Can you help me out? I promise you the kitties are gorgeous. We have a week to sort this out.

Awaiting the Twitch of a Protein

This is a Reuters' story. I note that, over the months I've been following this story, the tone has moved from concerned but detached to downright alarmed.

Flu Pandemic Inevitable, Plans Needed Urgently -WHO

Fri Nov 26, 7:24 AM ET

By Vissuta Pothong

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Every country in the world must come up urgently with a plan to deal with an inevitable influenza pandemic likely to be triggered by the bird flu virus that hit Asia this year, a top global health expert said on Friday.

"I believe we are closer now to a pandemic than at any time in recent years," said Shigeru Omi, regional director for the Western Region of the World Health Organization (news - web sites) (WHO).

"No country will be spared once it becomes a pandemic," he told a news conference.

"History has taught us that influenza pandemics occur on a regular cycle, with one appearing every 20 to 30 years. On this basis, the next one is overdue," he said at a conference of 13 Asian health ministers trying to figure out how to avoid one.

"We believe a pandemic is highly likely unless intensified international efforts are made to take control of the situation," he said of the H5N1 avian flu virus, which has defied efforts to eradicate it in several Asian countries, including Thailand.

The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and 1919 killed upwards of 20 million people and WHO experts say the next could infect up to 30 percent of the world's more than 6 billion people and kill up to 7 million of them.

Omi said that to stave that off, the world would have to cooperate closely by sharing information promptly and openly on the virus -- such as how it spreads, why it hits children more easily than adults and how quickly it is mutating.

This is very sloppy reporting. First, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 killed 50 million people. The population of the planet was a fraction of what it is now, about 1.8 billion. The lethality (mortality) rate of the 1918 virus was between 2-5%. By contrast, 75% of the people who have contracted this year's Avian virus (that can be identified, always a sketch business this early) have died. That's a stunning rate. The 1918 pandemic did it's lethal business in a mere 8 weeks. Given how much more mobile the world is now, it is chilling to contemplate how much damage this year's bug could do in next to no time.

What the article doesn't make clear (among a number of things that it doesn't make clear) is that the none of these scary scenarios come to pass until the virus has mutated to become transmissable between humans. As far as we know right now, that fatal mutation has not occurred. However, influenza virii are known for their mutability and adaptability. H5N1, this year's variation, demonstrates that it has this disposition, having been found already in pigs and tigers in addition to waterfowl and chickens. Should the mutation occur, and none of the other characteristics of the disease as it now exists be altered by the mutation, it would be out of control very quickly and impossible to stop.

The Reuters writer, then, took at face value the 7 million deaths from a possible Avian flu pandemic from the "expert" with which he spoke. In 1918, more than half of the world's population was infected by the flu. Actual numbers of deaths by this Avian flu would be catastrophic. So, the tone of this article, while a little hysterical, actually understates the amount of danger that this potential represents.

In earlier bulletins, WHO was already calling for public health authorities all over the world to begin to prepare for vaccinating their entire populations. If this bug is as bad as it looks, that's not an outrageous demand. Unfortunately, the earliest estimate for the vaccine to begin to be available is March, and I think that even if we put all of the vaccine makers in the world to the task of manufacturing it, we'll have a little difficulty cranking out 5 billion doses in time to do a lot of good.

Right now, our defensive strategy is to hope that the mutation doesn't occur before we are ready for it. I'm not liking those odds.

The Coming Trainwreck

As you know, I use a wide variety of sources for the digest that I bring you here. One of my required reads a couple of times a week is Soldiers for the Truth, a project of Col. David Hackworth. Hack's interest is in the well-being and functionality of the military, and he and his editors are busy digging up the truth, the facts of the situation on the ground for our troops, stateside or foreign deployed. There is so much good stuff up there today that the entire site is worth a read. Here is the most recent post. It speaks volumes about the kind of shape we are in, and it isn't a good thing.

More Signs of a Military Unraveling

By Ed Offley

When I first heard about the bedsheet cutbacks a couple of months ago, I thought it was some weird practical joke: To save money, a local Navy base planned to end a longstanding practice where staff housekeepers washed and replaced the sheets and pillowcases in the Bachelor Officers Quarters. Henceforth, a bunch of single ensigns and lieutenants were being banished to the local laundromat.

Nearly four years ago, defense analyst Dan Goure – one of the unheralded Cassandras of the looming defense train wreck – said this: “Everybody hits the wall about 2005-2006. The derailment is in sight.”

Interestingly, that time frame is about the same one for the economic trainwreck that's staring us in the face.

Grim Assessments

The State of Iraq: An Update
By ADRIANA LINS de ALBUQUERQUE, MICHAEL O'HANLON and AMY UNIKEWICZ

Published: November 26, 2004

Two months before Iraq is scheduled to hold its nationwide elections, how are things going? After the bloody assault on Falluja, in which some 50 United States troops and many times that number of insurgents died, no American needs to be reminded that the situation is very difficult. In fact, while the Falluja operation could have some eventual benefits, we cannot yet identify any objective measure of sustained progress in increasing Iraqi security.

Other recent trends are somewhat more encouraging: foreign aid is beginning to be spent more quickly, even if much of it is being directed toward security rather than rebuilding cities and towns; Iraqi security forces are now being trained more rigorously - and they're beginning to perform better on the battlefield; the overall quality of public services may finally be inching ahead of late-Saddam Hussein levels; the transfer of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government has continued to deflect some of the anti-American anger on the street; and Iraqis are for the most part bullish on their future.

On the other hand, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's popularity has fallen in recent months, unemployment rates remain far too high, insurgents continue to attack oil pipelines and police stations, and Iraqi security forces still cannot begin to take the major responsibility for combating the insurgents.

On balance, the data show that security trends in Iraq are generally poor, economic trends are promising but glacial in pace, and political trends are hopeful but fragile.

Playing the Course:

Iraq’s health care system has rapidly declined in the last few months, and Iraqis are losing confidence that the approaching elections will be free and fair, according to an updated CSIS report. “Recent polls have indicated that many Iraqis are becoming less confident that fair and secure elections, scheduled for January, will be able to take place,” the report states. “Although 58 percent still believe Iraq will hold elections in January, fewer are planning to vote than a few months ago.” The report also found that efforts to rebuild Iraq’s economy, establish security, strengthen governance and provide services remain stalled. Frederick Barton (l) and Bathsheba Crocker, codirectors of the CSIS Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, wrote the report.
Iraq Reconstruction: Poll of Polls
Read the Updated Report
Read the Original Report
PCR Project

And here are links to radio interviews with the Brookings principals who wrote the NYT Op-Ed. None of these folks are screaming liberals, by the way.

Not Just Your Computer...

Cell Phones Increasingly Attractive To Hackers

By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 26, 2004; Page A01

Early this month, several Web sites began offering software promising ringtones and screensavers for certain cell phones. But those who downloaded the software found that it turned every icon on their cell phones' screens into a skull-and-crossbones and disabled their phones, so they could no longer send or receive text messages or access contact lists or calendars.

Security experts named the malicious software "Skulls" and consider it an early warning of the damage hackers could do as they turn their malevolent talents to cell phones from computers.

Mobile phones are a tempting target because they have become a part of everyday life. In addition, consumers are buying more sophisticated "smart phones" with Internet connections that provide an easier pathway for cell phone infections. Few phones come equipped with protection against malicious software, though some companies are starting to install it. Most cell phone users aren't on guard for attacks like those that periodically bring down computers worldwide, and at this point there is little they can do to protect themselves.

"The impact is potentially larger on the phone because we're not savvy about that," said Victor Kouznetsov, senior vice president of mobile solutions at McAfee Inc., a security software firm. "Also, the profile of a mobile society is a cross-section of society who are potentially less [technically] savvy than computer users."
....
Experts have tried to anticipate how big a problem malicious software might be by simulating attacks on cell phones in software labs. They have found that e-mail viruses can multiply by sending messages through a cell phone's address book. Viruses can allow unauthorized users into a phone to access passwords or corporate data stored on the device. And they can be used to manipulate the phone to make calls or send messages at the phone owner's expense.

"The nightmare scenario with cell phones is a virus that would delete the contents of your phone, or start calling [a toll number] on its own from the phone or recording every single one of your conversations and sending the recorded conversation somewhere," said Mikko Hypponen, director of anti-virus research at F-Secure Corp., a Finnish security firm.
....
Companies are beginning to respond. Nokia Oyj plans to introduce two phones in coming months with built-in anti-virus software. "As an industry, it's our responsibility to react very quickly," said Laurie Armstrong, a spokeswoman for the Finnish cell phone maker.

DoCoMo, Japan's main cell phone carrier, launched a McAfee program that can send software over the cell phone network to combat problems with malicious software on its phones. Dozens of smaller companies are also jumping into the mix. Companies such as Trust Digital of McLean and Baltimore-based Bluefire Security Technologies Inc., which is backed by Motorola Inc., are designing software to help companies protect their wireless phones from hackers. Last year, Texas Instruments Inc. started using security technology made by Belcamp, Md.-based SafeNet Inc. in the chips implanted in Nokia cell phones.

"The industry recognizes that today we're in a sheltered environment," said Mark Desautels, vice president for wireless Internet development at CTIA, "but that's not where we're going to stay."

I've been thinking about upgrading my cell phone for a while. I think I'll wait until this new generation of Nokias is released. Connectivity is no longer cheap nor hazard-free.

Friday Econblogging

My main econ man, Stephen Roach, gets space on the NYT Op-ed page today (remember that Boston Herald article from Monday? The one that predicted "economic Armaggedon"? Yeah, that Stephen Roach.)

When Weakness Is a Strength
By STEPHEN S. ROACH

Published: November 26, 2004

Suddenly all eyes are on a weakening dollar. In recent days, the American currency has fallen against the euro, the yen and most other currencies around the world. The renminbi is a notable exception; China has kept its currency firmly pegged to the dollar for a decade.

The fall of the dollar is not a surprise. It is the logical outgrowth of an unbalanced world economy, and America's gaping current account deficit - the difference between foreign trade and investment in the United States and American trade and investment abroad - is just the most visible manifestation of these imbalances. The deficit ran at a record annual rate of $665 billion, or 5.7 percent of gross domestic product, in the second quarter of 2004.

While a decline in the dollar is not a cure-all for what ails the world, it should go a long way toward bringing about a sorely needed rebalancing. With a weaker dollar, economic and even political tensions among nations would be relieved, helping to promote more sustainable growth in the global economy.

Still, a debate persists as to the wisdom of allowing the dollar to decline. The Bush administration seems to have given its tacit assent, and Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, is finally on board. But outside the United States, where policymakers have long been vocal in their displeasure over America's deficits, officials are now objecting to America's cure. Europeans have referred to the dollar's recent decline as brutal. The Japanese have threatened to intervene again in foreign exchange markets. And Chinese officials have argued that global imbalances are "made in America."

In this blame game, it's always the other guy. Yet global imbalances are a shared responsibility. America is guilty of excess consumption, whereas the rest of the world suffers from insufficient consumption. Consumer demand in the United States grew at an average of 3.9 percent (in real terms) from 1995 to 2003, nearly double the 2.2 percent average elsewhere in the industrial world.

Meanwhile, Americans fail to save enough - whereas the rest of the world saves too much. American consumers have borrowed against the future by squandering their savings. The personal savings rate was just 0.2 percent of disposable personal income in September - down from 7.7 percent as recently as 1992. Moreover, large federal budget deficits mean the government's savings rate is negative.

Lacking in domestic savings, the United States must import foreign savings to finance the growth of its economy. And it runs huge current-account and trade deficits to attract such capital from overseas.

America's consumption binge has its mirror image in excess savings elsewhere in the world - especially in Asia and Europe. For now, America draws freely on this reservoir, absorbing about 80 percent of the world's surplus savings. Just as the United States has moved production and labor offshore in recent years, it is now outsourcing its savings.
....
What's certain is that a lopsided world needs to be put back into balance. The dollar is the world's most widely used currency, but its fall affects more than just foreign-exchange rates. A weakening dollar is an encouraging sign that the world's relative price structure - essentially the value of one economy versus another - is becoming more sensible. If the world can manage the dollar's decline wisely, there is more reason for hope than despair.

You can make a start on getting the world rebalanced: Buy Nothing Day is the antidote to the consumerism of the holiday shopping mania.

Here's the morning news, and it is worrisome:

Intervention lows

Hope that the central bank will intervene to support the dollar helped the currency off its lows.

"The Chinese are losing money because they have so much of their reserves in dollars. They are going to have to at some time diversify. The Question is timing and by how much," he said.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Via Tom at Information Clearing House:

20,802 US Soldiers Heavily Wounded

believe it or not...
Can anyone believe how dirty and dishonorable the US administration is?

The small bush administration is re-identifying the meaning of "lies".

The Estripes article linked to above is really disturbing. Vet Affairs Secretary Principi spent almost a whole hour learning about the needs of injured vets on his way to a celebratory tour of Afghanistan (think of the photo ops!) to serve some turkee. Nice to know he could make a little space in his calendar for the neediest.

The Black Hats

A lot of my conversation with the bro, and a lot of what you'll find Charles posting about here, is this, and I have as much work to do as any of you do:

Breaking, Entering Your PC
Spyware, the newest and nastiest online plague, can paralyze or commandeer a computer. Help is hard to find, but it's out there.

By Terry McDermott, Times Staff Writer

It can, and often does, start something like this:

You're online, maybe searching for a specific piece of information, maybe just cruising the Web. I was investigating new search technologies that were advertised as useful in dealing with variations in the spelling of names and had read that Lycos, a pre-Google Internet portal and search engine, had developed some.

I found links for Lycos and clicked on one. That was the beginning. Within minutes, my computer was swamped with advertisements — pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-all-overs. There were so many I couldn't close them before others started appearing. I had to shut the computer down.

When it restarted, my Web browser had a new pornographic home page, and soon another flood of advertisements was underway. This time, I was able to get rid of most of it and resume working.

It went on for days. The blizzard of ads sometimes thinned, sometimes thickened. At times, there were so many that the computer couldn't process them all and froze. Every time I restarted, my home page was reset to the pornographic site. Every time I tried to do a Google search, a Lycos search engine appeared instead. New items for services called Bargain Buddies and Deal Helper were added to my Web favorites list.

I deleted these entries, but they would mysteriously reappear. Once, when I was being buried yet again by ads, I heard my computer modem dialing a telephone number. My computer is connected to a broadband Internet access service, so the only time I ever used the modem was to send and receive faxes. I couldn't imagine why the modem was dialing. More to the point, I couldn't stop it.

I have been using PCs since 1985 and have installed hard drives, operating systems, memory, CD-ROM drives and countless software programs. I've written some rudimentary programs to automate common word-processing tasks. I vainly considered myself a computer sophisticate.

So what did I do? I cursed and screamed. I tried to turn the modem off with software switches. Finally, I did what any sophisticated computer user would do — I yanked the telephone cord out of the wall, then began wildly deleting every suspicious file I could find on my system.

That worked to a limited extent. I installed a pop-up ad blocker and downloaded free programs that were supposed to rid me of the plague that had descended.

Most days, I was able to slog along and there were even times I thought the fixes had worked. But the computer was still agonizingly slow, and the ads and the hijacked Web searches invariably reappeared. Then a month later, I received a bill for $25 from some company I had never heard of. It was for the telephone call my computer had made, to Britain it turned out.

And this is just the stuff you can see. There are hackers, crackers, script kiddies and bots out there who are using open ports and other exploitable holes in your computer to do all kinds of things, including running their own computational needs. None of the commercial virus programs or "firewalls" has remained un-hacked and the chances are that your computer is being used by someone else. If you are running Windows, every weakness in that platform is exploited every minute of every day.

I got a bunch of info from the bro yesterday on some of the things we can do to cut down on the vulnerabilities (you are browsing with Mozilla or Firefox, aren't you?) and Charles promises a series of posts on building a hardware firewall, don't trust the commercial software,) on the cheap. Trust me, I'll be building right along with you. It's entirely possible that my weekend troubles accessing my site were due to spy ware. (Everything is working normally now, thanks, and it might have been just a computer burp, who knows.)

Anyone with a computer hooked up to the Internet no longer has the luxury of being naive. You really can't just say, "I don't care how it works, I just want to run my applications." The Black Hats out there just love people like this. The pirates will use you. When it comes to computer security, we are all going to have to get a little geekier than we ever planned on. I will be spending part of the morning uninstalling and removing my Yahoo IM client, the thing leaks like a sieve. God knows what I let in here back in the day when I was IMing a lot.

This stuff is not benign. Anyone who has this kind of access to your computer can alter your files, access your financial information, reformat your hard drive. Ever hear of "identity theft?" Yup, without ever buying anything on line, it can happen right from your hard drive.

Read the LAT article, and be prepared to get to work.

UPDATE: In comments below, pogge contributes links to some free anti-spyware software and more information. This is a valuable community service.

Hollow Victory

Juan Cole posts a letter from his colleague Mark Fisher, which is more trenchant than anything in the papers today:

The ostensible "victory" of US forces in Falluja marks a strategic turning point for the United States, but not because it has come close to destroying the insurgency. Rather, it has revealed a lack of solidarity between Shi‘i and Sunni Iraqis that is the United States’ only hope for maintaining a long-term presence in the country after the elections. Such lack of solidarity is in contrast to the mutual aid and support displayed during the Falluja and Najaf invasions of last spring. Had it been translated into coordinated Sunni-Shi‘i resistance--Sadr City exploding along with Falluja-- the occupation would have quickly become untenable.

Since November 2 I have often heard it said that in an environment where the majority of Americans are divided, cynical and distrustful of their fellow citizens and government it was natural for them to choose a strong, conservatively religious and politically narrow-minded President to lead them. If true, this dynamic does not augur well for the Iraq that will emerge after January 30.

Evening Benediction

I'm stuffed. I hope you are, too. Stuffed with good food, too much conversation and the great affection of family and friends.

My bro is a techie, and I spent the day soaking up as much as I could learn from him (while soaking up his fabulous gravy and dressing) about aspects of my new job that aren't obvious to the casual observer. My S-I-L asked what I wanted for Christmas, and I looked the bro square in the eye and said, "O'Reilly." They have the best after-market manuals in the IT business.

Our family get togethers are the marriage of good people who disagree, and this is the way it should be. We have radically different political and social views, and that is okay. Good people should be able to honestly disagree without vilifying each other, and that is how my family has gotten along for a long time. We just don't talk about it, there really isn't any point.

What we do is cooperate in the kitchen and at the table, and talk about the wide range of interests we all have. I'm a birder, they are interested in that. They are learning to train their dogs, I'm interested in that (so interested that I'm planning to learn to post images before this long weekend is done, we'll have dog and cat blogging, by damn, with two of the most beautiful cats {mine} and Golden Retrievers {theirs} on the Internets.)

Love is meta-rational. It goes beyond argument, beyond rhetoric, to a basic recognition of the pure beauty of the other person. And it is my great good fortune to have some truly beautiful people in my gene pool. Spending time with these two (and the associated Blonde menagerie) is better than vitamins.

Go poke around the site and look for the dog pix. The comely canines insisted on being the center of attention, and we took good orders from our masters. We tossed, we caught, we slavered when they brought the toy back. Who is the golden retriever, in a family of blondes?

This old dog learned a new trick and caught the train, via the subway, and skipped the whole I95 commute hassle. I arrived there and returned home serene without having dodged the commute of death. Driving 95 is taking your life in your teeth and swallowing hard every couple of minutes. Instead, I read my book. My adrenal glands have returned to their normal size. My tummy will take a couple of more days to do likewise and the fridge is filled with good eating. Thank God for those little "Servin' Saver" containers.

When I boarded the train this evening, the conductor said the fare was a ticket or a turkey dinner. I had both in my hands. I'm no fool, I gave him the ticket.

How was your holiday?

Bro and SIL,

Thanks for loving me. I'll try to do likewise. You make it so darn easy.

New Toys

I just found this at The Agonist. Here's the description:

Making notes in browser

The first browser-making-notes tool is E-QUILL reported by CNN, and it was very popular, later it's bought by Microsoft and no longer available for the general public. Soon after that, IMARKUP turned up as "a leading provider of collaboration and workflow solutions for digital content and document management". Both E-QUILL and IMARKUP only work on Internet Explorer - That Is Boring. So I made a clean, free, and cross-browser tool: Editive. With Editive, Mozilla guys can make notes in their beloved browser now.

I don't have time to play with this now, I've got to get out the door to my brother's superb cooking, but this is going to be very fun to fiddle with later.

I'll leave the link to the download over at Sean-Paul's place. Warning: if you click the link there, it downloads directly.

I'm going to go download a new copy of Firefox now, so I'll see you later today.

Error messages

I'm undergoing a very strange situation here at Harmony Hall: since late yesterday afternoon, I've been able to post to Bump, but not see it. When I try to call up Bump in Mozilla, I'm getting a "file/cannot be found" error message. I've cleaned out the task-bar and re-booted a half-dozen times. pogge thinks it is a browser problem and I need to download a newer version of Moz or Firefox. Since that is the only thing I haven't tried yet, I'll do it just before I leave the house for dinner with the bro and S-I-L, as downloading on this dial-up is, um, a project.

If any of you have other solutions, I'm game.

Rummy's Dreams

Guardsmen Say They're Facing Iraq Ill-Trained
Troops from California describe a prison-like, demoralized camp in New Mexico that's short on gear and setting them up for high casualties.

By Scott Gold, Times Staff Writer

DOÑA ANA RANGE, N.M. — Members of a California Army National Guard battalion preparing for deployment to Iraq said this week that they were under strict lockdown and being treated like prisoners rather than soldiers by Army commanders at the remote desert camp where they are training.

More troubling, a number of the soldiers said, is that the training they have received is so poor and equipment shortages so prevalent that they fear their casualty rate will be needlessly high when they arrive in Iraq early next year. "We are going to pay for this in blood," one soldier said.

They said they believed their treatment and training reflected an institutional bias against National Guard troops by commanders in the active-duty Army, an allegation that Army commanders denied.

The 680 soldiers of the 1st Battalion of the 184th Infantry Regiment were activated in August and are preparing for deployment at Doña Ana, a former World War II prisoner-of-war camp 20 miles west of its large parent base, Ft. Bliss, Texas.

Members of the battalion, headquartered in Modesto, said in two dozen interviews that they were allowed no visitors or travel passes, had scant contact with their families and that morale was terrible.

"I feel like an inmate with a weapon," said Cpl. Jajuane Smith, 31, a six-year Guard veteran from Fresno who works for an armored transport company when not on active duty.

Several soldiers have fled Doña Ana by vaulting over rolls of barbed wire that surround the small camp, the soldiers interviewed said. Others, they said, are contemplating going AWOL, at least temporarily, to reunite with their families for Thanksgiving.

Army commanders said the concerns were an inevitable result of the decision to shore up the strained military by turning "citizen soldiers" into fully integrated, front-line combat troops. About 40% of the troops in Iraq are either reservists or National Guard troops.

Notice that the C-I-C isn't heading to Baghdad today.

And while you peruse the article above, consider Iran. Whatever the neo-cons dreams, which Army are they intending to use? The situation outlined above is a symptom of the facts on the ground: we've basically ruined the Army and reserve system for the foreseeable future. Absent a draft, the all-volunteer military is going to need to be re-built from scratch.

Convertible Type

NPR was hinting around about this yesterday, and I couldn't get a single other source to confirm. WaPo's Doug Jehl is still being very coy about it. Sometimes the press are guilty of playing the "we're smarter than you are" game, and real journalism suffers when they do.

2 Top Officials Are Reported to Quit C.I.A.
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: November 25, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 - Two more senior officials of the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine service are stepping down, intelligence officials said Wednesday, in the latest sign of upheaval in the agency under its new chief, Porter J. Goss.

As the chiefs of the Europe and Far East divisions, the two officials have headed spying operations in some of the most important regions of the world and were among a group known as the barons in the highest level of clandestine service, the Directorate of Operations.

The directorate has been the main target of an overhaul effort by Mr. Goss and his staff. Its chief, Stephen R. Kappes, and his deputy resigned this month after a dispute with the new management team.

An intelligence official said that the two division chiefs were retiring from the agency and that there would be no public announcement. Neither could be named, the official said, because they are working under cover.

A former intelligence official described the two as "very senior guys" who werestepping down because they did not feel comfortable with new management.

In a memorandum to agency employees last week, Mr. Goss warned that more personnel changes were coming as part of what he described as an effort to rebuild the ability of the agency to perform its core mission of stealing secrets.

Last week, President Bush directed Mr. Goss to draw up detailed plans in 90 days for a major overhaul of the agency, to address shortcomings that have become evident with intelligence failures related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and prewar assessments of Iraq.

The directive included a call for 50 percent increases in crucial operations and analytical personnel, a goal that the agency had already set in a five-year strategic plan drafted in December under George J. Tenet, the previous director of central intelligence. Many of the agency's top officials, including John E. McLaughlin, the deputy director, and A. B. Krongard, the No. 3 official, have stepped down or announced plans to do so since Mr. Goss took office in September. The upheaval has been most extensive in the operations directorate, made up of spies and spymasters who have made careers out of stealing secrets.

The clandestine service is a proud closed fraternity and one that sees itself as fiercely loyal and not risk-averse. It is also a group that has recoiled in recent weeks at the criticisms leveled at the agency, including comments this month from Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who accused the agency of acting "almost as a rogue" institution.

Mr. Goss is a former spy and a member of the clandestine service who worked in Latin America in the 60's. More recently, he was a Republican congressman and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and he has made plain his view that the current crop of case officers is not bold enough.

What is playing out in the agency headquarters is no less than a clash of cultures on a scale not seen there. since the Carter administration, when Stansfield Turner, a retired admiral, took a half-dozen Navy officers with him to the agency in 1977.

Maybe the CIA needs reforming. As I recall, according to the documents we have from the time, Richard Clarke's "hair was on fire" before 9-11, so maybe these guys were already doing their jobs.

It appears to me that what needs fixing is an executive branch that came into power with a pre-conceived idea, and with a very good read on the American appetite for war.

Next book up in my stack, Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire. I know enough of his material to be very afraid of what comes next.

It was Dwight David Eisenhower who warned us about the military-industrial complex 50 years ago, and we still haven't learned.

Doug, do these folks have names and something to say, or are they going to fold themselves back into the military-industrial complex and start picking up six-figure salaries at SAIC? That's what most of them do.

Gross Mismanagement

I still haven't located a dose, and I'm an asthmatic, high risk. Fortunately, my mom got one.

U.S. Knew Last Year of Flu Vaccine Plant's Woes

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A01

The Food and Drug Administration found serious problems of bacterial contamination at an influenza vaccine plant in England in 2003, 16 months before British regulators effectively closed the site and impounded its flu shots because of fears they were tainted.

Those earlier problems were among many revelations in about 100 pages of documents released yesterday by a House committee looking into how the United States lost about half this winter's flu vaccine supply just as the season for giving the shots began.

CDC Director Julie L. Gerberding and Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testify on the flu vaccine shortage.
The documents, which include FDA inspection reports, letters and e-mails, also revealed that the agency was nine months late in giving Chiron Corp., the owner of the plant, a detailed report of the problems it found and then rebuffed the company's efforts to learn more about what it could do to fix things. At the same time, FDA managers overruled its inspection team and made its fixes voluntary rather than mandatory.

The new information appears to undercut the agency's assertions that it had no reason to suspect that past safety problems at the plant had persisted and might threaten its huge production capacity.

About 48 million doses of vaccine from Chiron's plant outside Liverpool were withheld from the U.S. market early last month after the British equivalent of the FDA denied the company a license to sell them.

The United States expected to have about 100 million doses of flu vaccine this winter. Instead there will be 61 million doses, with some not arriving until January. The shortage has caused widespread public anxiety and has forced health departments nationwide to laboriously reallocate vaccine after much of it already had been distributed.

Yesterday's revelations drew distinctly partisan responses at a congressional hearing.

"FDA's laxity has had a heavy cost. If FDA had ensured that the problems identified in June 2003 were fixed, this year's flu crisis might never have happened," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee.

In contrast, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the chairman, twice elicited from acting FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford statements that no protocols had been violated in the agency's response to the problems at the Liverpool plant, which has had three owners in the past decade.

"If protocols need to be tweaked, then let's talk about tweaking them," Davis said.

Gentlemen, I am not a tweak, I'm a vulnerable person. You seem to have forgotten that, all of you nice Christians in our Management Team.

Tell me where I go to get my flu shot or stop bothering me with your blather. It's about delivery. Any sales manager knows that and you guys are coming up against some hard targets. The flu season is upon us and you've failed; how many Americans will die because of that is in your box score.

Thanksgiving and Open Thread

Well, well, well. It turns out that heading to the local mega-grocery to pick up a few things at 5 PM on the evening before Thanksgiving is a really, really bad idea. Couldn't even get into the parking lot. Thank heaven the 7-11 sells wine.

Like many of you, I'm sure, I'll be on the road tomorrow. Judging from my site meter, a lot of you are already on your way to wherever you are going. Share? Where are you off to, or, if you're the cook for dinner tomorrow, what's going to be on the groaning board tomorrow?

If you don't celebrate this holiday--and plenty of people of non-white descent do opt out--or you aren't an American, can you recommend a good book you are reading now or one you've read lately that left a lasting impression. I'm working on Jared Diamonds Guns, Germs and Steel right now and recommend it highly.

Or, if you've got something else on your mind, this is an open thread.

On the nonuniqueness of John Ashcroft

Just so I can console myself that the U.S. does not have a total monopoly on complete raving insanity in the corridors of power .. I give you the David Blunkett Policy Generator.

Outside the Beltway

There are days when Al Kamen's In the Loop in the WaPo is an embarrassment of riches:

Some Secret: Open House, Open Bar

Remember a while back when it came out that intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency -- the supersecret spy crowd -- did not have the resources to keep up with the flood of intercepts to be able to translate terrorists' chatter on a timely basis?

This naturally caused a big fuss, and Congress pledged big bucks to get the spooks up to speed. Seems to have worked out fine, judging from an invite we got to attend an open house Dec. 7 at the National Cryptologic Museum behind the Shell station at Fort Meade.

Lots of fine finger food to be had, including a "brie encrote with brown sugar and pecans," some "Swiss cheese and chablis stuffed mushroom caps," a bit of roast turkey with cranberry mayo and "mini pumpkin cheesecakes."

Our very fine invite with the NSA gold-embossed seal notes "Open bar."

Must have passed some kinda big supplemental.

You can't make this stuff up. I love when the government makes my job easier.

Inside the Beltway

Round-Trip or One-Way Tickets?

By Al Kamen
Wednesday, November 24, 2004; Page A19

Seems that folks at the Agency for International Development are not rushing to fill 23 excellent jobs in garden spots such as Iraq and Afghanistan. And if no one volunteers soon, AID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios said in an agency-wide e-mail Friday, the agency will order people to fill those posts.

"I am calling for . . . employees to consider serving in one of the positions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan listed," Natsios said in his e-mail, adding that he was "extremely hopeful" enough volunteers would be found.

Several hundred AID folks went to a meeting yesterday in which Natsios exhorted the troops to sign up, stressing the importance of foreign aid and good works and all that. The American Foreign Service Association, the employee union, is on board for now, hoping the volunteer approach works. If it doesn't . . . well, they'll get to that question if they have to.

As it stands, though, if not enough volunteers come forward, some AID personnel could be required to sign up for duty in Iraq, probably for a year. Those in the at-risk category are the several hundred AID workers who are ending their tours in the next few months and looking for their next assignments.

Employees lucky enough to snag a posting in Geneva or Rome -- or, given the alternatives, even Mongolia or the Bolivian Altiplano -- will not be drafted.

Those who have not secured new assignments, Natsios said, "will be required" to volunteer for the unfilled jobs in those four countries, and one of the two positions they bid for must be in Iraq.

Not to despair, this could still work out all right if you know how to game the system. Eighteen of the 23 jobs are in Iraq, but some areas obviously are much safer than others.

For example, three "regional coordinators" are needed in Iraq. One is central, in Hillah. Don't go there. Another is in the south, in Basra. Dicier but pretty good as long as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani keeps Moqtada Sadr under wraps. The third is in Erbil, in the Kurdish area, or what might be called eventually the Former Iraqi Republic of Kurdistan, or FIROK.

Erbil had its scary moments a while back, but surely the most needy area for AID is in the heart of the Kurdish region in Sulaymaniyah. You will naturally discover massive development projects to be undertaken there, and these will require you to spend most of your time in that very lovely, peaceful area.

That failing, go for the legal adviser job. Stay behind the desk.

Looking for a little civil service work?

Medicinal Purposes

At last, some good news, while we are all coming down with colds.

Chocolate: the ultimate cough medicine

19:22 2004-11-23

It turns out, chocolate can in fact sooth throat and ease coughing, as a new study suggests.

Researchers gave 10 healthy volunteers tablets containing theobromine - a constituent of cocoa - codeine, or a placebo.

The volunteers were asked to inhale a gas containing capsaicin - a derivative of chilli peppers - which induces coughing and is used as an indicator to test the effectiveness of cough medicines, reports News24.

According to Food Navigator, in order to compare the effectiveness of each they measured the levels of capsaicin in the volunteers and compared these after giving the three options. Scientists use capsaicin, a chemical compound found chillies used in clinical research to provoke coughing, as an indicator to test the effectiveness of cough medicines.

When the volunteers were given theobromine, the concentration of capsaicin required to produce a cough was around one third higher when compared with the group receiving a placebo.

When the group received codeine they needed only marginally higher levels of capsaicin to produce coughing, compared with the placebo.

The scientists say the theobromine suppresses the vagus nerve activity. Vagus nerve activity is responsible for making you cough.

Another benefit of theobromine was that it had no side effects. Many cough medicines cause drowsiness, informs Medical News Today.

The Liberal Conscience

Via Philocrites, this by Leon Wieseltier at The New Republic, who is reason enough to get the magazine:

I will not be God-whipped. For a start, it is not at all clear that the "values" analysis of George W. Bush's reelection is correct . . . Moreover, the "faith" that is being praised as the road to political salvation, the Bush ideal of religion, is a zealous ignorance, a complacent renunciation of proof and evidence and logic and argument, as if the techniques of reason were merely liberal tools. . . .

The faith fetish, the belief in belief, is an insult not only to the mind, but also to the soul. For there are many varieties of faith, and the "faith" of the Republicans, which does not grasp the old distinction between fideism and faith, represents only one of those varieties. Not all religion in America is as superstitious and chiliastic and emotional and dogmatic and political as this. And not all religion in America is as Christian as this. When the spokesmen for Bush's holy base call for the restoration of religion to a central position in public life—for the repeal of the grand tradition of mutually beneficial separation that began with Roger Williams's heroic alienation from the theocracy of Massachusetts—they are usually calling for the restoration of their religion.

. . .

The liberal conscience is not a human failing. It is another kind of conscience. It has reasons. It is a thing of principle, not a thing of taste. The religious right complains of liberal condescension, and often properly; but then it condescends to liberalism by reducing it to class or to culture, and by regarding it not as a moral creed but as a moral corruption. The offense that religious conservatives regularly take from secular liberals is a little ridiculous. Why do they care so much about our disapproval? They are also in the business of disapproval. The truth is that this kind of conservatism is sustained by its feeling of victimization. Grievance makes it glad. It allows the right to combine the power of a majority with the pity of a minority.

. . .

The belief in God does not guarantee the knowledge of God's wishes. This is the most elementary lesson of the history of religious faith. The believer lives in the darkness more than he lives in the light. He does not wallow in God's guidance, he thirsts for it. And when God's guidance comes, it does not take the form of policy recommendations, unless he has created his God in the image of his desire. What deity is this, that has opinions about preemption and taxation and Quentin Tarantino? In this regard, there is no more ringing refutation of the religion of George W. Bush than the religion of Abraham Lincoln. "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other," Lincoln proclaimed at the beginning of his second term, and in the middle of a war. "The prayers of both could not be answered--that of neither has been answered fully." For Lincoln, his party was not God's party; or rather, the other party was as much God's party as his party was. And he explained this repudiation of human certainty this way: "The Almighty has his own purposes." He did not know what they were, he knew only that they were. Beware the politicians, and the politics, that know more.

That Bushco needs to repeal the Enlightenment in order to govern says a great deal about them. That such a large block of the voters is willing to have it repealed says something even more frightening.

Savories

One of the most useful emergency entertaining supplies you can keep in your freezer is phyllo dough. You can make everything from canapes to entrees to desserts with it. Beyond the standard spanakopita filling (always welcome to this delighted eater, either as dinner or small bites with drinks) here are some alternative ways of packing the crunchy, buttery sheets for either dessert or appetizers:

chopped walnuts, pears and blue cheese
goat cheese with herbs and garlic
sun-dried tomatoes, basil and black olive tapenade (feta optional, but good)
artichoke hearts, spinach and cream cheese mixed with parmesan and herbs

CYA

Bush Wants to Bolster CIA but Doesn't Offer Specifics
He seeks a 50% increase in spies and analysts. No time frame or funding is set. Many are skeptical.

By Greg Miller and Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — President Bush has ordered what may be a major expansion of the CIA, calling for the beleaguered agency to add thousands of analysts and spies as part of an ongoing buildup in the war on terrorism, according to a White House memorandum released Tuesday.

But the directive set no timetable for the changes and offered no indication that the White House intended to ask Congress for the massive funding increase such a plan would require.

The proposal was outlined in a memorandum delivered to CIA Director Porter J. Goss last week. Bush instructed the intelligence chief to increase the number of analysts and spies at the CIA by 50%. The figure stunned current and former intelligence officials, several of whom said the CIA had not charted such an aggressive course of growth since its inception after World War II.

The CIA is thought to have an annual budget of about $5 billion and employ more than 17,000 people, although the figures are classified. Sources said the agency's clandestine service employed several thousand people, and that its analytic branch — known as the directorate of intelligence — was even larger.

The Bush memo said the increases were to take place "as soon as feasible," and would be "subject to the availability of appropriations." Bush gave the agency 90 days to develop a budget and a plan.

Because of the caveats contained in the document and the manner in which it was released by the White House, the memo was greeted with a mixture of enthusiasm and skepticism in the intelligence community.

"I wouldn't overreach" in attaching significance to the document, a U.S. intelligence official said. "The way it's being looked at is a codification of some of the things the agency has been doing before. It builds on some of those measures and adds to them."
....
Under former CIA Director George J. Tenet, the agency stepped up its recruiting efforts significantly — going from graduating about two dozen case officers a year in the mid-1990s to 10 times that many in recent years, according to a former senior CIA official.

Boosting the agency's analytic and spying ranks by 50% would take years and a massive infusion of money — hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more — the former CIA official said.

"There is a finite number of people you can recruit unless you want to lower qualifications," he said, adding that there was such a shortage of analysts that several intelligence agencies struggled to fill key slots.

NPR's Morning Edition is claiming two more resignations of senior staff this morning, but I'm unable to find a link yet. The Agency is clearly in turmoil, in a period when I'd prefer it be hunting Al Qaeda.

The LAT piece, above, is loaded with skepticism, as this looks like nothing more than the appearance of doing something: no time or money are being spent on it.

Lumbering along

The dollar continues to drop. We import most of our oil. Connect the dots. And in other economic news:

Canada warns of looming trade war as Bush prepares to visit

Tue Nov 23, 5:02 PM ET

MARTIN OÂ’HANLON

OTTAWA (CP) - Just a week before George W. Bush arrives for a feel-good visit with Paul Martin, Ottawa is talking tough about a possible trade war with the United States.

The federal government announced Tuesday that it is launching consultations with Canadians on possible retaliation over American duties.

It's all about the Byrd Amendment, which allows American companies to receive anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected from foreign competitors - such as those on softwood lumber.

The U.S. has failed to act on a World Trade Organization (news - web sites) ruling that the amendment is illegal.

"Retaliation is not the preferred course of action, but this is about respecting international trade laws," Trade Minister Jim Peterson said from Brazil, where he is on a trade mission.

"These consultations are an important step in protecting the rights of Canadian industry."

While the sabre-rattling comes a week before Bush's visit, that's just a "sheer coincidence," said a government official.

The official, who asked to remain anonymous, said the government had to make its intentions known in order to be in line with other countries seeking trade retaliation against the U.S. at a WTO hearing Wednesday.

The public consultations, while not required, are part of an effort to include citizens in the process, said the official.

"We're not saying we're going to (retaliate) or not. We're just showing that we're serious."

But a source close to negotiations suggested Ottawa will take action if the U.S. doesn't back off.

"At the end of the day, we're going to protect our industry," said the source.

Bush is coming to Ottawa on Tuesday as part of a second-term effort to mend international relations in the wake of the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

Martin has said he will raise key trade irritants such as softwood lumber and mad cow, but that the big problem lies in the U.S. Congress.

Canadian lumber exports to the U.S., worth about $10 billion annually, have been subject to heavy duties since May 2002.

The U.S. maintains Canadian producers have an unfair advantage over their American counterparts through lower stumpage fees - the fee to cut wood on Crown land.

Canadian producers have paid more than $3 billion US in cash deposits - mostly held in trust - and the Americans want to give that money to U.S. firms.

It will be interesting to see how this one unwinds. Bushco likes to think that we are the sole economic superpower in the world, they have very short attention spans on this score, but the world has become a very interdependent place. As we are a begger on the world stage right now, with skyrocketing trade deficits, you'd expect W to be a bit charry of the way we treat our northern trade partner.

Stockholm Syndrome

I caught this a couple of days ago at Tomdispatch, and provide the link here as a service to readers. Michael Massig has been one of the most searching critics of the press in the coverage of the war and the election campaign. This essay is being combined with some of his earlier pieces at The New York Review of Books into a small paperback, which I intend to pick up at lunch break today (I'd much rather spend my lunch break at Borders than Cosi). The essay is here. An excerpt:

The gingerly approach to civilian casualties in the U.S. press is part of a much larger hole in the coverage, one concerning the day-to-day nature of the U.S. occupation. Most of the soldiers in Iraq are young men who can't speak Arabic and who have rarely traveled outside the United States, and they have suddenly been set down in a hostile environment in which they face constant attack. They are equipped with powerful weapons and have authority over a dark-skinned people with alien customs. The result is constant friction, often leading to chronic abuses that, while not as glaring as those associated with Abu Ghraib, are no less corrosive in their effect on local sentiment.

One reason, he suggests, is that embedded journalists who write negatively about the US military find themselves "blacklisted." It happened to Rosen: a series of stories he wrote for Asia Times about his experience while embedded elicited an angry letter from the commander and the public affairs officer of the unit he accompanied, and he has not been allowed to become embedded since. Other correspondents told me of similar experiences.

Find the time to read the whole thing. What the DoD is doing is a well-thought-out policy which completely co-opts journalists, and they are as successful as the White House has been at doing it. Massig's essay is the first sign that they are finally noticing what is being done to them on a systematic basis.

Something Different

If you are going to be a guest rather than a cook tomorrow, here are some interesting choices of things to bring. My relations don't drink, so I have a different set of hors d'oeuvres for my roadkit to take, but these are intriguing suggestions:

Wines worth inviting
The best way to score points as a guest is to bring something delicious for before or after dinner.

By Jordan Mackay, Special to The Times

Serve with pie

The perfect closure to Thanksgiving dinner is something autumnal, burnished and nutty. For this, two choices stand above the rest: tawny Port and Madeira. These amber-hued wines are often overlooked in the sweet wine category, edged out by the glitz of vintage Port or the flamboyance of Sauternes or ice wines, but they're the perfect complement to pumpkin or pecan pie (especially if the whipped cream is spiked with Cognac or rum).

Tawny Port comes from the same grapes and vineyards that vintage Port does, but it's aged in wooden barrels rather than bottles. Oxidation results, and that's why the wine takes on its amber color and flavors of caramel, hazelnuts and dried fruit, as opposed to the red fruit, mineral and spice characteristics of a bottle-aged Port.

Nor do you need to spend an arm and a leg.

Dow's makes a profound tawny. The 10-year-old is a beaut; it retails for around $30. For $15 more, you can get the 20-year-old, which has the same profile as the younger wine, but with deeper flavors. This is the one to have with pecan pie.

Graham's 10- and 20-year-olds are equally well made, but a touch sweeter than Dow's. Sandeman's basic tawny is on average about four years old, but provides remarkable flavor and complexity for its $12 price tag. Taylor Fladgate, so renowned for its vintage ports, also makes gorgeous tawnies. The 10-year-old is clean and surprisingly refreshing and would even pair nicely with salty cheeses. The 20-year-old is richer and denser, with almond, hazelnut and caramel flavors and a spectacularly long finish. Warre's makes a sleek, elegant tawny called Otima, which has lovely hazelnut and almond flavors as well as a hint of orange peel. These wines are best served slightly chilled.

Madeira has largely been forgotten, except as a cheap cooking wine. However, true Madeira is a gorgeous wine that can resemble tawny Port — the amber color, the caramel taste — though it's made from different grapes on the subtropical island of Madeira, 375 miles west of Morocco.

There are a number of styles; the one called Malmsey is the most appropriate with dessert. The Broadbent 10-year-old Malmsey reliably delivers great richness as well as classic flavors of chocolate and caramel. Blandy's 5-year-old Alvada Madeira is a rare blend of two classic Madeira grapes (Bual and Malmsey, usually kept separate) and, with its razor-like acidity and nutty character, serves as a great introduction to the genre at a fantastic price of $16 for a half bottle (the stuff is so rich that you only need a small amount).

Of course, everyone remembers beginnings and endings even more than middles. So the ultimate advantage in bearing such gifts is that they'll be remembered — and so will you, when the invitations go 'round next year.

Thanksgiving dinner is not a time when I like to introduce innovations, like pears and cheese with port for dessert, for example, so the notion that these wines go nicely with the traditional pies sits well with me.

However, this also seems like a nice excuse to set up an evening's tasting of madeiras, with nuts and cheeses as palate cleansers between flights, for the holiday season. What a lovely way to break the cycle of the normal round of holiday parties.

More Ammunition for the Staatspolizei

Did you know that a Federal judge in Los Angeles has decided that keystroke logging does not constitute wiretapping? The story broke Friday on SecurityFocus.

Judge dismisses keylogger case

By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Nov 19 2004 6:40PM

A federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed charges against a California man who used a keystroke logger to spy on his employer, ruling that use of such a device does not violate federal wiretap law.

Larry Ropp, a former claims adjuster for a U.S. insurance company, was caught last year using a "KEYKatcher" brand surveillance device on a secretary's computer while secretly helping consumer attorneys gather information against his employer, Bristol West Insurance Group. The KEYKatcher attaches inline with a keyboard connector, and stores every keystroke in an internal memory for later retrieval.

Last March a grand jury in Los Angeles indicted Ropp, in what prosecutors trumpeted as the first federal criminal prosecution for the use of a hardware keystroke logger. The indictment charged a violation of the federal wiretap statute, which makes it illegal to covertly intercept electronic communications transmitted "over a system that affects interstate or foreign commerce."

Prosecutors maintained that the tapped PC was covered by the statute because it was connected to Bristol West's national computer network, and the secretary had composed electronic mail messages on it.

But district court judge Gary Feess disagreed, and last month granted a defense motion to dismiss the indictment. Feess ruled that the interception of keystrokes between the keyboard and the computer's CPU did not meet the "interstate or foreign commerce" clause in the federal Wiretap Act, even if some of those keystrokes were banging out e-mail. "[T]his court finds it difficult to conclude that the acquisition of internal computer signals that constitute part of the process of preparing a message for transmission would violate the Act."

"The network connection is irrelevant to the transmissions, which could have been made on a stand-alone computer that had no link at all to the internet or any other external network," Feess wrote. "Thus, although defendant engaged in a gross invasion of privacy ... his conduct did not violate the Wiretap Act. While this may be unfortunate, only Congress can cover bases untouched."

The court based its decision in part on a controversial ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year that threw out wiretapping charges against Branford Councilman, a former vice president of an online bookseller who provided customers with free e-mail accounts, then set up a system that made covert copies of some messages for his later perusal. Feess found that here, as in the Councilman case, the e-mail was not intercepted as it traveled over the network.

Electronic privacy groups have joined with government prosecutors to try and overturn the Councilman ruling, which is now under review by a larger panel of judges.

The court also cited a 2001 case in which a federal judge in Newark, New Jersey ruled that the FBI did not violate the Wiretap Act when it installed a covert keylogger on the computer of organized crime suspect Nicodemo Scarfo. In that case the FBI assured the court that that its keylogger had been configured to stop recording keystrokes when Scarfo connected to the Internet.

In an interview with SecurityFocus following his indictment, Ropp admitted to using the keylogger, which he said he'd purchased off the Internet. But he defended his office skullduggery as a necessary evil to expose improper anti-consumer practices at the company, which had previously been sanctioned for illegally canceling some customers' automobile insurance policies. "The FBI themselves use keyloggers quite a bit," Ropp said. "Here, I'm a whistleblower, and I'm getting the shaft."

Prosecutors filed a motion last week asking the court to reconsider the Ropp ruling. Ropp's attorney, federal public defender Firdaus Dordi, said he couldn't comment on the decision until the judge rules on that motion.

I hope the implications of this decision are lost on none of you. If it is within the bounds of law for a private citizen to use a keystroke logger to perform espionage on his employer, without anything even vaguely resembling a warrant issued previously, how much more lawful is it for the FBI to do the same to you?

Food for thought, not so?

Dragon Lady

Fear of Condi
Apprehensions Exceed Hopes on 'War Lady'

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 23, 2004; 11:45 AM

US war lady appointed secretary of state," declared the Iranian newspaper Etemaad last week, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

London's Daily Telegraph reported Sunday that Rice got her promotion after Powell told "President Bush that he wanted greater power to confront Israel over the stalled Middle East peace process."

If it didn't have such serious repercussions for foreign policy, I would find all of this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth amusing. The foreign press seems to think she is somehow competent, rather than simply a mirror into which Bush looks and sees himself.

Sorry for the light posting today--lots of nit-picky loose ends to get cleaned up at work before the holiday, and I needed to stay out of pogge's way while he was installing the anti-spam software and cleaning out the infestation. More later when I get home tonight.

Gratefulness

Bumpers, as you can see from the comments in a thread below, pogge is in the process of protecting us from another bout of ugliness and cleaning up the mess the last attackers left.

Some of you have written me email to tell me that you like the kind of news and commentary that constitutes this weblog. Of course, I do, too, but what's real special to me is the relationships which have developed here. I said at the beginning of the week that I'll be taking time now and again to comment on gratefulness coming up to the US Thanksgiving Day. Today, we all need to be grateful to pogge, who is doing for us what I simply don't have enough technical skills to do, and doing it as a favor. Friends like this are rare and treasured. If you have time, go over to his place and say thanks, or add your thanks on this thread.

Not Randian At All

When Dionne is at his best, he makes trenchant arguments succinctly, as in today's Post Op-Ed.

Talking Sense On Court Choices

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004; Page A29

Conservative politicians, including President Bush, say that they oppose judges who "legislate from the bench" and that they hope to fill the judiciary with "strict constructionists." That sounds good, because we want democratically elected politicians, not judges, making the crucial decisions. Yet, at this moment in our history, it is conservative judges who want to restrict the people's right to govern themselves.

That may sound sweeping, but the current trend among conservatives is to read the Constitution as sharply limiting the ability of Congress and the states to make laws protecting the environment, guaranteeing the rights of the disabled and regulating commerce in the public interest.

This new conservatism is actually a very old conservatism. It marks a return to the time before the mid-1930s when judges struck down all sorts of decent laws -- for example, regulating the number of hours people had to work without overtime pay -- reasoning that such statutes violated contract and property rights. Such rulings denied legislators the ability to resolve social problems and make our society more just. The pre-New Deal judiciary that many conservatives are now trying to restore was the truly "imperial judiciary."

The new conservative judicial activism is a greater threat to our democracy than the prospect of some future court striking down the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. If Roe is lost (and I doubt it will be), states will still be free to pass liberal abortion laws. But if extreme conservative judges limit the authority of Congress and state legislatures to pass environmental, civil rights, labor and consumer laws, our democracy will be less robust, less effective and less just.

Breyer's worries about the new trends are rooted in his criticisms of the courts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He argues that they "underemphasized the constitutional importance of participation by black citizens in our representative democracy and overemphasized the importance of constitutional protections of property."

To boil it down even further, just as the Bush tax philosphy is to privilege investment income over earned income, the judicial philosphy is to privilege property over individual rights, to the benefit of property holders, and to privilege the corporation over the human. The expansion of corporate rights is not a zero sum game against the individual, but it severely limits the individual's ability to act against the corporation. This is an area of rights which has been exploding over the last couple of decades. As Sean-Paul Kelly says, "if you aren't outraged, you're not paying attention.

Site Work

You might notice a bit of weirdness here over the next day or so. Our friend pogge will be adding some anti-spam software. The experience of the last couple of days has been awful, so the big guns are being brought in.

Pill Pushing

Medical Journal Calls for a New Drug Watchdog
By DENISE GRADY

Published: November 23, 2004

The United States needs a better system to detect harmful effects of drugs already on the market, and it should be independent of the Food and Drug Administration and the drug industry, medical researchers and journal editors said yesterday.

Arguing that it was unreasonable to expect the same agency that approves drugs to "also be committed to actively seek evidence to prove itself wrong," the editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association recommended that the nation consider establishing an "independent drug safety board" to track the safety of drugs and medical devices after they were approved and in widespread use.

The idea has been proposed several times, usually after a spectacular drug imbroglio like the recent withdrawal of the popular arthritis drug and painkiller Vioxx after it was linked to heart attacks. But the earlier proposals went nowhere.

This time around, as in the past, the industry and the drug agency reacted by challenging the need for a new safety board.

"It is not at all clear that there is need for change," Jeff Trewhitt, a spokesman for PhRMA, the trade group for drug makers, said.

Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs at the F.D.A., said a safety board was not necessary because "we consider our office of drug safety independent of the office of new drugs."

But both also left open the possibility of change in the future, depending on the findings of a study to be conducted by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the Congressionally chartered National Academy of Sciences, which conducts scientific reviews for the government.

An act of Congress would most likely be needed to establish an independent board to evaluate the safety of drugs after they reach the market. The recommendation for a new safety board appeared in an editorial and in one of several articles that were scheduled for the Dec. 1 issue of the journal but were published online yesterday at www.jama.com.

The articles were released early because of their relevance to recent events: the Vioxx withdrawal and the addition of a strong warning to antidepressants because of evidence that they may raise the risk of suicidal thinking or suicide attempts in teenagers.

Those actions led to Congressional hearings last week and complaints that the drug agency was not moving quickly enough to get dangerous drugs off the market or to warn consumers about risks that emerged after drugs were approved.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who led the hearings, favors an even stronger separation between the F.D.A.'s offices of new drugs and drug safety, a spokeswoman said yesterday. Mr. Grassley could not be reached for comment on the proposal for a new safety board.

The nation's current system for tracking drug side effects, called Medwatch, is rife with inadequacies, the editors of the journal wrote. The major problem, they said, is that drug makers are the ones who collect and evaluate most of the information on side effects from their own products and then report it to the F.D.A.

The companies "may be tempted to conceal" unfavorable data, the editors wrote, and they and the drug agency may be too slow to order studies to follow up hints of trouble.

Another flaw the editors cited is the system's reliance on voluntary reports from doctors, which means that most adverse effects probably go unreported. In addition, they said, most of the reports are of poor quality and cannot be used to determine how common side effects are or whether particular problems resulted from medicines or from the illnesses they were meant to treat.

The Vioxx incident caught everyone's attention, and that's good. Yes, it is time to figure out how this slid past the FDA and to get Pharma-funded research out of the FDA's shop.

That having been said, to compare Vioxx with the anti-depressant studies is to start comparing apples and vegetables. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, associated with the clinical practice of psychiatry, knows that depressed people are at higher risk of suicide and adolescents are at the highest risk. It has been known for decades that treating depression can itself be a risk of suicide: once the depressed person starts feeling a little more energetic, they can act out the suicidal thoughts they've been having for a while, but were too enervated to do anything about. This is not new news, and why the press decided to treat it as such is simply annoying. The worst risk of all is leaving depression untreated. None of this is new news.

The challenge to the press and to the culture is to learn to treat psychiatric disorders with the same level of dispassion that it treats physical disease, and we sure as hell aren't there yet. Demonizing psychiatric drugs sure as hell doesn't help.

If big Pharma weren't pushing drugs directly at uninformed consumers on the TV, all of this would be less of a problem.

Read the Bill of Rights While You Still Can

Americans Still Concerned About Bush Agenda, Poll Shows
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

Published: November 22, 2004

After a brutally fought election campaign, Americans are optimistic about the next four years under President Bush, but they have reservations about central elements of the second-term agenda that Mr. Bush presented in defeating Senator John Kerry, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

At a time when the White House has portrayed Mr. Bush's 3.5-million-vote victory as a mandate, the poll found that Americans are at best ambivalent about Mr. Bush's plans to reshape Social Security, rewrite the tax code, cut taxes and appoint conservative judges to the bench. There is continuing disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, with a plurality now saying it was a mistake to invade Baghdad the first place.

While Democrats, not surprisingly, were the staunchest opponents of many elements of Mr. Bush's second-term agenda, the concerns extended across party lines in some cases. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents - including 51 percent of Republicans - said it was more important to reduce federal budget deficits than to cut taxes, a central element of Mr. Bush's economic agenda.

The latest Times/CBS News poll also found pervasive concern about what Americans view as the corrosive effect of Hollywood and popular culture on the nation's values and moral standards. Seventy percent said they were very or somewhat concerned that television, movies and popular music are lowering moral standards in this country.

While this sentiment was voiced by supporters of President Bush and Mr. Kerry, it appears that the concern about a decline in values is becoming another point of polarization in American politics. Mr. Bush's supporters were more likely to cite it than Mr. Kerry's voters, and it was an issue that had particular resonance in the South and among weekly churchgoers, rural voters and women.

In addition, 70 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters said they were more worried about candidates who "are too close to religion and religious leaders" than political leaders who "don't pay enough attention" to religion, after a campaign in which Mr. Bush repeatedly spoke of God and his faith. By contrast, 52 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters said they were more worried about public officials who "don't pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders."

Still, in a telling contrast with the 2000 election, 82 percent of respondents said that Mr. Bush legitimately won on Nov. 2. Just before Election Day, 50 percent of respondents said they considered Mr. Bush's defeat of Al Gore in 2000 a legitimate victory.

And even after this tense and vituperative campaign, 56 percent said they were generally optimistic about the next four years under Mr. Bush. The president's job approval rating has now inched up to 51 percent, the highest it has been since March.

After a campaign that was "Seinfeld" and not about anything, voters are waking up to discover four more years. But they're "optimistic." Hmmm. Massive denial going on.

It would be nice if they'd wake up before all of their civil liberties are gone.

Jus' sayin'.

Spiritual Blogaround

Bumpers, one of my posts at The Village Gate just got picked up by Mick Arran's new effort, The Blog Tower. M*ick has a justified reputation as one of the blogosphere's movers, shakers and innovators, and I'm humbled that he noticed my little collection of pixels.

As an editor, Nick has a rare eye. I'm not saying this to boost myself, but because I read something on his new site that moved me so much I was shaking with sobs. As you probably know if you've been following Bump for a while, I've either heard or been through damn near everything and getting me to tears isn't something easily accomplished. This was beyond tears, it was wild, wracking sobs.

The author is ginmar, who has become justifiably famous in the blogosphere for her LiveJournal of a woman soldier serving in Iraq.

Kevin Hayden, my host at the other place I write, has some suggestions about things you can do for our troops, serving far from home at the holidays. Ya know, they didn't send themselves over there.

One of the things they teach you in Blogs 101 (hint: there is no such thing, yet) is don't send people off the site, keep 'em around to comment. Just go follow the link to ginmar's post. And then figure out what you want to do about it.

The theme this week is gratefulness, the heart of healthy living. If you want to take it on as a full contact sport, you can start by reading Gratefulness: The Heart of Prayer by Br. David Steindl-Rast, one of the singular best little books on spirituality I've ever read. I don't keep this one near the toilet, I keep it near the tub.

Around here, hot baths are time for thinking and stuff, showers are for getting to work. Hot baths are therapeutic, showers are medicinal, there is a difference.

*original mis-spelling repaired.

Run on Time

Amtrak Infrastructure on Brink, DOT Warns
Funding Must Address Critical Needs, IG Says

By Michelle Garcia
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, November 22, 2004; Page A17

The national passenger rail service risks a "major point of failure" if infrastructure needs remain unaddressed, the U.S. Department of Transportation warned in a scathing report made public today.

Infrastructure throughout Amtrak's rail system has reached "critical levels," the report concluded, and "no one knows when such a failure will occur."
....
Mead urged Amtrak to consider the "unsustainably large operating losses and poor on-time performance" as a "clarion call" for immediate attention.

The report was released shortly after Congress finished work on a major catch-all appropriations bill that included $1.22 billion for Amtrak for fiscal 2005. The federal government provided slightly more than that for fiscal 2004.

The IG's report noted Amtrak's success in increasing ridership and addressing costs. But for the past two years, Amtrak has bided time, postponing improvements along the tracks with the expectation of increased revenue and funding. But time has run out, according to the report, and Amtrak must maximize its current revenue.

The report also calls on Congress to provide Amtrak with clear direction in crafting a strategy that might include reducing service, investing in heavily traveled routes or increasing overall funding. He proposed that federal funding be tied to Amtrak's restructuring of its operations. Amtrak relies on a combination of passenger fees and state and federal subsidies to finance operating costs.

Without an increase in funding, Amtrak will continue to postpone capital projects to stay within its budget, Amtrak President David Gunn said in a written response to the IG's report.

If the budget remains stable, "we will be able to continue to operate the current system, but we have to make cuts in the capital program," Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black said.

Cutting service will not produce the payoff to fund capital projects, he said, "because of shutdown costs, labor protection and continuing overhead." Service cuts also would jeopardize overall congressional support of Amtrak, he said, because lawmakers would object to service being discontinued in their regions.

There is a legitimate debate to be had over whether or not we want to have government subsidized train service, but the system now is simply unsafe. For me as a Northeast corridor rider, having an affordable option to navigate around the region's heavy traffic is a god-send, and I use it for travel in preference to driving.

Calling PI/Pro Bono Legal Eagles

I have an interesting research project. If you are a public interest lawyer, law student or other law professional and have a blog, or if you are a reader of such blogs and can identify them for me, shoot me an email at melaniemattson[at]yahoo[dot]com with the URL. This is early days of a project which may come to fruition after the first of the year, so, for those of you staring final exams in the face, not to worry, I'm not going to ask for anything than the opportunity to read your blog.

Thanks for your help.

Smack

New figures show Afghanistan's opium output is rising fast

A DELUGE of sticky brown resin threatens to submerge the new Afghan state. According to figures released on November 18th by the UN's counter-narcotics agency (UNODC), Afghanistan has seen a huge rise in opium production for the third year running. UNODC puts the export value of this year's crop at $2.8 billion—equal to 60% of last year's GDP.

It could be worse. This year, 131,000 hectares of Afghanistan was sown with opium seed, a 64% increase on last year's figure. Yet the harvest, 4,200 tonnes of opium resin, was up only 17%. Western donors might like to put this down to their efforts to destroy the crop; they would be wrong. UNODC says eradication had little effect on yield. Only bad weather and crop disease prevented Afghanistan smashing its record of 4,600 tonnes of opium, produced under the Taliban in 1999. Nonetheless, over 95% of the heroin reaching Europe derives from Afghanistan.

What can be done? First, study the failure of existing efforts. In 2000, the Taliban banned opium production, thereby triggering a rise in the market price of the drug, and increasing the value of their copious stockpiles. The ban was rigorously enforced by savage beatings. The Taliban were then bombed from power, and Britain took charge of counter-narcotics in the new Afghanistan. Its policies have been more palatable, but less successful. To encourage opium farmers to remain abstinent, a British diplomat designed a poster featuring a red opium poppy. Alas, when the poster returned from the printers, the red poppy had become a pink tulip. The posters went out anyway.

Spending around $150m a year, Britain has formed an array of counter-narcotics departments and law enforcement agencies, which began functioning only this year. Money has also been spent on persuading poppy farmers to grow alternative crops, like fruit trees or saffron. The UN development agency meanwhile advocated floriculture—hoping to turn Afghanistan into a bed of roses. But, in the absence of almost any law enforcement, such schemes were hopeless. Even if Afghans could be persuaded to grow saffron, the country has few roads to give them access to markets. In fact, opium cultivation has no financial equivalent. Last year, each hectare under cultivation yielded 45 kilos of opium, which earned farmers $283 a kilo. This year, the price was $92—still not bad, when GDP per head is around $200.

Neither Britain nor the UN can curb the opium explosion. There is only one power in Afghanistan able to enforce the law: America, which has around 18,000 troops in the country, hunting the Taliban. This year, having been persuaded that the Taliban were using opium cash to buy arms, America waded in. At its behest, the government ordered provincial governors to destroy 25% of the poppy crop in their areas. A few did so, including the governor of southern Helmand. Yet his province still grew more opium than any other. In Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, shiny tractors and SUVs mingle with camels and donkey-carts. The marble mansions of drug-dealers have mushroomed among the mud-brick houses. Helmand is ideal drug country: poor, lawless and close to the borders with Pakistan and Iran.

This seems likea prudent moment to remind everyone that the Soviet had well over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at the peak of their occupancy, and they still lost. Usama bin Laden is at large and Rummy isn't really taking this whole Afghan thing very seriously.

Bloggers Make News, Newsers Make Blogs

Kevin Sites, the NBC newser who shot the video of a Marine shooting a wounded "insurgent," tells his own story on his blog. I bookmarked him a while back. He doesn't update often, but he nearly always includes photos.

Chris Allbritton, working for Time, is in Beirut right now, and posts a powerful appreciation of the life and times of Yasser Arafat and his complicated relationship with the Palestinian people.

Pounding the Sand

Iraq Force Is Seen As Likely To Grow
U.S. Plans Require Boost, Officers Say

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 22, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Nov. 21 -- Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq say it is increasingly likely they will need a further increase in combat forces to put down remaining areas of resistance in the country.

Convinced that the recent battle for Fallujah has significantly weakened insurgent ranks, commanders here have devised plans to press the offensive into neighborhoods where rebels have either taken refuge after fleeing Fallujah or were already deeply entrenched.

But the forces available for these intensified operations have become limited by the demands of securing Fallujah and overseeing the massive reconstruction effort there -- demands that senior U.S. military officers say are likely to tie up a substantial number of Marines and Army troops for weeks.

"What's important is to keep the pressure on these guys now that we've taken Fallujah from them," a high-ranking U.S. military commander said, speaking on condition he not be named because of the sensitivity of the deliberations on adding more troops. "We're in the pursuit phase. We have to stay after these guys so they don't get their feet set."

The possibility that additional troops would be required to battle the insurgency in this critical period preceding the Iraqi elections, scheduled for Jan. 30, has been signaled for weeks. The Pentagon took an initial step in this direction last month, ordering about 6,500 soldiers in Iraq to extend their tours by up to two months.

With some fresh U.S. forces already arriving in Iraq as part of a long-scheduled rotation, and two newly trained Iraqi brigades due to start operating next month, U.S. military leaders had hoped to avoid further increases.

But over the past week, a closer assessment of the forces needed for the Fallujah recovery effort and future offensive operations revealed a gap in desired troop strength, at least over the next two or three months, according to several officers familiar with the issue.

The officers said the exact number of extra troops needed is still being reviewed but estimated it at the equivalent of several battalions, or about 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq fell to nearly 100,000 last spring before rising to 138,000, where it has stayed since the summer.

To boost the current level, military commanders have considered extending the stay of more troops due to rotate out shortly, or accelerating the deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is scheduled to start in January. But a third option -- drawing all or part of a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division on emergency standby in the United States -- has emerged as increasingly likely.

Hinting at this possibility at a Pentagon news conference on Friday, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, recalled that airborne forces were deployed to Afghanistan on a short-term basis to bolster military operations. Lance noted, however, that the Afghan case was "a little bit different" because "we had a very small number of forces to begin with" there.

If airborne units were rushed to Iraq, commanders here said, they likely would not be used in the offensive actions being planned, given their lack of heavy armor and their unfamiliarity with the targeted neighborhoods. Rather, their purpose would be to take over policing and other functions in Baghdad's International Zone, where American and top Iraqi government officials work. That would free locally seasoned units of the 1st Cavalry Division for such actions.

Much of the division's 2nd Brigade, which had been patrolling Baghdad, was shifted to Fallujah for the battle there earlier this month and remains unavailable for action elsewhere. This situation is the cause of much of the pressure for reinforcements.

Strange that the Pentagon is even willing to talk about this. The number of troops is not significant in a tactical or strategic sense. It would take at least another 150,000 troops to pacify the country, and we don't have a tenth of that available.

UPDATE: I missed this yesterday. John McCain is heading in the direction of the truth:

Up to 50,000 more US troops needed in Iraq: Senator McCain

Sun Nov 21, 5:06 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Tens of thousands more US troops will be needed in Iraq (news - web sites), if Washington is to subdue the stubborn rebel insurgency there, a top US lawmaker said.

Arizona senator John McCain told NBC television that as many as 50,000 more US soldiers will have to be sent to Iraq.

"We still need more troops. We still need more people there," US Senator John McCain told NBC television Sunday.

When asked how many additional forces would have to be deployed, the maverick Republican senator answered "I would say at least 40,000 or 50,000 more," adding that it will likely also be necessary to increase the size of the army and the marine corps.

"I believe those reports of those young Marines that said, 'Look unless we keep a significant presence here, (the insurgents) are going to filter back in'," McCain said, but acknowledging that finding additional manpower "is an enormous strain."

He made his comments as US and Iraqi troops continued to hunt down insurgents in Baghdad and other parts of the country following a massive operation on the Sunni Muslim stronghold of Fallujah where 1,450 suspects have been rounded up.

The Wall Cracks

Pentagon Called Major Factor in Defeat of Intelligence Bill
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune

Some legislators said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had made clear his opposition to the proposed overhaul, which would have stripped the Pentagon of some budgetary control over its vast intelligence operations. A Defense Department spokesman denied any such Pentagon involvement.

The Senate intelligence committee chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, was asked why the Republican-controlled House had been unable to pass a measure sought by President Bush and endorsed by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and many relatives of victims of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Some of it is turf, quite frankly," Mr. Roberts said on CNN, "some of it is from the Pentagon."

Mr. Roberts said he held little hope that Congress, in a brief session starting Dec. 6, could salvage efforts to address what he called systemic intelligence weaknesses, exposed dramatically by the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the Iraq war.

The landmark bill, which would have created the post of national intelligence director to oversee American spy agencies, with authority over the bulk of their combined budgets, was blocked Saturday after what lawmakers said was practically a rebellion by some conservative House Republicans.

Asked about prospects for passage this year, Mr. Roberts quipped grimly that they were "between slim and none, and Slim just left town." He said on "Fox News Sunday," "Some of us who have been working for reform perhaps underestimated the strong undertow of opposition." A Senate version of the bill had passed with overwhelming support.

Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said on Fox that some House members "never wanted a bill, they never will want a bill."

Another Democrat, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, told CNN that the bill's failure represented a "real test" for Mr. Bush. "The president's going to have to stand up, both to his own Defense Department and to the hard right," Mr. Schumer said.

And Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" that passage was still possible next month, but that it would "take significant involvement by the president and the vice president."

The turn of events was seen as a surprising embarrassment to the president, who as late as Friday night called on rebellious House Republicans to agree on a bill.

Vice President Dick Cheney, for his part, had personally called the man considered the leader of the House resistance, Representative Duncan Hunter, to urge passage of the compromise legislation. Mr. Hunter is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Democrats, and some Republicans, said the Pentagon was working to block legislation it saw as threatening its budgetary control over intelligence-development, and thus its ability to generate the intelligence needed in war-fighting.

The first crack in the Bush United Front. Rummy's not being a Team Player.

UPDATE: The New York Times has a better version of the story.

Republican Defiance on Intelligence Bill Is Surprising. Or Is It?

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

"I don't think it was only House Republicans," Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who heads the Intelligence Committee, told Fox News on Sunday. Mr. Roberts added: "There's been a lot of opposition to this from the first. Some of it is turf, you know, quite frankly. Some of it is from the Pentagon. Some of it, quite frankly, is from the White House, despite what the president has said."

Mr. Bush, speaking at a news conference in Chile, said he was disappointed that the bill did not pass, adding, "When I get home, I look forward to getting it done.''

Members of both parties, and independent analysts, said Sunday that they had no doubt Congress would have passed the measure had President Bush flexed his muscle, as he did last year for Medicare prescription drug legislation that passed by a narrow margin over conservatives' objections. The intelligence bill had bipartisan support in the Senate.

In the House, the leadership probably could have cobbled together a coalition of Democrats and Republicans to muster the 218 votes necessary for passage.

"I am convinced that had the speaker brought the bill to the floor, it would have passed," Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and chief author of the measure, said in an interview on Sunday. "That's what's so frustrating. Here we have a bill that's been endorsed by the White House, by the 9/11 commission, by the 9/11 family groups, by the speaker of the House, and we can't get a vote."

But Mr. Hastert did not want to split his caucus and did not want the bill to pass with less than ''a majority of the majority," said his spokesman, John Feehery. "What good is it to pass something," Mr. Feehery said, "where most of our members don't like it?"

Posted by Melanie at 12:46 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Into the Night

I'm calling it a night on Bump, I've still got laundry to do, and so forth.

This week will offer some reflections on gratefulness as we prepare to give thanks and enter the Advent, Hannukah and Diwali seasons, a time to celebrate light in the dark times. Since we are in a dark time, these reflections seem due.

Sleep well. May flights of angels speed you to your rest.

Elsewhere

I've got a new post up at The Village Gate this evening, and it is something of a surprise. It isn't what I expected to write about at all.

In the realm of the spirit, the only constant is surprise.

Old Europe

I'm listening to a fascinating panel discussion by the three co-authors of Beyond Paradise and Power, American foreign policy in the imperial era. Tod Lindborg, Walter Russell Means and Ivo Daalder are talking about the future of Europe and critiquing the neocons. I just found an interview with Means in Friday's CSM:

Q&A;: Neocons' niche in American history
The Monitor asked a leading US foreign policy expert, Walter Russell Mead, to place neoconservative beliefs in historical context.

Which leaders in US history would be neocons today?

It's possible that Teddy Roosevelt would be a neocon. I think it's almost certain he would have supported the war in Iraq. And he wouldn't have cared about the lack of a UN resolution. I'm not sure who else would be a neocon in foreign policy. In some ways [neocons] are very original.

Is there a particular point in the history of US foreign policy that reminds you of today's foreign policy environment?

In some ways, it reminds me of the period around 1946-47 when we were trying to figure out what the cold war was going to mean. The country realizes we have a challenge on our hands, but we're not quite yet sure how we're going to meet it ultimately.

There's also the period in the early part of the 20th century when it was clear that the British empire was not going to be as strong and the United States was growing. And you had people like Teddy Roosevelt and others beginning to think ... "What if America is going to become an imperial nation? What does that look like?"

What makes neocons unique throughout the history of US foreign policy?

When we think of Wilsonianism now, we tend to think of secular, humanist ideas - building a world government - sort of a Europeanist foreign policy. If you went back a hundred years or so, Wilsonianism was carried out by people like missionaries who thought that the way to make America safe was to make the rest of the world believe the way we do and act the way we do. But they weren't as concerned about the institutional aspect.

The neocons of today have sort of revived this older Wilsonian tradition. They are no longer concerned, say, about the United Nations, which is what we think Wilsonians are mostly thinking about ... or the World Court. In fact, they think that stuff gets in the way to some degree. But they are more concerned about basic American values and spreading those.

So it's a different Wilsonianism from what we've all grown up thinking about. It's non-institutional and it's values-based. To some degree, it's a conservative Christian value base. Even though many conservatives are Jews, the sort of basic values that they are promoting are very much the sort of Protestant, Christian values that were dominant in 19th-century America.

Do you think neoconservatives have had their "moment in the sun" with their successful push for a preemptive war against Iraq? Do you think that the broad support they might enjoy now will wane?

I think they're still in business. The weak spot, obviously, for them, is that ... if we are taking 20 casualties a month in Iraq a year from now, there may not be a lot of people thanking them for this. But, on the other hand, we were in the [Vietnam War] for years before people really turned against it. And even then, I think ... other than elite opinion ... the thing that bothered most ordinary Americans wasn't that we were fighting or that our strategy was too hawkish, but they couldn't see that we had a strategy for victory ... that it looked like it was going to be a deadlock forever.

It may well be that if the American people remain convinced that the war in Iraq is necessary for national security ... and even if the war goes on for a long time ... if they feel that we have a strategy that will win and that is necessary, people may support it for a very long time. It's hard to say. If it goes well, even after a while, the neoconservatives will be strengthened.

What would be some other factors that would put the neoconservatives out of business, or enhance their standing even more?

I think failure is always bad.... If the public judgment is, "We took their advice and we've ended up in a hell hole," then we won't be asking [neocons] for advice for a while. I think it's the public judgment on the success of the policies that they've proposed.

The thesis of the book is that Europe is in decline. I disagree: the economic output of the EU now rivals the US's. Those governments aren't racking up huge deficits. They are developing and adopting new technology faster than we are (read The Register if you want to find out how much ahead they are.) Germany is in some financial trouble, primarily because of the union with the east and all that has flowed from that, but the other economies are vibrant, compared with ours.

It's very odd to find myself in such fundamental disagreement with these scholars. Lost in this discussion are the real and non-trivial economic effects of having American products and brands being shunned by consumers in Europe, one of our largest trading partners.

Since we are talking about Europe, it is appropriate that I've just gotten the first contribution to our World Press review. Eclaire has surveyed what is in Le Monde today and sends this:

Looks pretty much like the Sunday LA Times. Iraq, some EU stuff, and editorial about Chirac's trip to London, and reporting on the APEC (Asian Pacific Economic Council) summit in Chile. Buried in the latter's last paragraph was a report not mentioned in the LAT, about on-going demonstrations, against APEC and President Bush. At least 250 people were arrested in Santiago and near Valparaiso. Two people were wounded on the outskirts of Santiago.

These events may have been reported separately in earlier LAT editions.

Also, there was a prominent article on the visit by Colin Powell, Britain's Jack Straw and Russia's Sergei Lavrov to talk with Palestinian and Israeli leaders. I did not see this mentioned in either Saturday's or Sunday's LAT, although I could have missed it.

LeMonde's tone is pretty measured. I'll try checking in on some other French newspapers.

This is a full-service blog.

Intel Failure at the Top

The purge at CIA

By H.D.S. Greenway | November 19, 2004

But that being said, Goss's admonition that CIA's primary duty is to support the administration's policies rather negates and contradicts the notion that CIA should call it as it sees it. There were simply too many drop-in visits by Vice President Cheney to CIA headquarters, just to make sure CIA wasn't missing any Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda connections prior to the Iraq war, to feel sanguine about that. Nine times out of 10 an intelligence failure is really a policy failure.

It is clear now that the administration planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 and took advantage of a national tragedy to push its agenda. It is also clear that intelligence officers saw that their career paths lay in the direction of proving a driven administration right, not wrong, about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Many did try to point out that the evidence simply wasn't there, but they were overruled at the top.

Many of the recent CIA resignations came from clashes between senior CIA officials and the relatively young and inexperienced but ideologically motivated staff that Goss brought with him from Congress. This is reminiscent of the young and ignorant ideologues who were sent to Iraq, not because they knew anything about Iraq but because the were ideologically pure in the pursuit of administration policies.

There is also the haunting echo of outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft complaining that "intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations" were "putting at risk the very security of our nation in time of war." In other words, judges shouldn't question the president's policies either.

And the conventional wisdom concerning Colin Powell's replacement by Condoleezza Rice is that at least now there won't be any back talk and second guessing the president from the State Department. Whatever George Bush wants to hear George Bush will hear.

I am all for a coherent foreign policy, and those who work for the president should carry it out. But the worry is that, flushed with victory, Bush doesn't want to hear dissenting voices from the Powells of this world and doesn't want intelligence to undermine ideology with caution and facts. Bush's second term could be the age of the rubber stamp.

It is also disturbing, and perhaps indicative, that similar purges are not taking place among Pentagon officials whose judgments and decisions were just about as wrong about Iraq as could possibly be. But then, they were on the team.

None of the Sabbath Gasbags are getting the real point of this: by trading in genuine intelligence for party loyalty, we are manifestly less safe.

And all the garbage about intelligence reform is just that: what went wrong prior to 9/11 was the failure of the policy makers, not the intelligence. Remember Richard Clarke? Bushco has been trying to grind his reputation into the ground for telling the truth. Joe Conason explains:

Last March, Frist rose on the Senate floor to demonstrate his fealty to the White House by attacking Richard Clarke in the ugliest and most personal terms. Seeking to discredit the former counter-terrorism chief after his stunning appearance before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Frist essentially accused the former counter-terrorism chief of committing perjury.

His detailed description of those efforts, which explodes Republican attempts to blame Clinton for 9/11 and confirms both his testimony and his book, should be required reading for mythologizers like the Senate majority leader. And when Frist has finished reading the 103 pages, the majority leader ought to be decent enough to apologize publicly for lying about this remarkable public servant.

What WILL We Tell the Children?

Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos
Malnutrition Nearly Double What It Was Before Invasion

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.

After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.

"These figures clearly indicate the downward trend," said Alexander Malyavin, a child health specialist with the UNICEF mission to Iraq.

The surveys suggest the silent human cost being paid across a country convulsed by instability and mismanagement. While attacks by insurgents have grown more violent and more frequent, deteriorating basic services take lives that many Iraqis said they had expected to improve under American stewardship.

Iraq's child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi, a central African nation torn by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than rates in Uganda and Haiti.

"The people are astonished," said Khalil M. Mehdi, who directs the Nutrition Research Institute at the Health Ministry. The institute has been involved with nutrition surveys for more than a decade; the latest one was conducted in April and May but has not been publicly released.

Mehdi and other analysts attributed the increase in malnutrition to dirty water and to unreliable supplies of the electricity needed to make it safe by boiling. In poorer areas, where people rely on kerosene to fuel their stoves, high prices and an economy crippled by unemployment aggravate poor health.

"Things have been worse for me since the war," said Kasim Said, a day laborer who was at Baghdad's main children's hospital to visit his ailing year-old son, Abdullah. The child, lying on a pillow with a Winnie the Pooh washcloth to keep the flies off his head, weighs just 11 pounds.

"During the previous regime, I used to work on the government projects. Now there are no projects," his father said.

When he finds work, he added, he can bring home $10 to $14 a day. If his wife is fortunate enough to find a can of Isomil, the nutritional supplement that doctors recommend, she pays $7 for it.

"But the lady in the next bed said she just paid $10," said Suad Ahmed, who sat cross-legged on a bed in the same ward, trying to console her skeletal 4-month-old granddaughter, Hiba, who suffers from chronic diarrhea.

Iraqi health officials like to surprise visitors by pointing out that the nutrition issue facing young Iraqis a generation ago was obesity. Malnutrition, they say, appeared in the early 1990s with U.N. trade sanctions championed by Washington to punish the government led by President Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait in 1990.

International aid efforts and the U.N. oil-for-food program helped reduce the ruinous impact of sanctions, and the rate of acute malnutrition among the youngest Iraqis gradually dropped from a peak of 11 percent in 1996 to 4 percent in 2002. But the invasion in March 2003 and the widespread looting in its aftermath severely damaged the basic structures of governance in Iraq, and persistent violence across the country slowed the pace of reconstruction almost to a halt.

In its most recent assessment of five sectors of Iraq's reconstruction, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington research group, said health care was worsening at the quickest pace.

"Believe me, we thought a magic thing would happen" with the fall of Hussein and the start of the U.S.-led occupation, said an administrator at Baghdad's Central Teaching Hospital for Pediatrics. "So we're surprised that nothing has been done. And people talk now about how the days of Saddam were very nice," the official said.

The administrator, who would not give his full name for publication, cited security concerns faced by Iraqi doctors, who are widely perceived as rich and well-connected and thus easy targets for thieves, extortionists and the merely envious or vengeful. So many have been assassinated, he said, that the Health Ministry recently mailed out offers to expedite weapon permits for doctors.

It's clear that Bush wants to expand this policy to American children:

More relief for struggling millionaires
If you thought the current Bush tax rate rewarded the wealthy, wait until you get a load of his administration's latest plan.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michelle Goldberg

Nov. 20, 2004 | Liberal policy wonks -- and even some who aren't so liberal -- did a double take when they read the new tax plan floated by the Bush administration in the Washington Post on Thursday. Was the White House really suggesting eliminating incentives for employers to offer their employees health insurance plans? Was it really proposing to shift the country's tax burden even further onto states that didn't vote for Bush, like New York and Massachusetts?

Press says: "If you quit your job and your health insurance ends, COBRA, a federal law, allows you to buy it [temporarily] from the employer at the employer's rates. I have seen people spending $6,000 a year on COBRA, and when they have to go out and get their own policy, it goes from $6,000 to $25,000."

Ownership society, my a**.

Enlistment Track

Via my colleague echidne of the snakes at The American Street:

That budget the Congress passed yesterday? Here is what is missing:

Head Start cuts by the numbers:

The National Head Start survey also found the following:
* More than half of local Head Start programs have been forced to cut staff or program services over the last two years
* 12 percent were forced to cut the number of children served
* 18 percent laid off teachers
* 27 percent laid off other staff
* 40 percent cut back hours or calendar year
* 52 percent cut training.

In fiscal 2005, the following changes are expected:
* 20 percent will cut the number of children served
* 23 percent will lay off teachers
* 50 percent will lay off other staff
* 46 percent will cut back hours or calendar year
* 65 percent will cut training

This is how we pay for tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cutting programs that work and replacing them with wars without end: a useful strategy since 2000.

Working Abroad

I'll be posting today at The American Street, as well as here at our house, and I may have an essay forThe Village Gate before day is done. The latter has been marinating for days and seems like it is ready for the grill.

Reform as Excuse

It's never been clear to me that the intelligence community needs reforming. The 9-11 commission thinks so, but I'm not clear on the "why." If the White House isn't going to pay attention to someone like Richard Clarke, who are they going to pay attention to?

In 2001, it seems to me that there where plentiful signs that something awful was about to happen, and they were simply ignored. The problem with intel doesn't seem to have anything to do with the FBI or the CIA. The problem seems to be with the people who use it.

The ones who shaped it for a war with Iraq, the ones who ignored it before 9-11.

These failures don't seem to have anything to do with the folks at Langley.

Where Are the Grown Ups?

Revised Terror Report Still Wrong, State Department Finds

By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Five months after embarrassed State Department officials admitted to widespread mistakes in the government's influential annual report on global terrorism, internal investigators have found new and unrelated errors -- as well as broader underlying problems that they say essentially have destroyed the credibility of the statistics it is based on.

In a 28-page report, the State Department's Office of Inspector General blamed the problems on sloppy data collection, inexperienced employees, personnel shortages and lax oversight. Investigators also concluded that the procedures used by the State Department, CIA and other agencies to define terrorism and terrorist attacks are so inconsistent that they can't be relied upon.

The department's independent investigative unit concluded, however, that politics played no role in allowing so many mistakes to be published in the original version of the "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report for 2003.

The 2003 report said that terrorist attacks and related deaths had dropped to the lowest levels in three decades, and top Bush administration officials immediately touted it as proof of their success in the global war on terrorism.

But the underlying data actually showed a sharp increase to a 21-year high. The 199-page report, made public on April 29, also omitted any significant terrorist attacks occurring after an early November cut-off date, including bombings in Turkey that killed at least 62 people, and left out some terrorist activity in Chechnya, Iraq and other locations.

Those errors were fixed in a second version of the terrorism report, released on June 22. But six Democratic senators, suggesting the Bush administration was manipulating terror statistics for election-year political gain, asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to find out what had gone wrong, prompting the investigation by the inspector general. A copy of the inspector general's conclusions, marked "sensitive but unclassified", was obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The annual report has been mandated by Congress since 1987 as the government's primary authoritative reference tool on worldwide terrorist activity, trends and groups and the U.S. response to it.

The document is relied on by Congress and U.S. counterterrorism agencies in deciding how to wage the ongoing war on terror, and is translated into at least four languages so the public, academics and foreign governments can use it to assess trends in global terrorism.

The investigators, overseen by the State Department's acting inspector general, Cameron R. Hume, stopped short of calling for a second revision of the widely circulated report. But they concluded that the report, even in its revised form, "cannot be viewed as reliable" because of the questionable statistics on terrorist attacks, casualties and other issues. The report urged better oversight and management of the annual terrorism report card "in order to produce a world-class product."

A State Department spokesman declined to comment publicly on the internal report, but said the department has no plans to review or reissue the 2003 "Patterns" document a second time. The official said the State Department already is moving to overhaul the way it compiles terrorism statistics.

"We think it's best to just move on, and make sure we fix what needs to be fixed," said the official.

I hope that when my six month review comes up, my boss will just "move on, fix what needs to be fixed." Of course, my job is about one little data base in a corner of the world that has much less to do with life and death and terrorism.

File this one under "Accountability, Atlas Shrugged."

Running with the Wolves

It is now very clear to me that the foreign press is going to give us a much better picture of what is going on in the rest of the world, especially Iraq, than we can get domestically in the US. I try to read the English-language foreign press on a daily basis, but I suspect that some of that press may be colored by the fact that all of those nations have treaty and economic relationships with the US which are unique. It's time to branch out into the foreign language press. I'm going to need some help. Here's the deal.

My German is pretty good, so I can put in a review of the German papers once a week. My Dutch is weaker, but serviceable. I'm able to stumble in the Scandavian languages and my vocabulary in the Romance languages is limited to that which is used in opera. I have five words of Russian, two in Pashtun. I can give an Athenian cab driver directions to a restaurant.

Would those of you who have fluency in tongues other than English be willing to contribute a press review--in English--once a week? I could put up an Open Thread-Press Review, and the blog would be in the comments. I know that I'm read in time zones which aren't in the country, and stateside readers aren't necessarily monolinguists. Could you make a little time in your week to take a look at the foreign press and contribute your translation skills?

It will take a little time for this feature to build, but Bush is going to Europe in February and it would be extremely cool to cover it from the local press rather than the US poodles. His policies have huge effects in Latin America, and my Spanish and a couple of bucks will get me a beer.

What day of the week we would do this, what time of day--for you and me--all are up for grabs. Or it might be something that runs a couple of days, as posters chime in from various time zones.

You are, of course, free to do your own reporting on the ground if you are living in one of the countries that Bush is visiting. The rumble I hear here in DC is that the spring is going to be loaded with peace demonstrations, and I hope to cover them live, and will be looking for collaboration with other Bump readers in the area.

I'd also love links to English language editions of the foreign press. I don't have the time to do research like this that I did when I was living in a paycheck-free zone. If you can help me out, it would be a great help to our joint project, this blog. If we get enough links, I'll put up a new category on the blogroll.

Whaddya think? I think we have the chops to take this on. Wanna find out? Respond in comments. Invite your friends.

In the thread on an earlier post, James Emerson suggested that I make time to take time to run with the wolves this weekend. James, I think I just did.

About the porn spam attack earlier today: I'm identifying the resources to cut down on this kind of thing and trying to work out who can best help me implement it. By the end of next week, we should have a couple of layers of protection so we don't have to go through that again. It might be that you'll have to go through a couple more steps to post, if you frequent other blogs that use spam protection you've already seen it. I'm sorry about that, because I know your time is valuable, but I don't think any of us should be put through that again. As yer bloghostess, it felt like an assault on the community. I had to go take a shower after I'd finally gotten all the garbage pushed off the front page. This is our nethome, and shft like that is personal.

This is an open thread for a possible Press Review. You'll get another tomorrow for Thanksgiving plans and recipes. Since Canadian Thanksgiving was at the beginning of the month, you can tell us Yanks what you cooked or where you went.

And I've still got to do laundry....

A River in Egypt

Americans want it all -- now

BY DERRICK Z. JACKSON

Americans are still voting for denial. The SUV forest thickens. The real forest thins. America voted for the asphalt jungle.

That is the moral value that most threatens America. It is consuming itself with consumption. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue, even though President Bush is a stunningly convenient symbol. This is the president who, when faced with telling Americans what their responsibilities were in the days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, urged Americans to fly to Disney World.

Three thousand Americans were killed by terrorists, we were about to send soldiers off to die in Afghanistan and Iraq, and all a president could ask of civilians was to have a photo taken with Mickey Mouse. You cannot be more escapist than that.

The return of Bush to the White House and the failure of challenger John Kerry to offer a bold, clear alternative is the culmination of a half century in which the early 1960s presidential rhetoric of equality at home and ending poverty abroad faded into an escape from those challenges with Richard Nixon's ''law and order'' campaign in 1968. Pretty much ever since, Americans have sought out leaders who made them feel good about walling themselves off from those left behind or being global gluttons.

The only one who arguably tried, Jimmy Carter, was drummed out of office. His chagrined successors have charted a steady course away from individual responsibility for consumption, no matter how much they preach it to attack mothers on welfare and black prisoners. America has come to be seen as the nation of me, my SUV and eye-popping portions of greasy French fries.

Since the 1970s, our cars, homes and stomachs have become the biggest in the world. The mayor of Washington, D.C., wants a publicly funded $530-million baseball stadium a half year after the city slashed 285 teachers. Little about daily life in the United States has changed after 9/11 except for long lines at airports and allowing fear to become an excuse to cling even more desperately to cash. That must be why Americans cheer for a few hundred dollars out of a trillion-dollar tax cut while public education becomes a fossil.

We went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq saying that we're promoting freedom, democracy and the American way of life. It is a lie to promote the American way of life as it is at this moment.

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson said in his 2002 book, The Future of Life, that if the rest of the world were to actually live like we do, it would take four planet Earths. Our promise is a recipe for mass extinction of animals and plants and massive wars by humans over scare resources. Do we not invite more terrorism against the United States by individuals who will increasingly say that we are stealing their energy, food, air and water?

We all participate in this lie -- Republican, Democrat, and independent; rich, middle class and even a fair number of the poor. Somewhere on the checklist of big car, huge house, thundering television, wasted food, lights left on, pack-rat possessions and paper thrown away, we can pencil in our share of the madness.

Forty-three years ago, John F. Kennedy said, ''We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' Today we have returned to office a president who tells us that our burden is to go to Disney World.

That is an unsustainable vision for an unsustainable society. The biggest test of America's moral values is whether we and our leaders find the courage to say that liberty for all means liberating ourselves from materialism before it drives us mad and makes us a target for the world's next madman.

The rest of the western world sees us as arrogant, immature and greedy. The views of the third world are even less complimentary. We've taught our kids to give lip-service to "the environment" without doing anything about reigning in their sense of entitlement.

I've linked to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report before. It is a horrifying read. This isn't going to happen in a foggy future, it's happening now and I'm liable to see some of the more severe effects in my life time. We can triangulate and computer model the physical changes. The socio-political and economic effects are off the scale and we have no way to model them.

As I write this, I've been listening to a call-in program on C-Span, one of those things they put on when there is a vote in whichever house of Congress they are broadcasting (I was listening to the end of the debate on the appropriations bill in the House--yeah, I know, I'm a policy wonk and political junke) and the call in was fascinating because of the level of ignorance of the callers, regardless of their political affilitations. No wonder the rest of the world looks on us with such scorn.

Up North

Bush might not address House
Advisers want to stay clear of heckling

Ottawa official vows `utmost respect'

TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—The White House is leaning against having President George W. Bush address Parliament when he visits Ottawa, citing fears the U.S. president would be heckled during his speech.

No final decision has been made, but those involved with the planning of the visit (Nov. 30 and Dec. 1) want to avoid pictures on U.S. network television of a president being booed or shouted at as he embarks on a second term seeking warmer ties with allies who had cooled toward his administration.

The haggling over a potential speech is a sign of the wariness with which the White House views Ottawa after a series of rebukes from north of the border during the Chrétien years — and the damage done by MP Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga-Erindale), who was expelled from the Liberal caucus this week by Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Parrish has promised to hold her tongue if Bush speaks in the same venue where former New Democrat MP Svend Robinson famously heckled then-U.S. president Ronald Reagan in 1987.

NDP Leader Jack Layton also promised his caucus would be respectful if Bush spoke.

The question of the parliamentary address is expected to be discussed by officials again today as Martin and Bush meet at the APEC Summit in Santiago, Chile.

"We've extended every courtesy and every assurance to the White House that we do not believe that the president will be treated with anything other than the utmost respect,'' an Ottawa official told the Star's Susan Delacourt last night.

"But we respect the president's prerogative to make any decision."

Officially, the White House is calling the Bush visit "substantive" and the trip is unusual in that it is spread over two days.

Bush, during the recently completed election campaign, some days travelled much further than the distance between Ottawa and Washington, yet returned home at night.

Expect demonstrations, which you probably won't see on American TV. Time to add the CBC and The Star to the blogroll.

Noted Without Comment

History of complicity
Did the first President Bush, in 1991, and President Reagan, in the late '80s, cynically choose to ignore Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iraqis?

By Barry Lando

In February 1991, still battling Saddam, President Bush twice called for Iraqis to rise up. "There's another way for the bloodshed to stop," he declared, "and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and to force Saddam Hussein to step aside." The president's message was repeatedly broadcast across Iraq by clandestine CIA-backed stations and by millions of leaflets dropped by U.S. airplanes over southern Iraq. Meanwhile, the Kurds in the north were also rising up. Many in the military joined in the revolt.

Now, to return to the original question: Did the first Bush administration cynically choose to ignore Saddam's use of chemical weapons in March 1991, just as the Reagan administration did in the late 1980s? And has the current Bush administration brushed this history of complicity with real WMD under the rug, while using nonexistent WMD as a reason for war? The indisputable answer is yes.

You may comment, however. I've re-opened them.

Mozilla/Firefox Questions

A number of you have asked questions about Mozilla and Firefox, and what downloading them will mean for the functionality of the rest of your MS Office suite. I'm sure that Charles and pogge will chime in with all of the things I've forgotten to add.

Firefox is Mozilla's stand-alone browser. Mozilla is the combined browser/email client, which I find far superior to Outlook. It also includes an IM client and an HTML page for webdevelopment. If you are using Outlook for scheduling in combination with email, I don't believe that Mozilla yet has functionality for that particular application (but if I'm wrong, Charles or pogge will correct me.) As Charles and I have been telling you for a while, IE is loaded with holes that can be exploited by hackers and used to invade your computer. Any of you who have had an invasion of porn pop-ups know what a pain that is. Both Firefox and Mozilla have a built in pop-up blocker, which you can turn off if you visit specific sites which use pop-ups for comments, for example.

If you have a compelling reason to continue to use Outlook, download Firefox. If you are using Outlook for email only, get Mozilla. Either will automatically import your lists of Favorites (which you can also sort in the Bookmark manager) and Mozilla's email client will import your Outlook address book.

As you can see from the porn spam attack, I'm going to need to close comments for at least a while, until the spam bots have moved on. Email me if you need to bring something to my attention.

UPDATE: pogge sends along the things I forgot, as I knew he would.

For users who prefer a separate email program, Mozilla also offers Thunderbird.

No, it doesn't have the same scheduling and "groupware" capabilities as the full version of Outlook, but that doesn't bother me because I hate Outlook with a passion. What Thunderbird provides is a replacement for Outlook Express which is Microsoft's stand-alone email client and may be the most insecure piece of software on the planet (next to Internet Explorer, of course).

Let me just add that my loathing of Outlook matches pogge's. It's a sentiment that I know Charles shares, as well.

Personal Economies

A Lean Turkey Season for Charities
Some Low on Funds, Donations To Fill Thanksgiving Baskets

By Theola S. Labbe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 20, 2004; Page B01

At Food for Others, a nonprofit agency in Fairfax City, the turkeys trickled in this week. Members of a Brownie troop pooled their cookie money and bought 10 birds. Strangers and longtime volunteers brought others.

With the loss of a state grant that enabled them to spend $9,000 last year on Thanksgiving baskets, the agency decided it could give out only 400 turkeys next week, compared with 900 last year.

"We're not able to do this year what we have in the past," Executive Director Roxanne Rice said. "It means that a lot of families will not be receiving holiday assistance."

That is a conclusion repeated across the area this year. The food drives and canned good donations that often embody the Thanksgiving season allow thousands of poor and low-income families to eat a solid holiday meal with all the trimmings. But this year, some agencies and nonprofits have had to limit their Thanksgiving offerings; at the same time, they face more requests for help.

"People are doing less than what they did in the past," said Marian Peele, director of agency relations for the Capital Area Food Bank, the Washington region's largest nonprofit nutrition and food organization with 750 member agencies. The food bank cannot donate turkeys and must charge members the cost. That, Peele said, is "a little bit of a challenge" for some members.

Christine Wiley, co-pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in Southwest Washington, said her church wants to keep up the same level of Thanksgiving offerings as in past years, but it has been difficult.

The church, near Bolling Air Force Base, lost a key outreach staff member this year because of budget cuts. That person had years of experience in lining up food donations. The church has relied on volunteers and, she said, missed a deadline with a city nonprofit. All was not lost -- the nonprofit agreed to give the church 10 turkeys despite the deadline. "We're running behind compared to last year," Wiley said. Church workers will try up to the last minute to keep things as they have been. "It's difficult to cut back because there is a real expectation from the community that they will be able to count on the church," she said.

Wiley said the church plans to give out 100 Thanksgiving baskets, about half of them sponsored by the congregation. The rest come from various sources in the community, and Wiley said that this year, "We're not sure if we're going to make it."

Such struggles are complicated by a growing demand for charity. Across the region, government agencies and nonprofit groups reported higher numbers of needy families this year. The District's Department of Human Services plans to give out 250 Thanksgiving baskets, answering more than double last year's requests. And in Montgomery County, Andrea Jolly, director of the Volunteer Center, which coordinates referrals among 600 county agencies and community groups, has received 6,800 Thanksgiving referrals, 800 more than last year.

Fairfax and Montgomery Counties are among the most affluent in the country. This is the wonderful Bush economy we're talking about. The BLS job statistics are mostly bogus and a poor picture of the real economy.

The Road to Hell

Briefing frenzy in Washington over Iran nuclear fear
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 20/11/2004)

A briefing war erupted in Washington yesterday over the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and how to counter them - a debate reminiscent of the countdown to the invasion of Iraq.

Washington has been thrown into a frenzy following Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks that Iran is studying how to equip a missile with a nuclear bomb.

Colin Powell: a rare stumble or deliberate political manouevre?

Even as officials pondered whether his remarks were a slip or a deliberate attempt to scupper a new initiative by Germany, France and Britain, the debate intensified yesterday over reports that the intelligence had been based on a single, unvetted source.

According to the Washington Post a "walk-in" source approached US intelligence earlier this month with more than 1,000 pages of documents containing the information that Mr Powell cited.

The suggestion that the information was based on a single source aroused alarm. Many politicians and journalists in Washington are still reeling from their over-reliance on single sources for the misleading pre-war intelligence about the state of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Powell's comments initially fuelled speculation that Washington was seeking to undercut a tentative deal by three European Union states with Teheran for it to freeze its nuclear enrichment programme. Yesterday he played down the impact of his remarks, saying: "This shouldn't be brand new news. . .this shouldn't surprise anybody."

The growing diplomatic consensus, however, was that Mr Powell had made a rare stumble and had been lulled into saying more than he intended.

But the administration has stood by his remarks, which chime conveniently with the dominant view in Washington that the EU's diplomatic overtures are naïve and doomed. But for the moment, the administration seems willing to give the Europeans a chance, not least because it is still mired in Iraq.

Groundhog Day

Published: November 20, 2004

Stop us if you've heard this one before. The Bush administration creates a false sense of urgency about a nuclear menace from a Middle Eastern country. Hard-liners talk about that country's connections to terrorists. They portray European diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions as a feckless attempt to appease a rogue nation whose word can never be trusted anyway. Secretary of State Colin Powell makes ominous-sounding warnings about new intelligence, which turns out to be dubious.

That is how President Bush rushed the country into an unnecessary conflict with Iraq in his first term, and we have been seeing alarming signs of that approach all week on Iran.

Let's be cleareyed about this: Iran has an active nuclear program, has not tried terribly hard to hide it and has been dishonest in its dealings with the West. But nothing we have seen suggests some new, urgent development in Iran that would impel American officials to start talking about "the military option." In fact, the most recent developments have been encouraging. Last week, under the threat of a looming U.N. deadline, Tehran said it would freeze all uranium and plutonium processing and invite back international inspectors.

It was a welcome step, resulting from efforts by Britain, France and Germany, and signaled that even the hard-liners in Tehran are susceptible to economic appeals. If the negotiations over Iran's nuclear programs go well, Europe promises to resume talks on a preferential trade agreement. If they don't, it will be time for international economic sanctions. After meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush went out of his way to praise and endorse the Europeans' efforts.

But on Wednesday, Mr. Powell suddenly offered scary sounding talk about new intelligence that supposedly showed that Iran was not only working on enriching uranium, a big step toward making a bomb, but was also working on ways to attach such a weapon to a missile. His alarmist tone was a bit puzzling, since everyone has already agreed that Iran has nuclear ambitions, and it's hard to imagine a country wanting to own a nuclear bomb without exploring ways to use it. The world has also known for years that Iran was testing guided missiles.

Puzzlement turned to alarm yesterday when The Washington Post reported that Mr. Powell's comments were based on unverified information that had been brought to the United States by a previously unknown source whose reliability and authenticity had not yet been vetted. That certainly did bring back old memories - of Mr. Powell assuring the world that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, based on fanciful intelligence reports about aluminum tubes.

Steven Weisman of The Times reported that administration hawks were also talking about fresh intelligence on Iran's support for Hezbollah, which the world has known about for decades, and Iran's support for insurgents in Iraq, another old story. The hawks seem to be already starting to throw cold water on the prospects for a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear problem while trying to open the door to contemplating a military option. An administration official told The Times that Mr. Powell was trying to avoid meeting with the Iranian foreign minister at a conference both men are to attend in Egypt next week.

Small wonder, then, that the Europeans started to accuse Washington of trying to undermine diplomacy with Iran, just as the Bush administration thwarted their efforts to resume the U.N. inspections of Iraq - inspections that we now know had been highly effective.

Iran has long been a target of the hawks in the administration, who are undoubtedly feeling their oats after the election. But we hope that President Bush has learned enough from the Iraq adventure to understand the dangers of using flawed intelligence to create a false sense of urgency about a national security threat.

Which ever AEI Bush surrogate was seconded to the Newshour last night actually repeated the "intent" argument, Iran has the intent and desire to acquire nuclear weapons. Do they really think anybody is going to fall for that twice?

Capitalism

Protesters Greet Bush In Santiago
President Hopes to Use 'New Capital' at Summit

By Robin Wright and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 20, 2004; Page A10

SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 19 -- In his first overseas trip since his reelection, President Bush arrived in Chile on Friday to use what he calls his "new capital" to press the 21 nations of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit to help with North Korea, terrorism and opening up regional trade.

But Bush's Latin American trip sparked a violent backlash before he arrived. Chilean police in armored vehicles used tear gas and water cannons during the day to break up demonstrations against U.S. policy in Iraq, Bush's presence in Chile and a summit that protesters called a rich man's club.

On the fourth day of anti-American and anti-APEC protests, a crowd estimated at 25,000 to 70,000 marched through downtown Santiago. Some hooded demonstrators threw rocks and Molotov cocktails. Many shouted chants or held signs saying "Terrorist Bush" and "Bush: Fascist, thief, murderer."

White House officials said the most important aspect of Bush's attendance at the summit would be separate meetings Saturday with the leaders of China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, the other members of six-party talks with North Korea.

"We think this meeting is going to be very important for getting these other leaders and their governments on the North Korean case," a senior administration official said after briefing Bush during his nine-hour flight from Texas.

Aides accompanying Bush to the summit aboard Air Force One said that the president believes North Korea resisted arms talks to "buy time" until after the U.S. election and that he will use the trip to prod Asian allies to renew pressure on the country to give up its nuclear weapons.

"Now that we know the results, it's time to get back to business," the senior administration official said. "They've been trying to buy time to see what would happen."

President Stupid thinks he has "capital" with the rest of the planet? Hoo, boy, is this guy dumb. The Canadian press is talking about indicting him for war crimes when he comes to visit next month. Me thinks the Chileans might know a thing or three about them, too.

New Testament

This is it for tonight. I get up really early to read the papers and start the threads. Gilliard is a nightowl. I'm not. He doesn't have a day job. I do. I've got to spend the weekend doing things like making sure I have enough socks to wear next week.

I get two days off per week, like most of you, and I have to be pretty careful about how I'm budgeting my time if I'm going to get the laundry done.

This blog is a burden and a blessing and I'm trying to figure out how to make it less of the former and more of the latter. Your thoughts?

Culture from the Left Side of the Page

I'm watching Jag. I don't watch a lot of TV, but producer David Bellasirius tracks the culture a whole lot better than I do. The media have turned. It will take a while before the news shops get the message.

When a series takes on Gitmo, something new is engaged

I expect to be here through a cold and rainy weekend, seated in front of the monitor, documenting the best days of a better nation.

Payback is Hell

Via Skippy at The American Street (did I mention that I'm colleagues with the most famous bush kangaroo in the whoooole blogosphere?):

Freemans tuesday night the 16th of nov. the bush twins along with 2 massive secret service men tried to have dinner they were told by the maitre 'd that they were full and would be for the next 4 years upon hearing the entire restaurant cheered and did a round of shots it was amazing!!! [Ed: We're hearing that this is actually true.]

The Street does "Friday Funnies," bookmark it. I certainly enjoyed this one.

Fed Chief Finally Admits the Obvious

Now he tells us.

Greenspan Warns That U.S. Deficits Pose Risk to Dollar
By MARK LANDLER

Published: November 19, 2004

FRANKFURT, Nov. 19 - Alan Greenspan came to the home of the euro today and warned anxious Europeans to expect little relief from the relentless decline of the dollar against their currency.

In a speech to a banking congress here, Mr. Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, said the United States' persistently high current-account deficit in world trade posed a risk to the dollar's value, since foreign investors would eventually resist buying more American assets.

"It seems persuasive that, given the size of the U.S. current-account deficit, a diminished appetite for adding to dollar balances must occur at some point," he said. "But when, through what channels, and from what level of the dollar? Regrettably, no answer to these questions is convincing."

Mr. Greenspan likened predicting the dollar's path to "forecasting the outcome of a coin toss."

But the implication of the speech was clear to this audience of European bankers, who laughed nervously at his metaphor: The dollar, which has fallen to record lows against the euro this week - giving fits to European politicians and business executives - is likely to fall further still.

Currency traders reacted swiftly, driving the dollar down near its record low against the euro and to a four-and-a-half year low against the Japanese yen. The euro was quoted at $1.3019 in New York trading this afternoon, versus $1.2968 late Thursday. The dollar was also trading at 103.08 yen, down from 104.09 yen.

Mr. Greenspan's comments came two days after Treasury Secretary John W. Snow appeared to rule out helping the European Central Bank or any other central bank stem the decline of the dollar. Mr. Snow, speaking in London, prodded European leaders to tackle their home-grown economic problems.

Let's review, class. Bush preaches a "strong dollar" but does nothing to help prop it up. In fact, he can't. Interest has to rise to keep our scrip attractive to the foreign investors who are financing our debt through purchasing T-bonds.

But rising interest rates raise the price of lending on consumers, and most of the weakovery was financed by consumer spending based on acquiring debt, much of it mortage refinancing. The folks who bought ARMs are going to be in a world of hurt, and the interest rate rise is going to kick consumer spending in the nuts. For the sake of all the small businesses out there, I hope Greenspan holds off the next Fed Funds increase until after the holidays. If the dollar slide gets ahead of the (admittedly little) effect of the Fed Funds rate, retailers will have another dismal Christmas. The last three seasons were pretty dismal. My brother and sister in law have a small retail business. They have a raft of employees who depend on their sales. Connect the dots, class.

Religious War

We've elevated war crimes to a whole new level.

Iraqi, U.S. Forces Storm Baghdad Mosque

By Karl Vick and Khalid Jaffar
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, November 19, 2004; 6:47 PM

BAGHDAD, Nov. 19 -- Iraqi troops backed by U.S. soldiers raided the most revered Sunni Muslim mosque in Baghdad, setting off stun grenades, arresting dozens and leaving at least two people dead, according to witnesses and a hospital official.

The raid on the Abu Hanifa mosque just after Friday prayers was the latest in a series of moves targeting religious clerics who support the insurgency, which continues to churn violently in the sections of Iraq dominated by the country's minority Sunni population.
....
"In the more than 55 years I have been praying at this mosque, it was hit twice," said Abu Numan, 65. "The first was in April 2003 when the Americans entered Baghdad, and the second was today, again at the hands of the Americans and the National Guard.

"Why? This is a holy place and the tomb of one of Islam's most revered figures. There should be some sanctity and respect for our shrines. This is unacceptable."

Witnesses said U.S. troops set up a perimeter around the mosque complex while uniformed Iraqi security forces disarmed the shrine's guards and swept into the sanctuary. Loud bangs and gunfire followed; afterward, blood stains were visible on the sidewalk outside the main gate.

Boys and girls, we shot people in a prayer service. I guess we decided that the whole "hearts and minds" thing is part of the failed policies of the past, we are going for pure brutality. We are also incredibly stupid.

You do not enter a masjid without removing your shoes and ritual washing. You do not. This is defilement. We've just defiled one of the holiest shrines in the Sunni world. Do you really think we aren't going to pay for this?

The creative imagination of an Osama bin Laden will now turn to places like the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and Temple Beth El in New York, the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles and the like. Good for us.

Effing brilliant.

Lurking Disaster

Sy Hersh is a truthteller. I wish I'd been able to take in this Q&A; at Georgetown on Wednesday.

Journalist Hersh Criticizes Bush Administration, Policies

By Elizabeth Howard
Hoya Staff Writer
Friday, November 19, 2004; Page A1

Aaron Terrazas/The Hoya

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh sat down to discuss a range of topics from the Bush administration to the Iraq war with New Yorker editor David Remnick in Gaston Hall Wednesday afternoon.

Hersh, the journalist Remnick called “the best and most aggressive investigative reporter in the United States,” answered questions from Remnick and audience members.

Hersh discussed the resignations of Secretary of State Colin Powell and other government officials, saying that President George W. Bush is promoting the “total loyalists” that support him.

“These are not merit appointments,” Hersh said. “This is a president who puts loyalty above all else. He certainly puts loyalty above competence and respect for the Constitution.”

Hersh added that this will not lead to a substantive change in the way things are run, because Powell lost in every disagreement he had with Bush’s policies. Hersh said there will simply be “no more internal debate about anything.”

Though he has covered several different presidential administrations, Hersh said Bush’s administration is very different from the others.

Hersh said Bush’s disregard for the press makes him different from past American leaders.

“You can’t talk to these guys,” Hersh said. “After 9/11, Bush said, ‘You’re with us or you’re against us.’”

Hersh said those people within the government who disagreed with Bush were replaced by those who were loyal.

“If you agreed with these guys, you were promoted,” he said.

Hersh added that Bush is not willing to receive information.

“My worry about this guy is it’s very hard to get information to him that he doesn’t want to hear,” he said.

He claimed that Bush not only ignores certain facts, but also truly believes what he says.

“This isn’t mendacity,” Hersh said. “It’s what he believes to be the truth, which is what’s scary. He believes he’s doing the right thing.”

Hersh added that the Bush administration is unwilling to cooperate with the press. Though he had a hostile relationship with Henry Kissinger during the Nixon administration, Hersh said he always had access to Kissinger. He said Kissinger was always willing to talk with him.

“Now it’s almost impossible to get any kind of response,” he said.

Remnick said the White House’s lack of response is not unique to Hersh.

“It’s not just because it’s Seymour Hersh,” Remnick said. “We’ve noticed this from the start. It’s not unprecedented that there’s hostility from the White House to the press, but it’s a matter of degree.”

Hersh added that the Bush administration does not care what picture the press paints. He said that he thinks Bush was willing to risk his presidency on the Iraq war.

“And the president won’t care when more body bags come back,” he added.

Hersh also said the situation is worsening in Iraq.

“I don’t know how you could have an election,” he said.

Hersh claimed that the only way out of the war, though he added that it is not likely to happen, is for the United States to find a way to communicate with the people who are fighting against them.

“I would say, in a perfect world, let’s find a way to start talking to the leadership,” he said.

Executing Injured Prisoners in Falluja
by Omar Barghouti; November 17, 2004

Coming after the disclosure that more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US war on Iraq, the Abu Ghraib torture case, the wedding massacre -- in which 40 civilians, including 10 children, were killed in cold blood, as confirmed by an Associated Press Television News film -- and the onslaught of consistent, documented evidence of indiscriminate bombing of civilian neighborhoods by US forces, this new revelation should necessitate an investigation into the reported war crimes of the occupation forces by a UN-appointed committee with the intention of presenting the findings before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Despite the fact that the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC, such an investigation may still present a crucial, indispensable forum that can exert moral and political pressure on the US and its occupation allies to better respect international law and the rules of war stipulated in it. The US armed forces cannot be trusted to conduct a proper investigation on their own. Their impressive record of lies, misinformation and cover-ups should amply explain why.

The majority of humanity, including most Americans, have a lot to lose from the outbreak of such an anarchic, take-no-prisoners type of war. When no moral principles or legal tenets apply anything goes to justify or rationalize heinous crimes against defenceless civilians. Racism and counter-racism, hate, xenophobia and utter callousness may prevail as a result, causing the rift between nations to widen and making peaceful reconciliation -- based on freedom, justice, democracy and the rule of law -- ever more unattainable. A human jungle will emerge, making beast jungles look civil in comparison.

Let's see: a growing moral/humanitarian/terrorism problem, and we're on the verge of a currency collapse (even NPR is reporting it now) and we're sitting awaiting a flu pandemic unprotected. I doubt that was the trifecta Bush wanted to hit, but that what we're going to get more of from the idiot and the circle of incompetents around him. I wonder if it will be enough to change the electorate's mind?

How Much is Enough?

Want to know our quality of life is being graded down by The Economist? This might have a little something to do with it:

Iraq War Topping $5.8 Billion A Month
United Press International
November 18, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is spending more than $5.8 billion a month on the war in Iraq, according to the military's top generals.

That is nearly a 50 percent increase above the $4 billion-a-month benchmark the Pentagon has used to estimate the cost of the war so far.

The Army alone is spending $4.7 million a month while the Air Force is spending $800 million a month transporting soldiers and flying combat missions. The Marine Corps is spending $300 million a month, the four service chiefs told the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday.

Since 2003, the Pentagon has received some $160 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in supplemental funding -- that is, in addition to its annual budget. It will be requesting another multibillion-dollar supplement early next year to cover the continuing cost of the war.

Emigration Opportunity

Via The Agonist:

Forget the USA, Sri Lanka or South Africa, Ireland is the best place to live in the world
By James Sturcke

18 November 2004

For generations, hundreds of thousands left the Emerald Isle fleeing war and famine ­ all clinging to the belief life would be better elsewhere. Now, after two decades of a meteoric rise that has staggered financial gurus, Ireland has topped a poll as the best place to live in the world.

In a report published by The Economist magazine, the Republic won over Switzerland, Australia and Italy. In the process, Ireland trounced the main destinations of its traditional emigration. The US ranked 13th with the UK coming in at a miserable 29th position ­ the lowest of any EU pre-expansion members. Of the countries surveyed, the worst place to live in the world is Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe which came bottom at 111th.
....
Researchers took into account not just income, but other factors considered important to people's satisfaction and well-being.

They included health, freedom, unemployment, family life, climate, political stability and security, gender equality and family and community life.
....
Ireland was followed by Switzerland, Norway and Luxembourg in the rankings. All but one of the top 10 were European countries ­ that was Australia, in 6th place.

The Republic has made significant gains from its membership of the EU, earning the soubriquet "Celtic Tiger" for its economic progress. It is widely admired by the EU's newest members, and has become a model for what they hope to achieve.

Since the 1980s, Ireland has been transformed from a glum financial basket case to a vibrant rapidly-changing country. Dan O'Brien, of the Economist Intelligent Unit, said: "Ireland is now one of the richest countries in the world by any measure. It enjoys social calm combined with civil and political liberties, which surveys show, are not bettered anywhere. Thousands of returning emigrants and arriving immigrants who vote with their feet know there are few better places in the world to live."

Although European nations generally do well in the survey, the continent's major industrial powers ­ France, Germany and Britain ­ finished a poor 25th, 26th and 29th respectively.

The researchers said although the UK achieved high income per head, it had high levels of social and family breakdown. Its performance on health, civil liberties, political stability and security was also below the average.

Elsewhere, the survey found the quality of life in the US has plummeted in the past year. Second only to Luxembourg in last year's survey, it has dropped 11 places to 13th this time round. The impact of war is hard to quantify but even harder is Iraq, which has dropped off the scale, with the compilers citing "lack of information".

So, it looks like we should be headed to Ireland, not Canada....

Union News

Good news being very hard to find these days, I'll settle for this:

Pizza drivers' union demands better wages

FLEDGLING LABOR GROUP HAS YET TO ORGANIZE ITS FIRST SHOP

By Matt Gouras

ASSOCIATED PRESS

NASHVILLE - A fledgling national union for pizza drivers is demanding better wages and training, saying the large chains have been taking advantage of them for years.

It's an effort that has attracted the attention of the Teamsters union, but the Association of Pizza Delivery Driv-ers, based in Hendersonville, has yet to organize its first shop.

A vote at a Domino's franchise in Lincoln, Neb., failed Tuesday night on a 2-2 vote. But organizers expect a better result next week when Pizza Hut drivers vote at a store near Columbus, Ohio.

Tim Lockwood, treasurer of the pizza delivery union, said getting the first vote itself was a huge victory. After all, the union started just a couple of years ago with a few drivers talking in an Internet chat room about unfair working conditions.

"We built a Web site and they came," said Lockwood, a pizza delivery driver who declined to identify the company he works for.

Now they have about 600 drivers from across the country signed up for the free union, and he feels momentum gathering for more unionization votes.

Lockwood said pizza drivers make $5.50 to $6 an hour, plus tips, and get reimbursed 50 to 75 cents a delivery, no matter how far away it is. Even worse, he said, pizza delivery is annually ranked among the most dangerous jobs.

I have a friend who took her bargaining unit independent. It isn't easy but it can be done.

Paying for a Fake

US expected to boost troop levels in Iraq
Some question whether it will be enough to quell the violence and worry about the impact of prolonged tours.
By Ann Scott Tyson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Amid a spike in violence in Iraqi cities coinciding with the Fallujah offensive, the US military is now planning to boost combat forces to secure the country for elections in January.

The US is likely to expand the force by thousands of GIs in coming weeks by delaying the departure of more experienced units from Iraq as fresh troops rotate in, military officials say.

The overlap would create a temporary surge in American forces - which now number 141,000 in Iraq - to cope with an expected wave of insurgent attacks aimed at disrupting the polling. More US troops are required as Iraqi security forces remain highly vulnerable to attacks and intimidation. This was underscored by a rash of insurgent strikes on police stations in Mosul, Baqubah, and other cities in the past week, when attacks nationwide rose to 50 percent higher than the average in recent months.

Some US military officials have long argued that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq without committing tens of thousands more troops. Others contend that more troops would simply present more targets, and the US military should scale back and let Iraqis contend with much of the violence.

In reality, the US cannot substantially increase ground forces in Iraq for the long term without accepting risk in other parts of the world or making Iraq tours longer or closer together - a step sure to lower morale. "I'm committed to providing the troops that are requested, but I can't promise more than I've got," the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told a Congressional hearing Wednesday in which military service chiefs detailed soaring demands on manpower and equipment.

"The demand on the force has increased exponentially," the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. Michael Hagee, told the House Armed Services Committee, saying Marines now spend about twice as much time deployed as two years ago.

Decisions are expected soon on extending specific units in Iraq, and on the possibility of deploying others early from bases in the US, according to senior military officials. In October, the military ordered some 6,500 troops to delay their departure from Iraq.

"There is ample opportunity" to increase troop levels by overlapping new arrivals with others whose tours would be extended as large units of 20,000 to 30,000 troops rotate, says a senior US military official in Baghdad. But a larger increase could run into constraints - the current limits of basing and support services.

Pressure grows for Iraq election delay

Allawi aide says deadline looks more and more unrealistic
Michael Howard in Dukan
Friday November 19, 2004

The Guardian

The January deadline for Iraq's first post-Saddam elections looked increasingly in doubt yesterday after a senior aide to the interim prime minister predicted a delay.

Leading Sunni Muslim politicians also called for a postponement until there was an improvement in the dire security situation in the country's Sunni Arab heartlands.

"I don't think within the time available we can do everything, so I think a delay or postponing elections is more likely than holding them on time," said Ibrahim Janabi, a senior aide to Ayad Allawi.

Mohsen Abdul Hamid, the head of the mainstream Sunni Muslim Iraqi Islamic party, said: "I am with the delay. The security situation does not make it possible for the Sunni Arabs to vote. The Sunnis will boycott the elections if the security situation continues as it is now."

The comments came as senior Iraqi politicians convened at the lakeside resort of Dukan, in the Kurdistan region, for two days of crisis talks on how to move towards the country's first free elections in decades.

I'm sure we'll manage to orchestrate some sort of bogus elections at some point. My only question is when is the American public going to wake up to the cost in blood and treasure for bringing this lovely, trumped-up "democracy" project to the ungrateful Iraqi people? How many more cities will we have to flatten in order to create a peaceful and free Iraq?

Blowing Smoke

Early Vioxx Alarms Alleged
Long before drug was removed, risks were known to Merck and the FDA, senators are told. Other medicines need scrutiny, expert says.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators and the drug maker Merck & Co. were aware of risks that the company's Vioxx painkiller could cause serious heart problems before the drug was approved in 1999, government and expert witnesses told a Senate committee Thursday.

One government official warned that the Vioxx debacle was only one sign that the nation's drug-oversight system had left Americans "virtually defenseless" against dangerous pharmaceuticals. Vioxx was removed from the market Sept. 30, but the official asserted that five other widely used drugs deserved a critical reevaluation of their risks.

Dr. David J. Graham, a scientist with the Food and Drug Administration office that monitors drugs already on the market, cited the cholesterol-lowering drug Crestor; the weight-loss medication Meridia; Accutane, which is prescribed for acne; Bextra, a pain reliever; and Serevent, an asthma drug.

Manufacturers and Graham's superior at the FDA disputed the assertion that there were serious problems with those drugs.

Graham, a 20-year FDA veteran who is the associate director for science at its Office of Drug Safety, testified before the Senate Finance Committee that severe problems existed in the drug regulatory system. He called the Vioxx episode "a profound regulatory failure" that had probably cost thousands of lives.

"I would argue that the FDA, as currently configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx," he said.

Based on risk levels suggested by Merck's own studies and clinical trials, Graham estimated that as many as 139,000 Americans who took Vioxx for arthritis, back pain and other ailments may have suffered serious side-effects. "Of these, 30% to 40% probably died," Graham told the Senate panel. "For the survivors, their lives were changed forever."

Graham's estimates, which were disputed by his FDA superior at the hearing, suggested that 26,000 to 55,600 patients might have died as a result of taking Vioxx.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market after the company's data showed that the drug nearly doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes among people taking it for at least 18 months.

About 20 million Americans have taken the drug.

Consider this con: Merck sold this drug directly to the public by TV advertising. It wasn't any more effective than aspirin as a pain reliever, but cost a ton, and it was deadly for some consumers.

This is what the drug companies are up to while we still don't have a flu vaccine, or one for AIDS. But they'll invest a boatload to sell us stuff that doesn't work and kills us.

Groundhog Day

Powell's Talk of Arms Has Fallout
His remark that Iran is working to join missiles and warheads may have been based on classified data. Allies, lawmakers want full disclosure.

By Sonni Efron, Tyler Marshall and Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's statement that Iran is actively studying how to outfit a missile with a nuclear bomb caused surprise and confusion in Washington on Thursday, and members of Congress demanded that he provide more details.

Powell's remarks Wednesday — apparently unscripted and based on classified information — appeared to catch the Bush administration and its European allies off-guard. The CIA refused to comment, and the White House and State Department declined to offer details. Some sources raised questions about the credibility of the intelligence.

In Santiago, Chile, where Powell is attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, he downplayed the furor in a Chilean television interview Thursday, saying Iran's ambitions were well known.

"They shouldn't be brand-new … issues," Powell said. "They shouldn't surprise anybody. I think the Iranians still have much more to do to convince the international community that they are not moving into the direction of a nuclear weapon."

One source, however, described the intelligence mentioned by Powell as "weak."

Some administration officials "were surprised he went public on something that was weak and, because it was weak, was not supposed to be used," the source said.

One senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee said Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons and mount them on missiles have been known for years, but the United States faces new hurdles in making its case to the world.

"After crying wolf for so long about Iraq, how are we going to have any credibility on this?" said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman of New York, who recently returned from a trip to the Middle East. "People in the Arab world won't believe it and say we have a bad track record and just want to invade another country in the Middle East."

Ackerman added: "How do we expect anybody to believe us, even if we know it's true? This is the disaster we created for ourselves in lying about Iraq."

En route to Chile, Powell told reporters Wednesday that the Iranians "were working actively on missile systems. You don't have a weapon until you can put it in something that can deliver a weapon."

"We are talking about information that says they not only have missiles but information that suggests they are working hard about how to put the two together," said Powell, who will leave his government post soon.

The Good Soldier soldiers on. It would be a kindness if someone would point out to him that the rest of the world isn't willing to take their foreign policy marching orders from the back of a shampoo bottle.

Most governments need a little something more than "lather, rinse, repeat."

It's not enough for Bushco that they are actively shunned. I guess they want to be laughed at.

A little Blogkeeping

Thanks much to Charles for stepping up while I'm swamped. I'll be back to the regular level of intensity by late Friday. But tonight I'm fried even as I'm aware that there are many important stories to cover. I can't do it all and manage a job that is more than 40 hours a week sometimes. Part of the reason I invited Charles aboard is because he has areas of expertise (like IT) that go far beyond my knowledge, because he is a writer with an edge I like (you can read him for the entertainment value alone, even if the topic doesn't entice, he's got a definite style) and I respect him, even though we've never met in meat space. Trust me, you don't hand the keys to your public site, your blog identity, to somebody else without doing a lot of soulsearching. I've known a few relationships which have come nearly to blows over this: the trust level has to be very high.

I expect Charles to offer a very different voice, and that's the point: I wasn't looking for a clone, but someone whose values and standards tracked closely with my own. Charles is going to do his own thing, and I trust him. Down the road, let's think about what this means for the community, and if we want to do more of it. As in the early days of any number of sites, at some point the blogger notices that they have more commitments than time or energy and some changes have to be made if the community is going to survive. I'm nowhere near that point, in fact, I've branched out my blogwriting and need to do so right now to grow as a writer, but I need your help in thinking and conversing about the ways to make this blog an even greater way to communicate. Don't tell me to port it to Scoop, which is the ne plus ultra for community blogs: I don't have the time or the money for that right now, and both would have to be in abundant supply. It's a very tough app to configure. But let's think about what we can do right now, with what we already have and traffic is building week by week.

Here's what I know I can do: I need to move my personal worksite/desktop to broadband cable, and I'm negotiating with the cable company for an install date. It'll be soon and make everything I do on this end so much faster. It will also more than double the cost of my connectivity. Yes, I'm working again, but at a social justice job, and, in the larger scheme of things, they don't pay much, and 12 months of paid employment out of the last 24 have left me with beaucoups debt that it is going to take a while to dig my way out of. Taking on new expenses is going to be very hard while I'm trying to pay off my creditors.

A minimal Lexis-Nexis subscription would allow me to dig much deeper into the public data pile. I'll either pay for it or have someone donate it. I know that lots of reporters and lawyers read this site. If you can get one donated through your firm or Martindale, I'll be eternally grateful. Otherwise I'll have to beg for funds. The kind of speed for research that Martindale-Lexis offers just isn't optional when I'm essentially holding down two jobs.

A colleague who blogs once a week or so asked about my blog life. Here is what it looks like: if I'm well, I'm in the blog chair to read the major papers and start looking for the narrative between 4 and 5 in the morning. I try to put up two to four stories before I have to get ready for work. This will be faster and more productive once the broadband is in the house.

When I take a coffee break midmorning, I look to see how the stories I'm following have developed. If there is anything new, I'll blog it. At lunch, at my desk, I'll check again for new things, and another post will result if I find something I find interesting, if I get a break for lunch. These are rare. I try to check in again mid-afternoon, but the office is usually so busy by then that posting is impossible. I check again before I leave the office for the commute home, and stick something up real quick if there is time. My commute day: I leave the house at 8 AM, get home around 7 or 7:30 PM. In the middle is the life in a busy, activist organization that never has enough time or enough people or money. Everybody in the place is wearing at least three hats, and I'm no exception.

And I'm sure your workplace is no exception. This is what worklife is like in the US today.

But, as my colleague said, those hours I carve out for writing this blog and the others, "That's church. The rest is commentary." I can't keep doing this without a break and real financial help from you. That's the long and the short of it.

I'm going to run an NPR style fundraiser after Thanksgiving to help get this blog the resources it needs. We can and will be a stronger community and we've never needed one as badly as we need it now.

I ask for your prayers as we re-envision this little Bump in the Beltway.

The Ultimate Rescue CD

The geeky among this blog's readers are in for a treat, assuming they don't know about this gem already. The would-be geeks are, as well.

Those iof you who peruse Slashdot or Freshmeat or the Securityfocus Tools page or other such sites have probably seen mention of "rescue CDs". These are CD-based OS distributions that you can use to salvage at least the data if your system has a calamity like the boot block on the hard drive going West. You boot off of the CD, mount the old hard drive, and transfer the valuable data, to another hard drive or burned to CD or across a network connection to another "lifeboat" system. Another application of rescue CDs is to save the day when an administrative password has been forgotten, changed by Joe Hacker, or corrupted.

Historically, the problem with these rescue CDs has been their limited functionality, command line interface, lack of documentation, and inflexibility with respect to OS. Tom's Root Boot, a single diskette based system, for instance, can be a Godsend to a Linux user in a jam, but it's much less helpful to someone whose WXP machine has tanked, because Tom's Root Boot does not support writing to an NTFS filesystem.

Well, friends, those days are over. ALL OVER.

Knoppix, a Debian-based single boot CD Linux distribution, has been around for some time. GPL'ed, of course, and you can download burnable ISOs free as air and legal as church on Sunday. But as of October 1, 2004, it acquired a manual, Knoppix Hacks, by Kyle Rankin. Yesterday, there was a rave review of this book published at Slashdot. Before I clapped eyes on that, I didn't really know much about what Knoppix was capable of. Fortunately, there is a Border's Books less than six blocks from the cube where I bang out my vulnerability intelligence report, so I ducked down to snag a copy. People, I'm very, very impressed!!

Want to run Mozilla? You can use your Windows settings from your Windows hard drive. You have a choice of several different window managers. You can use Knoppix as a makeshift file server or router. You can browse Windows shares. You can clone hard drives, even across a network.

While repairing or backing up a Linux box, you can fix a toasted Master Boot Record or back it up. You can fix trashed partition tables, and resize partitions. You can fix a whole range of Linux filesystem types. You can make RAIDs. You can fix broken init scripts. You can fix broken Debian or RPM packages.

On Windows, you can fix a corrupted Windows boot selector. You can not only read from NTFS, you can write to it. This takes some finagling, but prior to this year, if you tried to do that from a Linux system, you'ld corrupt the NTFS file system. The new "Captive NTFS" methodology prevents that. You can resize Windows partitions. You can edit the Registry. You can restore corrupted .cab system files. You can scan for viruses, and download Windows patches without worrying about your naked Windows box being hacked during the process.

You can even modify Knoppix itself, and burn a custom Knoppix CD.

Knoppix comes with a whole boatload of security and encryption tools. Jeezuz K. Reist. Honeypots. An IDS system. Packet sniffers. Password crackers. You can use it to wardrive. It comes with nmap and nessus preinstalled, so you can use it to do network security audits. It comes with nikto, so you can do website audits. You can use Knoppix to recover deleted files or collect forensic data in the process of handling an information security incident. Of course, if you turn off all outward-pointing network services, you have a firewall that can't be compromised past a power-cycle. Try cracking a CD-based filesystem remotely, hacker-boy.

This puppy is a security geek's dream come true. It is also a perfect swiss army knife for someone working on busted OSes, either personally or professionally.

Yup, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, this looks one extremely valuable tool.

Oh, BTW. For those of you who are entry-level geeks and want to test-drive a Linux box without having to build one .. just boot your Windows system from a Knoppix CD.

One of my colleagues at work already wants to borrow my copy of Knoppix Hacks. The book, by the way, is every bit as impressive as the system it describes. Newbies get hung up by things like controlling the mouse when it starts acting weird, boot options, how to configure a strange window manager, getting the language right (Knoppix is a German distro) .. things like that. Knoppix Hacks walks you through all of this, with good organization and in a lot of detail.

"Does it come with a CD?", I hear you cry. But of course. And what could possibly be more appropriate than the latest stable version of Knoppix, version 3.4?

How to hack the vote on a Diebold system

Steve Gilliard's news blog is a place I visit frequently.

Part of this is old familiarity. He did quite a bit of commentary and editorializing on the Netslaves web board, before Netslaves succumbed to the corruption of some its site owners and was subsequently shut down.

Part of this is because of Steve's "take no prisoners" attitude. He's blustery and gruff, and his predictions are often wrong. Never more wrong than about the results of the 2004 Presidential election, God help us all. But Steve always takes a stand, and it's always principled.

Steve ripped into a particularly stupid, not to mention corrupt, opinion piece by a "journalist" I can only assume is a neocon shill, one Anne Applebaum, which ran in the Washington Post yesterday. The piece contended that the fear of hightened risk of election fraud as a result of the use of the Diebold voting machines amounted to generic tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

The comments prompted by Steve's blog entry got pretty heated, to put it mildly. But one produced a real gem, which I'd like to share with you. I followed the concerns which were expressed by information security professionals in the bugtraq mailing list prior to the election. Chuck Herrin, a CISSP, trumped the lot.

Here is the step-by-step procedure: How to Hack the Vote: the Short Version. I seriously doubt that any of this blog's readers question the severity of the risk. But they may know others who do. Send these to Chuck's page.

Microsoft Internet Explorer in the news again

I do plan to do that series on hardware firewalls. They're just too easy and cheap to set up, and they are so much better than software firewalls against attackers who are aware of software firewall vulnerabilities. Right now, I'm googling for graphics for a TCP/IP primer, so firewall configuration will make sense.

But right now, I just can't help but share the latest episode in the endless saga of Microsoft Internet Explorer and its woes.

The story broke, among other places, at The Register. Emphasis mine.

"IE is subject to a trio of unpatched vulnerabilities, security firm Secunia warned yesterday. It warns that two of the three unfixed security bugs are on the "critical" list.

A third - less serious - IE bug that could be used to overwrite cookies from trusted site has also been discovered. The vuln has been reported in Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 on Microsoft Windows XP SP1. But Windows XP SP2 is reportedly immune to the exploit, which in any case only works if a trusted site handles cookies and authentication badly."

Sigh. Well, at least there's a non-patch mitigation this time.

But putting on an imaginary Microsoft upper-level management hat, I wonder how long it will be before Microsoft cuts its losses, decouples IE from the OS, and lets it float out to sea. Microsoft is capable of decent work. W2K and WXP have even convinced this hardened Unix bigot of that. But IE is an acute embarassment to Microsoft.

Though, in a sidebar note, not as big an embarassment as CEO Steve Ballmer was recently. He is now on record as insisting that governments that use Linux will be sued. This maxes out my "Bizarre" meter. It just wraps the pin around the end stop.

" Asian governments using Linux will be sued for IP violations, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said today in Singapore. He did not specify that Microsoft would be the company doing the suing, but it's difficult to read the claim as anything other than a declaration of IP war.

According to a Reuters report (which we fervently hope will produce one of Ballmer's fascinating 'I was misquoted' rebuttals), Ballmer told Microsoft's Asian Government Leaders Forum that Linux violates more than 228 patents. Come on Steve, don't hold back - what you mean 'more than 228' - 229? 230? Don't pull your punches to soften the blow to the community. "Some day," he continued, "for all countries that are entering the WTO [World Trade Organization], somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property."

This reference is possibly more interesting than the infringement number scare itself, because it suggests that Microsoft sees the wider implementation of corporation-friendly IP law that is part of the entry ticket to the WTO as being a weapon that can be used against software rivals. More commonly, getting WTO members to 'go legit' is viewed as having a payoff in terms of stamping out counterfeit CDs, DVDs and designer gear, but clearly Microsoft's lawyers are busily plotting ways to embrace and extend this to handy new fields. It could be used to throttle emergent OSS companies, and it could conceivably be used to take the new generation of US (and maybe EU too) anti digital piracy and IP laws global.

The venue for Ballmer's menacing claims was nicely judged. Microsoft's Government Leaders Conferences are pitched as select events where chosen senior representatives and influencers from target governments are wined, dined, schmoozed and impressed by the cream of the Microsoft high command (We've explained them before.) They'll be intended to take away the message from this dynamic, hospitable and successful company that OSS is dangerous and will make you poor.

But if countries who want to join the WTO and get developed and rich should consider the dangers inherent in OSS, what about all of those countries who're already members of the WTO? They should perhaps also get the message about how Microsoft sees IP law being used in the future. Which might well have a helpful collateral damage effect in Europe, if Europe's leaders are paying attention. Yesterday the Polish Government backed out of support for the EU patents directive, in a move which threatens to derail it (because the directive may not now achieve a qualified majority in the council of ministers).

This on its own may be no more than a temporary setback for the patents lobby (prominent members in Europe include Microsoft and Sun), but the sound of Microsoft threatening all-out IP war really ought to strengthen the opposition's hand, and make the European Parliament, which opposes software patents, more determined to fight. So well done, Steve, we look forward to the rebuttal. Reuters report here."

I have no real problem with Bill Gates, for all of his immense fortune. His philanthropies seem a lot more genuine, from my vantage point, than Paul Allen's do. And the commission chaired by his dad did the right thing two years ago. The blame for the poor outcome rests squarely on the shoulders of Washington State's SUV-driving tailgating voters, and the buffoons they insist on electing to the state legislature.

But the authorities ought to lock Steve Ballmer up in a padded room and throw away the key. He is a complete and total raving nutjob.

Open Thread

Today and tomorrow are going to be pretty busy. I haven't had enough time to respond to comments for a couple of weeks and I'd like to remedy that tonight, but that means that posting will be light for the next couple of days.

Charles has a series of posts on news about protecting your computer from bad guys that is in preparation right now and I'm hoping that he can fill in some of the gaps. NOTE: even you tech-averse readers need to be aware of this stuff. If your Internet connection is on all the time (cable or DSL) there are all sorts of people out there who want to use it without your permission. If you have a WiFi connection in the house, you need to be even more careful. Charles promises a bulletproof firewall on a beer budget. No, your anti-virus software is NOT enough.

Bump will never become Slashdot or Kuro5shin, both Charles and I are more interested in using the technology rather than talking about it. But one of the reasons I invited him aboard is because he is an expert in the information security area, and this is a vulnerability we all have which is easy for a 13 year old who has copied a couple of code scripts to exploit. I want to help us all be less vulnerable and will be learning from Charles along with you as I get ready to move to broadband. Being ignorant in this area is a luxury that none of us can afford any longer.

Anyway, post your thoughts about issues technical or political, spiritual or otherwise, on this thread. I'll be back later today.

Assuming that you can afford drugs in the first place...

FDA Is Flexing Less Muscle
Some Question Its Relationship With Drugmakers

By Marc Kaufman and Brooke A. Masters
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A01

In the past four years, the Food and Drug Administration has taken a noticeably less aggressive approach toward policing drugs that cause harmful side effects, records show, leading some lawmakers, academics and consumer advocates to complain that the agency is focusing more on bolstering the pharmaceutical industry than protecting public health.

From 2001 to 2004, three important drugs were taken off the market, compared with 10 that were recalled from 1996 to 2001.

Two of the three were withdrawn in the very early months of the Bush administration. The third, the blockbuster arthritis drug Vioxx, was pulled in September at the initiative of its maker, Merck & Co., without FDA involvement.

In the same period, the number of warning letters sent by the FDA's drug marketing office challenging misleading or dishonest drug advertising also plummeted. From 1996 to 2001, the agency issued about 480 cease-and-desist letters. Over the past four years, the total has been about 130.

The decrease in FDA enforcement has come despite a steadily rising number of reports of potentially harmful side effects from approved drugs. From 1996 to 2004, the annual number of these "adverse events" almost doubled.

Few doubt the FDA remains the world's gold standard for drug regulation, and the agency fiercely defends its record. Nonetheless, Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), said his agency "has learned some important lessons in the past year and will make some changes" based on an upcoming Institute of Medicine study and its own reviews. The agency has "taken the criticism to heart," he said. He added, however, that some of the falloff in recalls may be the result of a decline in new drug approvals.

Concerns about the FDA's safety monitoring have been growing ever since Congress required in 1992 that the industry assume a significant share of the costs of evaluating new drugs. These "user fees" now pay for more than half of CDER's annual budget of almost $500 million, and the percentage is growing steadily.

Those concerns have taken on new urgency since the calamitous withdrawal of Vioxx, a move that focused sharp attention on whether the agency has become lax in overseeing the drug supply and too cozy with the industry.

Recent events "pretty clearly indicate the safety surveillance system isn't working," said Jerry Avorn, a Harvard University drug safety specialist and author of "Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs."

"It's a little like driving drunk," he said. "You can go for a number of trips inebriated and not get in an accident, but the risk is there and eventually you'll have a crash."

This is a trend that goes back to Reagan, but it certainly has accelerated in the last four years. It is part of the non-regulated free market environment brought to you by the corporatist Republicans.

I'll have more on the Merck/Vioxx story over the weekend. Just to recap briefly, Merck knew from its own studies that Vioxx caused fatal circulatory and coronary "accidents" but didn't pull the drug until the liability suits hit the billion dollar level. This is one which should give everyone pause. I wonder if the people who pulled the lever for BC04 really understand what they were voting for.

Finger Pointing

U.S. Knew Last Year of Flu Vaccine Plant's Woes

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A01

The Food and Drug Administration found serious problems of bacterial contamination at an influenza vaccine plant in England in 2003, 16 months before British regulators effectively closed the site and impounded its flu shots because of fears they were tainted.

Those earlier problems were among many revelations in about 100 pages of documents released yesterday by a House committee looking into how the United States lost about half this winter's flu vaccine supply just as the season for giving the shots began.

The documents, which include FDA inspection reports, letters and e-mails, also revealed that the agency was nine months late in giving Chiron Corp., the owner of the plant, a detailed report of the problems it found and then rebuffed the company's efforts to learn more about what it could do to fix things. At the same time, FDA managers overruled its inspection team and made its fixes voluntary rather than mandatory.

The new information appears to undercut the agency's assertions that it had no reason to suspect that past safety problems at the plant had persisted and might threaten its huge production capacity.

About 48 million doses of vaccine from Chiron's plant outside Liverpool were withheld from the U.S. market early last month after the British equivalent of the FDA denied the company a license to sell them.

The United States expected to have about 100 million doses of flu vaccine this winter. Instead there will be 61 million doses, with some not arriving until January. The shortage has caused widespread public anxiety and has forced health departments nationwide to laboriously reallocate vaccine after much of it already had been distributed.

Yesterday's revelations drew distinctly partisan responses at a congressional hearing.

"FDA's laxity has had a heavy cost. If FDA had ensured that the problems identified in June 2003 were fixed, this year's flu crisis might never have happened," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee

In contrast, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the chairman, twice elicited from acting FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford statements that no protocols had been violated in the agency's response to the problems at the Liverpool plant, which has had three owners in the past decade.

"If protocols need to be tweaked, then let's talk about tweaking them," Davis said.

Despite the revelation of problems dating at least to 2001, Crawford testified that except for the late delivery of its full report on the agency's June 2003 inspection, the FDA has done nothing wrong -- and it would do nothing differently if given the chance.

It seems pretty clear to me that this is a screw up which doesn't fall into the "act of God" category and should have been prevented. Tom Davis, my neighboring congresscritter, is consistent as part of the no-accountability party.

People are going to die as a result of this screw up. But nobody is going to be held accountable for that. Maybe Davis has arranged an emergency supply of vaccine for his mother and grandkids. I don't know, but the Repubs seem increasingly divorced from reality. When reality bites, they are going to be in for a shock.

Fear and Loathing on K Street

Via Dr. Alterman:

Dems fear lobbying blacklist
By Geoff Earle

Scores of soon-to-be-unemployed Democrats fear that their party’s electoral defeat could hinder their ability to find work on K Street, a traditional safe haven and source of employment for Capitol Hill staff.

At a time when many Democrats are anxious about their ability to earn a living, some even fear that a conspiracy to blacklist aides to certain Democrats, such as Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), could be afoot.

Daschle, who is reviled by many congressional Republicans for his efforts to stop GOP initiatives and judicial nominees in the Senate, was defeated in this month’s election by former Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.).

Some Democrats, still singed by Sen. John Kerry’s defeat in the presidential election and party losses in the House and Senate, even suggested that House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) might be behind an effort to convince K Street firms to think twice before hiring Daschle staff.

Several Democratic aides said that a midsize Washington lobbying firm, the Alpine Group, declined last week to hire a Daschle staffer with whom the group had been in long-standing discussions about a possible job. They said the Daschle aide, who The Hill agreed not to name, believed he would get the job based on conversations with the firm about three months before the election.

According to one Senate aide familiar with the situation, the firm told the Daschle aide, “This is a cold town for Democrats. It’s especially cold for Daschle’s staff.” Asked whether DeLay or any of his associates had specifically conveyed a message to the firm, the Senate aide said, “The implication was that DeLay had put the word out that Daschle staff should not be hired.”

The Daschle aide did not contact The Hill about this story, nor did he return a call seeking comment. Daschle’s office declined to comment. None of the Democratic sources could name a specific DeLay associate who conveyed the message to the firm.

Nevertheless, anxiety among Capitol Hill Democrats was running so high last week that talk of a DeLay effort against Daschle staff spread to a number of Hill staff and Democratic lobbyists.

Several senior Senate Democratic aides and Democratic lobbyists contacted by The Hill were familiar with the situation involving the Daschle staffer and with talk on K Street that DeLay had discouraged hiring of Daschle aides.

“We have heard from two different Republican lobbyists that this is true,” said one Senate Democratic aide. The aide cited the “K Street Project,” an effort to get firms to eschew Democrats and hire Republicans to top posts at major Washington
associations, and reported GOP efforts to punish the Motion Picture Association of America for hiring former Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman as its head, saying the efforts had deliberately created a sense of paranoia on K Street against hiring Democrats.

One Dem staffer laughed this off, saying that conspiracy storys about DeLay are the stuff of urban legend, so treat this as gossip with good sources. It is completely consistent with the behavior of DeLay and Rove, so I find it quite credible.

Warning

Bumpers, I just had to do something I've never done before in the one year history of this blog. I deleted a reader's comment, for their protection and mine. There was nothing wrong with it, it was literate and I basically agreed with it. But these days it pays to be very careful about mentioning Federal excutive offices and the people who hold those offices in a way that could be construed to be communicating a threat. Bloggers have gotten visits from the FBI, Secret Service agents have been rounding up school kids. The reader didn't really "communicate a threat" but the law is being read so broadly these days that "an abundence of caution" should be exercised.

Read, Weep

Rahul Mahajan at Empire Notes is collecting dispatches from Electronic Iraq's Dahr Jamail in Iraq. The reading is pretty grim:

She lays dazed in the crowded hospital room, languidly waving her bruised arm at the flies. Her shins, shattered by bullets from US soldiers when they fired through the front door of her house, are both covered by casts. Small plastic drainage backs filled with red fluid sit upon her abdomen, where she took shrapnel from another bullet.

“They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud,” he said, having just arrived yesterday, “Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half an hour. They used these near the train tracks. You could hear these dropped from a large airplane and the bombs were the size of a tank. When anyone touched those fires, their body burned for hours.”

I'm sitting here (home today, fighting an icky sinus infection) reading this while the afternoon bobbleheads on CNN are interviewing some retired general about the situation in Fallujah. The US is being sold a narrative about this war which is little more than mythology. The rest of the industrial west is hearing a very different story.

The bobblehead told the General that this is "a new kind of war." He didn't correct her. This is patently untrue, insurgencies are as old as warfare. Anybody remember the Bible? The Jews have a holiday celebrating a famous and successful insurgency. It's called Hannukah.

The history of the modern "great powers" against popular insurgencies has been primarily one of failure: think of the British in Malaya, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, the US in Viet Nam. The neo-cons in the Pentagon know a whole lot more about bizarre political theories than they do about military history.

Spanking the Spooks

TNR's Spencer Abraham Ackerman* has a good analysis of the Porter Goss/CIA conflict:

The widespread animosity toward Goss is likely to mark his entire tenure. Effective, long-lasting DCIs typically owe their success to an ability to balance three constituencies: the White House, Capitol Hill and Langley. DCIs who neglect their CIA power base don't often survive or implement much. Goss seems to be predicating his career on deliberately antagonizing the agency and forcing it into submission. But without the support of the agency he runs, Goss will be forced to rely on the warm wishes of the president for his continued service, which will only escalate the bitterness between Goss and the CIA.

Backed by a White House that rarely fires its loyal subordinates, Goss could very well be at Langley for a long time despite his shaky start. When Goss gave his introductory address to CIA employees in September, he received two standing ovations -- when he walked in and again when he finished up. A former CIA official who was present at the ceremony remarks, "Let him do it again today. He'll probably need security."

Paybacks, particularly from Bushco, are hell. But we are the ones who are going to be paying the price. Lord, we are going to be paying and paying and paying....

*Respiratory virus induced editing error

Huge Debt=Weak Dollar=Rising Interest Rates

Soaring Ceilings

Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A26

This will be the third time in three years that the debt limit has been increased, for a grand total of more than $2 trillion during President Bush's first term. The last hike was nearly $1 trillion, but it took less than 18 months for the government to hit the newly raised ceiling. By way of comparison, the entire federal debt in 1980 was less than $1 trillion.

There will be some noisy debate about this, only partly on point. The debt limit, as now defined, both overstates and understates the problem of the national debt. It overstates the problem by including not only what an ordinary person would think of as "real debt" -- the $4.3 trillion the government has borrowed -- but also money the government essentially owes itself. These are the "trust funds" to finance future obligations, such as Social Security and Medicare, that the government "borrows" from to pay its current bills. To the extent this reflects a debt, it's of a different sort from a Treasury bond. But if this is a debt, the ceiling understates the problem because the trust fund IOUs the government issues to itself don't come close to reflecting the full cost of its future commitments to those programs.

This much is beyond question: The government is living far beyond its means. The deficits it racks up year after year impede economic growth, burden future generations and force the United States to rely on foreign governments and investors. Since Mr. Bush took office, foreign holdings of U.S. debt have grown from 30 percent to 43 percent of the total, and 90 percent of the new debt has been purchased by foreigners. Meanwhile, as the government has to pay more interest on its debt, it has less for health care, education and other programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the government's interest payments are expected to more than double between 2003 ($153 billion) and 2010 ($319 billion); interest costs will account for almost 10 percent of federal spending in the next decade.

"We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now," Mr. Bush said in his first State of the Union address. He was speaking about his plan to pay off over the next decade the entire $2 trillion in government debt held by the public. Now, instead of being eliminated, debt held by the public -- real debt -- is on track to reach $6.5 trillion by 2011. How do Mr. Bush and all the lawmakers who have enabled his irresponsibility plan to explain that to the grandchildren?

Steve Roach hasn't had a new column up at Morgan Stanley for over a week, but you can believe that I'm checking daily. I'm now seeing some alarm in the works of your more "mainstream" financial analysts (Roach is a contrarian.)

Dollar Falls to Record; Snow Signals No Agreement to Stem Slide

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar fell to a record against the euro for the fourth time in two weeks and dropped versus the yen as U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow signaled he won't back any agreement to stem the currency's slide.

Greek Finance Minister George Alogoskoufis said Europe alone can't halt the dollar's decline, and the U.S. and Japan would also have to buy U.S. currency. ``It's a matter of having a coordinated policy at the global level,'' he said in an interview in Brussels.

The Coming Plague

Here is some more background on the Avian Flu, in preparation for Julie Gerberding's appearance before the House Government Reform Committee this afternoon. The author, Laurie Garrett, has been researching and writing on infectious diseases for two decades. Now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, she was formerly a Pulitzer Prize winning science reporter for The New York Times. Her book on epidemiology, infectious disease, drug resistence and emerging superbugs is The Coming Plague. It's a doorstop of a book, but such a compelling read that I finished it in one sitting over a long weekend a couple of years ago. This op-ed is from yesterday's McPaper.

Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) held an emergency summit of vaccine makers and health officials in Switzerland to discuss this year's shortages and the implications for a true influenza crisis. The summit's conclusion: Things are bad, and they may get a lot worse. WHO estimates that in a good year, the world produces 260 million flu-vaccine doses. But almost all of those go to the wealthiest 5% of people on the planet — most of whom live in the USA, Canada and Europe. That the United States faces a shortfall this year merely means that we are getting a taste of what billions of people in the world experience routinely.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) report in August on pandemic-influenza preparedness does little more than fine-tune a business-as-usual national approach. Flu plans in other nations are even less inspired.

About time for a change

This must stop. For two decades, I have been attending meetings in the United States where scientists warned that it is only a matter of time before the Big One — another supervirulent influenza akin to the 1918 killer that claimed 50 million lives — emerges, circulating the planet in a matter of jet-fueled hours, rather than the months required a century ago.

Even the U.S. vaccine industry could not produce sufficient supplies under such urgent circumstances to cover our needs, much less assist our neighbors and allies. What is required is a two-pronged approach: Improve vaccine output, but also attack the flu at its source.

Flu vaccines are hard to make, cannot be stockpiled and must be newly designed and manufactured annually. In our globalized world, the pace of genetic change in the influenza population has escalated to the point where it is no longer possible to make a monovalent vaccine, or one that targets a single type of flu: Typically we now make trivalent vaccines, which are considerably more expensive and difficult to produce.

Combined, the entire vaccine market for all types of immunizations used in the world brings in less profit than any one top-selling drug, even a blockbuster such as Prozac. In the absence of new methods of making and paying for flu vaccines, we can't begin to dream of adequate national vaccine protection, much less global.

Meanwhile, danger lurks. Avian influenza has surfaced in 10 countries, killing 32 people and 120 million domestic birds — either because of the flu or culling to stop its spread. If one of those strains manages to change genetically into a human-to-human transmissible influenza, it is possible the world might again face a pandemic crisis.

That is why we urgently need to rethink the entire global influenza approach — one that looks at how we can stop the flu at its source.

Influenza is an aquatic-bird virus that finds its way from migratory ducks and geese to human beings via livestock in southern China, Hong Kong and occasionally Thailand and Vietnam. In its aquatic-bird form, the virus is harmless to humans. But in southern Asia, migratory birds commonly poach food from farm animals, passing their flu viruses onto chickens and ducks.

Eventually, the flu passes from poultry to Asian pigs and horses, acquires genes that enhance the infection of mammals, becomes a humanly infectious microbe and BINGO: We have another epidemic.

Danger in China

Until last year's SARS epidemic shamed China into taking seriously its role as a public health citizen in the world, Beijing's leadership was reluctant to acknowledge the country's key ecological role with regard to influenza. That is beginning to change, but time is short: While China and the rest of the world dither in a business-as-usual mode, the risk of pandemic flu is rising because Chinese people are getting wealthier. With wealth comes increased chicken and pork consumption, spawning vast poultry farms through which flu viruses rage like brush fires on a parched California hillside.

President Bush should call upon the world to take a global view of the crisis. He should instruct the State Department, Agriculture Department and HHS to work with China and its neighbors to develop safer ways to raise and slaughter millions of ducks, chickens and pigs every year, and keep migratory birds away from livestock.

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry should be encouraged to collaborate with its Chinese and Hong Kong counterparts, with an aim toward immunizing farmers, animal handlers and consumers at the source, before the flu globalizes.

And on the home front, the president simply has to stop dodging the explosive issue of how to create incentives in the pharmaceutical industry that lead to the production of low-profit products that save the world, not just handfuls of lucky Americans, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese.

I hear what Garrett is saying, but see next to no chance of anything being done in the Bush administration. It'll take a calamity and extraordinary popular pressure to get action in this area, and this isn't the place that the public is going to pay attention until it is too late.

Set up your Tivo

For C-Span junkies:

Today in Congress

Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A04

SENATE

Meets at 2:15 p.m.

Committees:

Armed Services -- 3 p.m. Readiness subc. DOD, financial management. 232A Russell Bldg.

Commerce -- 2 p.m. Science subc. Down syndrome, genetic testing. 253 Russell.

Senate-House Conferees -- 1:30 p.m. Closed. Intelligence Authorization Act. S-407, Capitol.

Environment -- 2:30 p.m. Markup. 406 Dirksen Bldg.

Indian Affairs -- 3 p.m. Markup; Tribes, lobbying practices. 216 Hart Bldg.

Intelligence -- 2:30 p.m. Closed. 219 Hart.

HOUSE

Meets at 10 a.m.

Committees:

Armed Services -- 2 p.m. Status, U.S. forces. 2118 Rayburn Bldg.

House-Senate Conferees -- 2:30 p.m. Disabled people, education. 2175 Rayburn.

Government Reform -- 10 a.m. Energy policy subc. Regulatory reform. 2247 Rayburn.

Government Reform -- 1 p.m. Flu vaccine shortage. CDC Dir. Gerberding. 2154 Rayburn.

Intelligence -- 9 a.m. Closed. Terrorism. 2212 Rayburn.

International Relations -- 3 p.m. Oil-for-food program. 2172 Rayburn.

The Flu vaccine shortage hearing ought to be interesting. I used to think that CDC chief Julie Gerberding was one of the good guys, but her "who? Me? Nobody could have predicted it!" reaction to the flu vaccine disaster demonstrates that she's just another functionary in the No Accountability Administration.

Keep in mind that this is a public health failure of truly historic proportions.

Arrogance of Power

GOP Pushes Rule Change To Protect DeLay's Post

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

Hubris always brings nemesis. The House Ethics Committee may be a dead letter, but the DeLayites are begging the weight of history to fall on their heads.

Rubber-Stamp or Be Gone

New C.I.A. Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: November 17, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.

"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."

While his words could be construed as urging analysts to conform with administration policies, Mr. Goss also wrote, "We provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker.''

The memorandum suggested an effort by Mr. Goss to spell out his thinking as he embarked on what he made clear would be a major overhaul at the agency, with further changes to come. The changes to date, including the ouster of the agency's clandestine service chief, have left current and former intelligence officials angry and unnerved. Some have been outspoken, including those who said Tuesday that they regarded Mr. Goss's warning as part of an effort to suppress dissent within the organization.

In recent weeks, White House officials have complained that some C.I.A. officials have sought to undermine President Bush and his policies.

At a minimum, Mr. Goss's memorandum appeared to be a swipe against an agency decision under George J. Tenet, his predecessor as director of central intelligence, to permit a senior analyst at the agency, Michael Scheuer, to write a book and grant interviews that were critical of the Bush administration's policies on terrorism.

One former intelligence official said he saw nothing inappropriate in Mr. Goss's warning, noting that the C.I.A. had long tried to distance itself and its employees from policy matters.

"Mike exploited a seam in the rules and inappropriately used it to express his own policy views,'' the official said of Mr. Scheuer. "That did serious damage to the agency, because many people, including some in the White House, thought that he was being urged by the agency to take on the president. I know that was not the case.''

But a second former intelligence official said he was concerned that the memorandum and the changes represented an effort by Mr. Goss to stifle independence.

"If Goss is asking people to color their views and be a team player, that's not what people at C.I.A. signed up for,'' said the former intelligence official. The official and others interviewed in recent days spoke on condition that they not be named, saying they did not want to inflame tensions at the agency.

"He said, he said" jounalism at its worst. Follow the facts: the bloodletting at the Agency this week was a purge of those with dissenting views. Imagine a CIA were only those who present "intel" that conforms to the phantasmagorical worldview of the neo-cons is allowed.

No, wait. Don't imagine it, deal with it, for that is the the Agency that the neo-cons have just created. The State Department has been likewise purged of professionals in favor of ideologues. (The link is a bit old, but the roster is very interesting.) Most of what I read yesterday indicates that Powell didn't jump, he was pushed, as are most of the rest of the resignations which followed.

I don't know how you react to all of this, but I find the idea of a top administration cadre of yesmen to be chilling, given how wrongheaded the policy makers have been so far.

I suspect I'll have an essay on the distinction between "faith" and "ideology" up here or at The Village Gate in the next day or so.

For us Proles

Look at the record. failing upward has been the province of the wealthy and incompetent for decades, and the Bush administration excels at it. They protect their own, and our safety isn't on their radar screen. Those who vacation at Martha's Vineyard are in the protected class. The rest of us can, and will, go hang. Not our kind, dear, we rabble.

The helicopter noise overhead tonight is particularly intense. Another threat detected? Is it from Al Qaeda or the Bill of Rights?

I have to gather up the recyclables and empty the trash baskets ahead of an early morning, so I'll leave it for you to decide while I clean the litter box. Your comments are gratefully part of this project. And I don't have the first idea about what I'm going to wear in the morning to work and have to factor that in if I'm going to get up at the usual hour. Ironing takes time.

The worst possible move

Just a note for people who think the United States has cornered the market on self-defeating unbridled imbecilic stupidity .. like me, on most days. It appears as if we have some sharp competition in the stupidity arena, apparently from Iraqi insurgents.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - British-Iraqi aid worker Margaret Hassan has probably been killed by kidnappers, her family said on Tuesday after a video apparently showing her being shot in the head was sent to an Arab television station.

Her family said from London: "Margaret has probably gone."

Smart move, resistance guys. You can't tell the difference between friends and enemies anymore. After this, you're going to find humanitarian aid more than a trifle thin on the ground.

Dream On

Will the Moderates Speak Up?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004; Page A25

Moderate Republicans win in the blue states by saying they are different from Tom DeLay and other Republican right-wingers. But in Washington, they are punished if they act on what they tell the voters.

Consider the case of Sen. Arlen Specter, just reelected from Pennsylvania, a state that supported John Kerry. Specter is a Republican who supports abortion rights. Now the Republican right wants to deny him the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, for which he is in line through seniority.

Specter's sin? He took the same position on the abortion question after the election as he did before. Here's the post-election statement that has the conservatives wanting to deny Specter his chairmanship:

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said. "The president is well aware of what happened when a bunch of his nominees were sent up with the filibuster."

Specter was stating the obvious: that many Democrats are likely to try to block an anti-Roe nominee. But conservatives viewed Specter's comment as heresy, and Specter can't count on much support from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

The Tennessee Republican wants to run for president. He knows how important it is in Republican primaries to pander to the right. So on "Fox News Sunday," Frist piously declared that Specter's statements "were disheartening to me" and "disheartening to a lot of people."

This is a revealing moment. Republicans like to say that they are more open on the abortion issue than Democrats, because abortion-rights foes have no place in the Democratic Party. That's a strange claim, since Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), an opponent of abortion rights, is about to become Frist's counterpart for the Senate's Democratic minority. Former representative David Bonior was the House whip and thus the No. 2 Democrat in the leadership until he stepped down to run for governor of Michigan in 2002. Bonior is also a right-to-lifer.

Query: Which party is really open on the abortion issue?

Republicans are fine with their members being for abortion rights if that's what they have to tell voters to hold their seats. But such Republicans can expect only resistance if they dare to rise to the top and expect any meaningful influence on the issue.

How long will moderate Republicans accept being kicked around? It's about a lot more than abortion. In the House, DeLay, the party's strongman, won't even let moderate legislation get to the floor. He insists that his party's moderates support internal procedures that cut off all possibility of genuinely bipartisan compromise. Will the moderate Republicans just keep going along?

Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, isn't expecting much. "With the exceptions of Lincoln Chafee and Jim Leach," says Frank, referring to the Republican senator from Rhode Island and the liberal Republican House member from Iowa, "Republicans will be with us as long as their votes are irrelevant to the outcome."

Frank adds: "Moderate Republicans are reverse Houdinis. They tie themselves up in knots and then tell you they can't do anything because they're tied up in knots."

Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware is one of those moderate Republicans, a thoughtful former governor who wishes politics was less polarized. He sees the moderates as having less power now because of the election of more conservatives to both houses. Yet Castle still hopes moderation might have its day, because the president "is going to want to build a legacy that is a little broader than it is so far."

Dream on, boys. The message has already been sent: moderate Republicans are utterly irrelevent to the neo-con agenda. They'll receive no hearing from the hard-line rightwingers.

Failed Opportunity

Soldier who lost the will to fight
The son of black immigrants, Colin Powell overcame poverty and prejudice to hold high office. Rupert Cornwell looks back on his political career

16 November 2004

Should he have resigned? Yes, opponents of the Iraq invasion would say. But that is to ignore the conventions of US government. Resignations on principled issues of policy are not the norm here. Cy Vance, who quit in 1980 over his opposition to President Jimmy Carter's plan to mount a raid to rescue US hostages in Iran, is the only Secretary of State in modern times to have done so.

Colin Powell, the good soldier and team player par excellence, was never likely to follow that example. Famously, shortly before the war began, he cited the so-called "Pottery Barn" rule - "You break it, you own it" - to remind the President that, by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the US would become responsible for putting the country together again. But that was as far as resistance went.

With some reluctance, he agreed to go to the United Nations six weeks before the war to make the Bush administration's case to the Security Council that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Beforehand, the Secretary of State spent an entire weekend cloistered at the CIA, poring over the evidence.

In New York, General Powell delivered as powerful and convincing a performance as he could muster, complete with satellite photos, audio tapes and transcripts of US intelligence intercepts - even the brandishing of a vial of white powder that might have been anthrax spores. Alas for the retired General, it was rubbish.

As the months passed with not a trace of an illicit weapon, General Powell's discomfort grew. To friends, he admitted his distress. In retrospect, 5 February 2003 marked the nadir of his reputation, and it has not truly recovered since.

His letter of resignation predictably gave no hint of disappointment or inner turmoil. He thanked the President for "the honour of serving in his administration", and of being "part of the team that launched the global war on terror and liberated the people of Iraq and Afghanistan". But many suspected that, for all his weariness at the lost battles with the Pentagon and the Vice-President's office, General Powell was increasingly inclined to stay on for a while into a second Bush term, in a bid to re-burnish his reputation. The death of Yasser Arafat, and the possible new opening in the search for a Middle-East settlement, could only have strengthened such hankerings. But in the end he decided enough was enough.

So how will history judge him? "The conventional wisdom is that he has been the loser in the great bureaucratic war, and that's probably true," says Dr Michael Mandelbaum of the Council of Foreign Relations. At best, General Powell's foreign policy record is mixed. He failed to prevent Mr Bush from adopting a much harder policy than Mr Clinton towards North Korea - an approach that has proved equally unsuccessful in deterring its nuclear ambitions.

During the Powell era the Middle East has gone from bad to worse (though once Mr Bush had made it clear that he would have no truck with Yasser Arafat, there was probably nothing that any US diplomat could have done).

Despite his best efforts, and his immense popularity in Europe, he could not head off a profound split between the US and traditional allies like France and Germany. Once again Powell the moderate lost out to the Rumsfelds and Cheneys of this world, who were convinced that US power was such that Washington could ignore international opinion and the hand-wringing of "Old Europe".

But there have been achievements, such as his role in the $5bn Millennium Challenge initiative to fight poverty and aid developing countries. The State Department, moreover, seems to have won control of US policy towards China, a relationship on which global stability in the 21st century may depend. Then there are the less quantifiable successes, foremost among them the revitalisation of the US foreign service. It may not seem so, after the bruising struggles within the administration, but under General Powell the State Department has been a happier place. He has inspired deep affection in his staff, with his warm, personal style, his willingness to delegate to the desk officials who knew a policy area best, and his loyalty.

So General Powell will depart before Mr Bush's second inauguration on 20 January 2005. Oddly, as Mr Mandelbaum points out, "he will do so just when the President appears to have come around to a more Powellian view of the world" - when the limits of "go-it-alone" have been cruelly exposed, and fence mending, bridge building and multilateralism are edging back into favour.

Much of America, not to mention the world, will be sad to see him go. But there will be many claims on his time. His family for one, doubtless a new set of memoirs and, of course, his predilection of decades - tinkering with ancient Volvos.

Cornwell is indulging in some optimistic speculation there at the end. Given the hardline appointments announced so far, it is highly unlikely that Bush is going to repudiate any of the actions of the first term.

Posted by Melanie at 12:41 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Tightening the Fist

Juan Cole articulates the thoughts which have been kicking around in my head since last night. Colin Powell's resignation and replacement with Rice is a corrolary to what is going on at the CIA. The second Bush term is going to be the rule of the true believers run by those who prize loyalty over reality. As bad as I thought this could be, it will be worse.

Moves Cement Hard-Line Stance On Foreign Policy

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 16, 2004; Page A01

By accepting Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's resignation, President Bush appears to have taken a decisive turn in his approach to foreign policy.

Powell's departure -- and Bush's intention to name his confidante, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, as Powell's replacement -- would mark the triumph of a hard-edged approach to diplomacy espoused by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Powell's brand of moderate realism was often overridden in the administration's councils of power, but Powell's presence ensured that the president heard divergent views on how to proceed on key foreign policy issues.

But, with Powell out of the picture, the long-running struggle over key foreign policy issues is likely to be less intense. Powell has pressed for working with the Europeans on ending Iran's nuclear program, pursuing diplomatic talks with North Korea over its nuclear ambitions and taking a tougher approach with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Now, the policy toward Iran and North Korea may turn decidedly sharper, with a bigger push for sanctions rather than diplomacy. On Middle East peace, the burden for progress will remain largely with the Palestinians.

Moreover, in elevating Rice, Bush is signaling that he is comfortable with the direction of the past four years and sees little need to dramatically shift course. Powell has had conversations for six months with Bush about the need for a "new team" in foreign policy, a senior State Department official said. But in the end only the key official who did not mesh well with the others -- Powell -- is leaving.

2 More Top CIA Officials Quit Over New Leadership

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The resignations of two more senior CIA officials Monday fueled debate in the intelligence community over whether the agency was tumbling into turmoil under new Director Porter J. Goss, or was taking painful but necessary steps toward fixing serious problems.

In the latest in a series of high-profile departures, the top two officials in the CIA's clandestine service quit after clashing with one of Goss' senior aides.

Stephen R. Kappes, the deputy director for operations, and his deputy, Michael J. Sulick, each had served in the agency for 23 years. Both are leaving just weeks into Goss' tenure, amid signs of increasing acrimony between the agency's old guard and what critics describe as an often-abrasive new regime.

The departures alarmed agency veterans, who said morale was plummeting under Goss' stewardship and that the agency was increasingly in disarray at a time when it was struggling to stay abreast of terrorist threats and the insurgency in Iraq.

Feeling safer? The professionals are leaving as the ideologues tighten their control.

W is supposed to go to Europe for a Grand Tour in February. Don't expect it to be alot more friendly than his last trip to London, where the Queen hated the way he trampled the gardens at Buckingham palace. European heads will tolerate him, but the publics loathe him, and that isn't likely to improve any time soon.

US expats, we'd love to hear from you in comments, along with Americans who have traveled abroad recently.

On Camera

Inquiry into shooting of wounded Iraqi shown in television footage

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and agencies
Tuesday November 16, 2004
The Guardian

The Pentagon said last night it was opening an investigation into the shooting of an unarmed and wounded Iraqi in Falluja, following the release of television footage showing what appeared to be a close-range execution-style killing.

The Iraqi was one of five wounded prisoners left in a battle-scarred mosque after marines fought their way through the city at the weekend.

The footage of the apparent killing, captured by a pool report by NBC television, and first shown yesterday afternoon, disrupted what was supposed to be a day of triumph for the Pentagon.

One week after the start of the assault on the Sunni city, US military officials were claiming to have reasserted control over most areas of the rebel enclave.

Instead, however, that military success - following several days of heavy losses for the US forces - was obscured by a furore at what was reported alternately as a "mercy killing" and an unlawful killing.

The film from Falluja was shot in the aftermath of a ferocious battle in which marines stormed a mosque and an adjacent building. Kevin Sites, an NBC television correspondent embedded with the US troops, said that the mosque had been taken over by militants, and had been used to launch attacks on US forces.

In the ensuing clash, at least 10 militants were killed. The five wounded were left in the mosque for another unit to move to hospital for treatment. However, that did not occur, and the footage shows a second group of marines entering the mosque on Saturday amid reports that the building had been reoccupied.

The camera pans to two severely wounded figures slumped against a wall, one with his face obscured by a red keffiyeh. However, it appears unclear if the marines are aware that the prisoners had been captured the day before.

Off camera, one marine can be heard asking if the Iraqis are armed. Moments later, a marine can be heard saying: "He's fucking faking he's dead. He's faking he's fucking dead."

There is shouting among the marines and then one opens fire. At that point news channels, including CNN, blacked out the image

I saw the video and wish Kevin was updating his Kevin Sites blog a little more often.

If this is the incident we know about, what about all the ones we don't?

Relying on You has never led me wrong

Rice at State? Come up with one case where she is competent. I dare you.

Bushworld: getting it consistently wrong since 2000.

The Interior War

Do you remember right after the completion of "major combat operations" (the irony seems a little thick tonight) how the commentariat marveled that there hadn't been any great refugee crisis in Iraq?

Someplace north of 200,000 Fallujans have been displaced in the current battle. We've got our refugee crisis, now that all the humanitarian agencies have moved out. Great. Same thing going on in Mosul and other cities. This is a humanitarian nightmare. And Bush is going to have to deal with it.

A number of you have noted in Comments and email that the American press coverage of this has been cowed and intimidated. It's true. You'll have to read the foreign press to find out what is really going on. The UK's Independent has been particularly good, and the Beeb has reporters on the ground.

Wolfowitz is on the Newshour, talking about a
"muscular" foreign policy and the legacy of Powell?

Why the fsck are we in Iraq again? Any guesses?

Good Advice

Why the Democrats Need to Stop Thinking About Elephants
By ADAM COHEN

Published: November 15, 2004

The title "Don't Think of an Elephant!" comes from a classic experiment Dr. Lakoff conducts in Cognitive Science 101. He tells his students not to think of an elephant, and he has yet to find one who has managed it. Thinking about elephants is the frame, and negating it simply reinforces it. This was the problem, he says, with President Richard Nixon's famous declaration, "I am not a crook."

Trying not to think of elephants, Dr. Lakoff suggests, sums up the Democrats' plight. Since Republicans have framed the key issues, Democrats cannot avoid being on the losing side. Take taxes. Republicans have succeeded in framing the issue as "tax relief," a metaphor that presents an affliction, and that predetermines who are the heroes - tax opponents - and villains. Taxes are, of course, necessary even for programs Republicans back, like the military, and simple economics dictates that we cannot keep cutting taxes and maintaining spending forever. But the Democrats are hard-pressed to make these points once the frame is "tax relief."

It is not by accident that "tax relief" presents taxes in moral terms, as a calamity in search of a cure. Values, Dr. Lakoff argues, are the key to framing campaign issues. Democrats have an unfortunate tendency, he says, to see campaigns as product launches, believing that if they roll out a candidate with the best features, or positions on issues, voters will support him. Republicans understand that people vote their identity, not their self-interest - that they seek out candidates whose values appear to match their own.

After the election, pundits made much of the influence of a few "moral" issues, like gay marriage and abortion, on the outcome. But Dr. Lakoff argues that values play an important role in almost every campaign issue. The Republicans' success has been driven in large part, he argues, by their ability to frame less morally charged subjects in terms of core values. He is impressed by a line from President Bush's last State of the Union address: that we do not need a "permission slip" to defend America. It reframed multilateralism, once a widely accepted foreign policy principle, as weakness and national infantilization.

As Dr. Lakoff sees it, Democrats need to start framing issues in terms of their own values, which, he insists, are no less popular with the American people than the Republicans' values. This project will, however, take more than spin and sloganeering. On many subjects, he argues, the Democrats suffer from what he calls "hypocognition" - more simply, a lack of ideas. Republicans have been working for the past 40 years, since the defeat of Barry Goldwater, in well-financed think tanks, on developing conservative ideas that voters will rally around. The Democrats, he says, need to start catching up.

One frame Dr. Lakoff likes, which he believes could become a progressive wedge issue, is "poison-free communities." The Republicans' war on government regulation has left industry increasingly free to spew toxins into the air and water, despite the harm it is doing to the public. Keeping people healthy is a core progressive value, but it is one that many swing voters and Republicans share. Few people want their children poisoned by mercury in the name of a theory about the appropriate size of government.

Framing can also deflect the other side's charges. Dr. Lakoff argues that the Democrats should fight the Republican campaign for "tort reform" by recasting it. Rather than debate over frivolous lawsuits, he says, they should talk about protecting people from law-breaking corporations and negligent doctors. When Republicans talk about greedy trial lawyers, he says, Democrats should talk about - and he really needs a better phrase here- "public protection attorneys."

As Cohen makes clear elsewhere in the article, you can't substitute "framing" for a good ground game or an articulate, attractive candidate, but Lakoff is on to something. And he's correct, the right has been beating us at this for a long time. His key insight, that voters vote their self-identity, rather than their self-interest, is absolutely crucial to understanding the paradigm shift we need. It's sales, it has always been sales: it isn't what you are selling, it is what they are buying.

Upgrade Now!

Firefox Flames Internet Explorer

By Cynthia L. Webb
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, November 15, 2004; 10:03 AM

CNET's News.com wrote on Friday that "After 19 months of development, two name changes and more than 8 million downloads of its preview release, the Firefox browser finally turned 1.0. The browser, based on the Mozilla Foundation's open-source development work, was made available for free download early Tuesday. Firefox 1.0 isn't significantly different from the preview releases launched in recent months. Mozilla changed its default start page to appeal to new users, but other changes involve minor performance improvements and bug fixes... The release could nonetheless have a big effect if prerelease trends propel the open-source browser into serious contention with Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
• CNET's News.com: This Week In Firefox News

More from the review, which praises Firefox's simple and easy-to-understand design interface, automatic pop-up blocker and built-in security features: "[Firefox] doesn't support Microsoft's dangerous ActiveX software, which gives a Web site the run of your computer. It omits IE's extensive hooks into the rest of Windows, which can turn a mishap into a systemwide meltdown. Firefox resists 'phishing' scams, in which con artists lure users into entering personal info on fake Web pages, by making it easier to tell good sites from bad. When you land on an encrypted page -- almost no phishing sites provide this protection -- Firefox advertises that status by highlighting the address bar in yellow. It also lists that page's domain name on the status bar; if that doesn't match what you see in the address bar, you're probably on a phishing site." Pegoraro will be online this afternoon to talk about Firefox.

Here's a link to a list of 101 Things You Can Do In Mozilla That You Can't Do With IE.

At the Top

Justices Who Won't 'Run With the Wolves'

By Geoffrey R. Stone, Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime," just published by W.W. Norton.

The conventional wisdom is that the role of the Supreme Court is to help protect us against our own worst instincts in such circumstances. As the guardian of our constitutional liberties, it often falls to the court to say "enough." Sometimes, however, the court has failed to meet this responsibility.

In World War I, the Supreme Court consistently upheld the convictions of antiwar dissenters; in 1944, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Japanese internment; and in the early 1950s the court upheld the government's persecution and prosecution of individuals accused of disloyalty. As Justice William O. Douglas observed at the time, the court had decided "to run with the wolves."

On other occasions, however, the court has stood firm. In 1866, the court held that Lincoln had exceeded his constitutional authority in imposing martial law. During World War II, the court protected 1st Amendment rights of American fascists when the government tried to deport and denaturalize them. In the late 1950s and early '60s, the court helped put an end to the era of McCarthyism. During the Vietnam War, the court refused to enjoin the publication of the Pentagon Papers. And just last spring, the court emphatically rejected the Bush administration's positions with respect to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the rights of American citizens who had been seized and held incommunicado by the government as "enemy combatants."

Like all institutions of government, the Supreme Court is only as good as the individuals who wield its authority. The consensus among Supreme Court-watchers is that in the next four years President Bush will probably appoint at least three justices to the court. Bush says his nominees will be similar to the current justices he most admires, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Thomas was the only justice who voted to uphold the claims of the Bush administration in both of the Supreme Court decisions last spring involving the "war on terrorism," and Scalia sided with the administration in one of the two cases. Three more justices of this ilk would tragically tip the balance of power.

What the nation needs now are not justices who will deferentially bow to the executive branch and repeat the mistakes of the past, but justices with the wisdom to know excess when they see it and the courage to preserve liberty when it is imperiled.

This is no time to run with the wolves.

Following the final presidential candidates debate last month, Cynthia Tucker wrote in the AJC:

Bush tried to be cagey, contending he would not use a "litmus test" in his judicial appointments. To believe that, you'd have to ignore the president's record in the lower federal courts: Every judge he has nominated has been quite conservative. Just a coincidence? Unlikely.

Besides, Bush already has disclosed his idea of the perfect justices — Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Indeed, in the even-handed new biography "Judging Thomas," author and Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Ken Foskett suggests even more to come. Regarding a well-received speech Thomas made in February 2001 to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Foskett writes:

"Thomas went home that night a winner. . . . There was even talk of Thomas succeeding Rehnquist as chief justice."

That's troubling. Thomas and Scalia oppose every progressive idea, every enhancement of civil rights and every expansion of individual rights that comes before the court. If a Scalia-Thomas view of the U.S. Constitution had prevailed on the nation's highest court in the 1950s, black Americans would still be drinking from separate water fountains and sitting at the back of the bus. (And under those circumstances, of course, the closest Thomas would get to the bench would be to clean up after the justices were done for the day.)

In a speech last year defending the scaling back of individual rights during wartime, Scalia said, "The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." That's scary stuff.

But Thomas may be scarier. Conservatives have coined the phrase "activist judge" to disparage jurists whose rulings they don't agree with. But as Scalia described Thomas to Foskett, Thomas is about as "activist" as it gets — the Supreme Court justice most likely to overturn precedents established by prior courts.

"He doesn't believe in stare decisis [let the decision stand], period," Scalia told Foskett. "If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."

So even Scalia has more respect for established case law than Thomas does. A Thomas court might start a crusade against modern-day constitutional rights, overturning everything from the right of all criminal defendants to have a lawyer to the right of women to have access to contraceptives.

The next president could appoint as many as four justices to the nation's highest court. John Paul Stevens and Chief Justice William Rehnquist are now octogenarians. Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both cancer survivors in their 70s. But given that so many important decisions of late have been decided by 5-4 margins, the next president need appoint only two to tilt the court persuasively toward his ideology. If he appoints two fortyish justices, he will change the court for a very long time.

The future ain't looking so hot.

Class Warfare

Feed the Billionaire, Starve the Students
By BOB HERBERT

Published: November 15, 2004

We learned from a page-one story in last Thursday's Times that pupils at Public School 63 in the South Bronx have to take their gym classes in the school's lobby. They don't have a gymnasium. Their teacher, Rose Gelrod, has marked a jogging path on the lobby's floor. These makeshift classes, as reporter Susan Saulny informed us, "are regularly interrupted by foot traffic to bathrooms and deliveries to the cafeteria."

Welcome to the wonderful world of neglect, which is the daily life of New York City schoolchildren.

Ah, but on the front page of the Sports section of that same paper comes a different story. It was a profile of the pampered billionaire owner of the New York Jets, Robert Wood Johnson IV, who is known as Woody to his close friends and those many public officials who stumble all over themselves trying to kiss his ring.

The very people who are crying poverty as they deny gyms and playgrounds to the city's schoolchildren - starting with the billionaire mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, and the governor, George Pataki - are pulling out every stop in an effort to round up and hand over hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to their friend Woody so he can have the grandest, most luxurious, most expensive sports stadium the country has ever seen.

The stadium would sit on some of the most valuable real estate in the country, prime Manhattan riverfront property, which would also be handed over for Woody's use. Oh, it's good to be a billionaire.

As for the kids. Well, forget about them. They don't have any money. For 30 years, at least, they've gotten the back of the hand when it comes to playgrounds and athletic facilities. Nearly a fifth of the city's schools lack gymnasiums. Ninety-four percent have no athletic fields. More than half have no playgrounds.

The politicians will tell you we can't afford to do better than that for the kids in the public schools. But a billion-and-a-half-dollar playground for the rich and famous, hard by the Hudson River? No problem.

In the article about Mr. Johnson, The Times's Duff Wilson said:

"He is one of the biggest Republican fund-raisers in the nation, and his grateful allies - President Bush, Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg - make up a rare triple play of powerful support."

When you lavish money on politicians, you expect something in return. Among the things Mr. Johnson wants is $600 million in city and state funds (at least) to make up the difference between the $800 million he is putting up and the estimated $1.4 billion the stadium will cost.

The state and the city are responsible for financing the city's grossly underfinanced schools and they fight like gamecocks over who should pay for what. But they are in the most harmonious agreement that the estimable Woody should get the hundreds of millions that he wants for his stadium.

It couldn't be because he's greased so many palms, could it? I personally think this entire project is a scandal, a wholesale giveaway of tremendous public assets to an incredibly wealthy private interest. In the old days somebody would have called the sheriff. But you don't hear much about bribery or quid-pro-criminal-quos anymore because the rascals have figured out how to make it legal.

Woody Johnson is not big on publicity. He goes out of his way to avoid the spotlight. "He declines interviews for a profile," Mr. Wilson wrote. "He tells his closest family members and longtime business associates not to talk about him, either."

He would like the public to know as little about him as possible. And yet he has his hand out, palm wide open, ready to seize as much of the public's money as he can get.

The neglect of New York City's schools goes far beyond the lack of gymnasiums, athletic fields and playgrounds. Classrooms are overcrowded and there is a dangerous shortage of qualified teachers. Bathrooms in some schools aren't even equipped with toilet paper or hand towels. Parents and teachers are often forced to buy the most basic supplies.

The same dance is being played out here as the District courts MLB with a city-financed new stadium. Bread and circuses for the entertained class beats textbooks for the poor any day.

A Good Question

Iraqi City Lies in Ruins
Rebels are reportedly making their last stand in Fallouja. The next step, reconstruction, could cost the U.S. tens of millions of dollars.

By Patrick J. McDonnell, Times Staff Writer

But the bombed-out buildings are only the most obvious damage.

There is no running water or electricity. The water, power and sewage infrastructure will probably need complete overhauls.

Food distribution systems must be reinstituted. Shops must be reopened, commerce resumed. Battered hospitals, clinics and schools must be patched up and reopened.

Beyond that, U.S. officials have lofty plans to help install a democratic government here that will answer to the administration of interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. A police force of more than 1,000 officers must be deployed in a city where police have been consistently targeted for assassination in the past as collaborators with the Americans.

"The challenge is to get a civil administration up and running, and they are starting from zero," said a senior U.S. diplomat. "They have to do everything from getting the director of the waterworks to come back to work to getting a chief of police."

And, if all that wasn't enough, commanders would like the city to be ready to hold peaceful elections in January, when Iraqis nationwide are scheduled to choose a national assembly.

In all, it is a colossal challenge of nation-building — albeit concentrated in one city — made all the more difficult because Fallouja remains in the heart of the Sunni Triangle, long a source of support for ousted dictator Saddam Hussein and resistance to U.S. and coalition forces.

"This is very important: to restore the infrastructure of the city and … get the Iraqi government and the police established, and keep the insurgents from coming back in," Natonski said.

Despite the clear military gains, the city remains insecure enough that major civil affairs units that will oversee reconstruction have yet to arrive. But more than $50 million in contracts has already been let, and people are standing by, ready to start work as soon as it is safe enough.

A coordinating team — including officials from the U.S. military and civilian agencies as well as the Iraqi government — has been meeting for the last two weeks to figure out how to spend the roughly $200 million allocated for Fallouja and nearby Ramadi.

Overall responsibility for rebuilding Fallouja will fall to the Marines' 4th Civil Affairs Group, a largely reserve unit based in Washington that is poised on the outskirts of the city.

Mortuary teams to pick up the remains of hundreds of insurgents killed in the fighting also have been held back, as bodies rot in the streets.

"It's a health hazard," conceded Natonski. "We'll soon be taking care of that…. We just need to ensure that we're not taking casualties taking care of bodies."

It is unclear when residents will be allowed back into the city. A 24-hour curfew is in effect, and those civilians still present have been warned to stay in their homes, as food and water supplies dwindle. U.S. and Iraqi forces have been handing out emergency water and rations.

The military exists to kill people and blow things up. They are good at it. Why do I have the queasy feeling that leaving a city in their hands is a bad idea? Particularly when they issue crap like this:

US disputes civilians trapped
From correspondents near Fallujah, Iraq
November 15, 2004

THE US military said overnight it saw no need for the Iraqi Red Crescent to deliver aid to people inside Fallujah as it did not think any Iraqi civilians were trapped inside the city.

"There is no need to bring (Red Crescent) supplies in because we have supplies of our own for the people," said US Marine Colonel Mike Shupp.

"Now that the bridge (into Fallujah) is open, I will bring out casualties and all aid work can be done here (at Fallujah's hospital)."

He said he had not heard of any Iraqi civilians being trapped inside the city and did not think that was the case.

The Iraqi Red Crescent believes at least 150 families are trapped inside Fallujah and that many are in desperate need of food, blankets, water and medicine.

Some residents still inside the city, contacted by Reuters today, said their children were suffering from diarrhoea and had not eaten for several days.

Asked what he intended to do about families and other non-combatants trapped inside the city, Col Shupp said: "I don't think that is the case.

"I haven't heard that myself and the Iraqi soldiers didn't tell me about that. We want to help them as much as we can. We are on the radio broadcast telling them how to come out and how to come up to coalition forces."

The Red Crescent has sent a convoy of seven aid trucks and ambulances to Fallujah, but it has been stopped at the city's main hospital, on the west bank of the Euphrates river, away from the city centre.

Like that's believable. Yesterday, the Brit papers were calling this a "humanitarian disaster."

I'm listening to Morning Edition on NPR. Um, broadcasters, would you please get a clue? The "insurgents" are citizens of the sovereign state of Iraq who object to being occupied. Maybe we shouldn't be there? To these ears, it doesn't sound like that question has occured to you.

Those Internets

Dow Jones Is Said to Agree to a Deal to Buy MarketWatch
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Published: November 15, 2004

Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, agreed yesterday to buy MarketWatch, the parent company of the financial news Web site CBS MarketWatch, for about $486 million, executives close to the negotiations said.

The deal, which the companies plan to announce today, would give Dow Jones a way to reach a broad audience of consumers interested in financial news and a new source of revenue from online advertising.

The acquisition of MarketWatch, a free news site at cbsmarketwatch.com, marks a major strategic shift for Dow Jones, which until now had focused its online efforts almost exclusively on paid subscription services like The Wall Street Journal Online, one of the few successful subscription-based news Web sites.

That model, however, limited the company's ability to cash in on the recent surge in online advertising because the site's audience is confined to subscribers, who number about 701,000. In comparison, CBS MarketWatch's site had 5.8 million unique visitors in September, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.

Dow Jones beat out a list of media bidders for control of MarketWatch with a bid of $18 a share in the auction, which was handled by UBS, the executives said. That bid represents a premium of about 45 percent to the price of MarketWatch's stock before the news broke last month that the company was up for sale.

Analysts said the bid was much higher than expected, with some saying that Dow Jones may have overpaid.

Other bidders included Yahoo, The New York Times Company and Viacom, which holds a 22.4 percent stake in MarketWatch as one of its original backers, the executives said. A spokesman for MarketWatch declined to comment. A spokesman for Dow Jones could not be immediately reached.

John Tinker, an analyst at ThinkEquity Partners, said in a recent research report that Dow Jones was "an obvious buyer given that MarketWatch could be leveraged through its wider distribution base."

The sale is a major success for Larry S. Kramer, a former newspaper editor who created the site, then called MarketWatch .com, for the Data Broadcasting Corporation in 1995. He took the company public after Data Broadcasting formed a joint venture with CBS, and he kept it afloat despite the bursting of the dot-com bubble in the late 1990's. The initial public offering of MarketWatch.com was one of the fireworks of the Internet boom: its shares leaped 475 percent on their trading debut.

Dow Jones is expected to continue operating CBS MarketWatch as a separate site, the executives said, though they are likely to consolidate advertising sales, back-office functions and some editorial positions with others within their organization.

The site is also likely to lose the CBS part of its name and will no longer benefit from in-kind advertising with the network. The site's address is frequently mentioned on CBS programs.

It is unclear whether Dow Jones will publish any stories from The Wall Street Journal on the site, but it is expected to try to use the site to also upgrade some readers to WSJ.com. Dow Jones is also expected to continue operating MarketWatch's other businesses, including Bigcharts.com and a unit that licenses financial tools to other Web sites, allowing their users to chart stock prices and other data. MarketWatch also has several paid subscription newsletter products and is building a financial news service for big institutional investors with a partner, Thomson Financial, to compete with the Dow Jones Newswires and other financial news services.

The New York Times Company is a partner of MarketWatch, using its data, charts and some articles in the business section of The New York Times on the Web at nytimes.com.

Lots to watch here as paid and free sites mix it up. I can't say that I've got a particular point of view other than this: as a news blogger, I need free sites, and hope that the WSJ goes the way of Salon. I can sit through an ad to get to what I'm looking for.

One Year

It's been a long day here at Harmony Hall. I started blogging, as I do most days, at 5 AM Eastern. On weekends, I do it pretty much the whole day, except for picking up groceries. As of tomorrow, I'll have done it for a year, without much of a vacation. If you are willing and able to help pick up some of the house's wear and tear for this, the Paypal link is located up top right.

Or you can send a blogiversary gift by clicking on the link slightly below.

I'm not in this for the goods or the money. Yeegods not. But I do bust my ass at this for nothing. If you like what you are getting here and can pick up a thank you, please do. This is work I don't get paid for, the work I do get paid for allows me to pick up another full-time job that I don't get paid for. See a little social justice edge, here? My social justice job barely pays my bills.

Since none of the rest of you are living in Bushworld capitalism, either, let me just let you know that anything you can contribute will help me to pay off the debts I acquired during the Bush recession. I'm about $15K in the hole and my debtholders aren't Simon Legree, but they have their own problems to deal with and I have to start paying.

It would be nice to have a credit card again and long distance service. I guess those things are only for the employed.

The chosen. By Bush.

Thanks for what you can do.

Be Careful, and Know a Good Lawyer

Jordan Barab of Confined Spaces was the person I asked about the the corporate best practices article below. He said that the reality is mixed, companies who are recruiting lower level, entry-type employees are doing the same-old, same-old, they do what they can get away with. And then he pointed me to this article in the Times:

Despite Warnings, Drug Giant Took Long Path to Vioxx Recall
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: November 14, 2004

This article was reported and written by Alex Berenson, Gardiner Harris, Barry Meier and Andrew Pollack.

In May 2000, executives at Merck, the pharmaceutical giant under siege for its handling of the multibillion-dollar drug Vioxx, made a fateful decision.

The company's top research and marketing executives met that month to consider whether to develop a study to directly test a disturbing possibility: that Vioxx, a painkiller, might pose a heart risk. Two months earlier, results from a clinical trial conducted for other reasons had suggested such concerns.

But the executives rejected pursuing a study focused on Vioxx's cardiovascular risks. According to company documents, the scientists wondered if such a study, which might require as many as 50,000 patients, was even possible. Merck's marketers, meanwhile, apparently feared it could send the wrong signal about the company's confidence in Vioxx, which already faced fierce competition from a rival drug, Celebrex.

"At present, there is no compelling marketing need for such a study," said a slide prepared for the meeting. "Data would not be available during the critical period. The implied message is not favorable."

Merck decided not to conduct a study solely to determine whether Vioxx might cause heart attacks and strokes - the type of study that outside scientists would repeatedly call for as clinical evidence continued to show cardiovascular risks from the drug. Instead, Merck officials decided to monitor clinical trials, already under way or planned, that were to test Vioxx for other uses, to see if any additional signs of cardiovascular problems emerged.

It was a recurring theme for the company over the next few years - that Vioxx was safe unless proved otherwise. As recently as Friday, in newspaper advertisements, Merck has argued that it took "prompt and decisive action'' as soon as it knew that Vioxx was dangerous.

But a detailed reconstruction of Merck's handling of Vioxx, based on interviews and internal company documents, suggests that actions the company took - and did not take - soon after the drug's safety was questioned may have affected the health of potentially thousands of patients, as well as the company's financial health and reputation.

The review also raises broader questions about an entire class of relatively new painkillers, called COX-2 inhibitors; about how drugs are tested; and about how aggressively the federal Food and Drug Administration monitors the safety of medications once they are in the marketplace.

The decisions about how to test Vioxx were made in a hothouse environment in which researchers fiercely debated how the question should be pursued, and some even now question whether the drug needed to be withdrawn. It also took place amid a fierce battle between Vioxx and Celebrex in which federal regulators said marketing claims ran ahead of the science.

Today Merck faces not only Congressional and Justice Department investigations, but also potentially thousands of personal-injury lawsuits that could tie the company up in litigation for years and possibly cost it billions to resolve.

One of my colleagues who used to handle litigation suppression for the drug companies tells me that this is the tip of the iceburg. If you or a family member think you've been damaged by a drug, think about litigating. I'll have a list of firms that specialize in patient side law by the end of the week. Do I believe in "tort reform?
I believe that if you have good reason to know you've been injured by the willful actions of someone else, you should be able to make the case that you should be made whole in a court of law. That's English Common Law, not something made up by "activist judges."

Yeah, Merck "voluntarily" recalled the drug. That tells you how toothless our FDA is, and how much litigation pressure Merck is already under. My colleague estimated it in the hundreds of billions.

Until we have regime change, we'll have to be a little pro-active in using the courts, since the normal regulatory environments don't apply. Have I mentioned that I've stopped eating beef? Round about that last "mad cow" scare, I realized that the USDA isn't doing shit to protect us and I started cutting down on my risks.

If I want a hamburger, I'll go to Canda. Come to think of it, the last time I ate beef, it was in Toronto with pogge and a dinner or two with Fr. Judy. Canadians test every cow, we test about 1 in 10,000. I like their odds better than ours.

Fighting Wal-Mart Values

Bleeding Heart Businesses
Corporate America Finds Profit in Tilting to the Left

By Marc Gunther
Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page B05

Compassionate capitalism. Think it sounds like an oxymoron? Think again. Even as America is supposedly turning conservative on social issues, big business is moving in the other direction.

Since Election Day, the pundits have been telling us that Americans concerned about "moral values" have sent a clear message about their dim view of liberal approaches to social issues. That may be so. But corporate America is grappling with those social issues in some surprising -- dare we say liberal? -- ways.
The Post's opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday.

This does not mean that CEOs are about to enter the public debate over gay marriage or abortion rights. But they do define "values" more broadly than politicians to mean the beliefs and principles that govern their business practices -- how they do what they do, in essence. And, despite the understandable cynicism about the corporate world that has been fed by Enron and other scandals, the truth is that many of America's big companies are becoming more socially responsible, more green, more diverse, more transparent and more committed to serving the common good -- as well as the bottom line.

Here's a recent example: Hewlett Packard, Dell and IBM have agreed on a far-reaching code of conduct to protect the health, safety, labor and human rights of people who work for their suppliers in the developing world. Their suppliers, who make electronics in Mexico, China and Southeast Asia, will be audited to ensure compliance. Factories that fail the tests will have to reform or lose business. Social activists praised the computer makers, ordinarily arch rivals, for joining together to protect workers' rights. No law requires them to do so.

Or consider gay rights. Voters from Mississippi to Oregon approved resolutions opposed to same-sex marriages, and fewer than a dozen states provide health care benefits to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees. The federal government under George W. Bush certainly does not do so, and won't. But at last count, 227 companies in the Fortune 500, including General Motors, Ford and ChevronTexaco, offer domestic partner benefits. A decade ago, only a handful did. More join them every year because firms need to compete for talent and want to be seen as treating everyone fairly.

On affirmative action, corporate America also finds itself to the left of Washington. When the U.S. Supreme Court took up the issue of affirmative action last year, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Intel and Microsoft filed briefs supporting the University of Michigan, which considers race as one factor in its admissions decisions. The Bush administration opposed preferences.

Nor is there much doubt that corporate America, which used to look upon environmentalists as enemies, is turning more green. Home Depot and Lowe's have pledged to stop buying wood from endangered forests in such places as Indonesia and Brazil. Staples opposed the Bush administration's decision to permit commercial logging in roadless areas of the Alaskan national forest. UPS operates more than 1,800 vehicles that use "alternative fuels" rather than gasoline, including electric-powered vans in New York City. Sustainability has become a buzzword in corporate circles.

Even on the contentious issue of climate change, big companies have moved beyond the White House and Congress. DuPont, once labeled America's worst polluter, is remaking itself from an oil-and-chemicals company into an environmentally friendly life sciences firm; it has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent since 1990. American Electric Power, the nation's biggest coal-burning utility, has voluntarily agreed to reduce its carbon emissions; it is investing in renewable energy and planting trees, to offset its contribution to global warming, in Louisiana, Bolivia and Brazil. Environmentalists aren't satisfied, but they do see progress.

While critics say the federal government is growing more secretive, leading companies are becoming more open. Gap Inc. issued a warts-and-all report this year, acknowledging that some overseas workers who make its clothes have been mistreated; the company vowed to do better. Even when it comes to the daunting problem of global poverty, influential business thinkers C.K. Prahalad and Stuart L. Hart have persuaded Unilever, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson and others to explore ways to profitably serve the world's 4 billion poor and promote economic development by making businesses out of manufacturing low-cost utilitarian products such as water purification pills.

Let me admit to some suspicion. It would be lovely to believe that the Fortune 500 are embracing the very progressive values the voters rejected two weeks ago, but this sniffs of PR. I've shot an email to another blogger whose opinion on such matters is one I respect. I'll let you know what I hear. Until then, treat as suspect....

"More Peaceful, More Free

I was reading through military analyst "Werther's" review of the "Duelpher Report," the Iraq Survey Group's report on all the WMD they didn't find in Iraq, when I came across something that bears repeating, since you can't count on the traditional media to do it for you. Werther writes:

So much for what the Duelfer Report covers, at numbing and Joycean length. What the report does not cover is also illuminating. It is true that Iraq's 377 metric tons of Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine [RDX] and High Melting Point Explosive [HMX] that have gone missing—presumably by looting—are not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. They are, however, one of four or five essential components in triggering nuclear weapons: HMX was developed specifically for that purpose, because its high energy would allow both a smaller nuclear weapon package and in order to trigger fission more efficiently.

The big question is whether the explosives have leaked out internationally. The twin airplane disaster in Russia was probably plastique. If President Vladimir Putin were actually collaborating with Muslims to move plastic explosives around the world, as alleged by John Shaw, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense [4] it would be suicidally stupid of him.

Put that into play with the story 60 Minutes is broadcasting tonight and you'll understand why this DC area resident is both angry with Bush and scared:

Given the current political chaos in the CIA noted in the post below, this is something less than wonderful news:

(CBS) Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, says the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist.

"[Bin Laden] secured from a Saudi sheik...a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans," says Scheuer. "[The treatise] found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans."

Will someone in the Red States please explain to me how Bush is making us safer?

Destroy to Save

Breaking a City in Order to Fix It
By EDWARD WONG

Difficult as all of that seems, it is the last aim - persuading the Sunnis to act as a loyal minority in a democracy - that may be the most improbable goal of the retaking of Falluja by storm.

American officials say that if it can be done, Falluja, which has assumed mythic status across the Arab world for its resistance, could then serve as a model for the rest of Iraq, and Iraq as a model for the rest of the Middle East.

But given the track record of the Americans and their allies, military analysts say, the immediate goals in Falluja seem naïve, if not utterly inconsequential given the surging resistance across the Sunni-dominated regions of Iraq, almost certainly organized by the very leaders who fled Falluja before the offensive.

"Iraq is a complex problem," said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group based in Washington. "Our problem is that we keep leading people to believe that there are simple solutions."

"Our military action creates other problems that our military cannot solve," he said. "And we haven't been very good at fixing what we broke in Iraq."

American commanders say they had no illusions that the Falluja offensive would let them capture the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted man in Iraq, or break the back of the insurgency.

What they do not acknowledge is that seizing Falluja does not bring them much closer to solving the occupation's most intractable problem - how to get Sunni Arabs to overcome their feelings of disenfranchisement and accept the role of a minority in a democratic Iraqi state.

Sunni Arabs make up only a fifth of Iraqis; three-fifths are Shiite Arabs and the remaining fifth are mostly Sunni Kurds. But Sunnis dominate most of the Middle East and have ruled the region now called Iraq since the Ottoman Empire. There are few signs they are willing to accept a subservient role in the new government.

In anticipating a democracy, the Americans have signaled at every turn that they foresee power flowing to the majority Shiites, and the elections scheduled for January are a way to accomplish that in a manner that appears legitimate. Hammering Falluja is supposed to force insurgent Sunnis to realize the hopelessness of armed conflict and instead turn to the ballot box.

....
In Samarra, the guerrillas evacuated before American armor rolled in, and then bided their time, which is the greatest advantage an insurgency has, because the occupying force at some point will depart. The insurgents don't need a safe haven like Falluja to run down the clock. "In fact, Maoist tactics would argue against trying to settle in a city and hold it at this stage of a weak insurgency, and for using the population as a sea to swim in," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a Middle East analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

It is absurd, Mr. Cordesman adds, to believe that destroying Falluja and then rebuilding it will win support for the Americans and the interim government. The American military said it has put aside $100 million for reconstructing the devastated city. But that does not solve the much bigger problem of unemployment, now at 60 percent nationwide. That is a motivating factor for young men joining the insurgency.

"How much money and aid effort does it really take," Mr. Cordesman said, "to jump-start an economy rather than provide welfare for Falluja?"

Somehow I doubt that bombing into the voting booths is going to work.

The Coming Bust

I'm listening to the Sabbath Gasbags. The cognitive dissonance is painful. The economy is about to go off a cliff because of the triple whammy of budget deficits, trade deficits and household indebtedness, we are the authors of a catastrophe in Iraq which is horrifying the rest of the world, a world already stunned by Bush's re-election, and the nabobs are nattering about politics as usual.

I listened to Paul Krugman on Book TV yesterday. He was talking about his collection, The Great Unraveling, and gave a version of the Q&A; I'm quoting here:

Q: You have articulated the fact that we may be headed toward an Argentinean-style catastrophe. How strongly do you feel about that prediction, how do you defend it, and when do you see the collapse hitting the U.S. if we continue on the same course?

Bob Rubin, it turns out, has signed on to the same view, not saying that the crisis is going to happen, certainly not that it's going to happen next year, but that this is the big risk. Bob Rubin is the calmest man I've even met, with a lot of experience in markets, so it's just a little extra credibility to that. Do a straight-line projection, a realistic one without the sunsets, of what's going to happen to the U.S. budget, and what you've got is a debt burden that rises for the next ten years and then explodes because the baby boomers start to place demands on the system. This is not sustainable. Something's got to give, and when it gives, it can either give in the form of wise politicians doing what's necessary for the country, or it can do it in the form of all hell breaking loose and then something has to happen – and that's, I'm afraid, the way it's going to play out.

On Friday, Steve Roach laid out what he thinks the time horizon for this will be:

How and when this gets resolved is anyone’s guess. For what it’s worth, I think the pressures are building for a major adjustment in 2005. That’s what the recent decline in the dollar is all about. And that’s also the message to take from the ominous build-up of trade tensions. In my view, global imbalances have now gotten to the point where something has to give -- either the relative price structure (currencies) that shapes the mix of world trade and capital flows or the political commitment to the trade framework itself. This venting of global imbalances is a natural outgrowth of an increasingly unstable world.

As such, I would frame this venting as a trade-off between currency adjustments and politically-inspired trade frictions. To the extent the dollar’s adjustment is impaired, the risks of protectionism could very well rise as a result. To date, the dollar’s adjustment has been unusually small in relation to the state of global imbalances. On a broad trade-weighted basis, the real effective exchange rate of the US dollar is down only about 11% from its early 2002 peak. That’s nothing for a US economy with a current account deficit of 5.7% and rising. By contrast, the same broad dollar index fell 28% in the second half the 1980s when America’s current account gap peaked at 3.4%. Today’s US economy has about twice the current account problem it had back then but has experienced only about one-third the dollar depreciation. For that simple reason alone, I would argue that the dollar adjustment has been unusually constrained.

Click on the link to the Morgan Stanley web page today--they don't permalink these articles and it will be pushed off the page when it updates tomorrow.

Blood and Circuses

U.S. Claims Control of Fallouja

By Patrick J. McDonnell and Ashraf Khalil, Times Staff Writer

FALLOUJA, Iraq — U.S. commanders said they had established at least loose control over almost all of Fallujah on Saturday, and estimated that 1,600 insurgents have been killed during the six-day battle to reclaim the city from the rebels.

As Marine units continued to press southward through the city, 1st Marine Division commander Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski said the battle had come down to "pockets of determined resistance" by increasingly hemmed-in militants.

Firefights continued throughout the city, but at a diminished pace from recent days, commanders reported.

"There are no high-fives yet," said Lt. Col. Gareth Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion of the 8th Marine Regiment, which has seen some of the fiercest fighting. "This thing's not over."

But as the fighting eased in Fallujah, U.S. and Iraqi forces massed in preparation for a push against insurgents who control parts of another Iraqi city. After a two-day rampage by rebels in the northern city of Mosul, interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi vowed to re-establish full government control in the coming days.

Another Iraqi official, Minister of State Qassim Daoud, declared that the assault on Fallouja was over.

"Major operations have been brought to a conclusion," said Daoud, the de facto national security adviser.

Daoud also lashed out at Jordanian militant Abu Musab Zarqawi and cleric Abdullah Janabi, who are believed to have left Fallouja before the U.S. invasion, calling them "cowards" for "leaving their followers to bear the burden" of the massive assault.

The new estimate of enemy dead in Fallouja -- reported by several U.S. military intelligence officials -- is significantly more than the 600 reported earlier this week by U.S. commanders and also exceeds the Iraqi government's estimate of just over 1,000.

U.S. officials acknowledge that their count, based on reports turned in by forces on the ground, are rough estimates. Many of the estimated dead were killed by bombing, shelling and long-distance fire, thus making accurate counts very difficult. Insurgent groups have accused U.S. troops of consistently inflating rebel casualties.

But we don't know how many of those were really civilians, do we?

The foreign press is less complacent:

Violence erupts across Iraq and aid agencies warn of disaster as US declares battle of Fallujah is over
By Kim Sengupta in Camp Dogwood, Iraq

14 November 2004

The United States and Iraq's interim government claimed yesterday that the battle for Fallujah was over, with 1,000 insurgents killed and the rebel stronghold effectively pacified after six days of fighting.

But even as the victory was being declared, wide-spread violence erupted throughout the rest of the country, with parts of Mosul passing into the hands of insurgents, forcing the American military to detach and rush part of its Fallujah force to the northern city. There was also street fighting in Baghdad, where mortar rounds were fired at the Green Zone, the heavily barricaded heart of US power in Iraq, and heavy fighting in the town of Yusufiyah, south of the capital.

Aid agencies warned of a humanitarian disaster in Fallujah and neighbouring areas, with outbreaks of typhoid and other diseases. Eight groups said in a joint letter that there were now 200,000 refugees who have fled the fighting and are without food, water or shelter. People leaving the city described rotting bodies piling up on the streets.

"The people inside Fallujah are dying and starving. They need us," said Red Crescent spokeswoman Fardous al-Ubaidi. "The situation is catastrophic. It is our duty as a humanitarian agency to do our job for these people in these circumstances." A convoy of four trucks carrying food and medicine finally reached Fallujah city centre yesterday after prolonged negotiations with US troops. The Iraqi Health Minister, Ala'din Alwan, said the government had begun transferring "significant numbers" of injured to hospitals in Baghdad, but could not say how many.

In Baghdad, Qassem Daoud, the Iraq interim government's security adviser, said: "Operation Fajr [Dawn] has been achieved and only the malignant pockets remain that we are dealing with through a clean-up operation. The mission is accomplished and there only remains these few pockets, which are being cleaned up. The number of killed has risen to more than 1,000 and we have arrested more than 200 so far."

In continuing fighting yesterday, two city mosques were hit by air strikes after troops reported sniper fire from inside. Two US Marines were killed by a home-made bomb and a US warplane dropped a 225kg bomb to destroy what the military called an insurgent tunnel network.

The US military insisted that at least 100 of those killed were "foreign fighters". However, the authorities said afterwards that only 14 of the prisoners taken were foreign, and 10 of them were Iranians. Mr Daoud also said that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not in Fallujah. Iyad Allawi, Iraq's US-appointed interim prime minister, had made the handing over of Zarqawi by the people of Fallujah a pre-condition to avoid an attack.

The US military said up to 2,000 insurgents are attempting to escape from Fallujah and the likely route would be south of the city, through the area where the Black Watch battle group is based. It emerged yesterday that their forward base is at al-Qaqa'a military industrial complex, looted last year after US soldiers failed to secure it. Weapons from al-Qaqa'a have been used, it is believed, in the attacks on the Black Watch.

What weapons from al-Qaqaa have been used and how are they any different from all of the other looted weapons kicking around this country? And whose fault is that? Echidne of the Snakes, my colleague at AmStreet, says we even killed the dogs.

Kim Sengupta and Raymond Whitaker report in The Independent:

When the smoke has cleared around Fallujah, what horrors will be revealed?
As the Americans move street by bloody street towards control of the insurgents' stronghold, aid agencies warn of a humanitarian catastrophe. Kim Sengupta and Raymond Whitaker report

14 November 2004

Victory was being declared yesterday in the battle of Fallujah, with 1,000 rebels reported dead, hundreds more in custody and spectacular footage from embedded television crews, showing Marines charging through deserted neighbourhoods.

"It's like those pictures from the advance into Baghdad," said one watcher as the TV showed the view over a tank gunner's shoulder, with fire pouring down an empty street. But that comment unconsciously identified the real problem: more than a year and a half after George Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq at an end, the US military, backed by British and Iraqi forces, is having to fight the war all over again.

Yesterday, as American forces embarked on what were described as "mopping-up" operations in Fallujah - though heavy shelling was still being reported - relief organisations warned that there could be a humanitarian disaster in the city. "Conditions in Fallujah are catastrophic," said Fardous al-Ubaidi of the Iraqi Red Crescent. The Iraqi Health Minister, Alaa Alwan, said ambulances had begun transferring "significant numbers" of civilian wounded to Baghdad hospitals, but did not say how many.

Washington and the Iraqi interim government could argue that civilians in Fallujah had ample warning of what was to come. More than 80 per cent of the population of 200,000 to 300,000 were said to have fled before the assault was launched on Monday. But enough reports trickled out of the besieged city to show that many inhabitants still remained, despite their invisibility in the television footage, and that their plight was severe.

Aamir Haidar Yusouf,a 39-year-old trader, sent his family out of Fallujah, but stayed behind to look after his home, not just during the fighting, but the looting which will invariably follow. "The Americans have been firing at buildings if they see even small movements," he said. "They are also destroying cars, because they think every car has a bomb in it. People have moved from the edges of the city into the centre, and they are staying on the ground floors of buildings.

"There will be nothing left of Fallujah by the time they finish. They have already destroyed so many homes with their bombings from the air, and now we are having this from tanks and big guns."

US commanders insist civilian casualties in Fallujah have been low, but the Pentagon famously claims that it does not keep figures. Escaping residents described incidents in which non-combatants, including women and children, were killed by shrapnel or hit by bombs. In one case earlier in the week, a nine-year-old boy was hit in the stomach by shrapnel. Unable to reach a hospital, he died hours later of blood loss.

"Anyone who gets injured is likely to die, because there's no medicine and they can't get to doctors," said Abdul-Hameed Salim, a volunteer with the Iraqi Red Crescent. "There are snipers everywhere. Go outside and you're going to get shot."

Sami al-Jumaili, a doctor at the main Fallujah hospital who escaped arrest when it was taken, said the city was running out of medical supplies, and only a few clinics remained open. "There is not a single surgeon in Fallujah," he said. "We had one ambulance hit by US fire and a doctor wounded. There are scores of injured civilians in their homes whom we can't move. A 13-year-old child just died in my hands."

I'll bet you won't hear much in the American press other than triumphalist victory talk, while the rest of the world watches and continues to distance itself from us. As Echidne says, the American media have become

Bread and circuses indeed. That’s what the Romans supposedly used to keep their population fat, dumb and happy while the empire slowly disintegrated all around them. Well, we have had the same strategy for some decades now, and it’s working. How else could you explain the re-election of the worst president this country has ever known?

It used to be the case that news programs didn’t have to contribute to the profit margins in television. This is no longer true, and the results are obvious and lamentable for those of us who’d like to know about domestic and foreign events of political importance. But “those of us” are clearly something no better than liberal elites. Besides, there isn’t enough money in us.

Gee, I can hardly wait until the day I graduate into the "liberal elites."

Final Digits

via reader Stu Savory:

Washington Dems Get Out the Vote

09:51 AM Nov. 13, 2004 PT

SEATTLE -- Democratic Party volunteers are frantically calling voters whose provisional ballots are in dispute, urging them to make sure their vote is counted in the state's still-undecided governor's race.

The volunteers went to work Friday night, after party officials successfully sued to get access to the names of 929 voters -- all in heavily Democratic King County -- whose ballots were questionable. They planned to keep working through the weekend.

Elections officials said there was no reason to release the names, because voters who cast provisional ballots know those ballots may need to be verified, and it's up to each voter to contact the county and make sure the vote was counted. Provisional ballots are used primarily when a voter is not at his home precinct or if registration is in question.

King County Superior Court Judge Dean S. Lum said it would burden the county little to release the names, and that state law favors openness in government. "No right is more precious than the right to vote," he said.

In tears after the ruling Friday, Democratic Party chairman Paul Berendt said volunteers would work through the weekend to contact the voters.

"We're up to it," he said. "We've had hundreds of people volunteer to help."

Every vote is crucial in the state's tight race for governor. Republican Dino Rossi was leading Democrat Christine Gregoire by about 2,000 votes Friday, with more than 50,000 still to be counted statewide.

Election results are scheduled to be certified Wednesday. The county deadline for voters to resolve problems with their ballots is 4:30 p.m. Tuesday.

The Democrats' lawsuit was criticized by Republicans, who said it threatened to turn the close gubernatorial election into "another Florida."

"Why was this not a problem a week ago when Gregoire was ahead?" asked Pat Herbold, chairman of the King County Republican Party. "It would be wonderful if Christine Gregoire would step up to the plate like John Kerry did, for the good of our state, and say, 'We accept the results.'"

The county mails notices to voters when there are problems with absentee ballots -- a missing signature or questions about registration, for example.

But those casting provisional ballots were required to call the county or get on its website to determine if their votes were in jeopardy. And the process was a lot more complicated for voters who failed to save the stub from their ballot envelope with the reference number needed for the county help-line and website.

The provisional ballots were questioned for three primary reasons: the signature did not match registration records, there was no record that the voter was registered, or the voter had already mailed in an absentee ballot.

My colleague, Big Tino, worked the polls in West Philly on Nov. 2 and said we got beaten by the GOP's superior ground game. Let's see if we can do some remedial training in this close race.

Many Happy Returns

Bill Broadway is the Post's religion editor. This story could have been written a dozen different ways, and I'm puzzled that Broadway played it this way: religion neutral.

There are probably a hundred stories about wounded vets that could be written up at Walter Reed, a facility I used to drive past twice a day on my commute to work or school. Why this particular one got written escapes me.

Soldier Walks Down Aisle Buoyed by Love, Science

By Bill Broadway
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page C03

Six weeks ago, Spec. Aaron Bugg was dragged from a Humvee that had been hit by a roadside bomb in Iraq, his muscles severed in his legs, leaving them unable to carry his weight. Yesterday, Bugg walked down the aisle with the woman he has loved since junior high.

More than 50 friends and family members attended the wedding, in the stone chapel on the grounds of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Northwest Washington.
Bugg, 20, wore a tuxedo that had a specially made left pant leg to cover a "fixator," a device that stabilizes the leg while bone and muscle regenerate. His bride, Lisa McCroskey, 21, wore a beaded satin gown.

Bugg sat through much of the 40-minute ceremony, but he stood to take his wedding vows and for the lighting of the unity candle. After the chaplain, Capt. Robin W. Pizanti, presented the couple, Bugg held his wife's arm as they walked out of the church and down two small flights of steps.

"He wasn't supposed to walk that far," said the surprised best man, Matias Reveles, as he rushed a wheelchair to assist his nephew.

The wedding was one of 15 to 20 each year at Walter Reed, the Army's premier medical facility, which has treated 3,612 patients from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The ceremony almost didn't happen.

A week ago, Walter Reed's office of the judge advocate general learned that several area businesses had offered to donate their services, which involved the groom's custom tuxedo, hairstyling for the bride and three bridesmaids, wedding programs and a honeymoon night and reception at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown. Such donations violate the military's code of ethics and could not be accepted, Bugg and McCroskey were told.

But Ed Solomon, owner of Anthony's Tuxedos in Georgetown, and Fisher House, a foundation that assists wounded veterans and their families at 15 medical centers in the United States and Germany, worked out a solution.

The businesses could donate the services to Fisher House, which would give them to the couple, said Jim Weiskopf, Fisher's vice president for communications in Rockville.

Like the Fisher program that provides airline tickets for wounded veterans and their families, the procedure would not benefit one person but be open to all qualified personnel, he said.

The couple, who found each other in eighth grade in Marionville, Mo., got engaged last Christmas. But they didn't set a date until Bugg came home for a month-long leave in late August, McCroskey said in an interview. They decided on January, when Bugg's infantry unit was scheduled to return from its security mission near Kirkuk, north of Baghdad.

Nine days after Bugg returned to Iraq, a bomb exploded near the unarmored Humvee in which he and three other soldiers were riding. He remembers trying to walk and wondering why he was being dragged instead. He asked the medic in a helicopter, "Sir, don't let them take my arms or legs."

He was given anesthesia and has no memory of the four days between the explosion and waking up at Walter Reed. McCroskey withdrew from classes at Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield to be with him.

A week later, they decided to marry as soon as possible. In the Army, an engaged partner does not have the same visitation and legal rights as a spouse, and they wanted to be as close together as possible, they said.

When McCroskey saw the chapel, she was impressed. "I said, 'Oh my gosh, this place is beautiful. I would love to get married here.' "

McCroskey said she has seen some people "bail out" of relationships after a military member returns from the battlefield with severe physical or emotional wounds. That's something she said she could not do.

"Aaron's my best friend and the love of my life," she said. "I could be home in school, but I would be thinking about him and wishing I was here."

Bugg said her presence has given meaning to his recovery, which his doctors told him could take at least six months.

I'm glad that the two were able to marry, but most of what is going on at Reed is rehab from amputations. Is this "happy" story supposed to take the place of news about young people walking or wheeling out of the place in chairs or with artificial limbs? Why isn't Broadway talking about the rehab from brain injuries?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Drive the Ambulance

Every time I've asked you for help, you've responded, so I'm going to do it again. I've set myself up for a very challenging day: in addition to keeping the Bump up and running, Sunday is my posting day at The American Street, another great site for forward thinking progressives, and I have a fairly major book review due, in the middle of all of it at The Village Gate. In short, I'm going to be a writing fool this day.

I'll survey The Big Three papers in the morning, as usual, but by 10 AM, I'm going to have to turn my attentions elsewhere. Can you help by posting links to stories in Comments, or emailing them to me if you think they deserve larger treatment?

I usually start my day between 4 and 5 AM, but I notice from the time stamp on Comments, that some of you keep different hours, and you West Coasters are up 'way later than me. The Wapo and NYT papers go up on the web around midnight Eastern, I'll be picking them up in the morning. If you late nighters and West Coasters can have some email waiting in my inbox, you'll save me some time finding links.

Here is a little HTML, how to make a link for PC users:

Have you found a wonderful piece that I should know about? Up there in the top of your browser is a little window which contains the URL of the piece you are reading. Click on it with your mouse, it will light up. Right click and you'll get a menu. Left click on "copy" in that menu. Go to your email program or an open comments box. Right click again and the menu will give you the option to "paste". That'll give you enough information to send me the link. If you want to do it with a little more class that won't bust up the style sheets for the site, do this:

type
and put the text marker to the link you want to send me here and you've just created a hyperlink, if you've got an HTML-enabled email client. If you don't, I'll still be able to decipher the information, but you might mess up the sidebar. Welcome to the 21st Century. Fiddle with it for a couple of minutes and you'll figure out the copy sequence if you haven't already.

When I started blogging, I had one piece of HTML code on a 3x5 card sitting in front of my keyboard that I had to use for about a week. But I had to use it, so don't be embarrassed if you haven't figured this out yet. It was the code for making a hyperlink, and here is the template again, expressed another way:

[A href="http:www.thesiteyouwantustovisit.whatever">Target text

Replace those outer brackets with < and >

If you want me to click to visit, for example, Suburban Guerrilla, you'll send a link which looks like this:

this.

In either Mozilla or EI, if you want to know what a piece of code looks like (and can be stolen), highlight it and then rightclick to reveal "properties." You won't need to write that code again. Copy and paste and you've stolen it.

I've also got a boatload of laundry to do, a litter box to change, a kitchen floor to do, it is going to be a very busy day.

But now you are coding HTML, see how easy that was?

If I can do it, you can do it.

When the Bottom Falls Out

Fr. Jake got this from my American Street colleague Chuck Currie, and I'll bring it home here:

Illegal to Be Homeless

Report targets escalating civil rights abuses against homeless people and identifies "meanest" cities

With unemployment rates still at peak levels, more people have become homeless, and as the economy has tightened, shelters and service-providing agencies face budget cuts and even closures. Though nearly all cities still lack sufficient shelter beds and social services, many continue to pass laws prohibiting homeless people from sleeping outside. Cities are attempting to make it illegal to perform life-sustaining activities in public, while at the same time refusing to allocate sufficient funds for housing, to legislate living wages, or to provide necessary health care, thus hindering these individuals’ basic civil liberties.

This report is a year old, but the trend lines haven't changed.

Disclaimer: I was homeless once. It wasn't for a real long time, but I know what sleeping in your car for an extended period of time is like. I was "working poor," a university adjunct, so I had an office with a bathroom and a shower. I lived out of garbage bags of clothes from the trunk of my car and the kindness of colleagues who made sure that I got at least one meal a day.

Advanced degrees don't save you.

Devolution

Baghdad airport shut indefinitely- Allawi

11/13/2004 10:00:00 AM GMT

The closure of Baghdad international airport is extended indefinitely under emergency rule imposed ahead of this week's U.S.-led offensive on Fallujah, Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi’s office said on Saturday.

"It is closed until further notice," an official in Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's office said on Saturday.

Earlier, and before the start of the U.S-led offensive in Fallujah Monday night, PM Iyad Allawi ordered a two-day closure of Baghdad airport.

Allawi’s government announced on Saturday that the closure is to be extended untill a further notice.

The Iraqi interim government had, moreover, blocked Iraq's borders with Syria and Jordan to all but essential traffic, part of the 60-day state of emergency announced across Iraq except the Kurdish north.

Curfews have also been imposed on several cities, including Baghdad.

Anti-occupation Iraqi rebels have stepped up attacks against symbols of the U.S.-backed government and security forces, since U.S. launched its major offensive in Fallujah on Monday ito regain control over the city.

Sounds like a lovely atmosphere in which to hold an election campaign.

On the Lookout

On Book TV now: John Barry is talking about The Great Influenza, his book about the flu pandemic of 1918, which may have killed as many as 40 million people worldwide. We are overdue another flu pandemic, although there is no saying that it will be as lethal as the 1918. Epidemiologists are studying this year's avian influenza virus closely. These strains are known for quick mutation, and that's the worry. It does not yet seem capable of human to human transmission. By the time we figure out if it has, it will be too late.

Experts Urge Greater Effort on Vaccine for Bird Flu
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN

Published: November 13, 2004

Saying the world is nowhere near ready to fight a global epidemic of influenza, a panel convened by the World Health Organization demanded yesterday that there be greater international cooperation and financing to develop a vaccine.

The drug industry would have to manufacture billions of doses of an influenza vaccine within weeks to counter an epidemic like the one that caused more than 20 million deaths in 1918 and 1919, the participants said. Right now the industry makes just 300 million doses a year for regular influenza seasons.

"There is a need to raise the profile of pandemic preparedness as a matter of national security planning," Dr. Klaus Stöhr, an official of the health organization, said at a news conference at the end of a two-day closed meeting in Geneva.

Dr. Arlene King, a Canadian health official who was one of the 50 government and industry representatives at the meeting, said a pandemic of influenza would be "the biggest public health infectious disease emergency that we ever face, both globally and within our borders."

History shows that a new pandemic virus could spread around the world in less than six months, Dr. Stöhr said. Health officials estimate that a pandemic would affect about 30 percent of the population, causing about 1 percent of those infected to die. A third of the work force would be laid up for two to four weeks.

The health organization, a United Nations agency, held the meeting because of deep concerns over a new strain of avian influenza, A(H5N1), which has spread widely among birds in Southeast Asia.

Although it has infected only a small number of people there, health officials are concerned that it could mutate to cause the next pandemic.

Because the American media are doing a poor job covering this story (I Googled Avian Flu and turned up no stories originating in the American media on the first page), I've created a Google alert to track this story. Why?

It may amount to nothing, but this bug, in it's current form, is incredibly lethal. Here's a story from The Globe and Mail from earlier this week:

But the virus, which seems to spread through migratory birds, has gone on to infect ducks, domestic cats, possibly pigs and 20 tigers in Thailand.

Forty-four human cases with 32 deaths have been reported, 20 in Vietnam and 12 in Thailand.

News reports from Thailand said yesterday that three more people are thought to have contracted the virus after having close contact with chickens that died of unknown causes. Two of these patients are one and six years old.

"It is finding human hosts, and there is one possible or probable transmission of human-to-human contact -- a mother who was possibly infected by her child who lived in Bangkok," Dr. Heymann said.

That is a lethality rate of 75%, which is stunning. The last pandemic was in 1968, and it was relatively light. The lethality rate of the 1918 pandemic was 2-5%.

Every time a human picks up this virus from another animal, it offers it the opportunity to mutate. That is why I'm tracking this story.

Thank God for C-Span

Paul Krugman is on live at the Miami Book Fair on Book TV. Pull quote:

I'll stop calling these people "Orwellian" when they stop using 1984 as an operating manual.

Faith and Fact

This is where I learned about the science and theology behind the movie, What the[Bleep] Do We Know? The Metanexus Institute and the John Templeton Foundation both provide grants to help defray the expenses for local discussion groups. I belonged to this one for a number of years, and there are about a dozen others scattered around the DC/Baltimore/Annapolis area, many of them underwritten by Metanexus. My thesis director is one of the theological advisors.

In other news on the "science and religion" beat:

Is the Capacity for Spirituality Determined by Brain Chemistry?
Geneticist's Book 'The God Gene' Is Disputed by Scientists, Embraced by Some Religious Leaders

By Bill Broadway
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 13, 2004; Page B09

Dean H. Hamer has received much criticism for his new book, "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired Into Our Genes."

Evangelicals reject the idea that faith might be reduced to chemical reactions in the brain. Humanists refuse to accept that religion is inherent in people's makeup. And some scientists have criticized Hamer's methodology and what they believe is a futile effort to find empirical proof of religious experience.

But Hamer, a behavioral geneticist at the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, stands by research he says shows that spirituality -- the feeling of transcendence -- is part of our nature. And he believes that a universal penchant for spiritual fulfillment explains the growing popularity of nontraditional religion in this country and the presence of hundreds of religions throughout the world.

"We think that all human beings have an innate capacity for spirituality and that that desire to reach out beyond oneself, which is at the heart of spirituality, is part of the human makeup," Hamer, 53, said in an interview at his Northwest Washington townhouse. "The research suggests some people have a bit more of that capacity than others, but it's present to some degree in everybody."

"The God Gene," published in September and featured in Time magazine's Oct. 25 cover story, is a sequel to "Living With Our Genes," a 1998 book in which Hamer examined the genetic basis of such behavioral traits as anxiety, thrill-seeking and homosexuality. Hamer said his previous research, most notably his work on anxiety, encouraged him to look into the genetic propensity for religious belief.

What he found was that the brain chemicals associated with anxiety and other emotions, including joy and sadness, appeared to be in play in the deep meditative states of Zen practitioners and the prayerful repose of Roman Catholic nuns -- not to mention the mystical trances brought on by users of peyote and other mind-altering drugs.

At least one gene, which goes by the name VMAT2, controls the flow to the brain of chemicals that play a key role in emotions and consciousness. This is the "God gene" of the book's title, and Hamer acknowledges that it's a misnomer. There probably are dozens or hundreds more genes, yet to be identified, involved in the universal propensity for transcendence, he said.

Furthermore, the scientific linkage of a gene with chemicals that affect happiness or sadness does not answer the question "Is there a God?" but rather "Why do we believe in God?"

"Our genes can predispose us to believe. But they don't tell us what to believe in," said Hamer, whose current research involves HIV/AIDS.

Critics in the scientific community argue that Hamer's conclusions are simplistic and speculative, relying too much on anecdotal evidence and too little on testing of the VMAT2 gene to determine other possible connections to behavior. They also wonder whether his findings can be replicated, a necessity in scientific research.

"The field of behavioral genetics is littered with failed links between particular genes and personality traits," said Carl Zimmer, a science author who reviewed the book in last month's Scientific American.

Some religious leaders welcome the idea of a genetic basis for spirituality and say it validates long-held teachings.

I've done some work with a local psychoneurologist (he hasn't published anything yet, so no links) who has done a lot of work with prayer and the brain by using PET scans showing the way the brain changes when a person prayers or even if they are prayed for. I think look for a biological predisposition for faith is like looking for proof of the existence of God: not worth the effort. What can be measured are the effects.

Spading the Soil

Deputy Chief Resigns From CIA
Agency Is Said to Be in Turmoil Under New Director Goss

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 13, 2004; Page A01

The deputy director of the CIA resigned yesterday after a series of confrontations over the past week between senior operations officials and CIA Director Porter J. Goss's new chief of staff that have left the agency in turmoil, according to several current and former CIA officials.

John E. McLaughlin, a 32-year CIA veteran who was acting director for two months this summer until Goss took over, resigned after warning Goss that his top aide, former Capitol Hill staff member Patrick Murray, was treating senior officials disrespectfully and risked widespread resignations, the officials said.

Yesterday, the agency official who oversees foreign operations, Deputy Director of Operations Stephen R. Kappes, tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Murray. Goss and the White House pleaded with Kappes to reconsider and he agreed to delay his decision until Monday, the officials said.

Several other senior clandestine service officers are threatening to leave, current and former agency officials said.

The disruption comes as the CIA is trying to stay abreast of a worldwide terrorist threat from al Qaeda, a growing insurgency in Iraq, the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan and congressional proposals to reorganize the intelligence agencies. The agency also has been criticized for not preventing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not accurately assessing Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

"It's the worst roiling I've ever heard of," said one former senior official with knowledge of the events. "There's confusion throughout the ranks and an extraordinary loss of morale and incentive."

Current and retired senior managers have criticized Goss, former chairman of the House intelligence committee, for not interacting with senior managers and for giving Murray too much authority over day-to-day operations. Murray was Goss's chief of staff on the intelligence committee.

Transitions between CIA directors are often unsettling for career officers. Goss's arrival has been especially tense because he brought with him four former members of the intelligence committee known widely on the Hill and within the agency for their abrasive management style and for their criticism of the agency's clandestine services in a committee report.

Three are former mid-level CIA officials who left the agency disgruntled, according to former colleagues. The fourth, Murray, who also worked at the Justice Department, has a reputation for being highly partisan. When senior managers have gone to Goss to complain about his staff actions, one CIA officer said, Goss has told them: "Talk to my chief of staff. I don't do personnel."

The overall effect, said one former senior CIA official, who has kept up his contacts in the Directorate of Operations, "is that Goss doesn't seem engaged at all."

If other senior clandestine officers leave, said one former officer who maintains contacts within the Langley headquarters, "the middle-level people who move up may eventually work out, but meanwhile the level of experience and competence will go down."

The CIA declined to comment on the issues raised by the current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. A CIA spokesman said McLaughlin's retirement "was a long-planned personal decision taken at a natural transition point in the administration and not connected to any other factors."

Over at the NYT, Brooksie opines:

The C.I.A. Versus Bush
Now that he's been returned to office, President Bush is going to have to differentiate between his opponents and his enemies. His opponents are found in the Democratic Party. His enemies are in certain offices of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Over the past several months, as much of official Washington looked on wide-eyed and agog, many in the C.I.A. bureaucracy have waged an unabashed effort to undermine the current administration.

At the height of the campaign, C.I.A. officials, who are supposed to serve the president and stay out of politics and policy, served up leak after leak to discredit the president's Iraq policy. There were leaks of prewar intelligence estimates, leaks of interagency memos. In mid-September, somebody leaked a C.I.A. report predicting a gloomy or apocalyptic future for the region. Later that month, a senior C.I.A. official, Paul Pillar, reportedly made comments saying he had long felt the decision to go to war would heighten anti-American animosity in the Arab world.

White House officials concluded that they could no longer share important arguments and information with intelligence officials. They had to parse every syllable in internal e-mail. One White House official says it felt as if the C.I.A. had turned over its internal wastebaskets and fed every shred of paper to the press.

The White House-C.I.A. relationship became dysfunctional, and while the blame was certainly not all on one side, Langley was engaged in slow-motion, brazen insubordination, which violated all standards of honorable public service. It was also incredibly stupid, since C.I.A. officials were betting their agency on a Kerry victory.

As the presidential race heated up, the C.I.A. permitted an analyst - who, we now know, is Michael Scheuer - to publish anonymously a book called "Imperial Hubris," which criticized the Iraq war. Here was an official on the president's payroll publicly campaigning against his boss. As Scheuer told The Washington Post this week, "As long as the book was being used to bash the president, they [the C.I.A. honchos] gave me carte blanche to talk to the media."

Nor is this feud over. C.I.A. officials are now busy undermining their new boss, Porter Goss. One senior official called one of Goss's deputies, who worked on Capitol Hill, a "Hill Puke," and said he didn't have to listen to anything the deputy said. Is this any way to run a superpower?

Meanwhile, members of Congress and people around the executive branch are wondering what President Bush is going to do to punish the mutineers. A president simply cannot allow a department or agency to go into campaign season opposition and then pay no price for it. If that happens, employees of every agency will feel free to go off and start their own little media campaigns whenever their hearts desire.

Brooksie, Brooksie, it is hard to know where to begin. Might not the CIA be in revolt because the goons at the top are utterly incompetent and abusive? Might not the career officers be offended by the blatant politicizing of intel by the appointed hacks and the subversion of the personnel system in favor of politics? Just askin'.

David, your op-ed would be kind of sweet if penned by a high school senior in Peoria, but nobody in this town is that dewy-eyed. The career CIA has judged the boss and his minions incompetent. Bush shrugged his shoulders and blamed the lack of WMD on "flawed intelligence," but the spooks know better. They aren't going to take the fall.

Now let's see what the career people at the Department of State do.

And I believe that Michael Scheuer, the "anonymous" author of Imperial Hubris, who also resigned this week, will have a few things to say.

Politics by Other Means

Fallujah is what happens when politics intrudes into military operations

By Joseph L. Galloway

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The old saw has it that war is too important to be left to the generals, but the truth is that war is too important and too costly to be left solely to the politicians. Fallujah is the case in point.

This week as American and Iraqi troops launched their long-delayed and long-expected assault to crush the foreign and home-grown Sunni terrorists holed up in Fallujah, it was clear that the timing was dictated more by the American presidential election than by the forthcoming January Iraqi election.

That Fallujah is still a festering sore would seem to be a matter of politics as well.

At the end of March this year, with the nation and the world horrified by the photographs of murdered American contractors hanging from a bridge in Fallujah, orders went out to the newly arrived U.S. Marines to attack Fallujah and nearby Ramadi.

The Marine commanders had hoped they would have a chance to try some different tactics in the troublesome Sunni heartland. They wanted to put small squads of Marines out living with the people in the towns and villages, much as they did in South Vietnam with their civil action program.

But orders are orders, and the Marines went into the Sunni cities with guns blazing. They found it a hard-fought slog, with deadly improvised explosive devices all over the place and sophisticated ambushes complete with heavy machine guns and showers of rocket-propelled grenades.

Scores of Marines were killed and wounded taking parts of both cities, house by house, block by block. The learning curve is steep and deadly in street fighting, or as the military now calls it, military operations in urban terrain.

Then, when Marine commander Lt. Gen. James Conway thought his men were on the verge of taking both cities and wiping out the terrorists, down came an order to halt operations and withdraw outside the cities to positions they held before it all started.

The assumption, both there and here, was that no one wanted high American casualties during the middle of a presidential campaign.

Where did the orders come from? Conway thought they came from "7,000 miles over my shoulder," which would be somewhere in the vicinity of Washington.

This week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said those orders to start and to stop were issued by the civilian boss in Baghdad, Ambassador Paul Bremer, and the military boss in Baghdad, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.
....
Meantime, Fallujah, a city of between 200,000 and 300,000, becomes a battleground and block after block is transformed into rubble by bombing, artillery, tank and Bradley guns and heavy machine guns.

For more than two centuries our military and the officer corps have followed orders from their civilian overlords, and no one wants to see that change. But it should be noted that for much of our history those in both the executive and legislative branches have been veterans of our wars themselves. Those who issued the orders understood war all too well.

This article is as useful as Shapiro's was dishonest.

The Buck Stops

Now's a time for honesty, if we can remember what that is
By Walter Shapiro

•Iraq or ruin: Whatever the merits of Bush's decision to topple Saddam Hussein, the election rendered the shopworn debates over the missing weapons of mass destruction temporarily irrelevant. In place of bitterly wrangling over the past, there is an opportunity for hawks and doves alike to acknowledge a shared commitment to stabilizing the situation in Iraq so something resembling free elections can be held there.

What this requires from the Bush administration is a clear-eyed public assessment of what can and cannot be accomplished. Presidential rhetoric about the wonders of democracy may have worked on the campaign trail, but it does not provide realistic guide posts for the difficult months ahead. If we do not have enough troops in Iraq to contain the insurgency, then this is the moment for Bush to use some of his hard-earned political capital to deploy additional forces. What seems evident is that the current chaos cannot endure without both America and the Iraqi people paying a lasting price in the form of dashed dreams.

Those of us here at home must also face up to the difficulty of getting an accurate reading on the day-to-day situation in Iraq. American journalists, whose bravery under fire deserves bipartisan plaudits, are understandably handicapped by their inability to travel and report outside a few secure enclaves. This partial news blackout creates the danger of Americans viewing Iraq through ideological prisms. In place of overworked Vietnam analogies by the doves and simplistic parallels to the occupation of Germany and Japan by the hawks, maybe at minimum we can agree that the war in Iraq requires fresh metaphors.

Walter, a little honesty from you would be a good thing, too. We don't have the horses. If you don't yourself have the expertise to figure this out, go talk to someone who does. Like, maybe, one of your sources in the Pentagon.

Inside the Beltway

The Media Did It (Cont.)

Finally, at long last, we now know who messed up Iraq. It turns out it was the media, of course, that had promoted those unrealistic expectations for postwar Iraq. Shame on those cowardly reporters for their shoddy handling of Phase IV ops!

Retired Gen. Tommy R. Franks, former Central Command chief, figured it out Tuesday while talking to some reporters.

"I remember a time long about the 9th, 10th, 11th of April of last year where there was a lot of media coverage of the fact that Saddam's statue came down in Baghdad," Franks said. (Yeah. Wasn't that the event hoked up by the military as a photo op for the television cameras?)

"We all remember that," Franks said, "when that happened. And then pretty soon there was created -- and I would not take credit as the guy who created an expectation, I will just say that all of the reporting -- and none of it was evil -- but the reporting we all saw kind of created an expectation, 'Well, probably peace is going to break out very, very quickly.' "

Of course! The press did it. No one in the administration would have predicted a quick military campaign and elections or a cakewalk or anything like that.

"My caution about Fallujah is that we need to take an expectation suppressant," he advised. Not to be confused with expectoration suppressant.

Of course, the pro-war WaPo had nothing to do with the uncritical ramp-up...

That neo-con Kool-Aid must have been particularly tasty.

The Circles of Hell

Tom Englehardt at The Nation Institute's Tomgram writes:

And so we barge through another door marked "Open With Caution" and into yet another wing of our new age of extremity whose rooms now seem to extend in all directions forever. And this descent into barbarism is being reported to us in the anodyne language of embedded war reporters.

What we need now is not our usual set of embedded reporters, but the artist Hieronymous Bosch back from the grave to paint us the necessary pictures. After all, we've already seen what the liberation of Najaf and Falluja look like. But what will Iraq look like after we've liberated Samarra and Mosul and who knows where else -- and the insurgency only grows?

Geneva Conventions? We don't need no stinkin' Geneva Conventions....

Winter

Rainy and 48 degrees, the wait at the bus stop is going to be nasty, as will be the walk to work from the Metro. Do any of you have snow yet?

Oceanians, you can post your observations on your sunny spring here.

Out of the Shadows

Former Chief of CIA's Bin Laden Unit Leaves

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 12, 2004; Page A04

Michael Scheuer, the author and former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, announced yesterday that he had resigned from the agency so he could speak openly about terrorism and what he sees as the government's failure to understand the threat from al Qaeda.

"I have concluded that there has not been adequate national debate over the nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and the force he leads and inspires, and the nature of the intelligence reform needed to address that threat," Scheuer, whom the CIA banned from speaking publicly in July, said in a statement issued by his publisher.

The agency allowed Scheuer to publish his book, "Imperial Hubris," anonymously, and to conduct media interviews to promote it under the name "Mike." The book became a bestseller.

But he became a critic of the war in Iraq, saying it inflamed anti-American sentiment among Muslims, and eventually his name was published. After some White House officials and pundits asserted that the CIA had allowed Scheuer to act as its surrogate critic on the war, CIA officials forbade him from speaking publicly.

Scheuer said in an interview with The Washington Post on Monday that he believes the agency silenced him after CIA officials realized he was blaming the CIA, not the administration, for mishandling terrorism. "As long as the book was being used to bash the president, they gave me carte blanche to talk to the media," he said. "But this is a story about the failure of the bureaucracy to support policymakers."

The statement, issued in the name of Scheuer's publicist, Christina Davidson, said Scheuer criticized the CIA leadership for allowing "the clandestine service to be scapegoated for pre-9-11 failures -- failure more properly placed at the door of senior members of the U.S. intelligence community and senior policymakers, for whom, in Scheuer's view, saving lives has seldom appeared to be the top priority."

Scheuer was chief of the CIA's bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999 and remained a counterterrorism analyst after that. He could not be reached for comment yesterday.

What else is in the 9-11 Commission report that we don't know about yet?

A Step Backwards

via Paul Woodward at The War in Context:

Bush picks master of legal evasion as chief law enforcement officer
By Paul Woodward, The War in Context, November 11, 2004

According to the Boston Globe, Alberto R. Gonzales -- President Bush's choice to replace Attorney General Ashcroft -- will cost Bush little of his newly "earned" political capital. The Washington Post notes that Gonzales' nomination raises some questions but says that he is "soft-spoken, smart and discreet [and] has won the admiration of many in Washington." The Los Angeles Times repeats the widely reported fact that Gonzales is the son of migrant workers and says that the president's choice was applauded by liberals and conservatives, while USA Today emphasizes that the appointment will mark a change in style and that Gonzales will be the first Hispanic to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer. It's only one of those pesky foreign newspapers, The Guardian, that leads its report by reminding readers that as White House counsel, Gonzales advised the president that the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete".

If there are any US senators on the judiciary committee who have more guts than the Washington press corps they might see fit to challenge Gonzales not only on his interpretations of international law but also on his relations with Enron. They should also examine his willingness to support a process through which pleas for clemency for Texas death-row inmates were systematically denied. Atlantic Monthly last year reported that as legal counsel to Governor Bush, "Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence." Alberto Gonzales' record demonstrates his ability to protect his clients, conjure up novel interpretations of the law and above all, his loyalty to George Bush -- not his qualifications for becoming Attorney General.

The CW is that this insect will slide to confirmation. If your congresscritter serves on the Judiciary Committee, a letter reminding him/her of this bug's sins would not be out of place. Once upon a time, the AG was required to notice that the Bill of Rights existed, even if he didn't have to observe it.

Promiscuity

My new essay on The Great Awakening is now up at The Village Gate, if you are interested.

I'll have a review of Gerald May's new book, "The Dark Night of the Soul," posted there, probably on this coming Sunday. This is a significant book in the history of modern spiritual writing and I've been working on both the book and the reflection for a couple of months.

It Gets Worse

Dan Froomkin reminds us of another reason why Gonzalez is such a lousy choice:

Andrew Zajac writes in the Chicago Tribune: "Although less publicly wedded to conservative social issues, Gonzales is similar to Ashcroft in his staunch support for an unfettered federal hand in pursuing terrorists and in defending the need for governmental secrecy.

"According to the Atlantic Monthly, Gonzales handled 57 such petitions but sometimes provided Bush with only cursory reviews of the cases, leaving out crucial information such as ineffective counsel and evidence of innocence."

"Culture of life" my a**. The contempt with which this crowd treats human life and the "rule of law" is nausea-inducing.

Only Ceremonial Care

Veterans' Day has special meaning for me because my father was one. He sailed in the Merchant Marine in WWII and served stateside in the Army during Korea, teaching OCS in Ft. Monmouth, NJ. Following his active duty, he became a company commander in the Army Reserve, from which he resigned in the early Sixties. For the first ten years of my life, I was an Army brat, in a household which was deeply embued with that ethos. My father taught me about leading people by supporting them and caring for them deeply, taking real care of their needs as a total person, not just as soldiers. This is one of the reasons I am so deeply offended by the Bush/Rummy callous disregard for the lives and human needs of our military: from the abuse of the Guard and Reserve, to the multiply extended tours of duty, stop loss and completely turning their backs on injured vets.

My father was a military historian, and that was the subject he taught at OCS. His love of the subject was transferred to me and I've been a voracious reader and willing student of the subject and the minutiea of military strategy, tactics and logistics.

Bushco treats the military as a gaudy plaything rather than a deeply human institution, and is ignorant of history. No wonder we are committing the errors of Viet Nam all over again.

Enshrining Torture

Gonzales Is a Disastrous Choice

It didn't take long for President Bush to squander the opportunity provided by John Ashcroft's resignation as attorney general. Instead of replacing Ashcroft with someone of enough stature and independence to bolster the administration's commitment to the rule of law, Bush rushed to nominate his old confidant from Texas, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales. Gonzales should face little trouble being confirmed as the nation's first Latino attorney general, and that's a shame. He is a terrible choice.

Social conservatives are relieved to see Gonzales take over the Justice Department, if only because his perceived lack of passion for their agenda made him a worrisome potential Supreme Court candidate in their book. At least Gonzales has that going for him. But the role he played in orchestrating the war on terror from the White House counsel's office makes him a disastrous choice to lead the Justice Department.

Most notoriously, Gonzales wrote a memo in early 2002 arguing that suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan were not subject to protections under the Geneva Convention. He called the convention's particulars "quaint," a disdain for international law that begat the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and charges of human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay.

Congress has been demanding access to all of Gonzales' memos, but Ashcroft has predictably refused. The Senate should insist that the White House provide them, but we won't hold our breath. Still, it's worth considering whether someone who lacked the judgment to help his client, the president, avoid the torture scandals is temperamentally suited to be the nation's top prosecutor. To the rest of the world, appointing Gonzales attorney general is reminiscent of Bush's praise for Donald Rumsfeld's tenure at the Pentagon in the middle of the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Four more years of this kind of crap. Oy.

Things Seen and Unseen

Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman interviews UPI reporter Mark Benjamin on the extent of injuries inflicted on our troops, the story you won't see in the MSM. The link to DN's main page will give you more resources, audio, video and transcripts.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the numbers, as you understand them today, of, not the dead, but the wounded?

MARK BENJAMIN: I'm certainly glad that the president is visiting the troops. I think he's probably seeing part of the picture. For example, I suspect they probably took him to the -- one of the wards there where they have more of the traditional war injuries as opposed to, for example, Ward 54, which is where I visited, which is the in-patient psychiatric ward where we have soldiers who frankly have been driven deeply insane by combat. I wish that the American people knew more about what is happening with respect to the toll of this war, because I think it's a lot bigger and a lot more troubling than most people know.

UPDATE: Susie says there is something you can do to help.

You Served

We are a nation at war, once again. If you served, this is your open thread.

Veterans' Day

In Flanders' Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Click on the link if you want to read the story behind the poem. I read it every year as both a tribute and a warning.

Veterans' Day

Dover Beach
by Matthew Arnold

The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; -on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanch'd land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Aegean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

News

Here are some things coming up: I'll be blogging at The Village Gate later today and over the weekend. I haven't been there in a long time because of problems with the Drupal platform, but they seem to be solved now. I expect to have an essay on the fourth Great Awakening, of which we seem to be in the midst right now, probably tonight; I expect to have a review/reflection of Gerald May's latest book on the weekend, probably Sunday. The first item is about politics, religion and economics and could arguably be posted at Bump, but it is such a clearly theological issue for me, Christian branch, that I'm going to take it back to TVG; the second item is clearly religious, so I'm going to take it to Allen's house. It will be good to be back, I've not posted there in months for a variety of reasons, most of them having to do with my limitations. I'll post a notice here when the essays go up, for those of you who are interested.

Also, on Sunday I'm part of the regular blogging team at The American Street, a place I think most Bumpers will find warm and inviting.

Now, would one of you tell me why the "Sempre Fi Fund" for wounded Marines and their families needs to exist? I thought we had a Veteran's Department in the Cabinet.

Fallujah: The Fiction

I was listening to NPR on the way home from work and heard a "commentary" or whatever the hell they call it by Daniel Schorr. To hear this formerly perspicatious journalist spouting the CW so rankled that I decided to write about it.

I listen to the radio during the day while I'm working, usual NPR but sometimes C-Span. I spent the day listening to what percentage of Fallujah we've "taken," as if any of this matters to the putative Iraqi "election" in January or the Iraq war. Taking territory and holding it, as in occupation, are two very different things. If you think any of this has any bearing on "progress" in this war, just contemplate the fact that three members of Allawi's family were kidnapped today and the populace of most of the country are afraid to leave their houses because of the kidnappings.

This Fallujah battle is a Potempkin one, as well as a horrific waste of humans and material, and probably a war crime, if it were being prosecuted by anyone other than us. It is Rumsfeld's attempt to "do something" and get the news off of the spiraling catastrophe which is Iraq. It has nothing to do with strategy or tactics for "succeeding" in Iraq. It is military "make-work" to cover Bush's ass and get the bad news off the front page. I know the Marines are comparing it to the battle of Hue during the Viet Nam war. We won that battle, and it had absolutely nothing to do with our eventual loss in Viet Nam, other than to hurry it.

So while you hear the Army and Marine situational commanders all over cable TV on Veterans' Day tomorrow, be advised that this is all mirrors and blue smoke to cover the fact that we are losing in Iraq. We lost this war because of Bush's ideology and Rummy's incompetence. We never had sufficient forces for an occupation, never. The Army and Marines were never large enough for an operation this size. We lost the minute way back when, when the idea of this war fixed itself in W's little brain.

The decision of the Iraq Islamic Party to pull out of the "government" and of the Association of Muslim Scholars to boycott the coming "election" means that the fig-leaf of respectibility that Bushco has tried to place over each of these abominations is now gone.

And a majority of the citizens of my country voted to perpetuate this atrocity....

There's never been a better time to dump Internet Explorer

My principal daily deliverable at work is a précis of all the vulnerabilities, culled from TruSecure Alerts, Secunia Advisories, and a private for-pay Financial Services mailing list, which have been reported from 9:00 AM PST my last workday, until 9:00 AM PST today. This précis goes out to a number of different groups within the bank, freeing them from the need to redundantly research this stuff.

My supervisor stopped by at about 11:30 this morning and asked me to include a vulnerability reported after the 9:00 AM cutoff. I took one look and said "Yeah, good idea". After I had a chance to check out The Register, once the deliverable was away, I thought it was a really good idea.

It was yet another Internet Explorer vulnerability. A remotely exploitable buffer overrun. One which Service Pack 1 for IE 6 does not mitigate. Is there actual exploit code in the wild? Well, let's see. There is this proof of concept exploit that the bugtraq database entry for this critter points you to. Which means that Joe Hacker doesn't need to be Coder Of The Year in order to write an attack tool that exploits this.

But it gets better. This vulnerability is exploited by the W32.Mydoom.AH@mm worm and the W32.Mydoom.AI@mm worm, which are otherwise collectively known as the Bofra worm. This is pretty quick work for the little wretches who get off on writing malware, since the exploit code has only been public for a couple of days, and the Malformed IFRAME Remote Buffer Overflow vulnerability it exploits in IE has only been known for two weeks.

"Is there a fix??", I hear you cry. Well, maybe Service Pack 2 will mitigate this. But outfits like Securityfocus, which have reputations to protect, are saying things like "Currently we are not aware of any vendor-supplied patches for this issue". And sure enough, the monthly MS patch bundle, which hit the street yesterday, did not include a patch specific to this vulnerability.

This isn't the first time we've been through something like this with IE, nor is it the 21'st. Information security professionals have been saying for some time that it's time to dump IE. So have newspaper columnists. There are more secure and better browsers out there, as I'm sure you're aware. There is Firefox, which made version 1.0 recently. There is Mozilla. There is Opera. If your home network is dangling at the end of a flaky phone line, you can get CDs with these alternate browsers on them, or use something like wget, which has the happy ability to continue a download from the place where it stopped when the connection dropped.

Sadly there are a few outfits that run up web sites which require IE in order to function. Banks and other financial institutions are the worst offenders. But the rule of thumb, from a security standpoint, is that if you don't need IE, use something else.

Enough is enough. It's long past time to send IE packing.

Oddness continues

On the oddness of the Ashcroft resignation letter, WaPo's Dan Froomkin remarks:

Here's the images and text of Ashcroft's five-page handwritten resignation letter.

That's oddly cloak-and-dagger. Is he saying that if he'd had his secretary type it, it would have leaked? What does that say about his confidence in his own team?

It's no secret in town that his resignation was quickly accepted: he was seen as a publicity hound and in Bush's world, cabinet officers aren't supposed to outshine W.

Republican Dictionary

BI-PARTISANSHIP, n. When conservative Republicans work together with moderate Republicans to pass legislation Democrats hate.

CLARIFY, v. Repeating the same lie over and over again.

CLEAN, adj. The word used to modify any aspect of the environment Republican legislation allows corporations to pollute, poison, or destroy.

FAIRER, adj. Regressive.

FAITH, n. The stubborn belief that God approves of Republican moral values despite the preponderance of textual evidence to the contrary.

FAITH COMMUNITY, n. Evangelicals, because they are saved, and hawkish conservative Jews, because they are useful. Israel is the bait-on-the-hook just waiting for God to take that Rapturous bite.

FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, n. A Republican who is in the minority.

FREEDOM, n. What Arabs want but can't achieve on their own without Western military intervention. It bears a striking resemblance to chaos.

GROWTH, n. The justification for tax cuts for the rich. What happens to the deficits when Republicans cut taxes on the rich.

HONESTY, n. Lies told in simple declarative sentences: "Freedom is on the march."

HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY, n. The invasion of any sovereign nation whose leadership Republicans don't like.

HUMBLED adj. What a Republican says right after a close election and right before he governs in an arrogant manner.

MORAL VALUES, n. Hatred of homosexuals dressed up in Biblical language.

MANDATE, n. What a Republican claims to possess when only 49 percent of the voting public loathes him instead of 51 percent.

THE MEDIA, n. Immoral elitist liberally-biased traitors who should leave Republicans alone so they can complete God's work on Earth in peace and quiet, behind closed doors.

PHILOSOPHY, n. Religion.

SIMPLIFY, tr. v. To cut the taxes of Republican donors.

SLAVE, n. A person without legal rights, e,g. a fetus.

BONUS DEFINITION: NEOCONSERVATIVES, n. Nerds with Napoleonic complexes.

Labor News

Largest Union Issues Call for Major Changes
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: November 10, 2004

As the nation's union leaders gather today in Washington the labor movement is in turmoil, with the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s largest union hinting that it might pull out of the labor federation and some labor leaders saying that John J. Sweeney may face a challenge for its presidency.

In a sign of the jockeying and soul-searching, Andrew L. Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s largest union, called yesterday in a letter for far-reaching changes in labor designed to increase its membership, proposing a $25-million-a-year campaign to unionize Wal-Mart and a near doubling in the amount spent annually on organizing.

The meeting comes as long-simmering differences in the A.F.L.-C.I.O. have been intensified by President Bush's re-election, with many union leaders fearing retaliation because organized labor spent more than $150 million to try to defeat him.

"The labor movement was really shaken by the election and they're also badly divided," said Kate Bronfenbrenner, a labor relations professor at Cornell University.

Unions are also feeling a sense of crisis, largely because the percentage of workers in unions has plunged to 13 percent from nearly 35 percent in the 1950's and because corporations are cutting back health benefits and pensions.

In recent months, Mr. Stern, whose union, with 1.6 million members, is the nation's fastest growing, has warned that the service employees might break away from the A.F.L.-C.I.O. - a federation of 60 unions and 13 million workers - unless the federation embraces major changes to reverse labor's decline.

Mr. Stern said in his letter to the 54 members of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s Executive Council that President Bush's victory had intensified the need for change. "When only 13 percent of the American work force is in unions, our ability to win national elections is limited,'' he said. And he said he wanted a vote on proposals for change before the president's inauguration in January, instead of at the labor convention in July. Mr. Stern's call for broad restructuring has fueled fierce divisions, even causing one union, the International Association of Machinists, to warn that it might quit the A.F.L.-C.I.O. if Mr. Stern prevails in his push to remake the federation.

Adding to the tensions, some labor leaders say that a close ally of Mr. Stern, John W. Wilhelm, the longtime president of the hotel workers' union, might challenge Mr. Sweeney, who is up for re-election next year.

In an interview, Mr. Wilhelm declined to say whether he would run against Mr. Sweeney, who says he will seek a new four-year term at the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s convention in July.

"We have to do things much differently in the labor movement because of all the challenges that we face," Mr. Wilhelm said. "Organized labor right now is obviously in trouble because we continue to decline as a percent of the work force."

Mr. Sweeney, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s president, called today's meeting to discuss proposals to reshape the union movement and to assess labor's political efforts this fall.

I'm with Nathan Newman, let the debate begin. Something has to change, and change immediately, or there will be no labor movement left by the time the Bushies are done with it.

You can follow Andy Stern's argument on the SEIU's new Unite to Win blog. It's got comments, and you are invited to be part of the discussion.

As Nathan lays it out, here are the controversial proposals:

# Divert $25 million per year of AFL-CIO annual revenue to organizing Wal-Mart as the key target for the labor movement.
# Deny political endorsement to any politician who does not support labor law reform.
# Eliminate smaller unions and merge them into larger industry-wide unions who will be required to coordinate national bargaining.
# Lead unions in key industries should receive half their dues back from the AFL-CIO to be devoted to new organizing.
# Local central labor councils should be strengthened and all unions locally should be required to participate in regional organizing strategies.

The national bargaining piece is key, and the strategy that UNITE-HERE is pursuing now, as is the SEIU.

In other labor news, United Church of Canada clergy are organizing to get a better deal. This is something I've dreamed about for years. The clergy of churches with congregational polity have always been one-down in negotiating with their congregations. This will help even things up.

And Don't Let the Door Hit You

This made me curious:

In a five-page handwritten resignation letter to Bush -- dated Election Day but released yesterday -- Ashcroft took credit for declining crime rates and the absence of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved," he wrote.

Yes and no. While both property and violent crime are down, murder is up. And beyond indicting 5,000 people he couldn't get convictions on, I don't see how we're one damn bit safer.

And what's up with that "five-page handwritten" resignation letter? Weird.

The Fantasy Unravels

Gunmen Kidnap Three Members of Allawi's Family
U.S. Controls 70 Percent of Fallujah, Military Says

By Karl Vick, Jackie Spinner and Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 11, 2004; 6:46 AM

BAGHDAD, Nov. 10 -- Gunmen kidnapped a first cousin of interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and two other members of his extended family from their Baghdad home on Tuesday, an Allawi spokesman said Wednesday morning. In Fallujah, meanwhile, the U.S. military claimed control of 70 percent of the rebellious city as fighting entered its third full day.

Allawi spokesman Georges Sada said in a telephone interview that Allawi's "cousin, his [cousin's] wife and another relative were kidnapped Tuesday night from their home after a little shooting between their bodyguards and the terrorists." Another Allawi spokesman, Thaer Hasan Naqip identified the kidnapped cousin as Ghazi Allawi, 75. He said Allawi, his wife and his son were kidnapped in Baghdad's Yarmouk neighborhood.

Sada said early in the day that no group had taken responsibility for the abduction, and neither the Allawi family nor the interim government had been contacted by the kidnappers.

"Not until now," Sada said. "No communication."

Later, however, the Reuters news service reported from Dubai that an Islamist group, Ansar al-Jihad, was claiming responsibility on an Internet Web site, threatening to kill the relatives in 48 hours unless the raid on Fallujah was halted and prisoners set free. The authenticity of the claim could not be verified.

''This action is another of the terrorists' crimes and will not weaken the will of the government to fight terrorism to achieve peace and stability in a free and democratic Iraq," said Naqip.

Kidnapping for ransom has skyrocketed in the capital since the collapse of civil order that followed the April 2003 toppling of the government headed by Saddam Hussein. Some wealthier families have hired bodyguards to walk children to and from school.

But the abduction of Allawi's kin was immediately assumed to be politically motivated.

More than 170 foreigners have been taken in Iraq since April, when kidnapping emerged as a tool of insurgents looking for leverage against members of the military coalition led by the United States.

Some three dozen of the captives have subsequently been executed or never found. In recent weeks, assassinations of members of Iraq's interim government have skyrocketed. The threat extends from ministers, who typically travel with security details, to office support personnel, who have been massacred in carpools on the way to work.

It hardly matters how much of Fallujah we control when you can be kidnapped any where in the country. What a wonderful climate in which to pretend to hold an election.

Those Whom the Gods Wish to Destroy...

Rebuilding What the Assault Turns to Rubble
Seabees, Other Units Began Planning Early for the Reconstruction of Fallujah

By Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 10, 2004; Page A20

NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 9 -- Weeks before Marine and Army units stormed into Fallujah, blowing up buildings and blasting holes in insurgent positions, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Larry Merola was already working on a plan to fix the damage.

Merola, an architect from Stoughton, Mass., was part of a Seabee team of engineers, builders and carpenters responsible for estimating the battle damage long before the first tank rolled.

Merola and his crew -- which included an ironworker from Connecticut, an electrician from Virginia and a general contractor from New Hampshire -- pored over combat plans with Marine commanders and made suggestions for how to secure the city without completely tearing it apart.

"A lot of trigger-pullers and pilots, they can do just about anything with their weapons," said Merola, 38, a reservist with the 7th Naval Construction Regiment, based in Newport, R.I. "But you don't want to give people a piece of flat earth to start over with when you're done."

Now, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces pushing their way through Fallujah, military commanders say an essential component in the battle to retake the city is putting it back together when the infantry leaves. More than $90 million in U.S.-funded reconstruction projects are planned for the city once it is secure.

"We don't do a combat operation in Fallujah unless we are prepared to repair it," said Col. John R. Ballard, commander of the Marine 4th Civil Affairs Group, based in Washington. "This isn't about punishing the town. This is about getting rid of a very bad influence. When we do that, there is going to be damage."

Oh, yeah, this is a winning strategy. "We're going to bomb your house, kill you and your friends and relations, but, if anyone survives, you are going to get a nice new aprtment complex and strip mall out of it. No food and medicine, electricity or clean water, but we can give you a two-bedroom, bath-and-a-half deal on one floor."

Just in case you weren't clear on the fact that we know better than the towel heads.

Old News

The Agonist Team Member "candy" posted this story with a "smiley" rolling on the floor and laughing. Budget discipline? Yeah, right.

Bush wants line-item veto to be revived

By Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer | November 10, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Six years after the Supreme Court took away the president's ability to veto specific parts of legislation, President Bush is asking Congress to bring back the line-item veto to let him make precision strikes against projects and tax provisions he doesn't like.

At a news conference after his re-election, Bush said he wanted a line-item veto that "passed constitutional muster," explaining it would help him work with lawmakers "to make sure that we're able to maintain budget discipline."

Presidents have been saying similar words since the first line-item veto proposal was introduced in the 1870s. It wasn't until 1996, when the new Republican majority in the House made the tool part of its "Contract With America," that Congress responded.

President Clinton happily signed the legislation, and in 1997 he used his new power 82 times to negate specific projects in larger spending bills. Congress overrode his veto 38 times, although it still resulted in savings of almost $2 billion.

Clinton singled out for elimination programs that, detractors said, benefited a single tour boat operator in Alaska, or dredged a Mississippi lake that primarily served yachts and pleasure boats.

Two of the losers, New York City and Idaho potato growers, went to court, however, and in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled on a 6-3 vote that the law gave the president unconstitutional unilateral power to change laws enacted by Congress.

The nation returned to what is now current law: The president signs or vetoes spending or tax bills in their entirety; he cannot eliminate items within the bills.

The line-item veto helps restrain excessive spending, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, but "failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies."

Opponents said the law seriously eroded Congress' power over the purse and tilted the Constitution's system of checks and balances dangerously in favor of the executive branch.

"It is a malformed monstrosity, born out of wedlock," thundered Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and a staunch defender of the rights of the legislative branch.

President Budget Bloat and Kommander Karl want to hand out presents or punishments. That's all this is about. Along with continuing to destroy the system of checks and balances, which makes democracy so "untidy."

The Executioner's Song

Attorney General and Commerce Secretary Resign From Cabinet
By DAVID STOUT

Published: November 9, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans are resigning in the first of a string of departures expected before President Bush is inaugurated for a second term.

Mr. Ashcroft's resignation will end one of the more controversial tenures in the attorney general's office in recent decades. Mr. Ashcroft presided over the Justice Department in a time of crisis and bitter debate over the balance between national security and individual liberty that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

To his admirers, Mr. Ashcroft was a tireless and incorruptible law enforcer determined to protect the country and unafraid of criticism from civil libertarians. To his critics, he has been willing to skirt the Constitution to fulfill his and President Bush's concept of national security.

The resignations were announced by the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, who said President Bush had accepted the decisions of both secretaries, The Associated Press said this afternoon.

"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved," Mr. Ashcroft wrote in a five-page, handwritten letter to Mr. Bush, The A.P. said.

I'll leave it to the economics guys to comment on Evans, but getting rid of the SongEagle only counts if the replacement isn't worse and the SCOTUS doesn't come to resemble Clarence Thomas's Pepsi Can Fantasies. Count on this team to always go with the incompetent. It's the only thing that keeps me from moving to Canada.

Are you safer? No. Are you more likely to be brought in for questioning? I expect it every day, and my accountant and I are going over my tax return with a fine tooth comb. That 9,000 dollars gross I earned in 2002 looks highly suspicious.

I'd have to expect to defend it in tax court, except that this administration is utterly incompetent and utterly resistent to change.

I'm still not sleeping well with incompetence.

Expel the Blue states? Bring it on!

Today, Atrios and Kos both wrote up a nutbar who, the day after his Great White Hope won the presidential election, proposed expelling California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware from the Union. Why? Because they are Blue states, whose electoral votes went to the Democratic Kerry/Edwards ticket.

As a Democrat and a proud resident of Seattle, traffic jam capital of America, I cry foul! Mike Thompson should have included Washington State in his list! We're a Blue state. We managed to uphold our honor on November 2; John Kerry won our electoral votes. What discrimination! For shame!

It's been a week since I watched the popular majority of Americans re-elect a candidate whose previous four years in office were graced by 1.6 million lost jobs, 100,000 unneccessarily dead Iraqis, 1300 unneccessarily dead Americans, the single worst act of terrorism ever to take place on American soil, total failure to bag the leader of the group who carried out said terrorism (a chap surnamed bin Laden), evisceration of the Bill of Rights at Guantanamo (among other places), and a further list of blunders, failures, and crimes too long to recount. Not to mention torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, an act almost certainly the result of the policies of his appointed Secretary of Defence. Who, I might add, is still at his post. Any President with a working brain would have sacked Rumsfeld within a week of the Abu Ghraib story breaking.

Right now, I really don't feel too much pride in being an American. In fact, it takes some amount of will to exit I-5 North at State Route 525 on my homeward commute, instead of just going all the way up to Vancouver.

If Mr. Thompson wants to jettison the wealthiest, most productive, best educated, most taxpaying portion of this country, he can just go to it. I will sip my lattes in the new Canadian province of Washington, and watch the Red State U. S. metamorphose into a Third World country. They wouldn't have to pollute themselves with our tax money, as they do now. And they would have Osama bin Laden and his playmates all to themselves.

Return of Economic and Theological Calvinism

I said something earlier today about being on the watch for lousy/inaccurate/misguided/biased reporting on religion in coming days. Today, I discovered the exact opposite: a piece by George Monbiot in The Guardian which is accurate, nuanced and analytical. Nice work. This sort of Calvinism (and it's social situation) is something we've covered here several times:

Puritanism of the richBush's ideology has its roots in 17th century preaching that the world exists to be conquered

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 9, 2004
The Guardian

In England in the first half of the 17th century, the remnants of the feudal state performed a role analogous to that of social democracy in the second half of the 20th. It was run, of course, in the interests of the monarchy and clergy. But it also regulated the economic exploitation of the lower orders. As RH Tawney observed in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926), Charles I sought to nationalise industries, control foreign exchange and prosecute lords who evicted peasants from the land, employers who refused to pay the full wage, and magistrates who failed to give relief to the poor.

But this model was no longer viable. Over the preceding 150 years, "the rise of commercial companies, no longer local, but international" led in Europe to "a concentration of financial power on a scale unknown before" and "the subjection of the collegiate industrial organisation of the Middle Ages to a new money-power". The economy was "swept forward by an immense expansion of commerce and finance, rather than of industry". The kings and princes of Europe had become "puppets dancing on wires" held by the financiers.

In England the dissolution of the monasteries had catalysed a massive seizure of wealth by a new commercial class. They began by grabbing ("enclosing") the land and shaking out its inhabitants. This generated a mania for land speculation, which in turn led to the creation of sophisticated financial markets, experimenting in futures, arbitrage and almost all the vices we now associate with the Age of Enron.

All this was furiously denounced by the early theologists of the English Reformation. The first Puritans preached that men should be charitable, encourage justice and punish exploitation. This character persisted through the 17th century among the settlers of New England. But in the old country it didn't stand a chance.

Puritanism was primarily the religion of the new commercial classes. It attracted traders, money lenders, bankers and industrialists. Calvin had given them what the old order could not: a theological justification of commerce. Capitalism, in his teachings, was not unchristian, but could be used for the glorification of God. From his doctrine of individual purification, the late Puritans forged a new theology.

At its heart was an "idealisation of personal responsibility" before God. This rapidly turned into "a theory of individual rights" in which "the traditional scheme of Christian virtues was almost exactly reversed". By the mid-17th century, most English Puritans saw in poverty "not a misfortune to be pitied and relieved, but a moral failing to be condemned, and in riches, not an object of suspicion ... but the blessing which rewards the triumph of energy and will".

This leap wasn't hard to make. If the Christian life, as idealised by both Calvin and Luther, was to concentrate on the direct contact of the individual soul with God, then society, of the kind perceived and protected by the medieval church, becomes redundant. "Individualism in religion led ... to an individualist morality, and an individualist morality to a disparagement of the significance of the social fabric."

To this the late Puritans added another concept. They conflated their religious calling with their commercial one. "Next to the saving of his soul," the preacher Richard Steele wrote in 1684, the tradesman's "care and business is to serve God in his calling, and to drive it as far as it will go." Success in business became a sign of spiritual grace: providing proof to the entrepreneur, in Steele's words, that "God has blessed his trade". The next step follows automatically. The Puritan minister Joseph Lee anticipated Adam Smith's invisible hand by more than a century, when he claimed that "the advancement of private persons will be the advantage of the public". By private persons, of course, he meant the men of property, who were busily destroying the advancement of everyone else.

Tawney describes the Puritans as early converts to "administrative nihilism": the doctrine we now call the minimal state. "Business affairs," they believed, "should be left to be settled by business men, unhampered by the intrusions of an antiquated morality." They owed nothing to anyone. Indeed, they formulated a radical new theory of social obligation, which maintained that helping the poor created idleness and spiritual dissolution, divorcing them from God.

Of course, the Puritans differed from Bush's people in that they worshipped production but not consumption. But this is just a different symptom of the same disease. Tawney characterises the late Puritans as people who believed that "the world exists not to be enjoyed, but to be conquered. Only its conqueror deserves the name of Christian."

There were some, such as the Levellers and the Diggers, who remained true to the original spirit of the Reformation, but they were violently suppressed. The pursuit of adulterers and sodomites provided an ideal distraction for the increasingly impoverished lower classes.

Ronan Bennett's excellent new novel, Havoc in its Third Year, about a Puritan revolution in the 1630s, has the force of a parable. An obsession with terrorists (in this case Irish and Jesuit), homosexuality and sexual licence, the vicious chastisement of moral deviance, the disparagement of public support for the poor: swap the black suits for grey ones, and the characters could have walked out of Bush's America.

So why has this ideology resurfaced in 2004? Because it has to. The enrichment of the elite and impoverishment of the lower classes requires a justifying ideology if it is to be sustained. In the US this ideology has to be a religious one. Bush's government is forced back to the doctrines of Puritanism as an historical necessity. If we are to understand what it's up to, we must look not to the 1930s, but to the 1630s.

Tough Talk

Powell: U.S. Will Pursue Aggressive Foreign Policy

Tue Nov 9, 2004 12:20 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - President Bush has a fresh mandate to pursue an "aggressive" foreign policy, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is due this week to become the first world leader to hold face-to-face talks with Bush since his re-election last week.

I'm sure the rest of the world is overjoyed by this development. He's just announced he plans to remain a bully.

The Pen is Mightier...

Conservative Christianity's higher profile in politics spells trouble for journalism
By John McManus
Posted Nov. 5, 2004

The answer to the question "What happened to the Democrats on Election Day?" seems to be that they got Bushwhacked by conservative Christians voting on "moral values."

In a political environment weighted toward a particular faith, the desire to avoid antagonizing a substantial segment of the customer base could result in a blander political journalism, or de-emphasizing the topic entirely, perhaps in favor of even more sports and crime news. Or worse, reporting could adopt the coloration of that faith -- and be faithless to journalism.

It is for this reason that resources like The Revealer,The Center for Religion and the Media, Get Religion and Allen Brill and Co.'s The Village Gate are terribly important for debunking bad religion reporting. I'll try to be part of this community of accountability.

Where is the Center?

Moderates, Not Moralists

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 9, 2004; Page A27

John Kerry was not defeated by the religious right. He was beaten by moderates who went -- reluctantly in many cases -- for President Bush. This will be hard for many Democrats to take. It's easier to salve those wounds by demonizing religious conservatives. But in the 2004 election, Democrats left votes on the table that could have created a Kerry majority.

Consider these findings from the network exit polls: About 38 percent of those who thought abortion should be legal in most cases went to Bush. Bush got 22 percent from voters who favored gay marriage and 52 percent among those who favor civil unions. Bush even managed 16 percent among voters who thought the president paid more attention to the interests of large corporations than to those of "ordinary Americans." A third of the voters who favored a government more active in solving problems went to Bush.
....
Democrats have an unlimited capacity to declare that their party suffers from some deep intellectual dysfunction. The insistence that Democrats need "new ideas" is especially popular among think-tankers and columnists, a band I have a personal interest in keeping employed.

But Rove and Bush won this election on decidedly old strategies that had nothing to do with ideas. These included the attacks on John Kerry for being weak and the claim that Bush would be tougher on the bad guys. That's familiar, Cold War-era stuff. Gay marriage was a new issue, but opposing gay marriage is an old idea. Social Security privatization and tax cuts are old ideas, too.

Yet the Bush campaign was innovative in its analysis of the electorate. Its effort to increase the overall Republican share of the vote by boosting turnout in the outer suburbs and rural areas was a big deal. Democrats need to chip away at those Republican margins.

It can be done, and Colorado offers a fascinating laboratory. Kerry lost Colorado by 52 to 47 percent, close to the national margin. But Democrat Ken Salazar won his U.S. Senate race by 51 to 47.

Like Kerry, Salazar swept the traditionally Democratic areas of Denver and Boulder. But in western Colorado, Salazar's work on water issues and his standing as a farmer and rancher gave him reach into normally Republican constituencies. Kerry lost Mesa County, which includes Grand Junction, by 35 percentage points. Salazar lost Mesa by only 26. Salazar also ran ahead of Kerry in other western Colorado counties.

Democrats cannot leave current GOP margins in rural America and the outer suburbs uncontested. While it pains me to say so, it was hard for Kerry, as a Massachusetts liberal who was painted as an elitist, to equal Salazar's feat. On the other hand, Colorado Democrats last Tuesday took both houses of the legislature for the first time in 44 years.

Nothing should be allowed to diminish the importance of the huge turnout efforts made in base Democratic areas. But that organizing needs to be supplemented by a campaign to reach both social moderates and populists, many of whom live in those far suburbs and small towns.

Ours is not a right-wing country. An alternative majority is out there, waiting to be born.

I basically concur with Dionne's analysis, but I think there is something more going on: the center has moved to the right over the last thirty years. The right wing has done a superb job of demonizing classical liberalism and we on the left still need to make the case for historical and contemporary liberalism, using something other than the vocabulary of Noam Chomsky.

We Are All Adjuncts Now

$17 an Hour | Technology's Nomads
Slowdown Forces Many to Wander for Work
IT Unemployment Now Exceeds Overall Jobless Rate

By Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 9, 2004; Page A01

YORK, Pa. -- David Packman knocks on the motel room door and his wife lets him in. His 9-year-old son is waiting with sneakers on, hoping for a trip outside after a day of sitting around. Packman's other son, 4, dances gleefully around the room. Dad's home from work.

This is no holiday getaway; this motel room, for the moment, is where the family lives. Packman, 34, is one month into a four-month contract fixing computers at a local company, and one day closer to the end of the line. It's Monday, and the $50 in Packman's pocket will have to cover food, laundry and incidentals for the coming week.

Not long ago his family was settled in a rental house in Warren, Ohio, the kids chasing frogs in the yard and wife Sabrina, 30, baking bread in the kitchen. Packman was hiring himself out as a freelance computer expert, troubleshooting systems for any company that needed temporary help. But jobs disappeared, and the Packmans lost the house. So they wound up in a motel in a strange town, and now the $58-a-night bill is draining them dry.

Packman is among a wave of Americans taking to the highway to preserve a middle-class life. While few people nowadays expect to spend a career rooted to one spot, some information technology workers are having mobility thrust upon them as companies change the way they staff computer-related jobs. Foreign workers are cheaper for some basic programming and technical jobs, and short-term contract workers give companies more flexibility to add and subtract employees as needed.

Many displaced workers have been able to retrain and find new positions, often switching careers, or making one big cross-country move. But some who are unable to get permanent jobs have to keep roaming to find work, sometimes leaving families behind, sometimes bringing them along in a quest for something better.

A generation ago, it was blue-collar workers who confronted a grim future of layoffs and factory closures. Many turned to computer work as a way out. Thanks to the 1990s boom in personal computing and the Internet, jobs in information technology -- known as IT, or simply "tech" -- were supposed to spread the prosperity of a "New Economy" based on digital technology instead of on bending metal or stamping plastics.

But it's not working out the way many had hoped. Unemployment among tech workers, once almost nonexistent, is now higher than the overall jobless rate for the first time in more than 30 years, according to an analysis of federal statistics by Ronil Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Between 1983 and 2000, the field was among the fastest-growing U.S. job markets. Employment in all tech-related jobs peaked at nearly 6.5 million in 2000, according to a survey of government statistics by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Those jobs have declined every year since and slipped by more than 10 percent between 2002 and 2003 alone, the survey found. A recent study by the job placement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas Inc. found that 16 percent of all U.S. jobs cut this year were from high-tech companies.

Millions of people still make good livings in technology, and many economists think the industry will continue to generate jobs. It's a broad category that includes entrepreneurs such as Jeffrey P. Bezos at Amazon.com Inc., computer system managers making $100,000 a year and technicians averaging about $45,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average wage for all tech occupations last year, according to the engineering group, was $53,728 -- better than the $17-an-hour average (roughly $35,000 annually) for the nation's workforce as a whole.

But wage prospects for many are shrinking, the group's survey found. The average technology worker got an 8.7 percent pay hike in 2000, but only a 3.3 percent increase in 2002. Wages bounced back in 2003, rising an average of 4.9 percent, but growth was concentrated in higher-end jobs. Workers in some of the broadest categories saw far less; computer programmers, for instance, posted two straight years of 1.3 percent raises -- less than inflation.

This is Bush's "ownership" economy. If you don't have a trust fund, it is a pretty grim place.

Judicial Oversight

U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial at Guantánamo
By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: November 9, 2004

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, Nov. 8 - A federal judge ruled Monday that President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.

The ruling by Judge James Robertson of United States District Court in Washington brought an abrupt halt to the trial here of one detainee, one of hundreds being held at Guantánamo as enemy combatants. It threw into doubt the future of the first set of United States military commission trials since the end of World War II as well as other legal proceedings devised by the administration to deal with suspected terrorists.

The administration reacted quickly, saying it would seek an emergency stay and a quick appeal.

Judge Robertson ruled against the government in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan who is facing terrorism charges. Mr. Hamdan's lawyers had asked the court to declare the military commission process fatally flawed.

The ruling and its timing had a theatrical effect on the courtroom here where pretrial proceedings were under way with Mr. Hamdan, a 34-year-old Yemeni in a flowing white robe, seated next to his lawyers.

About 30 minutes into the afternoon proceedings, the presiding officer, Col. Peter S. Brownback III, was handed a note from a Marine sergeant. Colonel Brownback immediately called a recess and rushed from the room with the commission's two other officers. When he returned, he announced that the proceeding was in recess indefinitely and he departed quickly.

This is good news for those of us who are fans of the Constitution. The courts are about all that stand between us and the power mad right now, the three branch of government all being in the same hands now.

X-Box War

So We Win Fallujah. Then What?
The big question is what comes after.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Nov. 8, 2004, at 3:10 PM PT

As for accomplishing the war's broader, long-term goal—crushing the insurgents and securing a stable, free Iraq—the offensive in Fallujah is at best a shot in the dark. If success is swift and civilian casualties minimal, even the operation's critics might come around or at least drop their resistance. However, urban warfare is rarely a neat affair, especially when the indigenous fighters have had six months to fortify defenses, prepare booby traps, and plan back-alley ambushes. The U.S. troops expect to face 3,000 to 5,000 insurgents, who are unlikely to give up the fight easily. A little over half of Fallujah's 300,000 residents have reportedly fled the city, but this means that a bit fewer than half have stayed. They were all warned to leave town. The offensive is going to be a massive undertaking; the city is going to be pummeled by fire from the ground and the air; it will be hard to distinguish innocent civilians from insurgent fighters; and, given the warnings and the waiting and the declared urgency of the mission, there will be little incentive to try.

Second, coupled with this grim realization, the U.S. military is finding itself increasingly alone and isolated in this war. A small story in the Nov. 4 New York Times listed the various countries that are pulling out of this "coalition." Hungary had just announced, the day before, that it would withdraw its 300 troops from Iraq. This move would come on top of withdrawals, either actual or announced, by Spain (1,300 troops); Poland (2,400); the Netherlands (1,400); Thailand (450); the Dominican Republic (302); Nicaragua (115); Honduras (370); the Philippines (51); Norway (155); and New Zealand (60). Other countries will soon reduce their troop levels— Singapore, from 191 to 32; Moldova, from 42 to 12; and Bulgaria, from 483 to 430. For the most part, these aren't large numbers—the United States has always contributed the vast bulk of the forces, with Britain, Australia, and Italy trailing far behind—but that's not the point. Their joining the coalition was presented as a show of international support; their departing will be widely perceived as an erosion of that support.

My read on this "Fallujah Campaign" has always been that it is a "show" war, something for the tv cameras, a way to look like we are "doing something," since there is no clear tactical or strategic reason for this particular battle.

But, since the entire war is lethal "make work," there isn't any reason to expect this effort to be anything better.

By the way, the history of western powers against colonialized insurgents isn't very encouraging.

The Monk of the Ordinary

Next on my reading list.

Supporting the Troops

VA backlog forcing Iraq, Afghanistan vets to wait for treatment

November 8, 2004, 6:57 AM

DETROIT (AP) -- Thousands of veterans in Michigan are on waiting lists for medical services and disability claims provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Some reservists returning from Iraq say that, despite being promised two years of VA-paid medical service upon their discharge, they are not receiving it or have been told their cases have been deferred for months.

The VA averages 160 days to process claims, longer than its goal of 100 days and far beyond the 60 to 90 days veterans are promised. The agency says the average wait in the Detroit area has been cut by 50 days over the past year to 111 days. But veterans dispute that assessment and say they sometimes wait six months for necessary treatment and services.
....
Nationally, 334,611 veterans were awaiting approval of benefits as of the end of October, according to VA statistics. In metropolitan Detroit, the backlog of claims numbered 6,984, with 1,400 new cases being filed each month.

About 33,500 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already received treatment. The numbers are expected to increase in 2005 as more soldiers finish their tours in Iraq.

This makes me heartsick. If you know anyone who is in this situation, tell them to write to their congressperson and senators, that's the one thing I've heard of that sometimes helps. If they are unable to contact their congresscritters because of disability, do it for them! That's supporting the troops.

Return to the Dark Ages

U.S. Moves Toward a New Conservative Era
By REUTERS

Published: November 7, 2004

Filed at 12:28 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's election victory reflected a marked shift to the right which Republicans hope will usher in a generation of conservative rule by the party, analysts said.

The biggest voter turnout since 1968, which defeated Democrat John Kerry and expanded Republican majorities in Congress, is being seen by some as another milestone for the conservative movement that put Ronald Reagan in the White House in 1980 and gave Republicans control of Congress in 1994.
....
A striking feature of the Bush victory is the ascendant role of Christian evangelicals in key states including Ohio, where Republicans parlayed opposition to gay marriage and other so-called moral issues into record voter turnout.

``It's unprecedented,'' said historian Joan Hoff, who fears the United States could be heading for a period of regressive policies similar to the 1920s, a decade marked by Prohibition and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan.

Others disagree. Kevin Phillips, a former Republican official and political analyst who has become an outspoken critic of Bush, sees no evidence that Bush's 51-48 percent win over Kerry will lead to a significant new chapter in American politics.

``A man who would have lost in 2004 if 9/11 hadn't come along, was lucky 9/11 came along,'' said Phillips, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. ``It gave his whole brand of simplistic politics a hook.''

Gingrich, who engineered the 1994 Republican victory in Congress, said party gains could be short-lived unless steps are taken to build on Tuesday's winning coalition. ``The Republicans will determine whether this is a high-water mark or a launching pad,'' he told Reuters in an interview.
....
Thomas Frank, author of ``What's the Matter with Kansas?: How the Conservatives Won the Heart of America,'' said the election demonstrated a Republican ability to shape popular opinion through a strategy he calls ``conservative populism.''

Frank said the strategy wins elections by using hot-button issues such as gay marriage to stir anger among rank-and-file voters. But after election day, little is ultimately done about those issues, which must be preserved unresolved for future election victories.

What succeeds instead are tax cuts, deregulation and other policies backed by the party's business constituents.

``Overturning Roe vs. Wade won't happen,'' Frank said referring to the Supreme Court ruling endorsing the right to abortion. ``What's the first thing Bush said he's going to do? Privatize Social Security. That's been a dream of business since 1936,'' he said.

Quite frankly, the only way I can summon any optimism is in the hope that the Senate Dems develop some partisan discipline. The small cadre of Republican moderates are going to be kept on a short leash by a vindictive Karl Rove, so don't expect much help from them.

The Larger Problem

Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The fight for the middle.
By Bruce Reed
Posted Monday, Nov. 8, 2004, at 9:15 AM PT

At my first job interview in Washington 20 years ago, I was asked to write a speech about how to revive the Democratic Party. The topic must have scared off all the other applicants, because I got the job—and the chance to spend most of the last two decades rewriting the same speech.

In this election, we tried to convince Americans that this administration's failures were reason enough to trust us. They largely agreed with us about Bush, but we didn't quite overcome their doubts about us.

There is no one answer, of course, but I think Reed has managed to get beyond the "values" talking point to look at the broader problem.

"Moral Values"

Screams will not be heard

This is an information age, but it will be months before we learn the truth about the assault on Falluja

Madeleine Bunting
Monday November 8, 2004
The Guardian

The silence from Falluja marks a new and agonising departure in the shape of 21st-century war. The horrifying shift in the last century was how, increasingly, war was waged against civilians: their proportion of the death toll rose from 50% to 90%. It prompted the development of a form of war-reporting, exemplified by Bosnia, which was not about the technology and hardware, but about human suffering, and which fuelled public outrage. No longer. The reporting of Falluja has lapsed back into the military machismo of an earlier age. This war against the defenceless will go unreported.

The reality is that a city can never be adequately described as a "militants' stronghold". It's a label designed to stiffen the heart of a soldier, but it is blinding us, the democracies that have inflicted this war, to the consequences of our actions. Falluja is still home to thousands of civilians. The numbers who have fled the prospective assault vary, but there could be 100,000 or more still in their homes. Typically, as in any war, those who don't get out of the way are a mixture of the most vulnerable - the elderly, the poor, the sick; the unlucky, who left it too late to get away; and the insanely brave, such as medical staff.

Nor does it seem possible that reporters still use the terms "softening up" or "precision" bombing. They achieve neither softening nor precision, as Falluja well knew long before George W Bush arrived in the White House. In the first Gulf war, an RAF laser-guided bomb intended for the city's bridge went astray and landed in a crowded market, killing up to 150. Last year, the killing of 15 civilians shortly after the US arrived in the city ensured that Falluja became a case study in how to win a war but lose the occupation. A catalogue of catastrophic blunders has transformed a relatively calm city with a strongly pro-US mayor into a battleground.

One last piece of fantasy is that there is unlikely to be anything "final" about this assault. Already military analysts acknowledge that a US victory in Falluja could have little effect on the spreading incidence of violence across Iraq. What the insurgents have already shown is that they are highly decentralised, and yet the quick copying of terrorist techniques indicates some degree of cooperation. Hopes of a peace seem remote; the future looks set for a chronic, intermittent civil war. By the time the bulldozers have ploughed their way through the centre of Falluja, attention could have shifted to another "final assault" on another "militant stronghold", as another city of homes, shops and children's playgrounds morphs into a battleground.

This is what you won't hear from the American media: this is a war against civilians. I'm listening to the CNN version of war-o-tainment this morning. The war has morphed from being an illegal action against a soveriegn nation to an all out assault on civilians.

The moral taint against my country deepens.

Price Increases Ahead

Dollar expected to fall amid China's rumoured selling
By Steve Johnson in London and Andrew Balls in Washington
Published: November 7 2004 19:43 | Last updated: November 7 2004 19:43

The dollar could slide still further, in spite of hitting an all-time low against the euro last week in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, currency traders have said.

The dollar sell-off has resumed amid fears among traders that Mr Bush's victory will bring four more years of widening US budget and current account deficits, heightened geopolitical risks and a policy of "benign neglect" of the dollar.

Many currency traders were taken aback on Friday when the greenback fell in spite of bullish data showing the US economy created 337,000 jobs in October.

"If this can't cause the dollar to strengthen you have to tell me what will. This is a big green light to sell the dollar," said David Bloom, currency analyst at HSBC, as the greenback fell to a nine-year low in trade-weighted terms.

The dollar's fall comes as the Federal Reserve is widely expected to raise US interest rates by a quarter point to 2 per cent when it meets on Wednesday and to signal that it will continue with a measured pace of rate increases.

Speculative traders in Chicago last week racked up the highest number of long-euro, short-dollar contracts on record. Options traders have reported brisk business in euro calls - contracts to buy the euro at a pre-determined rate.

However, the market has been rife with rumours that the latest wave of selling has been led by foreign governments seeking to cut their exposure to US assets.

India and Russia have reportedly been selling US assets, as well as petrodollar-rich Middle Eastern investors.

Published: November 8, 2004

Filed at 6:40 a.m. ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The dollar hit a fresh record low against the euro and a nine-year low on a trade-weighted index on Monday as investors continued to shun the greenback on worries over the United States's bloated deficits.

The dollar weakened as far as $1.2985 to the euro in early trade and analysts said it was only a matter of time before it reached the psychological $1.30 level.

``The U.S. has a current account deficit, a budget deficit and a president who appears unconcerned about dollar weakness,'' said Shahab Jalinoos, senior currency strategist at ABN AMRO. ``No one can see any reason to buy the dollar at the moment.''

The latest bout of dollar weakness began last Wednesday as investors took the view that the administration of re-elected President Bush would do little to alleviate the twin U.S. deficits.

The budget deficit is about $427 billion, or 3.7 percent of gross domestic product, while the current account, the broadest measure of trade, hit a record $166.18 billion shortfall in the second quarter.

The dollar's weakness was broad based with the U.S. currency hitting a nine-year low against a basket of currencies below 83.80, a 12-year low against the Canadian dollar and multi-month lows against sterling and the yen.euro and 105.46 yen, just above session lows. European Central Bank (ECB) President Jean-Claude Trichet is expected to hold a news conference later, and the market is keen to hear whether he voices concern over recent currency moves.

Many-headed Hydra

Evolving Nature of Al Qaeda Is Misunderstood, Critic Says
By JAMES RISEN

Published: November 8, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 - The Bush administration has failed to recognize that Al Qaeda is now a global Islamic insurgency, rather than a traditional terrorist organization, and so poses a much different threat than previously believed, says a senior counterterrorism official at the Central Intelligence Agency.

Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the C.I.A.'s Osama bin Laden unit and the author of a best-selling book critical of the administration's handling of the fight against terrorism, said in an interview with The New York Times this weekend that the government "doesn't respect the threat" because most officials still regard Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization that can be defeated by arresting or killing its operatives one at a time.

He noted that President Bush and other officials had repeatedly said two-thirds of the leadership of Al Qaeda has been killed or captured, but he said the figure was misleading because it is referring to the leaders who were in place as of Sept. 11, 2001.

Al Qaeda has replaced many of those dead or captured operatives and continues to thrive as a guiding force for Islamic extremists around the world.

"I think Al Qaeda has suffered substantially since 9/11, and it may have slowed down its operations, but to take the two-thirds number as a yardstick is a fantasy," Mr. Scheuer said. "To say that they have only one-third of their leadership left is a misunderstanding. That is looking at it from a law enforcement perspective. They pay a lot of attention to leadership succession, and so one of the main tenets of Al Qaeda is to train people to succeed leaders who are captured or killed."

The C.I.A. disputed the idea that it did not understand the evolving nature of Al Qaeda and said the agency had never characterized the two-thirds figure for those killed and captured as anything other than the Qaeda leaders who where in place before Sept. 11.

"The leadership of the intelligence community and those they brief have a very clear understanding of the threat and understand it to be a question of a global movement rather than a single organization," a C.I.A. spokesman said.

Mr. Scheuer said that in addition to running its own core terrorist network, Al Qaeda was also now providing support to regional Islamic rebellions around the world. Mr. bin Laden is providing inspiration to Islamic extremists far beyond Al Qaeda's own membership, vastly complicating the task of combating the threat to the West, he said.

"The amount of punishment the C.I.A. has delivered to Al Qaeda since 9/11 would have wiped out any other terrorist organization," Mr. Scheuer said. "But this is an insurgent organization.''

"The difference between fighting a terrorist group and fighting an insurgency is one of size," he added. "Yet we still don't know how big it is. We still, today, don't know the order of battle of Al Qaeda."

Mr. Scheuer's interview with The Times was his first since the C.I.A. imposed stringent rules on his access to the news media. A C.I.A. spokesman said Sunday that Mr. Scheuer was not authorized to speak for the agency.

Since the publication of his book, "Imperial Hubris," in July, Mr. Scheuer has emerged as the agency's most vocal in-house critic, and the agency has gone to great lengths to try to silence him. His book was published anonymously and, at first, the C.I.A. allowed him to grant interviews to promote it as long as he was not publicly identified by name.

The inter-agency sniping has gone quiet for a while, but I don't see how that can be maintained. The agency pros have to be horrified by the facts, at both State and the CIA. Expect leaking to resume.

The appointment of the highly partisan Porter Goss to head the CIA can't be helping.

The New Agenda

President Feels Emboldened, Not Accidental, After Victory
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Published: November 8, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 - One trademark of President Bush's first term was his aversion to news conferences, which his staff says he often treated like trips to the dentist. So on the morning after Mr. Bush's re-election, Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, was taken aback when the president told him he was ready to hold a news conference that Mr. Bartlett had suggested, win or lose, the week before.

"I didn't have to convince him or anything," Mr. Bartlett said. "Without me prompting him, he brought it up."

It was a small but telling change for a president whose re-election has already had a powerful effect on his psyche, his friends and advisers say.

They say Mr. Bush's governing style may change as well, although they acknowledge it is too early to tell if victory will lift what critics call the chip on his shoulder and make him more magnanimous - or whether it will simply create a more imperial president.

One thing is certain: Four years after the disputed election of 2000, Mr. Bush is reveling in winning the popular vote and feels that he can no longer be considered a one-term accident of history.

"It's a huge validation for him," said Thomas Rath, a New Hampshire Republican leader who is close to the Bush family. "There was always this set of issues about the first victory. This is real, this is palpable. I think it's empowering, I think it's a relief and I think the political options he has will be different."

One adviser said that Mr. Bush was showing more confidence, and that it was not insignificant that he joked to reporters at his news conference that "now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing a one-question rule."

In Mr. Bush's first term, "he had two insecurities," said the adviser, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

"There were a large number of people who did not view him as a legitimate president, and there was the specter of his father's loss," the adviser said. "He didn't vocalize them, but those two things hung over him and all of his advisers."

Um, Liz, that imperial presidency was, in no small part, the creation of uncritical reporters like you, who have been giving him a pass. Are you going to change?

Values and Votes

When the Personal Shouldn't Be Political
By GARY HART

Published: November 8, 2004

There is also the disturbing tendency to insert theocratic principles into the vision of America's role in the world. There is evil in the world. Nowhere in our Constitution or founding documents is there support for the proposition that the United States was given a special dispensation to eliminate it. Surely Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. But there are quite a few of those still around and no one is advocating eliminating them. Neither Washington, Adams, Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world's avenging angel. Any notion of going abroad seeking demons to destroy concerned them above all else. Mr. Bush's venture into crusaderism frightened not only Muslims, it also frightened a very large number of Americans with a sense of their own history.

The religions of Abraham all teach a sense of personal and collective humility. It was a note briefly struck very early by Mr. Bush and largely abandoned thereafter. It would be well for those in the second Bush term to ponder that attribute. Whether Bush supporters care or not, people around the world now see America as arrogant, self-righteous and superior. These are not qualities of any traditional faith I am aware of.

If faith now drives our politics, at the very least let's make it a faith of inclusion, genuine compassion, humility, justice and accountability. In the words of the prophet Micah: "He hath shown thee, O man, what is good. What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" And, instead of "O man," let's insert "O America."

Sen. Hart goes so many places in this brief essay that it is hard to know where to begin. Let me touch on a couple of points.

While evil probably exists in our world, I have to be somewhat modest about my own abilities to name it. As a Christian, my own faults make me something less than a perfect judge. The Scriptural injunction to tend the beam in my own eye before I deplore the mote in someone else's seems like a call to modesty.

The fact that I note and remember this is one of the reasons I have to call out W and his cohorts on the Hill. Christians are modest people and if you want to be one of us, you have to walk the talk. If you won't do that, I'll pray for you and spend time with more modest people.

If W is a Christian, I've yet to see the signs and symptoms.

One of my favorite teachers is St. Francis of Assisi who said (or so we think) when counseling a young friar, "Always preach the Gospel. Use words when necessary."

Whether he said it or not, it's a good lesson. Let your person and your actions be your evangelism. If you can't do that, your words don't mean much. Don't preach Jesus, unless you are willing to be Jesus.

Your efforts may fall short, but in the attempt is the beauty.

Values Voters

Voting Without the Facts
By BOB HERBERT

Published: November 8, 2004

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.

The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him."

I haven't heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It's all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can't stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.

A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.

If you don't think this values thing has gotten out of control, consider the lead paragraph of an op-ed article that ran in The LA. Times on Friday. It was written by Frank Pastore, a former major league pitcher who is now a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA.

"Christians, in politics as in evangelism," said Mr. Pastore, "are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology."

Mr. Pastore goes on to exhort Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished." How's that for values?

In The New York Times on Thursday, Richard Viguerie, the dean of conservative direct mail, declared, "Now comes the revolution." He said, "Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."

Mr. Viguerie, it is clear, will stand four-square against any such dangerous moves toward reconciliation.

You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?

What the Democratic Party needs above all is a clear message and a bold and compelling candidate. The message has to convince Americans that they would be better off following a progressive Democratic vision of the future. The candidate has to be a person of integrity capable of earning the respect and the affection of the American people.

This is doable. Al Gore and John Kerry were less than sparkling candidates, and both came within a hair of defeating Mr. Bush.

What the Democrats don't need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits' probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with.

I think this whole argument is wrong, based on an exit poll that asked a badly worded question. Everybody votes on "values" all the time, asking yourself "Who among these candidates is likely to do the best job?" is a values question, with "best job in my eyes" the value in question.

This whole discussion is another one of the things the media does instead of reporting. It would be silly if it weren't such a serious subject.

I brought you the results of the PIPA survey last month and it appears to me that the election was more about that nasty campaign than anything having to do with faith or facts.

While foreign readers are still in shock over the outcome, I might add that our lapdog media had a fair amount to do with it, too.

Karl Rove is brilliant as a perception manager. The facts on the ground are going to grind Flightsuitboy, if they get reported. Remember Abu Ghraib, the Plame investigation, the budget scandal? None of these have gone away. Unless you get your news exclusively from the corporate media.

Flights of Angels Speed Thee to Thy Rest

Good night

May tonight's stars gleam for you as they have never shone before and the light
In a friend's eye capture your eyes.

In the night, may gazelles leap in your dreams, and monkeys look you in the eyes and may you dive to the deep corals of the most beautiful planet on earth.

May you find the poems that well up in you everyday, and write them down, a gift for all the world.

Tomorrow, I hope you kiss someone you've never kissed before, just because it was the right thing to do.

Good night.

In the Scriptorium

Because Sunday is a heavy writing day for me, I don't get to spend as much time thinking about things as I would like: I have to read, react and write very quickly.

One of the things I'm really enjoying lately is the communication with the readers and with my fellow bloggers at The American Street, and here with Charles. The blogosphere is one big conversation, it is our collective intelligence in conversation with itself, the next technological step in global consciousness. Anyone with a computer can play.

That is the weakness, too, of course. The price of admission is too high for much of the planet, and even having the equipment available doesn't mean much if you aren't literate. There are some voices we aren't hearing, as a result.

I noticed something else this week that I'm kind of concerned about: we are rapidly becoming a keyboard based society. I decided to set up a sign out list for the office's new laptops, but the IT consultant made it an open file in Outlook (a program I thoroughly despise.) My default would have been to put a couple of sheets of paper on a clipboard.

The issue is this: handwriting is one of the few things we do which is a whole brain activity, it literally keeps our brains healthy. Other options are singing or playing an instrument and, interestingly, contemplative prayer or meditation. I actually learned this from a psychoneurobiologist. I've taught myself to compose poetry at the keyboard, but have now gone back to handwriting it before I bring the draft to the keyboard for archiving. The two composition processes are quite different but rather difficulty to quantify: I noticed this a couple of years ago when I took my old laptop (now nothing more than a hulk of plastic) to class with me, thinking that because I can type so much faster than I handwrite, I'd be able to capture more of the lectures in my notes. I did, but the kinds of things I noted were completely different than when I hand wrote. I went back to a pen and ruled notebook paper.

As with most things, I suppose I'll be looking for more ways to strike a balance. I doubt that I'll be going back to writing physical letters, but I will take every opportunity to use pen and paper rather than the keyboard. Grocery lists, poetry, cards for friends and family and such like can help keep my pen skills in practice, and, boy do they need help. My handwriting was worthy of medical school before I got so keyboard bound, it's now almost inscrutable.

Hearty Winter Food

One of my favorite winter dishes, it's pricey so I don't make it often, and usually for company.

BEEF STROGANOFF
Serves 4

1 2 1/2-pound piece beef tenderloin, well trimmed, meat cut into 2x1x1/2 inch strips
2 tablespoons vegetable oil

6 tablespoons (3/4 stick) butter
1/4 cup finely chopped shallots
1 pound small button mushrooms, thickly sliced
1 cup canned beef broth
2 tablespoons Cognac
3/4 cup crème fraîche or whipping cream
1 tablespoon Dijon mustard
1 tablespoon chopped fresh dill

12 ounces wide egg noodles
1 tablespoon paprika

Pat meat dry with paper towels. Sprinkle with salt and pepper. Heat oil in heavy large skillet over high heat until very hot. Working in batches, add meat in single layer and cook just until brown on outside, about 1 minute per side. Transfer to rimmed baking sheet.

Melt 2 tablespoons butter in same skillet over medium-high heat. Add chopped shallots and sauté until tender, scraping up browned bits, about 2 minutes. Add button mushrooms. Sprinkle with pepper and sauté until liquid evaporates, about 12 minutes. Add beef broth, then Cognac. Simmer until liquid thickens and just coats mushrooms, about 14 minutes. Stir in crème fraîche and Dijon mustard. Add meat and any accumulated juices from baking sheet. Simmer over medium-low heat until meat is heated through but still medium-rare, about 2 minutes. Stir in chopped dill. Season to taste with salt and pepper.

Meanwhile, cook noodles in large pot of boiling salted water until tender, about 8 minutes. Drain. Transfer to bowl. Add remaining 4 tablespoons butter and toss to coat. Season with salt and pepper. Divide noodles among plates. Top with beef and sauce. Sprinkle generously with paprika.
*****************************************************************************************

Serve this with a full-bodied Merlot or a spicey Shiraz. Pears and cheese make a nice dessert. A spinach salad would make a lovely first course, use baby leaves, and toss in chopped walnuts, dress with a lemon vinaigrette.

Exit Strategery

Exit Iraq

By Robert Kuttner
Sunday, November 7, 2004; Page B07

The Iraq occupation is one of the worst American blunders ever, as countless experienced diplomats and former intelligence officials keep pointing out.

There is no political support in either party to put in the number of troops necessary to secure the place. We can't even seal Iraq's borders, let alone hunt down insurgents. Our very presence is a recruiting poster for every kind of anti-American militant.

Prominent critics of the war are counseling an early withdrawal. The Cato Institute, a prominent conservative and libertarian think tank, advocates a U.S. pullout.

Hawks insist that America, having made an epic blunder, must nonetheless stay the course, lest Bush's mistaken description of Iraq as a center of world terrorism mutate into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The hawks are right about the risks, but doves are right that the United States needs to exit.

The exit strategy, however, must include a long-term stabilization process, lest Iraq face anarchy and civil war or, worse, an Iraq-Iran regional alliance, perhaps with nuclear weapons. In this respect, Iraq is far more dangerous than Vietnam, where, to paraphrase Sen. George Aiken, we could declare defeat and go home without jeopardizing global security.

Bush's policy has turned Iraq into a far more dangerous place. That's why we need to combine a U.S. exit with an international stabilization effort. This policy shift would have been easier to achieve for John Kerry, who favored a more multilateral approach. But even Bush will now face heavy pressure, Republican as well as Democratic, to cut American losses.

In Bush's second term, the neocon architects who got Bush and America into this calamity will likely lose influence. In Ronald Reagan's second term, the ferocious anti-Soviet rhetoric softened, traditional foreign policy realists took over and Reagan pursued detente. One hopes the same thing will happen with George W. Bush.

Bush has borrowed Kerry's proposal for a great-power summit. It's a good beginning -- but don't expect Europe to bail out Bush unless some humble pie is eaten.

A serious exit strategy would require the United States to finance much of the cost of a multinational peacekeeping force of at least a quarter-million troops, as well as economic reconstruction money, plus a major role for the United Nations. Can Bush swallow that?

He'd better. Most Americans will ultimately conclude: Better their boys than ours, particularly since Iraqis are much less likely to shoot at an international force. It's American presence that's the regional lightning rod.

Bush should also appreciate the fact that an early U.S. exit is better domestic politics and better Middle East politics. If he doesn't, he will face a massive popular movement to remind him, as well as growing defections in his own ranks.

The United Nations managed the Iraq situation far better than the Bush administration has, and the American people are getting very weary of this war. As his reward for winning reelection, Bush faces a suitable consequence for having gotten us unto this mess. He must now find a decent way out.

The Sabbath Gasbags are engaging in heavy speculation over the make-up of the next Cabinet, their CW says Condi moves to defense or state. That's W's way: promote incompetence. The voters endorsed lack of accountability, secrecy and ineptitude. Go figure.

Overstretched

Think we're not in trouble in Iraq?

Gulf War Vet Sues Army Over New Call - Up
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: November 7, 2004

Filed at 10:53 a.m. ET

HONOLULU (AP) -- A veteran of the first Persian Gulf War is suing the Army after it ordered him to report for duty 13 years after he was honorably discharged from active duty and eight years after he left the reserves.

Kauai resident David Miyasato received word of his reactivation in September, but says he believes he completed his eight-year obligation to the Army long ago.

``I was shocked,'' Miyasato said Friday. ``I never expected to see something like that after being out of the service for 13 years.''

His federal lawsuit, filed Friday in Honolulu, seeks a judgment declaring that he has fulfilled his military obligations.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Yee said his office would defend the Army. He declined to comment further. An Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon declined to comment to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Miyasato, 34, was scheduled to report to a military facility in South Carolina on Tuesday.

Within hours of filing the lawsuit, however, Miyasato received a faxed letter from the Army's Human Resources Command saying his ``exemption from active duty had not been finalized at this time'' and that he has been given an administrative delay for up to 30 days, said his attorney, Eric Seitz.

Miyasato, his wife, Estelle, and their 7-month-old daughter, Abigail, live in Lihue, where he opened an auto-tinting shop two years ago.

His lawsuit states that Miyasato is suing not because he opposes the war in Iraq, but because his business and family would suffer ``serious and irreparable harm'' if he is required to serve.

Miyasato enlisted in the Army in 1987 and served in Iraq and Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf War as a petroleum supply specialist and truck driver.

Miyasato said he received an honorable discharge from active duty in 1991, then served in the reserves until 1996 to fulfill his eight-year enlistment commitment.

The Army announced last year that it would involuntarily activate an estimated 5,600 soldiers to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Army officials would be tapping members of the Individual Ready Reserve -- military members who have been discharged from the Army, Army Reserve or the Army National Guard, but still have contractual obligations to the military.

Expanding Horizons

Just a reminder that on Sundays, I can also be found on the team at The American Street and I've just put up my first post of the day there.

More content here shortly.

Fall Eating

Today's weather in the mid-Atlantic will be a brief return to early Fall, with a high near 70. Tomorrow we return to early winter, highs this week won't threaten 50 on some days. My mother emails from Minnesota to say that snow is in the forecast for the upper Midwest. As the temperature falls, my appetite turns to earthy, hearty fare, like this:

Mjadra

1 cup uncooked lentils
4 cups water
1 large onion, chopped
1/2 cup olive oil
1/8th teaspoon pepper
1/8th teaspoon cumin
salt to taste
1/2 cup uncooked rice

Rinse lentils and place in a saucepan with the water. Boil uncovered for 20 minutes on a medium fire. Saute chopped onions in the oil. Add onions, seasoning and rice to the lentils. Cover and cook for 20 minutes. Serve on a platter, this will thicken as it cools. It is delicious served topped with:

Slatat al-Banadura

1 small clove garlic
salt to taste
1/4 cup lemon juice
2 cucumbers
3 tomatoes
1 small onion, chopped
1/4 cup olive oil

Mash garlic and salt in a bowl. Add lemon juice. Peel the cucumbers, chop into bite size pieces, slice the tomatoes into 1-inch dice. Add to garlic mixture with onions and oil. Mix gently.

Thumbing His Nose

President Signals No Major Shift In Foreign Policy

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 7, 2004; Page A01

President Bush faces an array of difficult foreign policy issues in his second term, but he appears unlikely to change the overall direction of an assertive diplomacy that has riled some key allies and led to rising anti-Americanism around the globe, according to administration officials and outside experts.

Administration officials acknowledge that they are considering stylistic shifts and will look for opportunities to reach out to estranged allies. With the election behind them, officials hope policy toward Iraq will not be as politicized, and that nations that have withheld assistance in the hope that Bush would lose will rethink their position.

Some changes will depend on whether key players in Bush's first-term team -- such as fierce rivals Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- are replaced. New personnel would lead to a review of policies and, possibly, some shifts in tactics, but the direction would still be set by Bush and Vice President Cheney, a highly influential figure on foreign policy.

"I don't detect any real effort, either within the administration or the broader circles of the Republican Party, to fundamentally change course," said Richard Burt, an assistant secretary of state and ambassador to Germany in the Reagan administration.

"There is an understanding you need to work on repairing relationships but without compromising principles," said an administration official who, like other officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of sensitivities during the post-election transition. "There will be a change in tone, perhaps, but on core principles you will not see fundamental shifts."

Strains with Europeans are still apparent. One day after the election, the Bush administration abruptly recognized the Republic of Macedonia, an ally in Iraq, dispensing with a diplomatic fudge adopted 13 years ago to placate Greece, which did not send troops. On Friday, French President Jacques Chirac -- who had sent Bush a handwritten congratulatory note -- left a European summit that included Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi early, in what was viewed as a diplomatic snub.

51% of my country voted for what amounts to a foreign policy decided by a snippy adolescent. How I long for the grownups

Eve of Destruction

Under the Gun in Fallujah
Some of the remaining residents willingly help rebels. Others fear them and want them out.

By Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writer

FALLUJAH, Iraq — This rebel city's broad boulevards are empty now, the mosques thinly attended even for Friday prayers. Save for those too poor, too old or too sick to leave, Fallujah has been left to the insurgents and the Marines who vow to crush them.

Driven from their homes by daily American bombing, most families are camping in the surrounding countryside or, if they have the means, renting houses in Baghdad, 35 miles to the east. No one knows how many civilians are left in Fallujah. In fact, no one knows exactly what it means to be a civilian in a city where almost anyone would open his door to an insurgent, either out of sympathy or fear of reprisal.

Interviews over the past four months with residents of the Sunni Muslim stronghold offer a portrait of a community that has become a symbol of violence and rebellion but, like many symbols, is far more complicated.

Although a significant segment of the population participates in the insurgency -- militant Sunni Islamists, foreign fighters and Saddam Hussein loyalists -- many residents of the city have chafed under the militants' rule, and some are fed up enough to leave for good. In between are the largest group: those who sympathize with the fighters but also fear them.

"Roughly a quarter to a third of the people in Fallujah support what the (Iraqi) government is trying to do, but they're afraid to say anything," said a senior Western diplomat who declined to be identified. "Then there's about 30-40 percent who don't know what they think and are just waiting, and the remaining 20-30 percent will go down fighting.

"The fight," he added, "is for the people in the middle."

Some Fallujah natives say they hope only that the Marines' threatened assault to end the rebels' reign will come -- and go -- quickly so that reconstruction can begin. Others want the insurgents to fight hard to prove that they can stand up to the U.S. military and the interim government that has backed American firepower.

I'm sure that destroying the city will help make up the minds of those in the middle.

Fallouja Talks Apparently Failing

By Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD — Negotiations between the interim Iraqi government and insurgents in control of the Sunni Muslim city of Fallouja appeared on the verge of collapse Friday, and U.S. Marines and Iraqi forces were completing preparations for an invasion widely expected to begin within days.

Meanwhile, U.S. artillery and aircraft continued pounding positions in the rebel city. One Marine died and five others were wounded Friday by indirect fire outside Fallouja.

After meeting with European leaders in Brussels, interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said the window of opportunity for a peaceful settlement to the Fallouja standoff was closing fast.

Allawi is expected to return to Iraq on Sunday and an offensive could begin anytime after that, Western officials said. Allawi would have to approve any attack.

The interim government and Fallouja leaders have been holding talks in an attempt to avert fighting, but without success, and preparations for an assault on the city have been underway for days. The Iraqi government and the U.S. hope to take control of the insurgent stronghold before national elections scheduled for January.

In Baghdad, the Iraqi Electoral Commission decided to allow expatriates to vote in the elections. The move may further alienate Iraq's Sunni Muslims, who were in control during President Saddam Hussein's rule but now feel sidelined in the political process. Most of Iraq's 4 million exiles are Shiite Muslims and Kurds who fled the country during Hussein's repressive regime.

The commission's decision came after heavy lobbying by Shiite political parties that believe the expatriates could help them gain a solid majority in the new national assembly. It also would help the interim government leaders, many of whom were in exile until Hussein's fall last year and have supporters among the expatriates.

"We have been exerting effort for months to solve this so that the Iraqis living outside could vote," said Ridha Taqi of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a leading Shiite party. "There is not just a large number of people living outside, but high-quality people — many of them are highly educated."

So, we are going to let our puppet pull the trigger on the destruction of Fallujah and pretend that this has nothing to do with his political ambitions. Heh.

Sleeping Together

Is the idea of "regulation" meaningful when the "regulated" industry is a house organ of the ruling party? I report, you decide.

For Railroads and the Safety Overseer, Close Ties
By WALT BOGDANICH

Published: November 7, 2004

Federal inspectors were clearly troubled by what they had been seeing in recent years at Union Pacific. According to their written accounts, track defects repeatedly went uncorrected; passenger trains were sent down defective tracks at speeds more than four times faster than were deemed safe; and engines and rail cars were dispatched in substandard condition.

Soon, the inspectors from the Federal Railroad Administration began talking tough: bigger fines and more of them. But as they began to crack down on the railroad, they found themselves under fire from an unexpected quarter: their boss, the agency's deputy administrator, Betty Monro.

Ms. Monro demanded to know why agency officials had not pursued the less punitive "partnership" approach that she favored, according to a July 2002 memo from her and the agency's chief at the time, Allan Rutter. A year later, in a senior staff meeting, Ms. Monro rebuked her subordinates as being "overly aggressive" toward Union Pacific, according to one person present.

Ms. Monro, who now runs the railroad agency, was in a position to know just how unhappy her inspectors were making officials at Union Pacific. She and the railroad's chief Washington lobbyist, Mary E. McAuliffe, are longtime friends and have vacationed together on Nantucket several times since Ms. Monro joined the agency in 2001.

The railroad industry and its federal overseer have long been closely intertwined. And increasingly, like many other federal regulators, the Federal Railroad Administration has emphasized partnership as the best, quickest way to identify, and fix, safety problems from the roots up. But the story of its recent oversight of Union Pacific - spelled out in a series of internal memorandums from agency officials and inspectors - raises questions about whether this closeness has actually served to dull the agency's enforcement edge.

Critics of the agency say that it has, over the years, bred an attitude of tolerance toward safety problems, and that fines are too rare, too small and too slowly collected. Those concerns have been underscored recently by a number of major Union Pacific derailments in Texas and California, including one in which the release of poisonous chlorine gas killed a woman and her daughter in their home near San Antonio.

The ties between industry and regulator are many-layered.

Another big railroad company, CSX, offered the agency's chief safety official a job potentially worth $324,000 a year, with bonuses and stock options, while he was visiting railroad headquarters to discuss safety problems. After the official, James T. Schultz, accepted the job several days later, a federal watchdog asked that agency officials be instructed on the ethics of discussing job offers.

The agency promotes the rail industry on its Web site, calling it "safe, fuel efficient, environmentally friendly." It has lent millions of dollars to struggling railroads and has helped finance the industry's nonprofit educational campaign, which emphasizes the responsibility of motorists - and not the railroads - in avoiding grade-crossing accidents.

The industry is a rich source of campaign contributions, mostly to the Republicans, with Union Pacific as the biggest giver. Its corporate political action committee was among the top 10 donors to Republican candidates for this election cycle, and Ms. McAuliffe is the treasurer of the company's PAC. The railroad's chairman, Dick Davidson, is identified by the Bush campaign as a "Ranger," having raised more than $200,000 for the president. Until he became Mr. Bush's running mate in 2000, Dick Cheney was a member of the Union Pacific board.

This is the Bush admin pattern: as long as someone is getting rich at your expense, your safety doesn't mean a good g'damn.

Eye Opener

If, like myself, you have a small or single person household, The Art of Cooking for Two is a very useful cookbook.

Sunday Brunch

Cottage Cheese Pancakes

Combine:

2 eggs, beaten
2/3 cup small curd cottage cheese
2 tablespoons unbleached white flour, sifted with
1 tablespoon soy flour
1 and1/2 teaspoons melted butter
1/4 teaspoon salt

Spooning several tabespoons at a time onto a hot griddle, brown on both sides, turning only once, in:

1 1/2 teaspoons each butter and corn oil, or as needed

Serve hot topped with: honey, fresh fruit, yoghurt, applesauce, sour cream

And the standard melted butter and maple syrup work just fine, too.

Makes 10 3 1/2 inch pancakes

Feeding the Soul

One of my favorite cookbooks recommends a way to deal with all of those zucchinis at the end of your summer garden. Also, pack them in paper bags with this recipe and leave them on your neighbors' front steps. They'll thank you instead of cursing you. This recipe can also be used nicely with an excess of tomatoes.

These are fabulous on the grill and can be served with any thing from steak to tilapia. It's going to be 68 here tomorrow, and I'm firing up the grill. In Lebanese Arabic, these are called "tabbakh ruhu," the spirit of the Cook," and can be done nicely under the broiler in the oven, if the weather isn't cooperating.

One small zucchini half per person, one zucchini feeds two as a side dish

A former roomate of mine rather indelicately put it that the ideal zukes for this dish should be about the size of, ahem, a certain Gentleman's body part at it's point of maximum exension, I'd say six to eight inches, but at this time of the year they tend to be rather bloated and watery, the zukes, that is. If the latter is the case, slice them lengthwise and salt the cut sides to draw out some of the water, and then use a paper towel to wipe off the salt and water.

In any case, scrub the outsides. If you need to salt and rest, wipe off the salt and water.

If you are using the outdoor grill, grease the top side of the grill with peanut oil, it doesn't burn with high heat. When the fire has thrown sufficient ash (all of the coals are grey) place on the grill the squash halves, skin side down, and coat the tops with each:

1 mashed garlic clove (a garlic press does this better than you or me)
enough olive oil to cover
salt and pepper
Fresh mint, chopped, or dried mint to taste, fresh is better

Grill about five minutes and if you can close the grill top, maybe three minutes. Serve immediately.

These are especially good with fish and chicken. This is simple and elegant, like a lot of ethnic cooking in cultures which value spreading the table with "small plates,"

Tomorrow, I'll give you one of the more complex Lebanese stews, a lentil dish. No, I'm not a vegetarian, but I do eat that way most of the time. You'll get a fall steak dish next week. I eat meat a couple of times a week, but most of the time I love the meatless cuisines. They are cheap and easy. But I'm also willing to spend some hours over a pot of Boeuf Bourguignonne, a recipe I'll give you closer to the New Year, I traditionally serve it on New Year's Day.

The Big Picture

There is an old saying in golf, both duffer and pro: drive for show, putt for dough. When Bush said, Watch this drive he literally gave his game away. He has no interest in details, nor any ability to entertain them.

Mr. Big Picture Kind of Guy has given us a death watch in exchange for what? Are we safer? If so, how?

Funny, that question never got asked or answered during the "debates."

Hors D'oevres

As I told you last night, I'm going to do some different things this weekend so that we can remember that there is more to life than politics. I've given you some of my favorite recipes, now I'd like to recommend a couple of books.

Mary Doria Russell doesn't have a biography that suggests she'd have a gift for fiction: she's a forensic paleontologist. Her debut novel, The Sparrow, melds theology with the science fiction genre in a way which is not always seamless, but is genuine. The sequel, "Children of God," is more complex and leaves me waiting for the third book, which now has a release date and is not part of the trilogy, a departure into historical fiction rather than speculative futurism. I read the first two in one sitting, literally unable to put them down. You can click on the first link if you want a review of the plot, which I find basically an honest judgement on the first two books. I'm eagerly awaiting the new volume, which is about all I think I need to say about it. This is one fine new writer. It's nice to have something to look forward to.

The other books I'd like to recommend are by a writer with a long pedigree in the sci-fi/spec fic genre, Kim Stanley Robinson. His "Mars" trilogy is some of the finest examination of human nature, using the tools of sci fi, that I've ever read. This is just plain good writing, with a level of speculative detail (Mars dystopia) that I rarely see in the genre. I know what it means to write and to write at the level of detail that Robinson does and it is damn hard work. And he never lets it show. The books appear effortless, are demanding for the reader and utterly compelling. Imagine setting up an alternate society on Mars and planning it down to the level of the toilets. Robinson has done that, and writes with great style. Your imagination will be engaged and you'll be happy to have some volumes to offer to sci-fi friends and relatives for the holidays. I know I'm going to be giving these this year.

Mourning the Black Watch

Labour MPs want troops out of 'Triangle of Death'
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published : 06 November 2004

Labour opponents of the Iraq war called yesterday for the immediate withdrawal of British troops from the "Triangle of Death" after the fatal attack on soldiers of the Black Watch.

As Tony Blair and other senior politicians expressed their shock over Thursday's attack, a dispute erupted between the Government and its critics over whether the deployment of the Black Watch near Baghdad had been political or military.

Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, said: "The Prime Minister seems intent upon proving his worth to George Bush before any other considerations."

Yesterday, I asked readers in the UK to comment on reaction on the ground in Great Britain. Today, The Independent prints it: Reactions posted to the Black Watch website

A former soldier wrote: "I send my most sincere commiserations to the Regiment, their families, and particularly the families of those lost in action today." Dozens demand Blair "gets our boys out".

Below are some of the messages posted on the site:

Brian and Allison Douglas, 'Ex-Black Watch'

Just wanted to offer our condolences to the families of the soldiers lost and say that we are thinking about the guys out in Iraq and the families in Warminster and elsewhere. Time to come home!

Janet Wilson

Blair has no guts, he will never stand up to Bush, he's already proven that. I, like so many others, just want my brother home along with every other member of the British Army who's out there!

Nikki

As the wife of a soldier who has served in Iraq three times, I can only ask that you please support those who remain out there doing their jobs. They have to carry on knowing that friends are gone and that the danger remains.

Stewart, father of a lance-corporal in the regiment

I would like to send my deepest sympathy to the family circle at this sad time. I am a parent of a L/Cpl in the regiment and find this very hard to cope with.

Serving member of the Royal Navy

From a fellow member of the Services, I know what it is like to be far from home, doing a job for which we are poorly paid and poorly appreciated by this diabolical government. We have no MPs that are worthy of wearing the red poppy on their lapel, they should remove them with shame. Tony Blair should not stand at the Cenotaph ... Perhaps if MPs had sons and relatives in frontline units they would be more understanding of the pain that is felt.

Daughter of Dode Stephen

I am Dode Stephen's eldest daughter and lived just down the road from Pte Scott McArdle [one of the three killed]. The saddest thing is he actually left the battalion but was recalled for this terrible and pointless mission. I will miss him very much and our thoughts are for all the families concerned. To all the lads and lasses in Iraq, we hope you come home safely and soon. Love from the Stephen Family xxxxxxxxxx

What Happened

This is the only thing I've read this week that makes any sense.

It's the Moderates, Stupid

By Mark J. Penn
Saturday, November 6, 2004; Page A23

So if the election cannot be explained by a massive upsurge in evangelical voters, what really happened? In this election, Bush received 3.5 percent more of the vote than he did in 2000. The exit polls show this movement to be almost entirely the result of changes in two disparate groups: Hispanics (who went from 35 percent for Bush in 2000 to 44 percent this year -- enough to move the entire popular vote 1 percentage point) and white women (who went 49 percent for Bush in 2000 and 55 percent this year -- enough to move the popular vote 2.5 percentage points). It appears that the bulk of the movement in the white women's vote was among married women, particularly those with kids, who may have gone as high as 2 to 1 for Bush.

Hispanics don't fit into the caricature of Bush voters as gun-toting, Bible Belt Republicans, nor do these moms. While the Hispanics who voted for Bush are religious and more pro-life than the average voter, their central concerns tend to be about aspirations: the success of their families and children. The modern moms also have family values and the success and safety of their kids as their chief concerns.

These new Republican voters were solidly Democratic in 1996. Bill Clinton won 72 percent of the Hispanic vote in 1996; Kerry got 53 percent. Clinton not only won female voters overall, he also won white women (48 percent to Bob Dole's 43), married women (also 48 percent to 43) and moms (53 percent to 38). Unlike the unreachable evangelicals, these voters are not far removed from the values of the mainstream of the Democratic Party. They voted Democratic on the basis of balanced budgets, a fair immigration policy, expanded educational opportunities and greater protections for their kids from the dangers of tobacco and other marketing.

So while liberals and conservatives can be motivated and brought to the polls in increasing numbers, the real battle at the end of the day is for the more moderate voters who this year slipped away to the Republicans, on the basis not of gun control and gay marriage but of security and secular values such as trust and standing up for your beliefs. They are the core of any winning national coalition and at the heart of our national values. These voters have chosen Democrats in the past, and as the Democratic Party rebuilds, they are the first and most important voters we must attract to win a majority in 2008 and beyond.

Alrredo's Fettucine

This one is my own invention. I collect cookbooks, and one of my favorites is the Metropolitan Museum's. According to the note with the recipe, this is the super-secret Fetticine Alfredo recipe of Alfredo's in Rome. Linda Gillies, a curator in the Drawings collection, contributed this recipe to the 1973 cookbook. I adapted it to reduce the fat. Nota bene: this is not a low-fat recipe, it is a reduced fat adaptation. If you are on Weight Watchers or South Beach, it's probably out of bounds. The trick to this sauce is that it is not cooked, but rather heated through by the hot pasta.

For four as a side dish or two healthy appetites as a main course

1/3 cup grated parmesan/romano cheese mixture
1/4 cup of evaporated skim milk
1/2 cup of small curd cottage cheese
2 tablespoons of butter
Salt and pepper
Smidgen of nutmeg (fresh ground, if you've got it)
1/2 pound sliced fresh mushroons
12 ounces of fettucine (fresh is best and not that hard to find anymore)
Squeeze of lemon juice

While your salted pasta water is coming to a boil, start the sauce. A food processor really helps for this. If you are using a wedge of cheese to start with, cut it into small pieces and process it in the food processor using the steel knife. If the cheese is already shredded, just place it in the processor bowl. Add the rest of the ingredients in the list down to the mushrooms and process until the sauce is grainy but consistent, it'll take under a minute. Place the sauce in the platter or bowl you will be using for serving and put it in a very slow oven, not more than a 150-180 degrees. You want to warm the sauce, not cook it.

While your pasta is boiling, saute the mushrooms just enough to soften the edges and cook them through. Do not over cook. When they are done, lightly spritz them with lemon juice.

When the pasta is al dente (with fresh pasta this only takes minutes, the dried, boxed commercial product will need 10-12 minutes, use your own teeth to check) drain it quickly and put the hot pasta on top of the warm (not hot) sauce and mix quickly. Sprinkle with the sauteed mushrooms and a little chopped parsley, if you like. Serve immediately on warmed plates. This one is a keeper your friends will ask for again and again.

Stay or Go

Disillusioned Americans eye New Zealand

Enquiries from Americans wanting to move to New Zealand have skyrocketed since George W Bush was re-elected as President of the United States.

The Immigration Service website had 10,300 hits from the United States the day after the election, compared to the daily norm of 2,500.

Thousands of North Americans have migrated to New Zealand in recent years - attracted by the country's small population, clean, green image of bush-clad mountains, and isolation from world trouble spots - but the number now looks set to soar.

Phones at the Immigration Service offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Portland have been ringing constantly since the vote outcome, marketing manager Don Badman told the Dominion Post newspaper.

There have been up to 300 telephone calls and emails a day compared to six-to-eight calls a day before the election.

"It's exploded. It really started picking up from 11:00pm the night of the election," he said.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Americans were also looking to Australia and Canada as well as New Zealand following the election.

I posted on the Canadian option yesterday. My anti-Bush, Republican accountant questioned me yesterday on why people are talking about leaving, he was genuinely puzzled. I asked him if he knew what was in the Patriot Act. He didn't. I asked him how he felt about bombing either soldiers or civilians in a land that was no threat to us. He said, troubled. I asked, how do you feel about living in a country where the majority of voters just decided that these things are just fine by them? He had no answer. I responded that there are a lot of us that feel that our country has changed in ways that mean we no longer feel like we belong here. We have a government that lies to us, keeps its workings secret from us, abridges the Bill of Rights at will and that's just fine with half of the population. I find that utterly terrifying. And so does a healthy hunk of the rest of the world.

More Time with the Family

Bush Adviser On Iraq Policy To Step Down

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 6, 2004; Page A01

Robert D. Blackwill, the tough-minded diplomat brought to the White House last year to take charge of the administration's troubled Iraq policy, unexpectedly announced his resignation yesterday. His departure deprives the administration of a key figure involved in the effort to ensure that Iraq holds elections by the end of January.

Blackwill had been mentioned prominently in speculation about President Bush's second-term foreign policy team, with some observers pegging him as a possible successor to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. But in an e-mail yesterday afternoon to colleagues on the National Security Council staff, Blackwill said he had told Rice several weeks ago he would continue working through the U.S. presidential election but leave soon afterward, thus taking himself out of the post-election jockeying for power.

Blackwill arrived at the White House in the summer of 2003, when the administration was riven by disputes between the Pentagon and State Department and it was becoming clear that the effort in Iraq was going off-track. He has been widely credited with bringing order to a dysfunctional process, and with helping to reshape administration policy by focusing on ending the U.S.-led occupation and establishing an interim Iraqi government.

He has shuttled between Washington and Baghdad, spending a total of three months in Iraq this year. Because he was the White House point person on Iraq, other administration officials said, they had expected he would have been heavily involved in the preparations for the Iraqi elections.

Blackwill wrote his colleagues yesterday that next week he would go on vacation for several weeks and then return to Washington to pursue opportunities outside government. He had been a Harvard University professor before joining the Bush administration, and he delayed his return to Harvard to take the White House post.

White House officials said Blackwill's departure less than three months before the crucial elections should not be interpreted as a sign of disarray or disagreement in its Iraq policy. Blackwill has told associates that he spent six years working for Bush -- two years as a foreign policy adviser to his first presidential campaign, two years as ambassador to India and two years at the White House -- and that the presidential election seemed like a natural end to this cycle in his life.

In another high-profile departure, J. Cofer Black, a 28-year CIA veteran who headed the agency's hunt for Osama bin Laden after Sept. 11, 2001, and moved over in 2002 to run the State Department's counterterrorism effort, announced he is retiring next week.

Black's claims to fame were in his role in capturing the infamous assassin known as Carlos the Jackal and, more recently, in presenting dramatic testimony before Congress shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, where he announced that "the gloves are off."

Hmm. Rats leaving a sinking ship?

Shrimp Fra Diavolo

For two

12 raw shrimp, pealed and de-veined
8 oz dry linguini
Salt
1 tablespoon olive oil
2 scallions, chopped fine
1 garlic clove, chopped fine
1/4 teaspoon crushed red pepper
2 tomatoes, skinned and chopped
1/4 cup loosely packed fresh parsley leaves, chopped

1. Heat large, covered saucepot of salted water to boiling over high heat. Add pasta and cook as label directs.

2. Meanwhile, in nonstick 12-inch skillet, heat oil over medium heat. Add scallions and cook, covered, 5 minutes or until tender and golden, stirring often. Add garlic and crushed red pepper; cook 1 minute.

3. Add tomatoes with their juice and 1/2 teaspoon salt; heat to boiling over medium-high heat, breaking up tomatoes with side of spoon. Reduce heat to medium and cook, covered, 5 minutes. Stir in shrimp and cook, covered, 5 minutes or until shrimp turn opaque throughout.

4. Drain pasta; return to saucepot. Add shrimp mixture; toss well to combine. Sprinkle with parsley

Destroying the Village in Order to Save It

U.S. warplanes pound Fallujah
6 November 2004

US warplanes pounded Fallujah in what residents called the strongest attacks in months, as more than 10,000 American soldiers and Marines massed for an expected assault on the guerrilla stronghold.

US planes dropped five 500-pound bombs at several targets in Fallujah, including a factory as well as suspected weapons caches.

Lt. Col. David Staven said two satellite-guided bombs were dropped at about on a building in the eastern part of the city. Two more bombs followed in the next hour, hitting two shacks and setting off secondary explosions. Another bomb at dawn hit a factory, he said.

US jets could be heard roaring overheard in central Baghdad. The US military said the main highway into Fallujah had been completely sealed off.

Residents said the aircraft were striking targets in the central city market that had not been hit since April as well as neighbourhoods in the north, south and east of Fallujah.

On Friday, residents said US planes dropped leaflets urging women and children to leave the city, 40 miles west of the capital, Baghdad.

As pressure mounted on Fallujah, the insurgents struck back, killing one US soldier and wounding five in a rocket attack. Clashes were reported at other checkpoints around the city and in the east and north of the city late in the day. An AC-130 gunship fired at several targets as US forces skirmished with insurgents, the US army said.

In Baghdad, a huge column of black smoke rose over the city's Karrada district, and residents said they heard heavy gunfire, presumably between police and militants. No one answered the phone at the local police station.

For the past three nights, long convoys of American soldiers from Baghdad and Baqouba have rolled on to a dust-blown base on the outskirts of Fallujah, a city that has become the symbol of Iraqi resistance. US commanders here have been co-ordinating plans either to fight their way into the city or isolate it from the rest of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland.

This is a symbol of failure: assaulting the city again is a symptom of insufficient forces on the ground. 2/3 of Iraq is in the control of "insurgents." That's a euphemism for "Iraqis." Imagine that: Iraqis control 2/3 of their country and that's a problem for us. We don't happen to like the Iraqis who are in control, so that's the problem, Bushco only likes the part of the world willing to sign loyalty oaths. A theocracy, I could deal with. An autocracy is another matter altogether

Dinner for 8

As promised, for 8

SUPER-FAST SPINACH, PESTO AND CHEESE LASAGNA

3 cups ricotta cheese
1 cup shredded Parmesan cheese
1 large egg
2 10-ounce packages frozen chopped spinach, thawed, squeezed dry
1 7-ounce package prepared pesto

4 cups bottled chunky pasta sauce
12 no-boil lasagna noodles from one 8-ounce package

2 cups grated Fontina cheese
Blend ricotta and Parmesan in medium bowl. Season cheeses with salt and pepper; stir in egg. Blend spinach and pesto in another medium bowl.

Brush 13x9x2-inch glass baking dish with oil. Spread 1 cup pasta sauce in prepared dish. Arrange 3 noodles side by side atop sauce. Spread 1 1/4 cups ricotta cheese mixture over in thin layer. Drop 1/3 of spinach mixture over by spoonfuls. Repeat layering with sauce, noodles, ricotta cheese mixture and spinach mixture 2 more times. Top with remaining 3 noodles and 1 cup sauce.

Preheat oven to 350°F. Cover lasagna with foil. Bake 35 minutes. Uncover; sprinkle with Fontina cheese. Bake lasagna until heated through, sauce bubbles and cheese on top is melted, about 15 minutes longer. Let stand 10 minutes.

Makes 8 servings.

Hint: drop the bottled red sauce unless your family can't do without it. The remaining White Lasagna stands on its own without that familiar help. Decorate the top of a white lasagna with sprigs of parsley, leafs of spinach or shaken red pepper.

Serve with soup (minestrone recipe to follow) or a salad of tossed greens, dressed in a bowl prepared with a little garlic (one clove, pressed), a couple of tablespoons of olive oil and a sprinkle of balsamic vinigar. Prepare the bowl by dressing it properly with a spread of garlic: take a broken clove, broken with the flat side of a knife, and press it against all sides of the salad bowl, particularly the bottom, where the dressing will tend to well. Add the salad greens and mix well.

Drink to your good health with a nice bottle of Italian bottled water.
Enjoy.

To Sleep, Perchance to Dream

I'm going to change the focus over the weekend. Like Gilliard, and unlike Duncan, I need a break from the bad news over the weekend, I'm a writer, this is what I do. The site feels a little too dark for me right now. I'm a writer because that is how I make sense of the world, I'm a blogger because I'm willing to not be beholding to any editor and publisher and prefer to take your criticism head on. But this weekend is going to be different, because I think we could all use a break. I know I need something different.

I'm feeling pulled in the direction of some poetry to share (and I'd love it if you'd share, too), some longer form essays that aren't about politics, some cultural crit and maybe even the odd book review. If a recipe sneaks its way in here, I won't be sad. I did a spinach lasagna this year that absolutely killed. So good that I broke it up into pieces and froze it down and happily ate it for months. I rarely make big recipes and freeze them down, I get tired of them while the plastic containers litter the freezer, this one was different and I couldn't get enough of it. And it takes less than a half hour to make. It's not for the low-carb, low-fat crowd, but an ovo-lacto-veg will be in heaven with it. If you are doing Weight Watchers, you'll have to budget for it, but it is fabulous. With a salad or soup (I'm yearning for my minimalist minestrone with pesto, another recipe) and a piece of fresh bread (baguette to follow), sighs ensue, along with real gratitude if you serve this soul food with friends.

Steve's going to be writing food all weekend, and I think that's not a bad idea. You'll get some politics because I can't help myself, some recipes, because they are good for the soul, and some thoughts on monasticism, food and solitude, because they are inextricable, something secular bloggers don't understand. Every person is a monstaery, but no one has told you yet what that means.

Ah, I have work this weekend.

Bis Morgen,

Yer bloghostess

Not Great News

October Job Growth Stronger Than Expected
Unemployment Rate Rises Slightly

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 5, 2004; 11:58 AM

The U.S. economy created jobs last month faster than in the previous six, the Labor Department reported today.

The number of new jobs in October, 337,000, far exceeded economists' forecasts of about 169,000.

Three days after the election -- in which job creation was an issue -- the Labor Department also announced that its previously reported job-growth figures for August and September had been too low, considerably so.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis pointed to construction as the major growth factor with 71,000 new hires. The sector was "boosted by cleanup and reconstruction efforts in hurricane-affected areas of the Southeast," the department reported.

But most other categories were up as well, including professional and business services, while manufacturing remained flat.

The hiring induced some previously discouraged job-seekers to resume seeking. As a result, the unemployment rate rose by a tenth of a percent to 5.5 percent.

The improved numbers would not have spared President Bush from the charge, apparently less potent than Democrats had hoped, that he was the first president since Herbert Hoover to experience a net job loss on his watch. But he would have had more to brag about The brighter picture also bode well for holiday shopping.

Revisions -- upward and downward -- are common as statistics become more complete. Today's revisions were larger than usual, however. The hiring increase in August shot up from the previous estimate of 128,000 to 198,000. The original number for September, 96,000, jumped to 139,000.

What Fred Barbash failed to add:

Tax cuts meet target in October, cumulative impact falls far short
The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA, see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—in other words, 306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut.

Weakest job recovery since the 1930s
Since the recession began 43 months ago in March 2001, 490,000 jobs have disappeared from the U.S. economy, representing a 0.4% contraction. The Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression). To put this performance in historical perspective, in every previous episode of recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs had fully recovered to above the pre-recession peak within at least 31 months of the start of the recession (the average, excluding the 1991 recovery, has been a full recovery of jobs by the 20th month). In the three downturns since the early 1970s, the economy had not only recovered from any jobs lost during the recession but had also generated 4.6% more jobs than were lost in those downturns. If this standard had prevailed, the economy would have had a positive job gain of 6,114,000 by what is now the 43rd month of recovery, or 6,604,000 more jobs than we have today.

War Zone

Three Black Watch troops killed in suicide attack
By Colin Brown, Robert Fisk, and Kim Sengupta in Baghdad
Published : 05 November 2004

The three deaths bring to 73 the number of British troops to have died in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict. It was the worst combat loss since three Royal Military Police were killed in the south 14 months ago.

The Ministry of Defence today named the latest victims as Sergeant Stuart Gray, Private Paul Lowe and Private Scott McArdle.

The casualties shocked MPs, sparking recriminations at Westminster. One minister said: "It is our worst fears. Unfortunately, it was not unexpected. We sent them into a dangerous area."

The Armed Forces minister, Adam Ingram, said it would be a matter for commanders on the ground whether they continued to patrol on the east bank. "We always knew that there were risks involved in these engagements, but this is for the Iraqi people," he said. "Is it a price worth paying? Well, the Iraqis are the best judge of that."

The troops are the first British troops to die in combat since the regiment was ordered out of the British-held area in Basra to provide back-up for US troops preparing for an assault on Fallujah. They are the first British troops to be killed by a suicide attack in Iraq.

The British area of operations had been confined to a largely uninhabited - and so safer - area west of the river. After rockets were fired from the east, it was decided to cross the river, into a district largely controlled by insurgents, and to set up checkpoints.
....
Militant groups in Iraq threatened retribution on the British troops who have taken over the former US base between Hillah and Iskandariyah.

Anti-war Labour MPs angrily accused Mr Blair of being partly to blame for the deaths, by agreeing to support President George Bush in deploying British troops to support the US attack on Fallujah. Mr Blair heard the news in Brussels. His spokesman said: "The Prime Minister's thoughts are with the Black Watch and the families of the Black Watch."
....
News of the fatalities was given to a sombre Commons in an emergency statement by Mr Ingram. Bruce George, chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Defence, said: 'I am shocked and very sad indeed. This is a dangerous place, and the soldiers, frankly, are heroes. It would be utterly wrong to seek to make political capital out of this tragedy."

The SNP MP Angus Robertson warned the deaths would have "profound implications for public opinion in Scotland".

Readers in Great Britain: what's the public reaction to this today? I haven't had time to check in with the Beeb to get their take. Can you add anything to our context for this story? I deliberately chose The Independent for this story: they are a little less like to submerge the details under diplomatic prose than The Guardian, and less prone to hysteria than some of the tabs. Anything you can do to fill out our picture of how this news is being received in the UK will be helpful.

In Case You are Thinking About It...

Immigration web site flooded with queries from U.S. anti-Bush visitors

Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press

Friday, November 05, 2004

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's immigration website is being flooded with a record-smashing number of visits from U.S. Democrats dismayed by the prospect of four more years living under President George W. Bush.

His re-election has some long-faced U.S. liberals apparently musing that perhaps Canada's cold winters, high taxes and strained health system are more easily endured than their commander-in-chief. A new record was set within hours of Bush's acceptance speech as six times more Americans than usual surfed the site Wednesday. The overall number of 179,000 visitors was almost twice the previous one-day record set last year and a whopping 64 per cent of visitors - 115,016 - were from the United States.

Many were doing more than just casual surfing, a spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration suggested Thursday.

"The most-visited pages . . . were the skilled worker online self-assessment pages (to check if) they'd meet the selection criteria," said Maria Iadinardi.

But there's no proof of an influx of Americans seeking asylum from their politics: "Applying and intent are two different things. We're only going to see this about six months from now," she said.

Americans moving to Canada must deal with the same rules as other immigrants - including the $500 application fee, the $975 landing tax, and the six-to 12-month wait.

The waiting time is shorter if you're married to a Canadian, for which help is available at www.marryanamerican.ca, a Canadian satirical site also being inundated by visitors.

A quick Internet Google search under the terms, "move to Canada' + Bush" turns up more than 8,000 web pages - including chat groups and at least one opinion poll asking frustrated liberals whether they'd consider fleeing.

About 60 per cent replied 'Yes' to leaving in the tongue-in-cheek poll of more than 1,000 on CBS's Chicago affiliate web site.

One American who lives in Brooklyn says many people in the U.S. now feel they identify more with Canada than their own country in the wake of the election.

"I'm not alone," said Chris Walsh, a native of New Hampshire married to a Canadian.

"The first thing people said to me when I went to walk my dog in the park this morning was: 'We're moving to Canada.' People are very disillusioned, and Canada is looking pretty good right now."

I looked into it before the election, so I already know what the requirements are. Were I offered a job in Toronto, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

If you don't know Canada and the Canadians, you should take a trip to our neighbor and heal your ignorance; that is a wonderful, liberal, socially tolerant nation next door.

My Kind of Conservative

A "Broad Nationwide Victory" And a New Bipartisanship -- Not Exactly
by John Dean

When introducing the President's victory appearance, Vice President Cheney said, "We've worked hard . . . and the result is now clear: a record voter turnout and a broad, nationwide victory." (Emphasis added.) Forty-eight percent of the nation's voters -- all those (literally and figuratively) blue voters -- will take exception to Cheney's arrogant analysis.

The sensible take on the next four years will not be found in the President's faux offers of thorny olive branches with very short stems. Bush and Cheney are not going to trim their sails, and with the ship of state listing dangerously starboard, no one should expect smooth sailing for the next four years. Humility does not come easily to these men of hubris. Rancor should be expected. Indeed, it may be necessary to keep them from sinking us all.

Having seen the '70's version of evil in government up close, Dean is probably in the best possible position to comment on the new, improved 21st century edition.

Our "moral values" under the circumstances: act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

A reasoned and principled opposition is required of us.

Fighting Back

No Surrender
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: November 5, 2004

President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.

Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.

This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.

I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.

Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.

So what should the Democrats do?

One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.

Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.

But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.

Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.
....
Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.

It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.

Krugman doesn't go far enough. The Dems have to develop the kind of message discipline the Repubs use and we need our own mightly Wurlitzer pumping out daily talking points by blastfax and email. Every Repub distortion needs to be met with an immediate rebuttal. The Clinton/Carville war room needs to be reconstructed on a massive scale.

Stop Digging

Analysts Call Outlook For Bush Plan Bleak
Too Much Deficit, Not Enough Revenue

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 5, 2004; Page A08

President Bush signaled yesterday that he would add personal investment accounts to the Social Security system, simplify the tax code without raising taxes and cut the budget deficit in half, all before he leaves office in 2009.

Ambitious as those promises are, they may be mathematically impossible, budget and policy analysts say.

"It doesn't seem like we're going to see any tightness in U.S. budget policy anytime soon," said Rebecca Patterson, senior currency strategist at Wall Street giant JPMorgan Chase.

Bush pledged early this year to halve the deficit in five years, a promise he renewed yesterday. "I would suggest [deficit hawks] look at our budget that we've submitted to Congress, which does, in fact, get the deficit down, cut in half in five years," Bush said.

But in an independent analysis of that budget, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded it would not fulfill that promise. The deficit in fiscal 2004, which ended Sept. 30, was $413 billion. Under Bush's plan for spending and taxes, the deficit would be $258 billion in 2009. If anything, that may understate the size of the deficit in coming years because it does not include any additional costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon is expected to seek an additional $70 billion early next year.

Moreover, the president's budget does not include the cost of a Social Security reform plan that includes the personal investment accounts Bush is demanding. Under such a plan, workers would be allowed to divert one-third or more of their share of Social Security taxes into stocks, bonds or other investments.

Because the diverted money would otherwise have gone to existing Social Security beneficiaries, the funds would have to be made up through additional government borrowing or spending cuts. A CBO analysis of one of the plans drafted by Bush's Social Security commission concluded the near-term cost would be $104.5 billion in 2005, rising to $146.6 billion in 2009.

"It's all nice to propose personal accounts, to say you're not going to cut benefits for retirees, but then you've got to make the tough choices," said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), a proponent of overhauling Social Security. "You have to accept short-term transition costs that are going to hit the budget deficit. It's just a matter of being responsible."

Given the challenges of the president's Social Security plan amid record budget deficits, some budget analysts had hoped Bush's simultaneous call to simplify the tax code could be used to raise revenue. They reasoned that taxpayers may be willing to dig a little deeper in exchange for a tax system they see as simpler and fairer.

But Bush made it clear yesterday that was not his intention. Any tax code changes would have to bring in the same amount of revenue as the tax code they would replace, he said.

"If there was a need to raise taxes, I'd say, 'Let's have a tax bill that raises taxes,' as opposed to 'Let's simplify the tax code and sneak a tax increase on the people,' " he said. "It's just not my style. I don't believe we need to raise taxes."

Since his "style" is to say one thing and do another, I throw up my hands at interpreting what this might mean. Simple arithmetic says that you can't fix deficits without more cash in the form of taxes.

Deficits DO matter, contrary to Dick Cheney, and we can only run them for as long as somebody else is willing to pick up the debt in the short term. Oh, Dickie:

Dollar Falls On Fears of U.S. Deficits
Big Sell-Off Unlikely, Treasury Official Says

By Paul Blustein and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 5, 2004; Page E01

The dollar continued its decline in global currency markets yesterday, intensifying worries among some economists that mounting U.S. budget and trade deficits could send the U.S. currency into a tailspin.

But John B. Taylor, the Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, defended the Bush administration view that the deficits pose no danger of a dollar collapse. He issued a detailed rebuttal of what he called "scare stories."

The dollar fell yesterday to within a fraction of a cent of its all-time low against the euro of $1.2930 , trading as low as $1.2898 before rallying slightly to close at $1.2867. It fell modestly against the Japanese yen, and continued a sharp slide against the Canadian dollar, which rose to 83 U.S. cents yesterday for the first time in 12 years.

It was the second straight day that the dollar has fallen despite a surge in the stock market, continuing a trend that began in early October when it started slipping against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners. The declined rekindled the fears of some analysts that the dollar could be headed for a severe sell-off unless the White House and Congress make a major effort to shrink the budget gap.

"As the dust settles after the U.S. elections, the one theme that is developing is the growing recognition [in the markets] of the need for more dollar depreciation," economists at J.P. Morgan told clients yesterday, citing as one major reason the likelihood that "there will be no serious new policies to trim the U.S. budget deficit."

Behind such sentiments is the belief that the U.S. economy is too dependent on foreign investors, and that they may balk at pouring money into U.S. securities if the country's debt continues to soar. Foreigners have provided much of the money the government borrows to cover its deficit, which was $413 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

"One of the big drivers in the whole big picture the markets are looking at now is our being dependent on foreign sources of funds," said David Solin, managing partner at Foreign Exchange Analytics in Essex, Conn. "Obviously, if the foreigners step back [from investing in U.S. bonds and stocks], there are going to be serious problems, not only for the dollar, but for all financial markets."

Taylor, who, like the rest of Bushco, has no credibility, particularly on budget issues, made these statements at a symposium at the American Enterprise Institute, that neo-con bastion. This is ideology, not information. Over there on the right is the search feature for this site. Search on the keyword "Roach" as in Steve Roach, Morgan Stanley's premiere financial analyst, and see what he thinks of this deficit situation in terms of the financial markets.

Moving Ideas

I got an email last night from the folks at Moving Ideas, an initiative of The American Prospect (the link to their daily blog, TAPPED, can be found over on the right.) They have a new listing of progressive blogs and rang me up to say they've included us. The list is one-stop-shopping of the left Web, nicely thought out. Bookmark the page and you've got your own blogroll.

Further Deterioration

Via Suburban Guerrilla:

International medical aid group to leave Iraq
Escalating violence, targeting of aid workers prompt decision
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:05 a.m. ET Nov. 4, 2004

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The international medical aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres said Thursday it was pulling out of Iraq because of escalating violence and the targeting of aid workers.

“It has become impossible for MSF as an organization to guarantee an acceptable level of security for our staff, be they foreign or Iraqi,” said Gorik Ooms, General Director of MSF in Belgium.

A statement from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization, which is also known as Doctors Without Borders, did not say how many staff it has in Iraq, but said it had provided about 100,000 consultations in three clinics in Sadr City, a rundown, mainly Shiite Muslim neighborhood in Baghdad.

MSF is a first-in, last-out aid organization. They are willing to take on humanitarian situtations that no one else will touch. For them to leave says that the situation on the ground has become completely unhinged.

You Are The Future

I have many thoughts about the future. I'm going to engage in a little idle speculation here (one of the reasons to blog is that idle speculation in front of a crowd might generate some useful ideas: I do believe in "alterity" and the power of ideas brushing up against other ideas.)

All the talk about bi-partisanship is horseshit. The Repubs are going to govern from their hard right power center. I can't tell you exactly what will happen, but I'm going to guess that the next couple of months will be testing the waters to see how far they can go, and how fast, before risking a popular revolt. I've seen many blogposts today that indicate that they are going to be theocrats. Nope. These folks are simple power mongers who wield a theological vocabulary because that's what sells in this country. It's going to be interesting to watch the rump session of Congress (it starts on the 14th, I believe) and just gauge the sound of the rhetoric. I listen to C-Span radio in between meetings at work, and I imagine more than one blog post will come out of doing an instant transcript.

Iraq is a debacle. Don't let anyone tell you different. Whichever masterminds in the neo-con establishment at DoD dreamed this up, they don't have a clue about what to do. The history of assymetric warfare has been pretty dismal for the opponents of guerrilla forces--4th gen warfare is political and needs a political solution. Standing up a suspect government in Iraq isn't going to stop the insurgency. Period. Rummy
s band of useful idiots in the Pentagon clearly haven't read a word about 4gw and there is a ton of information available for those who are smart enough to consult widely. We never should have gone into Iraq, the result is totally predictable (I predicted it, Gilliard predicted it, Bill Lind predicted it, just to name a few.)

This war is going to lead to an historical judgement of the Bush presidency as a collassal failure: the economy is tanking, the war is hugely expensive--but it is our money, so W doesn't care about it--and we are going to lose it. At some point, and I don't know what it is, we will hit the critical nexus of deaths of our troops that it will begin to resonate with the public. We clearly aren't there yet, but I don't think that it will take Viet Nam proportions before it happens. The antiwar movement happened much faster with this conflict.

The only way that Bush avoids impeachment before the end of this term is a) a continuing lack of interest by the media--possible but not likely, some hungry reporter is going to smell a Pulitzer in rooting out W's felonies and b) the economy turns around for reasons that can't be seen right now. If the economy continues to sink (and it is sinking, as I've documented here many times and looks to get much, much worse) there is going to be widespread unrest before the midterms in 2006 which will threaten the Repub majorities in Congress. If things are bad enough for the Dems to retake even just the Senate, let the investigations begin.

I don't know what is going to happen with all of the Congressional investigations which are currently underway. I'm not hearing anything which indicates that the Dems, as a body, are going to become the party of Henry Waxman and use every tool in the book to issue subpeonas. The Congressional Dems are still in shock. We'll see what kind of a presence they show up with when the rump session convenes.

In the near term, the future is bleak. A year or two years out, I'm not so sure. There is enough of a left establishment (thank God for the ACLU) that most of the serious challenges to civil liberties will be met in court, and we are in the middle of building a new infrastructure (thank God for the Internet) which has a good chance of doing an end run on the neo-cons, who don't really understand this medium. We do and we're learning more fast.

You are part of it, the new world order, the flash mobs, the internet fundraising. We're going to change the world with our new tools, because it needs to be changed.

Bush is the last gasp of the old order. After two days of depression, I'm finally optimistic. My favorite theology prof said that the last kick of a dying horse is the strongest. It leaves a nasty bruise, but we'll get over it and move on. Goldwater's conservatism is officially dying. We are the future, and a trip to the desert is a painful and bracing experience for transformation: while the neo-cons are in their dying days, we are rising with new tools and institutions. The neocons have no future strategy, they are out of gas and ready to start fighting among themselves, which is the purview of the decadent winner. The rot has already set in.

Reading human nature is what I do for a living. This is my take.

Blame Where It Is Due

I'm in complete agreement with Sean-Paul at The Agonist: what happened to John Kerry was the complete failure of the corporate media to tell the truth and call a lie a lie. The "he said, he said" crap that passes for journalism these days misses the point that there is objective reality.

For all intents and purposes, the media selected our president by incomplete to downright dishonest reporting. Because of the existence of the Web, we are no longer restricted to US media for our reading, thank God, but most of America is not yet aware of this. Combine bad information with the habitual intellectual laziness of the American electorate and you have the set up for fascism. We are just about there.

The Toll

Farewell, Tristero. I understand, but I will miss you. Walk in beauty.

Refusing Modernity

As we watch China become the next big economic collossus in the world, as both producer and consumer, perhaps it is time that we got over our battle with modernity and the enlightenment. Modernity won, folks, even as Christian and Islamic fundamentalists want to drag us back to the 12th Century. Garry Wills explains:

The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
By GARRY WILLS

Published: November 4, 2004

Evanston, Ill.

This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.

This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).

The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.

The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.

It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.

President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.

In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.

The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.

North of 68% of Americans believe in angels, more than half don't believe in evolution. As centuries of Benedictines and Cistercians can attest, it isn't necessary to squelch reason in order to have faith.

Having failed to learn the lessons of history, we have to go back and have this argument again.

Operation Nightmare

Courtesy of Paul Woodward of The War in Context:

Bush's Second-Term Test
Now that the election's over, can the president admit his mistakes?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2004, at 1:28 PM PT

Will he admit his mistakes in Iraq?
Soon we will learn what President Bush really thinks about the way things have gone in Iraq. During the campaign, he had to appear optimistic (all is well, we're turning the corner, freedom is on the march …). Karl Rove had counseled him (correctly, it seems) that admitting mistakes is a sign of weakness and that, for instance, firing the advisers who'd given him a falsely rosy picture of "postwar" Iraq would be tantamount to admitting mistakes.

In sum, from start to (alas, not quite) finish, these three guys have been wrong, at times perniciously so, on nearly every major aspect of this war. Nor do their recent statements or activities reveal any sign that they're aware of past mistakes or that they detect a need for changes in strategy or tactics.

Will he admit his mistakes and change course? Fred, what are you smoking? He is constitutionally incapable of doing so. Remember, this American public willfully and knowingly re-selected a sociopath.

This next is long, so I'll just give you the topic paragraphs as seven generals introduce their essays.

The Generals Speak
Seven retired military leaders discuss what has gone wrong in Iraq

By PAUL ALEXANDER

Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need. As a consequence, the insurgency seems to be gathering momentum. We are losing people at a fairly steady rate of about two a day; wounded, about four or five times that, and perhaps half of these wounds are very serious. And we are also sustaining gunshot wounds, when, before, we'd mostly been seeing massive trauma from remotely detonated charges. This means the other side is standing and fighting in a way that describes a more dangerous phase of the conflict.

Adm. Stansfield Turner
NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81
I think we are in a real mess. There are eighty-seven attacks on Americans every day, and our people in Baghdad can't even leave the International Zone without being heavily armored. I think we are in trouble because we were so slow in terms of reconstruction and reconstituting the military and police forces. We have lost the support of the Iraqi people who were glad to see Saddam go. But they are not glad to see an outside force come in and replace him without demonstrating we are going to provide them with security and rebuild their economy. I am very frustrated. Having a convincing rationale for going in gives our troops a sense of purpose. Whatever you call it, this is now an insurgency using the techniques of terrorism. With the borders poorly guarded, the terrorists come in. All in all, Iraq is a failure of monumental proportions.

Actually, this is a fully-fledged Fourth Generation War, and the Pentagon is as clueless about it as they have ever been.

Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks' approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers.

All of this was sheer nonsense.

Adm. Crowe, how many men have to die to be the last man to die for a mistake and how the @#$% do we get out of this nightmare?

The Real Story

Good evening, Bumpers. It has been a long day and I'm sure most of you stayed up late last night and are tired today, as well as experiencing some or all of the many stages of grief. I'm angry and, more than anything else, frightened. Bushco is capable of anything and now they have carte blanche and an even bigger margin in the Congress. Star wars, Social Security privatization, the imagination boggles. My one condolence is that they are completely incompetent so whatever they try won't work, it will just cost us a lot of money.

Driving home from the grocery tonight after work, I heard Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, giving the spin today: that the Congress will be less partisan, we'll work together better, bla bla bla. As my late father used to say, "horseshit." If you think the Repubs having been ratfucking the passive Dems for the last two years, you ain't seen nothing yet. The Rs have demonstrated their capacity for utter rapaciousness and I sure as hell don't see that changing.

And Bump will be around to document it all. I've heard a lot of fear out in the lefty blogosphere that we are all going to go away now that the election is over. Nothing could be further from the truth: all of us know we have to roll up our sleeves and work even harder. It may be that the country needs to be convulsed by government by a hard right cadre that is rapidly loosing a very expensive war while we are on the verge of being plunged into a global economic depression by American deficits and a lack of liquidity by the Asian investors who have been bailing us out. It may take that to wake up the majority in this country who are anti-intellectual, reflexively and thoughtlessly religious and even the well-meaning and principled libertarians who thought that there isn't a culture war going on right now. There is, and this election was a symptom, not the cause.

This is the principle reason that I started to blog, first at Kos and now here at our house: liberals can run on values, but the DNC doesn't understand it yet. John Kerry could have been a fabulous candidate with better advice and I think he might have been a great president, a brainiac policy wonk who has some liabilities in the communication department. I have a bias in favor of competence, smart people and real democracy rather than rule by executive fiat. Unless we can impeach W after the Ds win a majority in Congress in the midterms fueled by the horrorified public response to what the Rs will do next, we are going to have four years of disasters (let's see if the media begin to atone for their culpability in this electoral nightmare, Bush's victory is due largely to their complicity) which I hope will ruin the GOP for the foreseeable future. We'll see.

History doesn't repeat itself, as Sam Clemens said, but it kind of rhymes. I wonder if we are going to re-play Nixon in 72 now. The next few years will be intensely interesting to the historian in me as the Democrats try to keep all those investigations and FOIA requests going. I believe I remember reading somewhere that the last chapter of the 9-11 commission report is still waiting to be released and it names names. Leaking in this town is politics by other means, and the career professionals in any number of executive agencies ain't gonna be happy with the result of the election but will bide their time until the correct political moment.

I'll be here to watch it all with you, and to comment and give you a place to ponder, vent, explore and make connections. Blogging will get easier and faster once I get the broadband connection installed this weekend (you can help with my costs by the PayPal link up on the top right, all help is much appreciated) and I'm going to have to get a laptop with a wifi card so I can blog from more places and more different parts of the day--the employer is not loving my using their equipment. I've got to get my own portable set up.

Finally, thank you. Without your supportive emails and comments and your very real financial help, this site would not be possible. I came home from a horrible day today to find your emails and comments. I don't know if you can understand how much that means to me. Thank you from the deepest place in me. You are a very special group of people and I hope you know that: you are generous and deep and thoughtful, and that is what makes this site different from others, far more so than my opinions or Charles's on the front page. I would love to move this page to one of the newer pieces of software which is even more democratic, but that will be pricey and I can't afford it right now. You can vote for that, however. I segregate the donations I receive from this site for the site improvements (if you saw the monitor I'm looking at right now, you'd be embarrassed for me) and I want to hand more of the responsibility for Bump over to you, if you want to take it. Comments went through the roof today, so it looks like you all want to participate. Tell me how you want to do it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you rock. You keep me growing and interested and alive, and that IS our job on this planet: to grow into our full potential, to discover who we are and live it fully. That's what this community is to me, the place where I can discover and live my full humanity. Not a bad thing for a small blog, and I invite you to do the same. I love the way the commentors got conversations going over the last couple of days. Better software=better conversations. Think about it. It also means bigger hosting costs down the road, I'm good for Atrios-like traffic for the moment, but a bigger site will need more support. I'm in the process of getting so fully geeked out that I will be able to configure Scoop like a Jerome Armstrong, but I'm not there yet and will need to pay for help if we want to try a platform like that.

You the readers, you are the blogs. The media haven't figured this out yet, they are interviewing those of us who host these sites. They haven't figured it out yet that you are the real story, the people who take their stand in public. We bloggers are the Speakers' Corner, but you are the speakers. We're the pulpit, you're the preacher.

And I really, really like that.

Over the falls

What a mess. The Democrats put forth a much stronger effort than in 2000, and got clobbered worse.

For myself, I suspect that the battle with the neocons whoi have hijacked the Republican Party is lost, in the conventional political sense. The boat has gone over the falls. I felt foreboding every time I checked in at www.electoral-vote.com. Steve Gilliard was oozing confidence in his blog, but Bush had virtually the entire Midwest and South, and he had them solidly. Hell, Washington State was only weak Kerry, and unemployment is a bear in this state. Homeless folks are everywhere you look, in downtown Seattle.

Oh, BTW. About www.electoral-vote.com. Check out this little gem from Netcraft.

Mirrors Help Electoral-vote.com Blunt DDoS Attacks

Electoral-vote.com, a leading source of data on the American presidential race, reports having been hit by distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks yesterday and today, which is election day in the U.S.

The site, which tracks state-by-state polling data to project the outcome of the presidential race, is operated by academic Andrew Tanenbaum, the author of the Minix microkernel. Minix was used by Linus Torvalds as he began to write the Linux operating system.

Tanenbaum reported that the electoral-vote.com site was "subjected to (a) massive attack yesterday (Monday)," he writes. "There was another attack this morning and that took some time to deal with. Remember that if the site is unreachable, try the backup sites." To accommodate the traffic, Tanenbaum worked with site host HostRocket to set up six mirrors, www.electoral-vote3.com through www.electoral-vote8.com. "At one point I was tempted to say: 'How many 2-GB Pentium 4's do you have left and can I have them all?'," Tanenbaum says. "Ultimately I took only one more, but with help from some kind-hearted colleagues, I got mirrors up and running from Boston to San Diego."

The U.S. president is not elected by popular vote, but rather through the Electoral College, which assigns votes to each of the 50 states according to population. Journalists and campaign strategists have been closely tracking state-level polls, which suggest that the contest between President George W. Bush and challenger John Kerry remains tight.

The electoral-vote.com site was also mentioned in a Slashdot posting Monday noting the unveiling of Tanenbaum as the site's Votemaster, which piled more traffic on top of the DDoS and heavy pre-election site usage.

"We survived an unprecedented triple flash crowd and logged it all," writes Tanenbaum. "As it turns out, two of the faculty members in my department, Maarten van Steen and Guillaume Pierre, are doing research on coping with flash crowds. The research issues include how many replicas to set up, where to place them, how fast to deploy them, and how to do it automatically, in real time, and at minimum cost. To simulate proposed algorithms, you need data about real flash crowds and real attacks, preferably at the same time. And boy oh boy do we have data now."

This is the freeper mentality at work. Much more sophisticated than the castor oil that Mussolini's thugs used, but the mindset is identical.

And, just like in every authoritarian state, the ruling elites got the victims to buy into the con. We saw that demonstrated in the clearest possible way yesterday, did we not?

In order to see this monster's back broken, I suspect we're going to have to go through the same sort of thing that happened to Italy during the last two years of WW II. No weaker medicine will break through the epidemic of denial raging through this country right now.

Running the Numbers

The "record turnout" meme is still circulating: I'm listening to Talk of the Nation while I work this afternoon and I just heard it again. According to the WaPo, total turnout yesterday was 106.55 million. In the last presidential election, total turnout was 105 million, according to The Center for Voting and Democracy. With the growth of population in the intervening four years, that means the number of voters as a percentage of the population actually fell, and 2000 was the worst year for turnout since 1988.

UPDATE: It apears I jumped the gun. Here are the figures from three national news organizations.

The NYT:

Popular Electoral
Bush 58,489,865 (51.1%) 249
Kerry 54,965,929 (48.0%) 242
Nader 391,514 (0.3%) 0

The LAT:

"Up to 121 million"

CNN:

58,918,782 (51% total) Bush

55,348,481 (48% total) Kerry

Closing the Sale

Living Poor, Voting Rich
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: November 3, 2004

In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland.

I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly against their own interests - for Republican candidates.

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values.

"On values, they are really noncompetitive in the heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist, Eastern approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial, Congressional and even local candidates to survive."

In the summer, I was home - too briefly - in Yamhill, Ore., a rural, working-class area where most people would benefit from Democratic policies on taxes and health care. But many of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize with spotted owls rather than loggers.

One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party. Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the year, "What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," says that Democratic leaders have been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they have lost touch with blue-collar America.

"There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism, and that's just bound to rub average people the wrong way," Mr. Frank said. He notes that Republicans have used "culturally powerful but content-free issues" to connect to ordinary voters.

To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns, gays and grizzlies.
....
"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them economically."

"What we once thought - that people would vote in their economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats haven't figured out how to deal with that."

Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.

To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups.

Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.

One of the first and most basic rules of sales: it's not what you're selling, it's what they are buying.

What Happened

Simple but Effective
Why you keep losing to this idiot.
By William Saletan
Updated Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2004, at 12:05 AM PT

12:01 a.m. PT: Sigh. I really didn't want to have to write this.

he good news is, that person is already available. His name is John Edwards. If you have any doubt about his electability, just read the exit polls from the 2004 Democratic primaries. If you don't think he's ready to be president—if you don't think he has the right credentials, the right gravitas, the right subtlety of thought—ask yourself whether these are the same things you find wanting in George W. Bush. Because evidently a majority of the voting population of the United States doesn't share your concern. They seem to be attracted to a candidate with a simple message, a clear focus, and a human touch. You might want to consider their views, since they're the ones who will decide whether you're sitting here again four years from now, wondering what went wrong.

What went wrong? Several things: the faith and morals question, low turn-out and "don't change horses mid-apocalypse." The young voters didn't turn out. Fear of the draft wasn't sufficient motivation, they voted at about the same rate they did in 2000. My colleague who poll monitored in Philly yesterday said that the Republicans were simply better organized on the ground.

A colleague in the office just handed out the lyrics for "O Canada." Sigh. I haven't yet had the nerve to look at the foreign press.

Now What?

Susie Madrak points out substantial discrepancies between vote totals and exit polls.

We've got a rough day in front of us. And, if you are like me, you are going to be negotiating it very short of sleep.

Reader Janine sends along this article, which is worth some thought.

The economy is in trouble, the war in Iraq is a disaster, the deficits are a horror. I don't see any of this getting better.

????

It's late, boys and girls. I can quote you the history, but the bottom line is that we might have President Bush in the morning and I fear for this site. If I'm not here in the morning, it ain't because I have hosting issues.

I don't know what is going to happen in the morning. Whatever happens, like you, I'm going to have to get up and go to work.

I'm not feeling good about this tonight. The rest of the world is going to look at us like we've lost our collective mind.

I don't blame them. Judging from talking with my relatives, we HAVE lost our collective mind.

I'll be up in four hours to see the numbers again. Till then, I'm a snoozer.

Get some sleep, you voted already and there isnt't anything we can do but observe. I'll catch you in the morning. Be good to yourself. God loves you, don' t forget.

Late Voting

I really didn't expect it to go this late, we really will be fighting it out state by state until the wee, small hours. For cripes sake, OHIO isn't over yet! I really thought this would be a be-over-early=go-to-bed-early evening.

I was damn wrong. Bush is leading in the PV at this hour. Unbelievable.

There is a real possibility that I'll need to start looking at real estate in Toronto in the morning.

Ohio results are still coming in. This is more complicated than it should be.

Fsck it

I wish I could be watching the BBC or the CBC tonight. This is the most important election of my lifetime and the TV coverage is so bad that I want to shut it off. CNN is featuring Blitzer and Larry King, what a pair of pros. I can't take Rather's made-up folk-isms, and John King with a white board. PBS's solemn "civic religion" coverage is puke-enducing, Big Timmah is so stuck on himself that I can't bear him.

How did we get so screwed up, Bumpers? What's your theory? I think I'd rather play with the cats. I'm a political junkie, but I don't know how much of this I can stand, one more chirpy NPR announcer is going to send me around the bend.

Reload Cohen's "The Future"

Let me give you my Steve Gilliard moment.

Yes, this blog started with a pretty explicit agenda, defeating the man that Charles called, "worst President this country has ever been cursed with." Tonight, that song will go on, regardless of who wins, and I'm projecting a decisive Kerry win. We're blogging politics, culture and I'm adding religion to the mix. Charles doesn't realize it, but he made a religious statement when he called the Bush reign a "curse." That word carries a host of associations which have to do with belief rather than rational analysis.

With the addition of Charles to this site, you are going to be getting more rational analysis, which frees me up some to do more of the supra-rational meta-analysis, which is what theology is.

As Gilliard says, when the election is over, the politics begins and there will be plenty to cover. I don't see us running out of material any time soon. And I don't see either our human culture or the human animal running out of its desire for the transcendent, either.

We've just begun.

Let me count my blessings this evening as we await the nation's decision: This blog, the gift of a stranger who has since become a warm friend. You, who have cared for me through thick and thin, employment and un. The long and warm correspondence you've authored. Your contribution to community in comments. Your contributions to Eddie's recovery from terrible abscesses.

Funny, I keep coming back to you, on a night when we are obssessed with other things and I'm dizzy with happiness at Charles's voice on this site. It really is going to be a new day tomorrow.

You hung with me through my darkest days, sent me the funds it took to keep the site up, paid my electrical bill when the power company was ready to cut me off. You rock. You celebrated with me when I finally found a job and sent me the gift certificate to get some clothes for the job. You are amazing.

My celebration this evening will be quiet, as befits a contemplative (Charles is one, too, but I don't think he'd use that language) and mostly centered on you.

This blog is about you, not me or Charles. The more you comment or email, the more we can hone in on your desires. Comment freely. As Teresa Nielsen Hayden likes to say, comments are the most interesting part of any blog.

I chose Charles as a co-blogger because he has range, his interests are as far afield as mine. And I think that's a fine way to bring you all kinds of information. We study everything from optics to epidemiology. We are an A to Zed kind of blog, we're both specialists and generalists who haven't lost our thirst for curiosity. I look forward to being pushed by Charles and to giving him the odd nudge. And for you to do a lot of nudging. Both of us are information professionals and we should be bringing it home for you so you don't have to.

Hold us to that.

The Dems are already battling over the leadership in the Senate, as Daschle is toast.

The intensity isn't going away tomorrow.

Hello out there

First, I'd like to give Melanie my warmest thanks for her invitation to write articles for this blog. Without her gentle nudge, I might never have taken that step. And upon reflection, that would probably have been a suboptimum course of action. I hope my articles here justify the confidence and trust she so kindly extended to me.

Second, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Charles. I may be reached by email at [email protected], though that may change soon.

My background is pretty geeky. My advanced degree (Ph.D.) was in applied mathematics. Nonlinear P.D.E.'s, to be specific, with heavy sidelines in numerical and asymptotic analysis. Five years later, I left academia, which had turned out not to be for me, and spent a few years doing programmer-analyst work, in support of various satellite data reduction projects at NASA GSFC in Greenbelt. Layoffs and cutbacks pushed me in the general direction of Seattle, and my interests attracted me to Unix system administration. But for the last six years, I have been working in information security, full time.

You'll probably hear more about that last from me. I'm rather the infosec evangelist. More than a year and a half parsing firewall logs for a major bank saw to that. I knew curst well that 99% of the owners of record of the systems I backtracked probes and attacks to had no idea what their systems were really being used for. But basic security is both simple and cheap. You can build out a hardware firewall, suitable for the defense of a trusted network connected to the fastest broadband you can buy for less than $500 a month, on a box you don't have $25 in. "And the software?", I hear you cry. Well, the best firewall software is free. Gratis. Por nada. Antivirus mitigation costs, but not much. People like me, who do this for a living, know that. Joe Everyman doesn't. And Joe's Windows XP box, hanging off his cable modem line, is a really important target today. But Joe could make 99% of his security exposure go away for less capital outlay than a meal at a good restaurant.

Politically, like Melanie, I'm on the left side of the page. If I were religious at all, I'd be fervently praying, right now, that today's election puts an end to the tenure in office of a man whom I consider the worst President this country has ever been cursed with. To say nothing of his effect on the wretched Iraqis, 100,000 of whom The Lancet informs us our country's military has killed in the last two years. And, of course, more than 1250 of our own, dead. And more than 8000 wounded, all too often in the cranium, with poor prognosis and permanent consequences. In a war which, in my considered opinion, it was criminally unwise to begin, even if all the allegations the Bush administration made about Saddam Hussein's arsenal had been true. We had alternatives. At it's height, the nuclear arsenal of the U.S.S.R. had more than 17,000 deliverable nuclear weapons, according to one estimate I have seen in print. Their offensive biological warfare program was starkly incredible by any standards. How much of that stored up Hell was used against us, or any of our allies, or, indeed, anyone at all? And where is the U.S.S.R. today? As I said; we had alternatives, which were known to be effective, because we'd used them before.

At home, I am owned by three cats. One of them is an 18 year old geezer, who was literally born behind my couch, Back When. He's a tough old guy, but at 18, he's beginning to show his age. The other two are just over two years old. One is a sweet, quiet little gray guy, who has only one bad habit. Fortunately, I have a gallon jug of that bacterial goop you use to clean up after such accidents, so this is no worse than an annoyance. The other is a huge, rambunctious female. I'm keeping her separate from the other two right now. It's not that she has a bad nature, mind. She's quite sweet. But she doesn't understand that she plays way too rough.

Articles from me may be a little spotty for a few days. My home hardware firewall "tipped over" a little more than a week ago. Put butter on it, it's toast. Unsurprising, really, it's hardware architecture was no more than mediocre when it was brand new, a decade ago. It's replacement is built out, but it is not yet completely configured, and I plan to test the replacement, using network auditing software I'm familiar with, before I connect to the Internet from home. I've learned a great deal since I built out that first firewall. Today, I know how to be sure that firewall will protect.

Just Off the Bus

I just got home and set up my task bar. A quick survey of my blogger colleagues indicates that Zogby is already make some predictions. From Kevin Hayden at The American Street:

Based on the latest exit polling, I’m adding PA into the numbers Zogby reported, making it 263-213 Kerry.

These were my goals. I didn’t expect to gain the House. And so far, I think we are very, very close.

I trust Kev's instincts on this. My gut has been saying for a while that the pollsters were wrong and this isn't going to be close in either the popular vote or the electoral vote. As I said a couple of days ago, I call this Kerry by 7% in the popular vote.

Everything above is based on exit polls, not voting results. Turnout is what is going to be key for Kerry, and I think we got that today. I haven't seen any numbers yet, but will post when I do. Bush really energized the electorate to vote.

I'll be watching PBS tonight, the shouting on CNN is more than my frazzled nerves can take.

The only question really left in my mind is how the media will react. Will they do to President Kerry what they did to the Big Dog? Or will they follow the electorate's preference and suck up like they did with Bush? If they trash Kerry, aided and abetted by a hostile House (I'm predicting the Senate won't change) and a blindingly partisan Senate, I'm looking a four ugly years.

What do you think? How do you see our possibilities for the future?

Record Turnout?

The Philly Inquirer is holding a poll of its online readers asking "Rate the turnout at your polling place:"
Very Heavy
Heavy
Average
Low
Very Low

865 people have voted so far

84% have responded heavy or very heavy. That's the way it is going to be across the nation.

All of my office mates report long waits to vote in their polling places, my colleague reports in from west Philly that his heavily black precinct is voting "above average" according to the poll workers. He also reports that "The Union League" are intimidating voters by their presence, but not interfering.

From the front page of the Inky website:

Heavy turnout reported
in Pennsylvania suburbs
Long lines, few problems reported as voters flock to polls in high numbers.
» City GOP challenges absentee vote count
» Long waits seen in Philadelphia
» Philadelphia D.A.: No planted votes
» First-time voter celebrates in S. Jersey
» Amid high N.J. turnout, nuns challenged
» Scare briefly closes 2 Mt. Laurel polls
» In rest of Pa., a flood of new voters
» Campaign Extra: Drudge's report false
» Vote: Rate the turnout at your poll

Convenient Memory

What Bush Threw Away

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 2, 2004; Page A21

The appalling reappearance of Osama bin Laden on the eve of our election was a reminder of what has been lost and of what Bush threw away. Three years ago, bin Laden was a symbol of the evil that Americans -- nearly all of us -- were fighting against. Now even bin Laden has been politicized.

In the days after Sept. 11, Democrats put aside their suspicions of Bush and rallied to his side. "We will speak with one voice," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle declared on that awful day. "All of us stand with the president," said Sen. Joe Biden. And stand with the president we all did.

For several months, Bush, too, stood above party. In assembling both a domestic and international coalition to wage war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the president put aside his critiques of unilateralism and "nation-building." As I wrote at the time -- yes, even I admired Bush that fall -- the president "grafted the language of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman to the martial rhythms of Ronald Reagan." He sought broad support, not narrow majorities, for the Afghan war and his emergency spending proposals.

Back then I thought Bush had an enormous political opportunity that matched the nation's interest: to build a wide, sustainable, Eisenhower-like Republican majority. The country was waiting for a call to service, sacrifice and solidarity. It didn't want the old ideological politics.

But Bush interpreted his prodigious approval ratings not as an opportunity for something new but as a chance to push the same ideological agenda he was pursuing before Sept. 11. It was a chance to create a Republican majority in Congress in the 2002 elections. It was a chance to push through even more tax cuts, and never mind the deficits created by all that new spending. If the Senate, facing the 2002 elections, could be badgered into giving the president broad authority to wage war against Saddam Hussein, why not short-circuit a more searching debate and just grab the power? And if forcing an early Iraq vote put his potential 2004 opponents -- John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt -- in a bind, why not seize that advantage, too?

It worked for a while. And should Bush squeeze out a narrow win, his supporters will no doubt claim a victory for the president's audacious style.

But the cost of such a victory will be paid off for many years -- perhaps for as long as we're paying off the debt. Consider the reaction to bin Laden. Right there on Fox News, the Bush Channel, a Republican operative named David Johnson thought bin Laden's strange disquisition could be interpreted only one way. "This almost looks," he said, "like an endorsement by Osama bin Laden of John Kerry."

And thus were the last vestiges of the unity achieved on Sept. 11 wiped off the face of our politics. If holding power meant reaching this ultimate in guilt-by-association (and more respectable conservative commentators were offering similar thoughts in a more respectable way), then go right ahead and use bin Laden to win the election. The mess can be cleaned up later.

But the mess will not be easily cleaned up. Unity will not be easily restored. The willingness of the president's camp to slander the opposition will not be easily forgotten.

I think a majority of the country knows this, which is why I have a hunch that the president will lose. The virtues so many Americans outside of Bush's party thought they saw in Bush in the months immediately after Sept. 11 -- especially that short-lived willingness to put the needs of the national emergency over the temptations of ideology and partisanship -- are the virtues the president has chosen to abandon.

It's a shame, really. Bush could have been a great president. He was for several months. He chose instead to be the leader of a party and a faction. However this election turns out, that's what he'll still be on Nov. 3.

I like Dionne a lot: among the newspaper editorialists, he's one of the best thinkers and writers around, but I find him excessively generous here. Bush wasn't a great president for several months. EJ must have forgotten about the Patriot Act.

Kind of Beautiful

Faith in America
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: November 2, 2004

Florida's early polling was designed to make voting easier, but enormous voter turnout swamped the limited number of early polling sites. Over the weekend, people in some polling places had to stand in line for four, five, even six hours, often in the hot sun. Some of them - African-Americans in particular - surely suspected that those lines were so long because officials wanted to make it hard for them to vote. Yet they refused to be discouraged or intimidated.

Here's what a correspondent from Florida wrote to Joshua Marshall, of talkingpointsmemo.com: "To see people coming out - elderly, disabled, blind, poor; people who have to hitch rides, take buses, etc. - and then staying in line for hours and hours and hours ... Well, it's humbling. And it's awesome. And it's kind of beautiful."

Yes, it is. I always get a little choked up when I go to the local school to cast my vote. The humbleness of the surroundings only emphasizes the majesty of the process: this is democracy, America's great gift to the world, in action.

But over the last few days I've been seeing pictures from Florida that are even more majestic. They show long lines of voters, snaking through buildings and on down the sidewalk: citizens patiently waiting to do their civic duty. Those people still believe in American democracy; and because they do, so do I.

In truth, I wasn't sure what would happen in Florida this year. After all that has gone wrong with voting in that state, it seemed all too possible that many people would simply give up and stay home.

But it's already clear that the people of Florida - and, I believe, America as a whole - have refused to give in to cynicism and spin.

Far from being discouraged by what happened in 2000, they seem to realize more than ever - and better than those of us in the chattering classes - what a precious thing the right to vote really is. And they are determined to exercise that right.

And it's not just in Florida. Similar stories are coming in from across the country, wherever early voting is allowed: everywhere, huge numbers of voters are coming to the polls, determined to exercise their democratic rights.

Of course, most Americans won't get their chance to vote until today, but I have no doubt that they will turn out in record numbers. I don't think the rain that will blanket some parts of the country will deter them. Regardless of their politics, most Americans understand that this is a crucial election, and that never before has their vote mattered so much for the nation's destiny.

The talking heads on TV will no doubt frame all of this in partisan terms: light turnout favors one party, heavy turnout favors the other. True enough.

But this isn't a zero-sum game: the more people vote, the more vital is our democracy.

By coming to the polls, citizens are literally giving a vote of confidence in American democracy. And in so doing, they are proving themselves wiser than some of those they elected.

Those who govern us seem to have learned little from the 2000 electoral debacle: voting machines are still unreliable, voting officials are still unforgivably partisan.

But the public seems to have learned a lesson. Instead of becoming cynical, people seem to have become motivated. After an election in which a few hundred votes determined the fate of the nation, after four years of an administration that has demonstrated, for good or ill, that it matters a lot who becomes president, citizens know that their votes matter. And they are determined to cast those votes.

What will happen when they do cast those votes? I don't know; neither does anyone else. That's how democracy works.

Regular readers won't be in any doubt about who I want to win, though New York Times rules prevent me from giving any explicit endorsement. (Hint: it's the side that benefits from large turnout.) Above all, though, I want to see democracy vindicated, and the stain of 2000 eradicated, by a clean election in which as many people as possible get to cast their votes, and have those votes counted.

And all the evidence says that's what the American people want, too. May all of us get our wish.

That's what I saw this morning, too, Paul: my neighbors were beautiful as they stood on line this morning, I was proud of my precinct's early turn-out. I'm hopeful for the republic.

Voting Thread

Got a story from your polling place? I have a colleague who has not yet made it in to the office and has been waiting in line in Rosslyn, Virginia since 9. Another had an hour wait at 6:15 in Virginia, another waited 2 hours at 8:30 in DC.

If voter turn-out is what turns this election, it is going to be a massive Kerry win.

From the Field

My colleague phones in from the poll he's watching in West Philly: no problems, heavy voter volume, dense Republican presence at the poll, something called "The Union League." If you have information on this organization, leave it in comments or email me: because I'm traveling today, use my Yahoo account

[email protected]

Data Points

Going into voting day, here is Electoral Vote's predictive map. Thank you for your hard work, Andrew Tanenbaum.

Election Day, from Abroad

'Like sleeping with an insomniac elephant'

Canadians fear the US has lost its way, and see the forthcoming presidential election as more important than their own, says Anne McIlroy

Monday November 1, 2004

Canadians believe the US presidential election will have a greater impact on them than their own recent general election did, a new poll has shown.

Matters have gone far beyond dislike or disapproval - many Canadians loathe the US president, George Bush, and are fervently hoping that John Kerry will be victorious in tomorrow's election.

Poll after poll has shown that a majority of Canadians want the Democrat to win Tuesday's vote, but a new survey, published in the Canadian edition of Time magazine this week, revealed just how visceral anti-Bush sentiment has become.

"Canadians see him as a sorcerer's apprentice leading the US and the world over a cliff. It is a somewhat irrational demonisation," says Frank Graves, one of Canada's leading pollsters.

In an interview, Mr Graves said the new survey showed Canadians were "apoplectic" about the possibility that Mr Bush would win again, believing that a victory for him would be a blow to world peace and stability.

Not all Canadians feel this way, but a strong majority do. The survey found that 64% want to see Mr Kerry triumph, while only 19% would prefer to see Mr Bush remaining in office.

The strong opposition to the US president appears to be due to his swaggering, sometimes sneering, style, and the "ham-fisted way" in which he has handled the conflict in Iraq. Canadians opposed the US-led invasion, and supported their own government's decision not to join US-led forces - a stance that has grown stronger as time has gone on.

The public's strong emotional reaction to Mr Bush is shared by some elected politicians. As US-led forces prepared to invade Iraq last year, the Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish said: "Damn Americans. I hate those bastards." She later apologised.

Her remarks were extreme, and not a reflection - according to the polls - of how Canadians feel about ordinary Americans. It is President Bush and his administration they dislike.

Even senior members of Paul Martin's Liberal government have publicly expressed a clear preference for Mr Kerry, saying they feel more comfortable with his style and agenda.

The new poll showed Canadians are hopeful that, if Mr Kerry wins, he will improve US performance on environmental issues and trade.

Mr Kerry appears to be more committed to progressive environmental policies than President Bush, but there is little sign that the Democratic challenger - who has the support of organised labour - would be a particular friend to Canada and reverse the protectionist trade measures adopted by Mr Bush and the Republicans.
....
Now Canadians have deep and growing concerns that the US has lost its way. "It is like sleeping with an elephant who is an insomniac," says Mr Graves.

pogge, do you have a comment?

GOTV!

Today is the most important election of my lifetime, maybe the most important in more than a century, and CNN devoted more time to Scott and Laci yesterday than to the election, and it makes the front of the WaPo this morning. What the hell kind of country is this?

GOTV!

John Greenleaf Whittier's "The Poor Voter on Election Day."

To-day, of all the weary year,
A king of men am I.
To-day, alike are great and small,
The nameless and the known;
My palace is the people's hall,
The ballot-box my throne!
The rich is level with the poor,
The weak is strong to-day;
And sleekest broadcloth counts no more
Than homespun frock of gray.
To-day let pomp and vain pretence
My stubborn right abide;
I set a plain man's common sense
Against the pedant's pride.
The wide world has not wealth to buy
The power in my right hand!

My right hand inked in the Occuvote boxes for my candidates, we use optical scan technology in my little city.

Voting

There was a line, about 15 minutes at 6:45 AM, in a precinct where I've never seen a line. I'm glad I voted early.

Election day

I'm off to vote. I'll have more after I've been to the polls.

Goodnight, Moon

Okay, kids, I've got to be up around 5, 4 if I'm going to post before the commute to work and vote, and I'm outta here for the night.

Tomorrow is going to be an amazing and historic day. I plan to show up for all of it and bring it to you for comment here.

Time for bed. Eddie, Rosa, you on board for that? Man, the cats are clingy tonight: they predict earthquakes, you know, and I wonder what they are sensing this evening....

Beside the Point

From Telegenic to Telegeneric

By Tom Shales
Monday, November 1, 2004; Page C01

Ever since the coolly charismatic John F. Kennedy defeated sweaty-lipped Richard Nixon in the first televised presidential debates -- and then went on to beat him in the election of 1960 -- nearly everyone has accepted the notion that TV is the most important element in any presidential campaign. Whoever comes across best on television, supposedly, will swoosh to victory at the polls. That's assuming the voting machines work, among other variables.

But what happens when neither candidate comes across well on television? Maybe TV cancels itself out as The Great Decider, and maybe substance surpasses style, proving that television can convey the former as well as the latter. Then again, much of the role that television has been playing in politics is being usurped by the ever-ravenous Internet.
....
George W. Bush, the recumbent incumbent, is about as exciting on TV as a sock puppet -- but his appearances are not without a compelling sort of suspense. He can induce tension in viewers who fear he may make, on camera, some grotesque gaffe that will embarrass the nation, and there's always nervous concern about whether the prompting devices will break down and leave him speechless in more ways than one.

Bush has achieved something unique in TV personas, managing on occasion to come across as arrogant and terrified at the same time. In his eyes one can see fear when he struggles -- often vainly -- for an apt word or phrase or just a little burst of coherence. And yet he's also possessed of an almost Napoleonic pomposity when performing presidential duties, such as thrusting out his chest and strutting up to a podium. He tried on different personalities in the presidential debates, sometimes attempting gravitas, sometimes speaking down to the audience as if it consisted entirely of third-graders, and then in the last debate turning into Laughing Boy, finding his opponent's remarks to be so darn funny he just couldn't contain himself.

The debates themselves choked in their own red tape, too rigidly rigged with rules and regulations. Now there's some question whether they even had much influence. Kerry won all the debates, both in terms of style and content, and he experienced his appropriate upticks in the polls. But here we are down to the wire and the race is the proverbial neck-and-neck one, as Tim Russert made clear -- sort of -- with what seemed like thousands of numbers from hundreds of polls on yesterday's edition of NBC's "Meet the Press."

Russert maintains his love of politics as a game and seemed all juiced and jazzed and raring to play. But this isn't that kind of election, is it? It is a 9/11-aftershock election. The long twin shadows still cast their pall. The "war against terrorism" seems at times so unwinnable -- as Bush inadvertently blurted out one day -- that you wonder why either candidate really wants to be elected president.
....
As for Bush, his constituency obviously doesn't care about his prowess on the pulpit, or his minimal abilities as public speaker and fireside chatterer. Either they don't care that he can look foolish on TV, or else they think he looks just fine. They don't consider him ludicrous even when he is fumbling around with a question at one of his shockingly infrequent press conferences, or landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in some mad modern version of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

So whom do the Democrats nominate to go up against Bush, this man who all but turns blank under the allegedly revealing rays of a television camera? John Kerry, a man with less channelable charisma than Wolf Blitzer. Something is wrong when, the minute a candidate is chosen as his party's nominee, he is shunted off to some mysterious laboratory in a valiant if vain effort to make him less stiff (the one word that always comes up when people describe Kerry) and spooky, to make him somehow camera-worthy in time for the convention.

The number of wrongheaded decisions from the Kerry imagemakers would appear to be enormous, including the photos that showed this oh-so-serious man of the people, this regular guy who spoke repeatedly of his devotion to the middle class, merrily wind-surfing in the waters off Nantucket, or Martha's Vineyard, or some other place where Mr. and Mrs. America never go, which is part of what makes the rich people feel so safe and comfy there. He looked nearly as preposterous on a hunting trip that looked more like a GQ fashion shoot.

Ever since Kerry started looming large in the public eye, some of us have tried to figure out which fictional TV or movie character he reminds us of. His dreary professorial nature suggests a rather obscure image only a few movie buffs could recognize: the mad scientist who continues living even though his head is severed in 1985's "Re-Animator." Kerry would have to be animated before he could be re-animated, however.

I think that the pompous ass here is Tom Shales. Uh, Tom, the election isn't about television images, it is about serious and substantial differences of policy, character and our very real lives. I know that we little people are of no interest to you, but columns like this one make me furious. You think it's all about style, but it is about my tax rates, the drinkability of my water, my continuing employment and my health insurance. You Kewl Kids don't have to think about those things, apparently. The rest of us lose sleep over them.

It's the Washington Post, not John Kerry, which is completely out of touch with our lives.

Bump Goes Philly

Okay, Bumpers, here is what the next 36 hours is going to look like: I have an appointment this evening and will be out for a few hours, but I think you can expect a post or two before I head for bed. Tomorrow will begin very early, just as I nearly always do, between 4 and 5. I intend to be at my polling place when it opens tomorrow morning at 6, and then off to work. I should have a couple of things up before I head downtown. The office will be very quiet tomorrow: most of my colleagues are lawyers who are working election protection all over the east coast. That means I'll have time to configure the new laptop before I head off to Philly between three and four. The train trip is a couple of hours and I'm planning to meet Lambert at the Hausbrandt by 7 and we'll blog together until about 11. I'm staying overnight tomorrow night in Philly and then catching an early train home. Tomorrow night's posts will be mostly short observations, I'll leave the analytical stuff until Wednesday. I'll also be posting to The American Street tomorrow night (my usual day writing there is Sunday, but it looks like everyone on the roster is going to put their oar in tomorrow.)

If you are in Philly and want to stop by and say hello, the Hausbrandt is at 207 So. 15th. Street. I know that I'd enjoy meeting you.

Accident Waiting to Happen

CNN just broadcast a hunk of Bush on the stump today, saying that our "economy is strong and getting stronger." Morgan Stanley's Steve Roach, an economist who is in a position to actually know something about it, doesn't think so:

In my view, the US economy is an accident waiting to happen. That’s the message to be taken from a record shortfall in national saving, a record current-account deficit, record levels of household indebtedness, a record deficiency of personal saving, and outsize government budget deficits. The emphasis is on the word “record.” Never before has the United States pushed the envelope to this degree on such a wide array of economic imbalances.

That spirit has been squandered. Americans are at odds with one another, with a deep and worrisome intensity. And the world sees us in a stark, adversarial light. The cynics say this is just politics -- that such divisiveness is the norm, especially during times of war. I beg to differ. Today, polarization is playing on the character of America -- in the end, any nation’s most precious asset. Sadly, that character is now at risk, both at home and abroad. As dawn breaks the day after tomorrow, that will be the first thing on my mind.

Steve is non-partisan, but the blame for this worrying situation lies directly at the feet of the Republican radicals who hijacked their party back in 1994 and turned the media into dissemination organs for RNC talking points.

Another Defector

Bush Pal Comer Cottrell Quits GOP
by Cheryl Smith
NNPA Special Contributor

DALLAS (NNPA)-- Dallas millionaire and fellow Republican Comer Cottrell, one of President George W. Bush’s former business partners, has announced that he is joining the Democratic Party.

Citing his disappointment with the president’s politics, Cottrell, who amassed his fortune as the founder of the Pro-Line Corporation specializing in Black hair care products, said the move was something he had been considering for a while.

“This is not a condemnation of a friend,” Cottrell explains. “It’s a matter of political issues we disagree on.”

Cottrell, who shared ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team with a group of businessmen that included Bush, went on to discuss the state of the economy; medical care issues, health insurance concerns and the war in Iraq as areas he and the president were not in agreement about.

“I sent my son to war this week, but not in Iraq. He went to Florida because we have a battleground there,” he said, referencing election problems in 2000 and the news that there are still unsolved problems with the process, like the lack of a uniform voting system.

In Dallas, surrounded by former Dallas City Councilman Al Lipscomb, Dallas County Democratic Party Chair Susan Hay and executive director Daniel Clayton, former Dallas Southern Christian Leadership Conference President Peter Johnson, New Black Panther Party national chief of staff Hashim Nzinga, Democratic State Representative nominee Marc Veasey and Roscoe Smith from U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s office, Cottrell talked of his long-time relationship with Bush.

“George has been a friend of mine,” he explained. “George and I have been in business together but that doesn’t mean we have to think alike.”

Lipscomb agreed as he commended Cottrell for his stance.

“This is really significant,” Lipscomb said. “Here you have someone of Comer Cottrell’s stature, a friend of President Bush’s, a long-time Republican who is saying ‘no more’ of the Republican Party’s politics.

“This is huge. This is gigantic. It brings so much to Texas and the Democratic Party.”

No, this isn't going to deliver Texas for Kerry, but it does mean that he is going to be competative in more states than the CW would lead you to believe.

Florida Battleground

via Steve Gilliard, who is burning up his keyboard today:

INSPIRATIONAL NEWS

* Early voting sites all over Florida are reporting that virtually no one is leaving, even when they have lines as long as six hours. People are excited and determined.
* One of our gated community groups split up at the start of one of their runs. Two of them were kicked out by security. The other two managed to miss being noticed. In order to cover the entire canvass that the other two would have done, they forgoed lunch, and canvassed ALL DAY in the community.
* one volunteer broke her foot on the tarmac on her way to catching her flight to Florida. She received treatment in Boca. Yesterday, she then CANVASSED. That was yesterday. Today she asked if she could do some work that didn't involve as much walking. Yea, we complied. We had her move boxes. (I kid, she answered phones.)

The GOTV effort here is getting lots of attention and making a huge difference. If you happen to be in a swing state, or near one, contact your local ACT office and see if you can get in on the last two days of canvassing. Every single last knock makes a huge difference in our turnout. The results so far have been...well...I can't devulge that, but we'll just say things are going "well." You have the power. Now go vote and then drag all your friends to the polls.

Change for America's blog is documenting voter suppression and fraud attempts and are a part of the election protection effort. All the signs point to record-breaking turn-out for this election. Every citizen who participates in GOTV and voter protection in this election is a hero in my eyes.

Miserable Failure

A Failed Presidency

If elections were solely a job performance review, President George W. Bush would lose in a landslide. He has been a reckless steward of the nation's finances and its environment, a divisive figure at home and abroad. It's fair to say that Bush has devalued the American brand in the global marketplace.

What keeps this a close race is voter discomfort with Sen. John F. Kerry and the success of Republicans in stoking concerns about Kerry's fitness for office. But the thrust of the Bush campaign message — essentially, you are stuck with me in this frightful time because the other guy is too unreliable — is a tacit acknowledgment that he can't allow the election to be a referendum on his record.

Bush says John Kerry is ill suited to lead American troops and allies in Iraq, given the senator's doubts about the wisdom of going to war there in the first place. The president's strongest moments during the debates came when he pressed this line of attack — that you can't succeed in a mission you don't believe in. Kerry missed a golden opportunity to turn such reasoning to his advantage, for if there is an overarching theme to the Bush failure as president, it's his inherent disdain for the role of the federal government and for the very act of governing. The mission of the presidency is not one Bush believes in. Though he may see himself as the man chosen by a higher authority to protect the nation, Bush spends a lot of time bashing Washington and, by extension, the government he leads.

Try to imagine Franklin D. Roosevelt being so disdainful of government while trying to rally the nation during World War II. It wouldn't have worked. Nor would it have worked if he had starved the Treasury of the resources needed to accomplish the mission. That is what Bush has done with his reckless tax cuts and unabated domestic spending.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the White House initially opposed the move to federalize airport security. Bush was also against creating the Department of Homeland Security, until he realized he was going to lose that fight too. Often forgotten, these were revealing moments.
....
Bush's lack of seriousness — and his stubborn refusal to alter course in the face of altered circumstance — explains his administration's notorious hostility toward expertise of all kinds. Whether it is his own Treasury secretary telling him his tax cuts are no longer affordable, intelligence analysts raising doubts about a supposed Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein tie, or his proconsul in Iraq clamoring for more ground troops, Bush has a way of freezing out expertise he deems inconvenient. The terribly botched occupation of Iraq — and the lost opportunity it represents according to the president's own assessment of the stakes in that conflict — is the price the United States pays for its president's obstinacy.

Back in 2000, Bush was the quintessential Sept. 10 candidate, a president for an era of seemingly low stakes. His candidacy was all about downsizing the office of the presidency, the federal government and the American role in the world. Bush ran as the good-natured, back-slapping governor of Texas whose only worry in life seemed to be the prospect of all that surplus taxpayer money stashed away in Washington, getting wasted on such frivolities as Medicare and Social Security reform. He promised to curtail the regulatory state at home and promote a more humble foreign policy abroad. He was harshly critical of Clinton-era nation-building overseas and treated diplomacy as a nuisance once in office.
....
All along, this President Bush is one a solid majority of Americans wanted to like and wanted to rally around, but it's his record that gets in the way of a reelection waltz akin to that of Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Clinton in 1996.

Tuesday needn't have been a cliffhanger; the country is not immutably locked into a 50-50 blue-red divide. It's the failure of the Bush presidency that has led us back here.

You have to be willfully ignorant to see this failure as anything other than what it is. To the astonishment of the rest of the planet, someplace north of 40% of American voters will vote for him. No, friends, I can't explain it, either.

Uncurious and Unserious

In WaPo's Al Kamens' In the Loop column this morning:

Please Give Body Armor

FedBizOpps (FBO), which has replaced the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) as the official listing of all federal government contracting opportunities and awards of more than $25,000, has this unusual announcement on its Web site.

"Sources are being sought for body armor, SAPI plates" (stands for Small Arms Protective Inserts, which are put in flak jackets to protect troops from bullets) "and kevlar helmets for delivery to Mosul, Iraq. Photos and specifications for the items must be able to be provided. Only Iraqi firms are eligible," it says, sounding like a small-business set-aside provision.

"Please contact Capt. Paul Winka and MAJ Louis Palazzo BY EMAIL ONLY if interested in providing these items. . . . Do not contact James Addas, despite the fact his name is listed below. This is not a solicitation, and funds are not currently available for an award. It is anticipated there will be funds soon." The $70 billion supplemental is on the way!

On last night's 60 Minutes

GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets

Oct. 31, 2004

CBS) Two weeks ago, a group of Army reservists in Iraq refused a direct order to go on a dangerous operation to re-supply another unit with jet fuel.

Davis said his Humvee was armored with plywood, sandbags, and armor salvaged from old Iraqi tanks.

Think it's time to put the grownups back in charge?

Voting Begins

I pulled this from the comments in a diary at Daily Kos this morning because it brought tears to my eyes:

In Pasco County, Florida:

I slipped a pack of pinochle cards into her coffin for that Great Game she went on to - god, how she loved her Tuesday night card games with 'the girls'.

I think this says a little something about the kind of intensity voters are bringing to this election. It is going to be Kerry in a landslide.

I plan to be at my polling place when it opens tomorrow morning at 6 in order to avoid the lines. Lines will say a lot about the election: my precinct votes heavily Democratic and turnout is normally north of 60%, but I've never had to wait in line despite the fact that I've usually voted at mid-day or after work. I think tomorrow will be different.

You Have To Read the Foreign Press

Pentagon suppresses details of civilian casualties, says expert
By Raymond Whitaker

31 October 2004

The Pentagon is collecting figures on local casualties in Iraq, contrary to its public claims, but the results are classified, according to one of the authors of an independent study which reported last week that the war has killed at least 100,000 Iraqis.

"Despite the claim of the head of US Central Command at the time, General Tommy Franks, that 'We don't do body counts', the US military does collect casualty figures in Iraq," said Professor Richard Garfield, an expert on the effects of conflict on civilians. "But since 1991, when Colin Powell was head of the joint chiefs of staff, the figures have been kept secret."

Professor Garfield, who lectures at Columbia University in New York and the London School of Hygiene and Public Health, believes the Pentagon's stance has confused its response to the latest study. "The military is saying: 'We don't believe it, but because we don't collect figures, we can't comment," he said.

"Mr Powell decided to keep the figures secret because of the controversy over body counts in Vietnam, but I think democracies need this information."

The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war, published last week in The Lancet, showed a higher level of casualties than previous estimates. Iraqbodycount.net, a website which collects accounts of Iraqi civilian deaths reported by two separate media sources, said yesterday the toll was between 14,181 and 16,312, but admits that the spreading violence in Iraq, which has made it all but impossible for journalists to move around safely, has undermined its method. That did not prevent the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, from using its figures to cast doubt on the academic survey.

The Government would examine the results "with very great care", Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today programme last week. "It is an estimate based on very different methodology from standard methodology for assessing casualties, namely on the number of people reported to have been killed at the time or around the time." Previously the Government has dismissed the findings of the Iraqbodycount website.

The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all

More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage?

Scott Ritter
Monday November 1, 2004
The Guardian

The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.

Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.

Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.

It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history.

But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world war.

The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months.

Check the A sections of the NYT, LAT and WaPo today: you won't find this story anywhere.

Mistake Worse than Crime

Not Much Choice in Plans for Iraq
Instability and a lack of military options mean the candidates would likely take similar paths.

By Tyler Marshall and Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — No single campaign issue has defined the presidential candidates' differences more clearly than the war in Iraq. Yet it seems that whoever wins Tuesday's election will steer a remarkably similar course in the troubled country.

Despite their passionate debate on the issue, President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry, offer plans for Iraq that substantially overlap. Both are committed to stepping up the pace of training a new Iraqi security force, holding national elections quickly and broadening international military support for the effort.

The reason for the like-minded strategies isn't hard to find: The bleak realities that define conditions in Iraq, and the political climate surrounding the conflict leave little room for either candidate to move in a bold new direction.

"Both will follow the same strategy," predicted Gary Samore, director of studies at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London and a National Security Council aide in the Clinton administration. "They will try to cobble together a new Iraqi government, build up Iraqi security forces and then begin to draw down U.S. forces."

With little dividing the candidates' proposed strategies or goals, the debate has been dominated by differences in style and character.

Kerry has cast Bush as a hard-edged unilateralist whose actions have made it impossible for him to achieve key elements of his plan for Iraq. Bush sketches Kerry as a man who lacks the strength and leadership skills to make the tough decisions at hand.

The debate has also focused heavily on the past — on Bush's decision to invade Iraq and his handling of the violent aftermath.

"One of the ultimate paradoxes of this campaign is that the subject that so greatly divides the nation and is the source of such differences between the two candidates doesn't point to a different path in the future," said Thomas Carothers, a senior associate and director of the Democracy and Rule of Law project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "This is a huge debate, but it is about the past, not the future."

As such, the choice on Iraq facing voters Tuesday is far more nuanced than the stark options presented to the country 32 years ago — the last time America's military involvement in a far-off nation so dominated a presidential campaign. In that election, an America deeply divided over the war in Vietnam opted overwhelmingly for Richard Nixon's call for a negotiated "peace with honor" in Vietnam over George McGovern's pledge to pull troops out immediately.

For Iraq, such alternatives are not part of the debate. Neither Bush nor Kerry advocates a sharp buildup or an immediate drawdown of U.S. military forces as the key to a solution in Iraq, because neither course is deemed viable. With nine of the U.S. Army's 10 combat divisions either having been deployed to Iraq or preparing to go, military analysts said, American force levels are stretched too thin to contemplate significantly higher numbers.
....
There is evidence — at least among undecided voters — that the chaos has begun to work against the president.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center in Washington, said that a recent survey of 500 swing voters who were undecided in early September found that those who since have committed to Kerry were thinking more about Iraq than those who moved to Bush.

Still, experts say that whoever wins will have little room to maneuver in the short term.

"There are no attractive alternatives to what's going on now," Samore said. "There are just not very many good options."

Declare victory and get out. Bill Lind, apostle of 4th Gen Warfare philosopher John Boyd, reminds us:

Our nightly bombing of Fallujah illustrates another important point about 4GW: to call it “terrorism” is a misnomer. In fact, terrorism is merely a technique, and we use it too when we think it will benefit us. In Madam Albright’s boutique war on Serbia, when the bombing campaign against the Serbian Army in Kosovo failed, we resorted to terror bombing of civilian targets in Serbia proper. Now, we are using terror bombing on Fallujah.

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the turkey. Obvious double standards put us on the moral low ground. The rest of the world can see the hypocrisy, even if what passes for America’s “leaders” cannot. As the old saying goes, it is worse than a crime; it is a blunder.

Days of Rage

Days of Shame
By BOB HERBERT

Published: November 1, 2004

Overseas, our troops are being mauled in the long dark night of Iraq - a war with no end in sight that has already claimed the lives of more than 1,100 American troops and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of innocent Iraqis.

At home, the party of the sitting president is systematically stomping on the right of black Americans to vote, a vile and racist practice that makes a mockery of the president's claim to favor real democracy anywhere.

This will never be seen as a shining moment in U.S. history.

There is a hallucinatory quality to the news as Americans prepare to vote tomorrow in what is probably the most critical election the country has faced since 1932. Osama bin Laden made his bizarre cameo appearance on Friday, taunting the president who once promised to get him dead or alive. Commentators have been compulsively reading the tea leaves ever since, trying to determine who was helped by the video, George W. Bush or John Kerry.

On Saturday, as if to take our minds off the sideshow, nine more American marines were killed in the Iraq slaughterhouse. It was the deadliest day for U.S. forces in six months. The death toll for Iraqis, which the U.S. government has tried mightily to keep from the American people, is flat out horrifying. Unofficial estimates of the number of Iraqis killed in the war have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000. But a survey conducted by scientists from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad compared the death rates of Iraqis before and after the American invasion. They estimated that 100,000 more Iraqis have died in the 18 months since the invasion than would have been expected based on Iraqi death rates before the war.

The scientists acknowledged that the survey was difficult to compile and that their findings represent a rough estimate. But even if they were off by as many as 20,000 or 40,000 deaths, their findings would still be chilling.

Most of the widespread violent deaths, the scientists reported, were attributed to coalition forces. "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces," the report said, "were women and children."

That people are dying by the tens of thousands in a war that did not have to be fought - a war that was launched by the United States - is mind-boggling.

Also mind-boggling is the attempt by Republican Party elements to return the U.S. to the wretched days of the mid-20th century when many black Americans faced harassment, intimidation and worse for daring to exercise their fundamental right to vote. A flier circulating extensively in black neighborhoods in Wisconsin carries the heading "Milwaukee Black Voters League." It asserts that people are not eligible to vote if they have voted in any previous election this year; if they have ever been found guilty of anything, even a traffic violation; or if anyone in their family has ever been found guilty of anything.

"If you violate any of these laws," the flier says, "you can get ten years in prison and your children will get taken away from you."

In Philadelphia, where a large black vote is essential to a Kerry victory in the crucial state of Pennsylvania, the Republican speaker of the Pennsylvania House, John Perzel, is hard at work challenging Democratic voters. He makes no bones about his intent, telling U.S. News & World Report:

"The Kerry campaign needs to come out with humongous numbers here in Philadelphia. It's important for me to keep that number down."

That's called voter suppression, folks, and the G.O.P. concentrates its voter-suppression efforts in the precincts where there are large numbers of African-Americans. And that's called racism.

These are days of shame for the United States. No one writing a civics text for American high school students would recommend this kind of behavior for a great and mighty nation. We have to figure out a way to extricate ourselves from Iraq and rebuild a truly representative democracy here at home. Right now we have a mess on both fronts.

This is one of the reasons I'll be in Philly tomorrow night. If we want to be a democracy, we've got to hold accountable the people we elect to represent us. It seems to me that the Bushies laugh at this idea. I don't. I'll be posting field reports on voter fraud and suppression from poll watchers and election protection volunteers from Philly and the Just Democracy volunteers across the country.

My hat is off to those willing to bust their butts to keep this democracy.

Governing in the Dark

Psst. President Bush Is Hard at Work Expanding Government Secrecy
By DOROTHY SAMUELS

Published: November 1, 2004

It is only inevitable, I suppose, that some big issues never make it onto the agenda of a presidential campaign, and other lesser issues, or total nonissues, somehow emerge instead. Electoral politics, as Americans are regularly being reminded these final hard-fought days before the election, is a brutal, messy business, not an antiseptic political science exercise.

That said, I hereby confess to feeling disappointed over Senator John Kerry's failure to home in hard on one of the more worrisome domestic policy developments of the past four years - namely the Bush administration's drastic expansion of needless government secrecy.

President Bush's antipathy to open government continues to garner only a trivial level of attention compared with the pressing matters that seem to be engaging the country at the moment, including, in no particular order, the Red Sox, Iraq, terrorism, taxes and the mysterious iPod-size bulge visible under the back of Mr. Bush's suit jacket at the first debate. But the implications for a second term are ominous.

Beyond undermining the constitutional system of checks and balances, undue secrecy is a proven formula for faulty White House decision-making and debilitating scandal. If former President Richard Nixon, the nation's last chief executive with a chronic imperial disdain for what Justice Louis Brandeis famously called the disinfecting power of sunlight, were alive today, I like to think he'd be advising Mr. Bush to choose another role model.

As detailed in a telling new Congressional report, Mr. Bush's secrecy obsession - by now a widely recognized hallmark of his presidency - is truly out of hand.

The 90-page report, matter-of-factly titled "Secrecy in the Bush Administration," was released with little fanfare in September by Representative Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, and one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration's steady descent into greater and greater secrecy. The objective was to catalog the myriad ways that President Bush and his appointees have undermined existing laws intended to advance public access to information, while taking an expansive view of laws that authorize the government to operate in secrecy, or to withhold certain information.

Some of the instances the report cites are better known than others. Among the more notorious, of course, are the administration's ongoing refusal to disclose contacts between Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force and energy company executives, or to explain the involvement of Mr. Cheney's office in the awarding of huge sole-source contracts to Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction; the post-9/11 rush to embrace shameful, unconstitutional practices like secret detentions and trials; and the resistance and delay in turning over key documents sought by the Sept. 11 commission.

The report lists many other troubling examples as well. Mr. Bush and his appointees have routinely impeded Congress's constitutionally prescribed oversight role by denying reasonable requests from senior members of Congressional committees for basic information. They forced a court fight over access to the Commerce Department's corrected census counts, for instance, withheld material relating to the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and stonewalled attempts to collect information on meetings and phone conversations between Karl Rove, the presidential adviser, and executives of firms in which he owned stock. The administration has also taken to treating as top secret documents previously available under the Freedom of Information Act - going so far as to reverse the landmark act's presumption in favor of disclosure and to encourage agencies to withhold a broad, hazily defined universe of "sensitive but unclassified" information.

Under a phony banner of national security, Mr. Bush has reversed reasonable steps by the Clinton administration to narrow the government's capacity to classify documents. Aside from being extremely expensive, the predictably steep recent increase in decisions to classify information runs starkly counter to recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission geared to strengthening oversight of the intelligence agencies.

Greg Palast has been reporting this since forever and back in May Bill Moyers told us:

Freedom and freedom of the press were birth twins of the revolution. They grew up together, and neither has fared well without the other. At times, journalism has risen to great occasions and even made other freedoms possible. From editors who went defiantly to prison after being charged under the sedition act for circulating opinions that questioned the motives of Congress, or 'criminating' (whatever that meant) the president, to the willingness of Arthur Sulzberger and Katherine Graham to risk criminal prosecution under espionage laws if they printed the Pentagon Papers; from Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair taking on the shame of the cities, the crimes of the trusts, and the treason of the senate, to Walter Cronkite devoting an entire broadcast to Watergate; from Seymour Hersh reporting on torture to 60 Minutes II broadcasting the horror of Abu Ghraib, the greatest moments in journalism have come not when journalists made common cause with power, but when they stood fearlessly independent of it.

And one last thing. The character in Tom Stoppard's play Night And Day summed it up when he said: "people do terrible things to each other, but it's worse in places where everything is kept in the dark."

If you don't want people to know what you are doing, there is probably a reason why. The Bushies make Machiavelli look like Emily Dickenson.

That said, fixing the press is going to be a long term project. The other day, a friend said to me, "I remember when Wolf Blitzer was a real journalist, when he reported from a war zone. He seems to have forgotten."

Exactly.

Free to Spread

States Are Battling Against Wal-Mart Over Health Care
By REED ABELSON

Published: November 1, 2004

In the national debate over what to do about the growing number of working people with little or no health insurance, no other company may be taking more heat than the country's largest employer, Wal-Mart Stores.

The company, despite its popularity with consumers, has grown accustomed to being accused of crushing Main Street merchants with its sprawling stores and low prices and of driving down wages for workers across the retail industry. And more than a million former and current female Wal-Mart employees are part of a sex discrimination lawsuit that the company is fighting.

Now, Wal-Mart finds itself under attack for what critics see as its miserly approach to employee health care, which they say is forcing too many of its workers and their families into state insurance programs or making them rely on charity care by hospitals.

Wal-Mart vigorously defends its health care policies, saying it offers affordable coverage for all employees.

The company says it has no way of knowing how many of its employees, whom it calls associates, or their families are insured under state programs. The larger issue of whether companies can and should absorb the soaring cost of health care is a national issue, said Susan Chambers, the executive vice president who oversees benefits at Wal-Mart. "You can't solve it for the 1.2 million associates if you can't solve it for the country.''

A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were in the state's health program for children at an annual cost of nearly $10 million to taxpayers. A North Carolina hospital found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as Wal-Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent had no insurance at all.

And backers of a measure that will be on California's ballot tomorrow, which would force big employers like Wal-Mart to either provide affordable health insurance to their workers or pay into a state insurance pool, say Wal-Mart employees without company insurance are costing California's state health care programs an estimated $32 million a year.

Meanwhile, in Washington State, where the insurance commissioner is pushing the legislature to adopt a law similar to the one on the California ballot, companies that struggle to compete with Wal-Mart while insuring most of their own workers have become openly critical.

"Socially, we're engaged in a race to the bottom," said Craig Cole, the chief executive of Brown & Cole Stores, a supermarket chain that employs about 2,000 workers in Washington and adjoining states and pays for insurance coverage for about 95 percent of its employees. "Do we want to allow competition based on exploitation of the work force?" he asked.

Wal-Mart, which disputes the California figures and says it cannot verify the Georgia and North Carolina data, says its employees are largely insured. It cites internal surveys indicating that 90 percent of its employees have insurance - many through means other than Wal-Mart's coverage because they are senior citizens on Medicare, students covered by their parents' policies or employees with second jobs or working spouses.
....
Other data indicate that of the 45 million people without health insurance in this country, nearly 70 percent are working full time or are the dependents of full-time workers.

Wal-Mart's rise to become the nation's biggest employer and largest retailer also speaks to a larger shift in the economy in the last generation, as a growing proportion of jobs shifted to service industries. Wal-Mart has succeeded because tens of millions of shoppers around the country flock to its stores for its sharply discounted prices. That business model, which is being widely imitated, depends on low-cost labor.

But government officials in various states, as well as some other employers, say Wal-Mart should nevertheless share more of the financial burden of its workers' health care.

"The Wal-Mart executives chose to remove the responsibility from themselves," said Mike Kreidler, the insurance commissioner for Washington State, who is pushing for a law requiring employers to provide insurance coverage either directly or indirectly.

Although Wal-Mart officials flatly deny it, some Wal-Mart employees say they are encouraged to turn to public health care assistance. When Wal-Mart hired Samantha Caizza, a single mother of three, as a cashier at its Chehalis, Wash., store last November, she says she was told by a personnel manager "to get ahold of the state" for coverage for her children.

Unlike many Wal-Mart workers, Ms. Caizza was willing to talk to a reporter about her experience because she was fired in June - for reasons she said had to do with union organizing activities. Wal-Mart said it could not comment on her case.

The company hands out instructions to its employees to help them to apply to social service agencies, which Wal-Mart says is simply part of the service they provide employees who need to have their income verified for any number of reasons.

Many employees say they simply cannot afford the health plans being offered. Ms. Caizza, for example, worked about 32 hours a week, making $8 an hour. Full-time employees make about $1,200 a month on those wages, meaning the $133 to $264 they are asked to pay for family coverage may not be within their reach. And even the cheapest plans come with a hefty out-of-pocket price for employees, where they may be on the hook for as much as $13,000 in medical costs for their families.

"While I was working there, I couldn't afford it for my children," said Beverly Winston, another former employee, who says she turned to state-subsidized coverage for her children while working at Wal-Mart in Renton, Wash., in the late 1990's. Ms. Winston is among the group of women around the nation now suing the company for sex discrimination.

"We work very hard for that to be affordable," said Ms. Chambers, the Wal-Mart executive, who said she thought the prices for the least expensive plans were "a very reasonable opening-price point.''

With the number of uninsured people in Washington climbing - now slightly more than a half-million people, or 9.4 percent of the population by one estimate - the state is grappling with the rising costs of caring for them. "The problem is getting much worse," said Mr. Kreidler, who says the cost of caring for the uninsured in Washington now approaches $400 million a year.

Asking the hospitals to keep paying the rising cost of the uninsured is not a solution, Mr. Kreidler said.

But Wal-Mart says it is not reasonable to ask companies like it to solve the problems of the uninsured and the escalating cost of medical care. It needs to be "part of a national debate," Ms. Chambers said.

There is a risk cost to all of us of having uninsured people in the general population, some of which can be calculated and some of which can't. Having uninsured disease vectors in the general population is an incalculable cost.