Through the Roof

Oil Rises, Gasoline Surges to a Record as Fuel Supplies Decline

March 31 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose and gasoline and heating-oil surged to records on signs that U.S. refineries lack capacity to make enough fuel and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts predicted that oil could touch $105 a barrel.

Crude oil in New York surged to $57.60 a barrel on March 17, the highest since trading began in 1983. Prices are 55 percent higher than a year ago. Oil's average price of $50.03 over the past three months was the highest quarterly price on record. The average was up from $48.27 the previous three months and was the seventh straight quarterly increase.

Other analysts think that Goldman Sachs is being alarmest, but all grant that Goldman's previous reserve of $80/barrel is not incredible.

Blogosphere News

Side dish

...Are the Washington Post's editors brave (or crazy) enough to turn their "Reliable Source" gossip column over to the saucy blogger known as Wonkette? Ana Marie Cox has proclaimed that her strength is humor, not reporting. But we hear she's more than curious about the job that columnist Richard Leiby is vacating. The expletive-loving gadfly made it her business to be in NYC Tuesday for the party celebrating The Post's acquisition of Slate.com. But Post publisher Donald Graham appeared to slip out before she could lob a charm grenade at him. ...

The Babylonian Captivity of the Right

Exposing prolife zealotry

By Robert Kuttner

However, the public response to the Schiavo case tells a more complex story. While most Americans believe in God and attend church, synagogue, or mosque, few welcome the busybody behavior of the religious right, most recently in its morbid embrace of Terri Schiavo.

Too may of us have been through the agony of this kind of decision to want opportunistic politicians or religious crusaders to take it over. The right is at odds with 30 years of delicate progress in dealing with death and dying.

Three decades ago, the medical profession usually insisted that everything possible should be done to prolong life, however cruel, painful, and futile. The pioneers of the hospice movement gradually made inroads in demonstrating that a dying patient could be treated far more humanely via what came to be called ''palliative care." This meant attending to the patient's comfort, respecting the patient's wishes, and permitting strong painkillers that might, in some cases, even hasten death.

During the same period, states began passing living will legislation, giving people the right to stipulate in advance whether they wanted medical heroics in certain circumstances. Leaving aside the more controversial Oregon-style ''right to die" legislation, the living will and hospice movements represented immense progress largely supported by mainline religions. Many of the movement's pioneers were clergymen with ministries tending to the dying and their families. Many of the early direct caregivers in hospices were nuns.

Until the Schiavo case, the ''right-to-life" zealots pretty much left well enough alone when it came to end-of-life care. It's a harder sell to raid a hospice than an abortion clinic. Most Americans of all religious faiths, as well as the unaffiliated, want such decisions kept private.

Terri Schiavo's legacy could be the opposite of what the right intended. Americans are being reminded that the religious right and its politician-allies are zealots not just about abortion; they also want dogma to overrule science when it comes to stem cell research, contraception, and high school biology; they'd intrude on the most painful and intimate of family decisions -- all in the name of their own unchallengeable definition of God's will. Religious upsurge or not, this is not the country most Americans want.

I knew that when this day came, that the media coverage was going to be awful. CNN is a wholly owned subsidiary of the the right wingnuts today.

Hi-Tech Failure

Study Faults Army Vehicle
Use of Transport in Iraq Puts Troops at Risk, Internal Report Says

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 31, 2005; Page A01

The Army has deployed a new troop transport vehicle in Iraq with many defects, putting troops there at unexpected risk from rocket-propelled grenades and raising questions about the vehicle's development and $11 billion cost, according to a detailed critique in a classified Army study obtained by The Washington Post.

The vehicle is known as the Stryker, and 311 of the lightly armored, wheeled vehicles have been ferrying U.S. soldiers around northern Iraq since October 2003. The Army has been ebullient about the vehicle's success there, with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done."

But the Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalogue of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short.

The internal criticism of the vehicle appears likely to fuel new controversy over the Pentagon's decision in 2003 to deploy the Stryker brigade in Iraq just a few months after the end of major combat operations, before the vehicle had been rigorously tested for use across a full spectrum of combat.

The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily."

"The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," says the report, which was prepared for the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials," none of which was designed to carry the added armor.

Commanders' displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work; none of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used because of "design and functionality shortfalls," the report states. The vehicle's computers are too slow and overheat in desert temperatures or freeze up at critical moments, such as "when large units are moving at high speeds simultaneously" and overwhelm its sensors.

The main weapon system, a $157,000 grenade launcher, fails to hit targets when the vehicle is moving, contrary to its design, the report states. Its laser designator, zoom, sensors, stabilizer and rotating speed all need redesign; it does not work at night; and its console display is in black and white although "a typical warning is to watch for a certain color automobile," the report says. Some crews removed part of the launchers because they can swivel dangerously toward the squad leader's position.

The vehicle's seat belts cannot be readily latched when troops are in their armored gear, a circumstance that contributed to the deaths of three soldiers in rollover accidents, according to the report. On the vehicle's outside, some crews have put sand-filled tin cans around a gunner's hatch that the report says is ill-protected.

Eric Miller, senior defense investigator at the independent Project on Government Oversight, which obtained a copy of the internal Army report several weeks ago, said the critique shows that "the Pentagon hasn't yet learned that using the battlefield as a testing ground costs lives, not just spiraling dollars."

Given this litany of complaints, Schoomakers happy talk about the Stryker is just another piece of the DoD's list of lies about how things are going in Iraq. The vehicle sounds like a disaster. It is another one of Rummy's high-tech, fast, light Army debacles.

The NYT opines:

A Science-Fiction Army

Published: March 31, 2005

One frustrating thing about futuristic weapons is that the future does not always turn out the way people expected at the start of the decades it takes to design, develop and produce them. As a result, America's armed forces too often end up with enormous shares of their overall budgets committed to expensive toys that have little practical combat use - at the expense of more prosaic but real needs like enlistment bonuses or better armor for Humvees exposed to rocket-propelled grenades.

That sorry pattern now threatens to play itself out over the Army's stubborn commitment to the ultra-high-technology complex of weapons, robots and communications networks known collectively as Future Combat Systems. The original vision of a light and highly mobile force that could do with less armor because it would have more advanced information about enemy movements is more suitable to battles against recognizable, conventional forces on relatively open terrain than in the new world ushered in by 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

The United States entered that era with Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon wedded to the concept of deploying military forces rapidly, winning swiftly with technological wizardry and then departing just as rapidly. Instead, the Iraq war has turned into an indefinitely prolonged campaign against hit-and-run insurgents who melt in and out of cities and villages and fire rocket-propelled grenades that make armored vehicles a life-and-death need. This kind of combat seems far more likely to characterize America's wars than set-piece battles like those of the 1991 Gulf war or the first three weeks of the Iraq invasion. The Army needs more armor, not less. Greater mobility and highly advanced radio networks are fine, but not at the cost of leaving American soldiers more exposed to lethal dangers.

Growing Stones

Democrats Set to Reject Pick for U.N.
# A unanimous vote against John R. Bolton is likely in a key Senate panel, which could doom the nomination if a Republican joins them.

By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Democrats are likely to vote unanimously against John R. Bolton when his nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations comes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week, according to Democratic and Republican lawmakers and aides.

It would be the first time that committee Democrats unanimously opposed a Bush diplomatic selection, and it could put the nomination in peril if any Republicans defected to vote against Bolton.

But Republicans said they thought the outspoken conservative would win solid GOP support in the committee, including from moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who voiced reservations about Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador.

Although Democrats have challenged a number of diplomatic nominees, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "they see this nomination as more distasteful, and they're more united," said one Democratic Senate aide.

The split on the panel is one of several signs that the proceedings, set for April 7, could be acrimonious.

Advocates have organized letter and ad campaigns for and against Bolton. Democrats said they intended to investigate Bolton's comments on a variety of issues, an exercise that Republicans said could stretch the hearing into a second day. Republicans said they were concerned that Democrats might attempt to filibuster the nomination if it reached the Senate floor.

Bolton, undersecretary of State for arms control, is controversial because of his criticism of the United Nations and other international institutions and agreements.

On the March

Children 'starving' in new Iraq
More and more children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat

Increasing numbers of children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat and more than a quarter are chronically undernourished, a UN report says.

Malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led invasion - to nearly 8% by the end of last year, it says.

The report was prepared for the annual meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

It also expressed concern over North Korea and Sudan's Darfur province.

Jean Ziegler, a UN specialist on hunger who prepared the report, blamed the worsening situation in Iraq on the war led by coalition forces.

He was addressing a meeting of the 53-nation commission, the top UN rights watchdog, which is halfway through its annual six-week session.

When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8%, his report says.

Governments must recognise their extra-territorial obligations towards the right to food and should not do anything that might undermine access to it of people living outside their borders, it says.

That point is aimed clearly at the US, but Washington, which has sent a large delegation to the Human Rights Commission, declined to respond to the charges, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

I guess we are bringing American-style free-market democracy to Iraq:

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

Regrets

New Torture Memo Implicates Top US General

A newly released memo shows that US General Ricardo Sanchez authorized illegal interrogation techniques in Iraq just months before the Abu Ghraib abuses. Colin Powell, meanwhile, regrets misinforming the UN about Iraq WMDs. Also, imagine

General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the US forces in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, authorized interrogation techniques that included putting prisoners in stressful physical positions and changing sleep patterns, according to an internal US memo obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Tuesday. The memo, dating from September 2003, provided a detailed list of 29 techniques used to interrogate Iraqi detainees. And each, disturbingly, came with a creepy title. "We Know All," for example, referred to the practice of convincing prisoners that the interviewer already knows all the answers. "Presence of Military Working Dogs" indicated the use of muzzled military dogs to "exploit Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations." The ACLU claims that at least 12 of the techniques, including the use of dogs, "far exceeded limits established by the Army's own Field Manual" and also violated international standards for handling prisoners.

The memo didn't remain in force for long and was rescinded after a month because of objections raised by military lawyers over its legality. Nevertheless, ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said in a statement, "General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards." Sanchez has defended himself by saying that the memo required advance permission for the use of any of the outlined techniques and that he never granted that permission.

The memo, which the ACLU was able to make public only after filing legal papers against the Department of Defense, is the latest piece of information to come forward in the long-running torture scandal that has severely bruised the image of the US abroad. The ACLU is currently involved in a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accusing him of partial responsibility for Abu Ghraib and other prison torture incidents.

At the same time, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has made some surprisingly candid remarks in an interview with Germany's Stern magazine published on Wednesday. "We were sometimes too loud, too direct, perhaps we made too much noise," Powell told the magazine. "That certainly shocked the Europeans sometimes." In the interview, he also expressed regret over the speech he gave at the UN in February 2003 that made the US case for war based on information on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- information that later turned out to be almost entirely false. Powell said he was "furious and angry" that the information turned out to be wrong. "Hundreds of millions followed it on television. I will always stand there as the one who presented it. I have to live with that."

Gee, Colin, I'm sure that your fury and anger will take up a major part of those gazillion bucks a pop speeches that you make these days.

Defects of Character

How to Win Friends in the Mideast

By Rami G. Khouri, Rami G. Khouri is a syndicated columnist. This piece is used by permission of Agence Global.

BEIRUT — The United States recently appointed Karen Hughes and Liz Cheney to revamp two persistently enigmatic and largely failed policies: global public diplomacy and the promotion of democracy throughout the Middle East.

If these two able officials want to do a better job than their predecessors in grasping why this noble American mission to promote freedom is received with such skepticism, scorn and even resistance around the world, and not just in Arab-Islamic lands, here's what they should ponder:

• Style. As that great British thinker Mick Jagger once said: "It's the singer, not the song." Washington's manner is often aggressive and threatening. It uses sanctions and the military and unilaterally lays down the law that others must follow or else they will be considered enemies and thus liable to regime change.

People don't like to be bullied or threatened, even if change would be for their own good.

• Credibility. The U.S. track record has hurt, angered or offended most people in the Middle East. By primarily backing Arab dictators and autocrats or supporting the Israeli position on key issues of Arab-Israeli peacemaking, credibility has been lost.

The priority issue for most Arabs — whether Palestinians, Iraqis or others — is freedom from foreign occupation and subjugation. If Washington uses war and pressure tactics to implement United Nations resolutions in Lebanon and Iraq but does nothing parallel to implement U.N. resolutions calling for the freedom of Palestinians from Israeli occupation, it will continue to be greeted with disdainful guffaws in most of the Middle East.

• Consistency. The United States could have promoted freedom and democracy in Iraq without waging war and spending $300 billion, getting more than 1,500 Americans killed and 10,000 injured (and perhaps 100,000 Iraqis killed) and creating a massive anti-American backlash throughout the world.

It could better promote democracy and rally Arab democrats by telling Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Tunisian President Zine el Abidine ben Ali that being president without any meaningful legal opposition for more than 20 years is long enough. The U.S. could support term limits for Arab presidents.

• Motive. Perpetually changing the motive for the war in Iraq hurts American credibility. We've been told that invading Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction, links with Al Qaeda, imminent threats to the United States, homegrown brutality against the Iraqi people, stopping threats to neighbors and, now, spreading freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. Some of these rationales may one day prove to be correct. In the meantime, the collection of half a dozen is crippling to placing any trust in Washington.

• Context. The Arab states suffer massive internal pressures from issues of population, identity, demography, economy, environment, ideology, crises of citizenship rights versus statehood obligations and secularism versus religiosity, and the perpetual pressure from foreign armies. In this wider context, the issues of freedom and democracy are dwarfed by the more pressing imperatives of stable statehood, liberation from foreign occupation, meeting basic human needs, and stopping foreign armies.

• Legitimacy. There is no global consensus that the United States is mandated to promote freedom and democracy, or that this is the divinely ordained destiny of the United States. There is such a mandate, though, in the charter of the United Nations, in Security Council resolutions to end foreign occupations and international legal conventions — most of which the U.S. resists, ignores or applies very selectively.

No surprise then that virtually the whole world resists the United States.

Shorter Rami Khouri: stop being a selfish, aggressive thug if you want people to like you.

Impending Disaster

Study highlights global decline
By Jonathan Amos
BBC News science reporter

The most comprehensive survey ever into the state of the planet concludes that human activities threaten the Earth's ability to sustain future generations.

"If you drive the economy into the red, ultimately there are significant consequences for our capacity to achieve our dreams in terms of poverty reduction and prosperity."

Funny, I haven't seen anything about this in the US press.

UPDATE: Salon has it, courtesy of The Guardian.

Outsourcing

Case Allegedly Shows U.S. Practice of Secret Arrests
# A Yemeni reportedly jailed by Egypt in 2002 apparently has been in covert American custody since, without legal recourse.

By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer

SANA, Yemen — He was writing from prison, but at least he was alive. The smuggled letter from Abdel Salem Hila was the first his family had heard from him since he had vanished 19 months earlier.

It was, in a way, good news.

"I am writing this letter from a dark prison," the letter began. "I don't know why I am imprisoned…. I'm imprisoned in Afghanistan by the Americans."

Hila's family had seen him off in September 2002, when he'd left on a business trip to Egypt. Upon landing in Cairo, Hila checked into a downtown hotel, later placed a nervous telephone call to his family in Yemen — and disappeared.

When Hila turned up again, he was in solitary confinement at the U.S.-run Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The journey was so disorienting, he said, it took him four months to realize what country he was in. He was later moved to the American detention center at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to his letters to family members.

Hila's case is apparently part of a broader pattern of secret "renditions," a process by which U.S. agents covertly force foreign suspects from one country to another outside the bounds of international law. The United States began to use renditions during the Reagan administration, and the practice is believed to have mushroomed after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Some of the cases that have come to light in recent months have included allegations that the CIA turned suspects over to countries where they were interrogated and brutally tortured. Critics say the cases paint a pattern of CIA agents outsourcing torture to foreign governments, including Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Bush administration denies those charges.

Hila's case, which traces one man's circuitous route to Guantanamo, is different. His disappearance appears to be an example of a foreign government turning over a detainee to the Americans after a brief period of interrogation. Hila's letters indicate that he was arrested by the Egyptians, and that he had spent at most three months in their custody before being turned over to the Americans.

A Human Rights Watch report released Tuesday called Hila's case a "reverse rendition," charging that "Hila was essentially kidnapped off the streets of Cairo and then 'disappeared' in U.S. custody."

Suit by Detainee on Transfer to Syria Finds Support in Jet's Log
By SCOTT SHANE

Published: March 30, 2005

This article was reported by Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Ford Fessenden and written by Mr. Shane.

WASHINGTON, March 29 - Maher Arar, a 35-year-old Canadian engineer, is suing the United States, saying American officials grabbed him in 2002 as he changed planes in New York and transported him to Syria where, he says, he was held for 10 months in a dank, tiny cell and brutally beaten with a metal cable.

Now federal aviation records examined by The New York Times appear to corroborate Mr. Arar's account of his flight, during which, he says, he sat chained on the leather seats of a luxury executive jet as his American guards watched movies and ignored his protests.

The tale of Mr. Arar, the subject of a yearlong inquiry by the Canadian government, is perhaps the best documented of a number of cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which suspects have accused the United States of secretly delivering them to other countries for interrogation under torture. Deportation for interrogation abroad is known as rendition.

In papers filed in a New York court replying to Mr. Arar's lawsuit, Justice Department lawyers say the case was not one of rendition but of deportation. They say Mr. Arar was deported to Syria based on secret information that he was a member of Al Qaeda, an accusation he denies.

The discovery of the aircraft, in a database compiled from Federal Aviation Agency records, appears to corroborate part of the story Mr. Arar has told many times since his release in 2003. The records show that a Gulfstream III jet, tail number N829MG, followed a flight path matching the route he described. The flight, hopscotching from New Jersey to an airport near Washington to Maine to Rome and beyond, took place on Oct. 8, 2002, the day after Mr. Arar's deportation order was signed.

St. Oscar?

Assassinated Archbishop to Join Beatification Path
# The Vatican says it will open the process for Oscar Arnulfo Romero, who spoke out against the death squads in El Salvador's civil war.

By Chris Kraul and Tracy Wilkinson, Times Staff Writers

ROME — Twenty-five years after Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero was cut down by an assassin's bullet, Vatican officials plan to announce that they will open the beatification process for the prelate, a move that would put him closer to sainthood.

Church officials in Rome and El Salvador confirmed that the announcement would be made at a news conference Saturday in the San Salvador cathedral crypt containing Romero's remains. Beatification is a step before sainthood.

The announcement will come during 25th anniversary observances in El Salvador of the March 24, 1980, assassination of Romero. The 60-year-old priest was killed as he celebrated Mass in a chapel at a hospital dedicated to terminally ill cancer patients. His killer, a sniper thought to be a member of a government-sanctioned death squad, has never been brought to trial.

"We are receiving a very special blessing from God that will reverberate throughout the El Salvador that the monsignor loved so much," said Maria Julia Hernandez, legal protection director for the Archbishopric of San Salvador and a former associate of Romero's.

The assassination came at the height of El Salvador's civil war and brought international outrage.

In his homilies, Romero had pushed for an end to killings carried out by government-sponsored death squads and for a nonviolent resolution to the war, which dragged on until 1992.

One of half a dozen priests killed in El Salvador during the conflict, Romero inspired a Hollywood film, tributes in many countries and, within a decade, calls for his elevation to sainthood.

Admirers said Romero's homilies were worthy of the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Vatican has been reviewing Romero's life and work since the early 1990s.

It would be the height of irony for this most reactionary of papacies to advance the cause of Romero, the most reluctant of leftists, but leftist and liberation theologian none the less. When it comes time for Rome to make his case, I will be happy to appear to attest to miracles by his intercession: my own Catholicism is due in no small part to his example.

USA Today

Suit by Detainee on Transfer to Syria Finds Support in Jet's Log
By SCOTT SHANE

Published: March 30, 2005

This article was reported by Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Ford Fessenden and written by Mr. Shane.

WASHINGTON, March 29 - Maher Arar, a 35-year-old Canadian engineer, is suing the United States, saying American officials grabbed him in 2002 as he changed planes in New York and transported him to Syria where, he says, he was held for 10 months in a dank, tiny cell and brutally beaten with a metal cable.

Now federal aviation records examined by The New York Times appear to corroborate Mr. Arar's account of his flight, during which, he says, he sat chained on the leather seats of a luxury executive jet as his American guards watched movies and ignored his protests.

The tale of Mr. Arar, the subject of a yearlong inquiry by the Canadian government, is perhaps the best documented of a number of cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which suspects have accused the United States of secretly delivering them to other countries for interrogation under torture. Deportation for interrogation abroad is known as rendition.

In papers filed in a New York court replying to Mr. Arar's lawsuit, Justice Department lawyers say the case was not one of rendition but of deportation. They say Mr. Arar was deported to Syria based on secret information that he was a member of Al Qaeda, an accusation he denies.

The discovery of the aircraft, in a database compiled from Federal Aviation Agency records, appears to corroborate part of the story Mr. Arar has told many times since his release in 2003. The records show that a Gulfstream III jet, tail number N829MG, followed a flight path matching the route he described. The flight, hopscotching from New Jersey to an airport near Washington to Maine to Rome and beyond, took place on Oct. 8, 2002, the day after Mr. Arar's deportation order was signed.

After seeing a photograph of the plane and hearing its path, Mr. Arar, 35, of Ottawa, said in a telephone interview: "I think that's it. I think you've found the plane that took me."

He added: "Finding this plane is going really to help me. It does remind me of this trip, which is painful, but it should make people understand that this is for real and everything happened the way I said. I hope people will now stop for a moment and think about the morality of this."

Records of the jet's travels also show a trip in December 2003 to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States holds hundreds of detainees, suggesting that it was used by the government on at least one other occasion.

If the plane was used to move Mr. Arar, it is the fourth known to have been used to transport suspected terrorists secretly from one country to detention in another.

Among the three identified in previous news reports is one owned by a company apparently set up by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to The Washington Post. Another, first described by The Chicago Tribune, is an ordinary charter jet that was also used by the Boston Red Sox manager between missions ferrying detainees and their guards to Guantánamo, with the Red Sox logo attached to the fuselage or removed, depending on who was aboard.

Maria LaHood, a lawyer for Mr. Arar, said the new information on the Gulfstream jet lent support to his lawsuit.

"The facts we got from Maher right after he was released are now corroborated by public records," said Ms. LaHood, who works for the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group in New York that advocates investigation of human rights abuses. "The more information that comes out, the better for showing that this is an important public issue that can't be kept secret."

She said Mr. Arar and his attorneys believe that American officials wanted him to undergo a more brutal interrogation than would be permitted in the United States in the hope of getting information about Al Qaeda.

After 10 months in a cell he compared to a grave, and 2 more months in a less confined space, Syrian officials freed Mr. Arar in October 2003, saying they had been unable to find any connection to Al Qaeda. The Syrian ambassador to the United States called the release "a gesture of good will toward Canada."

This is my country today. I hate it.

Gray Power

AARP Leads With Wallet In Fight Over Social Security
Bush's Plan Faces Formidable Foe

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 30, 2005; Page A01

In the punch-for-punch debate over Social Security, AARP is working hard to keep the White House on the ropes.

When President Bush arrives in Iowa today to talk up his private-accounts proposal, the senior citizens group plans to counter him with two news conferences, the release of a national poll, full-page newspaper advertisements and commercials on radio and television.

Over this week and last, AARP, the nation's largest lobby, will have spent more than $5 million on ads attacking the president's Social Security plan -- nearly three times as much as all the supporters of his proposal put together. That's just for starters.

Every state that has a swing-vote senator will have AARP forums, which have been drawing about 300 people each. And every time a member of Congress holds a town meeting, AARP volunteers are dispatched there to protest the president's plan for individual accounts.

"We're going to do this as long as it takes," said William D. Novelli, AARP's chief executive. "We will put just about everything we have into it."

No organization has more tools or more money to wage such a battle. So both its friends and adversaries agree: AARP holds the key to how or whether Social Security will be restructured this year. "It will be very difficult to do anything without AARP's support," said Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "And it would be a heck of a lot easier if they came along."

AARP's 35 million membership base is 10 times the size of the National Rifle Association's, and its $800 million budget is five times that of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's biggest business association. In number of members, AARP is surpassed only by the Roman Catholic Church.

Dayum, I like those numbers. It's nice to have them on our side for a change.

My Fellow American

In the Name of Politics
By JOHN C. DANFORTH

Published: March 30, 2005

St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
....
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.

Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.

I'm willing to debate genuine conservatives, but the radical wing of the party doesn't think that I even get to speak. For the radical right wing, dissent is treason.

I can respect John Danforth, even if we disagree. He and I can be fellow citizens, something the rest of his party will deny.

Inside the Box

Iraq voters under pressure to name leaders

"We're very disappointed," said Hathem Hassan Thani, 31, a political science graduate student at Baghdad University."Some personalities are trying to make the political operation fail, and they don't want to give positions to the Sunni Muslims."

The fledgling 275-member parliament elected Jan. 30 failed to agree on who would be speaker Tuesday, after Sunni Muslim Ghazi al-Yawar, currently the interim president, declined the post.He and interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi stormed out of the session after it was closed to journalists.

"Al-Yawar did not want to lose his credibility as a politician.That's why he didn't come," said Hiba Jameel Mahmoud, 25, another political science student."Maybe we need to hold another election to make sure everybody is participating.

A Shiite-Muslim-dominated list, the United Iraqi Alliance, received almost 50 percent of the Jan. 30 vote to name a new national assembly.Ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq received another 27 percent.Sunni Muslims largely boycotted the vote, but now want to be involved in writing a new constitution.

Deep divides appeared between the assembly's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members Tuesday morning, even before the session started.Shiites blamed Kurds and al-Yawar for holding up progress of forming a government.

"The Iraqi people are very itchy.The street is very nervous," said Saad Jawar Qindeel, a spokesman for the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of two dominant religious-based parties that won the United Iraqi Alliance ticket."There's a lot of talk of people ready to protest."

Negotiations appear to be stalled not only on who is to be speaker, but also in key cabinet posts, including ministers of oil, defense and interior.Members were also originally expected to approve a president, two vice presidents and a prime minister in Tuesday's session.

Insurgents are taking advantage of the indecision in government ranks, said Interior Minister Fallah al-Nakib, who appeared to be lobbying to keep his job at Baghdad's Convention Center, where the National Assembly was meeting.He is also a member of the Iraq National Alliance list led by interim Prime Minister Allawi.

"We don't have a Sunni/Shiite problem, the problem is one of national unity," al-Nakib said."During Arbaeen, terrorists may set off car bombs.But the problem is a national issue."

Shiite Muslims make a pilgrimage to holy sites in southern Iraq during Arbaeen, which starts Wednesday.Already, a car bomb Monday in Musayyib targeted the pilgrims.

"We don't want to see casualties, we want to stop the bloodshed," al-Nakib said.

If Sunnis don't choose representatives for various posts, other elected members will choose for them, said Jalal al-Din al-Saqheer, a conservative Shiite Muslim member who wore the traditional clerical robes to Tuesday's session.

"We have given them many chances, and time is running very close," al-Saqheer said."We are thinking of a mature political process.There are certain time periods we have to look up to."

But other squabbling continues among members of the United Iraqi Alliance and Kurdish leaders as well.For example, Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader who is expected to be named president, did not show up to the assembly session.

Neither did many Sunnis, who now want to be involved in the government, said Sharif Ali bin Hussein, a Sunni candidate who is expected to be named to head a committee to write a new constitution.

"They believe the election would be delayed and would not be successful," bin Hussein said in his office, a guest house of former president Saddam Hussein with beautifully manicured grounds and a commanding view of the Tigris River."Now they're willing to recoup.They're saying you can't form a government without us, without Sunni representation."

Other parliament members feel the same way -- an estimated six minister posts have been set aside for Sunnis, along with other key government positions, even though the number of them elected, 17, does not warrant such a large representation.

Security was tight Tuesday, with traffic blocked from getting near the heavily fortified "green zone" where the assembly was held.Mortars hit the first National Assembly meeting on March 16.

Is it getting better yet?

Ordinary Prayer

Appeals Court Grants Additional Review in the Schiavo Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 30, 2005

Filed at 12:40 a.m. ET

ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court early Wednesday agreed to consider a petition for a new hearing on whether to reconnect Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals came as the severely brain-damaged woman entered her 13th day without nourishment.

Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have maintained that Schiavo would want to be kept alive and have asked the courts to intervene. Schiavo's husband, Michael, insists he is carrying out her wishes by having the feeding tube pulled.

Dear Lord,

I thank you for having granted me relatives who are not this delusional. When my time comes, they will let me go to whatever place it is that you have determined is next for us, or no place at all, if that is the judgement of the universe. I am glad to be in their care.

To you who are there and not there, I offer thanks and praise that I am not in the grip of the loonies. And thanks that my wishes be honored when they don't conflict with your own. Thanks and praise to you who allows me to grow up, learn to think and come to a mature faith which doesn't require reading your words like a student of McGuffy's reader.

I pray Mrs. Schiavo is at rest and eternal boils on those who wish to torment her body, for political gain. If you aren't tired of those plagues of locusts things, I can think of someplaces to send them. I have some specific names for the other six plagues, but Sugarland, TX, would be one spot to look at right now with your all-seeing eyes.

Grant me peace and a little income, all-seeing God, in a year which has seen little of either. You've known me for a long time, since "my bones were knitted up," and I haven't asked for much. This year, it might be nice to be able to take a vacation, if that is within your purview. The long years since 1998 when I had the last one did teach me that a couple of weeks off should be part of your institutition. As I recall, you liked that Jubilee/sabbatical idea every seven years. You might tell the creditors to stop calling.

Love,

Melanie

Comfort Food for Pissed Off Liberals

Monster Snack: Open-Faced Calzones with Spinach and Artichokes

1 box chopped spinach, 10 ounces [ed.: use the fresh in the bags on the veg aisle, rather than chopped and drained frozen]
1 loaf ciabatta bread, (flat, rectangular or oval shaped Italian bread, 12 to 14 inches long and 8 inches wide – substitute focaccia loaf if ciabatta is not available to you)
Extra-virgin olive oil, for drizzling
2 cups ricotta cheese
2 cloves garlic, chopped [ed.: use four]
3 tablespoons chopped flat-leaf parsley, a handful
1/4 cup grated Parmigiano or Reggiano, a generous handful
1 can artichokes, drained and sliced
Salt and pepper
2 cups shredded mozzarella or Italian cheese blend available on dairy aisle in sacks
The Big Dipper: Simple Marinara Dipping Sauce, recipe follows, optional

Yield: 2 cups
Prep Time: 2 minutes
Cook Time: 7 minutes
Inactive Prep Time:
Ease of preparation: easy

The marinara is utterly unnecessary, but it is there if you need red sauce in order for a recipe to be Eyetalian. The top half of the recipe is so good and so easy that there is no point in turning the range on. If you are going to make a marinara, make a real one in a big batch and freeze it down.

This is spring food and you can enjoy it now before it becomes painful to turn the oven on this summer. It has to start with very good bread. Brown the bread with some anchovy paste slathered thinly and mashed into the olive oil on top if, like me, you don't love those little fish skeletons but love the flavor.

Spring Fantasy

Iraqi Wrangling May Delay New Constitution and Next Vote
By EDWARD WONG

Published: March 29, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 29 - Iraqi political leaders said today that the delay in forming a new government would probably force them to postpone by half a year the writing of a permanent constitution and the next set of elections. Their comments came as sharp ethnic and sectarian divisions erupted during an assembly meeting, with some members angrily accusing others of betraying the Iraqi people by failing to install a coalition government.

The heated arguments prompted the head of the assembly to ban reporters from the room and call for the assembly to reconvene next weekend, nine weeks after the Jan. 30 elections, in hope that the top members would be ready to fill some key government positions then.

Prominent assembly members said it appeared the deadline for a first draft of the constitution would have to pushed back six months beyond the original deadline of Aug. 15. The delay is allowed under the transitional law if it is proposed by the Iraqi president and if the assembly approves it by a majority vote by Aug. 1. Elections for a full-term government at the end of the year would then also have to be pushed back by half a year, slowing the ambitious American goal of planting democracy here in the heart of the Middle East.

"Realistically, I think it's very difficult," Haichem al-Hassani, a leading Sunni Arab politician and a top candidate for the post of defense minister, said of meeting the Aug. 15 deadline. "I think it's wishful thinking."

Ali al-Dabagh, a prominent member of the main Shiite bloc and an appointee of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq, said that "time is too short."

The afternoon meeting of the assembly, which spiraled down into a shouting match, revealed how the bitter negotiations to form a government were poisoning the entire political process and fracturing the major political blocs, already divided along ethnic and sectarian lines.

In Washington, President Bush tried to address growing concerns that a viable democratic future for Iraq was in jeopardy.

"We expect a new government will be chosen soon and that the assembly will vote to confirm it," he told reporters in the White House Rose Garden. "We look forward to working with the government that emerges from this process."

In your dreams, W. Kurdistan is effectively independent already. Sunni on Shia violence is driving those factions apart. Civil war looks increasingly likely.

It Was the Oil

Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: That report by investigative journalist Greg Palast, who joins us now in our studio before we move on to protests around the country. Welcome, Greg Palast.

GREG PALAST: For them, you know, it is pushing the Bush policy. But you have to understand that the real levers of power are not in these public jawboning jobs. The real levers of power are behind those closed walls. So Wolfowitz had his power. He now has to take his hands off the levers, and Bolton is now in a position where he is told what to say, and he is not a person setting policy. The neo-cons understand what's happening here, and they are screaming bloody murder. But they’re all being purged. This is a very big change in U.S. policy toward people like Negroponte, who are State Department establishment, oil-friendly, OPEC-friendly, Saudi-friendly.

Video link.

Opportunists

Jesse Jackson joins fight for Schiavo's life
Husband to seek autopsy

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 Posted: 1:12 PM EST (1812 GMT)

PINELLAS PARK, Florida (CNN) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson arrived Tuesday at Terri Schiavo's hospice and called on Florida lawmakers to have the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube reinserted.

While he has sided with the Schindlers, Jackson said in a statement last week that he had "serious misgivings about the appropriateness of Congress intervening with the legal court process on a specific, individual matter."

Jackson is a publicity whore, and CNN doesn't seem to employ any actual journalists: the issue here isn't the Schiavo or Schindler "sides." Every court which has reviewed this case has found that this is the desire of Mrs. Schiavo herself and consistent with the law in state of Florida.

51% of the Electorate

Robert Scheer:
A Con Job by Pakistan's Pal, George Bush

The announcement Friday that the United States is authorizing the sale to Pakistan of F-16 fighter jets capable of delivering nuclear warheads — and thereby escalating the region's nuclear arms race — is the latest example of how the most important issue on the planet is being bungled by the Bush administration.

Consider this dizzying series of Bush II-era actions:

We have thrown away thousands of Iraqi and American lives and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars after crying wolf on Iraq's long-defunct nuclear weapons program and now expect the world to believe similar scary stories about neighboring Iran.

We have cozied up to Pakistan for more than three years as it freely allowed the operation of the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen.

We sabotaged negotiations with North Korea by telling allies that Pyongyang had supplied nuclear material to Libya, even though the Bush administration knew that the country of origin of those shipments was our "ally," Pakistan.

Now, Lockheed Martin has been saved from closing its F-16 production line by the White House decision to lift the arms embargo on Pakistan and allow the sale. The decision, which ends a 1990 embargo put in place by the president's father in reprisal for Pakistan's development of a nuclear arsenal, is especially odd at a time when we are berating European nations for considering lifting their arms embargo on China.

The White House says the F-16s are a reward to Islamabad for its help in disrupting terrorism networks, despite a decade of Pakistan's strong support of Al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Yet Pakistan's ruling generals could be excused for believing that Washington is not seriously concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. How else to explain invading a country — Iraq — that didn't possess nukes, didn't sell nuclear technology to unstable nations and didn't maintain an unholy alliance with Al Qaeda — and then turning around and giving the plum prizes of U.S. military ingenuity to the country that did?

Even as the Bush administration continues to confront Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, Islamabad has admitted that Pakistani nuclear weapons trafficker Abdul Qadeer Khan — the father of his nation's nuclear bomb — provided Iran with the centrifuges essential to such a program. Further, new evidence reveals that Khan marketed to Iran and Libya not only the materials needed for a nuclear bomb but the engineering competence to actually make one.

Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf insists Khan was running his nuclear smuggling operation under the radar of the military government that brought Musharraf to power. And although this is a highly implausible claim given the reach of the military's power and the scope of the operation, the White House has found it convenient to buy it hook, line and sinker — all the better to remarket Pakistan to the American people as a war-on-terrorism ally.

While Pakistan was receiving such heaping helpings of benefit of the doubt, North Korea became the Bush administration's scapegoat for the rapid nuclear proliferation happening on its watch, according to the Washington Post. "In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya," wrote the Post. "But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction." Sources told the paper that "Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller [of uranium hexafluoride] was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner."

Gotta admit that the Bushies are consistent: from WMDs to Social Security, everything they do is a con job. But the nuclear con job kinda raises the stakes.

Bushworld

This is your new UN ambassador appointee (video file, might be too much for dial up users.) This is Bush internationalism.

Fourth Estate

The National Press Club Welcomes ... Jeff Gannon?

By Joe Strupp

Published: March 28, 2005 Updated 3:50 PM ET

NEW YORK Jeff Gannon is back -- at the National Press Club?

Yes, the same day that the prestigious Washington, D.C., journalism organization plans to present a lunch talk by former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, it will also allow the former White House reporter/sex site operator to be on a panel discussing bloggers and online journalism.

Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, resigned his job with the conservative Talon News last month after it was revealed he had used a pseudonym, had little journalism background, and had ties to male escort Web sites.

Still, Press Club leaders will include Gannon on the panel April 8 that includes Wonkette.com editor Ana Marie Cox, National Journal's John Stanton, and others.

Gannon told E&P; today that he always considered himself a legitimate journalist, and "perhaps their invitation is recognition of that."

Press Club President Rick Dunham, who also covers the White House for BusinessWeek, called Gannon "a figure in the news" who is involved in an important journalistic issue.

"The panel came together because we wanted to discuss some issues that came about from the Gannon case," said Mike Madden, a Gannett News Service reporter and a member of the Press Club's Professional Affairs committee, which is organizing the free event. "So we thought, why not try to get him?"

I consider myself a neurosurgeon, so I guess I should be included on panels at the National Association of Neurosurgeons.

The NPC will be getting a letter from me today. Were I in a better mood, watching the press cheapen itself would be amusing.

And the press is so busy trying to prove that bloggers aren't journalists that they have to drag out a manwhore?

Spying Eyes

Alma Mater As Big Brother

By Katherine Haley Will
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page A15

A proposal by the Education Department would force every college and university in America to report all their students' Social Security numbers and other information about each individual -- including credits earned, degree plan, race and ethnicity, and grants and loans received -- to a national databank. The government will record every student, regardless of whether he or she receives federal aid, in the databank.

The government's plan is to track students individually and in full detail as they complete their post-secondary education. The threat to our students' privacy is of grave concern, and the government has not satisfactorily explained why it wants to collect individual information.

Researchers at the Education Department say this mammoth project would give them better information on graduation rates and what students pay for college. Perhaps this would be interesting information to collect, but at what cost to individual privacy? At what cost in time and effort to the government and the educational institutions? As a college president who has spent her career in higher education, I know that a system is already in place to collect statistics. This system meets the government's need to inform public policy without intruding on students' privacy. Since 1992 every college or university whose students receive federal financial aid has been required to submit summary data on enrollment, student aid, graduation rates and other matters via the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

Under the proposal that will soon be submitted to Congress, instead of aggregate statistics, colleges and universities would be required to feed data on each student to the Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics. Should an institution refuse, the government could take away federal grants, loans and work-study funds from every student at the college, a penalty that would fall on students in need while leaving more affluent students unaffected.

This is nothing more than a sharp stick in the eye. The gummint doesn't have the ability to actually *DO* anything with this data, but it loves throwing its weight around like this: we CAN make you do this, so we WILL make you do this. The USG in the W era wants to make sure that its horrible feet can be felt everywhere.

UPDATE: In comments, pragmatic_realist says:

As one who lived through the time, I recall vividly the fact that there was one agency vitally interested in my name and status as an enrolled college student: the draft board.

I still remember the heart racing moment of opening the letter re-classifying me 1-A that arrived days after the end of my first semester. It was the common practice to re-classify students even over the Christmas break between semesters.

This may suggest a part of the government's movitive for suddenly needing to keep track of college students by name and address.

Outrage

Here is the National Press Club's idea of hosting a panel on blogging:

Blogger? Journalist?

Now that anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can set up shop on the Web, the days when you could tell who was a reporter by looking for a press card stuck in a fedora are long gone. Both journalists and bloggers will debate whether there's a difference between them, on Fri., Apr. 8, at 9:30 a.m. The panel includes Jeff Gannon, whose question at a presidential press conference focused attention on the issue; Ana Marie Cox, editor of Wonkette.com, and Congress Daily's John Stanton. Reserve at 202-662-7501.

Gannon/Guckert and Wonkette representing the blogosphere. Is that the world you want to live in?

Some of us have busted our asses to build our bona fides 7 days a week for over a year. And this is what we get to show for it.

Capitalism

via Susie:

List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JOHN SCHWARTZ

WASHINGTON, March 28 - The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

"These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!"

Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish.

"I think it's amusing," said Robert Gellman, a privacy and information policy consultant. "I think it's absolutely classic America. Everything is for sale in America, every type of personal information."

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Man's Law, God's Law

Odd little story.

Death Sentence Thrown Out Because of Jury's Bible Reading
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 28, 2005

Filed at 2:45 p.m. ET

DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death sentence Monday of a man convicted of raping and killing a cocktail waitress because jurors consulted the Bible during deliberations.

The court said Bible passages, including the verse that commands ``an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,'' could lead jurors to vote for death.

The justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for the 1994 slaying of Rhonda Maloney.

Harlan's attorneys challenged the sentence after discovering five jurors had looked up Bible verses, copied some of them down and then talked about them behind closed doors.

Prosecutors said jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

Any lawyers or judges want to weigh in on this one?

Iraq Progress?

On Eve of National Assembly, Iraqi Parties Still Lack Consensus
By EDWARD WONG

Published: March 28, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 28 -The country's leading political parties held last-minute talks today before a meeting of the National Assembly scheduled for Tuesday, as a wave of violence in central Iraq that began on Sunday night left at least nine people dead, several of them police officers.

As the 275-member assembly prepared to hold its second meeting, more than two months after general elections, it appeared that the top politicians had failed to reach any deal to install a government.

At best, the assembly is expected to name a speaker and two vice-speakers, said Adnan Pachachi, a leading Sunni Arab politician. But even that looked doubtful on Monday afternoon: The leading candidate for speaker and current interim president, Sheik Ghazi al-Yawer, had turned down the job, said Ahmad Najati, the sheik's personal secretary. The leaders of the top parties were meeting on Monday evening to discuss the issue.

The leading Shiite bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, was trying to put forward Fawaz al-Jarba, a Sunni Arab candidate from its group, as a possible alternative. Some politicians have expressed resistance, though, to having a Sunni from the alliance take on the job of assembly speaker, since the alliance already dominates the assembly, having the most seats of any bloc, and is expected to secure the post of prime minister.

This sure doesn't look like progress to me. The political process is grinding to a halt as another wave of violence washes over the country.

Globalization

Gang of Our Own Making
By LUIS J. RODRIGUEZ

Mara Salvatrucha is now reported to operate in 31 states and five countries, with 100,000 members across Canada, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. The government says MS-13 is the fastest-growing and most violent gang in the country. It describes MS-13 as having "cells" that smuggle people, guns and contraband across international lines, and some federal officials have mentioned possible ties between MS-13 and Al Qaeda.

While there's no proof that MS-13 has any connection to Al Qaeda, it has something in common with it: American policy played a role in the creation of both groups.

MS-13 is a result of our policy in Central America, specifically the policy that fueled the civil wars that sent more than two million refugees to the United States in the 1980's. Some of their children confronted well-entrenched Mexican-American gangs in the barrios where they landed. For their protection, they created their own groups, emulating the style of older Chicano gangs like 18th Street. MS-13, for instance, was born in the crowded, crack-ridden Mexican and Central-American community of Pico-Union, just west of the skyscrapers of downtown Los Angeles.

After the Los Angeles riots of 1992, government officials declared the main culprits to be young African-American and Latino gang members. In the mid-90's as many as 40,000 youths accused of being members of MS-13, 18th Street and other gangs were deported every year to Mexico and Central America. Sophisticated, tattooed, English-speaking young men raised and acculturated in the United States were sent to countries with no resources, no jobs and no history with these types of gangs.

Soon the deported members of MS-13 and 18th Street began recruiting among homeless and glue-sniffing youth who had never been to the United States. In a few years, these new members were making their way to the United States, ending up in far-flung corners of the country and recruiting a new generation. When the Department of Homeland Security deports the men it arrested last week, the cycle will start again.

When I was growing up in East L.A. in the 1960's, I was a member of a Chicano street gang. I was shot at a half-dozen times and arrested on several occasions. I understand why a teenager finds joining a gang necessary. But thanks to a few teachers, youth workers and community leaders, I eventually left the gang life.

What would have happened to me if I had been deported to a homeland I barely knew? The gang members at the 1996 meeting I attended were trying to find alternatives to violence and drugs. They wanted to be incorporated into the country, to be allowed to rebuild, to learn skills, to make decisions about bettering their communities and to stop being harassed or beaten by the police and attacked by death squads.

While the meeting ended on a high note, with people applauding and promising changes, in the end little happened. A group of former MS-13 and 18th Street gang youth formed a peace and justice organization called Homies Unidos, but their efforts over the years to obtain jobs, training, tattoo removal and counseling were largely ignored.

Instead, El Salvador instituted a "mano dura," or "firm hand," policy. It became illegal to be a member of a gang, whether a crime was committed or not. Jails became filled with gang youth from Los Angeles. The same policy was instituted in Honduras. According to news reports, these governments were getting advice from American law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department.

Today we're confronted with the same choice: we can continue the repression, arrests and firm-hand policies that only guarantee more violence and more lost youth. Or we can bring gang youth to the table and work to create jobs and training, providing real options for meaningful work and healthy families. In other words, we can help sow the seeds of transformation, eliminating the reasons young people join gangs in the first place.

We have the means to do both. Both have great costs. But one choice will worsen the violence and terror; the other will help bring peace, both in the streets of the United States and in the barrios of America's neighbors.

I'm sure the widening worldwide economic disparity will help this so much.

Just-spring

My forsythia bloomed this morning! You know what this means, don't you? All of you Californians who already have roses in bloom can just be quiet for a minute.

in Just-
spring when the world is mud-
luscious the little
lame balloonman

whistles far and wee

and eddieandbill come
running from marbles and
piracies and it's
spring

when the world is puddle-wonderful

the queer
old balloonman whistles
far and wee
and bettyandisbel come dancing

from hop-scotch and jump-rope and

it's
spring
and
the

goat-footed

balloonMan whistles
far
and
wee

e.e. cummings

Soon, the azaleas and the cherry blossoms will burst into view. I can hardly wait. I need spring this year.

Shock and Raw

Via the hardest working website on the internets:

American blitzkrieg

The possibility of democracy in Iraq must not eclipse the tragedy of American lives lost and Iraqis sacrificed in a reckless and needless military venture based on falsehood. None of the Iraqi dead will benefit from a democratic government, nor were they patriots in a struggle for freedom. They were reduced to collateral damage in a war a foreign power decided was needed to eliminate their evil leader.

If a mass murderer was spotted in a huge apartment building filled with innocent men, women and children, the police would never blow up the building in order to capture the culprit. Yet that is precisely what we did in Iraq by destroying a nation and thousands of innocent people of all ages. Couldn't the world's oldest representative democracy come up with a more intelligent and moral strategy than shock and awe (blitzkrieg works better)? Is that what a Christian nation does?

If bin Laden is labeled a Muslim heretic, certainly George Bush must exemplify a failed Christianity and compromised democracy.

Ron and Norma Molen
Salt Lake City

Invisible War

More foreign fighters entering Iraq: US general

Foreign fighters entering Iraq in recent months make up a growing percentage of insurgents battling US troops and the country's fledgling security force, according to a senior US military commander.

In an interview with CNN in Mosul, General John Abizaid - the commander of US Central Command which covers Iraq - said that while most insurgents appear to be Iraqis, "the percentage of foreign fighters over the past several months seems to have increased".

He also said the insurgents' ranks likely include "former Baathist criminals".

"It seems to be pretty well established that they tend to cross over from Syria, although we know that there have been some infiltrations from the Saudi border, there have been some from the Iranian border," General Abizaid said.

"The Syrians are not doing everything we've asked them to do," he said, adding that Syria's intelligence services are not being aggressive enough in dismantling "facilitation cells" inside Syria.

Insurgent attacks

In a separate CNN interview, George Casey, the commanding US general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, told the news network that current insurgent assaults were running at between 50 and 60 attacks a day.

"They (insurgents) are able to maintain the level of violence between 50 and 60 attacks a day," General Casey said.

"The four provinces where the insurgency is still capable is out west, near Fallujah in Anbar province, in the Baghdad area and Saladdin, which is in the centre of the country, around Saddam's home town, and up north, in the Mosul area," he said.

Juan Cole adds, "By the way, if there are 60 attacks a day, why do I only read about 7 or 8 of them?"

A Nation of Laws

Is No One Accountable?
By BOB HERBERT

Published: March 28, 2005

The Bush administration is desperately trying to keep the full story from emerging. But there is no longer any doubt that prisoners seized by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have been killed, tortured, sexually humiliated and otherwise grotesquely abused.

These atrocities have been carried out in an atmosphere in which administration officials have routinely behaved as though they were above the law, and thus accountable to no one. People have been rounded up, stripped, shackled, beaten, incarcerated and in some cases killed, without being offered even the semblance of due process. No charges. No lawyers. No appeals.

Arkan Mohammed Ali is a 26-year-old Iraqi who was detained by the U.S. military for nearly a year at various locations, including the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. According to a lawsuit filed against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Ali was at times beaten into unconsciousness during interrogations. He was stabbed, shocked with an electrical device, urinated on and kept locked - hooded and naked - in a wooden, coffinlike box. He said he was told by his captors that soldiers could kill detainees with impunity.

(This was not a boast from the blue. On Saturday, for example, The Times reported that the Army would not prosecute 17 American soldiers implicated in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Mr. Ali's story is depressingly similar to other accounts pouring in from detainees, human rights groups, intelligence sources and U.S. government investigators. If you pay close attention to what is already known about the sadistic and barbaric treatment of prisoners by the U.S., you can begin to wonder how far we've come from the Middle Ages. The alleged heretics hauled before the Inquisition were not permitted to face their accusers or mount a defense. Innocence was irrelevant. Torture was the preferred method of obtaining confessions.

No charges were ever filed against Mr. Ali, and he was eventually released. But what should be of paramount concern to Americans is this country's precipitous and frightening descent into the hellish zone of lawlessness that the Bush administration, on the one hand, is trying to conceal and, on the other, is defending as absolutely essential to its fight against terror.

The lawsuit against Mr. Rumsfeld was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, a New York-based group, on behalf of Mr. Ali and seven other former detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan who claim to have been tortured by U.S. personnel.

The suit charges that Mr. Rumsfeld personally authorized unlawful interrogation techniques and abdicated his responsibility to stop the torture and other abuses of prisoners in U.S. custody. It contends that the abuse of detainees was widespread and that Mr. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials were well aware of it.

According to the suit, it is unreasonable to believe that Mr. Rumsfeld could have remained in the dark about the rampant mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody. It cites a wealth of evidence readily available to the secretary, including the scandalous eruptions at Abu Ghraib prison, the reports of detainee abuse at Guantánamo Bay, myriad newspaper and magazine articles, internal U.S. government reports, and concerns expressed by such reputable groups as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

(The committee has noted, among other things, that military intelligence estimates suggest that 70 percent to 90 percent of the people detained in Iraq had been seized by mistake.)

Whether this suit will ultimately be successful in holding Mr. Rumsfeld personally accountable is questionable. But if it is thoroughly argued in the courts, it will raise yet another curtain on the stomach-turning practices that have shamed the United States in the eyes of the world.

The primary aim of the lawsuit is quite simply to re-establish the rule of law. "It's that fundamental idea that nobody is above the law," said Michael Posner, executive director of Human Rights First. "The violations here were created by policies that deliberately undermined the rule of law. That needs to be challenged."

Lawlessness should never be an option for the United States. Once the rule of law has been extinguished, you're left with an environment in which moral degeneracy can flourish and a great nation can lose its soul.

Regular commentor paperwight writes:

And Now the Devil Turns Round on Us

Paperwight quotes Robert Bolt's great play, "A Man for All Seasons." That's what I would do.

Spring, Finally

Light posting this morning, Bumpers. I have some income related program activities which are due today. I'll be able to tell you more later in the week, but one of them involves blogging for dollars. Needless to say, I'm intrigued.

I was able to spend most of the day yesterday with my bro and s-i-l and cook Easter dinner for them, for a change. They liked my work. This makes me enormously happy. The bro is a professional chef-turned-IT-professional and I find cooking for him a little intimidating. But he had seconds.

I went to the Easter Vigil Saturday night, so Sunday morning was blog work, knowing that I'd be gone the rest of the day. I hope you were able to spend the day, if it is a holiday for you, with the ones you love.

Transcendence

St Kevin and the Blackbird
by Seamus Heaney

And then there was St. Kevin and the blackbird.
The saint is kneeling, arms stretched out, inside
His cell, but the cell is narrow, so

One turned-up palm is out the window, stiff
As a crossbeam, when a blackbird lands
And lays in it and settles down to nest.

Kevin feels the warm eggs, the small breast, the tucked
Neat head and claws and, finding himself linked
Into the network of eternal life,

Is moved to pity: Now he must hold his hand
Like a branch out in the sun and rain for weeks
Until the young are hatched and fledged and flown.

And since the whole thing's imagined anyhow,
Imagine being Kevin. Which is he?
Self-forgetful or in agony all the time

From the neck on out down through his hurting forearms?
Are his fingers sleeping? Does he still feel his knees?
Or has the shut-eyed blank of underearth

Crept up through him? Is there distance in his head?
Alone and mirrored clear in love's deep river,
'To labour and not to seek reward,' he prays,

A prayer his body makes entirely
For he has forgotten self, forgotten bird,
And on the riverbank forgotten the river's name.

On This Day

Morning Has Spread Again

Morning has spread again
Through every street,
And we are strange again;
For should we meet
How can I tell you that
Last night you came
Unbidden, in a dream?
And how forget
That we had worn down love good-humouredly,
Talking in fits and starts
As friends, as they will be
Who have let passion die within their hearts.
Now, watching the red east expand,
I wonder love can have already set
In dreams, when we've not met
More times than I can number on one hand.

--Philip Larkin

Resurrections

He did not say: "You will not be assailed, you will not be belaboured, you will not be disquieted," but he said: "You will not be overcome."

Julian of Norwich, "Showings" Ch. 22

Easter

Wild Geese
by Mary Oliver

You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert, repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of your body
love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting--
over and over announcing your place

From the Top

Panel Ignored Evidence on Detainee
U.S. Military Intelligence, German Authorities Found No Ties to Terrorists

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A01

A military tribunal determined last fall that Murat Kurnaz, a German national seized in Pakistan in 2001, was a member of al Qaeda and an enemy combatant whom the government could detain indefinitely at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The three military officers on the panel, whose identities are kept secret, said in papers filed in federal court that they reached their conclusion based largely on classified evidence that was too sensitive to release to the public.

In fact, that evidence, recently declassified and obtained by The Washington Post, shows that U.S. military intelligence and German law enforcement authorities had largely concluded there was no information that linked Kurnaz to al Qaeda, any other terrorist organization or terrorist activities.

In recently declassified portions of a January ruling, a federal judge criticized the military panel for ignoring the exculpatory information that dominates Kurnaz's file and for relying instead on a brief, unsupported memo filed shortly before Kurnaz's hearing by an unidentified government official.

Kurnaz has been detained at Guantanamo Bay since at least January 2002.

"The U.S. government has known for almost two years that he's innocent of these charges," said Baher Azmy, Kurnaz's attorney. "That begs a lot of questions about what the purpose of Guantanamo really is. He can't be useful to them. He has no intelligence for them. Why in the world is he still there?"

The Kurnaz case appears to be the first in which classified material considered by a "combatant status review tribunal" has become public. While attorneys for Guantanamo Bay detainees have frequently complained that their clients are being held based on thin evidence, Kurnaz's is the first known case in which a panel appeared to disregard the recommendations of U.S. intelligence agencies and information supplied by allies.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Daryl Borgquist, said the government will not answer questions about the decisions made by the tribunals. "We don't comment on the decisions of the tribunals," he said. "They make the best decision based on what they saw before them at the time."

Insert your name here. This could be you, your mother, your brother.

The oligarchy will tell you what to think and who to believe. Tune in to Fox to get your marching orders.

For Community

http://www.gourmetsleuth.com.

http://www.epicurious.com

Stir together extremely slowly and you will have a great treat.

Home > Recipes
Welsh Rarebit
Recipe courtesy Alton Brown, 2003
Show: Good Eats
Episode: Toast Modern

Alton Brown
Check out these features:
Travel tips
Great kitchens
Shop now
Healthy living
Cooking for kids

Recipe Summary
Difficulty: Easy
Prep Time: 15 minutes
Cook Time: 10 minutes
Yield: 4 servings as a side dish

Add To Recipe Box Add to My Recipe Box
Email Email to a Friend
Print Print: Full Page
3X5 Card | 4X6 Card

Ratings and Reviews
User Rating: 4 Stars
Rate Recipe Read Reviews Ratings & Reviews FAQ

ADVERTISEMENT

2 tablespoons unsalted butter
2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon Dijon mustard
1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
1/2 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
1/2 cup porter beer
3/4 cup heavy cream
6 ounces (approximately 1 1/2 cups) shredded Cheddar
2 drops hot sauce
4 slices toasted rye bread

In a medium saucepan over low heat, melt the butter and whisk in the flour. Cook, whisking constantly for 2 to 3 minutes, being careful not to brown the flour. Whisk in mustard, Worcestershire sauce, salt, and pepper until smooth. Add beer and whisk to combine. Pour in cream and whisk until well combined and smooth. Gradually add cheese, stirring constantly, until cheese melts and sauce is smooth; this will take 4 to 5 minutes. Add hot sauce. Pour over toast and serve immediately.

Garlic Knots

Saw this on Emeril tonight on the Food Network. Yer blog hostess has two passions: potatoes and garlic. These look like a lot of fun.

Garlic Knots

Basic Pizza Dough, recipe follows

1/2 cup unsalted butter
3 tablespoons minced garlic
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 teaspoon coarse sea salt
1/4 cup grated Pecorino Romano cheese
2 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley

Prepare Basic Pizza Dough as recipe instructs below and set aside to rise.

Yield: dough for 1 (15-inch) pizza or two large cookie sheets of knots.

He's Not Going Away

Hersh speech blasts Bush and war policy

By Amy Feigenbaum
News Editor

Seymour Hersh, one of America's most respected investigative journalists, criticizes contemporary politicians in speeches.

Seymour Hersh confirmed existing worries about Bush's next four years in office during a Tuesday night lecture in the Memorial Chapel.

Hersh forecasted a protracted war in Iraq, an obstinate president who will remain indifferent to anti-war sentiments, and an economic collapse. In his talk "Chain of Command: From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib," Hersh criticized both Republicans and Democrats, stressing the need for new faces in Congress.

Hersh is one of America's most renowned investigative journalists, currently writing for The New Yorker on military and security matters. In 2004, Hersh helped expose the Abu Ghraib abuses.

Hersh began his lecture by describing Bush's vision of the war in Iraq and the effects his beliefs will have for the future of US intervention.

"Bush thinks he's doing the right thing in Iraq," Hersh said. "He's completely committed whether it's finishing his father's work, for divine reasons, or manifest destiny. Over 1,500 body bags have come back and another 1,000 or 2,000 body bags wouldn't stop him."

The justification for the U.S. invasion, he said, is not oil or Israel as many have thought; it is Bush's uncompromising beliefs.

"It's really terrifying," Hersh said. "Street marches and demonstrations wouldn't change what he's going to do. Even when Bush was asked by a high ranking government official if the US was losing the war in Iraq, Bush said 'you mean we're not winning?'"

Professor Martha Crenshaw from the Government department questioned Hersh's opinion of Bush.

"None of us know what motivates Bush," Crenshaw said. "There are some, Professor Gergen [at the Kennedy School of Government] at Harvard [who] see Bush as a good leader, someone who is flexible and pragmatic. You get a different picture of the president from different things you read."

According to Hersh, Bush's vision has presented several negative implications for the ear in Iraq. Bush has kept the American people in the dark about what is actually going on. There are no embedded journalists and few reporters in Iraq, which allow military activity to go unchecked.

The administration's use of the word "insurgents" in Iraq gives the wrong impression of militants, making them seem unorganized and barbaric. They in fact should be called "resisters," because they are simply resisting the US occupation.

These resisters are more methodical than Bush or the media have given them credit for.

"[The resisters] are letting the Americans have Baghdad," Hersh said. "Most of the Iraqis left the city before the U.S. invaded. And the attacks that occurred during that time seemed random to us. They were taking down their existing structures systematically."

According to Hersh, the insurgent violence, along with an upcoming presidential election, created the impetus for Abu Ghraib. Bush wanted to gain the most information he could in the shortest amount of time.

"While Americans value privacy, Arabs work on shame," Hersh said. "Men cannot see men naked, it's against the Koran. The photos that were taken could be used as blackmail against these prisoners.

The President and his administration knew what was going on, according to Hersh; they had inspected Abu Ghraib and praised its work.

According to Hersh, the American troops in Abu Ghraib were deeply affected by the torture they inflicted. He compared their actions to those of the US soldiers involved in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, which he exposed in 1969.

"I gave them a good boy," Hersh quoted one mother of a soldier involved in the My Lai massacre. "And they gave me back a murderer."

Abu Ghraib is just one example of covert military behavior, Hersh said, but it goes deeper. In recent months, the military has even been hiding where U.S. troops are located. Most troops are being killed in Romady, not Baghdad.

The new plan of attack is to take over one city at a time with the goal of making Iraqis more afraid of U.S. troops than insurgents. The military believes that this is the best way to make Iraqi's safe. The marines, however, do not have the intelligence to make this mission successful and eventually, Hersh said, it will result in a civil war.

On the subject of Afghanistan, Hersh claimed that the violence was completely unnecessary.

"More than 70% of the Taliban didn't want bin Laden as a leader," Hersh said. "Meanwhile, we have declared victory when warlords control the military bases and a mafia society is in control."

Hersh's most recent articles in January 2005 revealed that the U.S. has been conducting covert operations in Iran to identify targets for possible strikes. While both the Bush administration and the Iranian government have denied these allegations, Hersh claims that the U.S. will not stand for Iran having nuclear power.

"We'll do something in Iran," Hersh said. "The Bush administration has long been planning it. This is the worst presidency and the worst war at the worst time in history that I can see. The Congress does not stand up to Bush. Their problem is that they're down 20 IQ points a man since the 1960's."

Tough Job

For Recruiters, a Hard Toll From a Hard Sell
By DAMIEN CAVE

The Army's recruiters are being challenged with one of the hardest selling jobs the military has asked of them in American history, and many say the demands are taking a toll.

A recruiter in New York said pressure from the Army to meet his recruiting goals during a time of war has given him stomach problems and searing back pain. Suffering from bouts of depression, he said he has considered suicide. Another, in Texas, said he had volunteered many times to go to Iraq rather than face ridicule, rejection and the Army's wrath.

An Army chaplain said he had counseled nearly a dozen recruiters in the past 18 months to help them cope with marital troubles and job-related stress.

"There were a couple of recruiters that felt they were having nervous breakdowns, literally," said Maj. Stephen Nagler, a chaplain who retired in March after serving at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, where the New York City recruiting battalion is based.

Two dozen recruiters nationwide were interviewed about their experiences over four months. Ten spoke with The New York Times even after an Army official sent an e-mail message advising all recruiters not to speak to this reporter, who was named. Most asked for anonymity to avoid being disciplined.

A handful who spoke said they were satisfied with their jobs. They said they took pride in seeing awkward, unfocused teenagers transform into confident soldiers and relished an opportunity to contribute to the Army effort.

But most told similar tales: of loving the military, of working hard to complete a seemingly impossible task, of struggling to carry the nation's burden at a time of anxiety and stress.

The careers and self-esteem of recruiters rise and fall on their ability to fulfill a mission, said current and former Army officials and military experts who were also interviewed.

Recruiters said falling short often generates a barrage of angry correspondence, formal reprimands, threats or even demotion.

"The recruiter is stuck in the situation where you're not going to make mission, it just won't happen," the New York recruiter said. "And you're getting chewed out every day for it. It's horrible." He said the assignment was more strenuous than the time he was shot at while deployed in Africa.

New recruiting campaign to appeal to patriotism

By Robert Burns
Associated Press

The Army expects to miss its recruiting goals this month and next and is working on a revised sales pitch appealing to the patriotism of parents, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Wednesday.

Whether that boosts enlistment numbers or not, Harvey said he sees no chance of a military draft.

“The ‘D’ word is the farthest thing from my mind,” the former defense company executive told a Pentagon news conference, his first since becoming the Army’s top civilian official last November.

Because of the military manpower strains caused by simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some in Congress have raised the possibility of re-instituting the draft, although there is a strong consensus against it among Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the military chiefs.

This is the first time the United States has been in a sustained period of combat since the all-volunteer force was introduced in 1973. The Air Force and Navy, which have relatively smaller roles in Iraq and Afghanistan, have no recruiting problems, but the Army and Marines are hard pressed.

The Army missed its recruiting goal for February by 27 percent, and that was the first time it had missed a monthly goal since May 2000. The last time it missed its full-year goal was 1999.

As of Feb. 28, the regular Army was 6 percent below the number of recruits it had expected to sign up at that point in the recruiting year, the Army Reserve was 10 percent off and the Army National Guard was 25 percent off.

The Army is forecasting that all three elements — active, Guard and Reserve — will fall short of their targets for March and April. That means they will have to make up the lost ground this summer — traditionally the best recruiting season — in order to meet their full-year goals.

Encouraging Suffering

Weighing the Difference Between Treating Pain and Dealing Drugs
By TINA ROSENBERG

Dozens of doctors have been charged with drug trafficking because the D.E.A. felt they were prescribing too many pills. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons warns doctors to think twice before treating pain. "Discuss the risks with your family," it says.

One California doctor who prescribed opioids, Frank Fisher, was charged with five counts of murder - including that of a patient who died as a passenger in a car accident. All charges were dropped. A doctor in Florida, James Graves, is serving 63 years for four counts of manslaughter involving overdoses by people who either abused their prescriptions or mixed their prescribed medicines with other drugs.

Dr. Hurwitz, a crusader for aggressive pain treatment, had a controversial practice. More than 90 percent of his patients were genuine, and many say he was the only doctor who quieted their chronic pain. But his willingness to treat patients other doctors shunned, including drug addicts, also attracted scammers. It is legal to prescribe to addicts who are in pain, and many respected pain doctors believe that in some cases, addiction is caused by untreated pain and ends when the pain is controlled.

Dr. Hurwitz, who was disciplined by medical boards several times, testified that he did dismiss 17 patients he concluded were abusing their prescriptions and was tapering down the dosage for others. But he also said he felt that cutting off patients was tantamount to torture, and he did not do so without strong evidence of bad behavior.

Many of Dr. Hurwitz's colleagues believe that he was far too slow to accept such evidence and that he should not have been practicing medicine. But while he was blind to his patients' deceptions, there has never been any evidence that he was part of their conspiracy. In the prosecutors' post-trial motions, they argue that the conviction should stand even if Dr. Hurwitz believed he was prescribing for a legitimate medical purpose.

His prosecution seems inexplicable except as a signal to other doctors that they can go to prison for life for being duped by their patients. That signal is being heard - the exodus from aggressive treatment of pain is increasing. This might marginally reduce the amount of opioids on the street, but in the process it will sentence hundreds of thousands of people to suffer needlessly.

Bushco wants you broke, bankrupt and in pain. Canada is beginning to look like a necessity rather than an option.

Distracting Ourselves to Death

Schiavo Case Tests Priorities Of GOP

By Shailagh Murray and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 26, 2005; Page A01

A week after their unprecedented intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, Republican congressional leaders find themselves in a moral and political thicket, having advanced the cause as a right-to-life issue -- only to confront polls showing that the public does not see it that way.

"How deep is this Congress going to reach into the personal lives of each and every one of us?" asked Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.), one of only five Republicans in the House to vote against the Schiavo bill.

Republican lawmakers and others engaged in the debate say an internal party dispute over the Schiavo case has ruptured, at least temporarily, the uneasy alliance between economic and social conservatives that twice helped President Bush get elected.

"Advocates of using federal power to keep this woman alive need to seriously study the polling data that's come out on this," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who has been talking to both social and economic conservatives about the fallout. "I think that a lot of conservative leaders assumed there was broader support for saying that they wanted to have the federal government save this woman's life."

Some Republicans said they do not believe the vote to allow a federal court to examine whether any of Schiavo's constitutional rights had been violated will become a political issue, especially since 47 House Democrats voted for the measure, while 53 voted against.

"It was not a partisan issue. It was one of conscience," said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.), the chief deputy whip. "People will remember that the majority attempted to address a very difficult situation and did it with a real seriousness of purpose."

Democrats struggled with their own internal divisions over whether to join Republicans in urging federal courts to consider the Schiavo case -- or to oppose it as a dangerous legislative overreach. The decision of so many Democrats to support Republican action represented a rare moment of detente between the two otherwise warring parties.

Even House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), one of the most partisan politicians in Washington, conceded, "There's been incredible cooperation by the Democrats and Republicans." Aides in both parties say a shared concern about the fate of incapacitated people could lead to bipartisan legislation addressing their rights.

The fracas over congressional involvement has taken many GOP lawmakers by surprise. Most knew little about the case and were acting at the direction of their leaders, who armed them with the simple argument that they just wanted to give Schiavo a final chance, and that they wanted to err on the side of life. But because of the rush to act and the insistent approach of the leadership, Republicans had no debate about whether their vote could be seen as federal intrusion in a family matter, or as a violation of the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches. Both issues are concerns of many voters responding to polls, and of some legislators themselves.

Republican leaders knew from the outset they were entering new and possibly rocky terrain. DeLay said that he told Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) two weeks ago, "We have to do something for Terri Schiavo," but that the chairman was reluctant because, as DeLay recounted, "we don't have a precedent for doing private bills in these matters, and he didn't want to violate that precedent."

The majority leader's response to Sensenbrenner: "Be creative."

One senior GOP lawmaker involved in the negotiations, who did not want to speak for the record, said that DeLay, who is fighting ethics charges on several fronts, faced considerable pressure from Christian conservative groups to respond to pleas by the parents of the brain-damaged woman to intervene before her husband, Michael Schiavo, removed the feeding tube that kept her alive. The lawmaker said that DeLay "wanted to follow through" but added that many House Republicans were dubious and suspected that the leader's ethics problems were a motivating factor.

Ya think?

Image and Likeness

Via Kevin:

Fla. officials' attempt, fail to seize Schiavo

By Carol Marbin Miller

Knight Ridder Newspapers

MIAMI - Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo wasn't to be removed from her hospice, a team of Florida law enforcement agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted - but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Miami Herald has learned.

Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.

For a brief period, local police, who have officers around the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called a showdown.

In the end, the state agents and the Department of Children and Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.

"We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in," said a source with the local police.

"The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene," said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. "When the Sheriff's Department, and our department, told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off."

The incident, known only to a few, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in state law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.

Totally. Batshit. Effing. Crazy.

Terri Schiavo will spend the rest of her days, however many or few they are, as she has spent the last fifteen years: with no consciousness, feeling, emotion or sense of where she is. Would those of you who think this is wonderful please email me a definition of what it means to be human?

Holy Saturday

God's Grandeur
Gerard Manley Hopkins, SJ

THE world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs --
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Brit General Election in Six Weeks: Throw the Gunslinger Out

Via The Agonist:

Blair kept quiet on Wolfowitz candidacy
By FT Reporters
Published: March 25 2005 22:01 | Last updated: March 25 2005 22:01

Tony Blair was sounded out on the candidacy of Paul Wolfowitz to lead the World Bank before the White House announced his nomination but did not share the controversial proposal with cabinet colleagues or fellow European leaders.

The British prime minister was informed about Mr Wolfowitz's possible candidacy and relayed to Washington that he would not oppose him. The issue was raised with Mr Blair when Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, visited London last month, according to two senior US officials close to the proceedings. Mr Blair's discreet support gave President George W. Bush the confidence to know that Mr Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary and an advocate of the war in Iraq, would not face united opposition from the World Bank's European shareholders.

But by honouring Mr Bush's wishes, Mr Blair chose to keep the candidacy from Gordon Brown, the UK chancellor, who is chairman of the International Monetary Fund's governing body and the European finance minister most closely identified with the development agenda.

A Downing Street official said: “We had a number of discussions with a number of different countries over possible candidates over a period of time. Like others, we were first notified of the decision to nominate Paul Wolfowitz on the day of the president's announcement.” Treasury officials declined to comment.

While the details of Ms Rice's private conversations with Mr Blair remain tightly held, officials and diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic have said they were aware of Mr Bush's effort to secure the support of his chief European ally. The UK Treasury, the British foreign office and officials in other European capitals remained in the dark, according to UK officials.

Following a report in the Financial Times on March 1 that Mr Wolfowitz was a leading candidate for the US nomination, a senior UK Treasury official telephoned his US counterpart.

The US Treasury dismissed the story, according to British officials. A British diplomat, who contacted the administration, was told Mr Wolfowitz was not in the running.

So how is Tony not Bush's buttboy?

A Lesson Before Dying

The Terri Schiavo matter is a gift if we look at it with something other than the lens we've given to CNN. Families are having difficult conversations they'd never have otherwise. Living wills are being written. Here is a durable power of attorney form which is accepted in most states. I'll give copies of this to my doctor, my lawyer, my brother.

The WaPo's Jeanne McManus has a reflection on the meaning of life, learned from the dying. Don't forget, life is terminal for all of us.

Lessons For Living From the Dying

By Jeanne McManus
Saturday, March 26, 2005; Page A15

The first time I sat by the side of a deathbed and watched the life drain from a loved one, it changed me forever.

It made me smaller, weaker, a little meaner. The first time, it took courage to cross the threshold of the room, and for hours in advance of my visits I would steel myself for the experience and think of ways to avoid it. But duty and love still kept me moving forward, to the chair by the side of the bed. For a week I watched the breath grow more troubled, then more shallow, then turn into just a small, light puff. And then early one morning it stopped.

In the weeks and years that followed, that experience made me stronger. I could plunge into a hospital room with a take-charge, can-do attitude. Someone who knows me well referred to me on these occasions as the Ice Queen.

With an unflinching tone I could interview doctors and ask unpleasant questions. I could clean up messes. I could call the obituary desk with details. I could deliver a eulogy and only once or twice choke on my own words. I could, with cold-blooded directness, tell other people of the importance of being with a loved one as a life evaporated.

I discovered that there are legions of people who don't "do" hospitals, wakes or funerals. And in dire and certain terms I told them what I thought of this unfortunate position. I discovered another group that "doesn't know what to say" to grieving friends or relatives. For them I provided a script or the barest outline of a note of sympathy.

This doesn't always make me the life of the party.

But the older I get the less likely I am to coddle the living and the more important I find the protocol of the dying. This struck me a few years ago as I took my turn with family and friends when we knew that a loved one had only a day or a few hours left. One by one we sat in the chair by the side of the bed, not knowing if our sick friend even realized that we were there.

Each of us spent our time, our final hours with her, in different ways: prayer, poetry, silence. And when it was my turn to sit bedside in that bleak and sorrowful rotation, I could hear the voices of the others rising up from the kitchen, where, perhaps, a bottle of wine had been opened or the ham that had been brought over by the neighbors was being sliced.

Beyond the solitude and the small perimeter of the sickroom, could my dying friend hear that life was going on? Would this be of comfort? Or one last searing pain? And I decided, if it were me, that I would like them to enjoy the wine, have a sandwich, but please turn down the volume.

I continue to fine-tune my final scene. The more of life that I am given, the more I value it. But the more I value it, the more I think about losing it and the more I try to direct the terms of my departure. I use flip and cynical comments to friends and family about what to do with me, most of my directives involving a wheelbarrow and a steep cliff. On the more serious side, I use the wisdom of lawyers and estate planners to lock my wishes into place.

And the more I watch my loved ones die, some of them after a full life but some as if they were picked off randomly by a sniper in a tower, the more I realize the simplicity of what I want when it's my turn: someone who can forgive me for the complicatedness and messiness of my death and for someone who knows me, loves me and cares about me to be sitting in the chair at the side of my bed. I do not want to be observed by hulking men in suits stalking the halls of power on a weekend, by protesters outside a hospice or by a nation of strangers.

Time spent watching someone die is painful, agonizing and transforming.

Though it would be noble to say otherwise, it's not what you learn about death or about your friend or your parent or your sibling as the life drains from them. It's what you learn about you.

I'm a spiritual director. I sit with people in every state of life. Including dying. It is my job to grow wise. It is rarely easy. But anyone can do it.

Sit in the chair. Hold the hand. Learn how little control we have, and how much the power of love enters in. But love will carry you home. Trust it.

Health in the Body Politic

Sr. Joan Chittester speaks out. This is not news, she's always been outspoken, but her critique today is of the political climate in this country. The National Catholic Reporter is liberal in both its politics and in its theology, and is one of the best religion periodicals in the US.

There's a move in the Senate right now to restrict the right to filibuster during discussions of judicial appointees. If you're tempted to assume that something as remote and obscure as the Senate rules of filibuster have little to do with the likes of us, think again.

From where I stand, Byrd's warning is a statesman's call to state, church and educational institutions, however much power they have, to beware the power to suppress thought, to dampen speech. In the end, all that a move like that can really do is to destroy the very intellectual energy such institutions need to survive their own inevitable intellectual inertia.

Judicial Process

Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case

By Andrew Cohen, Andrew Cohen is CBS News' legal analyst.

The Schindlers lost their case and their cause — and soon probably their daughter — because in the end they were making claims the legal system has never been able or willing to recognize. They lost because they long ago ran out of good arguments to make — those arguments having been reasonably rejected by state judge after judge — and thus were left with only lame ones. And they lost because in every case someone has to win and someone has to lose. That's the way it works in our system of government. It isn't pretty, and sometimes it's unfair. But it's reality.

Especially during this final round of review, orchestrated by Congress' extraordinary attempt at a "do-over" for the couple, Schiavo's parents lost appeal after appeal specifically because they were asking the federal courts to declare that their constitutional rights had been violated by the Florida state court rulings in the case. They were arguing, in other words, thanks in part to their custom-made congressional legislation, that the federal Constitution gave them the right as losers in state court to get a new, full-blown trial in federal court.

If you ponder that notion you will realize just how astounding it is. If accepted, it would have meant the end of state courts as we know them. No decision at the state level ever would be final, because every losing litigant at the state court level would be able to walk into federal court and declare a federal constitutional violation. State court trials thus would become like practice sessions and the federal courts, which are supposed to be of "limited jurisdiction," resolving only certain kinds of disputes, would become free-for-alls.

It's true that there are many federal claims that run concurrent with state law. And sometimes, in rare cases, it is necessary for the federal courts to look behind the curtain of a state court ruling. And sometimes it is required. In capital cases, for example, the law requires a federal review of a state court death penalty conviction. In such cases, the government is seeking to kill someone on behalf of the people. In the Schiavo case, a private guardian (a husband) was seeking permission to fulfill his wife's wishes, as determined by the state court of Florida. Yes, there is a difference, one that has been recognized in law and tradition.

If we were to open the doors of federal courts to every losing side in a guardianship case, or a child custody case, or any other matter traditionally left to state courts, we would be changing the very nature of the balance between federal power and states' rights. And we would be doing so at the request of politicians who have spent a generation trumpeting states' rights over the intrusion of federal power.

So how has the federal judiciary reacted to this terrible idea? Predictably, those judges haven't been crazy about it. The federal trial judge in this latest case, U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore, specifically rejected it. The argument by Schiavo's parents, he wrote, "effectively ignores the role of the presiding judge as judicial fact-finder and decision-maker under the Florida statutory scheme …. [Michael Schiavo] is correct that no federal constitutional right is implicated when a judge merely grants relief to a litigant in accordance with the law he is sworn to uphold and follow."

It is no wonder that the federal appeals court refused to reverse Whittemore's ruling. And it is no wonder that the conservative U.S. Supreme Court decided for a fourth time to stay out of the case. This harsh reality won't make it any easier for the Schindlers, but government cannot run on passion or emotion or sympathy. As the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: "There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo…. In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws."

What the judges are saying is that the Congress passed a bad law. This is the reason that Bush's upcoming judicial appointments are so important: an independent judiciary is all that stands between us and the tyranny of the majority in a government controlled by one party. I'll be covering those appointments with much greater focus in the coming weeks--more about that later, but here is a link to one of the organizations keeping very careful watch on the process.

The Other War We're Losing

Pentagon Sees Aggressive Antidrug Effort in Afghanistan
By THOM SHANKER

The Drug Enforcement Administration is already conducting missions with Afghan law enforcement officers. The State Department, in coordination with the government in Kabul, is in charge of American efforts to eradicate poppies and pay farmers to cultivate other crops. Britain has been assigned command of the coalition's military counternarcotics mission in Afghanistan.

But Pentagon officials and American military officers express frustration at the results thus far.

"When we started developing this interagency plan, everybody knew the narcotics numbers would be bad," said one senior Pentagon official. But when the Central Intelligence Agency and the United Nations released reports on Afghan poppy cultivation for 2004 - the United Nations said Afghanistan was now responsible for 87 percent of the world's illicit opium production - "they were beyond most people's worst nightmares," the official added.

One military officer who has served in Afghanistan gave a more pointed assessment: "What will be history's judgment on our nation-building mission in Afghanistan if the nation we leave behind is Colombia" of the 1990's?The Drug Enforcement Administration is already conducting missions with Afghan law enforcement officers. The State Department, in coordination with the government in Kabul, is in charge of American efforts to eradicate poppies and pay farmers to cultivate other crops. Britain has been assigned command of the coalition's military counternarcotics mission in Afghanistan.

But Pentagon officials and American military officers express frustration at the results thus far.

"When we started developing this interagency plan, everybody knew the narcotics numbers would be bad," said one senior Pentagon official. But when the Central Intelligence Agency and the United Nations released reports on Afghan poppy cultivation for 2004 - the United Nations said Afghanistan was now responsible for 87 percent of the world's illicit opium production - "they were beyond most people's worst nightmares," the official added.

One military officer who has served in Afghanistan gave a more pointed assessment: "What will be history's judgment on our nation-building mission in Afghanistan if the nation we leave behind is Colombia" of the 1990's?

Once again, I note the complete and utter incompetence of the Department of Defense.

Projection

America's Dangerous Mideast Assumptions: the View From Damascus
# Syria sees Washington's policies as driven by fallacies and misinformation.

By Bouthaina Shaaban, Bouthaina Shaaban is Syria's minister for emigrant affairs.

DAMASCUS, Syria — I recently picked up a newspaper and saw the following headline: "Rice Promises That Washington Will Build a Different Kind of Middle East." Unsure what this could possibly mean, I looked closer at Condoleezza Rice's remarks to U.S. troops in Kabul, Afghanistan, to see if I could learn what this new Middle East was going to be.

"A different kind of broader Middle East that's going to be stable and democratic," was what she described that day, "where our children will one day not have to worry about the kind of ideologies of hatred that led those people to fly those airplanes into those buildings on September 11th."

So let me get this straight. Rice believes that our region harbors "ideologies of hatred" and that it is populated by "those people." Those terrorists.

This absurd generalization embodies the fallacy that underlies the entire U.S. "war on terrorism," which has severely damaged America's reputation and credibility around the world and which has led to the disastrous policies that will harm relations between the U.S. and the Arab world for decades to come.

To suggest that a group of extremists is representative of the people of the Middle East is outrageous. It's as if someone were to suggest that the criminals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are representative of American people and American values. It's like considering the criminals of massacres such as Sabra and Chatila, or Deir Yasin, as representative of their people and their religious values.

The other dangerous idea in Rice's remarks is that the attacks of Sept. 11 are a reasonable justification for the wrongheaded U.S. policy in the Middle East. That's ridiculous. Americans should be aware by now — but I don't think they are — that the events of Sept. 11 have weighed heavily on Arabs and Muslims just as they have on the people of the United States. The terrorists of Al Qaeda have targeted Arabs and Muslims repeatedly. They are, therefore, our enemies just as they are your enemies. So why should we be punished for their crimes?

I'm afraid that Americans don't know what's really going on in the Middle East today. Apparently it doesn't come through from your "embedded journalism." What is happening today is that Palestinian groups are being dismembered, the Lebanese resistance is being disarmed and the Syrian government is being demonized — all while Israel continues to occupy the Arab lands it has held since 1967 in violation of all U.N. resolutions calling for its withdrawal. Israeli extremists are seizing Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. An apartheid wall is being constructed that will separate tens of thousands of Palestinians from their cities and villages.

Here's something else that's happening: Syria's secular heritage and its long-standing tradition of religious coexistence are being threatened; the statements of many U.S. officials seem to indicate that the destabilization we're already seeing in the region could soon be extended into both Syria and Lebanon.

But why? Syria has never threatened the United States. Still, it is the target of the "ideological enmity" of members of Congress who support Israel's refusal to end the occupation of the Golan Heights and its continuous rejection of Syria's calls for a comprehensive and just peace.

Acting on the basis of a mythology which is at odds with reality leads to disaster.

Governments and Rights

A Thin View of 'Life'

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A19

How has Terri Schiavo's care been financed? The available information suggests that some of the money came from one of those much-derided medical malpractice lawsuits and that the drugs she needs have been paid for by Medicaid.

The irony has not been lost on Democrats. Just a few days after most Republicans in both houses of Congress had supported cuts in federal funding of Medicaid, here they were erring "on the side of life" in a single case. The same issue has come up here in Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush, a strong supporter of keeping Schiavo alive, has been proposing cuts in Medicaid spending.

Republicans cry foul when any link is made between the Schiavo question and the Medicaid question. "The fact that they're tying a life issue to the budget process shows just how disconnected Democrats are to reality," harrumphed Dan Allen, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Forgive me, Mr. Allen, I know you're just doing your job, but what's disconnected from reality is refusing to accept the idea that health care is about life issues and money issues.

People who lack access to health care because they can't afford insurance often die earlier than they have to -- with absolutely no national publicity and with no members of Congress rising up at midnight to pass bills on their behalf. What is the point of standing up for life in an individual case but not confronting the cost of choosing life for all who are threatened within the health care system or by their lack of access to it?

What does it mean to be pro-life? As far as I can tell, most of those who would keep Schiavo alive favor the death penalty. Most favored allowing the assault weapons ban to expire and oppose other forms of gun control. The president makes an excellent point when he says we "ought to err on the side of life." It's a shame how rarely that principle is put into practice.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Is it time for another revolution?

"Good" Friday

Every year for Lent I take up T.S. Eliot's "Four Quartets." This year, the passage that caught in my throat changed:

If you came this way,
Taking any route, starting from anywhere,
At any time or at any season,
It would always be the same: you would have to put off
Sense and notion. You are not here to verify,
Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity
Or carry report. You are here to kneel
Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more
Than an order of words, the conscious occupation
Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying.
And what the dead had no speech for, when living,

I can't imagine what it cost him to write that.

Voice of the People

From lorraine's diary at dKos, she writes of hearing a speech by Sy Hersch yesterday:

There was nobody in Baghdad to fight us.

There is a separate wing for women prisoners. They send messages out--please come and kill me, I've been defiled.

Every war has been like this. It is the nature of war and rape and pillage are its handmaidens.

What's Good About This Friday

Today is Good Friday, a strange day, and it should stay strange, I wouldn't want it otherwise. It is a day to think on life and death. I use this day every year to meditate on the prayer of Oscar Romero, martyred this day 25 years ago as he celebrated Mass on the altar of his cathedral in El Salvador. He said:

It helps, now and then, to step back
and take the long view.
The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is beyond our vision.

We may never see the end results,
but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker.
We are workers, not master builders,
ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future not our own. Amen.

I have three pieces of paper taped up on the shelves above my monitor. This is one of them. I read it every day.

Good Friday

Billmon returns, sorta:

But as I’ve noted before, blogging is a strange drug. When you’re clean, it’s not too hard to stay clean. But once you start using the stuff again . . . man, the monkey can get his claws in your back pretty damn fast. So one post led to another, and then another. And, well, pretty soon I was back freebasing.

You see, futility does have its advantages.

Exactly. You do what you can, you do what you are called to do and can't do otherwise. Yes, it costs and it isn't easy, and there you are, spending your energy on a seemingly pointless and ignoble task. Prophets are always without honor in their own lands. It has never been otherwise.

Democracy, Not Sexy, No Whiskey

Forming Iraq govt could take another week; fighting rips Fallujah
(AFP)

25 March 2005

BAGHDAD - Shiite and Kurdish figures delayed the second session of Iraq’s elected parliament until at least Monday and warned that bargaining over the formation of a government could drag on for another week.

As the political drama played itself out, Iraqi troops battled insurgents in their former stronghold of Fallujah and five Iraqi policemen and soldiers died in a friendly-fire incident on Thursday.

US ambassador to Bulgaria, James Pardew, on Thursday also asked that Bulgaria’s parliament not set a definite date for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, a parliament spokesman in Sofia said.

The request came a day after the Bulgarian defense ministry said it would pull its 450 troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.

“The request ... was to not necessarily set a deadline for withdrawal of Bulgarian contingent from Iraq,” spokesman Borislav Velikov told journalists after talks with Pardew.

Pardew also called for Bulgaria “to take into account the concrete circumstances and conditions in Iraq and the progress towards democratization after the new Iraqi parliament adopts a constitution,” Velikov added.

Meanwhile, in Britain, the head of an information watchdog said Friday he expected to gain access to secret advice on the legality of the Iraq war that the government received in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion.

Richard Thomas, the information commissioner who oversees the operation of the recently promulgated Freedom of Information Act, said he must decide whether the public was best served by keeping the document secret.

Hopes in Iraq of clinching a government nearly two months after its epic election were dented as the election-winning Shiite list, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), announced it would not reconvene the 275-member parliament until at least Monday.

Political leaders cautioned that a government might not be reached until the end of the month.

Having worked in the unions with nothing more than Roberts Rules, I can tell you that self-governance is a tortured process that doesn't always yield anything. That said, the means is the way to the ends. Do it the other way around and what you get is oligarchy. That's the easy way out.

Into the Future

That's it for today, Bumpers. This one has been very complicated and included more veterinary features (and, no, we aren't done yet, thanks for asking, [$$$ is heading into scary territory]) and a lot of running. There are some new deals in the works and much back and forth today, with a lot of new things to think about.

PBS Newshour is weighing in on the blogs, CNN is threatening to revamp their daily schedule to include thrice daily blog reports, this is all dizzying. Here's tonight's discussion question: citizen journalism, or the Public Medium as I've coined it--where do you think we're going? Where would you like to go? What unfulfilled potentials for the medium do you see? (I actually have an essay on the latter I have to write on another errand. I'll share it if it comes out well.)

Unsavory Nation

US handling of terror suspects questioned
Ex-envoy says dozens are sent to Uzbekistan and at risk of torture

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | March 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan says that over the past three years, the United States has routinely handed over dozens of low-level terrorism suspects to Uzbekistan, an authoritarian regime that systematically uses torture to obtain terrorist confessions during interrogations.

The former ambassador, Craig Murray, also contends that the CIA and the British intelligence agency MI6 routinely cited information in their regular intelligence briefings that has been passed on by Uzbek authorities and was almost certainly obtained under torture.

Murray's assertions, made in a telephone interview with the Globe and in a series of confidential memos to the British Foreign Office, raise questions about the close cooperation between the United States and war-on-terror allies such as Uzbekistan. The State Department's annual human rights reports detail how Uzbek authorities routinely use torture to elicit confessions, allegedly burning one man on his genitals, killing another with a pair of pliers, and apparently boiling two prisoners alive.

''We should cease all cooperation with the Uzbek Security Services -- they are beyond the pale," Murray wrote in a July 2004 memo to the foreign office. The memo appeared on the website of an Uzbek democracy group and Murray confirmed for the Globe its authenticity.

US officials including CIA Director Porter Goss have contended they do not turn suspects over to countries that use torture without receiving diplomatic assurances that the suspect will not be mistreated.

A spokesman for the CIA said the agency ''does not knowingly receive any intelligence information that was alleged to have been derived from individuals who are tortured."

Murray, however, said that the CIA's head of mission told his deputy that the agency knew that the intelligence was probably obtained under torture but ''they didn't see that as a problem."

A CIA spokesman in Washington said no such meeting or conversation ever took place.

Murray, who retired early last month from the foreign service, has captivated British newspaper readers since the government launched an investigation into allegations of financial and sexual improprieties which he contends was meant to silence him. (He was eventually cleared of all charges except leaking confidential material to the press, according to a Foreign Office spokesman.)

But American newspapers have rarely written of Murray, who is now running an underfunded campaign to unseat British foreign secretary Jack Straw.

They did it to David Kelly, too. He killed himself. Murray wants to get even.

The CIA's credibility, never very good, has sunk to new lows under Goss.

Looter in Chief

SEC may sue Perle over Hollinger

By OTIS BILODEAU AND PETER ROBISON

Thursday, March 24, 2005 Page B3

Bloomberg, with files from staff

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has warned former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle that it may sue him for his role in the alleged looting of Hollinger International Inc., the Chicago-based media company once controlled by Richard Perle.

Mr. Perle, 63, a Hollinger director, said in a telephone interview that he received and responded to a so-called Wells notice, a formal warning that the agency's enforcement staff has determined that evidence of wrongdoing is sufficient to bring a civil lawsuit.

The enforcement staff, which has reviewed Mr. Perle's response, plans to urge the SEC's commissioners to authorize a suit against him, according to people familiar with the matter.

"We did receive a notice some months ago and we responded at some length," said Mr. Perle, who was the leading architect of U.S. nuclear arms-control policy as assistant secretary of defence from 1981 to 1987, during the administration of president Ronald Reagan. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Mr. Perle was foreign policy adviser to George W. Bush.

If the SEC proceeds with a suit against Mr. Perle, it will mark one of the first times that the regulator has targeted a corporate director of a major company for allegedly failing to protect shareholder interests.

Mr. Perle played a key role on Hollinger International's board as a member of its executive committee with Lord Black and his long-time deputy David Radler. The committee approved a number of controversial transactions that enriched Lord Black and Mr. Radler and are the target of a number of criminal and civil investigations in the United States and Canada.

I've been waiting on this one for well over a year.

End of an Era

MPT to cancel 'Wall St. Week' after 35 years
Audience, sponsors lost since firing of Rukeyser

After struggling for three years to regain the audience and underwriters it lost since firing star Louis Rukeyser, Maryland Public Television will announce today that it is canceling one of the longest-running national franchises in TV history, Wall Street Week.

The final episode of the 35-year-old, landmark PBS series - produced at MPT's Owings Mills studio and considered the prototype for financial advice programming (including entire cable channels) - will air at 8:30 p.m. June 24.

For 32 years, the imposing Rukeyser presided over the hourlong Friday-night program interspersing financial insights with wry puns and idiosyncratic musings on the market. After MPT dismissed him in 2002, in a public squabble that included Rukeyser criticizing the station on-air, the show's hosting duties were taken over by Geoffrey Colvin, editorial director of Fortune magazine, and former Fox News Channel correspondent Karen Gibes.

Within a month, Rukeyser, a Princeton University graduate, began leading a CNBC financial show - which, in defiance of PBS, was picked up by 160 public television stations. The new MPT version, called Wall Street Week with Fortune, never regained its momentum, and underwriting dollars dwindled.

"Who would have ever thought that could happen - that MPT would cancel Wall Street Week?" said Douglas Gomery, a professor and media economist at the University of Maryland, College Park. "Along with Sesame Street, it was one of the first shows on PBS, a landmark series. But I guess once Rukeyser left, it was inevitable.

"Louis Rukeyser was the franchise - proof that the star system worked even for PBS. Do a survey, see how many people can even name the hosts today."

I can't. I'm sorry to see the old franchise end, but when MPT fired Rukeyser, I followed him over to his new show at CNBC. Because of his charm and ease, he overcame my fear of money and taught me virtually everything I know about investing and equity markets, which launched me into deeper study of economics (thanks to Max and Angry Bear.) Friday night is my big TV night because of PBS, and now I've added CNBC to see Lou.

The Few, the Old, the Decrepit

Army Orders Further Involuntary Troop Call-Up

Wed Mar 23, 6:13 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is ordering more people to serve in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) involuntarily from a seldom-used personnel pool as part of a mobilization that began last summer.

They are part of the Army's Individual Ready Reserve, made up of soldiers who have completed their volunteer active-duty service commitment but remain eligible to be called back into uniform for years after returning to civilian life.

The Army, straining to maintain troop levels in Iraq, last June said it would summon more than 5,600 people on the IRR in an effort to have about 4,400 soldiers fit for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan after granting exemption requests for medical reasons and other hardships.

Lt. Col. Pamela Hart said on Wednesday the Army has now increased the number of IRR soldiers it needs to about 4,650, which means a total of about 6,100 will get mobilization orders.

The IRR differs from the part-time Army Reserve and Army National Guard, whose soldiers train regularly as part of units. People on the IRR have no such training requirements.

Hart also said 370 IRR soldiers had not reported to the Army by the date ordered and have not requested an exemption from service or a delay in reporting. Hart said none have been declared absent without leave, or AWOL, and the Army was trying to determine whether all of them actually had received their mobilization orders.

"We're giving them all ample opportunity to comply with their orders," Hart said.

The Army has approved 1,866 requests for exemptions or delays in reporting, Hart said.

Think the military isn't in trouble? I don't care what Richard Myers says to Congress, when you're calling up old, out of shape guys, you are in a world of hurt.

In the Ruins

The list of atrocities is so long that it becomes easy to forget. I thank Katrina vanden Heuvel for this reminder

Cultural Barbarism
03/23/2005 @ 2:45pm

The sterile term "collateral damage" justifiably brings to mind the human tragedy of war. But the devastating and wanton damage inflicted on the ancient city of Babylon by US-led military forces gives another meaning to the term. In this case, we are witnessing violence against one of the world's greatest cultural treasures. Babylon's destruction, according to The Guardian, "must rank as one of the most reckless acts of cultural vandalism in recent memory." When Camp Babylon was established by US-led international forces in April 2003, leading archeologists and international experts on ancient civilizations warned of potential peril and damage. It was "tantamount to establishing a military camp around the Great Pyramid in Egypt or around Stonehenge in Britain," according to a damning report issued in January by the British Museum.

The overall situation in Iraq is overwhelmingly a human tragedy but that does not exempt the US authorities, who set up Camp Babylon, from the consequences of what The Guardian called an act of "cultural barbarism"--carried out in their name by a subsidiary of Halliburton. There must be a full investigation of the damage caused, and Halliburton should be made to offer whatever compensation is possible for the wanton destruction of the world's cultural treasure.

I had hoped to see the ruins of Babylon one day. Doesn't look like there is much left to see.

Hypocrisy Now

In a fit of Holy Week generosity, I'm going to excerpt the good part of Friedman's Op-Ed and exclude the embarrassing, self-referential part. He actually manages to get mostly out of his own head for a half of the thing and I guess I should reward good behavior.

George W. to George W.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: March 24, 2005

Of all the stories about the abuse of prisoners of war by American soldiers and C.I.A. agents, surely none was more troubling and important than the March 16 report by my Times colleagues Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt that at least 26 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 - in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide.

You have to stop and think about this: We killed 26 of our prisoners of war. In 18 cases, people have been recommended for prosecution or action by their supervising agencies, and eight other cases are still under investigation. That is simply appalling. Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, reported Jehl and Schmitt - "showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift."

Yes, I know war is hell and ugliness abounds in every corner. I also understand that in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we are up against a vicious enemy, which, if it had the power, would do great harm to our country. You do not deal with such people with kid gloves. But killing prisoners of war, presumably in the act of torture, is an inexcusable outrage. The fact that Congress has just shrugged this off, and no senior official or officer has been fired, is a travesty. This administration is for "ownership" of everything except responsibility.

President Bush just appointed Karen Hughes, his former media adviser, to head up yet another U.S. campaign to improve America's image in the Arab world. I have a suggestion: Just find out who were the cabinet, C.I.A. and military officers on whose watch these 26 homicides occurred and fire them. That will do more to improve America's image in the Arab-Muslim world than any ad campaign, which will be useless if this sort of prisoner abuse is shrugged off. Republicans in Congress went into overdrive to protect the sanctity of Terri Schiavo's life. But they were mute when it came to the sanctity of life for prisoners in our custody. Such hypocrisy is not going to win any P.R. battles.

Theocracy Now

DeLay, Deny and Demagogue
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: March 24, 2005

The scene on Capitol Hill this past week has been almost as absurdly macabre as the movie "Weekend at Bernie's," with Tom DeLay and Bill Frist propping up between them this poor woman in a vegetative state to indulge their own political agendas. Mr. DeLay, the poster child for ethical abuse, wanted to show that he is still a favorite of conservatives. Dr. Frist thinks he can ace out Jeb Bush to be 44, even though he has become a laughingstock by trying to rediagnose Ms. Schiavo's condition by video.

As one disgusted Times reader suggested in an e-mail: "Americans ought to send Bill Frist their requests: 'Dear Dr. Frist: Please watch the enclosed video and tell us if that mole on my mother's cheek is cancer. Does she need surgery?'"

Jeb, keeping up with the '08 competition, vainly tried to get Florida to declare Ms. Schiavo a ward of the state.

Republicans easily abandon their cherished principles of individual privacy and states rights when their personal ambitions come into play. The first time they snatched a case out of a Florida state court to give to a federal court, it was Bush v. Gore. This time, it's Bush v. Constitution.

While Senate Democrats like Hillary Clinton, who are trying to curry favor with red staters, meekly allowed the shameful legislation to be enacted, at least some Floridian House members decided to put up a fight, though they knew they couldn't win.

The president and his ideological partners don't believe in separation of powers. They just believe in their own power. First they tried to circumvent the Florida courts; now they're trying to pack the federal bench with conservatives and even blow up the filibuster rule. But they may yet learn a lesson on checks and balances, as the federal courts rebuffed them in the Schiavo case.

The "base" may love this kind of garbage, but alienating the other 80 percent of the electorate isn't going to play well down the road. That said, one correspondent said, "Do you really think anybody is going to remember this in six months?" Good point.

Abuse in the System

Army Documents Shed Light on CIA 'Ghosting'
Systematic Concealment Of Detainees Is Found

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 24, 2005; Page A15

Senior defense officials have described the CIA practice of hiding unregistered detainees at Abu Ghraib prison as ad hoc and unauthorized, but a review of Army documents shows that the agency's "ghosting" program was systematic and known to three senior intelligence officials in Iraq.

Army and Pentagon investigations have acknowledged a limited amount of ghosting, but more than a dozen documents and investigative statements obtained by The Washington Post show that unregistered CIA detainees were brought to Abu Ghraib several times a week in late 2003, and that they were hidden in a special row of cells. Military police soldiers came up with a rough system to keep track of such detainees with single-digit identification numbers, while others were dropped off unnamed, unannounced and unaccounted for.

The documents show that the highest-ranking general in Iraq at the time acknowledged that his top intelligence officer was aware the CIA was using Abu Ghraib's cells, a policy the general abruptly stopped when questions arose.

CIA operatives began looking for a central place to put detainees captured during secret missions in Iraq in mid-2003, and an early choice was the high-security Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, where CIA officers hoped to deposit a few of their prisoners without registering their names. Lt. Col. Ronald G. Chew, the military police commander there, told Army investigators later that he "argued against the practice" and turned the operatives away.

Instead, according to the documents, the CIA quickly looked to Abu Ghraib, then a dusty and decrepit compound outside Baghdad that was slated to be transformed into the central U.S. detention center for the war.

According to statements investigators took from soldiers and officers who worked at the prison, a stream of ghost detainees began arriving in September 2003, after military intelligence officers and the CIA came to an arrangement that kept the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations from knowing the detainees existed. The investigative documents show that Col. Thomas M. Pappas and Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, the top two military intelligence officers at the prison, took part in discussions with the CIA on how to handle agency detainees.

Pappas and Jordan are still under investigation, and Army officials said they believe a decision about whether to discipline them could come by the end of the month.

Keeping ghost detainees was harshly criticized by Army investigators who looked into abuse at the prison, and human rights groups condemn the practice. The Red Cross regularly inspects prisons and is supposed to have access to all inmates to ensure their rights are protected.

Seems like something more than a few bad apples.

Blogging at the Roof of the World

Via JSLB at The Agonist:

Nepal scribes evade censors with blogs

New Delhi, March 23 (Reuters): Journalists in Nepal are going hi-tech to sidestep tight censorship imposed after last month’s royal coup.

Outspoken web logs, or blogs, are springing up and being widely quoted and linked to in the “blogosphere” — the mushrooming cyberworld rapidly establishing a place for itself as an alternative source of news and information.

“I feel that our very own survival, intellectually and mentally, depends on freedom,” says Dinesh Wagle, a newspaper journalist who runs United We Blog! (www.blog.com.np).

“I don’t want to live like a dead soul. So these days I am blogging for a peaceful and democratic Nepal,” he said in an e-mail interview. King Gyanendra seized power on February 1, arresting government and political leaders, rights activists and journalists.

He also banned media criticism of his move, which he said was aimed at ending a nine-year Maoist revolt that has killed 11,000 people and shattered the tourism and aid-dependent economy.

But United We Blog! and another popular blog, the anonymous Radio Free Nepal (freenepal.blogspot.com), publish interviews with arrested political leaders and news about anti-king protests that the mainstream media cannot.

“I am blogging the truth as I see and as I think,” says the print journalist running Radio Free Nepal.

“I am telling my audience there are pro-monarch rallies and the true story behind them (compulsory participation) ... and also that there is not much participation in anti-monarch rallies, along with my feelings that there should be democracy and the king should step down,” he said by e-mail.

Wagle, who coordinates the art and style section for Kantipur, the leading Nepali language daily, is a former information technology reporter. He has his own website (www.wagle.com.np) and along with several friends and colleagues has been blogging since 2003. But United We Blog! turned political after Gyanendra seized power.

Just like Wagle, I've been blogging the resistance since 2003. Good on you, brother.

Ain't I An American?

CampusProgress's Elana Berkowitz interviewsSeymour Hersh:

I read somewhere that when your My Lai story was first published there was an opinion poll that showed more than half of Americans didn’t think it should have been published. How did you respond to that?

Bush has called me a liar in print a couple of times, and people get mad at me. There’s a couple of guys at the Pentagon who scream and rant and rave about me publicly. I’m just as mainstream as them for trying to go after them. I am just as much of an American.

Inflation, Anyone?

Consumer Prices Increase Fuels Inflation Fears

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 23, 2005; 1:10 PM

Rising prices for gasoline, fuel oil and natural gas pushed U.S. consumer inflation up in February to its fastest rate in four months, the government reported today.

The figures followed the Federal Reserve's warning yesterday that inflation pressures had picked up recently, a signal that the central bank might have to push interest rates up more aggressively in coming months to keep inflation under control.

Consumer prices have risen faster than wages for most workers during the past year, which means average weekly earnings have fallen on an inflation-adjusted basis, the Labor Department reported.

The consumer price index, the department's widely followed measure of inflation, rose 0.4 percent last month, up from a 0.1 percent increase in January, primarily because of a 2 percent gain in energy prices.

The CPI rose 3 percent during the 12 months that ended in February, driven in part by a 10.4 percent increase in energy prices.

The inflation figures "suggest that the Fed is right to be more concerned," said Paul Ashworth, senior international economist for Capital Economics Ltd., a research firm in London.

Meanwhile, oil and gasoline prices have jumped since last month. U.S. benchmark crude scheduled for May delivery has traded above $56 a barrel in recent days, up from around $46 a barrel in early February, according to the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Waiting on the consumer confidence numbers...

Promoting Raptors

Canadians watch circling hawks

CAROL GOAR

Racking his brain to think of something positive to say about the nominations of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank, Paul Heinbecker ventured: "At least it gets them out of government."

Heinbecker, Canada's former ambassador to the U.N., usually is more diplomatic than that.

But, like much of the international community, he is reeling from President George Bush's decision to name two of the hardest-line hawks in Washington to pivotal roles in the world's leading multilateral institutions.

As undersecretary of state, Bolton was withering in his criticism of the U.N. Yet he is to be America's 25th envoy to the organization.

As deputy defence secretary, Wolfowitz was the principal architect of the war in Iraq. Yet he is slated to head a 184-nation agency mandated to fight global poverty.

One provocative appointment might have been an aberration. Two constitute a strategy.

There are three prevailing theories about what Bush hopes to accomplish:

The first, to which Heinbecker subscribes, is that the president seeks to build on his record in Iraq. Bush regards the toppling of Saddam Hussein as proof America is capable of spreading democracy throughout the world.

By putting two strong proponents of the war in Iraq in key international positions, he is signalling his intention to push ahead vigorously in his second term.

"It's easier to understand intellectually than viscerally," Heinbecker admitted. "I find American triumphalism ill-placed and ill-timed."

The second view, popular in conservative circles, is that Bush thinks the United Nations, World Bank and other global organizations need a shake-up. They are bloated, poorly run and full of muddle-headed idealists.

By bringing in Bolton and Wolfowitz, he aims to impose some American-style discipline. The two may not win any congeniality awards, but they'll clean things up.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hailed Bolton as a man who "knows how to get things done." Bush praised Wolfowitz for his management of the Pentagon.

The third and bleakest hypothesis is that Bush intends to destroy the U.N. and other multilateral decision-making bodies from within.

By appointing unilateralists such as Bolton and Wolfowitz to these organizations, the White House is giving them a stark choice: Become foreign policy instruments of the U.S. or fade into irrelevance.

"We are drifting into the sort of situation in which the League of Nations died in the '20s," predicted Manfred Bienefeld, who teaches international development at Carleton University. "It's very worrisome."

I can understand why the Canadians are concerned but I think taking a look at the Bush/Cheney/Negraponte/Wolfowitz track record will immediately notice that they are spectacularly incompetent. They may have all kinds of evil intent, but no demonstrated capacity to actually do anything about it.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

From Dan Froomkin's "Live Chat" at the WaPo:

Carrboro, N.C.: Dan, when is the press going to drop the absurd "town-hall meeting" or "town-hall style meeting" moniker for Bush's Social Security roadshows?

Dan Froomkin: As far as I can tell, no. As political scientist Jeffrey Tulis put it in an essay on the other site I work for, NiemanWatchdog.org: "Certainly, in the past, presidential advance teams have on occasion taken steps to assure friendly audiences. It has not been uncommon for presidents to seek invitations to speak at friendly venues. But systematically screening audiences for an array of speaking tours in the pursuit of a national domestic policy campaign may be a new phenomenon, and one that the president should be asked to defend and justify in terms of his constitutional obligations."

Um, congressional oversite, anyone?

More Incompetence

Who's Minding the Store?

Published: March 23, 2005

Don't be fooled by the location of the United States Treasury, right next door to the White House. The department has suffered a steady diminution of prestige and influence during the Bush administration, starting with the unceremonious firing of its first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, less than two years into the job, in part for suggesting that deficits do, in fact, matter.

Things have been downhill ever since. Last December, Republican power brokers made no bones about wanting to oust the current Treasury secretary, John Snow, only to find that the administration couldn't entice anyone better to take the job. Of course, it is always difficult to lure people with Hamiltonian intellect, expertise and reputation away from the private sector. But Mr. Bush has a particularly hard time doing so.

The reason in large measure is that from the start of his administration, tax policy and economic policy - the purview of the Treasury - have been handmaids to politics and ideology emanating from the White House. Without the clear-cut opportunity to drive policy making, the best and the brightest aren't exactly clamoring for jobs at Treasury. And Mr. Snow is still in his post, reprising his first-term performance as cheerleader for Mr. Bush's tax cuts in his current role as salesperson for Mr. Bush's misbegotten plan to privatize Social Security.

Meanwhile, vacancies are piling up. The post of deputy secretary, the No. 2 job, has been vacant for nearly two months, and the first-choice candidate recently removed his name from consideration. The post of under secretary for domestic finance, the Treasury's main liaison with Wall Street and the person responsible for issuance of the federal debt, has been open all year. The job of assistant secretary for tax policy has also gone unfilled this year, a disturbing absence at a timewhen the president is calling for comprehensive tax reform. And on Monday, the under secretary for international affairs, the person who coordinates with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and steps in when a country like Argentina or Brazil teeters on collapse, announced his resignation effective April 22.

The United States faces unprecedented financial risks, uncertainties and challenges, right now. The interplay of our federal budget deficit with our record deficits in trade and global transactions has become the focus of the international financial community, with repercussions for the dollar, inflation, interest rates and economic growth.

The clear lack of a deep bench from which to fill vacancies is cause for alarm, as is the extent to which our complex economic problems are beyond the ken of a mostly political, loyalist band of policy makers. That alarm, insistent though not yet overwhelming, would quickly reach deafening proportions if the United States were forced to respond to a sudden, destabilizing event like 9/11 without a credible Treasury team.

We are standing at the brink of an economic apocalypse and this is the kind of leadership we have. This is scary.

What are YOU Eating?

Syngenta Says It Sold Wrong Biotech Corn

By Michael S. Rosenwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 23, 2005; Page E01

Swiss biotech firm Syngenta AG said yesterday that over a four-year period it inadvertently sold U.S. farmers an unapproved strain of genetically modified corn seed that may have also entered the food supply and international export channels.

Syngenta, as well as three federal regulatory agencies investigating the sales, cautioned that the mistake posed no health risks because the unapproved strain is virtually identical, genetically, to an approved strain of corn seed that the company markets.

The firm said the amount of unapproved corn planted from 2001 until it discovered and reported the mistake to regulators last December was "very little," amounting to 37,000 acres out of the 320 million acres planted during that period across the United States.

Despite the small amount of corn involved, as well as the lack of public health risk, industry observers said Syngenta's problems would likely stoke long-simmering concerns over the biotech industry's ability to control the technology.

"Although I'm glad there was no risk to human health, this situation proves again that this technology is hard to control and there must be better oversight of the industry," said Greg Jaffe, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "This situation certainly doesn't give any assurances to consumers."

Jaffe said he was particularly concerned that the company was selling the unapproved seeds for four years without knowing it.

How the hell are we supposed to even know what we're eating anymore? These frankenfoods are simply unneccessary. Ever since the Borlaug revolution we've had more than sufficient seed stock and capability to feed the entire planet. What we don't have is the interest and will to change inequities in distribution.

Dumbing it Down

Study: Media Self-Censored Some Iraq Coverage

By Joe Strupp

Published: March 19, 2005 12:05 PM ET

NEW YORK Many media outlets self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion because of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content, according to a survey of more than 200 journalists by American University's School of Communications.

"There is an unspoken rule against publishing images that would be extremely horrifying such as a bloody stump on an amputee or a mangled corpse," one respondent wrote. Added another: "Several photos, especially one of a very young, naked, dead boy, stirred controversy before we decided to post them."

This is our vigorous press life. No wonder that we have yet to see a picture from the desolation of Fallujah, of an American coffin, of a dead civilian. You have to go to the foreign press for the facts.

President Pedant

A Tale of Two Ranches

ANDRES MARTINEZ

It'll be sad, really, watching Jorge and Vicente go through the motions today. Presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox will "summit" at the Crawford ranch, talk about the glories of NAFTA and pledge to toughen border security. They'll even have Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin around to ease the awkwardness and help them avoid lingering on what might have been between two amigos.

Four years ago, it was a different ranch, a different era. Bush hadn't been in office even a month before he rushed down to Fox's place in Guanajuato. The two newly elected ranch-owning conservatives hit it off. Fox gave Bush a pair of boots and introduced him to his mother. Bush, the former border governor, agreed it was a "new day" in Mexican-American relations, and the two leaders kicked off ambitious negotiations aimed at overhauling U.S. immigration policy.

But even back then, in Guanajuato, there was a foreshadowing of things to come, of an American president's inability to focus on his old neighborhood. On the day of Bush's visit, U.S. warplanes struck Iraqi radar installations. Mexico couldn't even have the day to itself.

Too bad, because the opportunity for a new Mexico-U.S. partnership was real. Having vanquished the long-ruling Party of the Institutional Revolution in the 2000 election, Fox, a former Coca-Cola executive, desired change. Our "distant neighbor," to recall the title of Alan Riding's 1985 book, suddenly wanted to be our best friend.

Fast-forward four years, and the two countries have little to show for that initial euphoria. There is no immigration accord, no partnership to promote democracy and human rights throughout the hemisphere, no comprehensive energy deal to pierce Mexico's self-defeating barriers to foreign investment and lessen American reliance on Mideast oil. Bush, in the end, never even deigned to pay a state visit to Mexico City. He was too busy, if not in a snit over Mexico's refusal to back the war in Iraq in the U.N. Security Council.

So here we are, talking only about such absurdities as whether Al Qaeda could exploit the border's porousness. There is something about that 2,000-mile, often illusory line that makes politicians say the loopiest things. GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, for instance, recently chastened Mexico City for "turning a blind eye" to the fact that its citizens cross illegally into the United States. As if Washington could do anything if Americans decided to leave en masse, without proper papers, for Canada. For his part, Fox is out of line when he decries U.S. efforts to erect walls and make it harder for people to cross — that is Washington's prerogative.

The Bush administration will soon regret not having capitalized on the opportunity for U.S.-Mexico change. Fox will be out of office by the end of next year and his successor — possibly Mexico City's leftist mayor, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — will no doubt be far less eager to improve ties with Washington. Indeed, the return of anti-American populism is the latest hemispheric fad.

In fairness, Washington is not solely responsible for the souring of cross-border expectations. Fox's politically motivated drive to speak for his country's diaspora north of the Rio Grande — including an estimated 6 million illegal Mexican workers, according to a Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday — backfired here.

Bush's never-acted-on immigration reform should not have become a bilateral issue. Finding a way to legalize the status of needed but undocumented workers in this country is, at heart, a domestic policy matter, not a diplomatic one. Allowing the Mexican government to act as immigration reform's chief lobbyist in Washington, which it essentially did, was counterproductive, a gift to nativist anti- immigrant groups. Once Bush's lack of backbone on the immigration issue became clear, farm groups, the Chamber of Commerce and labor unions should have led this fight. Fox seems to recognize this now. He said last week that his administration is no longer going to try to sell any change in U.S. immigration policy to the Congress.

Truth is, Fox has little to peddle these days except nostalgia for a gathering at a different ranch, in a different time.

I wonder how much Fox and Martin can stand these little set pieces where they get to be hectored by our small brained executive. After having spent four years watching the Boy King treat every press event with a foreign leader as an opportunity to lecture them like an undergrad teaching assistant, today's little event will be another opportunity for embarrassment. He'll run his little talking points for kindergarteners and they'll pretend he's actually talking to grown-ups and then go home and tell their people that something important happened. I'm sure they'll love being told about the wonder and blessing of freedom and democracy. What could they possibly know about that?

Summit meeting? My a**. The president of little accomplishment hasn't gotten that desire to be a TA out of his system yet.

"The Culture of Life"

Target of Opportunism

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, March 23, 2005; Page A15

For Tom DeLay, Terri Schiavo came along just in the nick of time. "One thing that God brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," DeLay told a group of Christian conservatives last Friday.

And what, exactly, is going on in the United States? "Attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," DeLay told his flock. So God has now thrown in with DeLay in his efforts to pack the House ethics committee with his allies so that he no longer need be the subject of the scrutiny and censure of his peers.

I don't think this is what Martin Buber meant when he referred to an "I-Thou" relationship with the Lord, but I could be mistaken.

For Bill Frist, Terri Schiavo came along at an opportune moment. After inspecting some videotapes made by her parents, the doctor announced that the examinations by court-appointed physicians were erroneous in concluding that Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for the past 15 years. He may also have concluded that if getting the jump on the 2008 Republican presidential field required issuing a preposterous diagnosis, that was a small price to pay. Frist isn't running for Neurologist in Chief, after all.

For George W. Bush, too, Terri Schiavo came along at a propitious time. All is not well in Bushland. The more the American people hear about the president's Social Security scheme, the more they reject it -- lately by margins approaching 2 to 1. The Bush bills that have been moving through Congress -- tightening up bankruptcy regulations, authorizing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, limiting consumer lawsuits -- do nothing for the Christian conservatives who helped reelect him. Indeed, the whole Bush economic agenda threatens social conservatives of modest means, as it does anyone of modest means. If signing a bill in his pajamas meant he could rekindle their support, why, that was worth even interrupting his sleep.

At its topmost ranks, and not only there, the party of Lincoln has become the party of Elmer Gantry. It peddles miracle cures and elixirs of life, to the benefit of the preachers, not the patients. When it comes to promoting real cures, today's Republicans are nowhere to be found. The Medicaid cuts pushed by the White House and passed by House Republicans last week would, if enacted into law, shorten the lives of numerous poor Americans living in conscious, not vegetative states. But that's a topic of no demonstrable interest to Christian conservatives, though I've yet to come across the biblical passage that exempts them from such concerns.

Bush, Frist, DeLay and the Republican apparat have behaved throughout this episode as if the political advantage clearly belonged to those who satisfied the most die-hard elements of the Christian right. But if polling conducted Sunday by ABC News is even remotely accurate, the Republicans may be badly mistaken. By 63 percent to 28 percent, the public supported the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, and fully 70 percent opposed the federal government's intervention. Those rejecting the Republican leadership's position included even Republicans (by a 58 to 39 percent margin) and evangelicals (by a 50 to 44 percent margin).

In their haste to curry favor with the Christian right, the Republican leaders have run roughshod over some very deeply rooted American -- and conservative -- beliefs. Americans tend to believe in their doctors, and in the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. They believe in spheres of privacy where the state cannot intrude. There's no more distinctly American belief than the right to be left alone by government. Liberals and conservatives differ over which great causes compel a suspension of that right, but both sides of the spectrum acknowledge it axiomatically.

That places a special burden on advocates for governmental activism in the United States. At a minimum, the consequences that the government's intervention will have on private lives -- and on the principle of the private life -- need to be weighed. And by intervening by fiat in the Schiavo tragedy, at the last minute, from on high, with no serious inspection of the particulars of the case and to clear political ends, the Republicans failed that test abysmally. In that sense, the Schiavo affair looks like their equivalent of what court-ordered busing was to liberals: an act of social engineering that runs counter to Americans' desire for control over their own, and their families', lives.

For 30 years, the Repubs have been trying to dictate when life begins. Now, they want to decide when it ends, and even what "life" means. That hubristic overreach ought to earn a slap-back.

Home Team

My local NPR outlet tells me that the new local baseball franchise, the Nationals, are looking for a new stadium announcer and that 20 people are under consideration. How much do you want to bet that none of them are women?

IRS Harrassment

3/22/2005 - IRS hits church over Sen. Kerry visit

A Florida church’s tax-exempt status is in jeopardy as the IRS has launched a probe into a visit by former candidate John Kerry last fall, the (registration-restricted) Miami Herald reports Tuesday. Some wonder if the probe is politically motivated. Excerpts follow.

The probe is related to an appearance last October by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and several black leaders, including U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The reason for the investigation, an IRS official wrote in a 10-page letter obtained by The Herald, is that “a reasonable belief exists that Friendship Missionary Baptist Church has engaged in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a church.'’

Rev. Gaston Smith took a break from the revelry and worship of Palm Sunday services to inform the congregation about the inquiry. He said visits by political candidates are nothing new, and that the 75-year-old church did not violate U.S. tax code, as suggested in the letter. He has hired former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis to defend the church in the inquiry.

‘’This is not about politics. It’s about principles,'’ Smith said. Silence fell over the congregation as he spoke.

The inquiry raises serious questions about whether the predominantly black church can keep its tax-exempt status. If it fails, members and contributors could not deduct tithes and other gifts, upon which churches heavily rely to operate.

Both men predicted Friendship, 740 NW 58th St., would prevail.

Addressing the congregation, Lewis said that after being contacted by Smith, it took him ‘’about a second'’ to take the case. He said he took the case pro bono…

It is not clear whose complaint triggered the IRS investigation, nor is it known if other churches are under investigation related to the 2004 campaign cycle…

Meek, the statewide chairman of Kerry’s failed presidential campaign, said the complaints came from outsider groups that may specifically be targeting black churches. He said two other Miami-area churches received inquiry notices last year, but declined to name them or discuss the probes.

‘’I would like for these groups to show their face. What they’re doing is launching complaints against African-American churches in Florida, which is very unfortunate, and in some cases embarrassing for the institution,'’ Meek said.

Hmm. Looks like highly selective enforcement. I know for a fact that there were Catholic priests who told their flocks that it would be a sin not to vote for Bush.

Trashing Science

For Bush, science is a dirty word

In America's right-to-die controversy the facts were not allowed to get in the way of evangelical populism

Tristram Hunt
Tuesday March 22, 2005
The Guardian

Given the cultural influence of the White House, it is no surprise this disregard for science is trickling down into civil society. In some school districts, the study of evolution is now in danger of extinction. A New York Times survey revealed that not only was it being replaced in certain curricula by creationism, but even where it was on the syllabus some teachers were too afraid to teach "the E word" for fear of evangelical reaction.

In many classrooms, the teaching of evolution is hampered by the teachers themselves - circumstantial evidence suggests that about a third of American biology teachers support the unscientific theories of "intelligent design". With the successful assault on evolution behind them, evangelicals are starting to train their sights on the earth sciences of geology and physics.

Meanwhile, in a belated attempt to stem the steady collapse in foreign students and scientists entering the US, the state department has begun to revise its onerous visa requirements. However, it will take more than a few shifts in security clearance to reverse the first enrolment decrease since the 1970s.

More broadly, science is playing a diminishing role within public debate. America is experiencing a range of irregular weather patterns from unprecedented rainfall in California to powerful storm cycles across Florida. The suggestion that such extreme weather - along with hotter summers and wetter winters - might just have something to do with climate change is rarely entertained. Instead, the Bush administration continues to befuddle the science (despite a consensus within the US National Academy of Sciences that human activity is causing climate change), and so quietly sanctions the culture of excess.

Just as it cut taxes during war, this presidency sees no need to foster resource conservation in the face of global warming. On the contrary, average house sizes are mushrooming while gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles are frankly passe. In American cities, the three-tonne Hummer is a regular sight, with a "drive-thru" at Starbucks starting to resemble a security sweep outside Falluja.

The talk of the Chicago Auto Show was the International CXT. Part of a new generation of extreme trucks, the CXT is nine feet high, weighs seven tonnes, costs $90,000 and does 7-10 miles to the gallon. TV stars Jay Leno and Ashton Kutcher are already proud owners. It won't be long before it hits Main Street.

Rather than attempting to mitigate climate change trends, the White House seems intent on encouraging them. Its most recent budget proposal cuts funds for the EPA while increasing resources for the truly baloney science of missile defence. The Orwellian Clear Skies Act lets industry polluters off the hook while its truth-speak twin, the Healthy Forests Initiative, encourages more logging and road-building in national forests.

Even if the department of homeland security starts to let foreign scientists back in, many have to be asking: given such official disdain, is there any point doing the science?

I'm starting to wonder what's going to be left of this country by the time Bush is through with it.

Out of the Mainstream

The press, the polls and Terri Schiavo

ABC News had to go and ruin everything by commissioning a poll to find out exactly what Americans think about Congress' unprecedented intervention into the Terri Schiavo saga. Up until yesterday morning, reporters and pundits, always nervous about labeling the GOP Congress as being out of the mainstream, had done their best to tip toe around existing polling data that showed Americans supported, by an overwhelming majority, Michael Schiavo in his attempt to remove the feeding tube from his wife.

At least the Washington Post finally ended its silence on the polling issue, with today’s A6 article, "Analysts: GOP May Be Out of Step With Public." Notice two things about that story, though. First, the Post reports in the lead that Americans are "divided" about the Schiavo case, suggesting some kind of public opinion tug-of-war. Not true. To date, every single poll commissioned has come back with the same result: Americans, by margins that range from 20 to 30 to even 40 percent, support Michael Schiavo's decision to remove his wife's feeding tube. How is that "divided?" Second, notice how the Post has to rely on "analysts" to read the polling data. The Post's reporters shouldn't need an analyst to tell them the obvious: When nearly 70 percent of the American public disagrees with you, you're out of step with the mainstream.

A friend of mine once showed me an exercise he learned from a media consultant: he handed me the front pages of the day's WaPo and NYT and a pen and told me to circle all of the stories whose headlines either stated or implied a conflict. A couple of minutes later, I discovered that I had circled 3/4 of the stories. That's what the WaPo poll story is doing, implying a conflict where none exists. They do this all the time and the "he said/she said" dueling quotes which obscure the truth is one of the most common tools.

CNN is doing it today with the "dueling diagnoses" in the Schiavo case. Here's the truth: between 3/4 and all of her cerebral cortex has been destroyed. There is no chance of recovery.

Get Congress Out of My Family

Robert Scheer:
Life, Death and Cynical Grandstanding

Despite the shrill howls of outrage that have been inciting politicians from talk radio, 70% of Americans polled nationally by ABC News called congressional intervention in the Schiavo case inappropriate, with 58% holding that view "strongly."

It seems obvious that such a delicate life-and-death case should not be decided by radio shock jocks hunting for ratings, embattled politicians looking for wedge issues or even majority rule — in this case the 63% of Americans polled who believe that Schiavo's feeding tube should be removed. Instead, it is family members, doctors and, when needed as an impartial arbitrator, the courts that must carefully and dispassionately weigh the extremely complex medical, ethical and legal issues involved.

Which, in fact, is exactly what happened in the Schiavo case. Impartial doctors and judges methodically examined Schiavo and the legal case, respectively, for seven years, consistently backing the guardianship rights of Schiavo's husband and his decision to end artificial life-support treatments that kept her alive in what the Florida courts concluded is "a persistent vegetative state … with no hope of a medical cure."

Further, the federal courts already had the power to act if they believed a fundamental right had been abrogated. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down an appeal to intervene — as it had done in 2001 and earlier this year. But that didn't stop the Christian right and the politicians in its thrall from seizing on the Schiavos' plight to advance their "right to life" agenda. If only this agenda were consistent. For example, as governor of Texas, George W. Bush refused to review cases involving mentally retarded death row inmates. Nor can I remember any time Congress rushed back from a vacation to deal with real-time incidents of genocide in the Balkans, Rwanda or Sudan. This is selective compassion of the most pandering sort.

In the end, it is not about who is right in the depressingly ugly battle between Schiavo's parents on one side and her husband on the other. Those of us who have dealt with the slow death of a beloved relative in the hospital are all too familiar with the pain in facing the myriad decisions that can tear us apart.

What this case is really about is keeping politics and state-endorsed religion out of our private lives. Many seniors like me now must dread that our most personal and painful private matters might be turned into political footballs by those cravenly seeking approval from certain voting blocs, or that we could be imprisoned against our wishes inside a dead body because of somebody else's religious beliefs. This is why seniors polled by ABC were the most likely of any age group to support the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube.

The one bright spot in this sad story is that millions of Americans are now talking about how they want to be cared for medically and are writing or reviewing living wills.

As the polls show, while our Beltway politicians are making fools of themselves, those of us in the real world are trying to ensure that our most private moments are not turned into a humiliating circus.

A little discussion of the right to privacy, family grandstanding and the role of the press is in order, too. Cable TV coverage has been ghoulish and unneccesary.

Huh?

You are going to have to 'splain this to me, Lucy. What exactly has anybody "won" if Terri Schiavo continues to live without consciousness on the end of a feeding tube for the next 20 years? How does this serve "life?" What is "the culture of life" if it means this kind of cruelty, anyway? Why would I want this for myself or anyone I love?

He Dances

"This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life"
The Rev. John Paris, professor of bioethics, says Terri Schiavo has the moral and legal right to die, and only the Christian right is keeping her alive.

Why is the case bizarre?

Again, this issue is not new. Every court, every jurisdiction that has heard it, agrees. So you'd think this issue would have ended. I thought it ended when we took it to the Supreme Court in 1990. But I hadn't anticipated the power of the Christian right. They elected him [George Bush]. And now he dances.

Sleaze-o-cons

Contemplate this: if the neo-cons have cut Brooksie loose, are they winning or dying?

Masters of Sleaze
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: March 22, 2005

Down in the depths of the netherworld, where Tammany Hall grafters and Chicago ward heelers gather amid spittoons and brass railings, a reverential silence now spreads across the communion. The sleazemasters of old look back into the land of the mortals and they see greatness in the form of Jack Abramoff.

Only a genius like Abramoff could make money lobbying against an Indian tribe's casino and then turn around and make money defending that tribe against himself. Only a giant like Abramoff would have the guts to use one tribe's casino money to finance a Focus on the Family crusade against gambling in order to shut down a rival tribe's casino.

Only an artist like Abramoff could suggest to a tribe that it pay him by taking out life insurance policies on its eldest members. Then when the elders dropped off they could funnel the insurance money through a private school and into his pockets.

This is sleaze of a high order. And yet according to reports in The Washington Post and elsewhere, Abramoff accomplished it all.

Yet it's important to remember this: A genius like Abramoff doesn't spring fully formed on his own. Just as Michelangelo emerged in the ferment of Renaissance Italy, so did Abramoff emerge from his own circle of creativity and encouragement.

Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!

Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?

Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's little cannibalism problem as to think this was not a daring contribution to the cause of Reaganism.

Soon the creative revolutionaries were blending the high-toned forms of the think tank with the low-toned scams of the buckraker. Ed Buckham, Tom DeLay's former chief of staff, helped run the U.S. Family Network, which supported the American family by accepting large donations and leasing skyboxes at the MCI Center, according to Roll Call. Michael Scanlon, DeLay's former spokesman, organized a think tank called the American International Center, located in a house in Rehoboth Beach, Del., which was occupied, according to Andrew Ferguson's devastating compendium in The Weekly Standard, by a former "lifeguard of the year" and a former yoga instructor.

Ralph Reed, meanwhile, smashed the tired old categories that used to separate social conservatives from corporate consultants. Reed signed on with Channel One, Verizon, Enron and Microsoft to shore up the moral foundations of our great nation. Reed so strongly opposes gambling as a matter of principle that he bravely accepted $4 million through Abramoff from casino-rich Indian tribes to gin up a grass-roots campaign.

As time went by, the spectacular devolution of morals accelerated. Many of the young innovators were behaving like people who, having read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative," embraced the conservative part while discarding the conscience part.

Abramoff's and Scanlon's Indian-gaming scandal will go down as the movement's crowning achievement, more shameless than anything the others would do, but still the culmination of the trends building since 1995. It perfectly embodied their creed and philosophy: "I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!" as Abramoff wrote to Reed.

They made at least $66 million.

This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own.

It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over them.

Remarkable.

As If It Mattered

An Indecent Administration Rolls On
# Once again, Bush scorns international humanitarian standards. This time he's fighting to save capital punishment.
By Mike Farrell, Mike Farrell is president of Death Penalty Focus, which seeks to abolish capital punishment.

Instead of abiding by the law and notifying detained noncitizens of their right to contact their consul, we try them and lock them up. And sometimes we kill them.

Does that sound decent?

It didn't to Mexico, which has banned capital punishment. Finding a number of its citizens on death row in the United States — and finding itself ignored in its request that we honor our agreement — Mexico sued the U.S. in the International Court of Justice, saying that we had no right to put their citizens to death while denying them their protection under the protocol.

And — surprise! — it won. The World Court ruled that the United States must "revisit" at least the 51 cases in which the defendants ended up on death row.

Stalwart champion of international law that he is, an apparently chastened and embarrassed President Bush at first told Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales that ignoring yet another "quaint" international agreement might be too much and that we should reexamine the 51 death row cases.

After all, as the U.S. solicitor general noted, compliance with the Vienna Convention "serves to protect the interests of U.S. citizens abroad, promotes the effective conduct of foreign relations and underscores the United States' commitment in the international community to the rule of law."

In other words, it's the decent thing to do.

Yet scarcely a week later Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent off a pungent memo to the United Nations announcing the U.S. withdrawal from the optional protocol.

What's behind this most recent back of the hand to the international community?

For one, Bush and his advisors don't appreciate international laws that complicate their lives. (Note, for example, their attitude toward the Geneva Convention. And the Kyoto treaty, the land mine treaty and the International Criminal Court.) Apparently they don't like to be told they're wrong.

But more than that, they're trying to protect our death penalty, a creaky system already teetering on the brink of collapse. Shot through with failure, exposed as entrapping the innocent, the mentally ill and those with drunk, drug-abusing, sleeping or simply incompetent lawyers, capital punishment has been wounded by U.S. Supreme Court rulings recognizing "evolving standards that mark the progress of a maturing society."

Worse, the high court recently cited "international standards" when eliminating our right to kill the mentally retarded and, last month, juveniles. Making it harder to kill foreigners, then, could be a crippling blow.

So, when the rulings go against us we take our ball and go home. Smart? No. Fair? Hardly. Decent? Doesn't seem so, but how can we know when the decency police are so busy with Janet Jackson's breast and Howard Stern's mouth?

History gets written by the winner, Mike.

Pick Your Jaw Off the Floor and Call Your Senators

Just when your jaw has hit the floor so many times over Bush appointments, comes a new reason to get a house with a basement. Via NewsHog:

Trophy Hunting Advocate Named Acting Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

03/18/2005

WASHINGTON – Today, The HSUS expressed its strong disappointment that Interior Secretary Gale Norton has named Matthew J. Hogan to be acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service should police trophy hunters and others who seek to harm wildlife," added Pacelle. "They should not act as a procurement agency for people who simply wish to shoot rare animals as a means of improving their standing in the competitive world of trophy hunting."

Dick Cheney likes those "hunting parks" where the trapped animals are fish in a barrel and he doesn't have to do anything other than reload. This isn't hunting, it's massacre as blood sport.

UPDATE: Once your jaw is off the floor, consider this:

Data on Fla. Panthers Faulty and Incomplete, Wildlife Agency Says

Associated Press
Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A15

Criticized by a whistle-blower, the Fish and Wildlife Service conceded yesterday that it bungled some of the science used in protecting Florida's endangered panthers.

The agency acknowledged three violations of a 2000 law that is intended to ensure the quality of data the government uses. The infractions involved the issuing of documents based on faulty assumptions about the habitat of one of the world's rarest animals, agency officials said.

Steve Williams, who resigned last week as director, reached the new conclusions as one of his last actions at the agency, based on a review by three senior Interior Department officials.

Dan Ashe, the service's top science adviser and a member of the review panel, said the agency relied too much on data collected only in late-morning hours to establish the panthers' home range. Panthers are most active at dawn and dusk. The agency said it now would protect more varieties of habitat but not more acreage.

"I think the service was slow in responding to the changing science," Ashe said. "Those documents did not represent a complete and accurate picture of Florida panther habitat needs." Officials stopped short of saying they had vindicated Andrew Eller, a Fish and Wildlife biologist fired in November who filed a whistle-blower complaint that the agency used faulty science to approve development in panther habitats.

Eller and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an advocacy group, challenged Fish and Wildlife in a petition last May under the Data Quality Act.

Agency officials earlier said Eller was consistently late in completing his work and engaged in unprofessional exchanges with the public. Eller described his firing as politically motivated.

The government created the 26,000-acre Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge in 1989.

The breeding population is thought to be below 50, the minimum needed to sustain the population.

They don't vote. They never contribute. Next question?

The Big Why

Polls Show Most Americans Say Bush Handling Iraq Poorly
Surveys Also Find Most Americans Agree U.S. Troops Need To Remain In Iraq

POSTED: 9:56 pm EST March 20, 2005
UPDATED: 10:20 pm EST March 20, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Recent public opinion on Iraq suggests two basic findings: Most people are generally unhappy with President Bush's handling of Iraq and they are resigned to the importance of seeing the commitment through.

# Some other results from recent polls on Iraq: Six in 10 think the president does not have a clear plan for bringing the Iraq situation to a successful conclusion.
# Two-thirds say the level of casualties in Iraq has been unacceptable, when comparing the goals of the war to the costs.
# A solid majority, about 55 percent, have said for months that U.S. troops must stay until the situation is stable.
# People are closely divided on whether the war was a mistake, according to several polls.
# A majority of people think Iraq aided al-Qaida before the war and had weapons of mass destruction - two opinions that have been widely debated.
# People are closely divided on whether the war in Iraq helped or hurt in the war on terrorism.

These findings come from polls by ABC-The Washington Post, The Associated Press-Ipsos, CNN-USA Today-Gallup and the Pew Research Center. The polls of about 1,000 adults each were taken in late February or early March and each has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

I find it vanishingly impossible to know what "seeing it through" means under the circumstance. We're undermanned and heading for defeat. What does the US consumer want that to look like? Declare victory and get out?

Five Questions and Answers

Bumpers are many things: wise, witty, reflective, articulate. But they are not self-disciplined. Seven five questions interviews have now been sent out. This is the thread for replies. I'll warn you: the questions got harder as I went along. I knew I could do five sets, but those of you who added to the list got harder questions.

UPDATE: Lauren at feministe has just sent me a five question interview. She asks complicated questions, so this is going to take a little time. I'll try to post the questions and my answers later tonight.

Violation of Ethics and Law

The Midnight Coup

Republican leaders, eyeing an opportunity to appease their radical right-wing constituents, convened Congress over the weekend to shamelessly interject the federal government into the wrenching Schiavo family dispute. They brushed aside our federalist system of government, which assigns the resolution of such disputes to state law, and state judges. Even President Bush flew back from his ranch to Washington on Sunday to be in on what amounts to a constitutional coup d'etat.

Conservatives are the historical defenders of states' rights, and the supposed proponents of keeping big government out of people's lives, but this case once again shows that some social conservatives are happy to see the federal government acquire Stalinist proportions when imposing their morality on the rest of the country. So breathtaking was this attempted usurpation of power, wresting jurisdiction over a right-to-die case away from Florida's judiciary, that Republican leaders in the end had to agree to limit this legislation's applicability to the Schiavo case.

In other words, according to the bill passed by the Senate Sunday afternoon, and which the House passed after midnight, among all the cases of patients in a persistent vegetative state nationwide, Terri Schiavo's case is the only one in which parents are able to have a federal court review state court rulings on the fate of their loved one.

Last Friday, after years of litigation and medical evaluations, the Florida judge presiding over the case ordered the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, pursuant to her husband's wishes.

House and Senate committees outrageously tried to intervene then by issuing subpoenas to the Schiavos and Terri's doctors, and by asking federal courts to order the feeding tube reinstated. But since this was not a case within federal jurisdiction, their efforts failed. Hence the effort to wrest jurisdiction the old-fashioned way, by passing a law.

Congress does act in other extraordinary cases on behalf of a specific individual, such as when it grants someone U.S. citizenship. But here, Congress is breaking new ground, trying to overturn a judicial decision by altering the Constitution's federalist scheme. This is the family law equivalent of the constitutionally banned "bill of attainder," legislation that seeks to convict someone of a crime.
....
This case, headed like a bullet to the Supreme Court, must have most of the justices wishing for a Kevlar vest. The case is a marker for other battles — about medical assistance in ending a terminally ill life, as in the much-fought Oregon law and a similar proposal working its way through the California Legislature. About the rights of gay couples to assume spousal rights in medical decisions. Most painfully, about abortion.

Federal judges, regarded with contempt by moral conservatives on other issues, are being dragged into another swamp. No decision they make in the Schiavo case and those certain to follow can be the right one.

The bill is unconstitutional on its face, this is a (pardon the expression) no brainer. It is a gross violation of the separation of powers and state's rights. Until the federal judge announces his decision, we won't know if he made the face denial, which he was within his rights to do, though it is unlikely he would have gone through with the hearing if he were of a mind to issue a face denial.

Schooling Wolfie

EU fury grows at Wolfowitz appointment
By Geoffrey Lean

20 March 2005

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, has been summoned to Brussels to explain to an angry Europe how he would run the World Bank, in an escalation of the international row over his nomination to head the world's most important development body.

European countries are furious both at President George Bush's naming of an enemy of multilateralism and by the unilateral way it was done, and are considering whether to block it. But there are strong indications that, although Tony Blair knew of the appointment in advance, he did not inform his Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn.

The summons - officially described as an "invitation" - was issued by Louis Michel, the new EU Development Commissioner, while he was attending a summit of G8 environment and development ministers in Derbyshire on Friday. His demand was welcomed by many EU governments, but Mr Wolfowitz, who has stressed his willingness to "listen" to his critics, has yet to respond.

A spokesman for Mr Michel said that Mr Wolfowitz was being asked to present his "vision for development and the role of the World Bank",, which provides more than $20bn (£10.4bn) in funds to developing countries each year.

By tradition the US effectively appoints the president of the World Bank, while Europe chooses the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), its sister institution, even though the appointments are formally made by the institutions' boards. Until five years ago nominations were nodded through, but the US then blocked the European nomination for the IMF, creating a precedent. And just 10 days ago Mr Blair's Commission for Africa concluded that the practice should be replaced by an open competition to find the best candidate.
....
Most experts believe that, Europe will agree Mr Wolfowitz's appointment, rather than risk a prolonged row that might damage the bank.

But anger is rising both at the nomination itself and Mr Bush's arrogance in making it, after initial soundings had met with widespread opposition around the world. One senior British figure privately described it as an "abuse" of power by Mr Bush last week.

I'm wondering if we'll even want to live here anymore once Bush is done with our country.

The F Word

Tristero has returned to address the Schiavo matter:

Well, it happened.

Think fascism can't happen here? It already has. That's right. It already has. Today was just the first, truly normative display of the amount of control this fascist regime has. One party, fully in power that can, on a whim, overturn any law of the land. Without limit or control.

The Contrarian

AFP sues Google
By John Oates
Published Monday 21st March 2005 09:03 GMT

Agence France Presse is suing Google for linking to its news stories.

AFP sells stories and photos to newspapers and other news sources. Some of its content is available through its clunky website.

Legal eagles: do you spot a trend here?

Foreshadowing

The Hughes Doctrine
By BOB MANN

Published: March 21, 2005

SO what can we expect from Karen P. Hughes if she is confirmed as under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs? What steps will President Bush's confidante take to rehabilitate America's image in the Arab world and around the globe?

While reporters and Congressional staffers are combing Ms. Hughes's public statements, interviews and speeches in advance of her confirmation hearings, I accidentally stumbled into a little research project of my own. In my garage.

Back in 1976, Karen Hughes - then Karen Parfitt - was my star journalism student at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. At the end of the term, I did what I've traditionally done with work from some of my best students: I stuffed some of it into a cardboard box. (That box has now been stored in attics, garages and basements around the nation.)

During her years as a national figure, never have I explored that tattered old box or elected to write about Karen Hughes. In fact, the box probably would have gone untouched had the recent death of my father not moved me to go rummaging through materials I had stashed away years ago.

And what did I find? Well, first there was a 29-year-old, critter-friendly, half-eaten grade sheet, which lists Karen Parfitt as seated between Molly Sawyer and Marianne Seiler. Karen was in a late Thursday afternoon deadline reporting lab of only six students. The time slot wasn't popular with students who liked long weekends.

The yellowed grade sheet indicates the future Ms. Hughes made a B+ on that initial deadline undertaking, an exercise in which I barked out facts that students nervously tried to convert into a news article while I paced among them, ranting and raving in tough city-editor fashion.

Most students pounded feverishly, some of them panicked, on old Royal typewriters, but not Ms. Hughes.

From day one, she got my attention with her intense focus. Her steel-blue eyes shut out the rest of class and concentrated only on her words. Always, she finished first, ripping out her copy and cockily presenting it to me. I loved it.

I asked those lab students on that first day in the spring of 1976 to write a short biography and to discuss their ambitions. Ms. Hughes, then 19, typed out:

"The most important issue facing America is the question of her foreign policy. I have lived in other countries and seen anti-American feelings growing as totalitarian governments or a loss of democracy begin to sweep their country.

"I think America is in danger both internally from the dissentions of her own people on foreign policy and externally from the strong governments in the world which are not democratic."

As a journalism student in the heart of Texas, Karen Hughes was composing what has become the Bush doctrine. Perhaps her portfolio is not so "new."

Excuses

45 dead in Iraq unrest on 2nd anniversary of US-led invasion
(AFP)

21 March 2005

MOSUL - At least 45 people died in violence in Iraq, including a US soldier, as Washington defended its decision to lead an invasion exactly two years ago amid protests around the world.

With talks on a new governing coalition still dragging on seven weeks since landmark January elections, Iraq was plunged into a diplomatic crisis with neighbouring Jordan as the two countries recalled their respective envoys following accusations of a Jordanian’s involvement in a deadly suicide bombing.

Insurgents struck around Iraq hitting the fledgling security forces hard at a time when the US government is channelling all its resources into training and equipping them to pave the way for the exit of US-led troops.

In the main northern city of Mosul, a suicide bomber with a fake badge slipped Sunday into a building housing the provincial anti-corruption department and blew himself up inside the office of its chief, General Walid Kachmoula, killing him and two of his guards.

Attackers struck again hours later opening fire on the procession bearing Kachmoula’s coffin as it made its way to the cemetery, killing two people and wounding 14, hospital sources said.

Separately, two unidentified bodies shot in the chest and head were found in the city, which has become a new front for the insurgency since November.

In another flashpoint town, gunmen attacked a police station in Baquba killing at least four police and wounding two as a truck bomb rammed into the entrance of an Iraqi army barrack wounding 17 people, a police official said.

Four insurgents were killed in an ensuing firefight.

In the capital, 24 Iraqi insurgents were killed and six coalition soldiers wounded in a firefight, the US military said.

In the northern oil centre of Kirkuk, a US soldier was killed and three others wounded when a roadside bomb hit their patrol, the US military said.

Despite the continuing high casualty toll from insurgent violence two years after Washington hailed Iraq’s liberation, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted that major progress had nonetheless been achieved.

“It’s a wonderful thing to see 25 million Iraqis liberated, to see their economy improve as it has been, to see their political process move toward democracy,” Rumsfeld told Fox News.

Please note that all that voting still hasn't resulted in a government, and that the occupier is the de facto government. There is a whole lot more to democracy than a vote. Just ask the Afghans.

No Takers

From Al Kamen's "In the Loop" column in the WaPo:

No Bids for Moran?

We prepared a special Loop Alert on Friday for readers who wanted to have lunch with Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (R-Va.). Their dreams could come true on eBay, where a seller was offering a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have a sit-down, face-to-face lunch with a congressman" who has introduced many historic bills.

The lunch with Moran was selling for a minimum bid of only $125. The bidding was to close on Wednesday.

But then the site was taken down. Unclear why. Perhaps word had gotten out and someone objected? Or perhaps it was because, after a couple of days, no one had bid?

I will say this for the ethics-challenged congressman, he did show up at my subway stop to ask for my vote. His last challenger did not.

Moving Pictures

Abuse taped, as 'explosive' as Abu Ghraib
By John Sheed
March 21, 2005
From: AAP

VIDEO footage of US military treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will reveal many cases of substantial abuse as "explosive as anything from Abu Ghraib", a lawyer said today.
Adelaide lawyer Stephen Kenny, who represented Australian David Hicks during the early part of his detention at the military prison in Cuba, told a law conference today that 500 hours of videotape of prisoners at the US base existed.

The full story of abuse at Guantanamo Bay would not be told until the tapes were released, he said.

"I believe that these videos, if they are ever released, will be as explosive as anything from Abu Ghraib," Mr Kenny told the LawAsia Downunder conference.

Abu Ghraib is the prison outside Baghdad from where pictures emerged of US guards abusing prisoners while some of them were forced into humiliating, sexually suggestive poses.

The US military videotaped the actions of the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) responsible for prisoner control at Guantanamo Bay, Mr kenny said.

Evidence of the violence used by the IRF came to light when a member of the US military, whom Mr Kenny identified as Specialist Baker, applied for a medical discharge after being involved in a training session.

"He was dressed in an orange jump suit and the IRF squad was instructed that he was a detainee who had abused a guard and was to be moved to another cell.

"What happened to him only came to light in Specialist Baker's later hearing for a medical discharge from the military for the brain damage he suffered in the beating he received at the hands of that trainee squad."

Read this from last June.

Bush Oil

Iraq invasion may be remembered as start of the age of oil scarcity
Production tumbles in post-Hussein era as more countries vie for shrinking supplies

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity.

Two years ago, it seemed likely that Iraq, with the world's third-largest petroleum reserves, would become a hypercharged gusher once U.S. troops toppled Saddam Hussein. But chaos and guerrilla sabotage have slowed the flow of oil to a comparative trickle.

The price of crude on global markets hit an all-time record Friday, and oil experts say U.S. consumers are likely to keep feeling the pinch.

"Global supply hasn't kept up, and it isn't likely to in the near future, and one of the causes is Iraq," said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation in New York.

The war coincided with the start of a sharp rise in oil imports by booming China and India, and experts say this alignment of factors may keep prices permanently high.

Iraq's oil production averaged about 3 million barrels a day before the war and now lags below 2 million, while prewar projections had pegged production to have hit at least 4 million by now. This missing production would have covered much of the annual growth in global oil demand, which is expected to increase by 1.8 million barrels a day this year, to 84.3 million barrels.

"If it weren't for the insurgency, Iraq would produce at least another million barrels day -- and maybe two," said Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington. "Iraq is very much missing from the market, and it's one of the reasons why prices have risen so much."

Iraq has earned only about $31 billion from oil exports in the two years since the U.S. invasion, far below the prewar predictions by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who claimed that Iraqi oil would generate $50 billion to $100 billion in the same period.

Foreign oil companies have withdrawn almost all their staff from Iraq because of the dangers. "The risk to operate there is a very serious risk, and it's not about to go away," Lichtblau said. "People are killed and kidnapped, and those pipelines are being blown up a week after they're repaired, again and again."

What's gas going for where you live? I need to fill up today and the price at the Exxon across the street last night was $2.20, I haven't checked it this morning.

Olden Days

That Scalia Charm

Published: March 21, 2005

Some court-watchers say Justice Antonin Scalia is on a "charm offensive" to become the next chief justice. Then he must have been taking the day off when he gave a speech last week and lashed out at the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down the death penalty for juveniles, and at the idea of a "living Constitution." There is nothing charming about his view that judges have no business considering the constitutionality of aspects of the death penalty, or that the Constitution should be frozen in time.

Justice Scalia dissented bitterly in this month's juvenile death penalty case. Reasonable minds may ask, as he did, whether the majority opinion relied too heavily on the norms of international law in deciding what punishment does not meet modern standards of decency. But Justice Scalia disagreed not merely with the majority's conclusion that offenders cannot be executed for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18, but with the very fact that the court was even considering the question. "By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the nation?" he asked.

In his speech last week at the Woodrow Wilson Center, he continued on the same theme. He attacked the idea of a "living Constitution," one that evolves with modern sensibilities, which the Supreme Court has long recognized in its jurisprudence, and of "evolving notions of decency," a standard the court uses to interpret the Eighth Amendment prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments" in cases like those involving the death penalty.

In drafting the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, the Founders chose to use broad phrases that necessarily require interpretation. Since its landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison, the court has held that it is the final word on the Constitution's meaning. In the recent juvenile death penalty case, the court was doing its job of determining what one such phrase, "cruel and unusual punishment," means today.

The implications of Justice Scalia's remarks are sweeping. Many of the most central principles of American constitutional law - from the right to a court-appointed lawyer to the right to buy contraception - have emerged from the court's evolving sense of the meaning of constitutional clauses. Justice Scalia seems to be suggesting that many, or perhaps all, of these rights should exist only at the whim of legislatures.

One of these mornings, Americans will wake up and realize that they've left the nutjobs in charge. Scalia thinks he can undo history and sweep us back to 1789, when women didn't vote and a black man was 3/5 human. Welcome to those days, Tony, but I don't want to live in your world.

Bed Bugs

Here's a wrinkle I hadn't thought of. Time to move to foam pillows. Down comforters should be off limits, too. Tell your friends and family.

Feather pillows may carry Asian bird flu

07.03.05

Poultry feathers imported from China to make products such as pillows could carry the avian flu virus, says a British microbiologist who is urging the British Government to consider banning them.

Imports of Chinese poultry meat already are banned in Britain, but duck, chicken and turkey feathers are still being brought in, Professor Hugh Pennington told BBC Radio. He said the virus could survive in faecal material on feathers.

"I think there is a case for looking very seriously at feather imports and saying, well, is it wise to be bringing in feathers from countries where this bird flu virus is now pretty well out of control?" he was quoted as saying.

"The risk is a real one that we might be importing the avian flu virus along with the feathers," Professor Pennington said.

"It may not be very easy for the feathers to be infectious to people, but they could certainly be infectious to birds and, of course, not just chickens but pretty well any species of birds."

We don't really know much about the disease vectors for this bug. I'm planning to buy new bedding this spring and this needs to be taken into account.

Justin Raimondo, Call Your Office

No time for rejoicing as Iraq toll keeps climbing
By Frank Walker and agencies
March 20, 2005
The Sun-Herald

Two years after the invasion of Iraq the rate of US soldiers being killed is averaging 18 a week, almost double the rate in the first year after the war.

The country is far more dangerous than 12 months ago, say security experts, and reconstruction has slowed to a crawl.

Between 40,000 and 50,000 US military personnel are in Iraq despite serious medical conditions that should have ruled them out of combat, according to the National Gulf War Resource Centre. The GI Rights Hotline, which counsels troops, says it fielded 32,000 calls last year from soldiers seeking an exit from the military, or suffering from post-combat stress.

Others vote with their feet. Last year the Pentagon admitted that 5500 of its forces had gone AWL, although it claims many returned to their units after resolving personal crises.

At the same time that Kevin Benderman's unit was called up for a second tour in Iraq with the US Third Infantry Division, two soldiers tried to kill themselves and another had a relative shoot him in the leg. Seventeen went AWL or ran off to Canada, and Sergeant Benderman, whose family has sent a son to every war since the American revolution, defied his genes and nine years of military training and followed his conscience.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

As the division packed its gear to leave Fort Stewart, Georgia, Sergeant Benderman applied for a discharge as a conscientious objector - an act seen as a betrayal by many in his unit.

Although they may not be part of any organised anti-war movement, the conscientious objectors, runaways and other irregular protesters suggest that, two years on, the Iraq mission is taking a heavy toll.

The Antiwar movement is organizing even as you read this. I'm part of it, so are you, the people who are learning the truth.

Vanishing Benefits

Gambling on Luck-Based Benefits
# The dangerous new deal: Take that long-awaited vacation and you may not have time left in the bank for getting sick.

By Joe Robinson, Joe Robinson is author of "Work to Live."

Even if you can't make it to the local craps tables or you've spent your budget for Lotto tickets this week, chances are you're still doing your part for the new Roulette Economy, thanks to an in-cubicle gaming program sweeping the American workplace.

It's called the paid time-off bank, or PTO, and it's symptomatic of a workplace — not to mention society — that increasingly resembles a casino.

Paid time-off banks combine sick leave and vacation days, creating what at first looks like a jackpot — extra vacation days and more flexibility. But the winnings are subject to the vagaries of chance — your health — and corporate sleight of hand. Once your sick days are used up, further absences not covered by short-term disability come out of your holiday hide.

After her company switched to a paid time-off bank, Sherri Landrum, a medical assistant in Denver, discovered the exciting world of luck-based benefits. Last January, the single mother of nine had to have emergency foot surgery. The procedure and prolonged recovery quickly burned through her sick days, wiped out her vacation time and finally hammered her pocketbook. "Half the time I was off, I didn't get paid for," she said. "I couldn't pay my bills, and I'm still not caught up a year later."

Like Landrum, more and more American workers who have used up their puny sick-day allotment will have to decide whether to stumble to work sick or stay home and burn up vacation days. Or worry that if they roll the dice and take time off, it could jeopardize a paycheck if a health emergency hits. It adds another layer of guilt to gobs already there in taking a vacation, making it seem selfish to squander days that might be needed if you or a family member get sick.

All-in-one-leave banks have stormed through offices like rhinoviruses. The number of companies offering them swelled from 20% in 2000 to 67% today, according to CCH Inc., a human resources firm in Chicago. The epidemic comes as the number of sick-leave days continues to decline or vanish. Just three years ago, the average sick leave provided by companies with sick-leave policies for employees was 9.3 days. Now it's 6.9 days, plunging to 5 for most paid time-off sick-leave plans.

Those statistics are a shrinking fig leaf on a thornier issue: Nearly half of U.S. workers don't get any paid sick leave — for low-wage earners, it's 75%. Unlike 139 other nations, the U.S. doesn't guarantee paid sick leave. Let the pneumonias and hernias fall where they may.

Slashed sick leave is part of a broad assault on labor — roundly ignored in the last election — across a downsized workplace as the burden of risk shifts from employers to employees, who, if anyone's listening out there, are livid about it, whether Republican or Democrat or independent. Companies are cutting or eliminating vacation leave (nearly a third of American women don't get any; a quarter of men), pensions, health insurance and ergonomics rules. Meanwhile, the Economist reports that corporate profits in the U.S. are higher than they've been in 75 years as benefits — including sick leave — shrink.

Only one segment of wage earners has not had benefits slashed. "Professionals, managers and CEOs have great benefits," said Robert Drago, a Penn State economist and work-life expert. "For some reason, they no longer believe they have to treat employees on the front lines with dignity and benefits."

I've never had a paid vacation in my life, but this is good to know about while I'm job hunting. In the public sector, particularly non-profits, the lack of pay is normally compensated by better benefits.

How is it where you work? Has your employer gone to the time off bank?

Trouble in Blighty

MI6 chief told PM: Americans ‘fixed’ case for war
Nick Fielding

THE HEAD of MI6 told Tony Blair that the case for war against Iraq was being “fixed” by the Americans to suit the policy, according to a BBC documentary that will reignite its battle with the government.

Blair followed the US lead by failing to reveal publicly doubts about the quality of intelligence that he had requested to support the case for war, the programme claims.

Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, briefed Blair and a select group of ministers on America’s determination to press ahead with the war nine months before hostilities began.

After attending a briefing in Washington, he told the meeting that war was “inevitable”. Dearlove said “the facts and intelligence” were being “fixed round the policy” by George W Bush’s administration.

The allegations against Blair just weeks before a general election are likely to reopen the feud between the government and the BBC that came to a head over the death of Dr David Kelly, the former weapons inspector. It led to the resignations of Gavyn Davies, its chairman, and Greg Dyke, its director-general.

The documentary — to be shown on BBC1’s Panorama tonight — reveals that Britain and America were anxious to present a united front on Iraq despite a paucity of new data on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

It quotes from a leaked memo on the presentation of intelligence sent by Peter Ricketts, political director of the Foreign Office, to Jack Straw, foreign secretary, in March 2002.

The memo says: “There is more work to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with the US. But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years.”

The programme argues that Blair had signed up to follow Bush’s plans for regime change in Iraq as early as April 2002. It quotes Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary who resigned as leader of the Commons over Iraq, arguing that the threat of WMD was not Blair’s true reason for going to war.

Cook says: “What was propelling the prime minister was a determination that he would be the closest ally to George Bush and they would prove to the United States administration that Britain was their closest ally. His problem is that George Bush’s motivation was regime change. It was not disarmament. Tony Blair knew perfectly well what he was doing.

That by election campaign is going to be fun to watch.

Dumbed-Down

State of Journalism Lamented in New Book
March 17, 2005 3:01 PM EST

NEW YORK - Tom Fenton couldn't be more surprised by his new calling at age 74: activist.

A veteran foreign correspondent recently retired from CBS News after 34 years, Fenton now is sounding off about TV's neglect of global news, and the resulting benightedness of the audience he says TV journalism has so ill-served.

He has compiled his concerns in a new book, "Bad News - The Decline of Reporting, The Business of News, and the Danger To Us All" (ReganBooks).

Its central thesis: The fall of communism coincided with growing concentration of U.S. media ownership. The nation became complacent about external threats, and less vigilant. So did news media, as their corporate bosses found it hard to justify the expense of pricey foreign bureaus and legions of correspondents stationed around the globe - especially when wall-to-wall coverage of a domestic spectacle like the O.J. Simpson trial attracted far more eyeballs than a complex story from a faraway land.

In that decade leading up to 9/11, Fenton argues, the news media abdicated its responsibilities.
....
Duly amused, does the audience feel shortchanged?

"No," concedes Fenton, "because we have dumbed down the viewers, so they don't even know what they're missing. We have trained them to accept the coverage they're getting. We've got to sell foreign news, we've got to get people interested again."

With that in mind, "Bad News" isn't so much a media-bashing book as a highly readable crash course in stuff you didn't know you never knew - a sort of "Global Affairs for Dummies."

"I want readers to be surprised at what they don't know, through no fault of their own," says Fenton. "Most Americans get their primary news, God help them, from television. We've got to do something about TV news."

But what? For one thing, Fenton proposes that journalists form a pressure group to shame the media stewards into fulfilling their public trust - "a lobby for better news."

"We need to get the debate going, to get people to start thinking about the news they're missing, and how important it is," he says. "We in the media have less credibility now than at any time I can think of, and the country is so polarized, I can't believe it! But the real story of the news isn't what's left and what's right - it's what's left out."

If you want to know what's going on in Iraq, you have to read the foreign press, domestic coverage is self-censored. Nobody reads the papers anymore, we've become a passive society of infotainment consumers with a lackey press corps.

Watch What He Does

From today's Le Monde:

Choice of Wolfowitz Shows Bush's Disregard for Europe

Choosing the neoconservative architect of the Iraq War to run the World Bank shows how little Bush's recent overtures to Europe really mean.

March 20, 2005

Suffice it to say, for most of the world, the appointment of Mr. Wolfowitz appears only as the most recent manifestation of American arrogance. This is all the more true since, in the area of development or the fight against poverty, the portfolio of the World Bank, Mr. Bush's candidate can boast of no particular experience.

It is therefore not astonishing that this decision is being interpreted as more proof of the indifference and cynicism of the United States, vis-a-vis the poorer countries. Even the Anglo-Saxon press showed its surprise. The New York Times entitled its leading article, "Why Wolfowitz?" The Financial Times, which is not exactly an anti-American publication, carried a severe leading article. The article, which refers to the Wolfowitz selection as, "a sad choice," starts by comparing the U.S. president with the French Bourbons and affirms that he, "learns nothing and forgets nothing."

The nomination on March 7 of another archconservative for U.S. ambassador to the U.S., John Bolton, reinforces the idea that the deeds of President Bush with respect to the rest of the world do not correspond to his reassuring words.

Mr. Bush's re-election of has thus not heralded the end of unilateralism. And if Europeans veto the designation of Mr. Wolfowitz, as they could and as many would like, then they will be responsible for a new crisis with the United States. In short, Mr. Bush's initiative makes it more the improvement of trans-Atlantic relations more difficult.

"Old Europe" knows when it is being dissed.

Succeed at Any Price

The Difference Between Steroids and Ritalin Is . . .
By KATE ZERNIKE

Published: March 20, 2005

AT the Congressional hearings last week investigating steroids and baseball, players were scolded not just for taking substances that are unsafe, but for doing something immoral. Those who use performance enhancing substances were called cheaters, cowards, bad examples for the nation's children.

But if baseball players are cheating, is everyone else, too?

After all, Americans are relying more and more on a growing array of performance enhancing drugs. Lawyers take the anti-sleep drug Provigil to finish that all-night brief, in hopes of concentrating better. Classical musicians take beta blockers, which banish jitters, before a big recital.Is the student who swallows a Ritalin before taking the SAT unethical if the pill gives her an unfair advantage over other students? If a golfer pops a beta blocker before a tournament, is he eliminating a crucial part of competition - battling nerves and a chance of choking?

Beyond baseball and steroids, where do you draw the line on the use of performance-enhancing drugs? President Bush said in his 2004 State of the Union speech that steroid use in baseball "sends the wrong message: that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character."

That is easy to say about steroids. After all, the mystique of the major leagues requires that home run records be set without the help of artificial enhancements. And major league players have some responsibility not to encourage teenagers to use a harmful substance.

When it comes to other drugs, and other kinds of endeavors, the lines aren't so clear. Bioethicists, who don't even all agree about whether taking steroids is wrong, are even less clear about everything else.

Some say the use of performance-enhanced drugs simply reflects progress - better living through chemistry - and to be human is to strive to be better.

"We've gotten very used to already assisting ourselves in other ways," said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "No one's going to say, 'Don't drink coffee before the SAT.' No one's going to say, 'Don't smoke cigarettes before the SAT.' And most of the drugs we're talking about are far less harmful than nicotine."

But others lament that a performance-enhanced society is giving in to a culture that prizes the achievement over the journey. Many Americans already get that message from a young age, said Denise Clark Pope, author of "Doing School: How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed Out, Materialistic and Miseducated Students."

When surveys ask students which is more important, to be honorable and get a low grade or to cheat and get a high grade, she said, more students choose the A. "The parents will say 'no, no, no,' but the message they're sending says the opposite."

The use of performance enhancing drugs reflects a society where stress and striving have become the national pastime. Ms. Pope calls it the "credentialism society," exemplified in her book through a high school student who describes life as a quest to get the best grades, so you can get into the best college, so you can get into the best graduate school, so you can get the highest-paying job, which brings you happiness.

That last paragraph contains the fatal flaw of our culture and equates material success with happy and considers an education a commodity used to purchase material success. The idea that happiness is a state of being unrelated to external circumstance is vanishing from the culture as a spiritual value. Because happiness is treated as an entitlement in our culture, we are doomed to mid-life crises, when our life experience teaches us that we aren't getting all the happiness we're entitled to.

The Rule of Law

'One huge US jail'

Afghanistan is the hub of a global network of detention centres, the frontline in America's 'war on terror', where arrest can be random and allegations of torture commonplace. Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark investigate on the ground and talk to former prisoners

Saturday March 19, 2005
The Guardian

Kabul was a grim, monastic place in the days of the Taliban; today it's a chaotic gathering point for every kind of prospector and carpetbagger. Foreign bidders vying for billions of dollars of telecoms, irrigation and construction contracts have sparked a property boom that has forced up rental prices in the Afghan capital to match those in London, Tokyo and Manhattan. Four years ago, the Ministry of Vice and Virtue in Kabul was a tool of the Taliban inquisition, a drab office building where heretics were locked up for such crimes as humming a popular love song. Now it's owned by an American entrepreneur who hopes its bitter associations won't scare away his new friends.

Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is bleaker, its provinces more inaccessible and lawless, than it was under the Taliban. If anyone leaves town, they do so in convoys. Afghanistan is a place where it is easy for people to disappear and perilous for anyone to investigate their fate. Even a seasoned aid agency such as Médécins Sans Frontières was forced to quit after five staff members were murdered last June. Only the 17,000-strong US forces, with their all-terrain Humvees and Apache attack helicopters, have the run of the land, and they have used the haze of fear and uncertainty that has engulfed the country to advance a draconian phase in the war against terror. Afghanistan has become the new Guantánamo Bay.

Washington likes to hold up Afghanistan as an exemplar of how a rogue regime can be replaced by democracy. Meanwhile, human-rights activists and Afghan politicians have accused the US military of placing Afghanistan at the hub of a global system of detention centres where prisoners are held incommunicado and allegedly subjected to torture. The secrecy surrounding them prevents any real independent investigation of the allegations. "The detention system in Afghanistan exists entirely outside international norms, but it is only part of a far larger and more sinister jail network that we are only now beginning to understand," Michael Posner, director of the US legal watchdog Human Rights First, told us.

When we landed in Kabul, Afghanistan was blue with a bruising cold. We were heading for the former al-Qaida strongholds in the south-east that were rumoured to be the focus of the new US network. How should we prepare, we asked local UN staff. "Don't go," they said. None the less, we were able to find a driver, a Pashtun translator and a boxful of clementines, and set off on a five-and-a-half-hour trip south through the snow to Gardez, a market town dominated by two rapidly expanding US military bases.

There we met Dr Rafiullah Bidar, regional director of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, established in 2003 with funding from the US Congress to investigate abuses committed by local warlords and to ensure that women's and children's rights were protected. He was delighted to see foreigners in town. At his office in central Gardez, Bidar showed us a wall of files. "All I do nowadays is chart complaints against the US military," he said. "Many thousands of people have been rounded up and detained by them. Those who have been freed say that they were held alongside foreign detainees who've been brought to this country to be processed. No one is charged. No one is identified. No international monitors are allowed into the US jails." He pulled out a handful of files: "People who have been arrested say they've been brutalised - the tactics used are beyond belief." The jails are closed to outside observers, making it impossible to test the truth of the claims.

Last November, a man from Gardez died of hypothermia in a US military jail. When his family were called to collect the body, they were given a $100 note for the taxi ride and no explanation. In scores more cases, people have simply disappeared.

Prisoner transports crisscross the country between a proliferating network of detention facilities. In addition to the camps in Gardez, there are thought to be US holding facilities in the cities of Khost, Asadabad and Jalalabad, as well as an official US detention centre in Kandahar, where the tough regime has been nicknamed "Camp Slappy" by former prisoners. There are 20 more facilities in outlying US compounds and fire bases that complement a major "collection centre" at Bagram air force base. The CIA has one facility at Bagram and another, known as the "Salt Pit", in an abandoned brick factory north of Kabul. More than 1,500 prisoners from Afghanistan and many other countries are thought to be held in such jails, although no one knows for sure because the US military declines to comment.

Anyone who has got in the way of the prison transports has been met with brutal force. Bidar directed us to a small Shia neighbourhood on the edge of town where a multiple killing was still under investigation. Inside a frozen courtyard, a former policeman, Said Sardar, 25, was sat beside his crutches. On May 1 2004, he was manning a checkpoint when a car careened through. "Inside were men dressed like Arabs, but they were western men," he said. "They had prisoners in the car." Sardar fired a warning shot for the car to stop. "The western men returned fire and within minutes two US attack helicopters hovered above us. They fired three rockets at the police station. One screamed past me. I saw its fiery tail and blacked out."

He was taken to Bagram, where US military doctors had to amputate his leg. Afterwards, he said, "an American woman appeared. She said the US was sorry. It was a mistake. The men in the car were Special Forces or CIA on a mission. She gave me $500." Sardar showed us into another room in his compound where a circle of children stared glumly at us; their fathers, all policemen, were killed in the same incident. "Five dead. Four in hospital. To protect covert US prisoner transports," he says. Later, US helicopters were deployed in two similar incidents that left nine dead.

In his builders' merchant's shop, Mohammed Timouri describes how he lost his son. "Ismail was a part-time taxi driver, waiting to go to college," he says, handing us a photograph of a beardless, short-haired 19-year-old held aloft in a coffin at his funeral last March. "A convoy delivering prisoners from a facility in Jalalabad to one in Kabul became snarled up in traffic. A US soldier jumped down and lifted a woman out of the way. She screamed. Ismail stepped forward to explain she was a conservative person, wearing a burka. The soldier dropped the woman and shot Ismail in front of a crowd of 20 people."

Mohammed received a letter from the Afghan police: "We apologise to you," the police chief wrote. "An innocent was killed by Americans." The US army declined to comment on Ismail's death or on a second fatal shooting by another prison transport at the same crossroads later that month. It also refused to comment on an incident outside Kabul when a prison patrol reportedly cleared a crowd of children by throwing a grenade into their midst. However, we have since heard that the CIA's inspector general is investigating at least eight serious incidents, including two deaths in custody, following complaints by agents about the activities of their military colleagues.

This is the militarized, dystopian world of the neocons making. This is the freedom and democracy we are thrusting on the world. The Bill of Rights and due process don't seem to have much to do with it.

Ponder that while imagining what a state of martial law might look like in our own country and note what kind of treatment you'll get if you dissent from the Bush regime:

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri:
Charge Him or Release Him
by Jacob G. Hornberger, March 16, 2005

It is important to note that determining whether a suspected terrorist is a criminal defendant or an “enemy combatant” is totally subjective and is made on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis by the Pentagon and the president. They claim that because the nation is “at war,” there should be no federal court interference with their determination.

The law is what George Bush says it is.

One Half of a Man

via Juan Cole:

Iraq's Jaafari aims for Sharia rule
From correspondents in Berlin
March 20, 2005
From: Agence France-Presse

IRAQ'S frontrunning Shiite candidate for prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, said in an interview he aimed to introduce sharia Islamic law and federalism and confirmed Saddam Hussein would be judged by the end of the year.
"It's understandable in a country where the majority of people are Muslim," Mr Jaafari said of the Sharia law, in an interview conducted in Baghdad due to appear in Tuesday's edition of German magazine Der Spiegel.

"Iraq should become a Muslim country but without falling under the influence of Iran or Saudi Arabia," he said.
Advertisement:

"Everyone will have the same rights, even members of the many minor religious communities," he said, explaining there would be multiple forms of jurisprudence.

He also said women would be under no legal obligation to wear a veil.

"They will make their own decisions," the Shiite candidate said.

According to results of a poll released yesterday, most Iraqis are deeply attached to their Islamic identity but do not want a strict application of sharia law, as in neighbouring Saudi Arabia or Iran.

About 48 per cent of those interviewed agreed that "religion has a special role to play in the government", while 46 per cent supported a separation of state and mosque.

The poll was based on some 2000 interviews covering 15 of 18 provinces by an Iraqi firm employed by the right-wing US International Republican Institute.

I wonder how Iraq's women will feel about having their testimony in court be equal to one half of a man and how they will like the new divorce laws.

Inside the Empire

British troops 'were supplied with blank ammunition'
Report reveals devastating logistical failures, as anti-war protesters march in London
By Andrew Johnson, Jonathan Thompson and Severin Carrell

20 March 2005

British troops in Iraq have been supplied with blank rounds instead of live ammunition, one of a catalogue of failures during the occupation that have put their lives at risk, according to a hard-hitting report to be published this week.

Inability to provide body armour and medical supplies in sufficient quantities are also understood to be among logistical shortcomings identified by the influential Commons Defence Select Committee. News of its findings came as tens of thousands of protesters marched through central London yesterday on the second anniversary of the invasion, calling for the Government to withdraw British troops from Iraq.

Demonstrators delivered a black cardboard coffin, symbolising civilian victims in Iraq, to the American embassy in Grosvenor Square before marching on to a public rally in Trafalgar Square. The organisers, the Stop the War Coalition, said more than 100,000 took part, but police estimates were nearer 45,000. There were simultaneous anti-war marches in European cities including Rome, Athens, Oslo and Stockholm.

An audit of the cost of the war by The Independent on Sunday shows 110 British lives have been lost in Iraq, including 86 military personnel. Another 2,937 have been medically evacuated, of whom 824 were suffering mental illness.

In Iraq, violence continued yesterday, with five policemen killed in two attacks. A suicide bomber who tried to attack a US military convoy set off his explosives prematurely, and no one else was hurt. In addition to the security threat, documents seen by the IoS showed police were being hamstrung in their fight against violent crime by the decision of US intelligence and military police to release suspects if they promised to inform on insurgents.

The Commons committee report on "post-conflict operations" in Iraq, to be published on Thursday, paints a picture of shambolic organisation since the war. It praises the Army's professionalism during the fighting, but says "woeful intelligence" left soldiers expecting garlands of flowers. Instead, they found themselves facing a hostile people hardened by a bombing campaign against them.

There was also a failure to realise how quickly occupation would turn to peace-keeping, and then to civilian policing - a role for which most soldiers were ill-prepared.

Occupation is a terribly pesky game. Ask the Brits.

Bombing people into submission rarely works.

Oh, support the troops. They didn't ask to be there. So while they are raping the population and shooting the dogs, we should wholeheartedly support them. That's what my gubbmint says

For Your Dining and Dancing Pleasure

The Talk Shows

Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page A04

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (WTTG), 9 a.m.: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.).

THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 9 a.m.: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.); Gerry Adams, leader of Northern Ireland's Sinn Fein party; and Rumsfeld.

FACE THE NATION (CBS, WUSA), 10:30 a.m.: Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman; Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.); and Robert D. Manfred Jr., executive vice president of Major League Baseball.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC, WRC), 10:30 a.m.: Myers.

LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.); Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb; Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari; retired Gen. George A. Joulwan; retired Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong; and retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd.

Chat away.

On C-Span

Every year, thousands of families find themselves in the same tragic situation as that of Terri Schiavo's. In none of these cases has Congress intervened, this is a f%^king travesty. Hell, my best friend's wife had to turn off his ventilator a few years ago after a catastrophic stroke. This is politics, pure and simple, the right to life crowd playing to their base.

Yes, my advanced medical directive is up to date, but I have to give a copy to my new MD. My family and executor know my wishes. Do yours?

The Congressional bill is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. The Constitution forbids Congress from passing legislation which effects one individual.

Fscking miscarriage of legislation. If you were in Terri Schiavo's shoes what would you want?

NNNOOOOO!

Don't deposit Wolfowitz with us, plead World Bank workers

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday March 19, 2005
The Guardian

Washington's nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the World Bank's next president has triggered an outcry among the bank's staff, who have demanded the right to have a say in his confirmation, it emerged yesterday.

The staff association has met the bank's executives to voice its concerns after it was swamped with complaints from employees over the selection of Mr Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary and one of the architects of the Iraq war.

One bank employee said yesterday: "When you work for the bank you have to be a compromise-seeker. Everyone sees him as a divisive figure."

In an email to members, the staff association's chairwoman, Alison Cave, said: "While recognising that the selection and confirmation of the next World Bank president is the prerogative of the shareholders, staff are asking that their views be taken into consideration and taken seriously by the decision-makers."

"The staff association is preparing to act as a conduit for these views, and the executive committee is urgently considering the most effective way to help staff be heard."

Staff representatives met the outgoing bank president, James Wolfensohn, on Thursday to express the level of alarm. A bank official said: "There have been wild emails about petitions and rallies, but the association has assured us it definitively is not going to involved in any of that."

Mr Wolfowitz's relationship with a member of World Bank staff, Shaha Ali Riza, a Tunisian-born British citizen who works as a communications adviser for the Middle East and North Africa department, also appears to have become an issue.

Ms Riza, a divorcee like Mr Wolfowitz, does not work directly for the bank president's office and their relationship would not be prohibited by the banks internal guidelines.

But one official said yesterday: "It should be covered [by World Bank rules], because the bank president does have a lot of power." A colleague of Ms Riza said: "There's no obvious reason she should lose her job just because her boyfriend is made president." Ms Riza did not return calls yesterday.

Who knew? He's a lover, not a fighter.

Reporting In

I'm working on the five questions for our now seven answerers. Since I want a unique set for each of you, this will take some time and I expect to email them to you tomorrow.

I've had more social life this week than in the last six months and I rather like it; first dinner with big Tino on Thursday and now a very pleasant lunch with Rox Populi. What's she like, you cry. Very much like her writing. Direct, funny and very, very smart. The range of subjects on which she can speak knowledgably is astonishing, a regular Rennaisance woman. We talked about blogging, of course (what makes us do it?) and lots and lots of politics. Our political worldviews are different, I'm much further left, but we are of one mind on the incredible damage the Repubs are committing on the Republic. It was a pleasure to get to know her, and I dare say we'll meet again on some panels around town. Inevitably, the lefty Beltway bloggers will develop our own insiders. That's great for information sharing but the dangers of group-think enter in then.

Five Questions

The five question meme is back again. We had fun with this a year ago, and we all know each other better now. I got the chance to know a number of people with it last year, including the blogger who is my current SO. It's one of the things that kicked off the relationship.

Here's the deal: for the first five of you who sign up in comments, I'll design a five question interview. You agree to post the questions and your answers on your blog, or in comments, if you have no blog (I'll open a special thread for your replies.) It'll probably be tomorrow before I have the questions ready. Make sure your email address is available with your request.

Now, I have to get ready for a lunch date with Rox Populi.

Seduction of the Body Politic

Nothing 'New' in This War

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page A25

The conflict in Iraq derives from a specific estimate of U.S. military capabilities, fostered by hawks such as Rumsfeld but casually endorsed by far too many Americans. According to that estimate, a combination of matchless technology and professionalism enabled the United States in the heady aftermath of the Cold War to devise a radically new way of war. Armed force in American hands had become both effective and economical -- not a bludgeon, as in days of old, but a scalpel. So, at least, we convinced ourselves.

In Iraq, this assessment and the expectations to which it gave rise have been found wanting. Rather than demonstrating a novel approach to war, combat there has become distressingly familiar.

Whereas technology was supposed to render the battlefield transparent, the "fog of war" settled over Iraq like a suffocating blanket. Never have U.S. forces fought in such ignorance of the enemy's purpose, strength, leadership and order of battle. George Armstrong Custer knew more about the warriors he faced in 1876 than U.S. commanders today know about their adversaries.

Whereas precision weapons were supposedly making error, waste and collateral damage a thing of the past, the fight to control Iraqi cities has given the past a new life. Comparisons between the "liberation" of Fallujah and the Marines' assault on Hue in 1968 are only too apt. In both cases, victory was gained the old-fashioned way: through brute force.

Toppling Saddam Hussein opened a Pandora's box of unanticipated complications. Whether it was attacks on oil pipelines or insurgents infiltrating into the new Iraqi security forces, events time and again caught U.S. officials flat-footed. Even success proves transitory, with yesterday's apparent accomplishment becoming unglued today.

To which anyone with even a passing knowledge of history would reply: of course. This is what war has always been -- grueling, filthy, confusing, replete with accidents and miscues that victimize the innocent, giving rise to unforeseen consequences and loose ends. What qualifies as truly perplexing is not that the conflict in Iraq has reaffirmed this reality but that so many Americans, seduced by claims that this nation could bend war to our purposes, indulged in the fantasy that it would be otherwise.

Well, now we know better. But let this be said: If our experience in Iraq demolishes once and for all the martial illusions to which the current generation of Americans has proven susceptible, then the United States may yet derive some benefit from this costly misadventure.

Yes, the people allowed themselves to be seduced, but the media played a significant role in that seduction. That said, Bush appealed to the basest part of the American character, secure in the knowledge that this always works. Professor Bacevich's critique is right on.

The Real Iraq Agenda

Here is the Windows Media video of Greg Palast's scoop on the BBC's "Newsnight" from Thursday. Thanks to Tom at Information Clearing House.

Yawn

Another great technology ruined.

More PR Than No-Holds-Barred On Bosses' Corporate Blogs

By Amy Joyce
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page A01

The soul-baring, anything-goes, free-for-all phenomenon called the Web log has come to this:

"This is the first of many commentaries I will make on this forum," wrote General Motors Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz in January when he first started his blog, fastlane.gmblogs.com, "and I'd like to begin with, surprise, some product talk -- specifically, Saturn products."

Web logs -- or blogs -- started as a way to talk about new technologies, vent about life and interact in a no-holds-barred forum. Since blogs became the next big thing, an increasing number of companies have come to see them as the next great public relations vehicle -- a way for executives to demonstrate their casual, interactive side.

But, of course, the executives do nothing of the sort. Their attempts at hip, guerrilla-style blogging are often pained -- and painful.

"Looking back before the dust settles on 2004, it was a great year of building momentum for BCA [Boeing Commercial Airplanes]. Our orders went up, with 272 in '04 compared to 239 in '03. It was a super year for widebodies for us," wrote Randolph S. Baseler, Boeing Co.'s vice president of marketing, on Jan. 17 in his first entry at boeing.com/randy.

With blogs like that, who needs news releases? Some Internet watchers wonder if a blog that sounds like nothing more than a corporate press room is worth the effort.

"Repositing marketing materials on a blog is a waste of time," said Rebecca Blood, author of "The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog." "I would advise them to just stop right now. Those materials already exist. The blog that is powerful is when it is real."

Ideally, blogs can provide companies with a connection they don't otherwise have with the public, employees and clients. But it may take some time before executives figure out how to best use them.

"Success in blogging is exactly the same as success in conversation, where if you stay on message, you're being a bore," said David Weinberger, a research fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. "It's very hard to wean yourself. You stay on message then congratulate yourself for staying on message. Then what you do is alienate readers."

I have a great blog strategy for any corporate or non-profit clients who would like to try it, and it looks nothing like any of this. There is a great deal of difference between having a conversation and giving a speech.

Saturday Cat Blogging

Cat porn from Max Sawicky. Go ahead and look. You know you want to.

(Link fixed.)

Friday Funny

As you know, I don't send you over to specific blogposts very often, but this is worthy of your Friday night. As you remember, I work American Street on Sundays, but I check in with the colleagues frequently during the week, I'm proud to work with these people. Friday at the Street is humor day, and comic genius tbogg has a send up of Lileks today that had me in hysterics. Go read.

Sleepy Bumper

Well, Bumpers, this has been a more eventful than usual kind of Bump day. In the final analysis, I didn't get invited to a spot with the responding bloggers at the Brookings panel next week, but the Blog PAC has noticed that getting organized made a very definite impression on the presenter. The name of this blog community is now well known in some parts of DC and we'll get our act together faster next time. Other bloggers have been in touch all day and have been, as usual, very supportive. I'm pleased to receive their votes of confidence for my work. Those folks over on my blogroll are there because I respect their work.

The bottom line: I'm pooped. I had to multitask today in ways I haven't before and I'm not good at it. Unless I run into something which is begging to be blogged, I'm taking the night off. My sleep schedule is all screwed up because I went out last night, got in late and overslept this morning. Gotta back to my schedule.

UPDATE: Gilliard and some of the other Blog PAC'ers aren't letting this go and keeping up the campaign. Brookings' Patrick Gavin's contact info is in the post on Brookings below. If his voicemail and email boxes are full when he comes in on Monday, we won't know a thing about it, will we? Laura Rozen and Ruy Texieira are great writers, but they aren't partisans and bloggers raised up from the grass roots, they are Washington insiders. I'm Inside the Beltway, but not Inside Washington. I'm skeptical about everything, there is no conventional wisdom in this house. I'm especially skeptical about religion, by the way. Doubt has a very important role to play in the life of faith.

Bush Is a Loser at Logic but a Winner in D.C.

By Arianna Huffington, Arianna Huffington's latest book is "Fanatics and Fools: The Game Plan for Winning Back America" (Miramax, 2004).

I just got back from a trip to the Happiest Place on Earth. Didn't ride the teacups, though, because I wasn't in Disneyland, but in Washington, D.C., where everyone is walking on air, swept away by the Beltway's latest consensus: President Bush was right on Iraq. And, as a result, Tomorrowland in the Middle East will feature an E-ticket ride on the Matterhorn of freedom and democracy.

The political and cultural establishment has gone positively Goofy over this notion. In the corridors of power, Republicans are high-fiving, and Democrats are nodding in agreement and patting themselves on the back for how graciously they've been able to accept the fact that they were wrong.

The groupthink in the nation's capital would be the envy of Dear Leader Kim Jong Il.

How did this cozy unanimity come to pass? Is it something in the water, I wondered, perhaps as a result of Bush gutting the EPA? But then I thought back to my time at Cambridge, when I took a course in elementary logic, and studied the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

For those of you in need of a refresher on the concept, here's an example: "All oaks are trees. All elms are trees. Therefore, all oaks are elms."

See how easily you can go from point A to point Z, jumping over all the important steps between?

So: We invaded Iraq. Change is afoot in the Middle East. Therefore, the Middle East is changing because we invaded Iraq.

See how simple it is? And how illogical?

The Bush White House has been masterful at this infantile reasoning: America is free and democratic. Terrorists attacked America. Therefore, terrorists hate freedom and democracy.

And that's all anyone needs to know.

What makes this particularly seductive is the historical longing of Americans for political consensus. In this country, where the European idea of a loyal opposition never took hold, Democrats are all too eager to suspend disbelief and go along with the fairy tale Bush is telling about freedom and democracy on the march, and the happily-ever-after future of the Middle East.

But flip the page on this "once upon a time" fantasy and what's revealed is a very ugly war story — a bloody narrative about which we hear shockingly little.

I sincerely doubt the people of Iraq are going to bed with visions of Thomas Jefferson dancing in their heads. Not when their days are filled with random bombings and checkpoint shootings and kidnappings that have become commonplace.

As much as I hate to rain on the president's democracy parade, the fact remains: Holding an election is not the same thing as establishing a democracy. Just ask the people of Russia. Or Haiti. Or Africa. Indeed, there have been more than 50 elections in Africa over the last decade and a half, but the continent couldn't be realistically described as a hotbed of political freedom.

The truth is the vast majority of Arabs remain skeptical of U.S. motives. And can we really blame them? After all, it wasn't that long ago that Dick Cheney was opposing the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Donald Rumsfeld was cutting deals with Saddam Hussein, and the CIA was overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader of Iran, and installing the shah.

Flip on CNN and see if you can find out what is going on in Iraq today and you are going to get wall-to-wall Terri Schiavo, which is a tragedy for the family and friends but of no larger significance for the rest of us. Have you gotten your advanced medical directive written yet?

At any rate, the treatment that this story has gotten over the last week is all out of proportion with its significance.

More Free

The Iraq War Has Only Set Back Middle East Reform

NPR.org, March 14, 2005

Shibley Telhami, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy

Recent debate about hopeful signs of change in the Middle East has blurred the role of the Iraq war in the region. It's true that U.S. advocacy of democracy cannot be ignored by regional governments and that some moves in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are in part related to the new American posture. But the effect of the Iraq war itself has been mostly negative.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's decision to allow more competitive presidential elections could lead to important change. But on the even of the Iraq war the government renewed emergency laws governing Egypt for three more years. This is the reality that people feel today.

I rather think that Telhami has a better handle on this than does W.

Cost of Doing Business

Wal-Mart Settles Immigrant Case

By Lara Jakes Jordan
Associated Press Writer
Friday, March 18, 2005; 1:35 PM

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has agreed to pay $11 million to settle federal allegations it used hundreds of illegal immigrants to clean its stores, authorities said Friday.

Additionally, 12 businesses that provided contract janitor services to Wal-Mart will pay $4 million in fines and plead guilty to criminal immigration charges, officials said.

The case against Wal-Mart marks a record dollar amount for a civil immigration settlement, said Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Michael J. Garcia, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It also "requires Wal-Mart to create an internal program to ensure future compliance with immigration laws by Wal-Mart contractors and by Wal-Mart itself," Garcia said Friday in announcing the settlement.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams told The Associated Press the company is "ready to put it behind us and move forward."

Though Wal-Mart does not face criminal charges, "we acknowledge that we should have had better safeguards in place to ensure our contractors were hiring only legal workers," Williams said. "That's why we're agreeing to pay the $11 million.

"It is a lot of money, but I think that is because it is designed to get attention and remind businesses everywhere that they have a duty to ensure their outside contractors are following federal immigration laws."

In two separate investigations, authorities arrested 352 illegal immigrants contracted as janitors at Wal-Mart stores -- about a third of whom have since been deported to their home countries. Many of the workers worked seven days or nights a week without overtime pay or injury compensation, attorneys said. Those who worked nights were often locked in the store until the morning.

Wal-Mart Stores, based in Bentonville, Ark., had sales last year of $288.19 billion.

Nobody has even tried to lay a glove on Wal-mart before now, in spite of all the press exposing their both illegal and immoral treatment of their workers. This is very good news.

Bump Pressure

Okay. We need to put a little pressure on Brookings to get me publicized for the event. Call or email Patrick Gavin at Brookings, 202-797-6310 (direct) or [email protected]

Thanks, Sean-Paul, and best wishes for the back surgery.

Check the Label

The Red in Red, White and Blue

By Al Kamen
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A21

The U.S. Agency for International Development is moving smartly on its "branding" campaign, which is designed to make absolutely sure that people receiving U.S. aid know who it's from.

Nongovernmental groups operating overseas in nasty places are not too happy with putting the USAID logo on their cars, comparing it to a bull's-eye for bad guys to shoot at. The agency says it will allow exemptions in some cases.

Meanwhile, though, folks at the agency have hats and lovely lapel pins they are to wear proudly to let everyone know where they work. There are great T-shirts, polo shirts, baggage tags and other items -- and a 94-page manual explaining how this is to work.

The United States, it seems, is not the only country working to improve its "branding" programs. The lapel pins -- "USAID" and "From the American People" -- have a little tag on each plastic envelope that says "Made in China."

The white baseball-cap tags say the same, with a China label inside that also alerts us to "hand wash only" -- though machine washing is not a huge danger in the Third World.

Who knew this was a Sino-American project? Will this confuse recipients? Should we just declare China a permanent subcontractor?

Kinda puts a whole new light on "outsourcing." I think I'm going to send this to Lou Dobbs.

Taking it Seriously

Let's make a little noise, shall we. The Agonist's Sean Paul Kelly brings this to our attention.

Brookings Institution is holding a panel discussion next week on us "new media" types. Who are the invited bloggers?

Daniel Drezner
www.danieldrezner.com

Josh Trevino
www.redstate.org

The panel itself is the usual suspects:

Moderator:
E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Senior Fellow, Brookings; Columnist, Washington Post Writers Group

Panelists:
Jodie T. Allen
Senior Editor, Pew Research Center
Ana Marie Cox
Wonkette.com
Ellen Ratner
White House Correspondent, Talk Radio News Service
Jack Shafer
Editor-at-Large, Slate
Andrew Sullivan
AndrewSullivan.com; Senior Editor The New Republic, Columnist, Time Magazine

Do you see the problem?

Sean Paul also reveals that the Brookings booker lied to him:

This is what one of Digby’s readers wrote to the Brookings Institution:

This week Sean-Paul tried to contact all of the bloggers asking them if they had indeed been invited to SIT on the panel. Six of the eight bloggers in question replied that they had not, in fact, been invited to sit on the panel. The other two were unavailable for comment. Only one said he had been invited, and that was only to live-blog the event. Yesterday, March 17, Sean-Paul called Patrick Gavin at the Brookings Institute and asked him if he invited those same bloggers he said that he had, in his own reply. After much hemming and hawing Mr. Gavin said he had indeed invited many liberal bloggers to sit on the panel but was unsure which ones. After more questions he could name only two: Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and Joshua Micah Marshall.

Markos' wife is dealing with a death in the family, Josh is getting married this weekend.

Call Patrick Gavin at Brookings and raise a stink. 202-797-6310, or 202-797-6105. You might mention that I'm right here in DC and available for their event.

You might mention that there are other female political (rather than gossip) bloggers besides Wonkette. Ana Marie does a fine job at what she does, but politics and public policy ain't it. Grrrr.....

I think I have a little more gravitas than Wonkette.

The Liberal Coalition

Don't hand religion to the right

The secular left must stop sniping and realise it has Christian allies

Giles Fraser and William Whyte
Friday March 18, 2005
The Guardian

For decades, the political class on this side of the Atlantic has prided itself on the absence of religious culture wars. The obsession with abortion, gay marriage and obscenity, the alliance between the secular and religious right - these are peculiarly American pathologies. It couldn't happen here. After all, we're just not religious enough.

Except it does seem to be happening here. In making abortion an election issue, Michael Howard has prompted the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, pointedly to warn against assuming "that Catholics would be more in support of the Labour party". Elsewhere, the Christian right targets the BBC, and the Church of England is being colonised by homophobic evangelicals with broad smiles and loads of PR savvy. No wonder the cogs are whirring at Conservative central office on how best to exploit the voting power of religion.

In contrast, the left continues to push religion away. They "don't do God", in Alastair Campbell's famous phrase. Even those politicians of the left who "do God" privately have to be effectively outed, as Ruth Kelly was over her membership of Opus Dei. It never used to be like this. There has long been an affinity between the church and the left. The Liberal party was sustained by the so-called nonconformist conscience and the Labour party famously derived more from Methodism than Marx - Keir Hardie once describing socialism as "the embodiment of Christianity in our industrial system". Later both CND and the anti-apartheid movement were inspired by Christian socialism.

Even comparatively recently things were looking up for the religious left. Tony Blair is a member of the Christian socialist movement and in Rowan Williams the Church of England has a self-confessed "bearded lefty" at the top. Yet instead of a renaissance there has been a decline. The Archbishop of Canterbury is now a virtual prisoner of the religious right. And Labour Christians seem silent and impotent. How did we get to here?

In the first place, the religious left has found itself constantly challenged by the secular left. Whilst the religious right and neo-conservatives have worked together, progressives have split and split again. Blair is too embarrassed to talk the language of faith because he knows it would alienate his allies. Some object to religion on principle. Others insist that a Christian response is inevitably intolerant, exclusive, even racist. So left secularists welcomed Jubilee 2000 but ignored the fact that the Jubilee is a biblical concept.

But progressive Christians also seem incapable of confronting the religious right on its own terms. Jesus offered a political manifesto that emphasised non-violence, social justice and the redistribution of wealth - yet all this is drowned out by those who use the text to justify a narrow, authoritarian and morally judgmental form of social respectability. The irony is that the religious right and the secular left have effectively joined forces to promote the idea that the Bible is reactionary. For the secular left, the more the Bible can be described in this way, the easier it is to rubbish. Thus the religious right is free to claim a monopoly on Christianity. And the Christian left, hounded from both sides, finds itself shouted into silence.

Does this matter? Well, yes. Religion isn't going away; if anything, it is making a comeback. Nearly three-quarters of the population declared themselves Christian in the 2001 census. The old belief that religion would wither and die has beenexposed as simplistic. In this environment, the secular left needs to suspend worn-out hostilities and realise that many people of faith are fellow travellers in the fight for social justice. Otherwise, the coalition of Christian and secular conservatives will grow stronger. That will further damage the church, turning it into an intolerant sect. But it will also undermine progressive politics.

All of which requires a new courage from the Christian left. They need to toughen up, get organised and invoke the spirit of millions of Christians, from St Francis to Donald Soper, who have fought against injustice throughout the ages. Twenty years ago, Faith in the City was a prophetic call to Britain: condemning the selfishness of Thatcherism and the greed of 1980s Britain. The current campaign, Make Poverty History, is a similarly significant moment.

But the present situation also demands a reassessment by the secular left of the religious left. Because only the religious left is capable of challenging the religious right with the language of faith. The secular left, in short, needs to stop sniping and start making new friends. In America, the Christian right and the neocons have grown strong by working together. Now so must we.

What have I been saying for YEARS? Wingnuttery isn't confined to this side of the Atlantic and even the Canadians are figuring out that they have to get on board.

Pop Culture

Wolfowitz reaches out to Bono

George W. Bush's nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to lead the World Bank has critics concerned that the neo-con architect of the Iraq war will use the World Bank as just another weapon in the war on terrorism. But Wolfowitz is showing that he knows a thing or two about diplomacy, too: In the last two days, he has checked in with numerous foreign officials, the leaders of international development agencies -- and Bono.

The word from the Bono side of the conversation was a little less effusive. The government relations director for Debt, AIDS, Trade and Africa, a lobbying group Bono helped to found, told Reuters: "Bono thought it was important that he put forward the issues that are critical to the World Bank, like debt cancellation, aid effectiveness and a real focus on poverty reduction."

Irony is not dead. I don't *think* that Salon just makes s$%t up, but I'm finding it hard to believe that Wolfie even knows who Bono is...

Blood and Oil

Via Juan Cole, Greg Palast lands a hit on the BBC:

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

I think we can retire our tinfoil hats now.

The Agenda

In Blow to Bush, Senators Reject Cuts to Medicaid
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: March 18, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 17 - President Bush's plans to reduce the explosive growth of Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor, ran into a roadblock on Thursday when the Senate voted to strip its 2006 budget of all proposed Medicaid cuts. But in a surprise move, the Senate voted to approve $34 billion more in tax cuts than Mr. Bush requested.

"It provided a huge amount of tax cuts," said Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico and one of a handful of members of his party to vote against the tax cuts. "We didn't know what we were doing."

The senators agreed, 52 to 48, to strike language calling for $14 billion in Medicaid spending cuts over the next five years. Instead, they decided to create a commission to study the program and recommend changes, reporting back in one year.

The Medicaid vote, a rebuke to both the White House and the Senate leadership, put the House and Senate on a collision course. It came just hours before the House, by a vote of 218 to 214, approved its own $2.57 trillion budget resolution that included $69 billion in cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicaid.

The Senate late Thursday night passed its budget for $2.6 trillion, by a vote of 51 to 49.

With the two chambers so far apart on spending reductions, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa, warned that reconciling the two documents would prove difficult.

"We have arguably our work cut out for us now," Mr. Nussle said.

He characterized the Medicaid vote as a setback for Mr. Bush's domestic agenda, suggesting that "the momentum" of the entire package, including spending control, Social Security and tax code changes, was now at stake.

"If the Senate is not going to follow in the first item on the president's agenda," he said, "then that is, I think, a signal that the president needs to receive and react to immediately."

It was going to come to fisticuffs eventually. Bush's plans aren't all that popular and the congresscritters are going to have to stand for re-election.

Requiem for a Fighter

George F. Kennan, 1904-2005
The Cold War's Outsider Strategist

By J.Y. Smith
Special to The Washington Post
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A01

George F. Kennan, a diplomat and Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who formulated the basic foreign policy followed by the United States in the Cold War, died last night at his home in Princeton, N.J. He was 101.

A Foreign Service officer from 1926 to 1953, Mr. Kennan also was a student of Russian history, a keen and intuitive observer of people and events and a gifted writer. In his years in the State Department, he was recognized as the government's leading authority on the Soviet Union, and his views resonated in the corridors of authority with rare power and clarity.

His great moment as a policymaker came in 1946. While serving in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, he wrote a cable that outlined positions that guided Washington's dealings with the Kremlin until the collapse of the Soviet Union nearly half a century later.

Known as the Long Telegram, it said that Soviet expansion must be halted and spelled out how that could be done. Moscow is "impervious to the logic of reason," Mr. Kennan said, but "it is highly sensitive to the logic of force." It did not state, however, that war was inevitable. The policy should have a military element, Mr. Kennan maintained, but it should consist primarily of economic and political pressure.

"My reputation was made," he rejoiced in his memoirs. "My voice now carried."

In 1947, he restated the principles in an article in Foreign Affairs that was signed "X" -- the identity of the author soon was disclosed -- and gave the policy the name by which it has been known ever since: containment.

By confronting "the Russians with unalterable counterforce at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interest of a peaceful and stable world," he wrote, the United States would "promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power."

The Long Telegram and "X" article provided the rationale for Cold War initiatives ranging from the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 to the decision to commit U.S. forces to the war in Southeast Asia in 1965. Containment underwent numerous permutations over time but never lost its vitality. It guided U.S. policy in Iran, the Philippines and the Far East. In the 1980s, it was transformed by the Reagan administration into an effort to roll back Soviet power through an arms buildup.

Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, said Mr. Kennan came "as close to authoring the diplomatic doctrine of his era as any diplomat in our history."

In 1989, President George H.W. Bush awarded him the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.

In 1950, Mr. Kennan took a leave of absence from the State Department to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Except for a brief period in 1952, when he was ambassador to Moscow, and from 1961 to 1963, when he was ambassador to Yugoslavia, he spent the rest of his life in Princeton.

Despite his influence, Mr. Kennan was never really comfortable in government or with the give-and-take process by which policy is made. He always regarded himself as an outsider. It grated on him when his advice was not heeded, more so because it often turned out that he had been more right than wrong. He had little patience with critics.

His confidence in his own intellect was such that he sometimes declined to explain himself to politicians. For example, he refused to lobby for the Marshall Plan, the aid program that revived the economy of Western Europe after World War II. He was a diplomat, he said, not a salesman.

Averell Harriman, the U.S. ambassador in Moscow when Mr. Kennan was minister-counselor of the U.S. Embassy, remarked that he was "a man who understood Russia but not the United States."

Just go read his books and you will come to know one of the giants of the last century, whose influence is still felt today. You could love Kennan's work or hate it, but you couldn't be neutral. He was the first and the last of the real cold warriors and Harriman wasn't wrong.

The US will continue to live a more or less charmed existence as long as we have minds like this in public service. When he was wrong he took his lumps, but, God, what a mind. When genius like this exiles itself to the academy or industry, we become a much poorer public common. What was great about him was his willingness to further the public dialogue.

Open Thread

That's it for today, kids. I've got some errands to run downtown and then I'm meeting a friend for dinner. You should find enough here to keep you occupied for the evening and I'm going to try to have a social life. But it will be with another blogger.

Are you doing anything special for St. Pat's?

World Image

CIA's Assurances On Transferred Suspects Doubted
Prisoners Say Countries Break No-Torture Pledges

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01

The system the CIA relies on to ensure that the suspected terrorists it transfers to other countries will not be tortured has been ineffective and virtually impossible to monitor, according to current and former intelligence officers and lawyers, as well as counterterrorism officials who have participated in or reviewed the practice.

To comply with anti-torture laws that bar sending people to countries where they are likely to be tortured, the CIA's office of general counsel requires a verbal assurance from each nation that detainees will be treated humanely, according to several recently retired CIA officials familiar with such transfers, known as renditions.

But the effectiveness of the assurances and the legality of the rendition practice are increasingly being questioned by rights groups and others, as freed detainees have alleged that they were mistreated by interrogators after the CIA secretly delivered them to countries with well-documented records of abuse.

President Bush weighed in on the matter for the first time yesterday, defending renditions as vital to the nation's defense.

In "the post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack," he said at a news conference. "And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves." One CIA officer involved with renditions, however, called the assurances from other countries "a farce."

Another U.S. government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said: "It's beyond that. It's widely understood that interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used."

Hmmm, leaking like a sieve. This sounds like a beginning rather than an end.

Our Tools

According to my visitor logs, 67% of you are still using Internet Explorer for your visits here. My guess is that this means that you are visiting from your workplace which is a Windows environment and you don't have much choice. But, tell me, what browser are you using at home?

Along the Plate

I wish I'd told you how to corn a beef brisket last month when you could have done something about it. There is no comparison between the homemade and the thing that comes in the Wilson plastic wrap today.

Well, it can't be helped. If you are going to go for one of the commercial corned beef briskets today, soak it in ice water for an hour before you roast it. It will get most of the nasty chemicals out.

Instead of plain boiled cabbage and potatoes, make these to serve on the side. Click on the link to see the picture.

POTATO AND CABBAGE BUNDLES
Active time: 1 1/2 hr Start to finish: 2 1/4 hr

1 medium onion, halved lengthwise, then sliced crosswise (1 cup)
1 tablespoon vegetable oil
1 large head leafy green cabbage (3 lb)
1 teaspoon minced garlic
3/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon black pepper
2/3 cup water
2 lb large boiling potatoes
1 cup well-shaken buttermilk
3 oz extra-sharp white Cheddar, coarsely grated (1 cup)
2 tablespoons drained bottled horseradish
3/4 stick (6 tablespoons) unsalted butter
3/4 cup coarse fresh bread crumbs from a country-style loaf

Makes 4 to 6 main-course servings.

I'd sprinkle with finely chopped parsley.

You're In The Army Now

US Army asks for enlistment extension as recruitment numbers fall

WASHINGTON : The US Army asked Congress to allow it to extend enlistment contracts signed by soldiers by two years as top defense officials warned that key recruitment targets for the year could be missed. the

The request came as House of Representatives put its stamp of approval on an 81.4-billion-dollar supplemental spending bill that contains new benefits for US soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the new money notwithstanding, Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Franklin Hagenbeck told a House subcommittee that yearly recruitment goals for the Army reserve and the National Guard were "at risk."

"In the manning area, we need Congress to change the maximum enlistment time from six years to eight years in order to help stabilize the force for longer periods of time," Hagenbeck went on to say.

The appeal coincided with the release of a new congressional report that showed that the intensifying anti-American insurgency in Iraq and continued violence in Afghanistan were followed by a distinct drop in the number of volunteers willing to serve in the branches of the military that see the most combat.

The Army reserve and Army National Guard respectively met only 87 percent and 80 percent of their overall recruiting goals in the first quarter of fiscal 2005, according to the study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The Air Force Reserve attained 91 percent of its target, the Air National Guard 71 percent and the Navy Reserve 77 percent.

The shortfalls could potentially have a noticeable effect on units operating in Iraq and Afghanistan because, according to defense officials, reservists and guardsmen make up about 46 percent of the total force deployed there.

Recruitment problems are beginning to dog even active duty units that have not experienced them in a long time.

The Marine Corps, whose reputation for efficiency and toughness has always helped it attract ambitious young men and women, missed its goal by 84 recruits in January and another 192 in February for the first time in 10 years, the GAO report said.

"There is no disputing the fact that the force is facing challenges," acknowledged Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Charles Abell.

Two years? This allows the government to void the contracts it writes with enlistees at will and re-write them. This is going to help enlistment?

Hey, kid. Sign a contract that our side can re-write whenever we want to in our favor. Just sign the deal, we'll let you go when we're done with you.

Hey, moms and dads. The Army will take your kid and let you have him back when they say so. Such a deal.

Lord of the Flies

Why graft thrives in postconflict zones
A report issued Wednesday said Iraq could become 'the biggest corruption scandal in history.'

By Mark Rice-Oxley | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

LONDON – Five Polish peacekeepers are arrested for allegedly taking $90,000 worth of bribes in Iraq. Several Sri Lankan officials are suspended for mishandling tsunami aid. US audits show large financial discrepancies in Iraq. Reports of aid abuse taunt Indonesia.

Two of the world's biggest-ever reconstruction projects - Iraq and post-tsunami Asia - are facing major tests of credibility, as billions of dollars of aid and reconstruction money pour in.
And according to a major report released Wednesday by Transparency International (TI), an international organization that focuses on issues of corruption, the omens are not good.

From Iraq and Afghanistan to Cambodia and Bosnia, from the wrecked coasts of Asia to the kleptocratic carve-up in some African countries, crisis zones are proving to be fertile soil for corruption, the report argues.

"Many postconflict countries figure among the most corrupt in the world," says Philippe le Billon of the University of British Columbia, Canada, in the TI report. "Corruption often predates hostilities and in many cases it features among the factors that triggered political unrest or facilitated conflict escalation."

The report cites weak government, haphazard law and order, armed factions that need appeasing, and a scramble for rich resources as factors that render a country prone to corruption.

Nations that face security threats are even more vulnerable, since they require protection money and may not be able to keep monitors safe.

Bosnia is a good example. During the breakdown of communism in the late 1980s, factions scrambled for assets by plundering state companies, a situation exacerbated by the 1992-1995 war.

Wartime sanctioned nefarious activity. Criminal gangs became cherished paramilitary groups; black markets flourished; underworld players became rich and powerful. After peace was declared in 1995, the world community was wary of upsetting the status quo. It's still unclear how much of the $5 billion spent on aid after the war ended up in the pockets of shady characters.

"These elements were either part of the ruling political parties, or criminal elements that were financing the ruling political parties," says James Lyon, an analyst in Belgrade with the International Crisis Group.

In Iraq, allegations range from petty bribery to large-scale embezzlement, expropriation, profiteering and nepotism. The TI report says it could become "the biggest corruption scandal in history."

"I can see all sorts of levels of corruption in Iraq," says report contributor Reinoud Leenders, "starting from petty officials asking for bribes to process a passport, way up to contractors delivering shoddy work and the kind of high-level corruption involving ministers and high officials handing out contracts to their friends and clients."

The recent elections may help, he adds, but already he notes a tendency for political bargaining indicative of "dividing up the cake of state resources."

But it is not just about Iraqis dividing up the cake. US audits of its own spending have found repeated shortcomings, including a lack of competitive bidding for contracts worth billions of dollars, payment of contracts without adequate certification that work had been done, and in some cases, outright theft.

A January report by special inspector Stuart Bowen found that $8.8 billion dollars had been disbursed from Iraqi oil revenue by US administrators to Iraqi ministries without proper accounting.

And earlier this week, it emerged that the Pentagon's auditing agency found that Halliburton, the Houston oil services giant formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, overcharged by more than $108 million on a contract.

Wanna find flies? Look at where the garbage is.

Breathing Room

I'm going to try a grand experiment. I've already put up four stories and threads for today.

I'm going to try to sleep in in the morning and not get up before eight. I haven't done this in years, but I'm so tired and written-out that I have to make the attempt. I see no days off the blog for me before the month of May and I need to craft mini-breaks in here along the way. Consider this an attempt.

Oz, or, Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain

Senate Votes to Allow Drilling in Arctic Reserve
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: March 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 16 - President Bush's long-stalled plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling cleared a major hurdle on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, when the Senate voted to include the proposal in its budget, a maneuver that smoothes the way for Congress to approve drilling later this year.

By a vote of 51 to 49, Republicans defeated an effort by Democrats to eliminate the drilling language from the budget. The vote does not ensure that drilling will be approved. But if the budget is adopted, Senate rules would allow the passage of a measure opening the refuge with a simple majority of 51 votes, escaping the threat of a filibuster, which has killed it in the past.

The vote was a major turning point in one of the most contentious energy debates in Washington at a time when Senate Republicans, using the power of a newly expanded majority, have been pushing through bills that businesses had sought. In another victory for the White House, the Senate also narrowly beat back an effort by Democrats and moderate Republicans to make it harder to extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the next five years.

Drilling in the Alaskan Arctic is a central component of President Bush's energy policy. In a statement issued after the vote, Mr. Bush praised the Senate and also called on Congress to enact a comprehensive energy bill, which has stalled over Arctic oil exploration in the past.

"This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Mr. Bush said, "and it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy."

Yeah, "Bushjobs" good for about ten years at minimum wage. There is about 6 months worth of oil in that fragile tundra. Why not fix the real problem, consumption, instead of propping it up with false solutions? This will do nothing to stem the oil shock, due in the next couple of years.

Foreign sources of energy? Will this do anything to stem our oil and electricty purchases from, em, Canada? No?

Miserable Failure

Bush: No Timetable for Troops Coming Home
Bush Declines to Set a Timetable for Bringing American Forces Home From Iraq

WASHINGTON Mar 16, 2005 — President Bush said Wednesday he understands the desire of U.S. coalition partners to withdraw troops from Iraq, but he declined to set a timetable for bringing American forces home and said he hoped others would also stay the course.

"Our troops will come home when Iraq is capable of defending herself," Bush told reporters.

Myers: U.S. Weighs Long-Term Afghan Bases

Wed Mar 16,12:45 PM ET

By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer

KABUL, Afghanistan - America's top general said Wednesday that Afghanistan (news - web sites) is secure and the United States is considering keeping long-term bases here as it repositions its military forces around the world.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Taliban religious militia was "essentially in disarray" since failing to disrupt Afghanistan's landmark presidential election last year.

He stressed that a hard core was likely to fight on and Afghanistan remained "a target" for al-Qaida, but he said a reconciliation drive aimed at "non-criminal" Taliban could further weaken the militia.

"Security is very good throughout the country, exceptionally good," Myers told reporters at Kabul airport after talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and U.S. commanders.

Myers said no decision had been reached on whether to seek permanent bases on Afghan soil. "But clearly we've developed good relationships and good partnerships in this part of the world, not only in Afghanistan," he said, also mentioning existing U.S. bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

"That'll all be considered as we go forward with the whole global basing construct," he said. "Clearly the United States has an interest in the long-term security and stability in Afghanistan, so we'll be discussing that future relationship."

The Afghan government has said it is seeking a "strategic partnership" with the United States spanning economic and political ties as well as military. It has yet to say whether that would include permanent U.S. bases in the country, which neighbors Iran (news - web sites), Pakistan and oil-rich Central Asia.

Maj. Gen. Eric Olson, who served until Tuesday as the No. 2 U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press last month that the sprawling Soviet-era base at Bagram, north of the capital, "is a place where we see a long-term presence of coalition and, frankly, U.S. capabilities."

Three years after driving out the Taliban for harboring Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and his al-Qaida network, the U.S. military has about 17,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and operates air bases at Bagram, Kandahar in the south and Jalalabad in the east.

Myers and Wolfowitz may have dreams of empire in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but the fact is that they are losing both theaters. What does a failed empire look like?

Damage

Wolfowitz nomination a shock for Europe

By Edward Alden, Christopher Swann and Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: March 16 2005 20:46 | Last updated: March 16 2005 20:46

President George W. Bush's decision on Wednesday to nominate Paul Wolfowitz as the next president of the World Bank marks the second shock this month to Europeans who thought Mr Bush would present a kinder, gentler face to the world in his second term.

Instead, along with the nomination last week of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Bush has put forward two men who have been the most passionate advocates for the view that if the US leads, the rest of the world will follow and fall into line.

"Wolfowitz has been seen as a symbol of the go-it-alone approach of the Bush administration," said Devesh Kapur, a Harvard political scientist and co-author of the official history of the World Bank. "Along with the nomination of Bolton, the US is putting the biggest sceptics of multilateralism in charge."

Mr Wolfowitz, deputy secretary in the Pentagon for the past four years, was among the earliest and strongest administration advocates for the war to oust Saddam Hussein. His name has become synonymous with the neoconservative argument that US security is reinforced not by a balance of power but by the use of military power to spread democratic ideals abroad.

With the successful elections in Iraq in January, and the possibility of democratic reforms in Lebanon and Egypt, his claims that the war could trigger a broader transformation in the region look more plausible than they did several months ago.

But critics will still point to the numerous lapses in judgment along the way. Mr Wolfowitz was among prominent members of the administration who engaged in a campaign two years ago to assure Americans that the financial costs of invading Iraq would be slight. These assurances were delivered against expert advice.

"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people," Mr Wolfowitz told a House of Representatives hearing on March 27 2003.

"On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50bn and $100bn over the course of the next two or three years," he said. "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

In the two years since the invasion, Iraq's oil revenues have totalled $25bn (€18.6bn, £13bn), despite soaring world prices. The cost of the war and reconstruction has exceeded $200bn so far.

The appointment will also raise questions about development credentials.

While Mr Wolfowitz's career included a stint as ambassador to Indonesia, his focus has long been on military affairs and he is not seen as an expert on development issues or international finance.

Oxfam, the aid agency, said: "It is vital that whoever becomes the new World Bank president ensures that the Bank is focused on reducing poverty."

Some non-governmental groups fear Mr Wolfowitz will have a different focus, seeking to enlist the bank in the larger project of building US security by spreading democracy. "There will be concern about the possibility of introducing the war on terror into the projects and policies of the World Bank," said Manish Bapna, executive-director of the Bank Information Center.

This is such an about-face for the central bank for world development that it is hard to underestimate. Wolfowitz has no credentials in this area other than his contempt for it. He is a triumphalist neocon whose credentials so far lie in the area of being smart and wrong (Iraq.) Expect a strong challenge from the international board of governers, who have to vote to seat him. They aren't that stupid. As much as I disliked Jim Wolfensohn, at least he was a banker and understood banking. Wolfowitz is just another technocrat ideologue with a limited worldview and a porfolio to do unlimited damage.

Sunlight: The Best Disinfectent

Congress' Big Stick

Federal marshals tagging baseball players with subpoenas wasn't what we expected when big league baseball promised to return to Washington after a 33-year absence. Nor was the prospect of sluggers invoking the 5th Amendment as interrogators demand that they testify about steroid use.

Baseball has only itself to blame for its ugly predicament. Fans should be speculating on whether Barry Bonds can catch Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron, but because Major League Baseball long resisted calls to retool its toothless drug policy, fans instead are stuck watching ESPN reports that look like they belong on Court TV.

Where is Congress's investigation of detainee abuse? Of contractor overcharges?

Putting Mark McGuire on the stand just masks all of that other stuff.

It is well to ask, "Why do the Repubs govern by secrecy?" Ya hide what you don't want other people to see.

Those who have become afraid of the daylight ought not to be in charge.

Imagination

I'm musing this evening on relationships, meat space and "virtual" (whatever the hell that means) after getting off the phone from a long phone call with Suburban Guerrilla. No, we haven't met yet, but we've spent so many hours on the phone that I know she's a sister, even if we haven't broken bread yet.

pogge and I rarely speak on the phone, we do most of our business by email, but we have met and carnivored together. He's a very good friend. But you know that.

The BF and I IM nearly daily when he isn't on the road for business, and talk on the phone regularly, but the relationship began in email and grew there. I'll see him when business allows in May. Is this frustrating? Yes. You work with what you've got.

I moderate an email list in which the regulars have been in communication with the group and each other for 10 years. We all know each other in some dimensions but not others.

I'm musing, as I said. What do you think about all of these newly generated relationships? You've probably got a bunch of them, too.

I'm in better touch with the rest of my family than I was when the phone was the primary mode of communication and it is changing my family (in ways that are mostly good.) How about you?

Bump is a blog, we're all writing to each other. How does that change things?

I'm too tired to think much about this tonight, but I'm putting it out there now because I want to take these questions to bed with me. When I'm chewing on something, I need to sleep on it. Sometimes for more than one night, but sleep is the magic that knits up the ravelled sleeve of care and gives us the mental space to let our imaginations run. Play this exercise out with me.

The Curtain Opens...

Many Scientists Fear Bird Flu Cases Exceed Data
# Minimal reports from Laos and Cambodia and unreliable test results elsewhere suggest that the virus' progress has been underestimated.

By Charles Piller, Times Staff Writer

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam — After more than a year of watching patients sicken and die of bird flu, Dr. Tran Tinh Hien of the Hospital for Tropical Diseases here thought he understood the illness.

Then last month, he learned of an unsettling study. Japanese researchers retested samples from 30 Vietnamese patients whose lab tests showed no signs of the disease. They discovered that seven had actually been infected.

"We are especially worried, because it may mean we missed some patients," said Tran, the hospital's deputy director.

Tran is part of a growing consensus that the extent of human bird flu infection in Southeast Asia may have been significantly underestimated.

In the last few months, scientists have begun to believe that the inaccuracy of laboratory tests, the wide variation of symptoms and the inability of public health agencies to combat the disease may have created the erroneous perception that bird flu is still rare among humans.

The number of infections is key. The more there are, the greater the chance the virus will mutate into a form that can easily be passed between people, who would have little immunity to the new disease. Scientists believe that nearly all infections so far have been caused by contact with sick or dead poultry.

Officially, the tally doesn't sound alarming. The virus has killed 14 people since December and 46 over the last 15 months. All but one of them were from Vietnam and Thailand. Altogether, there are 69 lab-confirmed cases, according to the World Health Organization.

Yet doctors and public health officials point to a glaring oddity in the statistics that underscores the belief that the case count is too low to be true.

Vietnam and Thailand have reported the overwhelming majority of recent cases. Yet Laos, which is sandwiched between the countries, has reported no cases among people or birds this year. Cambodia, which is also flanked by Vietnam and Thailand, has confirmed only a single human case.

"People are not trying to cover it up, but given how widespread the infection is in poultry in Southeast Asia, it's hard to believe people have gotten ill in only [three] countries," said Jeremy Farrar, a University of Oxford flu researcher at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases.

Philippe Buchy, head of virology at the Pasteur Institute, the only testing center in Cambodia, said, "The best way not to find something is not to look for it."

The Phillipines reported its first confirmed cases in birds today and have isolated two provinces. It's break out time, boys and girls.

Uh Oh

Scores died in U.S. custody in war zones
Unclear how many deaths attributable to U.S. personnel abuse
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:49 a.m. ET March 16, 2005

WASHINGTON - At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel.

The figure, far higher than any previously disclosed, includes cases investigated by the Army, Navy, CIA and Justice Department. Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most have been freed.

The Pentagon has never provided comprehensive information on how many prisoners taken during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have died, and the 108 figure is based on information supplied by Army, Navy and other government officials. It includes deaths attributed to natural causes.

ACLU: Hold someone accountable
To human rights groups, the deaths form a clear pattern.

“Despite the military’s own reports of deaths and abuses of detainees in U.S. custody, it is astonishing that our government can still pretend that what is happening is the work of a few rogue soldiers,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “No one at the highest levels of our government has yet been held accountable for the torture and abuse, and that is unacceptable.”

Giant Middle Digit

Geraldine Sealey in Salon's War Room

From the Pentagon to the World Bank

He was in, then he was out. But now Paul Wolfowitz, top Bush administration neo-con and deputy defense secretary, has been named President Bush's choice to head the World Bank, the biggest and most influential development institution in the world. (Perhaps it was that fawning David Brooks column that put Wolfowitz over the top!)

The last person to make the transition from the Pentagon to the World Bank was another architect of a controversial war, Robert McNamara, who ran the Bank from 1968 to 1981. McNamara's tenure was seen by many as a way of making up for the carnage of Vietnam. Wolfowitz, of course, is not remorseful about Iraq. But Europeans fear his tenure at the Bank could prove similar to McNamara's in another way -- that he would funnel aid to nations based more on their support of U.S. policy than their neediness.

George W. Bush, pissing off the world since 2001.

Peak Oil Prices

Oil Hits New High on Fuel-Supply Report

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 16, 2005; 12:28 PM

The price of crude oil reached an all-time high today on a report from the Department of Energy that U.S. supplies of gasoline and heating oil fell sharply last week.

The spike, to $56.25 per barrel, set a new record for intra-day trade prices in crude oil futures contracts. The previous record was $55.67 set in October.

It also sparked another sell-off of stocks on Wall Street.

The crude price figure is not adjusted for inflation. The inflation-adjusted record is close to $90 per barrel, set in 1980.

The continuing surge in prices is, nevertheless, being reflected in everyday prices at the pump, which are averaging $2 per gallon for regular nationally, with the country going into the heavy driving vacation season.

The increase came despite an announcement from OPEC that it would boost production quotas by about 500,000 barrels a day, an announcement that was apparently dismissed by traders because the oil cartel's production is already above that level by about 200,000 barrels, meaning that no extra oil will be produced.

Anybody know what the dollar is doing this afternoon? I just got in and haven't had a chance to check Bloomberg yet.

Playing Catch-up

A little tech news:

IE7 details leak onto web
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Wednesday 16th March 2005 10:58 GMT

Details of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7.0 are starting to emerge, and if the rumours are true, IE 7.0 will have tabbed browsing, a built-in news-aggregator, and could be integrated with Microsoft's currently-in-beta anti-spyware product.

IE 7.0 is due to begin beta testing this summer.

I'm off to monthly spiritual directors' peer group meeting. Back in a few hours.

New Quiz

You're Pale Fire!

by Vladimir Nabokov

You're really into poetry and the interpretation thereof. Along the road of life, you have had several identity crises which make it very unclear who you are, let alone how to interpret poetry. You probably came from a foreign country, but then again you seem foreign to everyone in ways unrelated to immigration. Most people think you're quite funny, but maybe you're just sick. Talking to you ends up being much like playing a round of the popular board game Clue.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

Apocalypse When?

Flirting With Deficit Disasters

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A23

What's truly unfortunate about Bush's privatization road show is that it has distracted him and the nation from the financial threats that loom just over the horizon. Those dangers were highlighted in frightening analyses made this month by investor Warren Buffett and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Though the two differ about precisely what may lie ahead, they agree that unless the United States puts its financial house in order, it faces real trouble.

Buffett's comments came in his annual letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., released March 5. Every year, Buffett's letter offers blunt economic analysis, and it has become a kind of cult object for his devotees. But this year's version was enough to give you indigestion after devouring the sage's favorite meal of a T-bone steak and double hash browns at Gorat's in Omaha. Indeed, it was downright scary in its comments about the dangers posed by America's trade deficit.

Buffett has argued since 2003 that this huge trade deficit will eventually bring a sharp decline in the dollar, and he has tried to protect his company's shareholders against that dollar crash by speculating in foreign currencies. But this year, with the trade deficit having ballooned to a record $618 billion in 2004, Buffett's tone is almost apocalyptic.

"The evidence grows that our trade policies will put unremitting pressure on the dollar for many years to come," Buffett writes. "The decline in its value has already been substantial, but it is nevertheless likely to continue. Without policy changes, currency markets could even become disorderly and generate spillover effects, both political and financial." That's careful language, but what Buffett is saying is that America is risking a financial crash -- a bursting bubble -- if political leaders don't do something about the trade deficit.

Buffett phrases his analysis in his usual homespun metaphors. By buying more abroad than we produce at home, "We are like a family that consistently overspends its income," he writes; we are financing this self-indulgence only by writing IOUs that are claims on our future income. Rather than an "ownership society," we are creating a "sharecropper's society" that, by Buffett's calculation, will owe the world $11 trillion by 2015 if we continue on the current course. Servicing that debt would cost $550 billion annually, a payment to the rest of the world that "would undoubtedly produce significant political unrest in the U.S.," Buffett fears.

Greenspan focuses on the other looming financial disaster, the federal budget deficit. In a March 10 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, he warned that the deficit "will rise significantly as the baby boomers start to retire in 2008." And he offered a stark warning that this rising deficit could eventually threaten U.S. financial markets: "Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances." In other words, politicians have to solve this problem; the markets can't.

I should note that Greenspan disagrees with Buffett about the trade deficit. The Fed chairman thinks that over time a declining dollar and other adjustments will reduce U.S. demand for expensive imports. There's no sign that this gradual market adjustment is happening, however. Despite a falling dollar, the trade deficit increased in January to $58.3 billion, the second-highest monthly total ever.

Our wisest economic thinkers are sounding the alarm bells, but where are the political leaders? Where, in particular, is President Bush? After Sept. 11, 2001, he showed that he could rally the country to deal with a deadly threat to its security. He faces that challenge again in dealing with the nation's financial imbalances. Bush should put the distraction of his privatization plan behind him and focus on the economic crises that are here and now. Time to step up, Mr. President.

Ignatius is playing patty-cake with the truth. Bush is an incompetent financial manager. Period. Check out Robert Samuelson's Newsweek column from last weekend. As I said to a reader yesterday, my only question now is what gets us first, Avian Influenza or financial collapse.

Subverting the Dominant Link Heirarchy

Helen Cobban's Just World News is one of the places I go for reliable news from the ME. Add that link to your bookmarks and read yesterday's entry with sorrow

Anyway, friends, please join in remembering the victims of these incidents from recent weeks:

And if the US occupation forces can't (or won't) do the job of assuring the basic physical security of Iraqi families-- who can?

Here's the real news, with context you don't get from the MSM. Thank God for blogs and for great souls like Helena.

American Idol

2 Years After Invasion, Poll Data Mixed
Doubts About War, Optimism for Iraqis

By Dan Balz and Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A01

Two years after President Bush led the country to war in Iraq, Americans appear to be of two minds about the situation in the Middle East: A majority say they believe the Iraqis are better off today than they were before the conflict began -- but they also say the war was not worth fighting in the first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The January elections in Iraq have helped to shift public opinion in a positive direction about the future of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, with a clear majority of Americans (56 percent) saying they are now confident that Iraqi leaders can create a stable government -- a dramatic turnaround since just before the elections.

The poll also shows that more Americans believe the war has improved the chances of democracy spreading in the Middle East than believe it has diminished those prospects.

Despite the optimism about the future, the poll suggests there has been little change in the negative public opinion about the decision to go to war. Fifty-three percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, 57 percent said they disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq, and 70 percent said the number of U.S. casualties, including more than 1,500 deaths, is an unacceptable price.

The mixed assessment of the situation in Iraq comes near the second anniversary of the U.S. invasion. It offers a benchmark for measuring the shifts in public opinion that have occurred since Bush launched the war despite opposition from much of the rest of the world.

Along with judgments about the war in Iraq, the poll found little appetite for military action against other states Bush has targeted for criticism, including Iran and North Korea. But with Iraq moving toward greater self-governance, Bush does not appear to be under great pressure to remove U.S. forces immediately -- despite criticism of how he has handled the situation there.

The poll also comes in the midst of encouraging signs throughout the Middle East, with tensions between Israelis and Palestinians reduced, popular support and international pressure for an end to Syria's occupation of Lebanon, and tentative steps toward democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Bush has reaped some of the credit for the changes underway in the region, having made the promotion of democracy there and elsewhere the central theme of his second-term foreign policy agenda.

Over the past two years, Americans rallied around Bush in the initial stages of the war but grew increasingly disillusioned as stepped-up insurgent attacks a year ago turned the conflict bloodier. Today, Americans offer a more nuanced assessment of the experience there and its impact both on the United States and the Middle East. Deep partisan divisions remain, with Republicans positive about the decision to go to war and Democrats strongly negative.

What Baltz and Morin miss is that it is in no small degree their own employer's relentless chearleading in the run up to and lousy coverage after "major military operations" which has misled people into supporting this abomination. Crappy news coverage in this country means that those supporting (whatever that means) this war are completely clueless about the war crimes in Fallujah and Ramadiyah, the systematic abuse of Abu Ghraib and the American Gulag, the things you won't see on CNN or Fox.

War is Murder

U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 16, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 15 - At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials.

The number of confirmed or suspected cases is much higher than any accounting the military has previously reported. A Pentagon report sent to Congress last week cited only six prisoner deaths caused by abuse, but that partial tally was limited to what the author, Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III of the Navy, called "closed, substantiated abuse cases" as of last September.

The new figure of 26 was provided by the Army and Navy this week after repeated inquiries. In 18 cases reviewed by the Army and Navy, investigators have now closed their inquiries and have recommended them for prosecution or referred them to other agencies for action, Army and Navy officials said. Eight cases are still under investigation but are listed by the Army as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides, the officials said.

Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, officials said, showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift.

Among the cases are at least four involving Central Intelligence Agency employees that are being reviewed by the Justice Department for possible prosecution. They include a killing in Afghanistan in June 2003 for which David Passaro, a contract worker for the C.I.A., is now facing trial in federal court in North Carolina.

Human rights groups expressed dismay at the number of criminal homicides and renewed their call for a Sept. 11-style inquiry into detention operations and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. "This number to me is quite astounding," said James D. Ross, senior legal adviser for Human Rights Watch in New York. "This just reflects an overall failure to take seriously the abuses that have occurred."

Pentagon and Army officials rebutted that accusation. Lawrence Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said that he was not aware that the Defense Department had previously accounted publicly for criminal homicides among the detainee deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, but insisted that military authorities were vigorously pursuing each case.

"I have not seen the numbers collected in the way you described them, but obviously one criminal homicide is one too many," said Mr. Di Rita, who noted that American forces had held more than 50,000 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past three years.

Army officials said the killings took place both inside and outside detention areas, including at the point of capture in often violent battlefield conditions. "The Army will investigate every detainee death both inside and outside detention facilities," said Col. Joseph Curtin, a senior Army spokesman. "Simply put, detainee abuse is not tolerated, and the Army will hold soldiers accountable. We are taking action to prosecute those suspected of abuse while taking steps now to train soldiers how to avoid such situations in the future."

In his report last week, Admiral Church concluded that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan had been the result primarily of a breakdown of discipline, not flawed policies or misguided direction from commanders or Pentagon officials. But he cautioned that his conclusions were "based primarily on the information available to us as of Sept. 30, 2004," and added, "Should additional information become available, our conclusions would have to be considered in light of that information."

In addition to the criminal homicides, 11 cases involving prisoner deaths at the hands of American troops are now listed as justifiable homicides that should not be prosecuted, Army officials said. Those cases included killings caused by soldiers in suppressing prisoner riots in Iraq, they said. Other prisoners have died in captivity of natural causes, the military has found.

Why does a little nerve in my gut tell me that this is the tip of the iceberg? The cowboy culture of our Army and Marines tells me that this is common and a tiny minority of the true cases will ever be prosecuted.

Politics and the Home Front

Via The Center for American Progress blog, Think Progress:

Deconstructing John Bolton

CONDI’S CLAIM: “John played a key diplomatic role in our sensitive negotiations with Libya when that nation made the wise choice to give up its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.”
FACT: According to Newsweek, talks with Libya “succeeded only after the British managed to sideline the Bush administration’s top arms-control official, John Bolton. … [A]fter a tense session in London, the British complained that Bolton was obstructing talks. Washington agreed to keep Bolton at home. The assurances that Libya sought were quietly given.”
FACT: Bolton opposed the very strategy eventually used to encourage Libya to disarm. “In a 2000 law review article he warned that the effort to isolate Libya via prosecution of the terrorists it sponsors and the UN sanctions ‘marks the final collapse of United States policy against Libyan terrorism.’”

CONDI’S CLAIM: “John helped build a coalition of more than 60 countries to help combat the spread of WMD through the President’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).”
FACT: According to the Arms Control Association, “The initiative does not empower countries to do anything that they previously could not do. Most importantly, PSI does not grant governments any new legal authority to conduct interdictions in international waters or airspace.”
FACT: Critics say the initiative has yielded no major successes. Though some point to Libya as evidence of a PSI breakthrough, a “closer examination of the record shows PSI played no role in Libya’s decision to disarm.”
FACT: The legitimacy of the PSI has been undermined by the administration’s refusal to press the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This treaty – negotiated more than 20 years ago – has been ratified by 145 nations, including the other members of the Proliferation Security Initiative (who insist that it provides the only legitimate international framework for the initiative). Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly criticized the administration for failing to push senators to ratify the treaty.

I'll leave the links over at Think Progess and you can click on over and add to the comments there, if you are so inclined. CAP has a big presser next week on healthcare and I'm going. These folks are a serious resource for progressive public policy wonks and I want to work for them. Showing up with a laptop and some good questions at these events is one way to get there.

Speaking of laptops, the BF, an IT pro, programmer and web designer, says "gotta getta Dell." I think they are pretty but look fragile. Any of you have a thought? I have to make a decision this weekend if I'm going to buy by mail. I *insist* on Win2kPro, which means a custom install, Dell defaults to XP Pro, and I just don't like it, feels funky.

Eddie, by the way, is going to lose most of his teeth (he has a really crappy owner who has been poor too long) but should be okay in the long run, soft food means he doesn't really need teeth. No cancer. Got the biopsy results tonight. He's going to need steroids to reduce the inflammation and a lot of help with antibiotics for weeks, but the grinding the pills into babyfood junior meats seems to work quite well. I add a spritz of Bovril to give it a good strong smell that covers the smell of the meds. This works and avoids the fight of "pilling the cat."

Yes, I'm fully familiar with The New Natural Cat and Eddie's immune system is being supported by some of the things I learned there. He's going to be fine and the vet techs love him. Who wouldn't? Even feeling poorly, he's the most affectionate cat who has ever owned me. He's my little orange bucket of love.

Making Us Sick

Via the hardest working bloggers in the 'sphere:

Post-9/11 secrecy produces some undesirable results

Mon Mar 14,10:04 AM ET

Op/Ed - USATODAY.com

In Fall River, Mass., last year, the mayor wanted to find out more about a plan to store liquid natural gas in his city. The substance, if released, can cause a catastrophic explosion, and he wanted to be sure that safeguards were adequate to protect the public.

A 1966 federal law is supposed guarantee access to that information. But so far, he and other residents have received nothing but documents blacked out to the point of uselessness. The citizens of Fall River, it seems, will just have to take their chances.

Welcome to the world of post-9/11 secrecy, where bureaucrats are turning the notion of open government on its head. Federal, state and local officials are clamping down on information that would have been accessible just four years ago.

Some information that previously was open no doubt needs to be classified now. Terrorism alters perspectives. But the terrorist threat also has provided cover for bureaucrats who instinctively opt for secrecy and public officials who would prefer to keep the public in the dark to avoid accountability.

The numbers alone should persuade even the most ardent defender of secret government that something is amiss.

In 2004, the government created 16 million new secrets, 75% more than in the year ending in September 2001. Sixteen million! And each new "classification decision" can involve many documents.

That level of secrecy itself poses a security threat. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, which works to open records, said the system is so busy classifying that it can no longer "tell the real threat from the decoys."

Consider this silliness:

In 1999, the government declassified most of a 1975 U.S. spy agency biography of then-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (news - web sites). Last year, in answer to a related request, bureaucrats re-released the same document. But this time, they blacked out portions they had declassified five years earlier.

One of the secrets? Pinochet "drinks scotch and pisco sours." Shhh! Don't tell.

It would be easy to laugh, if so much of what's hidden weren't so serious.

Last year, the Senate intelligence committee released scathing findings on the nation's faulty prewar Iraq (news - web sites) intelligence. Initially, the CIA (news - web sites) wanted to keep half the report secret.

After senators balked, the agency backed off, a little. Lines, paragraphs and entire pages still were hidden when the report came out.

While I will concede some privacy for some national security issues, years of working with people who are trying to heal their lives has taught me that secrets are toxic. Our government is toxic and our society is toxic.

Coalition of the Withdrawing

I've been waiting for this for a while. The Sgrena/Calipari affair moved the announcement date up.

Italy to Start Withdrawing Troops From Iraq in September
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 15, 2005
Filed at 3:26 p.m. ET

ROME (AP) -- Premier Silvio Berlusconi, facing rising opposition to the war in Iraq and public outcry over the deadly U.S. shooting of an Italian agent in Baghdad, announced Tuesday that Italy will start withdrawing its 3,000 troops from Iraq beginning in September.

While taping a state TV talk show to air later Tuesday, Berlusconi said, ``In September we will begin a progressive reduction of the number of our soldiers in Iraq.''

Withdrawing Italian troops ``will depend on the capability of the Iraqi government to give itself structures for acceptable security,'' the ANSA news agency quoted Berlusconi as saying. ``I've spoken about it with (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair, and it's the public opinion of our countries that expects this decision.''

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, ``We certainly appreciate the contributions of the Italians. They have served and sacrificed alongside Iraqis and alongside other coalition forces.''

Italian government officials had already indicated that Rome would consider withdrawing troops if Iraq could handle its own security. Last fall, Italy's defense minister said coalition troops in Iraq could be gradually cut after Iraq's elections in January, but he did not cite a timetable.

Opposition to the war and to Italy's involvement in Iraq is strong here. Berlusconi faced renewed pressure to pull troops out after the March 4 killing in Baghdad of an Italian intelligence agent, Nicola Calipari, as he escorted a recently released hostage to freedom.

Berlusconi has powerful tools to survive the next general election--he's one of the largest media moguls in the world--but he'd be denied their power completely if Italians were still taking bullets on the ground in Iraq come next spring. I haven't been studying Italian politics (Gianni, can you fill me in?), but I know that Berlusconi is vulnerable if the right challenger comes along.

Bankers' Relief

Robert Scheer: The Bankruptcy Bill: a Tutorial in Greed
# Lesson No. 1 -- Campaign cash is worth more than family values.

Because they keep revamping and expanding the SAT, I'll propose a new economics puzzler for the test makers' consideration.

Question: What is the difference between a loan shark and a banker?

Answer: Not much. The former uses hired thugs to enforce repayment from the debtors; the latter employs the feds as paid muscle.
......
So why gut the bankruptcy law now? Greed, pure and simple. And, pathetically, this bankers' dream is becoming a reality through the support of Republicans who have decided, as they often do with social issues, to selectively pick and choose when to follow the teachings of the Bible.

A key sponsor of the bill, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), actively opposes abortion and same-sex marriage on biblical grounds yet believes the Good Book's clear definition and condemnation of usury is irrelevant. The Old Testament, revered by Jews, Muslims and Christians alike, mandates debt forgiveness after seven years, as was pointed out earlier this month by an organization of Christian lawyers in a letter to Grassley.

"I can't listen to Christian lawyers," said the senator, "because I would be imposing the Bible on a diverse population."

Sadly, when it comes to serving the prerogatives of banks, you can forget about those family values that folks such as Grassley prattle on about. The bill he wrote placed mothers and their children behind credit card companies in the line for a bankrupt ex-husband's paycheck, for example, which is positively Dickensian. Expected to sail through the House and onto the president's desk in the next few weeks, the bill turns the federal government into a guardian angel of an industry gone mad, placing no significant restriction on soaring interest rates and proliferating fees.

One extremely modest amendment that was rejected by the Senate would have blocked creditors from recovering debts from military personnel if the loans had annual rates higher than 36%. Also killed were sensible amendments designed to protect those ruined by a medical emergency, identity theft, dependent-caregiver expenses or loss of income due to being called to full-time military duty through the National Guard or the Reserve.

In the end, these individuals are simply not powerful enough to earn the protection of our by-the-powerful, for-the-powerful government. Creditors can scam consumers, Enron can burn California, Halliburton can gouge the Pentagon, the rich can enjoy obscene tax cuts, our "conservative" president can run up the deficit like a drunken sailor — and none of it seems to faze our elected leaders. For them, "fiscal responsibility" is just a high-minded prescription appropriate only for the commoners.

Think of it as economic rape.

Intel Collapse

3/14/2005
Former UN weapons inspector, who worked with CIA, sees ‘terminally ill’ intel operation
Former UN weapons inspector, who worked with CIA, hits neocon ‘brownshirts’

By Larisa Alexandrovna | RAW STORY Staff

In part one of Raw Story’s exclusive interview with former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the discussion focused on Iraq, Iran, and touched briefly on the probability of Russia’s unsecured nuclear materials.

Ritter: The system is broken. America is going through one of these closed loops.

Edge of the Cliff

Bottom Dollar
The greenback's fall is stoking fears of a global crisis. Behind the slide: a world economy wildly out of balance
Illustration by Viktor Koen for Newsweek

By Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek

March 21 issue - There's been plenty of good news of late about the U.S. economy, so let's start with that: employment is expanding (2.4 million new payroll jobs in the last year); inflation remains low (less than a 2 percent rate in the past quarter); the stock market is higher (up 11 percent on the Dow from its November low), and business investment is impressive (rising at a 14 percent rate in late 2004). Indeed, the recent news has been so good—a major exception being $50-a-barrel oil—that we're hearing again of the "Goldilocks" economy, which grows fast enough to increase jobs and slow enough to muffle inflation. But beyond all the upbeat indicators lurks a potentially frightening problem that unsettles even the wisest and most seasoned economic observers. It's not government budget deficits, a possible housing bubble or even $2-a-gallon gasoline. It's the dollar.

If you've been following closely, you know that the dollar has been declining steadily against many foreign currencies. From recent highs—reached in mid-2001 or early 2002—the dollar has dropped 38 percent against the euro, 23 percent against the yen and 25 percent against the Canadian dollar. And most economists expect the slide to continue. By the year-end, the euro may rise to $1.45 from $1.34 and the yen to 97 from 104 (that's 97 yen to the dollar), says economist Nariman Behravesh of Global Insight. But, of course, you probably haven't been following closely. For most Americans, the subject of the dollar—its value on foreign-exchange markets—is a yawner. A depreciating dollar makes foreign vacations more expensive, puts pressure on the prices of imported cars and shoes and (the good part) improves the global competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. Normally, these matters aren't high on our "must know" list. But now is not normal.

The significance of the dropping dollar is that it's actually a symptom of a larger and more troubling development. For 15 years the American economy has been the engine for the world economy through ever-increasing trade and current-account deficits (the current account includes other overseas payments like travel and tourism). In 2004, the U.S. current-account deficit is estimated to have reached $650 billion, a record 5.6 percent of the economy (GDP). Other countries' economies benefit from sending their goods to eager American buyers, and the United States in turn sends massive amounts of dollars abroad to pay for those goods. The trouble is that there are now more dollars than foreigners want to hold. If there's a glut of anything—apples, computer chips, Beanie Babies—prices go down. So when surplus dollars are sold for euros, yen or pounds, then the dollar drops in value against those currencies.

If you sense a contradiction, you're right; and there's the dilemma. The world economy can't get along without our massive trade deficits—and perhaps can't get along with them, either. Americans' consumption binge is propping up global trade and employment, but it's also threatening a financial upheaval that could hurt global trade and employment. With their export earnings, foreigners have bought huge amounts of U.S. stocks, bonds and other investments: at the end of 2003, $1.8 trillion of corporate bonds and $1.5 trillion of stocks. The doomsday scenario, considered unlikely by most economists but not impossible, is that a crash of the dollar would trigger a broader panic. Foreigners would sell their U.S. stocks and bonds, driving down those markets and bringing massive losses to everyone. They would sell because a dropping dollar would make their American investments worth less in their own currencies. Consumer and business confidence would drop; a recession in the United States and abroad might follow.
....
The real issue is whether the present pattern of global economic growth is inherently unstable—and whether it can be easily corrected. America's huge and expanding trade deficits have served as a narcotic for the rest of the world. As with all narcotics, resulting highs have been artificial and, to some extent, delusional to both the dealer and the addicts. The question now is whether everyone can go straight, before the addiction becomes self-destructive. It is whether the Asians can curb their export dependence; whether the Europeans can revitalize their economies; whether the Americans can control their overconsumption. The dollar's fluctuations and frailties are mainly the outward manifestations of this larger predicament. To paraphrase former Treasury secretary John Connally: the dollar may be America's currency, but it's the world's problem.

Samuelson is unnecessarily US-centric, but not wrong.

Lies from the Top

Excess Fuel Billing by Halliburton in Iraq Is Put at $108 Million
By ERIK ECKHOLM

Published: March 15, 2005

Excess billing for postwar fuel imports to Iraq by the Halliburton Company totaled more than $108 million, according to a report by Pentagon auditors that was completed last fall but has never been officially released to the public or to Congress.

In one case, according to the report, the company claimed that it had paid more than $27 million to transport liquefied petroleum gas it had purchased in Kuwait for just $82,000 - a fee the auditors tartly dismissed as "illogical."

The fuels report, by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, was one of nine audits involving a subsidiary of Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root, that were completed in October 2004, in the month before the American presidential elections. But the administration has kept all of them confidential despite repeated requests from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

Excerpts were released yesterday by the office of Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, minority leader of the House Committee on Government Reform, which said it had obtained the audit through "unofficial channels."

Vice President Dick Cheney formerly headed Halliburton, a conglomerate based in Texas. Allegations of profiteering by the company - hotly disputed by Halliburton and administration officials - were raised in the presidential campaign.

"The facts show that KBR delivered fuel crucial to the Iraqi people when failure was not an option," said Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, in an e-mail message. "We will continue to work with the Army to prove, once and for all, that KBR delivered these vital services for the Iraqi people at a fair and reasonable cost given the circumstances."

KBR has received more than $10 billion in contracts for work in Iraq, including oil-field repairs, fuel imports and, in a huge separate agreement, provision of housing, meals and other support to the military.

In a letter sent to President Bush yesterday, Mr. Waxman and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, minority leader of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, asked for an explanation of why the auditing reports had not been released to Congress and demanded stronger efforts to reclaim funds from Halliburton.

Allegations of overcharging for the fuel imports have swirled from the initial days of the occupation, but in this latest audit the scale of officially disputed charges is higher than previously reported. In December 2003, the same Pentagon auditing agency announced that a preliminary study had discovered $61 million in unreasonable fuel bills up to that point.

The later audit describes "unreasonable" and "questionable" billing of $108 million of total billings of $875 million under an initial "task order" to Kellogg, Brown & Root to import fuels into Iraq.

Pentagon Data on Iraq Security Forces Unreliable -GAO

Mon Mar 14, 5:35 PM EST

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) told Congress on Monday that there are 142,472 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, but a Capitol Hill watchdog agency said data on the forces was unreliable and it was difficult to gauge whether billions of U.S. dollars were being used effectively.

"Data on the status of Iraqi security forces is unreliable and provides limited information on their capabilities," Joseph Christoff, of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), told a House of Representatives Government Reform subcommittee.

Christoff also said Pentagon intelligence data showed an escalating insurgency, as "each monthly peak in the number of violent incidents is followed by a higher average number of attacks in subsequent months."

Rear Adm. William Sullivan, who provided the Pentagon figures to the committee, acknowledged they included some Iraqi police who may have left their post or were absent without leave. He also said the Pentagon is trying to develop a way to measure how ready the Iraqi forces are for combat or various types of security duty.

Assessing the readiness of Iraqis to take over the role of U.S. forces in countering the insurgency has become a crucial factor in judging when the United States will be able to start withdrawing from Iraq (news - web sites).

The administration has spent about $5.8 billion to develop Iraq's security forces. President Bush (news - web sites) is seeking another $5.7 billion in an $81.9 billion emergency spending bill that Congress is considering for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites).

"Without reliable information, Congress may find it difficult to judge how federal funds are achieving a goal of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqis," Christoff told the panel.

The U.S. goal is to train and equip about 271,000 Iraqi security forces, police and military combined, by July 2006.

The Pentagon has been forced to scale back its estimates of ready forces from about 206,000 as it became apparent many were not combat-ready, particularly after the November offensive in Fallujah.

"This is like fantasy land. This is as fictive as the weapons of mass destruction," Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites), an Ohio Democrat, told Sullivan of the Pentagon's figures. "I'm embarrassed for you that you would come to a congressional committee with this kind of a phony report."

Everything we're told about this f&*king rathole our money is being poured down is just made up. Iraqi lives and American are being spent for a fabric of lies.

Sleeping with the Enemy

The $600 Billion Man
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 15, 2005

The argument over Social Security privatization isn't about rival views on how to secure the program's future - even the administration admits that private accounts would do nothing to help the system's finances. It's a debate about what kind of society America should be.
.....
Let's start with the case of the bogus $600 billion.

In his Jan. 15 radio address, President Bush made a startling claim: "According to the Social Security trustees, waiting just one year adds $600 billion to the cost of fixing Social Security." The $600 billion cost of each year's delay has become a standard administration talking point, repeated by countless conservative pundits - who have apparently not looked at what the trustees actually said.

In fact, the trustees never said that waiting a year to "fix" Social Security costs $600 billion. Mr. Bush was grossly misrepresenting the meaning of a technical discussion of accounting issues (it's on Page 58 of the 2004 trustees' report), which has nothing to do with the cost of delaying changes in the retirement program.

The same type of "infinite horizon" calculation applied to the Bush tax cuts says that their costs rise by $1 trillion a year. That's not a useful measure of the cost of not repealing those cuts immediately.

So anyone who repeats the $600 billion line is helping to spread a lie. That's why it was disturbing to read a news report about the deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, who must know better, doing just that at a pro-privatization rally.
....
But in his latest radio address, Mr. Bush - correctly, this time - attributed the $600 billion figure to a "Democrat leader." He was referring to Senator Joseph Lieberman, who, for some reason, repeated the party line - the Republican party line - the previous Sunday.

My guess is that Mr. Lieberman thought he was being centrist and bipartisan, reaching out to Republicans by showing that he shares their concerns. At a time when the Democrats can say, without exaggeration, that their opponents are making a dishonest case for policies that will increase the risks facing families, Mr. Lieberman gave the administration cover by endorsing its fake numbers.

The push to privatize Social Security will probably fail all the same - but such attempts at accommodation may limit the Democrats' political gain.

Meanwhile, the party missed a big opportunity to make its case against increasing families' risk by acquiescing to the credit card industry's demand for harsher bankruptcy laws.

As it happens, Mr. Lieberman stated clearly what was wrong with the bankruptcy bill: "It failed to close troubling loopholes that protect wealthy debtors, and yet it deals harshly with average Americans facing unforeseen medical expenses or a sudden military deployment," making it unfair to "working Americans who find themselves in dire financial straits through no fault of their own." A stand against the bill would have merged populism with patriotism, highlighting Democrats' differences with Republicans' vision of America.

But many Democrats chose not to take that stand. And Mr. Lieberman was among them: his vote against the bill was an empty gesture. On the only vote that opponents of the bill had a chance of winning - a motion to cut off further discussion - he sided with the credit card companies. To be fair, so did 13 other Democrats. But none of the others tried to have it both ways.

It isn't always bad politics to say things that aren't true and claim to support things you actually oppose: just look at who's running the country. But Democrats who engage in these tactics right now create big problems for a party that has been given a special chance - maybe its last chance - to remind the country of what Democrats stand for, and why.

And this is another reason why Joe must go. What does he stand for?

The Security State

Va. Defense Facility Locked Down
Similar Incident at Pentagon Spurs Queries About Coordination

By Jamie Stockwell and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A01

A sensor at a Department of Defense mailroom in Fairfax County signaled the presence of a suspicious biological substance yesterday, forcing hundreds of workers to remain inside three buildings for almost six hours.

The lockdown came just hours after the mail facility at the Pentagon, about four miles away in Arlington, was evacuated and closed. The Pentagon took that action yesterday morning after tests conducted last week came back positive for anthrax, officials said. Later tests at the Pentagon were negative.

Spokesmen for the Pentagon and the Fairfax fire department initially said the events at the Pentagon and in the Baileys Crossroads section of Fairfax were unrelated. But last night, a Virginia official said the events might be linked. In addition, emergency officials responding to the Fairfax incident said they were not aware of the Pentagon evacuation, causing Virginia's top homeland security official to say that coordination by the Defense Department would have to be reviewed.

Authorities said that there is no imminent danger to the public, that Defense Department mail is irradiated and that new detection systems worked. But state and local officials remained concerned that 3 1/2 years after the attack on the Pentagon and anthrax mailings that affected local postal facilities, coordination did not work smoothly yesterday.

"Clearly, the big question that's got to be answered is when did the DOD make the notification and did they make all appropriate notifications to make sure all federal, state and local players were aware of the problem?" said George W. Foresman, homeland security adviser to Gov. Mark R. Warner (D).

As many as 800 people, a majority of whom work as government contractors, were kept inside their buildings on Leesburg Pike in Baileys Crossroads after a sensor was activated about 2:30 p.m., a fire department official said.

This is what life is like when Bushco rules. Welcome to the New World Order. It's not really about safety, it is about control. Just so's you know.

State Corporatism, V.1.0

Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21

The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.

That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda.

The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."

The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times.

The law is what Bush says it is. Hoo boy, have we arrived at fascism by the main gate, or what?

A Meatless Hit and Carnivore Variation

A quick, meatless hit.

ARUGULA AND FONTINA FRITTATA

1 garlic clove, halved
1 1/2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
5 oz baby arugula (7 cups packed)
6 large eggs
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon black pepper
1/4 lb Fontina, rind discarded and cheese cut into 1/2-inch cubes
Preheat broiler.

Cook garlic in oil in a 10-inch well-seasoned cast-iron or other ovenproof skillet over moderate heat, stirring occasionally, until golden, about 2 minutes. Discard garlic and add arugula, then cook, stirring frequently, until wilted, 1 to 2 minutes.

Whisk together eggs, salt, and pepper until combined, then pour over arugula in skillet and cook, undisturbed, over moderate heat until almost set, 5 to 6 minutes. Sprinkle cheese evenly on top and broil 4 to 5 inches from heat until eggs are just set and cheese is melted, 1 to 2 minutes.

Serve by cutting into slices like a pizza. On the side, roast potatoes as in the previous entry, a salad of sliced grapes and cubes of gruyere cheese tossed with a balsamic vinaigrette or plain old english muffins with marmalade. This is a sturdy recipe that will tolerate infinite variation.

Substitute feta cheese for the finish over wilted spinach. Serve with pine nuts and fresh oregano.

Or

Heat minced slices of serranno ham in a pan and pour on the eggs. Top with fresh Mexican white cheese, broil until it starts to brown, and serve hot with a lot of toasted good bread.

Ahh.

Perfect Potatoes

These are as gorgeous as they are delicious. The perfect snack as well as the perfect side to, well, everything. And the way they make the house smell is pure food porn.

Oven Fried with Crisp Sage Leaves

For 3

2 Small baking potatoes
1 tbsp extravirgin olive oil
1/2 tsp kosher salt
12 sage leaves

Preheat the oven to 400 degrees.

Cut each potato lengthwise into 6 equal slices. Place them in a large bowl, drizzle with olive oil, sprinkle with salt and toss them to coat well. Remove potato slices from bowl. Reserve oil/salt and set aside. Arrange the potato slices on a baking sheet in a single layer.

Bake at 400 for 40 minutes or until golden brown on the bottom and remove from oven.

Add sage leaves to reserved oil and salt. Gently rub sage leaves along the bottom of the bowl, coating both sides with oil and salt. Lift each slice of potato from the cookie sheet with a spatula. Lay 1 sage leaf on the cookie sheet and cover with a potato slice. Repeat with the remaining sage leaves and potato slices. Cover each potato slice with one more sage leaf and a spritz of olive oil.

Bake at 400 degrees for 10 minutes. Remove from heat and bake at 400 degrees again after you've turned them over. Serve immediately.

This is show food, but also gut tasty, a super side dish to roasts. Serve it with turkey or pork and your guests will be calling you to get the recipe. I kid thee not.
Use Yukon Gold potatoes, and they'll eschew a second helping of the main course for more potatoes (so make more, you silly.)

St. Pat's Dinner

I'm going to make this for St. Patrick's Day (and probably for several days that follow, given the quantity.) The recipe is from Epicurious and if you haven't yet discovered this resource for cooks, you are in for one big treat. The recipes are compiled from the likes of Bon Appetit and Gourmet, so they are well tested. Every recipe I've used from this source has been a pleasant surprise. I did a tomato-less spinach-ricotta lasagna last year for my annual peer group luncheon that was a hit out of the park.

Anyway, St. Pat's dinner (and a ton of leftovers)

BEEF AND GUINNESS PIE
Irish stouts produce a thick head when poured, so chill the can or bottle well before measuring to reduce the foam.

Makes 4 main-course servings.

The reviewers' notes which followed this recipe were all raves but most noted that doubling the quantity of Guinness was an improvement, and many added veggies and potatoes as in a traditional beef stew. Some added only some hearty mushrooms, like cremini or portabello, lightly sauteed, 15 minutes before finishing cooking. I will skip the puff pastry and serve this over egg noodles, and I'll probably make it in the crockpot (if I have lots of time) or in the Roemertopf (if I don't.) If you don't own a Roemertopf, you owe yourself one. It revolutionized my dinner parties. This stew will take less than an hour in it and the beef will be moist and flavorful.

Several of the reviewers topped the casseroles with mashed potatoes and butter for a crisp shepherd's pie. That's not one of my favorite things, but I would definitely go with the puff pastry if I were serving this for company, it's an elegant finish.

I'll make a salad of wild field greens with bleu cheese vinaigrette and walnuts and serve myself Irish soda bread, of course. There is a new bakery in town dedicated to artisanal breads (some of the local fine dining establishments are using it) and I'll make an early stop there on Thursday. Simple, hearty comfort food for a cold March in the mid-atlantic.

Sick Call

That's it, kids. I'm done for the day. I'm still fighting this rotten cold and exhausted from the constant coughing and sneezing. I will be looking for recipes this evening, however, and if I find anything that looks toothsome, I'll share.

Anybody got any favorite homemade cold remedies that, like, work? I'm really, really tired of this.

Wingnuts Overturning Science

Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01

WICHITA – Propelled by a polished strategy crafted by activists on America's political right, a battle is intensifying across the nation over how students are taught about the origins of life. Policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution.

The proposals typically stop short of overturning evolution or introducing biblical accounts. Instead, they are calculated pleas to teach what advocates consider gaps in long-accepted Darwinian theory, with many relying on the idea of intelligent design, which posits the central role of a creator.

The growing trend has alarmed scientists and educators who consider it a masked effort to replace science with theology. But 80 years after the Scopes "monkey" trial -- in which a Tennessee man was prosecuted for violating state law by teaching evolution -- it is the anti-evolutionary scientists and Christian activists who say they are the ones being persecuted, by a liberal establishment.

They are acting now because they feel emboldened by the country's conservative currents and by President Bush, who angered many scientists and teachers by declaring that the jury is still out on evolution. Sharing strong convictions, deep pockets and impressive political credentials -- if not always the same goals -- the activists are building a sizable network.

In Seattle, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls and media pieces supporting intelligent design. In Fort Lauderdale, Christian evangelist James Kennedy established a Creation Studies Institute. In Virginia, Liberty University is sponsoring the Creation Mega Conference with a Kentucky group called Answers in Genesis, which raised $9 million in 2003.

At the state and local level, from South Carolina to California, these advocates are using lawsuits and school board debates to counter evolutionary theory. Alabama and Georgia legislators recently introduced bills to allow teachers to challenge evolutionary theory in the classroom. Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio have approved new rules allowing that. And a school board member in a Tennessee county wants stickers pasted on textbooks that say evolution remains unproven.

A prominent effort is underway in Kansas, where the state Board of Education intends to revise teaching standards. That would be progress, Southern Baptist minister Terry Fox said, because "most people in Kansas don't think we came from monkeys."

The movement is "steadily growing," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution. "The energy level is new. The religious right has had an effect nationally. Now, by golly, they want to call in the chits."

I'm certain that the rest of the planet looks at us right now and cannot help but conclude that we've had a massive, society-wide mental breakdown.

The All Spin Zone

Brand USA is in trouble, so take a lesson from Big Mac

Instead of changing his foreign policy, President Bush is changing the story

Naomi Klein
Monday March 14, 2005
The Guardian

The Bush administration has long been enamoured of the idea that it can solve complex policy challenges by borrowing cutting-edge communications tools from its heroes in the corporate world. The Irish rock star Bono has recently been winning unlikely fans in the White House by framing world poverty as an opportunity for US politicians to become better marketers. "Brand USA is in trouble ... it's a problem for business," Bono warned at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The solution is "to redescribe ourselves to a world that is unsure of our values".

The Bush administration wholeheartedly agrees, as evidenced by the orgy of redescription that now passes for American foreign policy. Faced with an Arab world enraged by the US occupation of Iraq and its blind support for Israel, the solution is not to change these brutal policies: it is to "change the story".

Brand USA's latest story was launched on January 30, the day of the Iraqi elections, complete with a catchy tag line ("purple power"), instantly iconic imagery (purple fingers) and, of course, a new narrative about America's role in the world, helpfully told and retold by the White House's unofficial brand manager, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. "Iraq has been reframed from a story about Iraqi 'insurgents' trying to liberate their country from American occupiers and their Iraqi 'stooges' to a story of the overwhelming Iraqi majority trying to build a democracy, with US help, against the wishes of Iraqi Ba'athist fascists and jihadists."

This new story is so contagious, we are told, that it has set off a domino effect akin to the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of communism. (Although in the "Arabian spring" the only wall in sight - Israel's apartheid wall - pointedly stays up.) As with all branding campaigns, the power is in the repetition, not in the details. Obvious non sequiturs (is Bush taking credit for Arafat's death?) and screeching hypocrisies (occupiers against occupation!) just mean it's time to tell the story again, only louder and more slowly, obnoxious-tourist style. Even so, with Bush now claiming that "Iran and other nations have an example in Iraq", it seems worth focusing on the reality of the Iraqi example.

The state of emergency was just renewed for its fifth month and Human Rights Watch reports that torture is "systematic" in Iraqi jails. The Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's double nightmare provides a window into the pincer of terror in which average Iraqis are trapped: daily life is a navigation between the fear of being kidnapped or killed by fellow Iraqis and the fear of being gunned down at a US checkpoint.

Meanwhile, the ongoing wrangling over who will form Iraq's next government, despite the United Iraqi Alliance being the clear winner, points to an electoral system designed by Washington that is less than democratic. Terrified at the prospect of an Iraq ruled by the majority of Iraqis, the former chief US envoy, Paul Bremer, wrote election rules that gave the US-friendly Kurds 27% of the seats in the national assembly, even though they make up just 15% of the population.

Skewing matters further, the US-authored interim constitution requires that all major decisions have the support of two-thirds or, in some cases, three-quarters of the assembly - an absurdly high figure that gives the Kurds the power to block any call for foreign troop withdrawal, any attempt to roll back Bremer's economic orders, and any part of a new constitution.

Iraqi Kurds have a legitimate claim to independence, as well as very real fears of being ethnically targeted. But through its alliance with the Kurds, the Bush administration has effectively given itself a veto over Iraq's democracy - and it appears to be using it to secure a contingency plan should Iraqis demand an end to occupation.

Talks to form a government are stalled over the Kurdish demand for control over Kirkuk. If they get it, Kirkuk's huge oil fields would fall under Kurdish control. That means that if foreign troops are kicked out of Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan can be broken off and Washington will still end up with a dependent, oil-rich regime - even if it's smaller than the one originally envisioned by the war's architects.

Meanwhile, Bush's freedom triumphalism glossed over the fact that, in the two years since the invasion, the power of political Islam has increased exponentially, while Iraq's deep secular traditions have been greatly eroded. In part, this has to do with the deadly decision to "embed" secularism and women's rights in the military invasion. Whenever Bremer needed a good-news hit, he had his picture taken at a newly opened women's centre, handily equating feminism with the hated occupation. (The women's centres are now mostly closed, and hundreds of Iraqis who worked with the coalition in local councils have been executed.) But the problem for secularism is not just guilt by association. It's also that the Bush definition of liberation robs democratic forces of their most potent tools.

The only idea that has ever stood up to kings, tyrants and mullahs in the Middle East is the promise of economic justice, brought about through nationalist and socialist policies of agrarian reform and state control over oil. But there is no room for such ideas in the Bush narrative, in which free people are only free to choose so-called free trade. That leaves democrats with little to offer, but empty talk of "human rights" - a weedy weapon against the powerful swords of ethnic glory and eternal salvation.

But we shouldn't be surprised that the Bush administration, despite telling stories about its commitment to freedom, continues to actively sabotage democracy in the very countries it claims to have liberated. Rumour has it McDonald's also continues to serve Big Macs.

I'm listening to the Condi press conference at which she's announcing the appointment of Karen Hughes to the State Department. Naomi Klein calls it:
these people are all about the PR. No substance, all surface. This is the ultimate post-modern presidency.

UPDATE:

Questions for Karen Hughes

George W. Bush's media advisor, confidante and alter ego will return to Washington soon -- apparently to become the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. If that's the job Bush picks for Karen Hughes, she'll have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. And if that's the case, we've got a few questions we'd like to see Hughes answer under oath -- and not just the one about how, exactly, her experience as a TV news reporter in Texas prepares her for the job of rebuilding the image of the United States in the Middle East.

5. You know the president better than just about anyone. What was that bulge on his back?

Clueless

Support for Bush on Social Security Wanes, Poll Finds
Post-ABC News Survey Shows Barely One-Third of Americans Approve of President's Plan

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; 7:21 AM

Barely a third of the public approves of the way President Bush is dealing with Social Security and a majority says the more they hear about Bush's plan to reform the giant retirement system, the less they like it, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Bush's overall job approval rating stood at 50 percent, unchanged from last month and nearly exactly where it was a year ago. Currently, 48 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president.

But on Social Security, the president's popularity continues to decline. Thirty-five percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way Bush is handling Social Security, down three points since January and the lowest level of support for Bush on this issue ever recorded in Post-ABC polls.

Bush has made Social Security reform the cornerstone of his domestic policy agenda. But his efforts to win public support for his proposals to change the system appear to be having just the opposite effect, according to the poll.

Nearly six in 10--58 percent--say they are more inclined to oppose administration's reform plans as they learn more about it. Only a third say they are more receptive to Bush's proposals as more details become available.

A total of 1,001 randomly selected adults were interviewed March 10-13. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Additional Post-ABC survey findings on Social Security will be available on washingtonpost.com at 5 p.m.

What I find astonishing is that one third of the sample think that there is anything good about the Bush plan. What on earth are these people thinking?

Naval Gazing

Fighting for Freedom of the Keyboard
# Officials can jail bloggers but can't stop the meme.

By Curt Hopkins, Curt Hopkins directs the Committee to Protect Bloggers.

The number of blogs around the world has jumped from 5.4 million two months ago to 7.5 million today, according to the blog search engine Technorati. They are read by an estimated 32 million people a day.

Inside the United States, these websites can range from the mundane — an exhaustive documentation of the activities of one's cat — to provocative columns that are starting to break news and transform the national debate.

But elsewhere in the world, blogs are playing another, increasingly important role: documenting and disseminating dissent in nondemocratic countries. In countries without a free press or where criticism of the government is frowned upon, if not banned altogether, bloggers are finding themselves at the forefront of a powerful political movement — and some of them are paying a price.

The reformist cleric Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice president of Iran, started a blog, Webnevesht (www.webneveshteha.com), which has become a high-profile instrument of critical thought in a country without an independent media. But only a blogger with Abtahi's political portfolio could expect to do what he is doing without repercussions.

In fact, Iran is the most blatant state repressor of bloggers in the world. At least 20 bloggers and online journalists have been arrested and two convicted there in recent months for criticizing the government and speaking in favor of freedom of expression.

Arash Sigarchi, a blogger and daily newspaper editor, was sentenced to 14 years in jail on charges of "espionage and insulting the country's leaders." Another Iranian blogger, Mohamad Reza Nasab Abdolahi, was given a six-month jail sentence, also for insulting the country's leaders. Blogger Mojtaba Saminejad was arrested in November, released on bail in mid-January, then rearrested less than a month later after his bail was doubled and he could not pay. Abdolahi's pregnant wife, Najmeh Omidparvar, also a blogger, was arrested March 2.

Iran is hardly alone in repressing bloggers. Malaysian authorities recently dragged in Jeff Ooi for questioning. Ooi's blog included critical comments about Islam Hadari, a philosophy of Islam promoted by the Malaysian prime minister.

And on Feb. 27, Bahraini authorities detained Ali Abdulemam, one of the moderators of a popular online bulletin board, BahrainOnline (www.bahrainonline.org), whose contributors are frequently critical of the government. Two of his fellow moderators were also detained; yet to be formally arrested, they reportedly will be held for the duration of an investigation.

Blogs are a provocative and corrective voice everywhere for a few key reasons. Obviously they fill a void where media are repressed, but because they tend to reflect the bloggers' opinions and obsessions, they can also cut through the veil that "objectivity" and "newsworthiness" can impose on news. They reveal more. Bloggers brought you "Rathergate" and Trent Lott's downfall as Senate majority leader.

In terms of keeping a free flow of ideas alive, the blogosphere has a distinct advantage over other, more hierarchical information sources. It is a radically decentralized system; bloggers quote each other, pass links from site to site, use all the mechanisms of interactivity.

In fact, to imprison or attack a blogger and think that will end dissident or provocative blogging is on a par of foolishness with Caligula ordering his troops to defeat Neptune by attacking the North Sea with their swords. The blogosphere doesn't let things die.

The uncurious and ill-informed will go sheeplike into the flames.

Irony

Isn't it amusing that Congress is going to sweat a bunch of baseball players over steroids while we have the largest deficits in history, a war headed for disaster in Iraq and record levels of corruption in government?

Crooks and Ladders

DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has dismissed questions about his ethics as partisan attacks, but revelations last week about his overseas travel and ties to lobbyists under investigation have emboldened Democrats and provoked worry among Republicans.

With some members increasingly concerned that DeLay had left himself vulnerable to attack, several Republican aides and lobbyists said for the first time that they are worried about whether he will survive and what the consequences could be for the party's image.

Despite questions about his ethics, Tom DeLay receives a warm welcome in Sugar Land, Tex., where he once ran a pest-control business. At least six Republicans have recently said they are worried about the allegations. (Larry Pullen For The Washington Post)

"If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there," said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers. "The situation is negatively fluid right now for the guy. You start hitting arteries, it only takes a couple." The consultant, who at times has been a DeLay ally, spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he could not be candid otherwise.

At least six Republicans expressed concern over the weekend about DeLay's situation. They said they do not think DeLay necessarily deserves the unwanted attention he is receiving. But they said that the volume of the revelations about his operation is becoming alarming and that they do not see how it will abate.

Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that DeLay remains generally strong within his party and is an effective leader and operator, but that "signs are emerging that both the number and nature of charges being raised against him could put him in serious political peril."

"While he is far from a nationally recognized figure, Republicans worry that all it takes is more national news coverage to change that, and there seems to be a new episode every week or two," Mann said. "We've seen throughout congressional history that a series of seemingly small ethical missteps can snowball."

The majority leader not a "nationally recognized figure?" These people are delusional. He's a crook and his doings are going to catch up with him, even in a climate which favors Repubs.

The Posties live in the same social world as DeLay and can't imagine that one of their own social circle is a felon.

Americans Abroad

A Travel Advisory

Published: March 14, 2005

José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican on death row in Texas, has been a problem for the Bush administration. In response, the White House has taken a step that could imperil American tourists or business travelers if they are ever arrested and need the help of a consular official.

Mr. Medellín was arrested for a gang-related killing at 18 and assigned a lawyer, who, unbeknownst to the court, had been suspended from the bar for ethics violations. He called not a single witness at Mr. Medellín's trial and only one in the penalty phase that ended with a sentence of death. Mexico's consular representatives learned of Mr. Medellín's case only when he had been on death row for three years. Mexican authorities argued that if Mr. Medellín had been able to notify them at the time of his arrest, he might have had competent representation at his trial. This month, the Supreme Court will hear Mr. Medellín's petition.

But meanwhile, the issue of Mr. Medellín's access to consular help was addressed last year by the International Court of Justice, sometimes known as the World Court, the United Nations' top court for resolving disputes between countries. In a case brought by Mexico, the court said Mr. Medellín and 50 other Mexicans on death row in the United States should get new hearings because they were not given access to consular officials, as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which Washington has been a signatory for decades.

The administration surprised everyone at first by accepting the court's judgment and supporting Mr. Medellín's right to review. It said, in what seemed like a promising change of heart, that "consular assistance is a vital safeguard for Americans abroad" and that if America did not comply with the court ruling, "its ability to secure such assistance could be adversely affected."

That was good reasoning. It applied in 1963 when the United States itself designed the optional protocol, the part of the Vienna Convention that allows the World Court to hear disputes over consular access. It applied in 1979 when America became the first country to use the protocol by successfully suing Iran for taking American hostages. Now, in a climate of global hostility toward Americans, the right to consular help is all the more important.

But this administration is not always given to sound reasoning when it comes to institutions like the World Court - especially on red-meat issues like the death penalty. Last week, just days after accepting the court's judgment, the administration revealed its hand: it said it had withdrawn from the optional protocol. Apparently forgetting its concern about citizens arrested abroad, the State Department said it wanted to end the court's meddling in the American judicial system.

In other words, ideology triumphed over sound judgment and Americans abroad are all less secure as a result.

Me, I don't think I'm travelling until the cons leave office. I'm going to be in Canada this summer and I hope I can simply hide out from them while I'm there.

"I Have Always Relied on the Kindness of Strangers"

The News is Below, This is a special announcement. Scroll down for new content.

I have a very special request for you this evening and I'm going to leave this in top spot over the weekend. I'm in the running for a professional blogging position with a major non-profit this week (this is going to happen very fast if it happens). The employer wants to know some things about you. As with most blogs, most of you are lurkers about whom I know very little, and I need to know more. By email, would you be willing to tell me if you: work for a national or international news organization; have a "name" that would be recognized in the blog world; consider yourself a Democratic activist; if you are a blogger (I know who most of you are by Technorati, but Technorati misses as much as it hits) and you link to me; if you are a member of the diplomatic corps of this or any other government; if you are a government employee of any state or any nation. If I can use your name, that'll be great. If you need anonymity, I'll work with you to get the employer the information they need while preserving your identity.

I've gotten to know many of the commentors in the community through their public comments and private emails, which I never share without permission. I know that this community is older, better educated and more passionate than the blogworld in general. Tell me more that I can use to sell both you and me to a passionate employer (do you really think I'd work for any other kind?) Leave it in comments if you want to tell the world, send me an email if you'd prefer something more private. And let me know if I can use your name and your employer's name with my potential employer.

If this blog community is vital, it is because you and I both put out the best work we are capable of and our hearts and souls into it. Let's show the non-profit community what we're capable of. Until I've got a contract with these folks, I can't tell you who they are, but I know you'll approve of them and I'd be honored to be professionally associated with them. The mechanics of the site are something that I'll work out with their webmanager later, and I'll let you know what I learn when I do. The more of us who get paid to use these skills, the more jobs there will be for everybody. This won't be a full-time job, not at first, but let's see where we can go with it. It's going to be a real blog, with comments and everything, and the things you say will effect public policy. If you've got experience with a blog tool you particularly like, I'm open to recommendations. It has to be easy to use by those who don't necessarily speak HTML (I barely do myself) so that we can have a variety of guest bloggers and the technology itself doesn't become a block to communication. My bias is in the direction of WordPress, but there are new tools popping up every week and I'm open to other solutions. The site will be majorly controversial, so it needs to have good spamblocking tools. There are already two sites on the Right on the issue of judicial nominations and they are getting hits.

It'll still be politics and culture from the Left side of the page, but with focus, and one that includes (it has to, it has to) religious progressives. The professionals in this organization are obssessive blog readers, they "get" the new media, bless 'em.

"Just a Bump" will remain what it is, the new site will be an addition to this (not Kevin Drum, in other words.) I'll carve a couple hours out of the day to write for the new site, but at least the new possible employer understands that I blog, it is who I am and what I do. I'll put up a disclaimer on this site.

Send email to my new address: [email protected]. I can't promise you that I'll personally answer every email, but I can tell you that I'll be grateful for every single one of them. Let me know if I can use your name and organizational affiliation (or suggest a generic if you can't) to help me assemble a "bullet point" email to this major national non-profit over the weekend.

Thank you for your help. As I've said before, Bumpers are the best people in the blogosphere.

As Susie Madrak and I discussed this morning: wanna learn humility? Put up a blog. I guess God wants me working on the next level.

UPDATE: As my father used to say, "By the great, horned honk!" I knew you are all a perspicacious lot, but I had no idea how accomplished you all are. The early responses to this humble blogger make me want to go hide.

UPDATE 2I'm going to put the site to bed now and go read a book in the bathtub. You are all quite amazing. From the lowliest grad assistant, to working hard single parents, to busy National Names, you all dropped by and said hello. I'll leave this post up for another day, and then it slides down the board with the others. You amaze me.

Elsewhere

Just a reminder that on Sundays (must be the religion beat...) I'm also posting at The American Street with two of my favorite AmStreet posters, Rox Populi and pharyngula.org

Unhappy Campers

Irritated Iraqis Wait for Change
# Nearly six weeks after a landmark election, no new government has formed and people who risked their lives to vote wonder why they did.

By Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD — With Iraqis increasingly concerned about a security vacuum, the man who is expected to become the next prime minister on Saturday defended the winning blocs, which have not formed a government nearly six weeks after millions of people risked their lives to vote.

In an interview, Ibrahim Jafari, the nominee of the slate that won the most votes in the Jan. 30 election, said it could take two more weeks to close a deal.

"It's not a simple experiment," Jafari said, trying to explain the delay in forming a government. "It's a complex one."

Behind the scenes, the two largest vote-getters, Jafari's Shiite Muslim-dominated United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurds, are engaged in frantic negotiations. The groups are meeting almost round the clock, and there has been constant maneuvering as the two try to compromise while satisfying their respective constituencies.

Last week, some politicians announced that a government would be set by the first meeting of the new National Assembly, scheduled for Wednesday. But now it appears likely that the meeting will be ceremonial while negotiations continue.

That leaves Iraqis, frightened by two large suicide bombings this month that killed nearly 200 people, wondering why they braved insurgents' threats to go to the ballot box.

Shopkeeper Mohammed Saddoun stood in front of his storefront grocery last week with several friends, lamenting the delay.

"I am not only frustrated, I am ready to burst with anger," Saddoun said. "We put our souls in the … palms of our hands and went to the ballot centers. You remember the threats there were that they would kill people who voted.

"Well, if they cannot form a government, then I think they are not qualified to manage the country's affairs. This vacuum of power increases the number of terrorist acts, it opens the way for the terrorists."

Sabah Yusef, 25, a political science student at Baghdad University, described an overwhelming sense of disappointment and confusion. A Sunni Muslim, he did not vote. Now, with the government seemingly adrift, he says he has no idea who is running his country.

"I feel sad to see the Iraqi government in such a situation. I keep wishing they would agree on a government and then hold general elections for all Iraqis…. Until now we know nothing about how the government will be formed. Nothing has surfaced," he said.

Throughout Baghdad, one of the most mixed cities in Iraq, there are rumblings of discontent and cynicism, even though many people here voted for one of the three slates that took the most votes: the United Iraqi Alliance; Iraqi List, the ticket of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi; or a coalition of the main Kurdish parties.

The doubts are still deeper among those who did not vote — supporters of anti-American cleric Muqtada Sadr and many Sunnis Arabs who feel they have been left out of the political equation.

It seems the Iraqis haven't gotten the message about the wonders of freedom yet. And I wish someone would explain to me why the Lebanese can't hold free and fair elections with the Syrian army in the country, but the Iraqis can under occupation.

Confederation of Dunces

An SAT Without Analogies is Like: (A) A Confused Citizenry...
By ADAM COHEN

Published: March 13, 2005

When Grover Norquist, a leading conservative activist, was on the NPR program "Fresh Air" a while back, he casually made a comparison that left the host, Terry Gross, sputtering in disbelief. "Excuse me," she said. "Did you just ... compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?" Yes, he did.

We are living in the age of the false, and often shameless, analogy. A slick advertising campaign compares the politicians working to dismantle Social Security to Franklin D. Roosevelt. In a new documentary, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," Kenneth Lay compares attacks on his company to the terrorist attacks on the United States.

Intentionally misleading comparisons are becoming the dominant mode of public discourse. The ability to tell true analogies from false ones has never been more important. But to make room for the new essay portion of the SAT that was rolled out this weekend with much fanfare, the College Board has unceremoniously dropped the test's analogy questions, saying blandly that analogical reasoning will still be assessed "in the short and long reading passages."

Replacing logic questions with writing is perfectly in keeping with these instant-messaging, 500-cable-channel times, when the emphasis is on communicating for the sake of communicating rather than on having something meaningful to say. Obviously, every American should be able to write, and write well. But if forced to choose between a citizenry that can produce a good 25-minute writing sample or spot a bad analogy, we would be better off with a nation of analogists.
....
The power of an analogy is that it can persuade people to transfer the feeling of certainty they have about one subject to another subject about which they may not have formed an opinion. But analogies are often undependable. Their weakness is that they rely on the dubious principle that, as one logic textbook puts it, "because two things are similar in some respects they are similar in some other respects." An error-producing "fallacy of weak analogy" results when relevant differences outweigh relevant similarities. On "Fresh Air," Mr. Norquist seized on a small similarity between the estate tax and Nazism and ignored the big difference: that the Holocaust, but not the estate tax, involved the murder of millions of people.

The last election was decided, in significant part, on specious analogies. A man who went to war, and came back to protest that war, was compared - by a group whose name helpfully contained the phrase "for truth" - to men who betray their country. Today, the federal tax system - which through much of the nation's history kept government income and expenditures in rough balance - is being compared to "theft" and recklessly dismantled.

The College Board's Web site explanation that analogies are being dropped because they are "less connected to the current high school curriculum" itself shows a stunning lack of logic, since it does not explain what the "less connected" refers to. Less connected than they used to be? Than other parts of the test? But in any case, it is a dangerous concession. Since the SAT no longer contains analogy questions, here is one: A nation whose citizens cannot tell a true analogy from a false one is like - fill in your own image for precipitous decline.

We are becoming a nation of idiots created by lousy public education. We are being trained to become docile cubicle farm denizens untroubled by the use of logic. I find this terrifying.

Sabbath Gasbags

The Talk Shows

Sunday, March 13, 2005; Page A04

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (WTTG), 9 a.m.: National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and Mark Malloch Brown, chief of staff of the U.N. secretary general.

THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 9 a.m.: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Major League Baseball player Jose Canseco and author Jeffrey Sachs.

FACE THE NATION (CBS, WUSA), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.); and Rice.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC, WRC), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.); Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.); and Rice.

LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.); Syrian Cabinet minister Bouthaina Shaaban; Middle East analyst Adib Farha; former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger; and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard C. Holbrooke.

No surprises here. I'm going out for grub but should be home in time for Chris Wallace's weekly wheeze. I don't know why I do this to myself.

Use this thread for your disputations.

Inside the Machine

This is a very long story, even for the Sunday NYT, and it is a must-read. Your local teevee "news" operations have become the willing shills for the Bush propaganda machine. We are no longer living in the United States of America, we are living in Team Bush.

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

Advertisement

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.

Barstow and Stein can't use the proper word for this sort of thing: propaganda. The NYT is ultimately a coward when it comes to calling Bushco on their abuses of power.

Business as Usual

More Excuses

Sunday, March 13, 2005; Page B06

We know, from the sketchy and partial investigations that have been done, that decisions by Mr. Rumsfeld and the Justice Department to permit coercive interrogation techniques previously considered unacceptable for U.S. personnel influenced practices at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and later spread to Afghan- istan and Iraq. Methods such as hooding, enforced nudity, sensory deprivation and the use of dogs to terrorize -- all originally approved by the defense secretary -- were widely employed, even though they violate the Geneva Conventions. But no genuinely independent investigator has been empowered to connect these decisions and events and conclude where accountability truly should lie.

Congress could put a stop to this bureaucratic cover-up, but despite loud public protestations, its Republican leadership appears not to have the stomach to do so. Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, once vowed to pursue the prisoner abuse investigation wherever it led, but Thursday's hearing was the first he had scheduled on the matter in more than six months. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) has angrily warned against limiting punishment only to low-ranking personnel; he didn't participate in the latest hearing. Meanwhile, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) continues to refuse a request by Democratic senators for an investigation into credible reports of torture, abuse and homicide by the CIA in a clandestine network of overseas prisons, a scandal for which there has been no public accounting, much less accountability. Willingly or not, congressional Republicans are identifying themselves as a party ready to accept systematic American violations of human rights.

Sen. Warner is one of my congresscritters and he's getting yet another letter from me later today, not because I think he'll ever represent me, but because it is the right thing to do, and better than doing nothing.

Eggs Michael

Speaking of breakfast, this is the only place that makes a hollandaise sauce as good as my own. And they are literally across the street. I'm going out for breakfast. Their "Eggs Michael" substitute sausage patties for Canadian bacon in a classic Eggs Benedict. If you need the recipe for hollandaise, use the search function up on the top right sidebar of this site; we covered that last summer.

I'll be reading Fowler's "Stages of Faith" with my eggs. Did I mention that their hashbrowns are exceedingly fine?

Sneaks

Mr. Bush's Stealthy Tax Increase

Why does the alternative tax increasingly afflict middle-rung taxpayers for whom it was never intended, while largely ignoring the highest-end taxpayers it is meant for?

First, the alternative tax is not adjusted for inflation, so over time, more and more middle-income taxpayers find themselves owing it.

Second, and crucially important, is the interplay of the alternative tax and Mr. Bush's first-term tax cuts. When the tax cuts were enacted, no long-term corresponding changes were made to the alternative tax system - even though the administration was well aware that was a recipe for disaster. Not only will many families that thought they were in for lower income taxes wind up feeling shortchanged, some will find that the Bush tax cuts have done nothing at all to cut their taxes.

Here's why: The alternative tax applies to people whose income tax bills are low relative to their income. So as tax cuts reduce the liability on a filer's Form 1040, the alternative tax kicks in. In effect, it claws back all or part of the supposed savings from the Bush tax cuts. By 2010, the Bush tax cuts alone will cause an additional 17 million taxpayers to owe the alternative tax. By 2014, assuming the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, 40 million taxpayers will owe the alternative tax, nearly half of whom would never have faced it but for the tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the people who should be paying the alternative tax do not. Mr. Bush's administration, more than any other, has bestowed tax breaks on wealthy investors in the form of superlow rates on capital gains and dividends. But the alternative tax system - which regards deductions for property taxes or state income taxes as a kind of tax shelter - does not recognize this preferential treatment of investment income. That is a huge loophole. The alternative tax, whose very purpose is to prevent excessive sheltering, ignores the biggest tax breaks of all: special, low rates on capital gains and dividends that allow investors to avoid paying tens of billions of dollars in taxes every year.

Ever since the first round of Bush tax cuts were enacted, Congress has passed temporary relief measures to keep most middle-income taxpayers from owing the alternative tax, but the problem is becoming too big, too fast, for stopgaps to keep working. Mr. Bush, for his part, says that he wants to shield the middle class from the alternative tax and that his tax reform commission will recommend a solution when it makes its report in July.
•

But Mr. Bush needs the alternative tax - he relies on its projected revenue to mask the debilitating cost of making his tax cuts permanent. Congressional estimates say that extending them permanently will cost $281 billion in 2014. But that estimate assumes that nothing will be done to prevent the alternative tax from further burdening the middle class. If the middle class is fully protected, the cost of extending the tax cuts will mushroom to $356 billion - 27 percent higher than the official estimate. The federal budget deficit would explode.

The obvious answer is to restore the alternative tax to its true antisheltering purpose, by making inflation adjustments that will exempt the middle class once and for all and by fully taxing capital gains and dividends under the alternative system. But Congress and the administration are currently heading in precisely the wrong direction. The Bush tax breaks for investment income are scheduled to expire in 2008, but both the president and Congressional leaders are calling for extending them, at least through 2010, while proposing no corresponding long-term change in the alternative tax.
•

Bush administration officials and their antitax allies seem to believe that if taxpayers become angry enough at having to pay the alternative tax, they will throw their support behind any tax reform plan the administration puts forth. That is fomenting a crisis in order to appear to solve it. Is it too much to ask not to put the country through that kind of cynical exercise yet again?

Proof positive that Bush thinks he is governing idiots. It is time to spank Congress. I'll have some sample letters for you before Sunday is out. Check back, my high dudgeon will rise after I've had a decent breakfast.

The Roots of Religion

A Half-Century's Search For Insight and Answers
Huston Smith Brings His Collection of Views on Religion and History to Washington

By Bill Broadway
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 12, 2005; Page B09

From an interview with Huston Smith, a religious icon and a strongly opinionated individual:

Q:Professor Smith, you've said that Westerners have been "ravished" by science, taken in by technologies and inventions that make life easier but offer little insight into spiritual reality. What do you mean by that?

Smith first read this book 79 years ago as a boy in China, where his parents were missionaries. He left at age 17.

A: Science is empirical, all about physical senses that tell us about the world. But physical senses are not the only senses we have. Nobody has ever seen a thought. Nobody has ever seen a feeling. And yet thoughts and feelings are where we live our lives most immediately, and science cannot connect with that.

What are the religious trends in the world today?

A huge fact that affects that answer is that we're at war [against terrorism]. Both sides claim that God is

on their side, that they are champions of God's will, and the enemy is the Devil. . . . The rhetoric is exactly the same on both sides: We're defining God's will and the enemy is the Axis of Evil or the Evil Empire. They say exactly the same thing about us. Just change the name.

Did you support the war in Iraq?

I emphatically did not. I think our hope is to work together, and here [the United States is acting] unilaterally. We started our verydevastating war, and look what it's done to our finances, our deficit.

We're paying for it with a credit card, and our kids are going to have to pay off our credit card.

At 85, Huston Smith is one of the most revered and longest-working historians of religion. He has studied, practiced and taught for a half-century and achieved crossover status by finding an audience among academics as well as the general public.

His book "The World's Religions" has been on college and seminary reading lists and sold 2.5 million copies since its publication in 1958 as "The Religions of Man." In 1996, Smith was the subject of a five-part PBS series, "The Wisdom of Faith," and was introduced by host Bill Moyers as "the most influential religious scholar of the 20th century."

Smith, who was interviewed by telephone this week, will make a rare appearance in Washington on Wednesday when he presents the 23rd annual Zeidman Memorial Lecture at Sidwell Friends School in Northwest. On Thursday, he will attend classes and talk with students, said Jon Zeljo, chairman of the history department and director of Sidwell's 22-year-old Chinese studies program.

Needless to say, I'm going to try to get to this lecture. Smith is THE giant in the field of comparative religion studies. I have enjoyed all of his books, and the deep dignity he lends to each of the traditions he writes about. His books are accessible to the lay reader. He never makes the error of creating false equivalences between the traditions and isn't shy about pointing out the contradictions. He has been one of my heros since I began reading him in college.

Deconstruction

Iraqi Calls Arms Looting a Tightly Run Operation
By JAMES GLANZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: March 13, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants looking for valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

"They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."

These types of facilities were cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but they were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months during the period.

Dr. Araji's statements came just a week after a United Nations agency revealed that approximately 90 key sites in Iraq had been looted or razed after the American-led invasion. Satellite imagery analyzed by two United Nations groups - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or Unmovic - confirms that some of the sites identified by Dr. Araji appear to be totally or partly stripped, senior officials at those agencies said. Those officials said they could not comment on all of Dr. Araji's assertions, because the groups had been barred from Iraq since the invasion.

For nearly a year, the two agencies have sent regular reports to the United Nations Security Council detailing evidence of the dismantlement of Iraqi military installations and, in a few cases, the movement of Iraqi gear to other countries. In addition, a report issued last October by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq, Charles A. Duelfer, told of evidence of looting at crucial sites.

The disclosures by the Iraqi ministry, however, added new information about the thefts, detailing the timing, the material that was taken and the apparent skill shown by the thieves.

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. That program was the rationale for the United States-led invasion, but occupation forces found no unconventional arms and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Dr. Araji said he had no evidence where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.

Making us safer, huh?

Torture Chronicles

via the hardest working blogger in the 'sphere, yankeedoodle:

Abu Ghraib: much worse than a few 'bad apples'

By WESLEY WARK

Saturday, March 12, 2005 Page D10

The Torture Papers:

The Road to Abu Ghraib

Edited by Karen J. Greenberg

and Joshua L. Dratel

Cambridge University Press,

1,249 pages, $67.95

Abu Ghraib:

The Politics of Torture

By Mark Danner

North Atlantic Books,

143 pages, $13.95

he shocking story of Abu Ghraib, and the spiralling tales of systematic torture by U.S. forces of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere will soon reach its first anniversary. That nearly a year has passed since the story first emerged seems in itself shocking. But this is a testament to one hard fact about the torture tales: They will leave a permanent mark on the reputation of the United States and on its conduct of the war on terror. Neither the passage of time, nor the trial of low-level military policemen will wash off that blood.

The Torture Papers, 1,249 pages detailing man's inhumanity to man and the emptying out of cherished provisions of international law, is a block of granite on the path of any forgetfulness. The book is a true public service, compiled by two U.S. lawyers, which brings the whole twisted story into the public domain, and let us hope into every library and many personal hands. It begins at the beginning, with the first whispers into President George W. Bush's ear by his claque of legal counsels, arguing that the United States could choose to ignore the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by declaring Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees to be exempt. It pauses to note the ultimately ineffectual protest by then secretary of state Colin Powell against such a move.

The Torture Papers then sweeps on, document by document, to take us on a journey that ends inside the hellish precincts of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, complete with descriptions of the physical and psychological abuse of prisoners that occurred there. This volume contains all the key official investigations, starting with the International Red Cross's report of February, 2004, which first opened up this can of filth. The Red Cross did not pull its punches, and was obviously shocked by what it found. The conclusions of its report state clearly that serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred at Abu Ghraib, compounded by a finding that U.S. authorities were failing to notify the families of detainees about their whereabouts, effectively resulting in their status as "disappeared" persons.
....
One year after the first public revelations about Abu Ghraib, we know what happened and how it happened, and the legal trail that led to the iron gates of the prison. Few of us will ever have a chance, or the stomach, to digest fully the official investigations into torture and prisoner abuse that fill the pages of The Torture Papers. But we have been lucky in some of our guides. The best of these, in my opinion, has been Mark Danner. His essays, which originally appeared in The New York Review of Books in May, 2004, have been reprinted in a mercifully small book, Abu Ghraib: The Politics of Torture.

Danner had the wit and the courage to see, early, what Abu Ghraib really amounted to. It wasn't a story about bad apples; it was rather a story of fateful political decisions and the bloody appetites that war generates and has always generated through the ages. Danner is thoroughly critical of the Bush administration's policies and fearful that American society will not be sufficiently aroused by the story to demand change. On both accounts, I find him right.

But even Danner misses some of the terrible irony of Abu Ghraib -- and some of the underlying context. The United States cast its military net over Iraq as part of its proclaimed war on terror. It did so based on rotten intelligence, which fitted hand-in-glove with political preconceptions about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

If rotten intelligence smoothed the path to Baghdad, rotten intelligence also paved the road to Abu Ghraib. Only an occupying power blind to the symbolic landscape of Iraq would have let one of Saddam Hussein's leading torture chambers be turned into a military detention facility in the first place. It should have been razed to the ground (a post-scandal promise by the Bush administration now conveniently forgotten). Only an occupying power blind to the lessons of history would have assumed that torture was a useful instrument in counter-insurgency. Only a occupying power clueless about the real roots of the violence and insurgency preying on it would have turned to the hapless inmates of Abu Ghraib for what is euphemistically known as "actionable intelligence." The vast majority of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, it now appears, were innocents caught up in the increasingly random and panicky sweeps by U.S. forces. They knew nothing.

The story of Abu Ghraib points toward many uncomfortable truths. The U.S. government has made a terrible mistake in forgoing the Geneva conventions, an error that it may never repair, even if it wished to. The U.S. army in Iraq is wrestling with an insurgency it knows too little about. Ignorance may eventually spell defeat, if it is not overcome, and it will never be overcome by the tactics of prisoner abuse. The United States is struggling in Iraq without the comforts of a "just war" tradition that has sustained quasi-civilized conduct in battle since St. Augustine put pen to paper.

It may even be that the United States, finding itself in an unexpectedly degraded Iraq, without flowers certainly, but also without basic services and any degree of security, is reaching that nadir in which the constraints of fundamental respect for an occupied population, and an enemy hidden within it, are lost. With that loss goes some part of the soul of the occupying power itself.

Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, I believe that the moral monstrosity which is the Iraq war will mark the end of the American Empire. That most Americans are not outraged by our torture administration tells me that it is the decline of our morality (not guns, God and gays) as world citizens which makes the end of empire a moral necessity.

The Low Estate

8 Terror Suspects Freed by Britain
Anti-Terrorism Law Is Passed After Protracted, Bitter Debate

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, March 12, 2005; Page A12

LONDON, March 11 -- A British judge released eight terrorism suspects from prison on Friday -- including an Islamic preacher accused of helping inspire last year's train bombings in Madrid -- while Parliament broke a deadlock after a marathon all-nighter and passed the government's proposed new anti-terror law.

The suspects, foreign citizens who had been held without charge or trial for as long as 3 1/2 years, were freed by a special immigration appeals judge. But he imposed restrictions that include night-time curfews, electronic tagging, regular searches of their homes and a ban on the use of cell phones and computers.

While no list of names was issued, officials confirmed that one of those released was Abu Qatada, 44, a Jordanian citizen whom Spanish authorities have sought to question about his alleged association with four men accused of involvement in the Madrid blasts, which killed 191 people exactly one year ago.

Qatada, whom a previous appeals court had labeled "a truly dangerous individual . . . at the center in the U.K. of terrorist activities associated with al Qaeda," had been held since October 2002.

Two police vans carrying many of the released suspects pulled out of Belmarsh prison in southeast London just after noon on Friday, and two others were freed from a maximum-security hospital ward where they had been treated for physical and psychiatric problems. Another detainee had been freed Thursday evening.

All were taken to undisclosed locations, and reporters were not allowed to see or talk to any of them.

Civil liberties advocates, who had branded the men's continued imprisonment "Britain's Guantanamo," a reference to the U.S. naval prison in Cuba, welcomed the release. But police officials, including the current and former heads of Scotland Yard, said the men remained a security threat and would have to be closely monitored.

The credulous Glenn Frankel doesn't understand that this is all about striking out, the reactionary desire. There is no proof that any of these men have done anything wrong, and they were held for no reason. The press seems to have forgotten that its very existence depends on the Bill of Rights.

The Sorrows of post-Empire

Found at "The Nation" web site and good for a sad chuckle. Ian Williams picks up all the irony:

Some UN officials are halfheartedly trying to convince themselves that the job will make Bolton more amenable to working within the system. Sadly, they are almost certain to be disappointed. He has shown no compunction about working the system for his own and his conservative colleagues' benefit. As far back as 1992, when he was Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, he was trying to shake down the UN Development Program for a $2 million grant to an organization that was little more than a pension fund for a conservative colleague [see Williams, "Why the Right Loves the U.N.," April 13, 1992].

The man who ordered a CIA probe on Hans Blix for not finding weapons in Iraq when ordered, who contrived the dismissal of the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and who in 1999 wrote for the American Enterprise Institute of "Kofi Annan's UN Power Grab," has recently been trying fire Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for not finding nuclear weapons in Iran. Americans, and the rest of the world, should worry. If his appointment is confirmed, Bolton's task is likely to be to bully the UN into supporting an Iraq-style fiasco in Iran or Syria.

Not to worry. We don't have the horses to invade anybody else while we are quagmired in Mesopotamia, and, by the way, the rest of the world has already noticed.

Rebalancing

Harbingers of Harder Times

March 12, 2005

At $58.3 billion, the United States' trade deficit for January exceeded everyone's worst expectations. The huge mismatch reported yesterday between imports and exports just missed breaking the monthly record, set last November, and is all the more remarkable for occurring in a month when the price of oil actually declined.

The trade deficit is the single most important factor in measuring the extent to which the nation lives beyond its means. As such, it should force us to own up to the dangers of rampant deficit spending. But the White House is showing no sign of action, as if doing nothing might make the problem smaller.

In response to yesterday's trade deficit figure, the dollar weakened against the euro and the yen, and traders predicted further declines in the weeks and months ahead. That, in turn, contributed to a drop in stock and bond prices. Such gyrations are certainly not unprecedented. The dollar has been on a downward trajectory for three straight years and was going into a fresh skid even before the latest trade deficit figure was released.

That slump was largely in response to recent reports, some later denied, that Asian central bankers may begin moving their huge dollar holdings into other currencies. That would mean higher interest rates in the United States because the government would need to sweeten Treasury yields, and higher interest rates imply further declines in stock and bond prices. A declining dollar also risks higher inflation; more expensive imports give domestic producers an excuse to raise prices.

There may be more trouble to come. Next week, the government will release figures showing how much capital flowed into the United States from abroad in January. Those numbers were down by nearly one-third in December. If next week's report is disappointing, the logical response from the currency markets would be to sell dollars - again raising the threat of all the possible side effects.

Global: The Paradox of Stability

Stephen Roach (New York)Excess liquidity and extraordinarily low real interest rates are indeed the “candy” of the current profusion of carry trades (see my 25 February dispatch, “The Instruments of Rebalancing”).

There’s another important similarity with the heady days of early 2000 — one that pertains more to the psyche of the markets. Emboldened by a recent outbreak of Goldilocks-type conditions in the macro space — namely, new hopes of inflationless growth — investors are becoming more and more combative at my rebalancing presentations. “You don’t get it,” they increasingly lecture me, “we live in a newly symbiotic world.” After all, they go on to say, as long as Asian central banks and their infinitely potent printing presses keep financing the excesses of the American consumer, why worry? “It’s in everyone’s best interest that this continues,” is the punch line I hear all too often these days. And, of course, that’s pretty much the way it has worked out so far, with the major nations of the world having managed to cope just fine with all the stresses and strains I seem so concerned about. I am getting challenged more and more these days as to why I believe imbalances will ever come to a head. Motive is not my concern. I certainly concede that it is in everyone’s best interests to put off the day of reckoning. The big question is, Can they?

Consider yourself warned.

What's Eternity For?

Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: March 12, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 11 - Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports that have not yet been made public.

One soldier, Pfc. Willie V. Brand, was charged with manslaughter in a closed hearing last month in Texas in connection with one of the deaths, another Army document shows. Private Brand, who acknowledged striking a detainee named Dilawar 37 times, was accused of having maimed and killed him over a five-day period by "destroying his leg muscle tissue with repeated unlawful knee strikes."

The attacks on Mr. Dilawar were so severe that "even if he had survived, both legs would have had to be amputated," the Army report said, citing a medical examiner.

The reports, obtained by Human Rights Watch, provide the first official account of events that led to the deaths of the detainees, Mullah Habibullah and Mr. Dilawar, at the Bagram Control Point, about 40 miles north of Kabul. The deaths took place nearly a year before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Among those implicated in the killings at Bagram were members of Company A of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, from Fort Bragg, N.C. The battalion went on to Iraq, where some members established the interrogation unit at Abu Ghraib and have been implicated in some abuses there.

The reports, from the Army Criminal Investigation Command, also make clear that the abuse at Bagram went far beyond the two killings. Among those recommended for prosecution is an Army military interrogator from the 519th Battalion who is said to have "placed his penis along the face" of one Afghan detainee and later to have "simulated anally sodomizing him (over his clothes)."

The Army reports cited "credible information" that four military interrogators assaulted Mr. Dilawar and another Afghan prisoner with "kicks to the groin and leg, shoving or slamming him into walls/table, forcing the detainee to maintain painful, contorted body positions during interview and forcing water into his mouth until he could not breathe."

American military officials in Afghanistan initially said the deaths of Mr. Habibullah, in an isolation cell on Dec. 4, 2002, and Mr. Dilawar, in another such cell six days later, were from natural causes. Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, the American commander of allied forces in Afghanistan at the time, denied then that prisoners had been chained to the ceiling or that conditions at Bagram endangered the lives of prisoners.

But after an investigation by The New York Times, the Army acknowledged that the deaths were homicides. Last fall, Army investigators implicated 28 soldiers and reservists and recommended that they face criminal charges, including negligent homicide.

I seem to recall that the last election in this country turned on "values and morals" or some such.

Friday Afternoon, Weekend Plans Open Thread

Bumpers, the new mortgage closes this afternoon and I have to get ready. I've also got to spend some time re-tooling the resume for the two jobs I found this week, so I'll leave this as an open thread while I'm running around and re-tooling. The weather here is coolish and rainy/snowy, so I'm planning an indoor weekend. How about you? Got plans for the weekend?

I'd hoped to go to Susie's dinner tomorrow night, but I can't afford it and I've got a cat on a medication schedule. We'll get together next month. But we did talk on the phone for a couple of hours this morning.

Corrupt Calvinism

The gospel of the rich and powerful
Backed by the religious right, Republican lawmakers are now officially giving hell to the average American.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

March 11, 2005 | Watching the behavior of Republican politicians during the past several days, we are learning the true meaning of "compassionate conservatism." Not the public-relations version promoted by George W. Bush and his party propaganda apparatus, but the core philosophy enunciated by the deep thinkers of the religious right.

None of that money will be wasted, of course. Every dollar taken from poor and working families pays for the preservation of tax breaks on dividends and capital gains for investors, most of them earning no less than $200,000 a year.

And the Democrats are playing along. Disgusting.

Traitors

Eighteen Democrats make a choice

The U.S. Senate approved the almost universally unpopular bankruptcy reform bill last night, and -- thanks to the support of 18 Democrats -- the White House and the Republicans on Capitol Hill can proclaim it a triumph of bi-partisan cooperation. While you're writing the check for the minimum payment due again this month, your credit card company will be writing thank you notes to Democratic Sens. Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid, Ken Salazar and Debbie Stabenow.

I am freakin' furious. If you are, too, let them know.

Getting Old is Hell

Long-Term Jobless Find a Degree Just Isn't Working

By Nicholas Riccardi, Times Staff Writer

Dan Gillespie never thought he'd have to look so hard for work.

When the Seattle-area resident left the Air Force in 1980, he earned a computer science degree and enjoyed 20 years of steady work. He saved enough money to buy his wife's childhood home last year.

Three months later, he was laid off.

Gillespie, 53, hasn't found a job since. Even the corner store won't hire him. He and his wife sold the house last month.

"The computer jobs are gone," he said. "So what's next? We can't all move into gene splicing."

Long-term unemployment, defined as joblessness for six months or more, is at record rates. But there's an additional twist: An unusually large share of those chronically out of work are, like Gillespie, college graduates.

The increasing inability of educated workers to quickly return to the workforce reflects dramatic shifts in the economy, experts say. Even as overall hiring is picking up and economic growth remains strong, industries are transforming at a rapid pace as they adjust to intense competition, technological change and other pressures.

That means skilled jobs can quickly become obsolete, while others are outsourced. Educated workers are increasingly subject to the job insecurities and disruptions usually plaguing blue-collar laborers, but various factors make it even harder for some educated workers to get back into the workforce quickly. Though a college education is still one of a worker's best assets, it's no guarantee that a worker's skills will match demands of a shifting job market.

The advantages of a college degree "are being erased," said Marcus Courtenay, president of a branch of the Communications Workers of America that represents technology employees in the Seattle area. "The same thing that happened to non- college-educated employees during the last recession is now happening to college-educated employees."

Even with better-than-expected job growth, 373,000 people with college degrees quit job hunting and dropped out of the labor force last month, the Labor Department reported Friday.

The number of long-term unemployed who are college graduates has nearly tripled since the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, statistics show. Nearly 1 in 5 of the long-term jobless are college graduates. If a degree holder loses a job, that worker is now more likely than a high school dropout to be chronically unemployed.

That change is occurring as it is getting harder for all jobless to get back into the workforce.

Since the 2001 recession, about one-fifth of the unemployed have been out of work for more than six months — and that proportion has steadily crept up even as the unemployment rate has fallen. The percentage of jobless who are chronically unemployed is even higher in California — 23.3% last month, versus 20.5% nationwide.

Even with the national unemployment rate at a relatively low 5.4%, the share of those out of work for more than six months is higher now than during the early 1980s, when the jobless rate was in the double digits, analysts say. The average length of unemployment is also higher now than at any time other than the early 1980s.

Riccardi is missing the real story here. The long term out of work, like myself, are all Boomers and a lot of what we're looking at is age discrimination. I've interviewed for jobs for which I'm extremely well qualified but the person to whom I'd be reporting is 20 years younger. I don't get the job.

Callous Body Politic

Abu Ghraib, Whitewashed Again

Published: March 11, 2005

It was good to learn yesterday that the military commander in Iraq has issued definitive rules about how to treat captives in American prison camps. Unfortunately, that was about the only good news in the newest Pentagon report on prisoner abuse, actually a 21-page summary of a larger, classified study by the Navy inspector general of interrogation rules in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just consider that it took more than a year after the military says it first learned of the nightmare at Abu Ghraib to issue the new rules. And don't ask what they are, because they're classified. The report spoke of the regulations approvingly. But its author, Vice Admiral Albert Church III, now director of the Navy staff, admitted yesterday that, well, he had not actually read them.

This whitewash is typical of the reports issued by the Bush administration on the abuse, humiliation and torture of prisoners at camps run by the military and the Central Intelligence Agency. Like the others, the Church report concludes that only the lowest-ranking soldiers are to be held accountable, not their commanders or their civilian overseers.

It conveniently ignores President Bush's declaration that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions and that Iraq is part of the war against terror. Mr. Bush later said the conventions would cover Iraqi military prisoners, but the Church report said military commanders in Iraq had never been given guidance on handling prisoners, a vast majority of whom were not soldiers. Still, the report tossed this off as merely a "missed opportunity." It overlooked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's approval of interrogation techniques for Guantánamo that violated the Geneva Conventions. It glossed over the way military lawyers who were drafting later rules were ordered to ignore their own legal opinions and instead follow Justice Department memos on how to make torture seem legal.

The Church report said that "none of the pictured abuses at Abu Ghraib bear any resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater." Admiral Church and his investigators must have missed the pictures of prisoners in hoods, forced into stress positions and threatened by dogs. All of those techniques were approved at one time or another by military officials, including Mr. Rumsfeld. Of course, no known Pentagon policy orders the sexual humiliation of prisoners. But that has happened so pervasively that it clearly was not just the perverted antics of one night shift in one cellblock at Abu Ghraib.

The Church report said assessing the personal responsibility of Mr. Rumsfeld and other top officials had been the job of another panel headed by a former defense secretary, James Schlesinger. Well, not exactly. That group, appointed by Mr. Rumsfeld, found "both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels" for Abu Ghraib. But the panel declined to name names.

Who will? Not the Pentagon, clearly. The Senate Armed Services Committee plans another hearing or two, but that's inadequate. Congressional leaders could open a serious investigation, but have shown no interest, although they are issuing subpoenas on steroid use by baseball players.

Democrats slam report that clears Pentagon
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: March 10 2005 18:30 | Last updated: March 10 2005 18:30

Democrats on Thursday lambasted a Pentagon investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib and other US military prisons, which found that no Pentagon policy was responsible for abusive treatment of prisoners.

The Pentagon on Thursday released a summary of the Church report, its most comprehensive investigation into prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report found evidence that the military had “missed opportunities” to prevent abuses, but concluded that no senior Pentagon officials or policies were responsible for the kinds of abuses committed by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

Admiral Albert Church, who conducted the investigation, on Thursday told the Senate armed services committee there was “not a single overarching reason for the abuses”. But Democrats said his report did not address the accountability of senior Pentagon officials.

Carl Levin, the panel's top Democrat, said the report failed to explain the role of the Central Intelligence Agency, which hid detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the policy of “rendition”, in which the US hands terrorism suspects over to countries with records of torturing prisoners, such as Egypt and Jordan.

Adm Church insisted 800 interviews had produced no evidence of Pentagon policies dictating the abuses that occurred.

“Our analysis of 70 substantiated detainee abuse cases found that no approved interrogation techniques causes these criminal abuses,” he wrote.

Adm Church said his team did identify several “missed opportunities”, including the failure of the Pentagon to provide commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan with guidance on interrogation techniques, and to incorporate interrogation lessons learned in Vietnam and the Balkans into their overall interrogation plans.

Who thought that sending the chain of command to investigate itself was a good idea?

The mere fact that Republicans don't find this abuse scandal heinous enough to investigate it and hold those responsible accountable tells you everything you need to know about the low estate to which our political discourse has fallen. The public doesn't care.

Listen

Juan Cole will be on Democracy Now!, streaming live at 8 AM this morning.

Thursday Vetblogging

Bumpers, that's it for the day. I'm shot. Between the hoops the lender had me jump through (closing tomorrow) and a scary visit to the vet today (the word biopsy just entered my life) and vet surgery, I'm completely wrung out. I'm going to pour a glass of wine and head for bed early. I'll get the results of the biopsy early next week.

By the way, all of you, it is your encouragement and support which has kept me going these last couple of months. This has been a real high stress period, and there will be new stresses to confront once I get past the immediate money worries (like, what am I going to do for the rest of my life, who shall I be? Where am I called?) You are a super group of people. I'm really glad I know you. Thank you for being there for me when I need you. I've come to believe in angels because of you.

Lousy Media

As I read and post during the day, I usually have CNN on in the background if I'm not listening to a hearing on C-Span. Juan Cole expresses my outrage at what I heard today:

Breaking News: Government to Be Formed
Bombing at Shiite Mosque in Mosul Kills 36

In other news, a suicide bomber detonated a payload at a Shiite mosque in northeastern Mosul during a funeral, killing at least 36 persons. Elements in the guerrilla movement have been attempting to provoke a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, but the increasingly powerful Shiites have consistently refused to be provoked in this way.

As Dr. Cole says, both of these stories are huge news, while CNN treated us to over an hour and a half of legal analysts interviewing each other about the significance of Michael Jackson's lateness for court.

I've been checking the wire services to try to confirm the AP story on the compromise government and no one else has it yet.

Offensive Administration

A Defense That's Offensively Weak
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: March 10, 2005

Every time we turn around, some administration official charged with our protection is claiming that it will take three more years, or five more, to fix something that should have been put in place right after 9/11 - or even 20 years ago.

The F.B.I. has abandoned its latest computer follies: the $170 million effort to upgrade the bureau's computer system so analysts can accomplish such difficult tasks as simultaneously searching for "aviation" and "schools." Now it's going to take at least three and a half years to develop a new system. Bill Gates has been donating computers and software to poor grade schools; maybe he could take pity on the poor F.B.I. and donate a system that works.

One of the first big stories I covered was the homecoming of the hostages from Iran in 1981. Nearly a quarter of a century later, we still don't have good intelligence on Iran. The Times reported yesterday that a bipartisan presidential panel is set to report that the lack of American intelligence on Iran's nuclear capability is scandalously inadequate. Our intelligence on Iraqi weapons systems was so bad that we had to go to war to find out that Iraq didn't have any.

Our intelligence services are only now trying to recruit agents who speak Arabic and Farsi? Who didn't realize after the Iranian hostage crisis that it might be smart to invest in some spies who could infiltrate the places that were calling us Satan? President Carter lost an election because he didn't know what was going on in Iran, and President Bush still doesn't know.

Now that they've belatedly started to recruit Arabic speakers - after the military forced out more than 300 linguists considered important to the war in terror in the past decade because they happened to be gay - our intelligence agencies are not sure whether they're signing up the good guys or the bad guys. We can't get into Al Qaeda's inner councils, but has Al Qaeda gotten inside ours?

The Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday that about 40 Americans seeking jobs at U.S. intelligence agencies were turned away because of possible ties to terrorist groups. Paul Redmond, a longtime C.I.A. officer, said it was an "actuarial certainty" that spies had infiltrated U.S. security agencies: "I think we're worse off than we've ever been."

At the same time, dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists have been allowed to buy firearms legally in our country, according to a G.A.O. investigation. No wonder Porter Goss, the new C.I.A. director, seems dazed and confused.

While the president and the neocons try to remake the Middle East to help future generations, can't they find a little time to remake our security to protect this generation?

This alone was sufficient reason to turn Bush out of 1600 Penn last November.

Why Poetry and Physics are Both True

Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize
# Nobel recipient's belief that religion and science were converging raised hackles in the 1960s.

By Larry B. Stammer, Times Staff Writer

Charles Townes, the UC Berkeley professor who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in physics for his work in quantum electronics and then startled the scientific world by suggesting that religion and science were converging, was awarded the $1.5-million Templeton Prize on Wednesday for progress in spiritual knowledge.

The prize, the proceeds of which Townes said he planned to largely donate to academic and religious institutions, recognized his groundbreaking and controversial leadership in the mid-1960s in bridging science and religion.

The co-inventor of the laser, Townes, 89, said no greater question faced humankind than discovering the purpose and meaning of life — and why there was something rather than nothing in the cosmos.

"If you look at what religion is all about, it's trying to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe," he said in a telephone interview from New York this week. "Science tries to understand function and structures. If there is any meaning, structure will have a lot to do with any meaning. In the long run they must come together."

Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental.

Some scientists, he conceded, had suggested that if there were an almost infinite number of universes, each with different laws, one of them was bound by chance to hit upon the right combination to support life.

"I think one has to consider that seriously," Townes told The Times. But he said such an assumption could not currently be tested. Even if there were a multitude of universes, he said, we do not know why the laws of physics would vary from one universe to another.

Townes said science was increasingly discovering how special our universe was, raising questions as to whether it was planned. To raise such a question is the work of scientists and theologians alike, said Townes, who grew up in a Baptist household that embraced "an open-minded approach" to biblical interpretation. He is a member of the First Congregational Church in Berkeley and prays twice daily.

In 1964, while a professor at Columbia University, Townes delivered a talk at Riverside Church in New York that became the basis for an article, "The Convergence of Science and Religion," which put him at odds with some scientists.

What was controversial in the 1960's is less so in the 21st Century. And what is controversial among scientists is not so among liberal theologians (at least of the Judeo-Christian stripe.)

I have friends, both scientists, currently writing a novel about a physicist who goes searching for meaning and discovers the Tao.

Believing the Narrative

This is a really interesting article about the sociology of insurgency and how Rummy and the gang can't think straight about what they are up against. I'm just going to excerpt the author's conclusions, but the entire piece is worth reading. Michael Schwartz's books are going to get some further investigation, particularly "Social Policy and the Conservative Agenda." Here's his bio from the Asia Times article:

Michael Schwartz, professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, has written extensively on popular protest and insurgency, and on US business and government dynamics. His work on Iraq has appeared on the Internet at numerous sites including TomDispatch, Asia Times Online, MotherJones, and ZNet; and in print at Contexts and Z magazine. His books include Radical Politics and Social Structure, The Power Structure of American Business (with Beth Mintz), and Social Policy and the Conservative Agenda (edited, with Clarence Lo). His e-mail address is [email protected]. This article first appeared on TomDispatch and is reposted by permission.

Why the US military can't abandon 'command and control' logic

So why does the US military relentlessly build its anti-insurgency strategy around the idea of decapitating the leadership of the Iraqi resistance? The answer lies just beneath the surface of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's now-infamous statement, "You go to war with the army you have."

This is a comment pregnant with meaning for organizational sociologists, because it illustrates a familiar pattern of organizational problem-solving. If a product is not selling well, for example, an engineering organization might conclude that better engineering of the product was in order; a manufacturing firm, that more efficient production technology was needed; and a marketing company, that better advertising would do the trick. This sort of organizational idee fixe has led to some truly horrendous failures in business - and military - history. For example, when a flood of automobile buyers began to demand fuel-efficient cars during the first oil crisis in the early 1970s, the US automobile industry did not have the capacity to produce such vehicles. Instead of investing vast resources in developing that capacity, it tried to use its superior marketing skills to win Americans back to luxurious gas-guzzlers. That is, the Big Three auto makers "went to war with the army they had" and convinced themselves that they were facing a marketing problem. The results: a permanent crisis at General Motors (during which it lost world leadership in the industry), a fundamental restructuring of Ford, and the demise of Chrysler.

Or take the French in World War II. They knew about the new German tanks that had made World War I trench warfare obsolete, but the French army was only equipped to fight in the trenches. So they "went to war with the army they had", devising a trench-war strategy that they managed to convince themselves would contain the German Panzer divisions. They lost the war in three weeks.

The US is also fighting with the army it has. This army is the best equipped in the world for advanced conventional warfare - with tanks, artillery, air power, missile power, battlefield surveillance power, and satellite imaging to support highly mobile, well-equipped and superbly trained soldiers. No supply route is safe from its firepower, and no conventional army would be likely to hold its ground long against a US assault. But the most intractable part of the resistance in Iraq is fighting a guerrilla war: they do not have long supply lines and they rarely try to hold their ground.

Guerrilla armies hide by melting into the local population. (Everyone knows this, including, of course, US military men.) To defeat them, an occupying force must have the intelligence to identify guerrillas who can disappear into the civilian world; and it must station troops throughout resistance strongholds in order to pounce upon guerrillas when they emerge from hiding to mount an attack. US military strategists know this, too. But these lessons - painfully drawn from Vietnam - can't be implemented by the army that Donald Rumsfeld sent to war.

The Americans, in fact, have neither of these resources. Anti-guerrilla intelligence, after all, requires the cooperation of the local population, which, at least in the Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq, the US has definitively alienated, largely through its use of blunt-edged conventional army attacks on communities that harbor guerrillas. And it cannot station enough troops in key locations because too small an occupation force is spread far too thinly over contested parts of the country. Estimates for the size of an army needed to pacify Iraq range upward from General Eric Shinseki's prewar call for "several hundred thousand" troops.

The US military simply lacks the tools it needs to fight the guerrillas, just as in the 1970s the Big Three auto makers lacked the production system needed to produced fuel-efficient automobiles, and the French army lacked the technology it needed to defeat German tanks in 1940. In response, military leaders are doing exactly what their organizational forebears did: They continue to develop theories about how to win the war "with the army they have". This backward logic leads inevitably to imagining an enemy that might be far more susceptible to defeat with the tools at hand; that is, an opponent with long supply lines (from Syria, for example) and a command-and-control leadership (Zarqawi and his Saddamist allies, for example) capable of being "decapitated". This portrait of the enemy then justifies a military strategy that seeks, above all, to kill or capture the theorized leaders. Such tactics almost always fail (even when leaders are captured); and in the process of failing, only alienate further the Iraqi population, producing an ever larger, more resourceful enemy.

The newest portrait of the resistance as a Zarqawi-Saddamist led amalgam will sooner or later die a lonely death - in all likelihood to be replaced by yet another command-and-control portrait of the insurgency whose features are as yet unknown. As long as the US continues to fight "with the army it has", it will also continue to generate - and act on - distorted (sometimes ludicrous) descriptions of the nature of the rebellion it faces.

I'm in an omnium gatherum mood this morning, so here is a related post from Chuck Spinney at Defense and the National Interest, which he concludes with a quote from James Madison, which eerily applies to our intelligence failures in Mesopotamia:

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." - James Madison, from a letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822

Crippling Research

An Acidic Message

Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page A20

WHEN 758 microbiologists send an open letter to the director of the National Institutes of Health, protesting the premise of a $1.7 billion research project, everyone should sit up and take notice. Just such a letter was recently dispatched, complaining that unprecedented increases in NIH funding for biodefense projects not only had diverted funds from more basic and important microbiological research -- a claim that NIH disputes -- but corrupted the NIH peer-review process. A system that in the past awarded grants to the best scientists, the critics suggested, now awards grants to any scientists, good or bad, who study anthrax.

There are good reasons to criticize NIH for its management of the biodefense money that Congress granted after the 2001 anthrax attacks. NIH had never before funded anything other than basic research and had never involved itself directly in the production of specific vaccines or therapies. It is doing so because Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, argued that his institute, and not the Defense Department -- which has failed to produce vaccines in the past -- was the best place for that work to be done. Mr. Fauci believed (and still does) that there would be spinoffs for other areas of science. But while scientists doing basic research don't like the change, some in Congress have precisely the opposite set of concerns: namely that the NIAID is wasting money pursuing multiple research projects with unclear goals and hasn't figured out how to focus on the nation's more specific biodefense needs.

If it were intended only to get the government to think harder about the best ways to define, fund and manage biodefense work, the open letter would serve a useful purpose. If the letter were intended to point out that some basic research in microbiology, immunology, genetics and other fields could prove, in the long term, more important to the nation's biodefense than specific work on anthrax or plague, we would also agree. That, certainly, is a message that Congress and the administration need to hear.

Where we lose sympathy for the authors is when they state that funds have been diverted from "projects of high public-health importance" to "projects of high biodefense but low public-health importance." This country has already experienced one anthrax attack. Security officials have stated repeatedly their belief that al Qaeda and others continue to search for more lethal bioweapons. Surely that makes biodefense projects of "high public-health importance." That this is not more widely understood means that there is still too little contact between the scientific community and national security and intelligence agencies. This letter, which was written and published in an openly confrontational manner, won't help solve that problem.

Both the WaPo and the USG are deadly wrong in a world where public health threats like H5N1 are lurking, unless the Brits are right and H5N1 is a bioweapon. Which makes no sense because it would blow back on anyone who tried to use it that way.

Jus in Bello

Horrors growing in Iraq
Women, kids beheaded
By AP

BAGHDAD -- Iraqi authorities found 41 decomposed bodies -- some bullet-riddled, others beheaded -- at sites near the Syrian border and south of the capital, and said yesterday they included women and children who may have been killed because insurgents thought their families were collaborating with U.S. forces. In Baghdad, a suicide bomber driving a garbage truck loaded with explosives and at least one other gunman shot their way into a parking lot in an attempt to blow up a hotel used by western contractors. At least four people, including the attackers and a guard, were killed.

The U.S. Embassy said 30 Americans were among 40 people wounded in the blast. In an Internet statement, al-Qaida in Iraq purportedly claimed responsibility for the attack on the Sadeer Hotel, calling it the "hotel of the Jews."

The decomposed bodies were found Tuesday after reports of their stench reached authorities.

Twenty-six of the dead were discovered in a field near Rumana, a village 20 kilometres east of the western city of Qaim, near the Syrian border. Each body was riddled with bullets.

The other site was south of Baghdad in Latifiya, where Iraqi troops found 15 headless bodies in a building at an abandoned army base, Defence Ministry Capt. Sabah Yassin said.

The bodies included 10 men, three women and two children. Their identities, like the others found in western Iraq, were not known, but insurgents may have viewed them or their relatives as collaborators.

Yassin said some of men found dead in Latifiya were thought to have been part of a group of Iraqi soldiers who were kidnapped by insurgents two weeks ago.

GRUESOME DISCOVERIES

The gruesome discoveries were among 58 new killings in Iraq announced yesterday, including the death of a U.S. soldier in a Baghdad roadside bombing.

Iraq's interim planning minister, Mahdi al-Hafidh, a Shiite, narrowly escaped death yesterday after gunmen opened fire on his convoy in the capital. Two of his bodyguards were killed and two others were wounded.

"It is a part of the crisis that Iraq is living, but we will keep going for the sake of Iraq, to get rid of terrorism and build a democratic country," he told state-run Al-Iraqiya TV.

It sounds to me like we are heading into "destroying the village in order to save it" territory.

Discernment

New Interrogation Rules Set for Detainees in Iraq
By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 10, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 9 - After clashing with Afghan rebels at the village of Miam Do one year ago, American soldiers detained the village's entire population for four days, and an officer beat and choked several residents while screening them and trying to identify local militants, according to a new Pentagon report that was given to Congress late Monday night.

Although the officer, an Army lieutenant colonel attached to the Defense Intelligence Agency, was disciplined and suspended from further involvement with detainees, he faced no further action beyond a reprimand.

The episode, described only briefly in a summary of the report reviewed by The New York Times, was one example of how little control was exerted over some conduct of interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the subject of an exhaustive review just completed by Vice Adm. Albert T. Church, the naval inspector general.

The report finds that early warning signs of serious abuses did not receive enough high-level attention as the abuses unfolded, and that unit commanders did not get clear instructions that might have halted the abuses.

The findings of this review, the latest in a series of military inquiries conducted in the past year, come as the top American military commander in Iraq has ordered the first major changes to interrogation procedures there in nearly a year, narrowing the set of authorized techniques and adding new safeguards to prevent abuse of Iraqi prisoners, officials said.

The new procedures approved by the officer, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., on Jan. 27, have not been publicly disclosed, but are described in the Church report, a wide-ranging investigation into interrogation techniques used at military detention centers in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq.

"This policy approves a more limited set of techniques for use in Iraq, and also provides additional safeguards and prohibitions, rectifies ambiguities and, significantly, requires commanders to conduct training on and verify implementation of the policy, and report compliance to the commander," according to a summary of the inquiry's classified report.

Three senior defense officials said Wednesday that the new procedures clarified the prohibition against the use of muzzled dogs in interrogations, gave specific guidance to field units as to how long they could hold prisoners before releasing them or sending them to higher headquarters for detention, and made clear command responsibilities for detainee operations. They did not describe the particulars of the changes, which are likely to be a main focus of a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing set for Thursday to review the Church report's findings. It will be the first Congressional hearing into the prisoner abuse scandal since last September, when senior Army investigators presented their findings.

In a brief interview on Tuesday night on Capitol Hill after briefing senators on operations in Iraq, General Casey, who took over the Iraq command last summer, said the changes were intended to "tighten up" the interrogation procedures American officials have been using since May 13, 2004. A senior military official also said the revised procedures reflected the experience military officials had gained since then.

General Casey declined to discuss any specific changes, but the report summary said the main intent was to resolve ambiguities "which, although they would not permit abuse, could obscure commanders' oversight of techniques being employed."

Look, this isn't all that mysterious. If the things you are doing to a person during an "interrogation" would get you a felony assault and battery charge here in the states, you probably shouldn't do it.

A Special Dessert

Wednesday is Food and Wine day in most papers. Reading the food sections has always been one of the ways I added to my own recipe collection, and I think I just found the desert I'll cook for Easter dinner this year. I'm going to my brother and SIL's, but I'm taking over the kitchen this year. This looks scrumptious, I'll have to make some adjustments for their dietary restrictions, but that won't be difficult to do.

Pecorino's pear and almond gratin (gratin di pere e mandorla)

Total time: 45 minutes

Servings: 10

Note: From Raffaele Sabatini at Pecorino. Savoiardi cookies are available at Italian markets.

7 tablespoons butter, softened

1 cup plus 2 tablespoons sugar, divided

1 cup almond flour

2 eggs

1 cup water

2 cups white wine

1 strip lemon peel

5 Bosc pears, peeled, cut in half, cores removed

30 Savoiardi cookies (crisp

ladyfingers)

1/4 cup powdered sugar

1. Using an electric mixer, cream the butter and one-half cup sugar. Beat in the almond flour. Add the eggs one at a time, beating constantly until smooth. Refrigerate the batter.

2. Combine the water, wine, lemon peel and remaining one-half cup plus 2 tablespoons sugar in a large saucepan and bring to a boil. Add the pears, in batches if necessary, reduce heat to a simmer and cook until tender, about 15 to 20 minutes.

3. Drain the pears, reserving the liquid. Thinly slice the pears, but keep the slices together in the form of the half pear. Heat the oven to 450 degrees.

4. For each serving, use an individual ramekin or gratin dish (about 1 by 4 1/2 inches or twice the size of a pear half). Line the bottom of each dish with 3 cookies to form a base. Saturate the cookies with several tablespoons of the syrup from the cooked pears.

5. Place 1 pear half on top of the cookies, fanning the slices slightly. Spoon 3 tablespoons almond batter over each pear half. Just before serving, bake at 450 degrees about 7 minutes. Brown the tops under the broiler for about 30 seconds. Sprinkle with powdered sugar. Serve warm.

For me, Easter dinner has to have 2 things: asparagus and pears. Because I'm making a stuffed, butterflied leg of lamb for the entree (stuffed with spinach, feta cheese and pine nuts), I'll steam the asparagus and serve it simply, dressed with lemon-tarragon butter. My SIL can't handle garlic, so instead of the traditional aioli with the lamb, I'll make a rosemary mayonaise. Orzo with browned butter and a crusty bread will fill out the table.

Want pears for dessert but without all the work? A simple and elegant cheese and fruit course are ripe bosc pears served with belpaesa cheese. The later is worth looking for, it is normally sold in small, foil wrapped coins. It is the absolutely perfect foil for bosc pears at the height of their ripeness. It is soft enough to spread on slices of pear and the mild, slightly sweet taste brings up the sweetness in the pears without obliterating their rather subtle flavor.

Newspeak

When Is a Militia Not a Militia?
by William S. Lind

One of the classic signs of ideology at work is the redefinition of words to empty them of their meaning. An article by Greg Jaffe in the Feb. 16 Wall Street Journal, "New Factor in Iraq: Irregular Brigades Fill Security Void," describes the rapid spread of militias in that unhappy place, which is probably now more accurately called Mesopotamia. The story is based largely on the work of one U.S. Marine Corps officer, Major Chris Wales, in tracking the new militias. But it also quotes Major Wales as saying, "We don't call them militias. Militias are … illegal."
....
The proliferation of militias, the growing dependence of the Iraqi government and the U.S. on those militias to fight Sunni insurgents, and our obvious inability to control the militias all point to the bottom line of the war in Iraq: Iraq is not moving closer to becoming a state again, and it may be moving further away from doing so. Local, private armies, often for hire, are a classic sign that the state is weak or nonexistent. If a state does not have a monopoly on organized violence, it is not a state. It cannot bring order. Such order as exists is local and is enforced by local military forces, which are militias whether or not Americans call them that.

Better still is General Petraeus' own comment: "I want to get the hell out of here." Amen.

After all of the revolving rationalizations for this unneccesary conflict, how many more will die for a mistake? Unless our troops simply withdraw to those heavily fortified hard encampments, and let whatever happens, happen, we are going to have our ass handed to us in Iraq, the troops will be withdrawn. And then how will all the deaths, maiming and atrocities be rationalized?

Counterpoint

The Other Melody

Mark Silva notes in his Chicago Tribune story: "While Bush has long insisted that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq would set off a chain reaction of democracy in the region, Bush's critics warn that some of the positive developments there are simply the latest maneuvers of autocrats intent on maintaining power. This includes the situation in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which Bush called upon Tuesday to give women the right to vote.

And AFP reports this morning: "Oil prices soared to record highs as jitters hit the market after comments by US President George W. Bush on the Middle East that were deemed aggressive."

This is the counter-narrative to Bush's triumphalist "freedom is on the march" in the Mid-East. I continue to be impressed by Froomkin's genuinely even handed coverage of the papers. He has the ability to see the themes, the way they develop and how they play out.

Amusing Fiction

Ex-Marine Says Public Version of Saddam Capture Fiction

United Press International

A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated.

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.

Somehow, I never did buy the "spider hole" story.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Who Gets Credit for Rising Debts?
Published: March 9, 2005

To the Editor:

Re "Standing Up to the Credit Card Industry" (editorial, March 8):

So the same Congress that approves unfunded mandate after deficit-laden budget after supplemental bill, the same Congress that has worked hand in hand with an administration that seems to think that deficits do not matter, has the gall to preach about the morality of paying our debts.

This is the party that rode to majority on "moral issues." What exactly do they think that means?

Jason Delaney

Baltimore, March 8, 2005

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Figuring it Out

Steady Drop in Black Army Recruits
Data Said to Reflect Views on Iraq War

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 9, 2005; Page A01

The percentage of new Army recruits who are black has slipped dramatically over the past five years, reflecting a lack of support among African Americans for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as an economy that is providing more enticing options at home, according to Army studies, military experts and recruiters.

Since fiscal 2000, when African Americans made up 23.5 percent of Army recruits, their numbers have fallen steadily to less than 14 percent in this fiscal year, officials said. A similar trend has reduced the number of female Army recruits, who have dropped from 22 percent in 2000 to about 17 percent of this year's new soldiers.

While it is hard to pinpoint why the drop-off has occurred, the figures reflect particular soft spots in the Army's effort to recruit and retain a growing all-volunteer force that has repeatedly deployed soldiers into battle since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Though the Army has met its recruiting goals in all but one year since 1990, it is falling far behind this year.

African Americans still make up nearly a quarter of the overall Army, where, historically, blacks enlisted in strong numbers to take advantage of economic and social opportunities not available elsewhere.

But the drop in new recruits from that ethnic demographic means the Army has to make up ground elsewhere. Hispanics have increased from 10.4 percent of new recruits in 2000 to 13 percent in 2004; whites went from 61 percent in 2000 to 65 percent in 2004; and Asians or Pacific Islanders made up less than 1 percent of new soldiers in 2000 but nearly 5 percent in 2004.

Army studies and experts have concluded that part of the decline in African American numbers is the unpopularity of the war in Iraq among blacks, combined with realities that officials say make recruiting tougher among all groups: the virtual guarantee of long deployments overseas, and widely publicized casualties.

A study of recruiting trends prepared for the Army last August found that "more African Americans identify having to fight for a cause they don't support" as a reason they are not interested in enlisting, while, for all groups, "fear of death or injury is the major barrier to joining the military today."

Well duh.

Storm and Fury, Signifying Nothing

The World According to Bolton

Published: March 9, 2005

On Monday, President Bush nominated John Bolton, an outspoken critic of multinational institutions and a former Jesse Helms protégé, to be the representative to the United Nations. We won't make the case that this is a terrible choice at a critical time. We can let Mr. Bolton do it for us by examining how things might look if he had his way:

The United States could resolve international disputes after vigorous debate with ... itself. In an interview in 2000 on National Public Radio, Mr. Bolton told Juan Williams, "If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."

"And that one member would be, John Bolton?" Mr. Williams queried.

"The United States," Mr. Bolton replied.

America could stop worrying about China ... In 1999, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Bolton wrote a column in The Weekly Standard advocating that the United States just go ahead and give Taiwan diplomatic recognition, despite the fact that this purely symbolic gesture was a point on which China had repeatedly threatened to go to war. He made this argument: "Diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for. ... The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy, albeit one the Communist leaders welcome and encourage in the West."

... and North Korea. In 1999, Mr. Bolton told The Los Angeles Times: "A sounder U.S. policy would start by making it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have 'normal' diplomatic relations with it, and that achieving that goal is entirely in their interests, not ours. We should also make clear that diplomatic normalization with the U.S. is only going to come when North Korea becomes a normal country."

U.N. dues? What U.N. dues? In 1997, Mr. Bolton wrote in a column in The Wall Street Journal that the United States isn't legally bound to pay its United Nations dues. "Treaties are 'law' only for U.S. domestic purposes," he said. "In their international operations, treaties are simply 'political' obligations."

And forget about the International Criminal Court. In 2000, Mr. Bolton told the House International Relations Committee: "Support for the International Criminal Court concept is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system unsupported by any meaningful evidence and running contrary to sound principles of international crisis resolution."

We certainly look forward to Mr. Bolton's confirmation hearings, and, after that, his performance at the United Nations, where he will undoubtedly do a fine job continuing the Bush administration's charm offensive with the rest of the world.

Let me say a few things that should be blindingly obvious by now. Europe was not bamboozled by Bush/Condi's charm offensive last month. If anyone had any reason to doubt his "sincerity" (whatever the hell that means) as a multilaterist/internationalist, that little moment has gone down in flames. Bolton's appointment to the UN is a massive "Fuck you" to the rest of the planet. What Bolton doesn't understand is that the world's view of the US has undergone a substantial revision since we completely screwed up our little middle-eastern adventure. We are now nothing more than a bully with nothing left to back it up and everybody knows it. Have a wonderful time at the United Nations, Mr. Gutless Wonder Bolton. And you are one of the prime movers who got us here, loudmouth.

666

Bankrupt of Compassion

The bankruptcy bill that passed a key vote in the Senate on Tuesday is driven by the premise that the nation is under siege by an army of deadbeats running up credit card bills, declaring personal bankruptcy and sticking honest Americans with the tab. That's the credit card and banking industries' story, and they're sticking to it. We can all guess who will profit from the bill.

The number of bankruptcies did double during the last decade, and 1.4 million more are expected this year. Some of those doubtless came from people who could have paid their debts, and cracking down on them is a fine idea. But then there are people like Ruth M. Owens of Cleveland, who, according to a Times report by Peter Gosselin, paid Discover Bank $3,492 over six years on a $1,963 debt, only to end up with a balance of $5,564 because of late fees and finance charges — a sum the disabled woman living on Social Security found impossible to pay.

The proposed Bankruptcy and Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, despite rhetoric served up by credit card companies, banks and retailers, does a poor job of distinguishing between deadbeats and people like Owens, who are overwhelmed primarily by two things: high healthcare costs and credit card interest rates that can be as much as 30% for those with poor credit.

A study released in February by the Harvard medical and law schools suggests that nearly half of all personal bankruptcy filings result from medical problems that disrupt household finances. That's more proof of the need for vast healthcare reform, but hardly evidence of bankruptcy abuse by deadbeats.

Further, credit card companies have reported steadily increasing profits even as bankruptcy filings have risen. They have done this by eagerly offering credit cards to people with poor credit histories, and charging fees and interest rates high enough to offset the risk. Except, of course, the risk that people will drown in spiraling interest costs.

The real spirit of the bill was made brutally clear in a series of votes that culminated on Tuesday. Senators have embraced what critics call the "millionaire loophole," which would let rich Americans establish trusts to keep their assets safe from creditors. As for the ordinary Joes? The lawmakers would make it harder for them to get free and clear, meaning they're more likely to be saddled with debts beyond their means. And the senators also rejected an amendment to help old people keep their homes.

I watched the whole thing on C-Span. This was a spectacle of a bought and paid for Senate. If I had any credit cards, I would take them into the back yard, cut them up and burn them in response to this. MBNA is the beast which now needs to be starved.

UPDATE: via Max, here are the Dems who allowed this abomination to come to a floor vote:

Biden (D-DE), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

It will pass. And that is not a good thing.

Deep in the Heart

Golf, and Playing by the Rules
# Lobbyist who arranged a junket for DeLay also set up St. Andrews trips for two of his colleagues.
By Chuck Neubauer and Walter F. Roche Jr., Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — A group of congressional figures has joined House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) under an ethics cloud stemming from foreign golf junkets arranged by a lobbyist facing influence-peddling investigations.

DeLay landed in trouble last month over a 2000 trip to Scotland with the lobbyist. But two other congressmen and three House aides also played St. Andrews on separate junkets with the lobbyist that may have violated House rules, records show.

And, like the Texas Republican, all omitted disclosing the key role of beleaguered lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He privately raised tens of thousands of dollars for private jets and boasted of setting up golf junkets, according to documents, congressional testimony and interviews.

One of Abramoff's golf guests was Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the little-known but powerful House Administration Committee. He said in congressional filings that his trip on a chartered jet in 2002 was sponsored and paid for by an obscure conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

But the center's president told the Los Angeles Times that it "did not sponsor, nor did we pay" for Ney's travels.

The same nonprofit organization also was listed by then-freshman Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) after he flew to Scotland with the lobbyist in August 2003. But in response to inquiries by The Times, the center said it did not provide "a single dime" for the Feeney junket.

Members of Congress routinely travel as guests of educational and policy groups, but they cannot accept trips or gifts from lobbyists.

The think tank's blunt contradictions of the congressmen's reports raise questions about whether Ney and Feeney violated House rules and filed false documents to disguise gifts from a lobbyist.

It is the latest twist in a mounting ethics scandal surrounding one of Washington's most prominent lobbyists.

Ney and Feeney, through spokesmen, blamed others for any filing errors.

"It was the congressman's understanding that this trip was permissible under House rules," said Brian J. Walsh, communications director for Ney. He said it was "based on representations" by Abramoff that the National Center sponsored their travel.

Feeney's chief of staff expressed surprise. "You are the first to inform me of the information being incorrect," said Jason Roe.

He said any false information would be "the result of someone misleading" the congressman, "not any nefarious activity on his part."

In a statement last week, the think tank said it paid for DeLay, his wife and others to visit London and meet with British political leaders. There was no mention of the golf excursions that were, according to documents and Senate testimony, arranged by Abramoff.

Abramoff, among the most powerful Republican lobbyists on Capitol Hill over the last decade, is the focus of inquiries by a federal grand jury and a U.S. Senate committee.

The criminal investigation appears to be a sweeping probe of Abramoff's lobbying practice, based on interviews with witnesses and published accounts.

Click on the link and read the rest. I got a hearty chuckle out of it, and laughs are not easy to come by these days. This is a decent article on corruption, Texas R politics style. It's Texas, so they do it BIG. I don't drink hard liquor anymore but I'm wondering what size glasses they serve martinis in down in Sugarland. They must be big enough to bathe in.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

Bumpers, the loan is finally scheduled and will go to closing later this week, I'll have the money after three days of recission and will be a more or less normal human by sometime next week. Thanks for hanging in there with me as I have gone through multiple layers of distraction while this process plays itself out. Having been homeless once myself, I can find few things more fixating than getting to the last $100 in your last bank account, and I got there yesterday. The quality of work hasn't been what I'd have liked of late, but I think we'll be on better footing soon. Your comments certainly haven't been wanting for much.

Thanks for all the supportive email. I squeeked by this time. But I've had a damn hard time putting my heart into Bump while I've tried to figure out where my next meal is coming from. Here's to a freer from distraction blogger?

Eddie will be in surgery while I'm at the closing on Thursday. Please keep all of us in your thoughts and prayers. I can't think of how else one could put one day on steriods for the emotions.

History and Morality

Publius at Legal Fiction has a spectacular reflection on the philosophy of history and the end of American hegemony posted today:

When I talk about “capital-H” History, I am conceptualizing History not as a random collection of events in the past, but as a unified stream of events that flows – like a radio wave – from the past up through the present. Like any stream or river, History shifts course and reacts to external events. Two of the world’s most influential philosophers – Hegel and Marx – both conceptualized History in this way, and they both believed that certain types of conflicts drove History forward. Despite these similarities, however, the two also viewed History in very different ways. To Marx, economic conflict – or class struggle – drove History forward. Class struggle was the “motor” of History. Let’s look at slave-owning societies, or even feudal societies. Slaves and serfs were both deprived of the fruits of their labor and were exploited by the powerful. To Marx, this material depravation led to class conflict. The eventual toppling of the slave-holding or feudal regime by the oppressed represented forward motion in History. For Marx, the conflicts that move History forward are rooted in tangible – or material – economic conflict. Thus, when you hear people offer a “Marxist” interpretation of something, they are generally analyzing the underlying economic or class relations of whatever they’re interpreting.

Whether the invasion was right or wrong, the world views the American action as illegitimate. And to be honest, I don’t see any way to justify the war’s legitimacy, which is a different question from whether the war was "good." America ignored the wishes of the world. And in doing so, it failed to “recognize” the world’s common humanity. We trampled on the people of the world’s dignity because we did what we wanted to do because we could, despite what they wanted. That is how Hegelian History gets moving – those who feel wronged align against the force that wronged them. In failing to get UN approval, or the approval of any legitimacy-conferring coalition or international body, the neocons forgot one of their most basic principles – legitimacy matters.

Publius doesn't use this language, but history, seen from either the Marxist or Hegelian perspective, has a moral dimension. For both Marx and Hegel, history's movement is propelled by the redress of grievance, a moral offense. Because history has shown us that morality changes (for good and ill) Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis fails on fact.

Losing

Army report: U.S. lost control in Iraq three months after invasion

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, March 7, 2005

WASHINGTON – The U.S. military lost its dominance in Iraq shortly after its invasion in 2003, a study concluded.

The report disclosed the lack of planning by the U.S. military for the occupation of Iraq. Over the last year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides have been blamed for lack of post-war planning based on their assessment that the military campaign in Iraq would be brief and quickly lead to a democratic and stable post-Saddam Hussein government.

You won't hear this on our domestic media. But you will hear Pentagon press gaggles where you will be told how much better everything is getting. More lies.

Meta-politics

This is fascinating.

Italy Pressures U.S. Over Iraq Incident
Foreign Minister Disputes U.S. Version of Events, Demands Investigation

By Alessandra Rizzo
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 8, 2005; 9:23 AM

ROME -- Italy's foreign minister said Tuesday that American troops killed an Italian intelligence officer in Iraq by accident, but he disputed Washington's version of events, demanding a thorough U.S. investigation of the shooting and that "the culprits be punished."

Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini told parliament that the car carrying the intelligence officer and an ex-hostage to freedom was not speeding and was not ordered to stop by U.S. troops at a checkpoint, contrary to what U.S. officials say.

However, he also dismissed allegations that the Friday shooting that killed Nicola Calipari was an ambush -- a claim made by the released hostage, journalist Giuliana Sgrena.

"It was an accident," Fini told lawmakers. "This does not prevent, in fact it makes it a duty for the government to demand that light be shed on the murky issues, that responsibilities be pinpointed, and, where found, that the culprits be punished."

Berlusconi appears to be trying to open some distance between himself and Bush. This is the first I've seen that Berlusconi may be thinking that he might have some issues in the next general election. I'll be watching how this plays out.

Missing History

Is Bush Right?
President's Critics Reconsider Democracy's Prospects in the Middle East

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 8, 2005; 6:00 AM

In countries where President George Bush and his policies are deeply unpopular, online commentators are starting to think the unthinkable.

Given Bush's insistence that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic political order in the Middle East, many Europeans are "somewhat embarrassed" by these developments, Sorman wrote in Le Figaro.

What? Have the Europeans lost their minds and their memories? First of all, voting does not make a democracy: Saddam had elections. The anti-Syrian, pro-democracy movement in Lebanon pre-dates Bush: there were anti-Syria demonstrations in 2000. Afghanistan is a long way from being a successful democracy, Karzai being little more than the mayor of Kabul and the rest of the country being a narco-state run by the tribal warlords who defeated the Soviets. Mubarak is going to have to do more than talk before his words mean much of anything, given that he's been jailing his dissidents lately.

Morely frequently mis-reads the world press in his column, but today it looks more like the world press have gone nuts.

In Our Name

via Susie Madrak:

The invisible wounded
Injured soldiers evacuated to the U.S. never arrive in the light of day -- and the Pentagon has yet to offer a satisfactory explanation why.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark Benjamin

March 8, 2005 | In January 2000, then Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Henry Shelton told an audience at Harvard that before committing troops, politicians should make sure a war can pass what he called the "Dover test," so named for the Air Force base in Delaware where fallen soldiers' coffins return. Shelton said politicians must weigh military actions against whether the public is "prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets."

Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy group for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, said the nighttime-only arrivals of wounded, along with the restrictions on coffin photos and other P.R. tactics, are designed to hide from the public the daily flow of wounded and dead. "They do it so nobody sees [the wounded]," Rieckhoff said. "In their mind-set, this is going to demoralize the American people. The overall cost of this war has been … continuously hidden throughout. As the costs get higher, their efforts to conceal those costs also increase."

Think about it: when you are involved in something which can't see the light of day, don't you usually know that you are up to something unsavory, immoral or illegal? It is a sort of old fashioned word, but I believe that this meets the definition of "skulking."

In a more honorable nation, the dead and wounded would be met with the honor and ritual they deserve and by their families, friends and the public. In whose name this war is being waged. Oh, how cheap, small and mean the Bushies have made us.

Thou Shalt Not Make Any Graven Image

Made-in-America Wahhabism
# The Christian right is our own brand of extremism.

By William Thatcher Dowell, William Thatcher Dowell edits Global Beat for New York University's Center for War, Peace and the News Media. He was a Middle East correspondent for Time magazine from 1989 through 1993.

In trying to promote the commandments, the Christian right seems to have forgotten what they are really about. It has also overlooked the fact that there are several versions: Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34:12-26, and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Different language in Catholic Bibles and the Jewish Torah offer more variants.

Which should be enshrined? That is just the kind of debate that has been responsible for religious massacres through the ages. It was, in fact, the mindless slaughter resulting from King Charles' efforts to impose the Church of England's prayer book on Calvinist Scots in the 17th century that played an important role in convincing the founding fathers to separate church and state.

The current debate, of course, has little to do with genuine religion. What it is really about is an effort to assert a cultural point of view. It is part of a reaction against social change, an American counter-reformation of sorts against the way our society has been evolving. Those pushing to blur the boundaries between church and state feel that they are losing out — much as, in the Middle East, Islamic fundamentalists fear they are losing out to "Western values."

The reactions are remarkably similar. In the Arab Middle East and Iran, the response is an insistence on the establishment of Islamic law as the basis for political life; in the United States, school districts assert religious over scientific theory in biology class, tax dollars are going to the faith-based, and the Ten Commandments are a putative founding document.

In fact, George W. Bush may now find himself in the same kind of trap that ensnared Saudi Arabia's founder, King Abdulaziz ibn Saud. To gain political support, Saud mobilized the fanatical, ultrareligious Wahhabi movement — the movement that is spiritually at the core of Al Qaeda. Once the bargain was done, the Saudi royal family repeatedly found itself held political hostage to an extremist, barely controllable movement populated by radical ideologues. The evangelical movement in the U.S. nudged the president back into the White House, and Bush must now try to pay off the political bill for its support.

In Saudi Arabia, what drives the Wahhabis is a deep sense of grievance and an underlying conviction that a return to spiritual purity will restore the lost power they believe once belonged to their forefathers. A belief system that calls for stoning a woman for adultery or severing the hand of a vagrant accused of stealing depends on extreme interpretations of texts that are at best ambiguous. What is at stake is not so much service to God as the conviction that it is still possible to enforce discipline in a world that seems increasingly chaotic.

The Christian right is equally prone to selective interpretations of Scripture. In its concern for a fetus, for example, the fate of the child who emerges from an unwanted pregnancy gets lost. Some fundamentalists are even ready to kill those who do not agree with them, or at least destroy their careers. They seem to delight in the death penalty, despite the fact that the Bible prohibits killing and Christ advised his followers to leave vengeance to God.

Just as in the Middle East, the core of U.S. puritanism stems from a nostalgia for an imaginary past — in our case, a made-up United States peopled mostly by Northern Europeans alike in the God they worshiped and in their understanding of what he stood for. The founding fathers, of course, preferred the ideas of the secular Enlightenment, which, instead of anointing one religious interpretation, provided the space and security for each person to seek God in his or her own way.

Perhaps the strongest rationale for separating religious values from politics is that politics inevitably involves compromise, while religion involves a spiritual ideal that can be harmed by compromise. No less a fundamentalist than Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini once stated that if forced to choose between Islamic law and Islamic rule, he would choose Islamic rule. Yet the effect of that decision has been to betray Islam, as genuine Islamic scholars in Iran have found themselves under continual pressure to change their interpretation of God and God's will in order to conform to political realities.

Religion, when incorporated into a political structure, is almost invariably diluted and deformed and ultimately loses its most essential power. Worse, as we have seen recently in the Islamic world (as in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials in the Christian world), a fanatical passion for one's own interpretation of justice under God often leads to horror.

The fact is that, as St. Paul so eloquently put it, "now we see through a glass darkly." Men and women interpret the deity, but they are only human and, by their nature, they are flawed. In that context, isn't it best to keep our minds open, the Ten Commandments out of our public buildings or off our governmental lawns and to lead by example rather than pressuring others to see life the way we do?

As Christ once put it, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Secular writers will rarely understand this, but religion is part of critical thinking. It is the willingness to face the mystery of life and ask it questions. It is not about answers, but ever more interesting questions. It is about being a grownup and being willing to live in the tension of paradox and irony.

The theologian who has influenced me the most, Karl Rahner, once wrote, "The mystery that you are and the mystery that God is are, in the final analysis, one and the same."

One can begin to approach that mystery by ten commandments, twelve steps or any number of other ways. But one cannot end there. The Christian fundamentalists who want those monuments confuse ends and means.

The Raised Digit

In case the international community didn't quite "get it" the last time, Bush raises his middle finger and screams, "fuck you."

Tough Love or Tough Luck?

By Susan E. Rice
Tuesday, March 8, 2005; Page A15

President Bush has shocked even his most cynical critics by nominating the combative neoconservative John Bolton to one of our most complex and sensitive diplomatic posts: U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton served the past four years as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, though then-Secretary of State Colin Powell initially resisted his appointment.

Powell's successor, Condoleezza Rice, who passed over Bolton for deputy secretary despite strong support for him from Vice President Cheney, put on a brave face yesterday in announcing his appointment to the United Nations. She stressed the administration's commitment to U.N. reform and praised Bolton as a friend of the United Nations who helped repeal the noxious General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism. But as Rice must know, keeping Bolton off her team at State may prove a Pyrrhic victory, if he takes his notoriously abrasive style to New York.

The job of U.N. ambassador is always important and delicate, but arguably never more so than now. The United Nations is facing unprecedented, justified criticism for its role in the oil-for-food scandal and its failure to prevent peacekeepers from sexually exploiting civilians in Congo. Several Republican members of Congress are gunning for Secretary General Kofi Annan's head. In response, Annan is shaking up his management team and reminding the United States how badly it needs the United Nations.

Indeed, the United States is relying on the United Nations to carry out a massive tsunami recovery effort and 17 peacekeeping missions, to support the democratization processes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to pressure Iran to halt its nuclear program. At the 60th anniversary of its founding, the United Nations has rarely been more relevant or in greater need of reform.

President Bush seems to understand this. In December he pledged three international goals for his second term. "The first great commitment," he said "is to defend our security and spread freedom by building effective multinational and multilateral institutions and supporting effective multilateral action."

Is John Bolton the right man to lead this effort? Having served as assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs from 1989 to 1993, Bolton may be deemed qualified, but his record on multilateral issues is alarming. He told the Wall Street Journal that "the happiest moment of his government service" was when the Bush administration renounced the treaty on the International Criminal Court. Bolton led the administration's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, scuttled an important biological weapons protocol and weakened an international agreement to limit small-arms trafficking. On these issues, Bolton's positions at least reflected administration policy.

But Bolton holds many strong views that diverge sharply from current U.S. policy. He described the United Nations as "a great, rusting hulk of a bureaucratic superstructure . . . dealing with issues from the ridiculous to the sublime . . . ." More important, he maintains that the United States has no legal obligation to pay its U.N. dues.

All by himself, Bolton is mostly responsible for the North Korea problem, he blew up our earliest efforts there by insulting the Koreans. The man's not a diplomat, he's a walking time bomb. For the life of me, I can't figure out how he got as far as he did in the State department, he's the anti-diplomat, an asshole for rent.

The next four years just got immeasurably uglier. And immeasurably more dangerous. Bolton is a homeland security risk and Bush doesn't care.

UPDATE: Slate's Fred Kaplan calls it. "Bush to U.N.: Drop Dead:
The administration will regret its latest appointment"

Click the link and read Kaplan:

Just as it looked like George W. Bush might be nudging toward multilateralism, he goes and appoints John Bolton as his ambassador to the United Nations. There could be no clearer sign that the contempt for the international organization, which was such a prominent feature of Bush's first term, will extend into his second term with still greater force and eloquence.

In short, if the trends that President Bush is celebrating continue to unfold—that is, if traditional structures of authority continue to break down and new patterns of politics take shape amid great turbulence—the United Nations is likely to play a greater role, if just as a legitimizing intermediary, in the coming years. It would therefore be a good idea, for our own influence, if the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations were someone who takes the organization a little bit seriously.

Feeling safer yet?

The Class War in the Senate

I find it fascinating that the minimum wage has been stagnant for 8 years, while the Republicans are punting the most punitive bill on bankruptcy in the last hundred years. There will be a cloture vote this afternoon: today would be the day to call your senators. Here is Krugman's take, which is my own:

The Debt-Peonage Society
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 8, 2005

Today the Senate is expected to vote to limit debate on a bill that toughens the existing bankruptcy law, probably ensuring the bill's passage. A solid bloc of Republican senators, assisted by some Democrats, has already voted down a series of amendments that would either have closed loopholes for the rich or provided protection for some poor and middle-class families.

The bankruptcy bill was written by and for credit card companies, and the industry's political muscle is the reason it seems unstoppable. But the bill also fits into the broader context of what Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, calls "risk privatization": a steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity.

The bill would make it much harder for families in distress to write off their debts and make a fresh start. Instead, many debtors would find themselves on an endless treadmill of payments.

The credit card companies say this is needed because people have been abusing the bankruptcy law, borrowing irresponsibly and walking away from debts. The facts say otherwise.

A vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the United States are the result of severe misfortune. One recent study found that more than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

To the extent that there is significant abuse of the system, it's concentrated among the wealthy - including corporate executives found guilty of misleading investors - who can exploit loopholes in the law to protect their wealth, no matter how ill-gotten.

One increasingly popular loophole is the creation of an "asset protection trust," which is worth doing only for the wealthy. Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment that would have limited the exemption on such trusts, but apparently it's O.K. to game the system if you're rich: 54 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Schumer amendment.

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.

None of this should come as a surprise: it's all part of the pattern.

As Mr. Hacker and others have documented, over the past three decades the lives of ordinary Americans have become steadily less secure, and their chances of plunging from the middle class into acute poverty ever larger. Job stability has declined; spells of unemployment, when they happen, last longer; fewer workers receive health insurance from their employers; fewer workers have guaranteed pensions.

Some of these changes are the result of a changing economy. But the underlying economic trends have been reinforced by an ideologically driven effort to strip away the protections the government used to provide. For example, long-term unemployment has become much more common, but unemployment benefits expire sooner. Health insurance coverage is declining, but new initiatives like health savings accounts (introduced in the 2003 Medicare bill), rather than discouraging that trend, further undermine the incentives of employers to provide coverage.

Above all, of course, at a time when ever-fewer workers can count on pensions from their employers, the current administration wants to phase out Social Security.

The bankruptcy bill fits right into this picture. When everything else goes wrong, Americans can still get a measure of relief by filing for bankruptcy - and rising insecurity means that they are forced to do this more often than in the past. But Congress is now poised to make bankruptcy law harsher, too.

Warren Buffett recently made headlines by saying America is more likely to turn into a "sharecroppers' society" than an "ownership society." But I think the right term is a "debt peonage" society - after the system, prevalent in the post-Civil War South, in which debtors were forced to work for their creditors. The bankruptcy bill won't get us back to those bad old days all by itself, but it's a significant step in that direction.

And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed.

The Right loves to scream about the "Culture Wars" even as they pursue them under the most ruthless possible means. This is a law meant to keep the working class in chains for as long as possible. It's not a culture war, it is a class war.

The phone numbers are here. I don't know about you, but I'm going to be on the phone today.

Blogkeeping

Bumpers, I've been struggling with this question for a while. After listing the pros and cons, I've decided to sign up with Blogads. Henry Copeland has done a pretty good job of matching up advertisers with blogs, so I'm going to consider this an experiment. We'll try it for a while and see how it works. The first ads should show up later this week. Yes, I have heard the other bloggers complain that Henry isn't good about meeting payroll on time. The chances are slim that I'll be needing this income to keep me out of the poor house, but traffic is growing right now and it seems like a good time to take advantage of the situation. Eventually, it should be enough to make a dent in hosting costs and subscription fees. At some point, I'd like to get a Lexis-Nexis subscription to be able to do deeper research than is possible with the on-line search engines.

The re-fi should close this week (Hi, Marty!) and by sometime next week I'll be free of the lump of dread that's been living on my solar plexus for the last three years. I also got a couple of job leads over the weekend (Thanks, Beth!) that look like real possibles, but might make this "Just a Bump on the Gulf Coast" or "Just a Bump on the Loop." We'll see. I need to re-jigger the resume and the writing samples for both applications, a chore I hate....

If you are looking to re-fi yourself and want a recommendation on a brokerage, I'm more than satisfied with service I got from the place I went with. Email me if you want more info. I'm bushed, still fighting this lousy cold, so this is going to be it for today unless I find a second wind after a hot bath. I've still got to finish the final draft of the intro for Bump: The Book, and if I can find a shred of energy tonight, it is going there.

Go be gentle with yourselves and with each other and spend an evening off the Internets.

Blue on Blue

'Friendly fire' incidents increase
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 5, 2005

Friendly fire incidents by the U.S. military against coalition members trying to blend in with the local Iraqi population have increased dramatically over the past few months, according to security sources in Baghdad.

The situation has been described as "critical" by one of the private security companies taking the lead in trying to rectify the problem.

Yesterday's incident in which U.S. troops opened fire on a vehicle carrying just-released Italian journalist and kidnap victim Giuliana Sgrena, wounding her and killing the Italian secret service agent that negotiated her release, was just the latest in a series of fatal mistakes.

In one incident in December, two vehicle convoys were fired upon by U.S. military forces at checkpoints as they headed toward the Baghdad International Airport. On the way back, they were fired on again.

In another case, a Hummer tried to take out a Mercedes. Details of that incident were not made available.

Security companies, frequently the target of terrorist attacks, now regularly travel heavily armed with their clients in beat-up cars or armor-fitted sedans so as to not attract attention.

Some security experts say that the number of incidents -- which have left both dead and wounded -- could be due to the recent changeover of troops.

Some of the forces scheduled to leave are so eager to go home that they fire on anything seen as a potential threat. Some of those arriving are nervous and still green -- and also shoot at any vehicle or person seen as a possible threat.

Coalition forces, one company representative said in an e-mail, "must be briefed to exert greater discipline as per the Rules for the Use of Force."

Cars traveling along a five-mile stretch of highway that crosses the capital and slices its way over to the airport are repeatedly attacked by gun-toting terrorists or hit with roadside bombs.

Although the number of the "blue-on-blue" friendly fire incidents is not public, it is high enough that security companies responsible for ferrying around officials and those working on Iraq reconstruction have called on the military to come up with a solution.

Unusual to find this in the Washington Times, of all places. This is another one of the stories we aren't being told about.

Reuters is moving a story with a list of friendly fire incidents over the last two years. You can see it here.

Unserious Administration

Clueless On the World Bank

By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, March 7, 2005; Page A19

Two decades on, it's the Bush administration's turn to choose a World Bank president. Like the Reaganites before them, the Bush folk first decided not to let the incumbent, James Wolfensohn, continue for another five-year term; but they don't appear to have a better candidate. Last week the rumor mill spat out two extraordinary names: Paul Wolfowitz and Carly Fiorina.

This looks like a sign of desperation. Wolfowitz has most of what it takes to lead the World Bank. He is a persuasive communicator; he has experience in public-sector management; and he knows something about developing countries, having served as ambassador to Indonesia. But his association with the Iraq war makes him, unfairly but undeniably, anathema to most World Bank shareholders. The trial balloon soon popped: Wolfowitz declared that he would be staying at the Pentagon.

What of Fiorina? A straw poll of pro-Bush economists last week, including one who held a senior White House position, yielded a unanimous verdict: The idea is preposterous. Fiorina was fired from the top job at Hewlett-Packard because she proved incapable of running a large organization. How could the Bush administration, which claims to respect the judgments of the marketplace, entrust her with the formidable challenge of running the bank's 10,000-strong bureaucracy?

But the Fiorina rumor raises other questions. Does the Bush team understand that private-sector experience is only dimly relevant to the World Bank challenge? Corporate bosses are used to firing people, measuring performance by profits and dominating their boards of directors. But the World Bank, like most public institutions, is an entirely different beast. It's hard to fire people. Performance is measured not by the clear metric of profits but by poverty reduction, which takes years to occur and is hard to track precisely. And the board is composed of interfering governments that are forever rearranging the bank's development priorities. So it's not just that as a private-sector manager, Fiorina did so badly she was fired. It's that her experience doesn't fit what's needed in a World Bank president.

Equally, the Fiorina rumor forces the question: Does the Bush team mean to choose someone who knows nothing about development? Of course, this wouldn't be a first; witness the Barber Conable [Reagan's disasterous] appointment. But newcomers to development are easily muddled by the magic-bullet claims that stalk this field -- claims that the key to development lies in micro-credit or female education or property rights, to cite three common examples. If you don't understand how to sort the snake-oil salesmen from the truth tellers, you can't set a sane course for the World Bank and stick to it.

Perhaps the Bush administration will yet unveil a brilliant candidate -- and do so in time to preempt the contemptuous buzz that will otherwise emanate from next month's World Bank-IMF spring meetings. But it better understand that naming a failed technology executive to run the world's premier development organization is like hiring a failed soccer player to coach the Redskins.

Explain to me again how you can tell that the grownups are in charge.

"Labor Peace"

Labor's Divisions Widen As Membership Declines

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 7, 2005; Page A02

LAS VEGAS -- AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney last week won the latest round in a bitter internal clash over the future of the labor movement by insisting that more money go for future campaigns to unseat Republicans than for trying to shore up the federation's sagging membership.

That showdown pitted Sweeney, AFSCME's Gerald McEntee and the Steelworkers' Leo Gerard against such powerhouse dissidents as the Teamsters' James P. Hoffa, the Service Employees' Andrew L. Stern and the Laborers' Terence M. O'Sullivan.

Since the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations 50 years ago, labor has been in a relentless downward spiral, and factions have bitterly squabbled for years over how best to reverse the trend. Today, the most urgent question among labor leaders and experts is whether a victory by either Sweeney's forces or the dissidents will be enough to pull organized labor out of a nose dive that began when Sweeney, 70, was a 20-year-old student at Queens College.

"These are the darkest days that I have ever seen for American workers across the United States," said McEntee, one of Sweeney's strongest allies.

John Wilhelm, a president of the recently merged Unite Here union, who is contemplating a challenge to Sweeney in the July election for president, added that "we are in deep trouble."

Nathan Newman anticipated this with some commentary a couple of days ago:

Look at the converse side of corporate power. Yes, corporations have influence because of their bankrolling of politicians, but their real power stems from their economic power, their ability to threaten to move jobs to a different state or even overseas unless politicians do what they demand.

If "labor peace" already exists because of too little organizing and lack of strength in the workplace by unions, politicians will feel no real pressure to change the law. Money can't buy political power for unions; only organizing will deliver it.

I'm with Nathan. Labor's struggle against our corporatist government only worked when it organized. It's time to go back to the base.

Where is Everyman?

This one really stuck in my craw.

NRA Gets Credit on Hill

There are scores of interest groups out there, but which, really, gets their way in the halls of Congress?

According to a new poll, it's the National Rifle Association. A National Journal survey of more than 70 members of Congress suggests that the NRA is the "most effective" interest group on Capitol Hill. The organization received nearly twice as many votes -- 25 -- as AARP and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which tied for second place. Each received 13 votes.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business rounded out the lawmakers' top five. There were some differences between how lawmakers from the two parties responded to the poll. Republicans named the NFIB as the most effective group, followed by the NRA and the Chamber of Commerce. Democrats picked the NRA, followed by AARP and AIPAC.

At this stage of the game it is worth asking the question: is there anybody, either on K Street or in Congress, who actually represents the ordinary working person? Guess not.

The Day Pass

This story is a mess even by the normal standards that let the NYT print Kit Seelye. The Times needs better editing. Badly.

White House Approves Pass for Blogger
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Published: March 7, 2005

Another signal moment for bloggers is to occur this morning, when Garrett M. Graff, who writes a blog about the news media in Washington, is to be ushered into the White House briefing room to attend the daily press "gaggle."

Mr. Graff, 23, may be the first blogger in the short history of the medium to be granted a daily White House pass for the specific purpose of writing a blog, or Web log. A White House spokesman said yesterday that he believed Mr. Graff was the first blogger to be given credentials.

He is being given a press pass as the editor of FishbowlDC (www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc), a blog that is published by Mediabistro.com, which offers networking and services for journalists.
....
He made 20 phone calls and got nowhere. Bigger blogs picked up on his saga, and traffic on FishbowlDC increased tenfold, he said. But it was not until the traditional media joined in, Mr. Graff said, that the White House relented.

"USA Today started making calls on Thursday. CNN mentioned it on 'Inside Politics,' and Ron Hutcheson, president of the White House Correspondents Association, raised the issue with the White House Press Office," he said. "I think a combination of all of that made the White House pay attention and decide to let me in."

Gannon/Guckert was a reporter for a website, so I don't see how that's different from Mediabistro. It still looks to me like Graff had to work a whole lot harder for a pass.

Lazy Spender

Ronald Brownstein:
Washington Outlook
Greenspan's Warning on Deficit Ignores His Role in Its Growth

Is he kidding?

That's the only possible reaction to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan's conclusion last week that the massive federal budget deficit accumulated under President Bush was "unsustainable." Declared Greenspan: "The principle that I think is involved here … [is] that you cannot continuously introduce legislation which tends to expand the budget deficit."

That would be an entirely reasonable — even urgent — warning from someone who didn't bear so much responsibility for the problem he's describing. Greenspan lamenting higher deficits is like New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner complaining about inflated baseball salaries.

Let's recap. When Bush was elected, the nation had enjoyed three consecutive years of federal budget surpluses under President Clinton. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the government was on track to amass surpluses large enough to pay off the publicly held national debt by 2008. That would make the nation debt free for the first time since the presidency of Andrew Jackson.

Greenspan had reliably supported this fiscal discipline under Clinton. But after Bush's election, Greenspan bent to the prevailing wind. Within days of Bush's inauguration, he gave his seigniorial blessing to tax cuts in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

As Bruce Bartlett, a leading conservative economist, wrote at the time: "With Greenspan's support … the last substantive barrier to tax reduction has evaporated." And Congress, with Greenspan's critical reassurance, passed the largest of Bush's massive tax cuts that year.

Greenspan built his argument for tax cuts in 2001 largely on his concern that the projected surpluses would be too large, allowing the government not only to extinguish the debt but also to accumulate financial assets, such as stocks and bonds.

That always seemed a dubious notion. But if that concern was legitimate, it seemed to be pretty well resolved by the time Bush came back for another tax reduction in 2003. The federal budget had already fallen back deeply into deficit under the weight of Bush's 2001 tax cuts, the economic slowdown and the cost of responding to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Rather than falling, much less falling too fast, the national debt was rising again.

Against that backdrop, surely the great voice of fiscal restraint would counsel caution about burdening future generations with more debt through more tax cuts.

Well, sort of. Greenspan, to his credit, said the second round of tax cuts shouldn't be passed without offsetting spending reductions. But he never seriously pushed Congress to reconsider the initial tax cuts passed on the obsolete assumption of vast surpluses.

Even today, Greenspan endorses even more borrowing for Bush's Social Security private investment accounts (if not quite as much as Bush wants), and points at spending cuts as the principal answer to the debt trap that he helped to create. Taken together, Greenspan's advice paints him more as an activist committed to shrinking government than a dispassionate banker counseling fiscal prudence.

Remember those tax cuts? I think I got $300 out of the first one and an additional $200 out of the second. I think the share of the federal debt I've been saddled with now runs into 5 digits. Bush is like one of those people who never should have been given a credit card in the first place and now want somebody else to bail them out.

Hubris Always Brings Nemesis

Social Security Overhaul Splinters GOP
# Factions of economic or social conservatives are questioning Bush's plan on priorities and costs. Party unity is put at risk.

By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security is falling flat across the country, to judge from recent polls, but public opinion is not his only problem. The whole idea splits Bush's party — along fault lines he masterfully bridged during his first term in the White House.

A Social Security overhaul is the Holy Grail for the GOP's free-market advocates, but it is a low priority for social conservatives who care more about banning abortion and same-sex marriage. The costly initiative gives heartburn to the party's antideficit hawks. Even some of the Republicans' loyal business allies are lukewarm on Bush's effort to rewrite the program and allow workers to divert part of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.

The divisions highlight potential weaknesses in the GOP coalition that Bush hopes to turn into an enduring governing majority by the time he leaves the White House.

On Capitol Hill, the open disagreement among Republicans over the issue — and over the political strategy for dealing with it — is a departure from the unity and discipline they showed on most major issues during Bush's first term.

That is in part because overhauling Social Security is a more ambitious and politically difficult issue than Bush's priorities in his first term — such as tax cuts and Medicare expansion — which tended to unify rather than divide his party. All but two Republicans in Congress voted for his 2001 tax cut. Republicans of all stripes had campaigned for years for providing prescription drug coverage under Medicare.

Not so for changing Social Security.

"This does not have strong unanimity among Republicans in Congress or the rank and file," said Eddie Mahe, a GOP political consultant and former party official. "It is not an issue that galvanizes Republicans like tax cuts, that is for sure."

Republicans have been talking in general terms for the last few elections about revamping the popular retirement program. But few have gotten into the politically risky details of how to shore up the system to accommodate the retirement of the baby boom generation.

The headline kinda makes your heart sing, doesn't it. Seriously, this may be the issue which recaptures rural and southern working class voters for the Democratic party.

Fragile

Evidence of a White House 'cult'

Kevin Wood / Daily Yomiuri Staff Writer

Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib

By Seymour M. Hersh

HarperCollins, 416 pp, 25.95 dollars

The chapter detailing Rumsfeld's battles with senior military commanders over the war in Iraq is revealing. His ideas on modernizing and streamlining the U.S. military were not popular with the generals. It was Rumsfeld's insistence on a smaller footprint on the ground that led to the deployment only 150,000 U.S. troops in the invasion of Iraq, instead of the 450,000 Pentagon planners recommended. Hersh quotes a variety of senior army officers as saying that the war was micromanaged by Rumsfeld and his civilian advisers, who regularly overruled the Joint Staff.

"'He thought he knew better,' one senior planner said. 'He was the decision maker at every turn.'"

Again and again, Hersh quotes intelligence and military officers as saying senior administration officials politicized intelligence and heard only what they wanted to hear. Intelligence agents who could not confirm the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were ignored, and generals who warned the invaders might not be greeted with flowers were sidelined.

"They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with--to the point of being bizarre. Dogmatic, as if they were on a mission from God," one intelligence officer is quoted as saying.

Chain of Command is a difficult book to read in several respects. The stomach-turning descriptions of torture practiced on innocents at Abu Ghraib will horrify anyone with an ounce of humanity. The lengthy list of examples of hubris, wishful thinking, arrogance and blatant stupidity by Rumsfeld, Perle and others in overruling Pentagon planners and intelligence professionals will appall most readers and enrage many.

In the book's epilogue, Hersch poses a series of questions raised by his catalog of the Bush administration's sins, omissions and errors: "How did eight or nine neoconservatives who believed that a war in Iraq was the answer to international terrorism get their way? How did they redirect the government and rearrange long-standing American priorities and policies with so much ease? How did they overcome the bureaucracy, intimidate the press, mislead the Congress, and dominate the military? Is our democracy that fragile?"

Given the litany of errors, abuses and arrogance contained in Chain of Command, the future does not look bright.

The Nuclear Option

The Senate on the Brink

Published: March 6, 2005

The Senate has confirmed the vast majority of President Bush's choices. But Democrats have rightly balked at a handful. One of the seven renominated judges is William Myers, a former lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries who demonstrated at his hearing last week that he is an antienvironmental extremist who lacks the evenhandedness necessary to be a federal judge. Another is Janice Rogers Brown, who has disparaged the New Deal as "our socialist revolution."

To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. Republican leaders now claim that judicial nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote. This is rank hypocrisy. When the tables were turned, Republicans filibustered President Bill Clinton's choice for surgeon general, forcing him to choose another. And Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, who now finds judicial filibusters so offensive, himself joined one against Richard Paez, a Clinton appeals court nominee.

Yet these very same Republicans are threatening to have Vice President Dick Cheney rule from the chair that a simple majority can confirm a judicial nominee rather than the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster. This is known as the "nuclear option" because in all likelihood it would blow up the Senate's operations. The Senate does much of its work by unanimous consent, which keeps things moving along and prevents ordinary day-to-day business from drowning in procedural votes. But if Republicans change the filibuster rules, Democrats could respond by ignoring the tradition of unanimous consent and making it difficult if not impossible to get anything done. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has warned that "the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell."

Despite his party's Senate majority, however, Mr. Frist may not have the votes to go nuclear. A sizable number of Republicans - including John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee and John Warner - could break away. For them, the value of confirming a few extreme nominees may be outweighed by the lasting damage to the Senate. Besides, majorities are temporary, and they may want to filibuster one day.

There is one way to avert a showdown. The White House should meet with Senate leaders of both parties and come up with a list of nominees who will not be filibustered. This means that Mr. Bush - like Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush before him - would agree to submit nominees from the broad mainstream of legal thought, with a commitment to judging cases, not promoting a political agenda.

The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.

The rank hypocrisy of the Republicans on this issue (heard it on the Sabbath Gasbags today, along with the rank hypocrisy on Social Security) is one of the things which has so damaged our political discourse.

All Spin Zone

Michael Kinsley:
As Through a Glass Darkly

Spin is not just a technique. It is not just a political phenomenon. It permeates our culture and our daily life. And it's an industry — almost a sector of the economy. That one day's articles quoted lobbyists, public relations specialists, professional "damage control" experts. If computers and communications go by the acronym IT, for information technology, the perceptual industry might be MT, for misinformation technology.

The business of MT isn't lying. It's shaping perceptions irrespective of the truth. Reality is a consideration, of course. But if reality were sufficient, we wouldn't need spin — would we?

Of those four front-page articles, only one — the Social Security piece — had the slightest tone of disapproval. To disapprove of spin is like disapproving of rain. What's the point? If anything, there was sympathy and admiration for Summers and Stewart. Good spin is an essential life skill and business technique. Bad spin is worthy of criticism. No spin is un-American.

Reporters, whose job is to describe reality, rightly regard spin as an important part of the reality they are supposed to report. Good reporters describe both the real reality and the alternative reality. But even good ones often show no hint of preference as between the stage set and the real thing. If they did, that might be considered bias, I suppose.

It takes real excess of spin — such as the president putting a practicing pundit on the payroll (recite that aloud five times), or the governor of California sending a fake newscast to real TV stations — to generate much outrage in the press. Who knows what level of artifice is needed to offend the general population, many of whom assume the news is made up anyway.

All this sits oddly with the concurrent fashion for "transparency." The word is everywhere. It means what used to be called "truth" (look it up) and also openness.

"Transparency" is one of the blessings of democracy that President Bush is proud of having brought to Iraq — right up there with voting and somewhat less torture than before. Corporate reforms following the accounting scandals are supposed to make the books of public companies "transparent."

A San Francisco foundation (the Wall Street Journal reports) has decorated its boardroom with glass because, its chief administrative officer says, "One of our values is transparency." Transparency is a value? Five years ago, that idea would have been incomprehensible, like saying, "One of our values is suede." The transparency metaphor is inexact. It is not that people should be able to see right through you. It is that they should be able to see through to the real you.

But how do we resolve the apparent contradiction between our desire for transparency everywhere and our tolerance or even approval of spin? The whole point of spin is opacity: a no-see-through skin of your own design between the real you and the outside world.

The solution, of course, is to spin your transparency. Make it look as if you're transparent. And no doubt there are transparency consultants who will, for a fee, advise you about how to create an appearance of transparency so opaque that no one can see through it (like the tunnel that Roadrunner paints on a mountainside so that Wile E. Coyote will slam into the rock).

The sociologist Erving Goffman used to write essays and books with titles such as "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life," arguing that we are all actors in a play of our own devising. All sincerity is calculation, as Goffman saw it, and every statement or gesture is layered with strategy. A famous review of one of his books compared Goffman to Kafka, for undermining our confidence that the sea we're swimming in is like the sea we think we are swimming in.

Goffman died in 1982 at age 60. He had no idea.

Call it "postmodernism."

Target Practice II

Outrage as US soldiers kill hostage rescue hero

Bush promises Italian leader a full investigation

Philip Willan Rome
Sunday March 6, 2005
The Observer

The Italian journalist kidnapped in Iraq arrived back in Rome yesterday as fury and confusion grew over the circumstances in which she was shot and one of her rescuers was killed by American soldiers.

The shooting in Iraq on Friday evening, which occurred as Giuliana Sgrena was being driven to freedom after being released by her captors, was fuelling anti-war activists in Italy and putting pressure on Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

'The hardest moment was when I saw the person who had saved me die in my arms,' she said. Her poignant words and weak, haggard appearance as she had to be helped from the jet that brought her back from Baghdad are fuelling national rage.

Berlusconi, a staunch ally of the US who defied widespread public opposition to the Iraq war and sent 3,000 troops, took the rare step of summoning US ambassador Mel Sembler to his office.

He demanded that the US 'leave no stone unturned' in investigating the incident. President George Bush called Berlusconi to promise a full investigation.

Sgrena, 56, a journalist for the Communist newspaper Il Manifesto, was hit in the shoulder when US soldiers opened fire on the car she was travelling in as it approached a checkpoint less than a mile from Baghdad airport. The Italian secret service officer who had negotiated her release was killed as he shielded her from the gunfire. Two of his colleagues were also hurt.

Berlusconi prides himself on his close personal friendship with President George Bush, but he was grim-faced when he told reporters that someone would have to take responsibility 'for such a grave incident'.

The US Army claimed the Italians' vehicle had been seen as a threat because it was travelling at speed and failed to stop at the checkpoint despite warning shots being fired by the soldiers. A State Department official in Washington said the Italians had failed to inform the military of Sgrena's release.

Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers' first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.

Enzo Bianco, the opposition head of the parliamentary committee that oversees Italy's secret services, described the American account as unbelievable. 'They talk of a car travelling at high speed, and that is not possible because there was heavy rain in Baghdad and you can't travel at speed on that road,' Bianco said. 'They speak of an order to stop, but we're not sure that happened.'

Pier Scolari, Sgrena's partner who flew to Baghdad to collect her, put an even more sinister construction on the events, suggesting in a television interview that Sgrena was the victim of a deliberate ambush. 'Giuliana may have received information which led to the soldiers not wanting her to leave Iraq alive,' he claimed.

I'm hearing outrage all over Europe and the Middle East over this. This Guardian article is by far the mildest.

Remote Control

Rule Change Lets C.I.A. Freely Send Suspects Abroad to Jails
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: March 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 5 - The Bush administration's secret program to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogation has been carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency under broad authority that has allowed it to act without case-by-case approval from the White House or the State or Justice Departments, according to current and former government officials.

The unusually expansive authority for the C.I.A. to operate independently was provided by the White House under a still-classified directive signed by President Bush within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the officials said.

The process, known as rendition, has been central in the government's efforts to disrupt terrorism, but has been bitterly criticized by human rights groups on grounds that the practice has violated the Bush administration's public pledge to provide safeguards against torture.

In providing a detailed description of the program, a senior United States official said that it had been aimed only at those suspected of knowing about terrorist operations, and emphasized that the C.I.A. had gone to great lengths to ensure that they were detained under humane conditions and not tortured.

The official would not discuss any legal directive under which the agency operated, but said that the "C.I.A. has existing authorities to lawfully conduct these operations."

The official declined to be named but agreed to discuss the program to rebut the assertions that the United States used the program to secretly send people to other countries for the purpose of torture. The transfers were portrayed as an alternative to what American officials have said is the costly, manpower-intensive process of housing them in the United States or in American-run facilities in other countries.

In recent weeks, several former detainees have described being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques and brutal treatment during months spent in detention under the program in Egypt and other countries. The official would not discuss specific cases, but did not dispute that there had been instances in which prisoners were mistreated. The official said none had died.

The official said the C.I.A.'s inspector general was reviewing the rendition program as one of at least a half-dozen inquiries within the agency of possible misconduct involving the detention, interrogation and rendition of suspected terrorists.

In public, the Bush administration has refused to confirm that the rendition program exists, saying only in response to questions about it that the United States did not hand over people to face torture. The official refused to say how many prisoners had been transferred as part of the program. But former government officials say that since the Sept. 11 attacks, the C.I.A. has flown 100 to 150 suspected terrorists from one foreign country to another, including to Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan.

Each of those countries has been identified by the State Department as habitually using torture in its prisons. But the official said that guidelines enforced within the C.I.A. require that no transfer take place before the receiving country provides assurances that the prisoner will be treated humanely, and that United States personnel are assigned to monitor compliance.

Let's ask ourselves some relatively easy questions, shall we? If we weren't up to no good, what would be the point in sending these people to foreign prisons? It looks to me like we're outsourcing the American gulag.

Likable Guy

via Juan Cole:

The Marist College poll:

Voters’ approval of George Bush’s performance as president nudges past fifty percent: One month into his second term, 51% of registered voters nationwide approve of the job President Bush is doing in office, and 45% disapprove.

Click on the link. Americans basically disapprove of everything Bush is doing but still give him a 51% approval rating. Last night, a friend of mine reminded me that most Americans couldn't pass a Civics 101 exam designed for high school sophomores. That's worth remembering every time you look at polling results.

I'd love it if, everytime the pollsters ran one of these "right direction/wrong direction" exercises, they'd ask, "Which of the following are included in the Bill of Rights?" as a follow-up. Ask them in which year women got the vote.

Taking the Veil

Women fear losing rights in new Iraq

Fri Mar 4, 9:40 AM ET

By Liz Sly Tribune foreign correspondent

"I'm sure they will form an Islamic government and our freedom will be gone," Suzan Sarkon, 30, said as she settled in to get her long black hair trimmed. "We've never lived freely in Iraq (news - web sites), and now I think we never will."

"I will commit suicide if that happens," vowed Karama Saeed, 27, who said she cried when she heard that the group led by the secularist interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi won only 14 percent of the vote in Iraq's landmark election. "No," she said, reconsidering. "I will leave the country."

As Iraq embarks on its uncertain journey toward crafting a new constitution, Iraqi women have perhaps more to win or lose in the process than anyone.

Since the election results were confirmed, many women have expressed deep concerns about the direction in which they see their country headed. A coalition of Islamist Shiite parties won the largest share of the seats in Iraq's new National Assembly. The parties have nominated an Islamic scholar to be prime minister, and though they insist they do not want to impose a religious government on Iraq, they have made it clear they expect Islam to feature in the new constitution.

Yanar Mohammed, a women's rights campaigner, has no doubt that the parties represented in the Shiite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, intend to use their majority to introduce Shariah, or Islamic law, into the constitution that the assembly will write.

Fearing marginalization

"This was their mandate. It's their policy. If you are an Islamist party, it's the priority on your agenda," she said. "Ibrahim al-Jaafari is well-decorated to look like a Western man, but he has this 100 percent Islamic agenda, and women will be inferior if he takes over."

Though al-Jaafari, the Shiite candidate for prime minister, and other Shiite leaders have said they do not want an Iranian-style Islamic government, they have said repeatedly that they will not allow laws that "contradict Islam" and that the "Islamic identity" of Iraq should be preserved--wording that, if included in the constitution, would open the door to the application of Islamic law in many areas of life that mostly affect women, experts say.

At a minimum, that likely will mean applying Shariah to civil and family laws, according fewer rights to women than men in areas such as marriage, divorce and inheritance, said Joyce Wiley, an authority on Iraqi Shiites at the University of South Carolina. "I'm afraid it's not going to be very good for women," she said.

Salama Khafaji, a newly elected Shiite legislator, says women have no reason to fear Shariah. Many women who voted for the Shiite coalition support the idea of Islamic laws, which does not mean they want to impose their views on other women, she said.

"Many women choose to wear hijab," said Khafaji, who always wears a black head-to-toe abaya. "It will be voluntary."

But a climate in which religious values are being asserted by the country's government may make it difficult for women who don't want to cover themselves to resist social pressures to conform, said Mohammed, who plans to organize a march demanding a secular constitution on March 8.

This is an essay question: Compare and contrast how different or similar Bushco's Iraq and America are for women.

Reminder

Experts say bird flu can't be beaten
Focus moves from eradication to control
By Ned Colt
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 11:22 p.m. ET March 4, 2005

Dr. Scott Dowell, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, is in Thailand trying to stop the flu from spreading and killing. The U.S. and Thailand are working together to find ways to control this virus that kills seven of every ten people who contract it. Normal influenzas kill about one in 100.

"We can take measures both to manage cases and reduce mortality," says Dr. William Aldis with the World Health Organization. "Also to prevent and limit epidemic spread."

Plan and prepare for this now. We think of the flu as a winter bug, but the pathology of H5N1 can easily break the season model. The Spanish flu of 1918 did its deadly work in the summer and fall of that year.

I've told you before some of the things to do to get ready: get your own supply of Tamifu, obtain nanomasks, protect your business with additional insurance, and prepare for a time of possible civil disruption (what would happen in your locality if half of the public servents, cops to public health nurses were among the sick or dying? if the banks couldn't open?) at the level of being hit by a hurricane. I'm stockpiling food, water and cash--greenbacks, that is: what if the credit card verification systems can't work because there is no one to service the data lines? No, not in my house, so don't come looking for me, crooks. I've got a propane stove and camp lanterns (I'm a camper) which will all be recharged and ready in case we have power outages because there is no one to service the grid and the lines themselves. I'm getting a physical and updating all of my prescriptions now, finding doctors who can work and pharmacies which are open may be a problem later. I wouldn't want to find out I've got heart disease or other serious chronic problem under the circumstances, I want to know about it now.

Will my face be red if this all doesn't happen? No. I'll be well prepared for the next east coast hurricane, however.

Remember that the Spanish flu of 1918 had a lethality rate of 2-5% and 50 to 100 million died when the population of the planet was only 1.8 billion and air transportation was not commercially available. If this bug breaks out into human to human transmission, and the genetic odds favor it, this will be a major event in the history of civilization.

Sharecropper Society

Buffett deepens dollar worries
By Dan Roberts in New York
Published: March 5 2005 18:22 | Last updated: March 5 2005 18:22

Warren Buffett has warned that the US trade deficit risks creating a “sharecropper’s society” as his letter to shareholders sounded an increasingly bearish tone about the value of the dollar.

The billionaire fund manager said his own performance as chairman of Berkshire Hathaway was “lacklustre” because he struck out in his quest for new investments. Annual results showed the book value of Berkshire shares underperformed the stock market for the second year in a row while full-year profits fell 10 per cent.

But his sceptical view of current market valuations continued as Berkshire’s holdings of cash rose from $36bn in 2003 to $43bn by the end of December – equivalent to nearly all the “float”, or excess cash, generated by its insurance businesses.

Mr Buffett’s bet against the dollar also grew. Foreign exchange contracts – mostly short positions against the US dollar – nearly doubled over the year to $21.4bn, generating $1.8bn in gains as the greenback fell against other major currencies.

These currency profits were partly responsible for a sharper than expected rise in fourth quarter earnings from $2.39bn to $3.34bn, although Berkshire earnings are notoriously volatile due to the timing of investment gains.

Mr Buffett stepped up his warning about the US trade deficit and the need to finance it with foreign investment, devoting more than two full pages of the annual report to the topic.

“This force-feeding of American wealth to the rest of the world is now proceeding at the rate of $1.8bn daily, an increase of 20 per cent since I wrote you last year,” he said. “Consequently, other countries and their citizens now own a net of about $3,000bn of the US”

In particular, he warned that this meant a sizeable portion of what US citizens earned in future would have to be paid to foreign landlords.

“A country that is now aspiring to an “Ownership Society” will not find happiness in – and I’ll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a “Sharecropper’s Society,” added Mr Buffett. “But that’s precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us.”

Another block of the coming financial disaster falls into place.

Unequal Sacrafices

I knock the Times plenty, so when they hit one right, or mostly so, I'll give them the kudos they deserve.

A Fighting Strategy for Veterans

Mr. Bush knows that wartime is no time to go after veterans' benefits. But by proposing changes that are politically implausible while challenging Congress to cut spending, the administration gains a bargaining chip: if lawmakers aren't willing to make the veterans' cuts the president has proposed, they will be pressured to make even deeper cuts in programs for people who don't have the veterans' ability to fight back.

In effect, Mr. Bush's budget pits veterans against the 660,000 women, infants and children whose food assistance is on the chopping block; against the 120,000 preschoolers who would be cut from Head Start; against the 370,000 families and disabled and elderly individuals who would lose rental assistance; against the whole communities that would lose support for clean air and drinking water; and so on.

The only way for veterans to avoid those unacceptable trade-offs is to refuse to fight on the president's terms. The size and scope of Mr. Bush's proposed spending cuts are a direct result of his refusal to ask for tax-cut rollbacks - that is, to ask wealthy investors, who have had lavish, deficit-bloating tax cuts over the past four years, to contribute toward deficit reduction. On the contrary, Mr. Bush's budget proposes even more tax breaks, specifically for people with six-figure incomes or more and overflowing investment portfolios.

Most galling, the new tax cuts would be, in themselves, so large that the net spending cuts Mr. Bush has requested would not be enough to pay for them, let alone reduce the existing deficit.

Veterans have the moral and institutional clout to argue that no one group should be singled out to make sacrifices until all groups are asked to sacrifice. Bolstering that case is the fact that all successful deficit-cutting budgets have included tax increases on the affluent, including President Reagan's 1983 budget, the first President George Bush's 1991 budget and President Bill Clinton's 1994 budget. Mr. Bush's 2006 budget must do the same. If veterans drive that point home, the benefits they'll save will be their own, and those of many women and children, too.

What the Ed board doesn't say and should is that cancelling just one of Rummy's extravagant and unworkable weapons systems would probably restore all of the veterans benefits and social service programs.

Amerikan Way

via yankee doodle:

A Disproportionate Sacrifice
Md. Mother Lobbies to End Sons' Concurrent Deployments in Iraq

By Avis Thomas-Lester
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 5, 2005; Page B01

When Ann Swann's twin sons were deployed to Iraq with the Marine Corps Reserve last year, she fired off a letter to President Bush. Her eldest son already was serving there with the Army Reserve, she explained, and she wanted one of her boys brought home.

"This letter is from a concerned mother," wrote Swann, 53, principal of Gladys Noon Spellman Elementary in Prince George's County. "I request that if at all possible, you conference with me to discuss the reason that all three of my sons (my only family left) are serving in Iraq."

What Swann discovered since sending her letter in the fall has surprised her. The Department of Defense has no prohibition on sending every child in a family into combat -- even in the same unit at the same location.

The only way to get her sons back early would be if one were killed, captured, maimed or missing.

Then the so-called Sullivan rule, named for the Iowa family who lost five sons on the USS Juneau after it was attacked in 1942, would apply. Swann could request that her remaining sons be excluded from combat or any duty that would expose them to hostile fire.

That's what John and Lori Witmer did when their daughter Michelle, 20, was killed in Iraq last year serving in the Wisconsin National Guard. Her sister Rachel, 25, who served with her in the 32nd Military Police Company, and her twin sister, Charity, 21, a medic, did not to return to Iraq after their parents pleaded that they be allowed to remain stateside.

"Common sense would say that one hero per family should be enough," John Witmer of New Berlin, Wis., said in a telephone interview. "That way, the brothers and sisters wouldn't have to be put in the position of feeling like they deserted their families if they went back or that they deserted their country if they stayed home."

Their decision led to death threats and criticism from some who thought the other daughters should return to their units despite their sister's death, he said. Radio stations held call-in discussions and the family received numerous threatening phone calls.

You can find your own favorite thing to get exercised about in this story, but it's the last graf that frosts me. Ah, the sacred American right to have an opinion about other peoples' business and back it up with death theats.

Who's Nuts?

Soldier Who Reported Abuse Was Sent to Psychiatrist

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 5, 2005; Page A15

An Army intelligence sergeant who accused fellow soldiers in Samarra, Iraq, of abusing detainees in 2003 was in turn accused by his commander of being delusional and ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation in Germany, despite a military psychiatrist's initial judgment that the man was stable, according to internal Army records released yesterday.

The soldier had angered his commander by urging the unit's redeployment from the military base to prevent what the soldier feared would be the death of one or more detainees under interrogation, according to the documents. He told his commander three members of the counterintelligence team had hit detainees, pulled their hair, tried to asphyxiate them and staged mock executions with pistols pointed at the detainees' heads.

In another case detailed in the Army files, soldiers in a Florida National Guard unit deployed near Ramadi in 2003 compiled a 20-minute video that depicted a soldier kicking a wounded detainee in the face and chest in the presence of 10 colleagues and soldiers positioning a dead insurgent to appear to wave hello. The video was found in a soldier's computer files under the heading "Ramadi Madness," and it initially prompted military lawyers to recommend charges of assault with battery and dereliction of duty for tampering with a corpse.

The unit's commander told Army investigators he was concerned about the images becoming public and promised to take steps to "minimize the risk of this and other videos that may end up in the media."

Both criminal investigations involved events that occurred before the May 2004 revelation of widespread detainee abuse committed by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad in late 2003, but unlike that event, neither of these cases led to criminal charges.

These cases were among 13 described in more than 1,000 pages of Army criminal records released at the Pentagon under the order of a New York federal judge. They detail the Army's investigations of other allegations by U.S. military personnel in Iraq of abuse, rape and larceny by fellow soldiers.

Investigations into similar allegations were previously disclosed in tens of thousands of pages of records made public since December under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union. Those records describe allegations of detainee abuse in Afghanistan and at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in addition to Iraq, and show that when FBI field agents and interrogation specialists in the Defense Intelligence Agency protested alleged abuse, the complaints were generally ignored.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, asked about detainee abuse yesterday on CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports," said he was not surprised. Gonzales said that he presumed the military used lawful interrogation techniques but that "sometimes people do things that they shouldn't do. People are imperfect . . . and so the fact that abuses occur, they're unfortunate but I'm not sure that they should be viewed as surprising."

In New York, ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer said the new files "provide further evidence that abuse of detainees was widespread." He added: "In light of the hundreds of abuses that we now know to have taken place, it is increasingly difficult to understand why no senior official, civilian or military, has been held accountable." The ACLU has called for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel and for Congress to hold hearings on the abuse.

I'm beginning to think that the real moral outrage here is that the general public simply shrugs when they hear these stories.

Spy v. You

Read this whole story. There are so many things to be outraged about.

ChoicePoint Data Cache Became a Powder Keg
Identity Thief's Ability To Get Information Puts Heat on Firm

By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 5, 2005; Page A01

Identity theft and fraud has become a national problem in a few short years. In 2003, federal authorities estimated that about 750,000 people fell victim to some identity scam. Now the prevailing estimate is close to 10 million.

Driving the rise is a growing number of clever criminals who use people's Social Security numbers and other facts of their lives to take on their personas to run up credit cards bills, empty bank accounts and commit other crimes. But consumer advocates say it's also the failure of so many information brokers, retailers and credit issuers to adequately protect records or do enough to stop swindlers by verifying the identities of customers.

Credit card companies, marketers and others have lost millions of files to hackers and identity thieves in recent years. Two years ago, ChoicePoint itself was hit by another identity theft scheme involving personal records of thousands of people.

ChoicePoint, based in Alpharetta, Ga., has assembled a huge trove of personal data in recent years. Much of that information, such as court rulings, driver records and real estate details, comes from government agencies. The company also purchases information from the three major credit bureaus and other information services.

Its ability to create and electronically transmit exhaustive dossiers on people makes it a favorite of many Fortune 500 companies, government agencies and law enforcement and Homeland Security authorities. Today, it has more than 100,000 customers and revenue approaching $1 billion, a large proportion based on the resale of details about individuals.

Before granting service, ChoicePoint typically requires a photocopy of a driver's license and business records on file with a state or local government agency. A ChoicePoint employee would then verify that such a person and company exists. Identity thieves skirted this system by using fake IDs and by setting up front companies on paper, registered with government agencies in phony names, according to court and company records.

Why do firms like ChoicePoint exist in the first place? They are leaches on the body politic, making money on our backs by snooping on us. I find the credit reporting companies to be moderately defensible. These data mining firms are an offense, they are a domestic surveillance industry, working for cash.

Women? Rights?

The Bush Team's Abortion Misstep

Published: March 5, 2005

At a moment when the United States should be leading the world on advancing women's equality, the Bush administration chose instead to alienate government ministers and 6,000 other delegates at an important United Nations conference on that issue with a burst of anti-abortion zealotry this week.

The two-week session is being held to reinvigorate efforts to improve women's lives a decade after a landmark U.N. conference in Beijing. The organizers had hoped to keep a tight focus on urgent challenges like sexual trafficking, educational inequities and the spread of AIDS.

The first order of business was to be quick approval of a simple statement reaffirming the Beijing meeting's closing declaration. But on Monday, the Americans created turmoil by announcing that the United States would not join the otherwise universal consensus unless the document was amended to say that it did not create "any new international human rights" or "include the right to abortion."

This was shabby and mischievous. For one thing, the Beijing statement was nonbinding. For another, the Beijing negotiators had tried to anticipate controversy by recognizing unsafe abortions as a serious public health issue while leaving the question of legality up to each nation.

Specifically, the Beijing platform says that abortion should be safe where it is legal, and that criminal action should not be taken against any woman who has an abortion. All of this seemed clear enough, but the Bush team apparently could not resist an opportunity to press its anti-abortion agenda.

By Thursday evening, the American delegation had agreed to drop the explicit anti-abortion clause from its proposed amendment, and yesterday it finally withdrew the amendment entirely. But the damage had been done. An apology is due from the United States delegation for the weeklong disruption it caused. So is a fresh spirit of cooperation and a less rigid insistence on dictating global strategy.

The NYT thinks we lead in women's equality? Please, don't make me laugh. I have a bad cold and it will make me cough.

The Republicans still think there is a debate about contraception, for crying out loud. Barefoot and pregnant still has a constituency in this country.

Target Practice

Remember the flap after CNN's (former) news chief Eason Jordan said, in an aside, that we're shooting at journalists in Iraq?

U.S. Fires on Freed Italian Reporter in Iraq

By Daniel Williams and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 4, 2005; 4:16 PM

ROME, March 4 -- U.S. troops fired on a vehicle carrying an Italian journalist to freedom after a month in captivity Friday, wounding her and killing an Italian secret service agent who was accompanying her, Italian and American officials said.

Giuliana Sgrena, a reporter for the communist newspaper Il Manifesto, was on her way to Baghdad International Airport after having just been released by her abductors when her vehicle came under fire at a U.S. military checkpoint, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told a news conference.

In Baghdad, a U.S. military spokesman said the car was fired upon shortly before 9 p.m. local time as it was "approaching a coalition checkpoint at a high rate of speed." The spokesman, Staff Sgt. Don Dees, said Sgrena "was apparently injured" and that "it appears a second person in the automobile was killed."

"Ms. Sgrena is being treated by coalition force medical personnel," Dees added in a statement. "The incident is under investigation, and details will be provided as soon as they are available."

Berlusconi, who has staunchly backed President Bush's Iraq policy in the face of strong domestic opposition, demanded a U.S. explanation for the shooting.

"Given that the fire came from an American source, I called in the American ambassador," Berlusconi told the news conference. "I believe we must have an explanation for such a serious incident, for which someone must take the responsibility."

Good luck, Berlusconi. This administration takes responsibility for nothing. I'll guess it was a few "bad apples."

Jobs Report

The Economic Policy Institute's Job Watch has the straight dope on the unemployment report from this morning. It goes up at 11 AM on the first Friday of each month when the numbers are released and I don't read the MSM for the data, which they routinely play to Bush's spin. Here is what EPI says today:

Job recovery still lags far behind
Payroll jobs are now 332,000, or 0.3%, greater than at the start of the recession 47 months ago (March 2001). However, private-sector jobs are still down by 477,000, a contraction of 0.4%. The 809,000 jobs created in the government sector in this time explain the difference between growth in total payroll and private-sector jobs. Overall, this level of creation represents the worst job performance since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression). In the three downturns since the early 1970s, the economy had not only recovered all the jobs lost during the recession but had also generated 6.0% more jobs (6.1% more private-sector jobs) than existed at the start of the recession. If this historical standard had prevailed in the private sector, the economy would have 7,282,000 more private-sector jobs today.

Employment down relative to population: no progress in sight
Another reflection of the labor market's prolonged weakness is that employment has not grown relative to the working-age population over the last year, failing to close any of the jobs deficit that developed in the recession. For instance, 64.3% of the working-age population was employed at the recession's start in March 2001, whereas in February 2005 only 62.3% was employed—a deficit of 4.5 million jobs. Moreover, this employment gap does not even take into account the normal expectation of growth in the employment-to-population rate each year. Even last year's job growth was insufficient to increase the employment-to-population rate, suggesting that this recovery will not close the jobs deficit anytime soon. This failure to increase the employment rate over the last year and relative to March 2001 is particularly interesting when examining these trends by gender and race.

As always, EPI accompanies their report with helpful charts.

The Overstretch

Army Officials Voice Concern Over Shortfall in Recruitment
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, March 3 - The Army is so short of new recruits that for first time in nearly five years it failed in February to fill its monthly quota of volunteers sent to boot camp. Army officials called it the latest ominous sign of the Iraq war's impact on the military's ability to enlist fresh troops.

"We're very concerned about it," Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday when asked about recruiting shortfalls in the active-duty Army and Army Reserve. "When people ask you what you worry about the most, I say there's just two words: people and money."

In February, the active-duty Army shipped 5,114 recruits to boot camp, 27 percent below its goal of 7,050; it was the first time since May 2000 that the Army missed a monthly goal. For the first five months of the current fiscal year, the Army has met 94 percent of its goal of 29,185 new soldiers in basic training. Over all, the Army plans to bring in 80,000 new recruits this year - 3,000 more than last year - to replace soldiers who retire or do not re-enlist.

S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command, attributed the decline in February to an improving economy that siphoned off potential soldiers and the news coverage of the violence in Iraq, which so far has claimed about 1,500 American lives. The Army's February drop-off was reported on Thursday by USA Today.
....
In another sign of the strain, five of the six military reserve components failed to meet their recruiting goals for the first four months of the current fiscal year.

Marine and Army officials expressed confidence that they would meet their overall recruiting needs for the year, but acknowledged that the contract numbers could be a sign of trouble ahead.

"Does that mean in the future we won't have as many to ship? You bet," Lt. Gen. Jan C. Huly, the Marines' deputy commandant for plans, police and operations, and a former top Marine recruiter, said in an interview. "If we don't pick up that contracting, it will."

Meanwhile, in the current issue of Washington Monthly, Paul Glastris and Phil Carter argue that the draft is both inevitable and desirable and should be embraced as part of a program of mandatory national service for the college-bound:

But there's a deeper problem, one that any president who chose to invade a country the size of Iraq would have faced. In short, America's all-volunteer military simply cannot deploy and sustain enough troops to succeed in places like Iraq while still deterring threats elsewhere in the world. Simply adding more soldiers to the active duty force, as some in Washington are now suggesting, may sound like a good solution. But it's not, for sound operational and pragmatic reasons. America doesn't need a bigger standing army; it needs a deep bench of trained soldiers held in reserve who can be mobilized to handle the unpredictable but inevitable wars and humanitarian interventions of the future. And while there are several ways the all-volunteer force can create some extra surge capacity, all of them are limited.

The only effective solution to the manpower crunch is the one America has turned to again and again in its history: the draft. Not the mass combat mobilizations of World War II, nor the inequitable conscription of Vietnam—for just as threats change and war-fighting advances, so too must the draft. A modernized draft would demand that the privileged participate. It would give all who serve a choice over how they serve. And it would provide the military, on a “just in time” basis, large numbers of deployable ground troops, particularly the peacekeepers we'll need to meet the security challenges of the 21st century.

America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower, or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both.

Censorship

Via Juan Cole:

Veteran NPR correspondent Deborah Amos spoke at a forum in Camden, New Jersey, last weekend on the difficulties of reporting from Iraq:

National Public Radio foreign correspondent Deborah Amos, who has reported from Iraq off and on since the Iraq-American war started two years ago, said Iraq has become the most dangerous assignment in the world and one of the most difficult places to do accurate and balanced reporting.

Amos, who addressed and audience of more than 500 on Saturday, Feb. 26 at the 2005 Camden Conference on the Middle East, said the full story of what is happening in Iraq is not being reported for two reasons: the dangerous situation in the country severely restricts movement, and the U.S. military restricts media access.

"In May, 2003 I left for Iraq with a flak jacket, a satellite phone and $5,000 in cash from NPR," said Amos. "It was a 12-hour journey by car from the Jordanian capital to Baghdad. In the spring of 2003, all of Iraq was open to us and the Iraqis couldn't shut up. We took the best interpreters away from the U.S. military, where they were being paid $5 a day, by offering them more money and we were able to report on the insurgency from the beginning."

Growing danger and restrictions on certain areas began to limit reporting. The NPR reporters moved from a bed and breakfast to a residential neighborhood. Female reporters started wearing black "abayas," a type of Islamic clothing, and the men grew beards and dyed their hair to blend in with the general population.

In 2005, reporters are relying on interpreters to gather the news they are no longer able to get and Amos said freelancers aren't attempting to cover Iraq because the risks are too high without organizational backing. She said most NPR reporters are holed up in a compound on a hilltop that resembles a base for a Colombian drug lord. The guarded compound has a vault that journalists can step into if "they" come to get them.

Because of the risk, it is also expensive for news agencies to put reporters in Iraq, and Amos questioned whether some organizations will continue to do so.

"When you read a news report, look at the second line," said Amos. "More and more you will find it reads: 'according to the U.S. military' or 'according to officials.'

"You can no longer just rely on your news du jour, whether it's NPR or the New York Times," Amos said, adding that people must look at a variety of sources, including Arab media, to find out what is happening in Iraq and what Iraqis are thinking.

Even with the constraints on balanced reporting, Amos said, news organizations have a responsibility to report on the 130,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq.

Amos answered questions in a one-on-one interview after her presentation.

I know you reported from Iraq during the first Gulf war in 1990. How has the reporting differed this time around?

It's very different. I was living in London and I flew in and was reporting from the field for seven months [in Kuwait, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Iraq]. At that time, the U.S. military had a pool system for journalists. We went in groups and we shared material.

They have become much more sophisticated in how they manage the media. I think that's reflected in the "embed" system in Iraq. [In the embed system, reporters stay with a military unit, move with them and report from that vantage point.] The embed system has been great for the military. I'm not sure it has been great for us.

They also have lists of "good" reporters and "bad" reporters. Basically, good reporters are those inside the U.S.-controlled green zone and those in the red zone are outside with the Iraqis. They're the bad reporters and access is denied to them. [NPR operates in the red zone.]

This changed for three days during the recent Iraqi elections. I was embedded with the British military for three days during that time -- it was basically big, burly guys with guns. I had a flak jacket and traveled with them. I found nothing wrong with a three-day embed and the British embassy was very helpful in getting me to meet people.

Because the U.S. wanted the elections reported, I was able to disembed when I wanted. [Amos was in the city of Basra for the elections.] I put on a black head scarf and robe and had no security, but it was important to be out and stay in my own hotel, have my own translator and just be able to see people and talk to them.

But the biggest difference was that in the first Gulf War journalists were never targeted. We didn't worry about being kidnapped, or that your last broadcast appearance could be in an orange jumpsuit with your head cut off. Even in Lebanon in 1982, when journalists were being kidnapped, they never targeted women. It sounds counterintuitive, but Arab men have a great respect for women. That barrier broke down in Iraq. Being Western and a nonbeliever trumps being a woman.

Do you still have access to interview Iraqi women? And do their views differ from those of Iraqi men?

As restrictions cracked down, what I could do was go meet Iraqi women I knew before, but I couldn't go out on the street and strike up a conversation to test a hypothesis or go work out a hunch.

I think it is fair to say that Iraqi women do have different opinions than men. Saddam was a horrible and brutal dictator; however, the Baathist party promoted women's education and professional rights. Older women are well educated and have rigorous political debates. Many talked about trying to further rights of women. As Iraq became more religious, they felt they were going backward. I was able to report on their concerns.

Now I don't have access to anyone.

Headless Horseman

A Czar's Uncertain Clout

By David Ignatius
Friday, March 4, 2005; Page A21

When John D. Negroponte agreed to become director of national intelligence (DNI), the joke was that the only worse job in government was the post he already had, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

That's a stretch, but it captures the difficulty Negroponte faces in trying to get America's turfy national security team to share its toys. His first challenge will be to figure out precisely what the job is. I've perused the 234 pages of the new law creating his post, and I'm still scratching my head.

The law says he will "serve as head of the intelligence community," with 15 spy agencies working under his direction. But the fine print is not so simple -- especially where his power overlaps with that of the defense secretary. In acquiring new spy satellites and other expensive collection systems, for example, the law says the intelligence czar will "serve as exclusive milestone decision authority, except that with respect to Department of Defense programs, the Director shall serve as milestone decision authority jointly with the Secretary of Defense."

These word games were necessary to gain support for the intelligence reorganization from a reluctant Pentagon and its congressional protectors. But they have the effect of making the intelligence czar more of a co-czar or, in reality, non-czar -- because he lacks clear budget and administrative authority.

The rush to reorganize the intelligence community last year was driven by two legitimate concerns: a desire to break down the bureaucratic walls preventing information sharing and the hope that the bipartisan spirit of the Sept. 11 commission could be restored to a battered national security community. Unfortunately, both goals have so far been obstructed.

The capital's supreme turf warrior, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has been pushing to control more of the human intelligence capability that traditionally belonged to the CIA. The FBI has been pushing to expand its overseas operations into CIA territory. The zero-sum game that has too often prevailed in the intelligence community continues, with Pentagon or FBI gains coming at CIA expense. Breaking that selfish culture is Job One for Negroponte, but he may not have the clout to succeed.

The bipartisan spirit of the Sept. 11 commission didn't last long, either. CIA Director Porter Goss seemed to be heading in the opposite direction in his first months -- bringing in a phalanx of GOP aides who politicized an agency that was supposed to be above politics and demoralized a staff that already felt like a punching bag. In the field, CIA operatives are still said to be performing admirably. But at headquarters, Goss has blown off some talented intelligence officers. Compounding the partisan atmosphere, Goss dismissed three hush-hush advisory panels that included such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn and Bob Kerrey. The administration has also brought a much more partisan flavor of late to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

There's a real danger that reforms that were supposed to improve the intelligence process will make it worse. Rather than encouraging the agencies to share information, the new structure may simply add another layer of bureaucracy. That's dangerous when the nation is fighting a war against terrorism in which intelligence is the most potent weapon. The planned National Counterterrorism Center, a key feature of the new law, won't work if the various collection agencies remain balkanized and defensive.

Add to this Porter Goss's acknowledgement that he's incompetent and I'd say that we have a "national security infrastructure" which is pretty much in disarray. Feeling safer? I'm not.

Wretched Excess

The WaPo's Al Kamen smokes out the news of the weird inside the Beltway:

Narcissus Is Now Greek AND Roman

By Al Kamen
Friday, March 4, 2005; Page A19

The media blew it once again last week, focusing on President Bush's fence-mending trip to Europe. There were countless stories about yet another presidential visit across the pond where world leaders said things they surely didn't mean.

The big news was not in Brussels or Bratislava, but in Rome, where real history was made with the dedication of the Mel Sembler Building. This lovely, ornate building in the heart of the Eternal City had been put up for sale a couple of years ago by an Italian insurance company. U.S. Embassy officials jumped at the chance to consolidate outlying offices in a more secure location near the embassy.

And who better to negotiate the $83.5 million deal than the ambassador himself, a wealthy former shopping center developer in St. Petersburg, Fla., and former Republican National Committee finance chairman who gave the GOP boatloads of money over the years?

And this would be . . . yes, Mel Sembler. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush rewarded Sembler with a fine ambassadorship in Australia. But the money kept coming in, and Sembler got the RNC post in 1997. So by 2000, something much better than Canberra was only fitting. Only one of the great ones -- say, Rome -- would do.

But how is it the building came to be named for a sitting ambassador? This is something that apparently has never happened in U.S. diplomatic history, no matter how meritorious the diplomat. Not even for such folks as Llewellyn Thompson or Charles "Chip" Bohlen, both ambassadors to Moscow during the darkest days of the Cold War.

Well, turns out that in December, Congress passed a bill saying the annex "shall hereafter be known and designated as the 'Mel Sembler Building.' " Who did this? None other than Sembler's pal, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), who was then chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. We know this from watching the stirring video of the Feb. 22 dedication -- available on the embassy Web site.

"I spoke to President Bush just a few days ago," Young said, "and told him that I was coming here to be with you and what we were going to do today."

Bush thought this unusual. "And he said," Young recalled, " 'We don't do that, do we? We don't name buildings for ambassadors where they have served.' And I said, 'Mr. President, I introduced the bill and you signed it.' " (Don't blame Bush for not noticing one line tucked into the omnibus appropriations bill.) Young and Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) flew to Rome for the ribbon-cutting.

Young proudly gave Sembler a copy of the legislation, adding that the historic move came about not "because of some bureaucratic decision but by an act of Congress." Couldn't have happened any other way. The bureaucrats would have known better.

And he presented Sembler with a large bronze plaque to be affixed to the Mel Sembler Building.

But there was more. If you go, as you should, to the Web site to look at the stunning photo display, you'll come to a gorgeous photo (shown above) of the frescoed ceiling of the C.W. Bill Young Conference Center right there in the Mel Sembler Building. And there are a couple of fine bronze plaques naming the center that go on the walls there.

And so it is only fitting that, despite this being only early March, the coveted In the Loop Narcissism Run Amok Award for 2005 goes to Sembler and Young for their efforts to establish an excellent new trend in American diplomacy. (Hey! How about Palais Korologos in Brussels? Palacio Argyros in Madrid?) On the other hand, if Sembler had paid for the building . . .

Legree Redux

Credit Card Firms Won as Users Lost
# They sought new laws but found ways to make money even on people who went bankrupt.

March 4, 2005
By Peter G. Gosselin, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — In the eight years since they began pressing for the tough bankruptcy bill being debated in the Senate, America's big credit card companies have effectively inoculated themselves from many of the problems that sparked their call for the measure.

By charging customers different interest rates depending on how likely they are to repay their debts and by adding substantial fees for an array of items such as late payments and foreign currency transactions, the major card companies have managed to keep their profits rising steadily even as personal bankruptcies have soared, industry figures show.

As a result, while they continue to press for legislation that would make it harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy, the companies have found ways to make money even on cardholders who eventually go broke.

At the same time, under the companies' new systems, many cardholders — especially low-income users — have ended up on a financial treadmill, required to make ever-larger monthly payments to keep their credit card balances from rising and to avoid insolvency.

"Most of the credit cards that end up in bankruptcy proceedings have already made a profit for the companies that issued them," said Robert R. Weed, a Virginia bankruptcy lawyer and onetime aide to former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

"That's because people are paying so many fees that they've already paid more than was originally borrowed," he said.

In addition, some experts say, the changes proposed in the Senate bill would fundamentally alter long-standing American legal policy on debt. Under bankruptcy laws as they have existed for more than a century, creditors can seize almost all of a bankrupt debtor's assets, but they cannot lay claim to future earnings.

The proposed law, by preventing many debtors from seeking bankruptcy protection, would compel financially insolvent borrowers to continue trying to pay off the old debts almost indefinitely.

"Until now, the principle in this country has been that people's future human capital is their own," said David A. Moss, an economic historian at Harvard University. "If a person gets on a financial treadmill, they can declare bankruptcy and have what can't be paid discharged. But that would change with this bill."
....
But consumer advocates, many academics and some judges and court officials argue that the bill would sharply reduce the number of Americans able to file for bankruptcy, even in instances where doing so would buy them time to repay their debts.

The critics argue that people unable to file would be at the mercy of increasingly aggressive efforts by lenders — especially credit card companies — to raise fees and boost collections.

But at least half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses, even by those "covered" by insurance. This punitive bill was written by the credit card companies who are already quite profitable, thank you very much. This is a license for usuary.

Brave New World

I know I promised you some book reviews as part of my self-renewal program and one just walked in. It's in the NYT, and it is by Michiko Kakutani, who seems to specialize in hit jobs. I'm not going to judge this book by his review, therefore, but it is a book I will definitely pick up and take a look at next time I'm in Borders or Barnes. I've been reading the history of epidemiology since I discovered the discipline when I read "The Germ Hunters" in the fourth grade.

A Death-Bringer That Ushered in a New Way of Life
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

Published: March 4, 2005

The images could have come from one of Hieronymus Bosch's nightmarish paintings of hell: dusty roads filled with frightened refugees, many of them already ill, covered in boils and coughing up blood; dogs and rats running wild on deserted streets; fields littered with the dead bodies of cows and sheep; plague pits filled with the corpses of men, women and children; survivors pointing accusatory fingers at Jews and Muslims and outsiders; others flagellating themselves in an effort to appease the heavens.

This was Europe in the 1340's, the decade of the advent of the Black Death, and in his harrowing new book, "The Great Mortality," John Kelly gives the reader a ferocious, pictorial account of the horrific ravages of that plague. He notes that on the Foster scale, a kind of Richter scale of human disaster, "the medieval plague is the second greatest catastrophe in the human record," with only World War II producing "more death, physical destruction, and emotional suffering." He also points out that a cold war-era study by the United States Atomic Energy Commission found that the Black Death comes closest to mimicking all out nuclear war "in its geographical extent, abruptness of onset and scale of casualties."

The author of several earlier books on science and medicine, Mr. Kelly was led to tackle the subject of the Black Death by the current AIDS epidemic and by the specter of newly emerging diseases like Ebola fever, Marburg, SARS and avian flu. His book is heavily indebted to the work of earlier scholars, including such classic works as Johan Huizinga's "Waning of the Middle Ages" and more recent books like Norman F. Cantor's "In the Wake of the Plague" (2001) and David Herlihy's "Black Death and the Transformation of the West" (1997).

As a result, this volume's chief interest lies in its overview and synthesis of more academic studies and Mr. Kelly's ability to turn his research into an emotionally accessible narrative, animated by wrenchingly vivid tableaus and alarming first-hand witness accounts - accounts that give the reader an intimate sense of day-to-day life in medieval Europe and the terrible ways in which the Black Death disrupted it.

Mr. Kelly recounts stories of individual heroism - people risking their own lives to minister to the ill or ensure a dignified burial - but his book is filled with far more incidents of cowardice, infamy and inhumanity: pogroms instituted against the Jews, who were scapegoated for spreading the plague; the abdication of responsibility on the part of many officials and community leaders; and the exploitation of the needy and grief-stricken by con men and opportunists.

When it comes to analyzing reactions to the Black Death, Mr. Kelly tends to come up with conclusions that are predictable, reductive or obvious - or all three. For instance, he argues that different countries reacted differently to the plague: that civic order tended to prevail in England, while "the Black Death seems to have stirred some netherworld deep within the turbulent Teutonic soul," giving birth to pogroms in Central Europe and the bizarre phenomenon of the Flagellants in Germany. He also makes the sweeping and largely unsubstantiated claim that "London's moral state" fell precipitously in the wake of the plague, and that "a similar moral decline was evident elsewhere in postplague Europe and the Middle East."

On the tsunami of other social changes wrought by the Black Death, Mr. Kelly is more persuasive - if decidedly derivative, echoing what many scholars before him have observed. In many parts of Europe, the plague claimed a third of the population (in some areas, as much as 60 percent), and this devastating loss of life, Mr. Kelly argues, "may have saved Europe from an indefinite future of subsistence existence," breaking the Malthusian deadlock of rapid demographic growth and rapidly diminishing resources.

That "tsunami of social changes" is one of the things that worry me about the impending avian influenza pandemic. We simply haven't thought this through and there is certainly no planning for it. Consider: during the 1918 flu pandemic, the hospitals were stacked with the sick, dying and the bodies of the dead. Our hospitals are already full. Where will the morbidly ill be housed?

Truth from the North

I read this earlier today on one of the Canada blogs (yes, I'm scouring the world for information for you) but had forgotten about it until I received a gentle nudge from our friend pogge a few minutes ago. This is shear enjoyment, a bagatelle for you this evening as I empty my box of tissues. Lord, my nose is sore.

Missile Counter-Attack
Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in
"An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice"

Thu Mar 3 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.
Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.
Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.
Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

In friendship,

Lloyd Axworthy

Lloyd Axworthy is president of the
University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister.

Return of Simon Legree

No Exit

Your credit card companies might be a week away from rewriting federal law so that you will never, ever, get out of debt.

By Heather McGhee

Your credit card companies are hoping that a bill they’ve been pushing since the Clinton years will finally slide through Congress this week. From there it would land on the desk of a President whose signature they’ve ensured with over $1.4 million in campaign contributions. It’s the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act” (S.256 & H.R.685) and it would allow banks to keep chasing you if you went completely broke, even after you’ve filed for bankruptcy and ruined your credit—indefinitely.

So, do you see why if you’ve got a credit card (or 4 or 5), you’ve got a problem with this bill? Senators are debating S.256 every day this week. It’s an uphill battle, even Democrats who denounce Bush’s handling of the economy are on the record in support of this bill. Perhaps that’s because the industry has been Washington’s single largest contributor for years. Or perhaps it’s because they haven’t heard from you.

This is one to contact your senators on. This is an unbelievably bad bill for the ordinary consumer. With salaries flat or falling these days, most of us are credit stretched. This bill brings back usury as public policy.

Just when I think I've seen it all, Bushco comes up with something even more outrageous.

Crashing the CIA

Goss Calls CIA Chief's Duties Overwhelming

Associated Press
Thursday, March 3, 2005; Page A26

SIMI VALLEY, Calif., March 2 -- In a rare public appearance Wednesday, CIA Director Porter J. Goss said he is overwhelmed by the many duties of his job, including devoting five hours a day to preparing for and delivering intelligence briefings to President Bush.

"The jobs I'm being asked to do, the five hats that I wear, are too much for this mortal," Goss said. "I'm a little amazed at the workload."

Goss praised Bush's choice for the new job of national intelligence director, John D. Negroponte. The career diplomat, who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate, will take over several of the duties assigned to Goss, including the presidential briefing.

Goss, who has made few public comments beyond congressional testimony, also said the legislation creating the position of director of national intelligence left him unclear on his future role.

"It's got a huge amount of ambiguity in it. I don't know by law what my direct relationship is with John Negroponte," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or other top officials involved with intelligence, he said.

Incredible. Now he ADMITS he's incompetent. This is stunning consistency. Really leaves you feeling safer, dunnit?

Sneezing Open Thread

Light blogging ahead, Bumpers. I have a rotten cold and will probably spend some time today napping.

Poverty, Poverty Knocks

Capitol Hill Journal
Putting a Brave Faith on GOP 'Compassion'
Bush Abstains, Democrats Jeer and Santorum Carries Torch for Charities

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 3, 2005; Page A05

Give Sen. Rick Santorum credit for persistence: The Pennsylvania Republican soldiers on with President Bush's "compassion" agenda even when Bush himself retreats.

In his speech Tuesday about his efforts to help the poor, Bush made no mention of what was once the cornerstone of his "compassionate conservatism" -- an $85 billion tax break to spur charitable giving. This was no oversight: Bush's new budget drops the whole idea.

But there yesterday morning in the Mansfield Room off the Senate floor was the No. 3 Senate Republican, politely disagreeing with his president. "We're going to work on the charitable giving package and try to do the best we can," said Santorum, who aides say would spend about $25 billion on the program Bush has dropped.

Likewise, Santorum disagreed with Bush's plan for a $2 billion, 35 percent cut in Community Development Block Grants. "I don't support the dramatic reduction of the program," the senator said, surrounded by leaders of religious charities assembled in front of a "Fighting Poverty" backdrop.

Santorum's courage won him the immediate and predictable ridicule of Democrats. At a news conference two hours later by Senate opposition leaders, Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa) huffed that "Republicans got moxie" to claim they care about the poor. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) tried to one-up Santorum by calling for a vote Thursday on raising the minimum wage.

Unless and until the minimum wage is raised, any talk of relieving poverty is just hot air. Period. Santorum knows theater.

Behold, one came to him and said, "Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"
He said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
He said to him, "Which ones?"
Jesus said, "'You shall not murder.' 'You shall not commit adultery.' 'You shall not steal.' 'You shall not offer false testimony.' 'Honor your father and mother.' And, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
The young man said to him, "All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?"
Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sad, for he was one who had great possessions. Jesus said to his disciples, "Most certainly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."
When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
Looking at them, Jesus said, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Then Peter answered, "Behold, we have left everything, and followed you. What then will we have?"
Jesus said to them, "Most certainly I tell you that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, will receive one hundred times, and will inherit eternal life. But many will be last who are first; and first who are last.

Mt. 19:16-30

Growing Things

The Push Is on for Good Clean Dirt

By ANNE RAVER

Published: March 3, 2005

I'D been an organic gardener for years before I really looked at pictures of soil under a high-powered microscope.

Mites were feeding on springtails. Fungi were swirling like strands of spaghetti around plant roots. Nematodes shaped like torpedoes were grazing on fungi. Everything was eating everything else.

Fascinated, I began talking to soil scientists and compost experts, learning that plants are not just taking up nutrients. They are exuding carbohydrates through their roots, feeding the bacteria and fungi that in turn break down nitrogen, protein, phosphorus and many other elements into forms the plant can absorb. For the first time, I began to grasp what I was dealing with in the soil of my garden: an underground city more complex than the infrastructure that powers Manhattan.

For the last 30 years, even as organic gardening grew from a fringe movement to a mainstream pastime, the science of soil has remained the province of microbiologists and plant pathologists, along with a few gardening geeks. But now there is an increasing awareness, even among casual gardeners, that soil has a huge effect on the success, or failure, of their gardens, and those gardeners are spending more money every year on soil-enriching products. Between 1999 and 2003, according to the National Gardening Association, the number of American households buying organic fertilizer nearly tripled, to 11.7 million.

And as everyday gardeners face a growing profusion of such products - from Peruvian seabird guano to compost tea brewing machines, from micorrhizal fungi to beneficial nematodes - they are trying to figure out which ones are valuable, which are little better than snake oil, and whether their gardens need any of them. For those who have found the right mix, the rewards can be considerable. "I had some pretty sad geraniums, but now the whole greenhouse is full of color," said Carol Magadini, a garden designer in Mendham, N.J., who has started using a compost tea on the plants. And after she started using a natural fertilizer on her moonflowers, which were "iffy," she said, "they had 50 blooms a night."

I'll be using the same practices I've used for 30 years, a combination of organic and microfeed. They work pretty well in my small patch, but I don't have anyone to feed but me. Those of you who feed the market gardens of the world are free to critique

Shoeleather

Does the opposition ever learn? Bugman could be driven out if the Dems ever learn to play politics.

DeLay Moves To Protect His Political Base Back in Texas

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 3, 2005; Page A01

SUGAR LAND, Tex. -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), struggling to protect his Washington power base as legal and ethical issues fester, also has to watch his back on the home front.

Though the change has received little notice, DeLay's strength in his suburban Houston congressional district of strip malls and housing developments has eroded considerably -- forcing him to renew his focus on protecting his seat.

DeLay garnered 55 percent of the vote in the November election against a relatively unknown Democrat, an unusually modest showing for a veteran House member who is one of the most powerful politicians in Washington. Some Republican officials and DeLay supporters worry that with President Bush absent from the top of the ticket next year, liberal interest groups might target the conservative majority leader and spend millions of dollars on campaign ads to try to defeat him.

The outspoken and hard-charging DeLay, 58, got into trouble last year when the House ethics committee admonished him three times and three of his Texas associates were indicted by a Travis County grand jury on charges of illegal fundraising related to a controversial redistricting plan that DeLay helped push through the state legislature. Testimony began this week in a civil case brought in Austin by five Democrats who allege that a political action committee begun by DeLay improperly spent about $600,000 in corporate contributions to implement the plan and unseat them.

House Republican leaders responded to DeLay's problems by changing rules and tightening their control over the ethics committee, to discourage future cases against DeLay and other GOP members. National conservative groups rallied to DeLay's side. DeLay has denied any wrongdoing.

But DeLay now has to worry about "Texas 22," the congressional district he has represented for the past 21 years in the U.S. House. Ironically, the Texas redistricting plan he engineered over strong Democratic objections drained some vital Republican support and will make it tougher for him to win reelection next year. DeLay took 60 percent of the vote in 2000 and 63 percent in 2002.

In 2003, at DeLay's behest, the Texas legislature redrew the state's congressional lines without waiting for the next census (in 2010), the customary occasion for redistricting. With the new districts, which still face court challenges, Texas elected five additional Republicans to the U.S. House last November, accounting for all of the party's net gain.

DeLay's new district wound up several percentage points less Republican than his previous one, and it has a substantial and growing Asian American population.

Dems with a ground organization could have a field day with this. Isn't it about damn time? Hit the pavement, Dems.

Rule of Law

CIA's Detention Practices Largely Secret
In One Illustration of Lack of Scrutiny, Afghan Prisoner's Death Took Two Years to Come to Light

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 3, 2005; Page A01

In November 2002, a newly minted CIA case officer in charge of a secret prison just north of Kabul allegedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young Afghan detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets, according to four U.S. government officials aware of the case.

The Afghan guards -- paid by the CIA and working under CIA supervision in an abandoned warehouse code-named the Salt Pit -- dragged their captive around on the concrete floor, bruising and scraping his skin, before putting him in his cell, two of the officials said.

As night fell, so, predictably, did the temperature.

By morning, the Afghan man had frozen to death.

After a quick autopsy by a CIA medic -- "hypothermia" was listed as the cause of death -- the guards buried the Afghan, who was in his twenties, in an unmarked, unacknowledged cemetery used by Afghan forces, officials said. The captive's family has never been notified; his remains have never been returned for burial. He is on no one's registry of captives, not even as a "ghost detainee," the term for CIA captives held in military prisons but not registered on the books, they said.

"He just disappeared from the face of the earth," said one U.S. government official with knowledge of the case.

The CIA case officer, meanwhile, has been promoted, two of the officials said, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk about the matter. The case is under investigation by the CIA inspector general.

The fact that the Salt Pit case has remained secret for more than two years reflects how little is known about the CIA's treatment of detainees and its handling of allegations of abuse. The public airing of abuse at Abu Ghraib prompted the Pentagon to undertake and release scathing reports about conduct by military personnel, to revise rules for handling prisoners, and to prosecute soldiers accused of wrongdoing. There has been no comparable public scrutiny of the CIA, whose operations and briefings to Congress are kept classified by the administration.

Thirty-three military workers have been court-martialed and an additional 55 received reprimands for their mishandling of detainees, according to the Defense Department. One CIA contractor has been charged with a crime related to allegations of detainee abuse. David A. Passaro is on trial in federal court in North Carolina, facing four assault charges in connection with the death of Abdul Wali, a prisoner who died while at a U.S. military firebase in Afghanistan in June 2003.

The CIA's inspector general is investigating at least half a dozen allegations of serious abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including two previously reported deaths in Iraq, one in Afghanistan and the death at the Salt Pit, U.S. officials said.

The National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg may be fine that this shit is being carried out in our name, but I'm not. War should mean greater transparency, not less. This makes me mad as hell.

If all those freakin' magnetic yellow ribbons popping up on the cars in my parking lot to "support the troops" means backing this crap, I'm not on board. I invite my critics to re-read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I wonder if Jonah has read them recently.

Dreaming Spring

I just had an email back and forth with SME in Seattle on the CSA post below which took us off into our own gardens and plans for the growing season this year. Recently I got an email from paradox extolling the glories of his rose gardens (gotta love those Californians and their year around gardening season.) I'm sitting here with gridded paper tonight, playing with arrangements for my little patio back yard and the little space outside my privacy fence next to the back stairs that serves as my only sunny space for growing herbs. In the next over suburb is one of the great herb greenhouses of the east coast, so I have plenty of resources. I grow a lot of peppers and chiles to make my own hot sauces (I do love spicy food) and for Thai and Indian cooking. Thai basil and hot Thai chiles will always be part of the herb garden, and I like to grow a mint each year to go with iced tea.

Has this ground hog extended winter sent you off into dreams of planting? By the end of February I'm usually nearly half-mad to get out and start planting things, but our last freeze date in this zone is April 15, so I'm left with gridded paper and dreams for another six weeks.

This year, I'm reviving the hanging hummingbird garden in front of the big kitchen window--the last two years have been too crazy to keep the garden and the feeder properly cleaned and watered, but I'm going to make the attempt this year. Having hummers around is just too darn much fun to miss. And they keep the crows away. Any of you who have put together a successful hummer garden are invited to add your plant mix to the comments.

Gardeners and herbalists, cooks and diners, this post is for you.

Fruits and Vegetables

I have a farmer's market only a block away during the summer months, so this might be overkill, but I find the CSA movement very attractive. Google "community supported agriculture" and your location to see what is available in your area.

A Weekly Taste of the Harvest

Wednesday, March 2, 2005; Page F05

More than a dozen farms in the Washington area have Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs. Customers pay an annual membership fee in advance to cover farm production costs. The farmer provides a "share" of the harvest: a box of seasonal produce, on a weekly basis, for a predetermined number of weeks. Most are certified organic or use organic farming methods. Crops and prices vary from farm to farm. Vegetables are picked up at the farm or at a delivery site. Some farms deliver.

It's best to shop around for a farm that meets your needs. The following farms are still accepting customers for the 2005 season. The areas they serve are listed along with their phone numbers, e-mail addresses and Web sites, if available. To read about the program, go to: www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/csa.

Non-US readers: Do your governments support a program like this. If so, your neighbors would probably like to know about it.

Changing the Tone

John Emerson of Seeing the Forest is taking a break. The comments thread on that post is interesting, a number of readers taking John to task for needing a break. I'll not do that because I really, really understand. For the last four or five days, I've been having a real hard time caring about all the news and analysis I'm reading. The news is all so bad that I simply get worn down by it: physically, morally, emotionally and spiritually fatigued.

So, for at least the next couple of days, I'm going to add some recipes and essays on food and cooking and probably some book reviews (if I can find any decent ones, which is no small problem itself) of things that I think I'd like to read; if I like them, there is at least a chance you will, too. I'm also taking the afternoon off tomorrow to actually have a little social life: I'm meeting MaxSpeak's Max Sawicky for a drink after some errands downtown. I've been a nearly daily reader of Max's since I discovered the lefty blogosphere and we've collaborated on a few things but have never met in meatspace. It's time to remedy that. And it's time to get off the Net for a few hours of human contact.

I realized this morning that I was going to have to make a change: I overslept this morning, something which virtually never happens. As you know, I'm usually up and on the site by 5 or 6 at the latest each morning. I'm deeply tired from spending 12-18 hours a day on the site, 7 days a week. It's time for a little creative renewal.

Rovian Fictions

Bush Stresses Support for 'Faith-Based' Agenda

By Peter Baker and Alan Cooperman
Washington post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 2, 2005; Page A04

President Bush renewed his commitment yesterday to promoting social welfare through religious groups with taxpayer funds, calling on a balky Congress to lift its "roadblocks" and implicitly rebutting critics who say he has shirked his "compassion agenda."

Setting out a second-term blueprint for advancing his faith-based initiative, Bush highlighted legislation, heading to the House floor today, that would allow religious charities to hire and fire based on religious beliefs even while receiving federal funding. If Congress does not follow his lead, Bush warned that he would try to circumvent lawmakers by using executive powers.

Bush aides hope the president's appearance at a White House conference on faith-based and community initiatives at a time when he has been consumed with Social Security and foreign policy would help quell the discontent among religious supporters who feel abandoned. Two weeks ago, a former Bush aide published a rare attack on the White House, complaining that the president's "promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact" in part because of "minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda."

Without directly referring to that criticism, Bush assured an audience of community and religious leaders gathered at a Washington hotel yesterday that his dedication to the cause remains undiminished. "I am here to talk about my continued commitment to faith-based and community groups because I'm firmly committed to making sure every American can realize the promise of our country," he said.

To make the point, the White House released data showing that 600 religious organizations obtained federal grants for the first time in the past two years and that faith-based groups now receive 10 percent of available social service grants, compared with 8 percent a year earlier. Overall, the White House said, the federal government gave $2 billion last year to religious groups running homeless shelters, drug treatment clinics and other social programs.

If the evangelicals buy this can of whoosh, they aren't as smart as I think they are. This is pandering to the base while actually pursuing the corporatist agenda. Karl is tossing them a few bones to keep them quiet. As usual, it is all mirrors and blue smoke.

Put a Fork in It

Social Security Vote May Be Delayed
Critics Could Force Proposal to Change

By Mike Allen and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 2, 2005; Page A01

The Senate's top Republican said yesterday that President Bush's bid to restructure Social Security may have to wait until next year and might not involve the individual accounts the White House has been pushing hard.

The comments of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), made as GOP lawmakers returned from a week of trying to sell the plan to voters, underscored the challenge facing the White House, especially in light of unbroken Democratic opposition.

"In terms of whether it will be a week, a month, six months or a year, as to when we bring something to the floor, it's just too early," Frist said.

Frist is reluctant to put off a vote until 2006, when lawmakers will be focused on midterm congressional elections and the atmosphere will be more politically charged, aides said. But with polls showing widespread skepticism of Bush's proposal and some Republicans opposed to the approach, GOP leaders signaled yesterday that they may have no choice but to put off action.

That a politician as closely allied to the White House as Frist would even raise the possibility of putting off the proposal until next year -- possibly dooming it -- was an unexpected blow to the administration.

This gets Lieberman off the hook. This is as good as dead, so I wonder if the steely eyed rocket man is going to continue his promotional tour?

It would be nice if the Dems would now turn their attention to defeating the lousy bankruptcy "reform" bill.

Up is Down

U.S. GENERAL:
Insurgency is fading
By MARK MAZZETTI
Washington Post
Telephone Credit Union

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. general in the Middle East said Tuesday that the failure of insurgents to prevent millions of Iraqis from voting in January shows that the violent guerrilla movement is fizzling.

Citing estimates from field commanders, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, told a Senate committee that approximately 3,500 insurgents were involved in planning and executing the roughly 300 attacks on election day, Jan. 30.

"They threw their whole force at us, we think, and yet they were unable to disrupt the elections because people wanted to vote," Abizaid said before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Abizaid's comments came a day after one of the most lethal attacks by insurgents since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003. A suicide car bomb in the central town of Hillah Monday killed more than 100 people, including dozens of recruits for Iraq's fledgling security forces.

After the Senate hearing, one military official said that commanders arrived at the 3,500 figure by estimating both the insurgent "trigger pullers" and the support cells required to carry out all of the election day attacks. The number of attacks on election day was five times normal, and at least 44 people died in suicide bombings and mortar strikes.

The general's comments about the state of Iraq's insurgency were more optimistic than those offered two weeks ago by CIA Director Porter J. Goss and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, who spoke before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

At that hearing, Jacoby said that insurgency had grown "in size and complexity" over the previous year. He said attacks had grown from about 25 a day to more than 60.

Some Pentagon officials also have speculated that insurgent leaders may have decided to bench the bulk of their forces on Jan. 30 to minimize the risk of capture by thousands of U.S.-led and Iraqi troops walking the streets and manning polling stations. A three-day holiday was declared and the country was under virtual lockdown, with private vehicle traffic prohibited, borders sealed and the Baghdad airport closed.

Abizaid did not put a firm estimate on the size of Iraq's insurgency, but senior U.S. officials have distanced themselves from a recent Iraqi intelligence report that estimated 40,000 hard-core insurgents and 200,000 part-time fighters had taken up arms."

Those of you who are old enough to remember Viet Nam will be hearing weird echoes this morning.

Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy

Hold the Confetti

There's a seductive theory making the rounds that an expanded "Bush Doctrine" has planted seeds of democracy in the Middle East that are already bearing fruit. Editorial pages and columnists are making the argument that the invasion of Iraq, despite its messy aftermath, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein have led inexorably to elections in Arab lands. All aboard the freedom train!

Not so fast.

The Jan. 30 election for Iraq's transitional national assembly was certainly an impressive display of courage: Men and women voted in the face of death threats from insurgents who had proved their ability to kill almost at will. But ballots have not yet diminished the carnage. This week a suicide bomber blew up his car in a crowded market south of Baghdad, killing as many as 125 people in the single bloodiest attack in the country since the fall of Hussein nearly two years ago. The grind of violence, directed equally at the Shiite majority and anyone who might aid the U.S.-backed government, may still trigger a civil war or other disintegration of Iraq.

*

Dynastic Power

Even without such violence, elections do not equal freedom. Egypt has had elections of sorts for more than 40 years; fat lot of good they've done. After the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat, his successor, Hosni Mubarak, offered Egyptians the chance to vote yes or no every six years on his dictatorial rule. On Saturday, Mubarak announced a major change: Other candidates can run against him in this year's presidential election. But because Mubarak has ruled under a state of emergency since taking power and was vague about what qualifications might be required of candidates, Egyptians understandably doubt the change will mean much. Most believe Mubarak will use it to smooth the way for the eventual accession of his son, Gamal, to the presidency.

In Syria, Bashar Assad took over after the 29-year presidential term of his father, Hafez Assad, ended with the senior Assad's death in June 2000. The son has kept 16,000 Syrian troops in next-door Lebanon. The assassination two weeks ago of a Lebanese leader critical of Syria sparked massive street protests and demands from the United States, France and other nations that the soldiers be withdrawn. On Monday, Lebanon's pro-Syrian government quit. Though this is held by the sunny-siders to be another proof of their thesis, Syria's undisguised power of arms in Lebanon suggests much less than a march to peaceful independence.

A dynasty also holds strong in Saudi Arabia, where the ruling house of Saud put its name on the country. Friends of the ruling royals billed their February elections as a historic step forward, yet women were not allowed to vote and those elected will hold only half the seats on municipal councils. The royal family will maintain control. The government has not stopped imprisoning political foes or sentencing them to hundreds of lashes, administered in public as a clear warning to those who might follow.

In his Feb. 2 State of the Union speech, President Bush called on Saudi Arabia and Egypt to loosen the reins on their people. He demanded that Syria "end all support for terror and open the door to freedom." Those passages expanded the early Bush Doctrine that nations harboring terrorists, a la Afghanistan, would be considered as guilty as the terrorists themselves and subject to regime change. The new codicil could be interpreted as: Spread liberty throughout the world, especially in the Middle East, or else.

Presidential harangues can encourage change, as elections in places like the Palestinian territories, Afghanistan and Iraq can inspire citizens elsewhere to ask: Why not us? Even Syria offered an olive branch Sunday, announcing that it had handed over a half brother of Hussein to Iraq. It didn't say how long it had held the wanted man or when it gave him up, and the hand-over did not forestall Israel's charge that Syria was linked to a Palestinian suicide bombing that killed five Israelis in Tel Aviv on Friday.

The stirrings in the Middle East are encouraging, but a few months do not a revolution make. Nor is it clear how much power rulers will share; it may have to be taken from below rather than granted from above. Washington thus has competing interests: Stability, which would be wrecked by popular uprisings, keeps the oil flowing and assures the continued help of authoritarian governments in the region for the global war on terrorism.

Fans of regime change and overnight democracy will brand this a worse-case scenario. It's not. It realistically reflects the region's history.

Given that half of our own population doesn't vote, it's a little hard to say that the blessings of liberty are all that meaningful. The most usual excuse given for not voting here in the States is that it "doesn't matter." If half of this country doesn't think that democracy matters, perhaps convincing those in other countries might be a wee bit difficult.

Time to Update

I venture into the template code with great shyness. I'm not good at this and I know it. But I know I have to get better at it, and the only way is to do it. If the site renders badly after I've gone and left my dirty fingerprints, let me know which browser and which build (version) you are using. Mistakes tend to show up differently in different browsers and knowing what you are using will help me find the mistake I made.

Coming to the blogroll this weekend, Rox Cooper's amazing Rox Populi. She's funny, she's local, she's deep and we're negotiating a date for lunch or a drink. You don't see this level of wisdom in a mere child very often (and Rox, if that photo banner is of you, I could work up some serious hate.)

Way, way overdue is a link to Pen-Elayne on the Web whom I've been reading since before I blogged and who has linked to me, like, forever.

Mick Arran's new site, Arran's Alley is worth my time. Spectacular, well written rants.

Another AmStreet colleague, Echidne of the Snakes, a minor goddess, has become a major daily read.

Finally, there is Paula's House of Toast, a site which isn't categorigizable. She combines the personal, the political and the metaphysical in ways which I simply find compelling. She'll go under "Deeper Connections" on the blogroll, because she joins the rest of the crew there who are looking for ever better questions, rather than answers.

Hubbert's Peak

Peak oil ("Hubbert's Peak") has been discussed on this site before. Tonight at pogge's place I found frightening new news from Al Jazeerah:

Expert says Saudi oil may have peaked
By Adam Porter

Tuesday 22 February 2005, 6:46 Makka Time, 3:46 GMT

As oil prices remain above $45 a barrel, a major market mover has cast a worrying future prediction.

Energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, of Simmons & Co International, has been outspoken in his warnings about peak oil before. His new statement is his strongest yet, "we may have already passed peak oil".

The subject of peak oil, the point at which the world's finite supply of oil begins to decline, is a hot topic in the industry.

Arguments are commonplace over whether it will happen at all, when it will happen or whether it has already happened. Simmons, a Republican adviser to the Bush-Cheney energy plan, believes it "is the world's number one problem, far more serious than global warming".

Saudi oil peaking?

Speaking exclusively to Aljazeera, Simmons came out with a statement that, if proven true over time, could herald by far the biggest energy crisis mankind has known.

"If Saudi Arabia have damaged their fields, accidentally or not, by overproducing them, then we may have already passed peak oil. Iran has certainly peaked, there is no way on Earth they can ever get back to their production of six million barrels per day (mbpd)."

Simmons believes Iran's oil
production has also peaked
The technical term for damaging an oilfield by overproduction is rate sensitivity. In other words, if the oil is pulled out of the ground too fast, it damages the fragile geological structure of the field. This can make as much as 80% of the oil within the field unextractable. Of course, at the moment, virtually every producer is at full tilt. The most important among them is Saudi Arabia; their Gharwar field is the world's biggest.

One of the first hints that Simmons got over possible Saudi Arabian overproduction was from researching an obscure US Senate committee meeting in 1974.

Field damage

"A whistleblower in Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's oil company, was first reported in The Washington Post. He had claimed that Aramco had been overproducing the giant Gharwar field and that if they did not slow down, they would damage the reservoirs.

"The committee, which swore witnesses in under oath, produced over 1400 pages of documentation on the subject, it included some specialist advice which advised cutting Saudi production to 4mbpd to maintain production levels."

Currently, at near maximum production, Saudi Arabia is producing about 9mbpd, though recently they claimed they could potentially produce 12mbpd or even as much as 20mbpd. A claim Simmons called "pie in the sky".

"The faster you pull a reservoir, the faster you pull out all of the easy-to-produce oil," explains Simmons. "What happens is that you lose massive amounts of what the oil industry calls oil-left-behind still inside the field. These issues, as you can see, have been known about for years."

I was unfamiliar with "peak oil" and Hubbert's Peak when I began researching the piece above. It was an entirely new field of study for me. One of the things I learned in the research is that most of those who ascribe to the classical theories of peak oil believe that we won't know we've past the peak for a year or two after it occurs. For that reason, my blood ran cold when I read pogge's blogpost.

For an education, go to Google and type "Hubbert's Peak" and get a fright. The experts felt it could happen as soon as 2007. There is no reason to believe that the date isn't transposible with 2004.

Consistently Incompetent

Ex-Chief of Hewlett Seen as Candidate to Head World Bank
By ELIZABETH BECKER

Published: March 1, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 1 - Carleton S. Fiorina, who lost her job as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard two weeks ago, has emerged as a strong candidate to become the next president of the World Bank, according to an official in the Bush administration.

Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, is also under serious consideration, the official said, but Mr. Wolfowitz is expected to release a statement later today saying that he has been asked to stay at the Pentagon.

Robert B. Zoellick, until last week the United States trade representative, had been the White House's candidate to replace James D. Wolfensohn, the current bank president, who completes his second five-year term in May.

But when Mr. Zoellick was tapped to become the new deputy secretary of state, the White House reopened the bidding.

Remaining on the short list of contenders are Randall L. Tobias, the global AIDS coordinator for the White House and former vice chairman of AT&T; International and head of Eli Lilly & Company; and John Taylor, the top-ranking official at the Treasury Department for international affairs. Peter McPherson, the former president of Michigan State University, is no longer one of the leading candidates.

The official familiar with the list would discuss the names only on background because of the administration's disdain for any leaks of prospective candidates.

The White House refused to comment publicly on Ms. Fiorina, or on the candidacy of Mr. Wolfowitz, which was reported in The Financial Times today.

"We don't comment or speculate on personnel decisions," said Tony Fratto, the deputy spokesman for the Treasury Department, which is officially in charge of the appointment.

Mr. Wolfowitz is currently a powerful deputy at the Pentagon, and any departure by him could have a huge impact on military policy.

Ms. Fiorina, the sole woman on the list, carries far less political baggage. As the head of a Fortune 500 company for six years, she gained managerial experience that puts her near the top of the list for the World Bank job. She is considered a dynamic leader with a crisp command of the facts, although she was blamed for Hewlett-Packard's failure to match the performance of such rival computer makers as I.B.M. and Dell.

Carly Fiorina got bounced from HP because she ruined the company's competativeness with a bunch of management gimmicks, the kind of stuff that they teach in business schools that changes from fad to fad. Wolfowitz is, of course, the author of our effed up Iraq policy. This is so typical of the nearly perfect incompetence of Bushco.

I worked for Jim Wolfensohn when he chaired the Kennedy Center. The guy is a sociopath, but he genuinely cares about development and poverty and has tried to do something about it. Bushco is rewarding friends rather than trying to get something done.

Estrogen Month

Elayne Riggs (of Pen-Elayne on the Web and long-time commentor here), has decided the March is Estrogen Month and is holding a contest to identify female blogs that deserve more traffic and links. You can go over there and nominate your favorite blogs, rather like the Koufax awards. I'd be much obliged if you'd click over there and, er, mention this humble blog. I've been extremely frustrated with trying to get my traffic to grow: it's been pretty static since the election.

(Link fixed.)

Snowy North

Canadian blogger The Gracchi offers us the northern perspective on Condi cancelling her trip to Canada to protest Canada's refusal to sign on to the Missile Defense Plan at the Blogs Canada E-Group:

Officials indicate that the meeting may be re-scheduled at a later date, but the simple fact of the matter is that an international meeting has been cancelled because of a disagreement over policy. And it's not as if America cancelled a meeting with some nation with which they have no relationship. Our two countries share the largest undefended border in the world, the same electrical grid and we are vital economic partners.

If you're friend snubs you it's understandable to be upset, but grownups don't take their toys and storm home. That's for children...and Republican Presidents.

Angle of Attack

A Bill Bankrupt Of Pity

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, March 1, 2005; Page A15

You could make a case for this bankruptcy bill if it were narrowly focused on those who truly abuse the system. Instead, the bill sweeps away protections for worthy and unworthy creditors alike. This will make it much tougher for those who fall on hard times to escape burdens they confront through little fault of their own.

Listen to Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and one of the most learned and powerful critics of the bill. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early February, Warren argued that the proposal "assumes that everyone is in bankruptcy for the same reason -- too much unnecessary spending."

What does that mean in practice? "A family driven to bankruptcy by the increased costs of caring for an elderly parent with Alzheimer's disease is treated the same as someone who maxed out his credit cards at a casino," Warren said. "A person who had a heart attack is treated the same as someone who had a spending spree at the shopping mall. A mother who works two jobs and who cannot manage the prescription drugs needed for a child with diabetes is treated the same as someone who charged a bunch of credit cards with only a vague intent to repay."

Warren is the author of a study that ought to change our view of bankruptcy and -- if enough senators have the guts to stand up to the credit card lobby -- force a more-considered approach to the problem.

Warren and her colleagues surveyed Americans in bankruptcy courts and found that half said illness or medical bills drove them to bankruptcy. The "bigger surprise," as Warren has said, is that three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had health insurance. Which is to say that even those who have insurance are often not sufficiently covered to protect them from financial disaster.

Consider the double whammy that this Congress could end up imposing. At a moment when the president is proposing cuts in Medicaid and when many Americans are losing part or all of their health insurance coverage, citizens who fall into medical-financial hell are being told it will be much harder for them to win relief from bankruptcy judges.
....
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) is trying to rally Democrats against a bill that he says would make too many citizens "indebted servants to the credit card companies." He plans to propose a series of amendments that broaden relief for those facing bankruptcy primarily for medical reasons, as well as for men and women in military service.

He would also try to balance the bill with tougher provisions to fight corporate abuses of the bankruptcy laws. "Often, the very insiders whose misconduct brought the company down do very well in bankruptcy," Kennedy says. "The people who get hurt the worst are the employees, past and present." Some of whom, by the way, are forced into bankruptcy.

There is a great misunderstanding that the key fight in our politics is between friends and foes of capitalism. In fact, the battle is among supporters of capitalism who disagree over what rules should govern the market. Should the rules favor the wealthy and the connected, or should they give some protection to those who fall into distress and would like nothing more than a chance to rejoin the ownership society? If Democrats sell out on the bankruptcy bill, they will, alas, show which side they're on.

Dionne nails it and this might be the first time the Post op-ed page notices the motives behind the Repubs actions: creation of a serf society

Supposed to be Satire

Snow News Is Good News: A Blizzard of TV Coverage

Tuesday, March 1, 2005; Page C01

To: All ActionEyewitnessTVNews

From: News director

Subj: Snow coverage.

Folks: Just wanted to offer a few reminders about how our TV station covers snowfall in the Washington area:

1. We mobilize "full team coverage" whenever snow is predicted, is falling or has fallen. We also do it if snow might fall. Or if it happens to be January, February or March.

2. Backdrop graphics: Before it snows, the sign on screen should read, "Snow on the Way?" If we get 1 to 2 inches, it's "Snow Emergency!" Three to 7 inches: "Killer Storm!" Anything more, we run with "Avalanches, Cannibalism Feared."

3. Anchors: Use dramatic verbs, even for minimal snow totals. Bad: "The region received a dusting today." Better: "Snow paralyzed/pummeled/blasted/buried the Washington area today." Better still: "Armageddon."

4. Reporting locales: The overpass. The city salt hut. The big-box hardware store. The supermarket (remember: Any market in which three shoppers are buying milk, bread or toilet paper simultaneously constitutes "panic buying").

5. Interview subjects: Anyone out walking or driving in snow. (Required question: "You're walking/driving . . . in THIS weather?") Cute kids home from school. The first guy to buy a shovel at Home Depot.

6. Best winter-weather footage, in terms of ratings: a) Car/bus failing to climb icy hill; b) More impressive snowfall somewhere else; c) Two cars skidding into each other (will accept video of this occurring ANYWHERE in U.S.).

7. Advice to weather forecasters: "Snow" is a terribly overused word. Instead, use weathery sounding words such as "precip" or "wintry mix." When in doubt, fall back on "the white stuff."

8. As soon as the snow stops, go with new graphic: "Winter Wonderland!"

And never admit we got the forecast wrong. Bundle up!

This IS what the local channels were doing all day Sunday.

Half-Excellent News

High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 Posted: 11:50 AM EST (1650 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote.

This is another arena in which we stand judged in the eyes of the world: we are the only nation in the industrial west which still allows the death penalty. If Kennedy wants to cite international standards, then the court should have the death penalty illegal in toto.

Another Facet of the Ownership Society

This morning, Revere of Effect Measure brings a link to The New Yorker: Online Only interview with author Michael Specter, who penned this week's print-only article on avian influenza (most of it will be old news to Bumpers.) Revere points out this exchange, which I hadn't thought of before:

Is anyone in charge of global health? Are there treaties, for instance, that can force a government to take action regarding the health of its citizens?

Nobody is in charge—and, in an age of global illness, we desperately need that to change. The World Health Organization is filled with dedicated officials and smart scientists. But they are not a police agency, and they have very few powers to enforce their edicts or to convince political leaders to follow their suggestions. As a result, politics often enters into decisions that should be based solely on trying to decide what is best for the public health.

As Revere points out, "You could change "global health" to US public health and WHO to CDC in the last response above and not have to change anything else."

Bidden or Unbidden

Irony really is dead.

U.S. Cites Array of Rights Abuses by the Iraqi Government in 2004
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune

Published: March 1, 2005

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The State Department on Monday detailed an array of human rights abuses last year by the Iraqi government, including torture, rape and illegal detentions by police officers and functionaries of the interim administration that took power in June.

In the Bush administration's bluntest description of human rights transgressions by the American-supported government, the report said the Iraqis "generally respected human rights, but serious problems remained" as the government and American-led foreign forces fought a violent insurgency. It cited "reports of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, impunity, poor prison conditions - particularly in pretrial detention facilities - and arbitrary arrest and detention."

The lengthy discussion came in a chapter on Iraq in the department's annual report on human rights, which pointedly criticized not only countries that had been found chronically deficient, like North Korea, Syria and Iran, but also some close American allies, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The allegations of abuses by an Iraqi government installed by the United States and still heavily influenced by it provided an unusual element to the larger report. The report did not address incidents in Iraq in which Americans were involved, like the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, which came to light in 2004.

A senior State Department official said the criticism of Iraq was in keeping with the administration's approach. "What it shows is that we don't look the other way," the official said. "There are countries we support and that are friends, and when they have practices that don't meet international standards, we don't hesitate to call a spade a spade."

The official said Iraqi officials accepted that there had been problems and were correcting their practices. "The Iraqis are not in denial on this," the official added.

The report emphasized the larger accomplishments of the Iraqi people, as symbolized by the successful elections of Jan. 30. But it gave extensive details about complaints that the government had violated human rights provisions of the transitional law put in place by the United States and the Iraqi Governing Council shortly after the 2003 invasion.

These included reports that police officers in Basra were involved in killing 10 Baath Party members; that the police in Baghdad arrested, interrogated and killed 12 kidnappers of three police officers on Oct. 16, 2004, and that corruption was a problem at every level of government.

Susie Madrak is right: failure to acknowledge one's dark side means projecting it on others.

Open Mind, Open Heart

One of the many things I find astonishing and wonderful about the lefty Web is the willingness of experts to share their expertise for free. When I first encountered the 'sphere a few years back, one of the biggest holes in my own education was in economics, a subject which made my eyes glaze over going back to high school. Brad deLong and Max Sawicky (with whom I'm having a drink on Thursday) have changed all that and turned the field into one of lively conversation and debate. Thanks to scholarly bloggers, there are a whole world of things I know a whole lot more about than I did a few years ago. Even more important, thanks to those scholarly bloggers, there are whole new fields of study I find vital and interesting. To find my world enlarging at mid-life is a wonderful thing.

This morning, my teacher is Juan Cole, professor of mid-east history at the University of Michigan. With a mouse click, I arrive at the introductory lecture on the history of Lebanon in the 20th century. Juan has his detractors, but I find this incredible: he freely shares his scholarship of the area in a lengthy essay this morning. And, once again, I'm treated to an education that would cost me thousands elsewhere. Thank you Dr. Cole. Click on the link and expand your mind.

What's Wrong With Bill Gates

What's Wrong With American High Schools
# The approaches of 50 years ago cannot work today, Bill Gates says.

By Bill Gates, Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, is co-founder of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

All of these schools are organized around three powerful principles: Ensure that all students are given a challenging curriculum that prepares them for college or work; that their courses clearly relate to their lives and goals; and that they are surrounded by adults who push them to achieve.

This kind of change is never easy. But I believe there are three ways that political and business leaders at every level can help build momentum for change in our schools.

First, declare that all students must graduate from high school ready for college, work and citizenship. Every politician and chief executive in the country should speak up for the belief that children need to take courses that prepare them for college.

Second, publish the data that measure our progress toward that goal. We already have some data that show us the extent of the problem. But we need to know more: What percentage of students are dropping out? What percentage are graduating? And this data must be broken down by race and income.

Finally, every state should commit to turning around failing schools and opening new ones. When the students don't learn, the school must change. Every state needs a strong intervention strategy to improve struggling schools.

If we keep the system as it is, millions of children will never get a chance to fulfill their promise because of their ZIP Code, their skin color or their parents' income. That is offensive to our values.

Every kid can graduate ready for college. Every kid should have the chance.

Let's redesign our schools to make it happen.

Actually, Bill, I'm an educator and the approaches of the past (minus computers and M$ software) resulted in higher literacy rates than we have today. What are you doing to address that? Literacy rates in the US are now at the lowest level since the beginnings of colonization. Not every kid has the native intelligence to go to college, but nearly everyone has the ability to read and fill out a job application.

There is a subtle discrimination behind this article and ones like it that I find even more troubling: is it true that it takes a college education to find a decent job? I don't think so. Are we now expecting colleges to give the broad liberal arts education that people used to get in secondary school? Yup. If the field of knowledge had broadened so much that now took 16 years to get the education that used to be gained in 12, I'd buy it, but my students simply don't know what I did at the same place in my education career.