THE MTV CASINO

(thump...thump...sound of Wayne's head slowly beating against the wall. He turns to the gentleman next to him, whose head is also slowly beating against the wall. Wayne asks, "Professor De Long, why, oh why, can't we have a better MTV News press corps?")

via MTV news

The Social Security Debate: The Basics You Need To Know

04.22.2005

If you're scared off by talk of this hot-button issue, check out this rundown.

If the mere mention of the words "Social Security" has you scratching your head or reaching for that bottle of extra-strength aspirin, fear not. Here's a quick rundown on what you need to know about the current system and what President Bush's reform plan could mean for you.

Now, Social Security isn't an exact science, but with all the numbers and hoopla flying back and forth, it's easy to get lost in the shuffle — so let's all get cozy around the card table and see what this could mean as far as the tricky hand you've been dealt:

Social Security, as it exists now, is a numbers game. As soon as you get a job, you have to pay taxes. Some of those taxes, roughly 6 percent, are your "ante" into the Social Security pot. Your ante then goes toward paying out to workers once they retire, though some goes into a trust at the U.S. Treasury.

While this leaves you empty-handed at the moment, eventually you'll be getting paid those same benefits once you retire — maybe. The big concern right now lies in whether the government will have enough funds to cash you out once that time comes.

The Social Security system, designed in the 1930s, works like a charm if there are more youngsters than oldsters. But these days, with folks living longer and having fewer kids than in the '30s, there are more people — notably retiring baby boomers — leaving the table with the cash and less new players sitting down to contribute. Eventually, the system will be paying out more than it's taking in, which could leave you up a creek without a paddle when it comes time to get your money. The Congressional Budget Office claims the pot will be dry by 2052, though other people have come up with varying estimates.

President Bush's wants to let each person create their own private pot. It goes something like this: You would put less of your tax money into the communal pot, depositing it instead into a private retirement account. Money from these accounts could then be put toward a slew of government-approved investment options, but while those investments may bring the big bucks rolling in, they could also leave you high and dry. Critics say workers should not be able to gamble away what should be a guaranteed source of income for retirees, while supporters say it's your money, so do what you want with it.

Emphases mine. And apologies to the good Professor. This metaphor - Life is a Casino - is pervasive and corrosive to our society. Perhaps a theologian could explain why the notion that every transaction is a "bet" tends to undermine our sense of fair play and community. If the metaphor were true, then only Bush's base, the elite high-rollers, who get "comped in" with loads of perks and bennies, will "win". The rest of us are only "marks", suckers whose every penny earned or hoped for ends up on a table where gambling addicts are playing "Texas Hold 'Em".

Ancient Discoveries

My wife forwarded me the article from the Independent when it first came out but the folks at www.sciscoop.com have a summary of the article and some other related ones. Salon also ran a similar article here

Many scientists and historians have teamed up to use some of the advancements in digital scanning and infrared technologies to look at scortched parchments that were discovered in the ruins of old Greek and Roman communities. The article comments that this process has already been used on some remains from Herculaneum, the other city destroyed by Versuvius in 79 CE and that they found a lot of interesting things in those scrolls.

Well, now they are being used on the papyrus from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt and who knows what they will find? Perhaps more of some of the lost Gospels? Apparently, part of one of the lost plays of Sophocles has been read within this stack of parchments!

Just something cheery to think about on a beautiful Saturday night.

Eruption

Attacks Kill 10 as Violence Continues in Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 30, 2005

Filed at 12:53 p.m. ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Insurgents launched fresh attacks in Baghdad and northern Iraq on Saturday, killing at least 10 Iraqis and wounding more than 30, officials said, in a second day of violence aimed at shaking the country's newly formed government.

At a meeting of Iraq's neighbors in Turkey, meanwhile, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned the violence was ''not solely the concern of the Iraqis but ours as well.''

Some of the worst attacks occurred in the capital, still reeling from Friday's onslaught in which at least 17 bombs exploded in Iraq, killing 50 people, including three U.S. soldiers.

A suicide car bomb exploded Saturday near the offices of the National Dialogue Council, a coalition of 10 Sunni Arab factions that had been negotiating for a stake in Iraq's new Shiite-dominated government. The blast killed two Iraqi civilians and wounded 18, police said.

Another suicide car bomb targeting an Iraqi army patrol exploded Saturday near the Mohammad Rasoul Allah Mosque in eastern Baghdad, killing two Iraqi women and a girl, and seriously wounding four soldiers, police Lt. Col. Ahmed Abboud Effait said.

Two Iraqis -- a policeman and a former official in Saddam Hussein's Baath Party -- also died in shootings Saturday in Baghdad, police said.

U.S. officials had hoped Iraq's new government, which was approved Thursday and takes office on Tuesday, would help dent support for the militants within the Sunni Arab minority that dominated under Saddam and is believed to be driving the insurgency.

However, the lineup of Cabinet ministers named by Prime Minister-designate Ibrahim al-Jaafari after months of political wrangling excluded Sunnis from meaningful positions and left the key defense and oil ministries in temporary hands.

Insurgents also launched three separate attacks Saturday in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, killing three Iraqis and wounding eight, police 1st Lt. Mahmoud Arif Yahya said.

A suicide car bomb exploded near a police patrol, killing a woman who was passing by and wounding four policemen, said Dr. Abdul Sattar Ramadhan al-Khalidi at Mosul's Jimhouri Hospital.

Elsewhere in the city, a roadside bomb missed its police patrol target, killing two Iraqi civilians and wounding two others and gunmen opened fire on a separate police patrol, wounding two officers, al-Khalidi said.

And on CNN, wall to wall on the reluctant bride.

An Unserious Age

This fish is a no-brainer
If we were serious about living consciously, we'd stop eating it
By WAYNE ROBERT

Peak fish will come to define this decade as much as peak oil.

That's why, in my opinion, eating fish from Southern oceans by First World residents should now be deemed unethical, in much the same way that wearing furs, eating factory-raised livestock, snacking on chocolate harvested by slaves or sipping unfair-trade coffee and tea are considered below the grade for people who strive to live consciously.

A just-released UN document tells us that a quarter of commercial fish species are at risk. This is optimistic compared to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's estimate of half, and the World Resources Institute's of three-quarters.

The evidence is now overwhelming that the 1950s cliché for the "underdeveloped" world had it all wrong. Back then, policy wonks warned against giving a man enough fish to eat for a day and favoured teaching the beachcomber to fish and thereby feed himself for a lifetime.

We now know that teaching Third World peoples industrial fishing led to $27 billion in yearly fish exports to First World countries. At the same time, Third Worlders saw their consumption of fish, their traditional source of protein and essential healthy fats, decline by half.
....
The 1990s were supposed to be the turnaround decade, when such problems could be managed. The human turnaround didn't happen, and now the problems will manage us.

Here's a sample of what to look for as fishing issues "go critical." Denied access to fish protein by exports to Northern countries, hungry Africans and Asians increasingly hunt for "bush meat." This is driving some animal species to extinction.

Since the species most easily captured for human consumption are "higher" up the evolutionary ladder (monkeys, apes and other charismatic mega-fauna that attract conservationist passion), they're more likely to have diseases that can cross the species barrier. Witness AIDS, Ebola and SARS.

Global warming, which raises the acid level of oceans and bleaches coral reefs that nurse fish species, is another example of a "negative feedback loop" that builds on itself to intensify the crisis. This kind of loopy crisis will likely hit fisheries before it hits other systems that humans can bring themselves to take an interest in. That's why working on fish habitats is such a good chance to practise the future.

The UN document, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report, raises the possibility of "culture, ethics and values" that might cause eaters to "reduce demand for degraded ecosystem services."

This means we in wealthy Canada should leave this source of protein for the impoverished people of the South. A huge amount of the sea creatures we eat, after all, are theirs.

Until we get our eco priorities in order in our waterways and stop environmentally compromising aquaculture, we should get our EFAs from hemp, flax and borage oils.

A brain disease got humans in this fishy mess by devising industrial fisheries and colonized trading systems. Other human capacities, such as ethics, may get us out.

Given that there is an active and growing outbreak of the extremely lethal Marburg virus in Africa, this should be getting a lot more attention than it is. But, no. We get wall to wall coverage of one bride with cold feet.

Extrapolation

The Machinery of Mendacity

Commentary: Given a public policy debate, conservatives have decided to forgo real debate entirely -- to adopt instead a radical course: denying reality itself.

By Russ Rymer

May/June 2005 Issue

In his article “Some Like It Hot,” Chris Mooney pinpoints a critical distinction in the battle over global warming. The think tanks, crank scientists, and pseudo-journalists who dispute climate change with the aid of millions of corporate dollars are not just arguing the economics of the problem, as they sometimes pretend. That activity, engaging in a thoughtful discussion of politics and priorities, the wisdom of one or another course of action, could be considered honorable regardless of which side one argued from. Rather, the mouthpieces are ignobly contesting the very science itself, using any tactic, any slipshod fiction, that might throw doubt into the public mind and so deflect the dictates of hard fact. In other words, given a public policy debate, conservatives have decided to forgo real debate entirely—to adopt instead a radical course: denying reality itself.

Mooney’s article and its companion pieces on the global warming wars, by Bill McKibben and Ross Gelbspan, appear under the banner “Climate of Denial.” That banner could be stretched over other stories in this issue as well. It would certainly describe the experience of Dr. David Graham of the Food and Drug Administration (“The Side Effects of Truth”). Hired to investigate the dangers of drugs on the market, Graham was punished for doing his job too well. When he spotted the deadly effects of Vioxx, his superiors chose to muzzle the messenger instead of affronting the pharmaceutical industry.

More generally, “Climate of Denial” could serve as a title for the political times we live in. On issue after issue, this administration and this Congress continue to pursue policies that cannot stand the test of honest debate, and require a rewriting of basic facts. The dangers to the country are evident in myriad policy debacles: the illegal, expensive, and unnecessary war we were led into under false pretenses; the “reform” of Social Security based on the unfounded assertion that the program is in “crisis” (and pursued by ideologues pretending their goal is not to end it entirely); the economy plundered by fiscal improvidence; the budget busted by grand theft billed as tax relief.

The danger is graver because the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, “news” networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line—this is the machinery of mendacity. Its products are not the cherry-tree lies of embarrassed schoolboys covering up their misdemeanors, but the agitprop of a political ascendancy that considers the manipulation of truth an essential tool. There’s no embarrassment in it. The same partisans who clucked loudly during their impeachment of President Clinton about the need for a government so transparent that the most private details of a president’s personal life should be open to inspection have wrapped such a dense cloak of secrecy around the current president that even the roster of his administration’s meetings is withheld from the citizenry, under the expressed claim that the White House can’t do what needs doing if the American people are allowed to know what that is. The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one’s enemies.

What are the ramifications for the left and the right?

For its part, much of the left has spent the months since last November (really, it has been spending years) wallowing in insecure self-inspection; the Democratic Party has invited everyone from linguists to preachers to exorcise the internal flaw that could explain its ineffectuality. Party leaders might heed the formulation of W.B. Yeats in his poem “To a Friend Whose Work Has Come to Nothing”: “For how can you compete / Being honour bred, with one / Who, were it proved he lies / Were neither shamed in his own / Nor in his neighbours’ eyes?” The Democrats need to recognize that their biggest internal problem may be their inability to size up their external one. Simply put, they have an unscrupulous antagonist.

As I was writing this week, I had C-Span on TV behind me (it's at my back as I face the monitor.) I have now gotten to the point where I don't need to look at the screen to know who is speaking: I know all of the Senate by voice and much of the House (this is not a good thing.) All of the hearings and floor sessions I listened to were marked by the Repubs stretching the truth so far that there wasn't any way to answer their arguments. You can't have a civil discussion when you have separate sets of facts. That's why conversation has become so hectored and partisan: we can't agree on what the facts are. Rush and the rightwing talkers just make things up.

It's Still the Economy, Stupid

Stephen Roach (from Seoul) leads the morning:

Here in Asia (again), they have only one question for me: How’s the American consumer? For a region lacking in self-sustaining internal demand, this concern is understandable. More than ever, externally led Asian economies remain a levered play on US consumption. Therein lies Asia’s biggest pitfall: If the American consumer ever fades, Asia could be headed for serious trouble. The coming US current account adjustment offers good reason to worry about just such a possibility.

The good news is that Asia has learned many of the painful lessons of the wrenching 1997-98 financial crisis. In general, the region has done a very good job of repairing its balance sheets and reorienting some of its most misguided policies. Specifically, that means current account deficits have given way to surpluses. Foreign exchange reserves have been rebuilt in an especially dramatic fashion. Currency pegs -- with a few obvious exceptions -- have been replaced by more flexible foreign exchange mechanisms. Moreover, reliance on the most fragile form of external funding -- the “hit money” of short-term capital inflows -- has been sharply reduced. And for some countries, there has been meaningful progress on the corporate restructuring and labor market reform fronts. All of these developments are unequivocally good news for what I believe is still the most dynamic region of the global economy.

The bad news is that the next crisis is never like the last one. As a result, it follows that backward-looking fixes are no guarantee that new and different problems will be avoided in the future. For Asia, that remains the biggest challenge of all. Particularly worrisome in that regard is the region’s unbalanced growth model -- an externally led macro dynamic that is still lacking in meaningful support from internal private consumption. What that means, of course, is that the region is highly vulnerable to a growth shortfall in foreign economies. In a US-centric global economy, that spells one thing -- over-reliance on the over-extended American consumer. Should the US consumer cave -- a distinct possibility in the event of a long overdue current account adjustment -- Asia would be toast.

And I'll let Billmon fill in the blanks:

Brad DeLong has already converted the Argentine-scenario into a simple model. And if you want to know the mathematical equation for "well and truly fucked," you can find [it] here.

Thank you, I'll be spending the rest of the weekend looking for cheerful things, doing a little gardening and dodging the severe thunderstorms which appear to be on tap for the next two days. I'm starting to think that a power outage might be a blessing. I'm going to hit the used book store down the street and might even read something which isn't imaged in pixels. That would be a good thing.

Showing the Flag

Via Juan Cole:

Flag-draped coffin photos released
Pentagon had resisted showing images of casualties

Joe Garofoli, Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writers

Friday, April 29, 2005

The Pentagon released 360 previously secret photos Thursday of the flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq, reigniting a debate over the effect of such images on support for the war at home.

Pictures of flag-draped coffins massed in planes and on ships have been rare since the Defense Department banned the media in 1991 from photographing caskets while the military is transporting them home from combat.

The policy has become increasingly controversial during the Iraq war, with opponents accusing the White House of suppressing images of dead soldiers to avoid eroding public support for the conflict.

"This war has been so sanitized to the public," said Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, whose son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq and who has become an outspoken critic of the war. "There are huge segments of the American public that don't even have to think about the war if they don't want to."

The Pentagon released the pictures Thursday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by University of Delaware journalism Professor Ralph Begleiter, who said the images were public record. He had sought all military photographs of caskets carrying the remains of military personnel taken since the United States attacked Afghanistan in October 2001.

The photos released Thursday depict ceremonial scenes of U.S. troops carrying the coffins of their fallen comrades. Most don't list a date or location, and the Pentagon blacked out the faces of soldiers around the caskets in many of the pictures for privacy reasons.

Begleiter said in an interview that he hadn't sought the photos to make a point politically.

"We spend a lot of effort trying to get to the cost of the war," he said. "But we haven't shown images of the most valuable resource we have -- the people we lost in the war."

Anti-war advocates hoped that the photos would "bring the cost of the war home," said Bill Dobbs, an organizer with United for Peace and Justice, a national umbrella organization of 1,000 community and religious groups that oppose the conflict. "Getting information like this out there helps."

But others questioned whether showing the photos would make any difference in public support.

"People who oppose the war will say the photos will support their position, and those who support (the Bush administration's position) will say the photos are a tribute to fallen heroes," said Phil Kipper, chairman of the broadcast department at San Francisco State University.

"That the Pentagon was forced to give these up under some duress shows that the Pentagon, and presumably the White House, didn't want this information to get out," Kipper said.

But because many of the photos depict largely ceremonial scenes, Kipper said, "I'm not sure of what the impact will be on people who are in the middle. It's not like the Vietnam War, where you had photos of hundreds of body bags lined up on the tarmac.

"It all depends how many times these photos will be shown over and over on the news," Kipper said.

I deeply respect what Begleiter (yes, that's an old CNN name, back before it became an all infotainment network) has done but doubt, at this stage in the war, that it will matter. Since we don't see dead Iraqis, these photos are just another piece of the video game which is Iraqwar and we don't seem to care how many of us or them get killed.

I found it interesting that, at the press conference the other night, some journo asked W how long we'll be staying in Iraq. I'd like to point out to said member of the press that we have never left Germany, Japan or Korea, and you might take your cue from there. Silly journos never read history.

The Future

Bush Plan Aids Poor, Squeezes the Rest

7:32 PM PDT, April 29, 2005
By Peter G. Gosselin, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — As the full dimensions of President Bush's Social Security plan come into view, so too does a broader vision of reducing most Americans' reliance on government programs that long have helped see them through economic difficulties.

Although Bush devoted most of his prime-time news conference Thursday to describing how he would expand Social Security protections, virtually all of his improvements would be aimed at the bottom one-third of American wage earners. The remaining two-thirds or so would see their future Social Security benefits curtailed, a reduction that they'd be encouraged to make up by saving and investing of their own.

The president often portrays his effort as simply trying to accommodate reality; funds to pay full Social Security benefits are expected to run out toward the middle of the century. But his approach also corresponds to a long-held conservative goal of reducing Washington's influence in the lives of ordinary Americans and to the aim of Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove to realign the nation along Republican principles.

"What you're going to see is an effort to scale back middle-class entitlements that many people do not need and to become more focused on the anti-poverty aspects of these programs," said Michael Tanner, a senior official with the small-government Cato Institute in Washington.

"We're going to tell non-poor Americans that they are going to have to save more on their own and not depend on a transfer from government," he said.

Bush has sought to use this targeted approach at least once before, in proposing to create a Medicare drug benefit that would go almost exclusively to poor Americans rather than to all seniors. Although Congress ultimately approved a benefit that did go to seniors generally, the new law includes substantial assistance for those with incomes under 150 percent of poverty -- or $14,355 for an individual.

Tanner and others predicted that Bush would pursue similar targeted tactics if he tackles Medicare's overall costs, which many policy analysts describe as a looming crisis that, in contrast to Social Security, needs immediate attention.

"Bush and the Republican leadership are committed to seeing universal programs like Social Security and Medicare turned into means-tested, welfare programs," said Harvard health policy authority Robert Blendon.

The killer is in the last graf. Right now, SS is insurance, a risk pool that we all pay into and receive a benefit from. It is not welfare. Turning it into welfare is the next step to killing it.

This is the radical right's agenda, ending state sponsored anything for you and me.

In Context

My, this is going well.

Wave of Attacks in Iraq Kill 40 and Wound 100
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
and ROBERT F. WORTH

Published: April 30, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 29 - Insurgents determined to destabilize Iraq's new government executed a devastating series of coordinated attacks on Iraqi forces on Friday, detonating 12 car bombs across greater Baghdad and striking military targets throughout Iraq. At least 40 people were killed and more than 100 others wounded.

The attacks, a direct challenge to the new Shiite-dominated government that was formed Thursday, were aimed at Iraqi police officers and national guardsmen at their bases and traveling in convoys in northern and southern Baghdad and in Madaen, 15 miles southeast of the capital. At least 23 Iraqi policemen and troops were killed. Some reports put the total death toll at as many as 50 people.

Later in the day, other car bomb attacks struck Diyarah, 20 miles south of Baghdad, killing two American soldiers, and near Taji, just north of Baghdad, where a bomber killed one American soldier and wounded two others. One American soldier was also killed and four were wounded by a homemade bomb Thursday night near Hawija, 150 miles north of Baghdad.

The strikes Friday morning came after a momentous and tumultuous day for the new government. After three months of delays that American officials said gave new strength to the insurgency, the dominant Shiite alliance won approval for a new cabinet - but not before angering Sunni political leaders who said they had been shortchanged.

The Shiites also pledged a housecleaning of former Baathists from the government, a move sure to drive a deeper wedge between Shiites and Sunnis, who conduct most insurgent activity. Sunni Arabs, who dominated Iraq's Baathist government under Saddam Hussein, largely boycotted elections in January.

With Friday's attacks, at least 480 Iraqi policemen and troops have been killed by insurgents in the last two months, according to tallies by Western security contractors, Iraqi officials and local news accounts.

Followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, claimed responsibility in Internet statements for a dozen attacks on Friday. The group also released an 18-minute recording said to be of Mr. Zarqawi that offered reassurances to insurgent fighters, warned Iraqis against negotiating peace with the United States and cited Pentagon data on shortfalls in American military recruiting.

In the streets, the insurgents once again turned to an increasingly common tactic: multiple bombings intended to kill not only the victims of the initial blast but also security forces and bystanders who rush to the aid of the wounded.

The strikes began just after 8 a.m. on Friday, the weekly holy day for most Iraqis, with four car bombs in the Adhamiya neighborhood, a heavily Sunni district in northern Baghdad that is home to many former Baathists. The attacks killed 7 Iraqi national guardsmen, 2 policemen and 4 civilians, and wounded 50 others, an Interior Ministry official said. Other reports said as many as 20 people had been killed there.

The first Adhamiya bomb went off next to a popular restaurant as an Iraqi convoy drove by, the police said. The blast propelled the crumpled remains of the bomber's vehicle more than 100 feet, where the police at the scene pointed to parts of the suicide bomber's body lodged in the charred wreckage.

Talk to Me

I know I've asked this question before, but I'm going to ask it again and it is time to do something about it. I'm going to be live blogging the American Constitutional Society/Center for American Progress event next Tuesday on judicial nominations, filibusters and the nuclear option for Judging the Future. It's time to get off the dime. I need a machine loaded with Win2K Pro, a, b, and g compliant. The HD doesn't need to be ginormous because I'm only working with text, but I'd like a fairly fast machine, 256K Ram, 16 bit. What's been your experience with the machines? Price matters, by the way, but I'm willing to pay decent coin for something that's demonstrably rugged, I'd like to get a few years out of it. Tell me the good, the bad and the ugly in your experience. I'd rather shop over the counter than by mail or website. I have a Microcenter near by and I'd rather not use Comp USA (they treat their employees abominably, and train them poorly.) Have any of you got a service experience with a vendor to share? That stuff matters. Also, I need a laser printer, now that they've come down in price. Any recommendations? Do the Lex Marks hold up? This won't be a high volume operation, but I am writing a book.

Also, I need a new cell phone plan. The Nokia I have is fine, but I need a grown up plan. All of the national plans are available here. I'd like to spend about 40 bucks a month for 5-700 minutes, free nights and weekends and no longdistance or roaming in North America (I do talk to Canada). Can you tell me what to look at and what to avoid?

Your suggestions gratefully accepted.

Give Him a Tickle

Dan Froomkin this afternoon at washingtonpost.com:

Following Up

In his first press conference after the 2004 election, an obviously pumped-up Bush instituted a "no follow-ups" rule. And a seemingly cowed press corps didn't object.

Last night, with Bush's approval ratings at an all time low, an apparently emboldened press corps followed up over and over again.

Right off the mark, Terence Hunt of the Associated Press followed up his own question about Bush's polling numbers and inability to get traction on his agenda. When Bush initially didn't touch on the issue of poll numbers, Hunt asked again.

Then David Gregory of NBC got into a bit of a back-and-forth with Bush, insisting on a response to his question on the role of faith in political debates.

When John Roberts of CBS asked if Bush was trying to suggest a relationship between passage of the energy bill and gas prices, Bush rambled on for a while, then tried to punt to Terry Moran of ABC News. But Roberts jumped right back in, trying to get Bush to clarify.

Then when it was Moran's turn, he asked about a new report that terrorist attacks are at an all time high. When Bush used that question to talk about how his strategy is "to stay on the offense," Moran followed up with the most aggressive question of the night: "So in the near-term you think there will be more attacks and more people dying?"

"I can't predict that," replied Bush, somewhat flummoxed.

By the time it got to David Sanger of the New York Times, whose question was about whether Bush could commit to withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from Iraq within a year, Bush had given up his resistance to follow ups. In fact, he invited one.

"Go ahead; I can see you've got a follow-up right there on the tip of your tongue," he said.

Bill Sammon of the Washington Times followed up on a question by Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times about who is responsible for all the partisan rancor in Washington.

And Olivier Knox of AFP followed up on a question from Michael Fletcher of The Washington Post, who had asked about Bush's policy towards North Korea.

"I want to make sure I understand your answer to Mike about North Korea," Knox said. "Did you mean to say that you will neither refer North Korea to the U.N. for sanctions, nor take military action unless you have the agreement of all the other partners abroad?"

Bush's intriguing reply: "No, I didn't speak about military -- I'm speaking about diplomatically."

So did it work? Did all the follow-ups force Bush to confront issues he danced around the first time he was asked?

Not a whole lot, no. But a little. It's progress.

Hopelessly optimistic, Dan. Bush can't give you specifics because he doesn't know them. He has people who do that for him.

Holy Distration Batman, it's the Trouble Alert!

Al-Zarqawi Wants Attacks on U.S. Troops, Tape Says

by Caroline Alexander
April 29, 2005

An audiotape purported to have been made by al-Qaeda-linked terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi urges militants to continue attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.

``I want your swords to drip with the blood of your enemy,'' the person said on the tape, which was posted on an Islamist Web site today. Referring to U.S. President George W. Bush, the person said, ``Bush, we will not stop until we avenge our dignity, until your army withdraws from our land.''

Al-Zarqawi's cell has taken responsibility for dozens of bombings, shootings and kidnappings in Iraq since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, including an attack last year that killed the head of the Iraqi Governing Council, Ezzedine Salim. The U.S. government is offering a $25 million reward for information leading to al-Zarqawi's capture.

At least 31 people were killed today and 100 others wounded in as many as a dozen car bombings and mortar attacks, one of the most violent days in terms of the numbers of car bombings since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, Agence France-Presse reported.

"We see these attacks as another desperate attempt by the terrorists to discredit the newly formed Iraqi government,'' U.S. military spokesman James Drake said in a statement. He confirmed several car bombings took place in the capital, without identifying their location or casualties.

``Zarqawi will continue to tell his insurgents to attack Americans as well as symbols of the Iraqi government,'' General William Webster, commander of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division, told Cable News Network today in response to the tape. ``We know he wants to step the attacks and it's out of desperation,'' Webster said, adding that ``it's only a matter of time before this insurgency dies out.''

I'm glad to see that our leaders have learned how to handle political setbacks well. Press conference doesn't go well? Pull out a terror alert! Presidential popularity at an all time low? Change the color code! Social Security Reform tanking like the Titanic in the last 30 minutes of the movie? Uncover new, but unverifiable terrorist threats.

I wish that this Administration would give me a reason to trust them on this...

The Climate

Lou Dobbs last night:

DOBBS: Senator Danforth, also a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote a recent op-ed in "The New York Times" which said, "As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the affect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around."

Senator Danforth most recently served, as I said, as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is also, by the way, an Episcopal minister and joining us tonight from St. Louis.

Good to have you with us.

JOHN DANFORTH, FMR. U.S. SENATOR: Thanks, Lou.

DOBBS: Let me turn to the issue that you raise with that one comment, not worrying about the impact of gays on the institution of marriage and worrying more about the federal deficit. At large, how far do you believe the party has moved from you philosophically, from when you were serving specifically in the U.S. Senate.

DANFORTH: I think the basics of Republican philosophy are the same as when was in the Senate, that is we tend to be physical conservatives. We tend to be concerned about the federal deficit. We want to keep taxes low. We want to keep the burden of federal regulations light. We believe in engaged foreign policy. We believe that the courts should be in the business of interpreting the law, not making it. These are standard beliefs of all Republicans, virtually.

But I think what's happened in very recent times there's become this religious bent to the Republican Party where we've gotten into an agenda items for religious conservatives. And I think that that's a mistake. I think basically the separation of church and state is served our country very well for more than 200 years. And we should honor that. And we're venturing from that.

DOBBS: It's a fundamental tenant, a fundamental tradition of this country and required by the constitution, in point of fact. But the idea that evangelical Christians, the far right in some instances, certainly, have taken control of the Republican Party or producing a terrific influence within it, how is that come to be in your judgment?

DANFORTH: Well, I think that some of the churches have become very well organized politically which is their right to do. I mean I don't -- I don't deny them that at all. I think that all people should be involved in politics.

But I think a lot of Republicans have viewed this as a whole new basis of political support. Some people who have not traditionally been Republicans now are supporting the Republican Party, so they think that this is something of a bonanza for our party.

But the problem is that it points us in a direction which I don't think is good for the country. And as a matter of fact in the long run I don't think it's good for the Republican Party, either.

DOBBS: Let me pose this to you. The Democrats for -- as a matter of history have appealed to black churches, to bring out the black vote in this country as you well know. Jews in this country, either through the synagogue or through their communities, have supported Democratic candidates and have made their views on religious grounds well known. Protestants in the south have always, until the last 40 years, aligned themselves with Democrats.

There is a great tradition in the country as well, though, for the involvement of religions and politics. How do you -- how do you separate those and weigh them?

DANFORTH: Well, there's a tradition that goes back to Biblical times, ever since Moses confronted Pharaoh of religious people confronting government, weighing in with government. It's a basic right of all Americans. It's certainly a right of religious people. It's a right of people who are involved with churches to be active participants in politics, they should be. I happen to be one of them.

I think the problem is not so much from the side of religion, but from the side of the politicians. It's when politicians present themselves as essentially the extension of a sectarian point of view that we get into trouble. I mean, it's one thing for politicians to weigh the input of religious people, but it's quite another thing to basically take an entire agenda and try to put it in legislative form.

And you know, a number of examples that I could give you but I think...

DOBBS: Please do.

DANFORTH: Yes. Well one example I think would be the Terri Schiavo case. Which there is a case where standard Republican views of deferring to states, of certainly not putting the federal courts and the business of trumping state courts, of not having some special sense of wisdom located in Congress and Washington, those traditional Republican positions were shoved aside because there was at least an apparent push from religious groups to -- for Congress to involve itself in that sad case of Terri Schiavo. That would be one example.

I think another example would be the move to amend the constitution with respect to gay marriage. Now, you can be for or against gay marriage. I think marriage is between a man and a woman myself, but to amend the constitution is a little bit far out. But it is taking on a religious agenda. And it's something that's unique to the Republican Party.

DOBBS: Jack Danforth, we are out of time. Senator Danforth, Ambassador Danforth, it's good to have you with us. And, if you will, convey my best to your lovely wife.

I nearly emailed Dobbs last night to tell him that there is a difference between a minister and a priest in the sacramental religious traditions. Danforth is a priest, not a minister. Priests are ordained, ministers are not. Gawd, it is such a pain that the damned media doesn't know anything about religion.

That said, the point Danforth makes is a good one: the Repubs have been hi-jacked by the far right wing of the evangelical movement and the Catholic neo-orthodox.

(Cross posted at Judging the Future.)

Distracting Ourselves to Death

Max debunks the CW on the SS shortfall. Ya know, he does this stuff for a living.

* The deterioration in the 75-year actuarial balance of Social Security that has occurred since 1983 has been caused overwhelmingly by economic developments, trends in disability incidence, and programmatic changes to Social Security. [Not the famous decline in the ratio of workers-to-retirees, a decline that was fully anticipated in 1983. -- MaxSpeak]

* Reversing the demographic change most commonly identified with placing strain on the Social Security system -- declining mortality rates -- would eliminate less than 5% of the current shortfall.

I'm listening to CNN and they bought all the lies, when a simple Google search would demonstrate how wrong they are. SS won't be "bankrupt" in 2041. They are the propaganda arm of the RNC.

I wonder how many hours of missing little girls we are going to get today? Do you ever wonder why we don't see hours devoted to missing little girls of color? It stands to reason that, on any given day, there must be one or two.

We'll get more crap rather than any reasoned analysis of what Bush said last night.

No Way Out

Bush sees progress in Iraq, sets no withdrawal time
29 Apr 2005 01:50:24 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Thursday that despite a violent insurgency, progress was being made in Iraq which just formed a new government, but he refused to set a timetable for withdrawing American troops.

"I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq," Bush said. "They saw a government form today. The Iraqi military is being trained by our military, and they're performing much better than the past."

Iraq formed its first democratically elected government in more than 50 years, ending three months of political stalemate that has hampered efforts to tackle violence.

Bush said he spoke to Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari earlier on Thursday and invited him to the United States.

"I told him I was proud of the fact that he's willing to stand up and lead. I told him I appreciate his courage and the courage of those who are willing to serve the Iraqi people in government," he said at an evening news conference.

The United States has reduced the number of troops in Iraq to 139,000 from 160,000, and the deployments have not stretched the armed forces too thin to operate elsewhere if needed, Bush said.

NO TIMETABLE

"I know there's a temptation to try to get me to lay out a timetable (for withdrawal)," Bush said. "I don't think it's wise for me to set out a timetable. All that will do is cause an enemy to adjust."

American troops would be pulled out of Iraq "as soon as possible," he said. "And as soon as possible depends upon the Iraqis being able to fight and do the job."

U.S. forces invaded Iraq in March 2003 and toppled Saddam Hussein, but a violent insurgency has taken hold that has killed American troops and Iraqi civilians.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, earlier this week said Iraq's insurgency remained undiminished in its capabilities in the past year despite U.S.-led efforts to crush it.

"There are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness and torture chambers and mass graves," Bush said.

But Bush said he told al-Jaafari that the United States had made a commitment to Iraq and would stand by it.

U.S. officials point to the democratic moves in Iraq as a sign that democracy can spread more broadly in the Middle East.

Um, the fact that there are armed young people from another country present in Iraq, who shoot up civilians on a regular basis and bomb cities flat, has nothing to do with the "insurgency?" The local resistance has a lot to hate and it has nothing to do with "freedom" or "democracy."

Wasn't it interesting that the so-called government formed their cabinet yesterday just in time for the W press conference?

New World Order

Beltway To Get Va. Toll Lanes
Two Private Firms Will Fund Widening To Ease Congestion

By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 29, 2005; Page A01

Construction of the first major expansion of the Capital Beltway in a generation could start as soon as next year, Virginia transportation officials said yesterday after signing a deal with two private firms to build toll lanes for a speedier ride on 14 miles of the chronically clogged highway.

The deal calls for adding two lanes in each direction of the Beltway, separated from other traffic, between Springfield and Georgetown Pike near the Maryland border. The high-occupancy toll -- or HOT -- lanes would be free for vehicles containing three or more people; other drivers would pay to use them. To keep the lanes from clogging, tolls would increase with the amount of traffic.

The state would not have to pay anything for the new lanes. The private companies would invest the entire $900 million cost of the project in exchange for all or part of the toll revenue.

"For drivers in Northern Virginia, it'll mean new capacity, which is something that has not been offered in a long time," said Transportation Commissioner Philip A. Shucet. "It means a new opportunity for HOV and transit, and it means a choice for drivers who want to pay for a faster commute."

The lanes represent the first step in what regional leaders hope is an extensive network of toll lanes across the region. Virginia officials are considering additional HOT lanes on parts of Interstates 95 and 395, and Maryland officials are exploring express toll lanes on the Beltway, I-270, the Baltimore Beltway and I-95 north of Baltimore.

There was a day when the roads were for everybody and we all paid a little bit for them. I guess now they are only for those who can afford to use them. This is a dramatic change in philosophy. Bushco is taking us into a privatized world for the priveleged. You and I can peer through the window and look at it, but getting the price of admission is a whole other problem.

Credit Where credit is due

I frequently dump on how the WaPo shades the news, so kudos where kudos are due - they nailed this morning's headline:

Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits

By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 29, 2005; Page A01

President Bush called on Congress last night to curtail future Social Security benefits for all but low-income retirees in an urgent new effort to address the popular program's shaky finances.
...
The freshest proposal concerned Social Security, which is projected to pay out $3.7 trillion more than it takes in over the next 75 years, but does not face immediate fiscal troubles. Bush, for the first time, endorsed the idea of progressive indexing, which reduces the rate of growth of benefits for most Americans while protecting those for low-income retirees.

Bush said his plan would ensure that "future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get." Benefits currently increase each year based on the annual growth of wages.

The White House, in documents released during the speech, says the Bush plan would take care of about 70 percent of the program's projected shortfall. Bush said he is open to other ideas, such as increasing the limit on income subject to the payroll tax that funds Social Security and raising the retirement age.

Despite opposition from Democrats and a lukewarm response from the public, he intensified his push for private accounts financed by a portion of a worker's payroll taxes. To pacify those worried about the risk associated with investment, the president, for the first time, said one of the investment options should be no-risk Treasury bonds.

His proposal to reduce guaranteed benefits for everyone but the working poor is designed to provide specific direction to Congress on how to shore up the system -- and pressure Democrats to support a plan that protects those earning the least.

The public "understands Social Security is headed for serious financial trouble, and they expect their leaders in Washington to address the problem," Bush said. The system, he added, is "on the path to bankruptcy" by 2041. Critics say that claim is misleading.

The Social Security Administration calculates that the system will deplete its reserve of Treasury bonds by 2041, after which it will be able to pay out in benefits only what it receives in taxes. But even then, benefits would be almost three-quarters what is currently promised, and considerably higher in inflation-adjusted terms than they are now. If nothing is done to Social Security, the system will be able to meet the president's promise to ensure that all seniors receive a benefit larger than current levels.

So Bush wants to go through a whole lot of rigamarole to guarantee that Social Security will do what it'll do anyway if nothing is done.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Here's the complete transcript of the press conference. I'll pull some gems out of that later.

Winning

23 Iraqis Are Killed in Attacks on Security Forces in Baghdad

By CHRISTINE HAUSER

Published: April 29, 2005

At least 23 people, including civilians and Iraqi forces, were killed and up to 93 people were wounded today in nine car bombs, just one day after the first fully and freely elected government in Iraq's history was approved.

Three car bombs exploded in the Al-Madain, killing nine people; two car bombs were detonated in the Al-Ghadeer area of Baghdad, killing one, and in Al-Adhamiya neighborhood 13 people were killed in four car bombs, according to the Interior Ministry. Of the dead, seven were civilians and the rest of the casualties were Iraqi forces, the ministry said.

The nine bombings suggested that fighters in Iraq were keeping up the momentum of an undiminished insurgency. The attacks sent a bloody reminder to the new government of the array of challenges it must tackle when it assumes power next week. In addition to fighting the insurgency, the new government must work to rebuild Iraqi cities and guide the effort to write a new constitution.

In the bombings today, the main Muslim day of worship, the Iraqi police and national guardsmen took the most casualties. Insurgents frequently attack the Iraqi forces, Iraq's government members and the foreign forces in the country. In addition, attacks on Shiite clergy and mosques have raised concerns of sectarian violence.

yankee doodle notes that yesterday's casualties look pretty much like most days for the last year and he counts the bodies:

Bring ‘em on: One US soldier killed, four wounded by car bomb near Hawija.

Bring ‘em on: One Iraqi soldier killed, two wounded by roadside bomb near Basra.

If you aren't reading Today in Iraq and Juan Cole every morning, well, you just don't have a clue.

Checking the Schedule

Sorry it was a bit thin here today, gang. I had to respond to the immediate emergency at Judging the Future as the horse trading (miniature horses) started on the Senate floor this afternoon. The Senate is in recess next week, so it should be quieter. At the other site, I have a sponsor who pays me to keep an eye on that stuff (disclosure once the contract is signed) and I have to go where my livelihood is.

Guest posters, employment means going to meetings and I have a few tomorrow, so the door is open for you all day. I'll be here through the weekend, but the guests are welcome to pop in if they have a minute and an issue.

Okay, in comments, your review of the press conference tonight. Mine: W's learned a few new tricks. Now, he just runs out the clock on the reporters. The event was at a new level of scripting, it was a stump speach because of the lack of substance in the reporter's follow-ups. The strategy here should be cooperation between the journos, pick a theme for each event and hammer it. Make the president look evasive. He was in complete control the entire evening, a virtuoso performance which made no points on substance. All he had were assertions, which is all he has ever had, without one fact to back up a word he said. The journos had no facts, either. It was an exchange of hot air on both sides and another sorry moment in the history of the American press corps.

Contrast this with the way Clinton would have had a bazillion statistics at the ready and be able to quote sources. He wasnn't a great president but he gave great press.

Time Heals?

On Abu Ghraib, the Big Shots Walk
By BOB HERBERT

Published: April 28, 2005

As Eric Schmitt wrote in The Times: "Barring new evidence, the inquiry by the Army's inspector general effectively closes the Army's book on whether the highest-ranking officers in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal should be held accountable for command failings described in past reviews."

This is the way atrocities are dealt with in Mr. Bush's world of war. The higher-ups responsible for training, supervising and disciplining the troops - in other words, the big shots who presided over a system that ran shamefully amok - escaped virtually unscathed.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib, which seemed mind-boggling at the time, turned out to be symptomatic of the torture, abuse and institutionalized injustice that have permeated the Bush administration's operations in its so-called war against terror. Euphemisms like rendition, coercive interrogation, sleep adjustment and waterboarding are now widely understood. Yes, Virginia, it is the policy of the United States to kidnap individuals and send them off to regimes skilled in the art of torture.

Two things are needed. First, a truly independent commission, along the lines of the bipartisan 9/11 panel, should be set up to thoroughly investigate U.S. interrogation and detention operations, and make recommendations to correct abuses.

Second, the U.S. government should make it clear, beyond any doubt, that torture and any other inhumane treatment of prisoners is wrong, just flat wrong, and will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

"In our contemporary world, torture is like the slave trade or piracy was to people in the 1790's," said Michael Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, which is suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the prisoner abuse issue. "Torture is a crime against mankind, against humanity. It's something that has to be absolutely prohibited."

If the president made it clear that men and women up and down the chain of command would be held responsible for the abuses that occur on their watch, the abuses would plummet. Instead, the message the administration has sent is that its demands for accountability will be limited to a few hapless, ill-trained grunts.

The big shots who presided over behavior that has shamed America in the eyes of the world can count on this president's embrace.

Bob, in a year's time, the "abuses of Abu Ghraib" seem no less mind boggling. And the lack of accountability is even more so.

More Bad News

Growth Pace of Economy Slowed in 1st Quarter
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 28, 2005

Filed at 10:42 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Buffeted by rising energy prices and weakened consumer and business spending, the economy grew at an annual rate of just 3.1 percent in the first quarter. It was the slowest pace of expansion in two years, offering fresh evidence that the economy has hit another ''soft patch.''

The latest reading on gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department on Thursday, showed that consumers and businesses turned cautious in their spending in the January-to-March quarter, a key factor in the slower economic growth. High energy prices and rising borrowing costs are causing Americans to tighten their belts a bit.

The first-quarter's GDP figure, down from a 3.8 percent pace logged in the final quarter of 2004, represents the economy's most sluggish showing since the first quarter of 2003, when economic activity expanded at an even more mediocre 1.9 percent rate.

GDP, the broadest barometer of the economy's health, measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

In second report Thursday, the number of new people signing up for unemployment benefits rose last week as businesses coped with rising costs. New claims rose by 21,000 to 320,000, the Labor Department said.

The newest snapshot of the economy disappointed economists. Before the report's release, they were forecasting a 3.5 percent growth rate for the first quarter.

That estimate marked a downgrade from just a few weeks ago when economists were predicting that business growth would clock in at a pace of 4 percent or better in the first quarter. But they scrambled to lower those forecasts in the wake of a spate of disappointing economic reports in recent weeks.

Those disappointing reports -- including retail sales, industrial production and big-ticket orders to factories -- along with Thursday's GDP figure, add to evidence that the economy hit a ''soft patch.'' That's the term Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan used last spring when economic growth slowed abruptly.

Economists also are lowering their estimates for growth in the current April-to-June quarter -- to around a 3 percent rate -- or possibly less.

Over at Angry Bear, economist Kash has put up a set of charts (helpful for me, I'm a visual learner) and comments:

Much of the growth in GDP over the past couple of years has been driven by investment spending, both by businesses and on housing. But business spending slowed markedly in the beginning of 2005, and residential investment spending has been considerably cooler in the past 3 quarters compared to 2003 and early 2004...

Finally, notice the US's continuing current account problem: imports, which are much larger than exports in the first place, continue to grow faster than exports. The effect of the weaker dollar on exports has yet to make itself felt...

One of the things I love about the Internets is that I can read a news story and then click around to find an expert who can provide context.

Truth Club

National security employees form whistleblower's coalition

By Chris Strohm
[email protected]

More than 50 former and current government officials from more than a dozen agencies have formed a new coalition to protect and support national security whistleblowers.

The group, called the National Security Whistleblower's Coalition, is planning a series of meetings with House and Senate lawmakers and a press conference on Thursday to put forward its proposals. The coalition was spearheaded by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, who was fired after alleging security breaches, mismanagement and possible espionage within the FBI's translation service in late 2001 and early 2002.

"We believe that the biggest and the most important thing is individual accountability," Edmonds said Wednesday. "As long as a few bad apples are allowed to hide behind the wall of the agencies, you can't pass any law, any regulations. It's not going to do any good. Laws are meaningless without accountability."

Government Executive first reported on the emergence of a national security whistleblower's movement last year after the 9/11 Commission released its final report on intelligence failures.

Whistleblowers associated with the coalition come from agencies such as the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Defense Department, Energy Department, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and former U.S. Customs Service.

"I call them left-wing, right-wing, no-wing, I don't care. We all have a common cause," Edmonds said. "Tomorrow we are going to be coming in the hundreds. And then we are going to come in the thousands. How long are they going to ignore us?"

Most officials in the coalition are on administrative leave or have already been fired from their agencies. Seventeen of the whistleblowers hail from the FBI, more than any other agency.

Edmonds sued the Justice Department after being fired from the FBI in 2002. Her case was dismissed last summer by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the state secrets privilege, which allows the government to withhold information to safeguard national security. Edmonds and her team of lawyers have asked a federal appeals court to reinstate the lawsuit, arguing that it was unjustly dismissed.

You might want to ask the question, "why do civil servents need a support group and legal defense fund in order to tell the truth?" Nah, don't ask it. All of the answers are too scary.

The Empty Story

House Overturns New Ethics Rule as Republican Leadership Yields
By CARL HULSE

Published: April 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 27 - In a rare retreat, the Republican-led House on Wednesday overturned contentious rule changes made to the House ethics process, with Republicans saying they surrendered to the Democrats to try to restore a way to enforce proper conduct in the House.

"I am willing to step back," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, the moving force behind ethics revisions forced through by the majority in January.

After a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, Mr. Hastert indicated that the reversal was primarily motivated by a need to resolve the torrent of questions surrounding the conduct of Representative Tom DeLay, the majority leader.

Mr. Hastert's relenting to Democrats' demands marked a startling turn as Republicans confronted the fallout from a stalled ethics process that Democrats said was rigged to protect Mr. DeLay, who was admonished three times by the ethics committee last year. The Republican majority has also come under increasing criticism for the rule changes, which their opponents said would render the committee impotent to pursue wrongdoing by members.

One of the most immediate effects of the House's reverting to the old rules will be the opening of an investigation into persistent questions about Mr. DeLay's overseas travel and his relationships with prominent lobbyists. His fund-raising operations are under investigation by a grand jury in Texas, and some of the lobbyists' roles have come under increasing scrutiny by federal investigators in recent months. While Mr. DeLay has not been named as a target of those investigations, the attention paid to his troubles has proven disruptive in the House.

On Wednesday night, after a pointed debate in which lawmakers traded blame for the ethics impasse, the House voted 406 to 20 to approve a hastily drafted resolution that essentially restored the rules in place at the start of the year for what is formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
....
In his letter to Ms. Pelosi proposing a return to the previous rules, Mr. Hastert accused Democrats of distorting the changes for political gain and said that the reversal would result in "leaving the unfairness inherent in the old system in place." But Mr. Hastert told reporters he was willing to move ahead because of the scrutiny of Mr. DeLay.

"There is a member, especially on our side, who needs to have the process move forward, so he can clear his name," the speaker said. "Right now, he can't clear his name."

Mr. Mollohan disputed Mr. Hastert's characterization of the old rules as unfair, but gave him credit.

"It can't be easy to come to this," he said. "But again, it is the right thing to do."

This is a front page NYT article, but the substance of the changes are no where detailed, there is simply a lot of he said/she said. Who is in trouble, DeLay or Pelosi? Why? Carl Hulse isn't going to tell you. I realize this story broke late yesterday, but if the Website doesn't give you the substantive changes by noon today, the NYT is being lazy and it sure won't be the first time.

UPDATE: Here is some of it, courtesy MSNBC:

Records detail DeLay's ties to lobbyist U.S. territory seeking labor law exemption was client

By Sharon Theimer
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:04 p.m. ET April 27, 2005

WASHINGTON - Over two years, House Majority leader Tom DeLay had at least two dozen discussions with a lobbyist working to keep a U.S. territory’s factories free from new labor laws. The lobbyist contributed to the House leader’s campaigns and arranged travel for him.

Records show that DeLay’s staff spoke with the lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, or his team almost daily during this period.

DeLay’s office kept Abramoff, now under criminal investigation, routinely apprised of congressional efforts to block new regulations on his client, the Northern Mariana Islands.

Questions have been raised about whether Abramoff himself paid for some of DeLay’s foreign trips in violation of House rules. DeLay maintains they were properly financed by trip sponsors.

Abramoff’s firm reported it drafted legislative materials for DeLay, and Abramoff boasted to island leaders he could use his close ties to Republican leaders to block legislation from receiving a House vote.

“Getting the bill off the schedule for next week, however, should enable us to use our connections within the Leadership to ensure that ... it will not come to the floor,” Abramoff wrote the islands in September 1996.

The Northern Marianas billing and correspondence records of Abramoff’s former lobbying firm, Preston Gates, were obtained by The Associated Press under an open records request approved by the island government.

'Sweatshop' rules blocked
They provide a day-by-day account of the lobbyist’s campaign of fundraising, trip-providing and schmoozing with lawmakers in both parties aimed at, among other things, getting Congress to block Clinton administration efforts to regulate alleged “sweatshop” garment factories in the Northern Marianas. Those rules were never enacted.

The Answer

Iraq Assembly Approves Partial Cabinet; Key Vacancies Remain
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 28, 2005

Filed at 6:35 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The interim National Assembly approved a partial Cabinet on Thursday, breaking months of deadlock and political wrangling. But disputes remained over key ministry positions and two deputy prime minister slots.

The legislators approved a list of 27 ministers and five acting ministers, ushering in Iraq's first elected government since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The Cabinet was approved by 180 lawmakers out of the 185 present in the 275-member parliament, Speaker Hajim al-Hassani announced to applause.

Prime Minister-designate Ibrahim al-Jaafari submitted a Cabinet that includes members of Iraq's main Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

But Al-Jaafari himself, a Shiite, will be acting defense minister, a position that was supposed to go to a Sunni Arab, and disputes remained over two deputy prime minister slots and the defense, oil, electricity, industry and human rights ministries.

Ahmad Chalabi, a former Pentagon favorite from al-Jaafari's Shiite-dominated alliance, will be one of four deputy prime ministers and acting oil minister. Kurdish official and former Vice President Rowsch Nouri Shaways will be another deputy and acting electricity minister.

Al-Jaafari has struggled to reconcile the competing demands of Iraq's myriad factions since Jan. 30 elections.

Shiite leaders rejected his initial choices for a Sunni deputy prime minister and defense minister because of suspicions they had ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, which brutally repressed Iraqi's majority Shiites and Kurds.

Al-Jaafari also faced infighting within his United Iraqi Alliance, the largest bloc in parliament, over the oil and electricity portfolios.

Lawmakers earlier said the Cabinet would include 17 Shiite Arab ministers, eight Kurds, six Sunnis and a Christian. Among them are six women, responsible for seven portfolios, according to Thursday's announcement.

President Jalal Talabani and his two vice presidents signed off on the list before Thursday's historic vote. A handover between outgoing Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and al-Jaafari will take place within days, the incoming premier told reporters Wednesday.

''The Iraqis will find that this government has religious, ethnic, political and geographic variety, in addition to the participation of women,'' he said from the steps of his office. ''Now that the process has started, we will spare no effort to bring back a smile to children's faces.''

Allawi's Iraqi List party, which has 40 seats in the National Assembly, was not included in the new Cabinet. Alliance lawmakers said they had given up trying to balance Allawi's demands with those of Sunni factions that could offer help in beginning talks with Sunni militants, who are believed to be the backbone of the insurgency.

Many Shiites have long resented the secular Allawi, accusing his outgoing administration of including former Baathists in the government and security forces.

Shiites make up 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people. The Kurds make up 20 percent, and the Sunni Arabs, who largely stayed away from the elections either in boycott or for fear of attacks, are roughly 15 percent to 20 percent.

Juan Cole remains skeptical. So do I. This has the feel of a put up job. And I doubt that this "government" will resolve anything.

Washington Times: Bolton's Problems are straight partisanship

The Washington Times does it best upfront to sell a story of Democrats who had made up their minds in advance to oppose Bolton out of sheer partisanship. But their own article doesn't support the proposition. They take as divine writ the White House claim that all the Republicans on the committee will ultimately support Bolton, and claim the nomination will turn on the Dems' willingness to filibuster him. They wish.

But the bolded text, way down in the article (behind the cut), tells a different story: even the Moonies' reporter has to admit that Bolton's been charged with trying to alter intelligence assessments.

At the end, the reporters quote three GOP senators claiming that the allegations either have been debunked (Allen, Frist) or will be (Coleman). But no such refutations are produced. Maybe the dog ate their homework. Or maybe the Moonie Paper just lies for the sheer hell of it.

The Senate's Adamant 'No' Men: From the start, Democrats were against Bolton

By Stephen Dinan and Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Most of the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposed John Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations from the start, and the other two cited his and his opponents' testimony during hearings two weeks ago as cause to oppose him.

Six of the panel's eight Democrats opposed Mr. Bolton when he was confirmed as undersecretary for arms control and international security in May 2001, and they said he has done nothing to convince them that he deserves a promotion.

"Bill Nelson voted against Bolton when he was up for U.S. arms negotiator — and he doesn't think he did well in that job, considering our experience with North Korea and Iran," said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for Mr. Nelson, Florida Democrat. "He won't vote for Bolton for U.N. ambassador for that reason."

Of the other two committee Democrats, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was not in the Senate in 2001, and Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin was one of seven Democrats who voted for Mr. Bolton then, helping confirm him 57-43.

Mr. Feingold said he prefers to defer to the president on nominations, but this time, he must oppose Mr. Bolton.

"Based on the material that I have seen, the testimony that I have heard, and Mr. Bolton's own record, I have concluded that I must oppose the nomination," Mr. Feingold said.

Although most of the recent focus has been on Republican senators wavering on Mr. Bolton, White House officials and Senate Republicans say their party members will ultimately support the nomination.

That means his fate will rest with Democrats and whether they choose to filibuster him.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said Monday that Mr. Bolton's nomination is "in trouble," although aides said Democrats won't decide on a filibuster until after the committee's May 12 vote.

Although their opposition has remained constant, some Democrats' reasons have shifted since President Bush nominated Mr. Bolton on March 7.

"This is just about the most inexplicable appointment the president could make to represent the United States to the world community," Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in March, citing a series of remarks by Mr. Bolton that questioned the usefulness of the United Nations and his job as undersecretary.

"If the president is serious about reaching out to the world, why would he choose someone who has expressed such disdain for working with our allies?" Mr. Kerry said.

Yesterday though, he said those views were not the deciding factors in his opposition.

"It's not the U.N. positions. He can have his positions, but I think the intelligence, and he wasn't candid with the committee," Mr. Kerry said.

Democrats have accused Mr. Bolton of bullying intelligence analysts and colleagues to try to change their conclusions and the intelligence he could cite in speeches.

"Where I draw the line is to the extent that your temperament is interfering with the ability of the United States to make accurate intelligence assessments — that's a problem, particularly when you're being assigned to a post that involves the United States' credibility," said Mr. Obama, who said Mr. Bolton's performance was damaging.

"This was based on Mr. Bolton's response to questions about these allegations that he intimidated intelligence analysts. He did not seem to be particularly forthcoming," Mr. Obama said.

Others who worked with Mr. Bolton, including Bush administration officials, have given Democrats more ammunition since the hearings by complaining about Mr. Bolton.

"My deep concern with him is he crossed the line. I think most of us believe that there needs to be a very strong fire wall between policy setters and the intelligence community," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat. "If in any way you cross over and try in some way to alter their reports or conclusions through intimidation, I think that is a violation and it ought to be against the law. And that happened here with two individuals on five different occasions over 48 months he tried to have fired."

Republicans concede they made a mistake last week by not responding to those charges and by assuming that all 10 Republicans on the committee would vote to recommend Mr. Bolton to the full Senate for confirmation.

Instead, during the panel's scheduled vote on Mr. Bolton, Democrats raised a series of objections, prompting Sen. George V. Voinovich, Ohio Republican, to call for a delay to give the committee more time for investigation. Two other Republicans on the committee have said they also have questions that they want answered before they will support Mr. Bolton.

"We sat silent. We made a tactical error. We let one side put on its case, and we didn't respond at all, because we thought we had the votes," said Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican and one of Mr. Bolton's staunchest defenders.

"I think Republicans should get together and go over every allegation and then walk through the responses. The next time we have a hearing, if one side makes the case there will be a rebuttal on the record," he said.

Another defender, Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican, said the charges can all be fought.

"If you just look at the credibility of all these charges, they have been hearsay, they have been uncorroborated, they have been spurious, and every single one of them ends up being refuted or put in the proper context," he said. "At some point, these attacks and this attempt at personal political attacks will lose credibility."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Republicans are on track with the nomination.

"Allegations have been raised, and those allegations are being to my mind successfully debunked, one by one," he said. "I'm optimistic about the direction it's taking."

Media Note

My wife caught the tail end of tonight's On the Point on our local NPR station and according to its web site, it dealt with Christian Dominionism as the central issue in the presentation. I only caught the last two minutes, but I'm going to check out the online version later to hear what they had to say.

I'm really not sure what I think of this programing, or our local NPR station since they conereted to essentially an all talk format (WUNC Chapel Hill) a while back. While I enjoy the BBC and On the Media, do we really need so many more talk shows? I wouldn't mind some music now and then, especially since it's hard to get the local jazz station often. I know my parents quit giving them money once they did that and were quite happy that WCPE still plays for the local audience but they have supported them for years.

If you get a chance, give WCPE some love. They were one of the first stations to really GET the potential of the web long before everyone jumped on the multimedia platform bandwagon. I'm very proud to live in the same community that helped them get started and still supports them and their efforts to bring a diversity of sounds to the FM dail, even though I can skip the Saturday at the Opera myself.

March of Science

Group of Scientists Drafts Rules on Ethics for Stem Cell Research

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: April 27, 2005

Citing a lack of leadership by the federal government, the National Academy of Sciences proposed ethical guidelines yesterday for research with human embryonic stem cells.

Scientists have high hopes that research with those all-purpose cells, which develop into all the various tissues of the adult body, will lead to treatments for a wide variety of diseases by enabling them to grow new organs to replace damaged ones.

But because of religious objections - human embryos shortly after fertilization are destroyed to derive the cells - Congress has long restricted federal financing of such research; President Bush has allowed it to proceed, but only with designated cells. As a result, the government has not played its usual role of promoting novel research and devising regulations accepted by all players.

The academy, a self-elected group of scientists that advises the government, recommends setting up a system of local and national committees for reviewing stem cell research. It also tackles a new set of ethical problems raised by creating organisms composed of cells from two different species, and in this case animals that include human cells.

The report paves the way for research involving animals called chimeras that have been seeded with human cells. The purpose of such experiments is not to create some nightmarish menagerie of half-human animals, but to test first in animals the human organs that could be grown from embryonic stem cells.

Foreseeing that such research will be required for tests of effectiveness and safety, the academy says most chimeras should be permitted. But it places certain types of experiments out of bounds, at least for now. These involve inserting human embryonic stem cells into an early human embryo, a technically promising method of genetic engineering, or into apes and monkeys.

The academy's guidelines would impose limits on three kinds of experiment that involve incorporating human embryonic stem cells into animals. Undesired consequences could follow if human cells were to become incorporated into the sex cells or the brains of animals. In the first case, there is a remote possibility that an animal with eggs made of human cells could mate with an animal bearing human sperm. To avoid human conception in such circumstances, the academy says chimeric animals should not be allowed to mate.

A second possible hazard is that the human embryonic stem cells might generate all or most of an animal's brain, leading to the possibility of a human mind imprisoned in an animal's body. Though neuroscientists consider this unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, particularly with animals closely related to people, like monkeys and apes. The academy advises that human embryonic stem cells not be injected into the embryos of nonhuman primates for the time being.

Third, like many previous committees, the academy says human embryos should not be grown in culture for more than 14 days, the time when the first hints of a nervous system appear.

This is a fascinating article over at the Times about all of the different situations that researchers are coming up with ethical guidelines for. I had never heard of these chimera activities before and they really do sound like something out of a B Grade science fiction flick.

Go check out the entire thing, especially some of the money quotes from, among others, Senator Arlen Specter on how the government should be involved with at least monitoring this type of research if not supporting it. You would think that will all of the money lost by the Pentagon each year, that some of it could be redirected to more scientific research.

Oil Profits for...

Venezuelan Central Bank Director Says Excess Oil Gains Should Be Invested

The Associated Press
Published: Apr 27, 2005

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuela's "excess" oil gains should be invested in maintaining oil production and saved in a rainy day fund, a central bank director said in a column published Wednesday.

Domingo Maza Zavala defined "excess" oil gains as revenue that remains from oil sales after the government has covered its budget and debt payment needs, and enough U.S. dollars have been generated to maintain the economic growth, according to a column published by the El Nacional daily newspaper.

As long as oil prices remain "between US$35 and US$40 a barrel ... the excess gains (should be devoted) to real investment in the oil industry, social spending programs and savings in the economic stabilization fund," to weather tough economic times, Maza Zavala wrote.

The director's opinion comes just days after central bank president Gaston Parra Luzardo sent a letter to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recommending that any "excess" foreign exchange reserves held by the bank be used for investment.

Chavez and lawmakers who support him are working to change the central bank statutes to put a cap on the amount of reserves the bank can hold in its coffers. The rest, Chavez has said, should be used for various spending initiatives including paying the country's foreign debt.

Hmmm...very interesting. Excess funds, i.e. oil profits, should be used to strengthen their economy, reduce debt levels and make life better for average Venezuelans. What a concept! I wonder if our government would be supportive?

Rice criticizes support of Venezuela

By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Published April 27, 2005

BRASILIA, Brazil -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Brazil's support of Venezuela's president, Estado de Sao Paulo newspaper reported Wednesday. Rice told reporters in Brasilia although Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, he does not govern "democratically." Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has fostered strong economic ties with Venezuela and spoken out in behalf of Chavez while condemning the U.S. position on Venezuela. The White House has accused the left-leaning Chavez of trying to create a Cuba-style authoritarian state in Venezuela. Chavez, meanwhile, has accused the United States of trying to undermine his administration.

Oh. Well, guess not.

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

AP, CNN get bamboozled:

School board votes to add Bible elective

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 Posted: 10:46 AM EDT (1446 GMT)

ODESSA, Texas (AP) -- The school board in the West Texas town of Odessa voted unanimously to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum.

Hundreds of people, most of them supporters of the proposal, packed the board meeting Tuesday night. More than 6,000 Odessa residents had signed a petition supporting the class.

Some residents, however, said the school board acted too quickly. Others said they feared a national constitutional fight.

Barring any hurdles, the class should be added to the curriculum in fall 2006 and taught as a history or literature course. The school board still must develop a curriculum, which board member Floy Hinson said should be open for public review.

The board had heard a presentation in March from Mike Johnson, a representative of the Greensboro, North Carolina-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, who said that coursework designed by that organization is not about proselytizing or preaching.

But People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties union have criticized the council, saying its materials promote religion.

Johnson said students in the elective class would learn such things as the geography of the Middle East and the influence of the Bible on history and culture.

"How can students understand Leonardo da Vinci's 'Last Supper' or Handel's 'Messiah' if they don't understand the reference from which they came?" Johnson said. The group's Web site says its curriculum has received backing in 292 school districts in 35 states.

In Frankenmuth, Michigan, a similar proposal led to a yearlong controversy before the school board voted in January not to offer such a course.

Here's the real story:

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools

A report by the People For the American Way Foundation.

"We're just trying to expose the kids to the biblical Christian worldview..."

— NCBCPS director Elizabeth Ridenour, Sept. 14, 1995 radio program "Truths That Transform"

The self-named National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools may say it wants to introduce Bible classes in public schools to improve students' understanding of literature and history, but the real intent of the organization is to promote a religious, primarily Christian doctrine. In addition, its manual refers to the separation of church and state as a "myth."

* NCBCPS has boasted that anywhere from 45 to 300 school districts have adopted its curriculum, but no one really knows, and NCBCPS won't tell the public. NCBCPS has generally refused to make its curriculum available for evaluation by scholars and the media, selectively disclosing it only to friendly school board members and parents.

* In 1998, after a federal court in Florida prohibited the Lee County public school district, on constitutional grounds, from teaching the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum, NCBCPS denied that it was their curriculum at all.

* NCBCPS often says its curriculum is not controversial and that nearly every approached school board has adopted it. In fact, these school boards recently rejected NCBCPS's curriculum: North Kansas City, Missouri; Midland, Texas; and Peoria, Illinois.

Who is behind the NCBCPS?

* NCBCPS board of directors and advisory board have included Religious Right leaders like televangelist D. James Kennedy, President of Coral Ridge Ministries, who has called public schools "Godless" and actively campaigned for the impeachment of a federal judge who ordered a proselytizing state judge in Alabama to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom. Kennedy also has a well-documented history of raising money by promoting the false and inflammatory stereotype that gays and lesbians are child molesters.

* Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus and Rus Walton of the Plymouth Rock Foundation have also served on NCBCPS boards. Both Phillips and Walton are considered Christian Reconstructionists – advocates of theocracy with a government based on a literal reading of the Bible, including the harsh legal code of the "Old Testament." Under this model, as many as 18 "offenses," including blasphemy, adultery and persistent juvenile delinquency would merit the death penalty.

* NCBCPS circulates material by David Barton, who produces historically inaccurate videotapes and books asserting that the constitutionally-required separation of church and state was invented by the Supreme Court.

* NCBCPS often cites materials from the American Center For Law and Justice to defend the constitutionality of its curriculum. ACLJ was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson.

Here's links to the NCBCPS' main page, links page, and president's bio (PDF). Note the links ("Please visit and support these other sites. They are supportive of our cause") to outfits like "Creation Science Evangelism" and "Creation Evidence Museum," as well as to familiar Religious Right activist orgs such as the American Family Association, which wants to keep 'smut' as tame as Cheers off of TV. And the president's bio shows that she's buddy-buddy with Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, Concerned Women for America, and other Religious Right mainstays.

A big tip of the hat to DMC and especially MEBuckner of the Straight Dope Message Board, my main online hangout since 1999, for pointing me to the PFAW and NCBCPS links.

Birthday Open Thread

Okay, Bumpers, I'm out of here for the rest of the day. My sister-in-law is celebrating a significant birthday today and I'm headed for Baltimore for an impromptu party (and my brother's superb cooking: fillet mignon with Bernaise sauce! I can't remember the last time I ate a steak.) Chuck and some of the other guest posters will be around, so check back for new content.

Food Fight

Where Does the Bean Soup Fit In?

By Dana Milbank

Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A05

The Social Security debate finally arrived in Congress yesterday, and it immediately became a food fight.

Appearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Robert Pozen, a witness whose Social Security plan has been praised by President Bush, said that the personal accounts Bush advocates are the "desserts" and that Social Security's solvency is "the spinach."

Peter Orszag, a witness opposed to Bush's plan, retorted: "The accounts are not sugar; they're like trying to get your kid to eat the spinach by offering a turnip for dessert."

Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a friend of agricultural interests, pursued the vegetable dispute, pressing Pozen to explain why "solvency is the spinach that needs to be eaten before we get to the dessert of personal accounts."

The ranking Democrat, Max Baucus (Mont.), quarreled with the accounts-as-dessert theme. "Desserts, when I think of the term, are something on top of a wonderful meal; you get a little sweetener in addition," he said. "This is not a sweetener in addition."

Not to be outdone in culinary metaphor, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) protested to one of the witnesses favoring private accounts: "What you're suggesting is sort of like the idea that somebody can have three hot fudge sundaes a day and lose weight."

Two blocks away from the Hart Building hearing room, a couple of thousand people were assembling for an anti-Bush rally. A band called the Sheiks of Dixie was playing. A choir of Lyndon LaRouche supporters was singing. Organizers were distributing bottles of water labeled "Stop Privatization." A liberal activist drew roars for likening Bush's proposal to "a dead carp."

Grassley was determined to keep a more decorous tone in the committee room. "Outside the hearing room today, we have political theater," he said as he opened the hearing, urging his colleagues to "resist the temptation to allow such theatrics to pervade this hearing room."

Exactly one minute later, a cell phone belonging to one of the witnesses started to play circus music.

It was an apt commentary for a hearing full of runaway metaphors. One witness, Joan Entmacher of the National Women's Law Center, provided testimony saying benefit cuts are "like curing a stubbed toe by cutting off a foot." The Brookings Institution's Orszag expanded on the medical theme, saying arguments for private accounts are "like arguing that snake oil will help to cure strep throat."

For his part, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) preferred to discuss Medicare, which he called "the real 800-pound gorilla." Orszag, having branded the personal accounts turnips and snake oil, then said they employ "the mother of all magic asterisks."

I watched some of the hearing yesterday on C-Span. It was as surreal as Milbank presents it. In fact it was as surreal as filibuster fight on the floor of the Senate this morning. Anything having to do with Republicans takes on a note of unreality.

Down the Tubes

Orders for Durable Goods Fell Sharply in March
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 27, 2005

Filed at 9:23 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods plunged 2.8 percent in March, the biggest setback in 2 1/2 years and the third straight decline, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

The March drop, showing much more weakness than had been expected, followed declines of 0.2 percent in February and 1.2 percent in January. It left new orders for durable goods, everything from bicycles to battleships, at a seasonally adjusted $194.03 billion in February.

The weakness in durable goods orders was just the latest evidence that the economy may be entering another ''soft patch'' as consumers and businesses, jolted by a sharp increase in energy prices, cut back on their purchases.

The 2.8 percent drop in overall orders was the biggest decline since a 6 percent plunge in September 2002. It was a far worse performance than analysts had expected. They had been forecasting that orders would rise by a modest 0.3 percent after an originally reported increase of 0.5 percent in February. In the new report, the February increase was revised away to now show a decine of 0.2 percent.

The three straight declines in new orders was the longest stretch of weakness since three straight declines from July through September 2001, a period that covered the last recession.

From the Economic Policy Institute:

Snapshot for April 20, 2005.

Price growth outpaces wages for the 11th consecutive month
Today's release of the consumer price index (CPI) data for March confirms that real wages continue to deteriorate for many U.S. workers. The inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the 80% of the workforce employed in blue-collar and non-managerial jobs fell 0.5% over the past year (from March 2004 and March 2005). This marks the 11th consecutive month wherein annual wage growth failed to outpace inflation.

Any wonder why:

Bush's Poll Numbers Worst on Record
By Terry M. Neal
The Washington Post

Monday 11 April 2005

The economy: A majority of Americans -- 56 percent according to the Westhill poll -- oppose the president's handling of the economy. Republicans are even feuding even among themselves about the president's agenda, disagreeing on whether to push for a new round of tax cuts or to focus on tackling a massive federal budget deficit that clearly now is more than just a short-term problem.

Lie Down With Dogs, Get Up With Fleas

GOP to Reverse Ethics Rule Blocking New DeLay Probe
January Change Led Democrats to Shut Down Panel

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks.

Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.

Democrats rebelled against that and other changes -- saying Republicans were trying to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) from further ethics investigations -- and blocked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is officially known, from organizing for the new Congress.

Republicans on the committee say they will launch an investigation of DeLay's handling of overseas trips and gifts as soon as the impasse over the rules is broken. The Washington Post reported last weekend that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff charged DeLay's airfare to London and Scotland to his American Express card in 2000.

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay said that he will meet with the committee chairman and the ranking Democrat, and that his staff is assembling documents to turn over to the committee. The panel admonished DeLay three times last year for what it deemed inappropriate official behavior.

The officials participating in talks about restarting the committee said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has agreed to ask the House to vote later this week on a rollback of the rule change. A Republican adviser said the decision "is the speaker's way of trying to put this behind us and get us back to regular order."

"There will be a [political] cost to this, but if he had not done this, the cost would continue to increase," said the adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Hastert had not announced his decision.

The R's are trying to cut off DeLay's problems without cutting him loose. Time will tell if that works. The man IS his problems.

The Eye of the Beholder

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.

The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

After a week of complaints from Congress, top aides from the State Department and the NCTC were dispatched to the Hill on Monday for a private briefing. There they acknowledged for the first time the increase in terrorist incidents, calling it a "dramatic uptick," according to participants and a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

The administration aides sought to explain the rise in attacks as the result of more inclusive methodology in counting incidents, which they argued made year-to-year comparisons "increasingly problematic," sources said.

In his letter urging Rice to release the data, Waxman said that "the large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people."

Both Republican and Democratic aides at the meeting criticized what a GOP attendee called the "absurd" explanation offered by the State Department's acting counterterrorism chief, Karen Aguilar, that the statistics are not relevant to the required report on trends in global terrorism. "It's absurd to issue a report without statistics," said the aide, who is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. "This is a self-inflicted wound by the State Department."

But being absurd is a Bushism and the public never called them on it, so who cares?

Winning

Pentagon Plays Down New Rise in Iraq Violence

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A16

Top Pentagon officials yesterday acknowledged a recent jump in insurgent violence in Iraq but described the escalation as nowhere near the peak levels of the past year and disputed suggestions that it represents a lack of progress.

At a news conference, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the level of attacks is about the same as it was a year ago, with the insurgency retaining the ability to surge. But he and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cited other developments -- including a greater willingness by Iraqis to provide intelligence on insurgents and growth in Iraqi security forces and political institutions -- as evidence of improvement.

The latest increase in bombings, shootings, and rocket and mortar attacks has ended a period of greater calm that followed the Jan. 30 parliamentary elections. From a high of nearly 150 attacks a day immediately before the vote, the average had fallen to about 40, and the number of U.S. casualties had dropped sharply as well.

But over the past month, the daily total has edged up to about 50 or 60 attacks, about half of which are resulting in significant damage, injuries or deaths, according to Pentagon figures.

Of particular concern for U.S. authorities has been a rise in the number of suicide car-bomb attacks, some of which are now being used in tandem. Myers singled out this trend yesterday.

In the past, U.S. military authorities have attributed the suicide attacks not to Iraqi Sunni militants who dominate the insurgency but to foreign Islamic extremists who have joined the fight in Iraq. But U.S. analysts are still trying to identify the forces behind the rise in the suicide missions and have not ruled out the possibility that it reflects a hardening of Sunni opposition as a political impasse persists over the formation of a new Iraqi government.

Rumsfeld and Myers characterized the recent increase in attacks as relatively small and said it is not identifiable as a clear trend.

"It's up slightly in the last week," Rumsfeld said. "But what you have is a relatively small number of people who have weapons and who have money and who are determined to try to prevent democracy from going forward."

Still, their concern about the worsening security situation was evident in statements from both officials underscoring the need for a break in the political logjam in Iraq.

"The political process must go forward," Myers said. "We must have a cabinet appointed here very quickly."

Asked whether the rise in attacks shows the United States is winning or losing the conflict, Rumsfeld tried to shift the focus of the question, saying U.S. and coalition forces will not by themselves defeat the insurgency.

"The people that are going to defeat that insurgency are going to be the Iraqis," he said.

Myers responded more emphatically.

"I think we're definitely winning," he said. "I think we've been winning for some time."

Myers might as well wear his hat and gloves to these events. It is pretty clear that he is being trotted out to give the company line, rather than the truth.

Blasts near Baghdad mosque kill 16
Twin suicide bombs also strike Tikrit

Sunday, April 24, 2005 Posted: 2103 GMT (0503 HKT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Two explosions rocked western Baghdad's al-Shu'lah neighborhood Sunday near a Shiite mosque and a busy market, killing at least 16 people and wounding at least 57 others, Iraqi police said.

The first bomb went off about 9 p.m. (p.m. ET). When people gathered in the aftermath, a second bomb was detonated about 150 meters from the mosque, police said.

Police originally reported the second bombing as the work of a suicide car bomber who had driven into the crowd, but said later that the device appeared to have been set off by remote control.

Word of the blasts came just hours after news of two suicide car bombs in Tikrit, about 90 miles (150 kilometers) north of Baghdad.

The Tikrit bombs exploded just 15 minutes and a short distance apart, killing at least six people and wounding 26 others at an Iraqi police academy, according to an official with Tikrit's governor's office.

What, exactly, would "winning" look like, Gen. Myers?

Crows, Coming Home to Roost

Social Issues That Bolster Bush Fail the Hapless British Tories

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: April 27, 2005

LONDON, April 26 - At a time when American conservatives are ascendant, the British Conservative Party is adrift, troubled by internal feuding, casting about for a defining theme and struggling to defeat a relatively unpopular incumbent, Prime Minister Tony Blair, in an election nine days away.

Most polls and analysts say the Conservative Party, led by Michael Howard, is heading for a historic third consecutive defeat against Labor on May 5. This prospect is all the more noteworthy given how vulnerable Mr. Blair is on issues of trust and leadership after his insistent assertions that prohibited weapons would be found in Iraq in the American-led war that he so strongly supported and that remains unpopular in Britain.

The political situation underlines what analysts describe as a growing divergence between the conservative movements here and in the United States, a decade and a half after the end of the era of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It reflects fundamental differences between the political makeup of Britain and the United States, but also the success of Mr. Blair on the left - and President Bush on the right - in realigning their political landscape, analysts say.

The social issues that have proved crucial to Mr. Bush's success in the United States have little resonance in this country. Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Howard has not been able to use abortion and gay marriage to transcend economic matters in appealing to voters, and he voted in Parliament in support of the war in Iraq, the issue on which Labor officials judge Mr. Blair most vulnerable.

"Tony Blair has repositioned the Labor Party as a centrist, catch-all political party," said Anthony King, a professor of government at Essex University. "And one of Michael Howard's difficulties is that neither he nor any Conservative Party figure has a clear perception of precisely what the Conservative Party should stand for. After a decade, the party still has not worked out what it wants to say."

Irwin M. Stelzer, a conservative scholar with the Hudson Institute in Washington and a columnist for The Sunday Times of London, said: "There is no reason to vote for the Tories. They're not offering anything different on tax policy. They are not offering anything different on crime policy."

"What the Tories have been unable to do - partly because Blair has been so successful at stealing their clothes - is to come up with a distinctively different policy," Mr. Stelzer said.

Losers. Policy does matter. Iraq war, anyone? The scale of abuse and stupidity is going to cost some government.

Trying Times for Special Ed

Many Hours Are Spent On Md. Test Preparation For Severely Disabled

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page B01

Shykell Pinkney is in the seventh grade, but her developmental age is three months. Her teacher communicates with Shykell the only way possible, by holding two or three symbols in front of her face and watching to see whether her head turns to focus on one of them.

Shykell has Rett syndrome, a neurological disorder. She cannot write, point or speak. But her teacher, Paula Gentile, had to spend nearly 30 hours testing her on a battery of academic tasks -- 10 in reading, 10 in math -- to measure her academic performance under the federal No Child Left Behind law.

At Anne Arundel's Ruth Parker Eason School, teacher Paula Gentile tries to get Ernest Fletcher, 13, to tell the difference between hot and cold.
At Anne Arundel's Ruth Parker Eason School, teacher Paula Gentile tries to get Ernest Fletcher, 13, to tell the difference between hot and cold. (Photos By Preston Keres -- The Washington Post)

So Gentile and her colleagues at Ruth Parker Eason School in Anne Arundel County found some tasks Shykell might be able to complete. With sufficient help, she could distinguish between the sounds made by the letters P and M and recognize the title of a picture book when a recording of it was played for her. Gentile and her colleagues went through the tasks one by one and watched Shykell for any hint of a response.

"Half the time you were trying to get information, this poor little girl would be falling asleep," Gentile said.

Some Maryland students are judged too mentally disabled to take the Maryland School Assessment, the statewide exam designed to measure the performance of students and schools under No Child Left Behind. Federal law allows 1 percent of students to take the Alternate Maryland School Assessment, or Alt-MSA, an individualized test designed to assess students at their own instructional levels rather than at grade level. Statewide, 5,862 students in grades three through eight and grades 10 and 11 took the alternative exam last year.

Special education teachers across Maryland say the test is a waste of time.

Teachers routinely spend 40, 80 or 100 work hours over several months to complete the test, whose counterpart, the regular MSA, takes six hours in a single week. In their view, the students with the smallest stake in No Child Left Behind spend the most time meeting its requirements.

Teachers also object to the content of the Alt-MSA, which is based on a statewide curriculum written for students who are learning reading and math. Many children who take the Alt-MSA will never read, write or compute, and a good number will never speak. They typically spend the school day learning life skills: how to communicate with their eyes or their hands, how to feed themselves and how to make change, tell time or function in a menial job. Teachers say their goals and the goals of the Alt-MSA are, in many cases, utterly divergent.

"I never have a parent ask me for 10 reading goals," said Gerry Reed, a special education teacher at Germantown Elementary School in Montgomery County. "They want their children feeding themselves and toilet-trained and to have job skills. And I don't see this test getting them there."

Felicia Smith-Walker, the mother of a 13-year-old student at Eason School in Millersville, said she believes the test distracts teachers from more important business.

"They're talking about reading and all this stuff, and we can't even get our kids to feed themselves and to sit up properly. It's irrelevant," she said.

One-size-fits-all, paint-by-the-numbers, teach-to-the-test and if you don't hit the number you're...um...left behind?

Drug Marketting 101

Consumer Ads Boost Doctors' Scripts -Study

Tue Apr 26, 2005 05:25 PM ET
By Karla Gale

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs seems to increase the likelihood that physicians will prescribe those drugs, according to a study in the April 27th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. This can have mixed results in patient care, averting underuse in some cases and promoting overuse in others.

To ascertain the effects of patients' requests influenced by direct-to-consumer advertising, Dr. Richard L. Kravitz, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues used "standardized patients," actors trained to present at primary care physicians' offices with symptoms consistent with one of two conditions, major depression or adjustment disorder.

The standardized patients, who were all nonobese, middle-age women, requested a brand-name medication (Paxil), made a general request for antidepressant treatment, or made no request at all. Altogether, the patients made 298 visits to 152 physicians between 2003 and 2004.

In the major depression visits, in 80 of 149 visits (54 percent) antidepressants were prescribed. Rates of antidepressant prescribing were 53 percent in the brand-specific group, 76 percent in the general request group, and 31 percent in the group making no request. Paroxetine (Paxil) was prescribed in 3 percent of cases, except for the 27 percent of cases where Paxil was requested by name.

Treatment considered "minimally acceptable" -- antidepressant prescription, mental health referral or follow-up within 2 weeks -- was administered to 90 percent to 98 percent of those who suggested medication, versus 56 percent of those making no suggestion.

"The impact of direct-to-consumer advertising and requests associated with it are likely to be most positive when the condition is very serious and treatment is very effective and very safe," he suggested.

"For example, use of cholesterol-lowering agents or aspirin in people who've had heart attack or stroke; the drugs have a long track record and they're likely to be both effective and safe in delivering benefits to those patients."

However, results of direct-to-consumer are "likely to be most negative when the condition is trivial and treatment is either ineffective or relatively dangerous," he added, as in cases of baldness, toenail fungus or overactive bladder, where "the effectiveness of the drugs, if not questionable is at least marginal and there are significant safety concerns in some cases."

He suggests "the FDA do what it can to encourage that ads be more heavily laden with education, especially around symptoms of important conditions and the treatment options, including nondrug therapy."

Welcome back to another episode of "Did you know the earth was round?" I can't wait to see what the FDA, strongly backed the the phama companies, do about this. I really wish that more was expected from those drug commercials than the announcer doing his best "Mr. Fed Ex" impression to get in all of the potential side effects in 15 seconds or less.

Granted, I'm not asking for quite this much truth in my ads, but a little more would be nice. If not, then maybe we could send some letters to the FCC, calling this indecency even though no nipples were exposed. That seems to be all they care about these days.

Christian Virtues

Dan Froomkin gets the Good Stuff:

The Calvin College Rebellion

I wrote in Friday's column that Bush will be giving a commencement address next month at Calvin College, a small Christian institution in Western Michigan, highly regarded for its contributions to evangelical intellectual thought.

I'm betting that most of you readers out there, like me, suspected that Calvin was picked at least in part to assure Bush a supportive audience -- as opposed to, say, what he might find at your typical Ivy League university. (The other commencement address he'll be giving will be at the U.S. Naval Academy.)

But we -- and possibly the White House -- may have been wrong.

On closer inspection, it turns out that Calvin College is not the bastion of the Christian Right it appeared to be. In fact, judging from my e-mail, it's a veritable hotbed of those other Christian values -- the ones that oppose war, work for social justice, and don't think much of the president at all.

Professor Kenneth Pomykala, chair of Calvin College's Department of Religion (and a regular White House Briefing reader!) wrote to me that some members of the community "are unhappy with Bush's visit because we believe that Christian values require public policies that seek social justice, compassion for the disenfranchised, human rights, a commitment to peace, care and preservation of the environment, and honesty, say, from political leaders -- in short, policies opposed to the Bush agenda."

Pomkala tried to help me understand where Calvin fits into the Christian spectrum: "Calvin is confessionally Reformed/Presbyterian (in other words, Calvinistic -- no surprise there, I guess), with a much more positive view of the intellect and participation in the broader culture than is characteristic of American evangelicalism, much of which is anti-intellectual (e.g. 'creation science') and escapist (e.g. the Left Behind series), not to mention morally barbaric (e.g. opposition to stem cell research; anti-gay)."

Kate Bowman, the student activities coordinator at the college, e-mailed to say: "Many of us do not believe that Calvin's graduation ceremony is the proper forum for a partisan political address, particularly from such a divisive and controversial figure. . . .

"Many of us believe that his actions since taking office contradict the teachings of the Gospel, and though we love President Bush as our brother as we are called to love all (even our enemies), we profoundly disagree with his appeals to Christianity to support his own political aims."

Bowman reports: "There is a lively and thoughtful discussion happening on our in-house faculty listserv at the moment around the issue of Bush's visit. Currently the hot topic is how protest should be approached at this event. People want to be respectful without appearing to give a stamp of approval to the actions of the administration."

And Raleigh Chadderdon, who will be one of the approximately 900 Calvin College students getting their diploma on May 21st, wrote that "the majority of graduating seniors I've talked with since have generally been disappointed, frustrated, and feeling betrayed by the school's decision to politicize our graduation. . . .

"Once word was out, a significant number of students were scrambling to counteract the event, setting up dialogue over e-mail which now will hopefully take place on a public online venue, just recently started."

That Web site is called Our Commencement Is Not Your Platform .

And what is Professor Pomkala planning to do during Bush's speech?

"As a faculty member, I'm required to attend commencement, but I plan on reading a book during the president's speech -- probably My Pet Goat."

Accountability and its Discontents

Impunity

Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A14

A YEAR AGO this week, the release of shocking photographs of naked and hooded Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison alerted the world to serious human rights abuses by U.S. forces. Those images, it turned out, were the tip of an iceberg: Subsequent investigations by the media, human rights groups and the military itself revealed hundreds of cases of torture and abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay prison, including scores of suspicious deaths. A trail of documents showed that abusive interrogation techniques, such as the use of dogs and painful shackling, had been approved by senior military commanders and the secretary of defense. Even more extreme practices, such as simulated drowning and the withholding of pain medication, were authorized for the CIA at White House meetings presided over by President Bush's counsel.

All these facts are undisputed. Yet Pentagon officials have now made it known that the last of the official investigations of prisoner abuse, by the Army inspector general, has ended by exonerating all but one senior officer, a female reserve brigadier general who was not directly involved in the abuses and who received an administrative reprimand. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; former CIA director George J. Tenet; and Alberto R. Gonzales, the former White House counsel who is now attorney general, are excused: In fact, they were never directly investigated. The only people to suffer criminal prosecution from one of the most serious human rights scandals in U.S. history remain a handful of lower-ranking soldiers, including seven reservists implicated in those first photographs from Abu Ghraib. That the affair would end in this way is even more disgraceful for the American political system than the abuses themselves.

Rumsfeld's Possible Legal Responsibility

Human Rights Watch's exhaustively-documented report names the top officials, both civilian and military, that it believes should be investigated for crimes against detainees. Its list starts with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and goes on to include George Tenet, the former CIA director; Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, U.S. military commander in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004; and Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the U.S. military commander at Guantanamo.

Rumsfeld clearly had the necessary knowledge. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo, Secretary Rumsfeld had access to military briefings, ICRC reports, human rights reports, and press accounts that would have put him on notice that U.S. troops were committing war crimes, including torture. Yet, despite receiving abundant warning of abuses, there is no evidence that Rumsfeld ever exerted his authority to protect prisoners from mistreatment.

Senators Warner and McCain, your consciences are waiting for you in the Senate cloakroom. Paging Warner and McCain....

Sorrows of Empire

Robert Scheer:
Fiddling While Crucial Programs Starve
# Has the U.S. become like ancient Rome, in love with costly conquest?

Notice the price of gasoline lately? Isn't it great that we have secured Iraq's oil? And as Congress signs off on yet another huge supplementary grant to supposedly protect U.S. interests in the Mideast, our president pathetically begs his Saudi buddies for a price break. As the fall of Rome showed, imperialism never pays.

Of course, back in 2003, conquering Iraq looked like a great package deal, what with all that oil — second only to Saudi Arabia — and the manufactured photo ops of cheering Iraqis. So what if those pesky weapons of mass destruction weren't really there? So what if no solid links to Al Qaeda are ever found? This was a win-win, as the corporate guys like to say: Not only would we be able to conduct this operation for next to nothing, we would be welcomed with flowers.

"There is a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money," then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Congress days before the war, in testimony on the potential costs of invading Iraq. "We are talking about a country that can finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." In the real world, however, this turned out to be utter nonsense.

With approval of the latest spending bill, taxpayers will have been forced to cough up more than $300 billion for the war to date — above and beyond the annual $400-billion Pentagon budget — and tens of billions for a bungled reconstruction. Even if the United States can lower its troop commitment to 40,000 troops in Iraq by 2010, as some Pentagon strategists optimistically anticipate, the war could still end up costing U.S. taxpayers up to $646 billion by 2015, according to Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. If insurgency, corruption and incompetence continue to plague the U.S. occupation as they have steadily for the last two years, however, the number could surge to a trillion dollars or more.

We need to put such gargantuan numbers in some perspective. The emergency funding that the Senate passed 99 to 0 last week gives the military roughly $80 billion and pays for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan only through September. That is twice what President Bush insists he needs to cut from the federal support for Medicaid over the next decade.

Already the red state of Missouri is set to end its Medicaid program entirely within the next three years because of a lack of funds. As the Los Angeles Times reported, that will save the state $5 billion, but at the cost of ending healthcare for the more than 1 million Missourians enrolled in the program. That sum is less than half of what Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, alone has been paid for reconstruction efforts in Iraq, without much to show for it in terms of improving the Iraqis' quality of life.

Similarly, with roughly 10% of what we've spent in Iraq, we could make up the $27-billion federal funding shortfall in paying for Bush's controversial No Child Left Behind Act, which tells public schools that they will be all but scrapped if they don't improve — yet it doesn't provide the means to do so. This number comes from a lawsuit filed by school districts in Texas, Michigan and Vermont and the National Education Assn., the nation's largest teachers organization.

Sadly, these domestic failures provide a far greater long-term threat to our nation's security than the hyped-up claims surrounding our foreign adventures. Abroad, we must "support our troops" at all costs — even if the cost is their lives — while at home, the nation's leaders are all about tough love.

"Government is not here to do everything for everybody," admonished Missouri state Rep. Jodi Stefanick, a Republican representing suburban St. Louis. "We have to draw the line somewhere." Just not in Iraq, apparently.

Welcome to late-era Rome, where mindless militaristic expansion is considered patriotic and where demagogues who recklessly waste taxes and young lives in empire-building are deemed valorous. Wolfowitz, for example, has been rewarded for his ignorance and arrogance with the top job at the World Bank.

And we turn the Constitution on its plain head, countenance corruption at rates that would make the Taft administration blush and turn the planet into one which is going to be unsustainable for human life. And the voters are watching fake reality programs. And when they bitch, "Why didn't you tell us before it was too late?" I'll be able to sleep well at night. About that, at least.

Critical Thinking

Bush's War on the Press
by Eric Alterman

J ournalists, George Bernard Shaw once said, "are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." How odd, given the profession's un-equaled reputation for narcissism, that Shaw's observation holds true even when the collapsing "civilization" is their own.

Make no mistake: The Bush Administration and its ideological allies are employing every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function to hold power accountable. In fact, the Administration recognizes no such constitutional role for the press. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has insisted that the media "don't represent the public any more than other people do.... I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function."

ADVERTISEMENT
Bush himself, on more than one occasion, has told reporters he does not read their work and prefers to live inside the information bubble blown by his loyal minions. Vice President Cheney feels free to kick the New York Times off his press plane, and John Ashcroft can refuse to speak with any print reporters during his Patriot-Act-a-palooza publicity tour, just to compliant local TV. As an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."

But the White House and its supporters are doing more than just talking trash--when they talk at all. They are taking aggressive action: preventing journalists from doing their job by withholding routine information; deliberately releasing deceptive information on a regular basis; bribing friendly journalists to report the news in a favorable context; producing their own "news reports" and distributing these free of charge to resource-starved broadcasters; creating and crediting their own political activists as "journalists" working for partisan operations masquerading as news organizations. In addition, an Administration-appointed special prosecutor, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, is now threatening two journalists with jail for refusing to disclose the nature of conversations they had regarding stories they never wrote, opening up a new frontier of potential prosecution. All this has come in the wake of a decades-long effort by the right and its corporate allies to subvert journalists' ability to report fairly on power and its abuse by attaching the label "liberal bias" to even the most routine forms of information gathering and reportage (for a transparent example in today's papers, see under "DeLay, Tom"). Some of these tactics have been used by previous administrations too, but the Bush team and its supporters have invested in and deployed them to a degree that marks a categorical shift from the past.

Many of these lines of attack on the press might at first appear to have little in common. What does an increase in official secrecy have to do with payments to pundits, or the broadcast of official video news releases, or the presence of a right-wing charlatan in the White House press room pretending to be a reporter and serving up softball questions to the President in prime time? And how is any of this connected to the Administration's willingness to mislead the nation on everything from stem cells to Social Security?

The right wing's media "decertification" effort, as the journalism scholar and blogger Jay Rosen calls it, has its roots in forty years of conservative fury at the consistent condescension it experienced from the once-liberal elite media and the cosmopolitan establishment for whom its members have spoken. Fueled by this sense of outrage, the right launched a multifaceted effort to fight back with institutions of its own, including think tanks, advocacy organizations, media pressure groups, church groups, big-business lobbies and, eventually, its own television, talk-radio, cable and radio networks (to be augmented, later, by a vast array of Internet sites). Today this triumphant movement has captured not only much of the media and the public discourse on ideas but both the presidency and Congress (and soon, undoubtedly, the Supreme Court as well); it can wage its war on so many fronts simultaneously that it becomes nearly impossible to see that almost all these efforts are aimed at a single goal: the destruction of democratic accountability and the media's role in insuring it.
....
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this war against the media has been the fact that members of the media have largely behaved as if it is just business as usual. In fact, much of the success of the effort derives from the cooperation, both implicit and explicit, of the press. No one, after all, forces local TV stations to run official propaganda videos in lieu of their own programming, or without identifying them as such, and no one forces CNN Newsource, among others, to distribute them. And why did the curious mystery of "Gannon," despite its obvious newsworthiness--and sex appeal--receive so little critical coverage and virtually no outrage in the mainstream press? (Washington Post media critic and CNN talking head Howard Kurtz even went so far as to blame the scandal on "these liberal bloggers, [who] have started investigating his personal life in an effort to discredit him," and the National Press Club invited Gannon to be an honored guest on a panel on blogging and journalistic credibility.) Mike McCurry, White House press secretary under Bill Clinton, says he marvels at the willingness of the press corps to swallow the various humiliations offered them by Bush & Co. He told a recent gathering of Washington reporters and editors, "I used to think that if I ever tried to control the message as effectively as the current White House did, that I would have been run out of the White House press briefing room. But clearly I misjudged the temperament that exists."

It's that final graf in Alterman's article that gives me the chills. Reporters have re-thought or relearned their job to become stenographers. They pass along whatever they are given without critical thought.

As a teacher, I've seen the same in my students: they've changed in the 30 years I've been doing this. They used to ask, "How do I understand this?" Now they ask, "Tell me what to think," and the exercise is truncated. I loved the students who fought with me on principle. I stopped teaching when the students starting fighting with me on method.

The Shock of the New

Read all of his magnificent rant, but Juan Cole answers the doubters and the touters and sums up this way:

And this difference, my friends, accounts for why bloggers get vilified. Journalists can be switched to another story, or fired, or their stories can be buried on page 36. We can't be fired. So if Martin Peretz doesn't like what we have to say, he will publish a hatchet job on us in The New Republic, seeking to make us taboo. If you can't shut people up, and you really don't want their voices heard, then all you can do is try to persuade others not to listen to them or give them a platform. The easiest way to do this is to falsely accuse them of racism or Communism some other character flaw unacceptable to polite society. Because of the distributed character of blogging "computing," however, such tactics are probably doomed to fail.

We are not the mainstream media, and we are here. Get used to it.

The People's Medium is going to go its own way. As anyone who has taken Physics 101 knows, distributed networks are the most efficient.

Sleepy Bumper

Bumpers, this was a really hard day. I've got my hands full trying to tend two blogs, one is in an area where I am hardly a specialist. I'm beat. If any of the guest posters want to put in an appearance, great, but I'm done for the day.

Guest crew, I'll definitely be needing your help tomorrow night and Wednesday afternoon. I'm attending Copy Night with a couple of readers on Tuesday night, I'll be live blogging Al Gore's Move On event on Wednesday followed by running some errands of my own. I'll be back in the house for the rest of the week, but I definitely need to have a little social life and step away from the monitor for a bit this week.

Averting Our Eyes

The man is a national treasure.

The Agony of War
By BOB HERBERT

Published: April 25, 2005

There's been hardly any media interest in the unrelieved agony of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. It's an ugly subject, and the idea has taken hold that Americans need to be protected from stories or images of the war that might be disturbing. As a nation we can wage war, but we don't want the public to be too upset by it.

So the public doesn't even hear about the American bombs that fall mistakenly on the homes of innocent civilians, wiping out entire families. We hear very little about the frequent instances of jittery soldiers opening fire indiscriminately, killing and wounding men, women and children who were never a threat in the first place. We don't hear much about the many children who, for one reason or another, are shot, burned or blown to eternity by our forces in the name of peace and freedom.

Out of sight, out of mind.

This stunning lack of interest in the toll the war has taken on civilians is one of the reasons Ms. Ruzicka, who was just 28 when she died, felt compelled to try to personally document as much of the suffering as she could. At times she would go from door to door in the most dangerous areas, taking down information about civilians who had been killed or wounded. She believed fiercely that Americans needed to know about the terrible pain the war was inflicting, and that we had an obligation to do everything possible to mitigate it.

Her ultimate goal, which Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is pursuing, was to establish a U.S. government office, perhaps in the State Department, to document the civilian casualties of American military operations. That information would then be publicly reported. Compensation would be provided for victims and their families, and the data would be studied in an effort to minimize civilian casualties in future operations.

War is always about sorrow and the deepest suffering. Nitwits try to dress it up in the finery of half-baked rationalizations, but the reality is always wanton bloodshed, rotting flesh and the lifelong trauma of those who are physically or psychically maimed.

More than 600 people attended Ms. Ruzicka's funeral on Saturday in her hometown of Lakeport, Calif. Among them was Bobby Muller, chairman of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. A former Marine lieutenant, he knows something about the agony of war. His spinal cord was severed when he was shot in the back in Vietnam.

He told the mourners: "Marla demonstrated that an individual can make a profound difference in this world. Her life was dedicated to innocent victims of conflict, exactly what she ended up being."

Scattered Attention

I'm having a problem signing into my Gmail account. In order for their "help" service to work, they want the name of the person who sent me the invitation to join and the date. I don't bloody remember. Can you help? Email my root account, [email protected]. Thanks.

Hazmat and the Rails

There is a significant flap going on in DC between the city, Congress and CSX, the big freight train company on the east coast. CSX tracks parallel Amtrak lines along the I-95 corridor. That means that freight cars, loaded with hazardous chemicals, come right through the middle of DC, blocks from the Capital. I've always been uncomfortable with that but this LAT story makes me permanently squeemish about even taking the train, my prefered mode of transit. I'm glad I live in the 'burbs.

Over the Long Haul, Fatigue Kills
# Train accidents caused by human error are rising. Some experts blame overworked crews, especially in the deadliest crashes.

By Dan Weikel, Times Staff Writer

Though fatigue can affect passenger train crews, it is primarily a problem for the 40,000 to 45,000 engineers, brake operators and conductors assigned to unscheduled freight service.

Many put in 60 to 70 hours a week, sometimes more. They can be called to work any time during the day or night, constantly disrupting their sleep patterns.

The irregular shifts often place bleary-eyed crews at the controls between 3 and 6 a.m., when experts say the body's natural circadian rhythm produces maximum drowsiness.

Engineers, brake operators and conductors liken on-the-job fatigue to being in a constant state of jet lag.

"There is no set rest schedule. It changes all the time, and it is hard to adjust," said Doug Armstrong of Huntington Beach, a veteran Union Pacific engineer who often works 12-hour days, six days a week. "People have a normal rest cycle, but a railroad is anything but normal."

Part of the problem is the federal Hours of Service Act, a 98-year-old law that requires at least eight hours off after each shift. Crew members say that often doesn't result in adequate sleep. Allowing for commutes, family obligations, meals and getting ready for work, four to six hours of rest is common, they say.

Moreover, it is legal under the act for engineers, conductors and brake operators to work up to 432 hours a month. In contrast, truckers can drive no more than 260 hours a month under federal law, while commercial pilots are restricted to 100 hours of flying a month.

"It doesn't make scientific or physiological sense," said Mark R. Rosekind, a past director of NASA's fatigue countermeasures program and a former consultant to Union Pacific. "It calls for a minimum of eight hours off, but people need eight hours of sleep a day on average."

Without adequate rest, engineers can significantly increase their risk of an accident, according to research in the late 1990s by the Assn. of American Railroads, the industry's trade organization and lobbying arm.

Donald G. Krause, then an analyst for the association, studied 1.7 million work schedules and found that engineers who put in more than 60 hours a week were at least twice as likely to be in an accident as those working 40 hours.

His work was intended to aid the industry in assessing the fatigue problem and finding ways to reduce accidents. But in 1998, the association canceled the research.

"They did not want this finding," said Krause, who once studied rail safety for the federal General Accounting Office and is now a business writer living outside Chicago. "The railroads fear it could lead to restrictions on hours and government regulation, which could cost them money. But something needs to be done. One of these days, they are going to wipe out a town."

Look at what can happen along busy train lines.

UPDATE: The Center for American Progress adds:

In the second of a series of papers on securing our critical infrastructure, the Center for American Progress outlines five steps that will eliminate or reduce a known risk to our major urban and economic centers and create a strategic framework for action. First and foremost, the federal government should approve the District of Columbia's rail and truck hazardous material or "hazmat" exclusion zone rather than continue to fight it. Second, it should undertake a national review and identify other major cities where similar re-routing options exist. Third, it should encourage localities to enact a broader set of physical security initiatives, particularly regarding railway sidings and private track hazardous material storage. Fourth, the country needs a genuine homeland security partnership, not a rivalry, one based on better communication, coordination and action. Finally, the federal government needs a comprehensive hazardous material strategy that looks at the supply and demand for hazardous materials and encourages changes in manufacturing and operating processes that should reduce the volume of toxic, explosive and lethal substances on the nation's railways.

CAP's full report (.pdf) on rail security is worth a read.

Blogkeeping

Didn't the new guys do a great job? I'm really grateful for their excellent work while giving me some time to get the new place set up. I'll have new information on Sen. Bill Frist, the "nuclear option," and the rest of the judicial nomination process news throughout the day. I'm told that Moveon.org will be giving it a visit. It's going to be a busy Monday.

Leave your thoughts for the new crew in comments below. You'll be seeing them later this week when I get busy.

Mars, Venus and Men in Dresses

NTodd, guest blogging at Susie's place, turns over the log of the modern papacy and finds the creepy-crawlies underneath

Elaine Supkis is in da house and she has a few words for that trash-talkin' Ratzinger, yo:

Is it any wonder that women can't argue philosophy and don't blog?

Mmm. NTodd, a white boy from Vermont is about as good at trash talk as this white chick from Minnesota.

ROTC goes Rotten

If you've been reading here for a while, you know that I'm not anti-military, just anti- the unneccesary and foolish Iraq war. I'm an Army brat and student of military history. That's why I take yankee doodle's comments very seriously. This morning, he says:

"Nationwide enrollment in the Army's Reserve Officers' Training Corps has slipped more than 16 percent over the past two school years, leaving the program, which trains and commissions more than six of every 10 new Army officers each year, with its fewest participants in nearly a decade. The decline includes a drop of 10 percent from the 2003-04 school year to the term ending this spring. According to the Army's Cadet Command at Fort Monroe, Va., which supervises ROTC, 26,566 students are enrolled in the program now, down from 29,618 last year and 31,765 in 2002-03, the first full school year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Pre-Sept. 11 enrollments were also higher than they are now." Washington Post, April 23, 2005.

That colonel who called me “Commissar” was an ROTC student in the 1960s who knew Vietnam combat duty awaited after graduation day. He served there with distinction. He was politically conservative but no damn hypocrite. So maybe there is good news in this article after all: those young conservatives on campus avoiding ROTC weren’t really officer material in the first place.

It is going to take us decades to rebuild our military, if we can return to wise leadership. Think on that. That's a big, freaking if.

Public Health Moment

Drop in virus mortality rate portends new danger
Scientists fear broader reach of lethal bird flu

By Alan Sipress, Washington Post | April 24, 2005

HANOI, Vietnam -- Nguyen Sy Tuan can barely talk. His wasted frame is tucked beneath a thin white sheet on the hospital cot. His cheeks are sunken, and his bulging eyes stare blankly at the ceiling. But the young man has begun to eat rice again and can finally breathe without a mechanical ventilator, a dramatic turnaround for a bird flu patient who doctors had assumed would die.

More than a year after avian influenza emerged in East Asia, killing more than two-thirds of the people with confirmed cases, Vietnamese doctors are reporting that the mortality rate in their country has dropped substantially.

While this is good news for survivors, it could mean that the outbreak of bird flu in Southeast Asia is taking an ominous turn. If a disease quickly kills almost everyone it infects, it has little chance of spreading very far, according to international health specialists. The less lethal bird flu becomes, they say, the more likely it is to develop into the global pandemic they fear, potentially killing tens of millions of people.

''The virus could be adapting to humans," said Peter Horby, an epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Hanoi, the Vietnamese capital. ''There's a number of indications it could be moving toward a more dangerous virus."

The mortality rate for bird flu in Vietnam this year is about 35 percent, almost exactly half that of last year, according to Health Ministry statistics. The mortality rate of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, by comparison, was less than 5 percent, but the outbreak killed an estimated 40 million people worldwide.

Officials said the drop in the bird flu mortality rate was more marked in northern Vietnam than in the south. While the virus in southern Vietnam is still killing at the same pace as last year, the rate in the area around Hanoi and elsewhere in the north has dropped from that level to as low as 20 percent. Vietnamese health specialists said their suspicion that the disease is shifting is further supported by preliminary research showing a genetic change in the virus in the north, resulting in the production of a protein with one less amino acid than in the south.

Health researchers believe that nearly all the 52 people known to have died of bird flu in Southeast Asia caught the virus from infected poultry. But with more clusters of cases among families reported in Vietnam this year -- including that of Tuan, his sister, and their grandfather -- specialists say they are growing increasingly suspicious that the disease has begun passing from one human to another.

Here is something to think about: the Spanish flu which killed 2-5% of those it infected in 1917-18 had a mild first wave in 1917. It returned in a far more virulent form the following year. And we are overdue for a pandemic. Word up.

The Scandal Painted World

Bolton's British Problem
Fresh complaints of bullying dog an embattled nominee.
Hot seat: Bolton faces a steady stream of criticism, even from some Republicans
Dennis Cook / AP
Hot seat: Bolton faces a steady stream of criticism, even from some Republicans

By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

May 2 issue - Colin Powell plainly didn't like what he was hearing. At a meeting in London in November 2003, his counterpart, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, was complaining to Powell about John Bolton, according to a former Bush administration official who was there. Straw told the then Secretary of State that Bolton, Powell's under secretary for arms control, was making it impossible to reach allied agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Powell turned to an aide and said, "Get a different view on [the Iranian problem]. Bolton is being too tough."

advertisement
Unbeknownst to Bolton, the aide then interviewed experts in Bolton's own Nonproliferation Bureau. The issue was resolved, the former official told NEWSWEEK, only after Powell adopted softer language recommended by these experts on how and when Iran might be referred to the U.N. Security Council. But the terrified State experts were "adamant that we not let Bolton know we had talked to them," the official said.

The incident illustrates a key allegation that now bedevils Bolton's nomination to be America's next ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton's critics contend that he has consistently taken an extreme and uncompromising line on issues and that he has bullied subordinates and intel analysts who disagreed with him. President Bush last week stood by his embattled nominee, blaming "politics" for Bolton's difficult confirmation process. But it was members of the president's own party who were holding things up. After GOP Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, unexpectedly blocked a vote last week, it was clear that Bolton's nomination was in trouble. Powell himself, in reported remarks to several senators, expressed worries about Bolton's temperament. Because the eight Democrats on the 18-person committee are solidly against Bolton, a single GOP defector could kill the nomination when it comes to a vote on May 12. The White House still believes that only a hard-liner like Bolton can reform the U.N.

Wait a minute, wait a minute! The Prez nominates a guy who doesn't have a diplomatic bone in his body for the premiere diplomatic posting at State and we're all supposed to shut up and salute?

And isn't it just the teeniest bit arrogant to think that only the US can reform the UN? Where is the demonstration that it needs reforming? Where is the demonstration that the US can do it, with our own Halliburton problems? Hmm?

Who died and left us the arbitors of corruption?

What a Character

David Ignatius gives us an insight into Bolton's character:

Bolton's Biggest Problem

By David Ignatius
Friday, April 22, 2005; Page A17

To appreciate the story, it's important to see Bolton and Westermann as Washington archetypes. Bolton is a political appointee who has made his career delivering broadsides at think tanks. Westermann, by contrast, is a career man. He served 20 years in the Navy, including combat time, before joining INR as a weapons analyst. He took his job as an intelligence gatekeeper seriously.

Westermann sent Bolton's proposed speech language about Cuban biowarfare efforts to the intelligence community for clearance the afternoon of Feb. 12, 2002. With it, he attached alternative language that in his view accorded better with the NIE. Westermann had frequently suggested similar changes for other colleagues and saw it as part of his job. But Bolton seemed convinced that it was a stab in the back. His chief of staff fired off an e-mail complaining about the alternative language and summoning the analyst to Bolton's office immediately. Westermann e-mailed back meekly that he had provided the same language a few months before for Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Bolton was enraged when Westermann arrived: "He wanted to know what right I had trying to change an undersecretary's language. . . . And he got very red in the face and shaking his finger at me and explained that I was acting way beyond my position. . . . And so, he basically threw me out of his office and told me to get Tom Fingar up there," Westermann testified.

Fingar at the time was acting head of INR and now has the job full-time. He testified that when he arrived, Bolton was still furious, saying that "he wasn't going to be told what he could say by a midlevel INR munchkin analyst," and "that he wanted Westermann taken off his accounts." To their immense credit, Fingar and his boss, INR chief Carl Ford, refused to cave to continuing pressure from Bolton to transfer Westermann. He's still on the job.

And what about the Cuban biological weapons program that had Bolton so exercised? In 2004 the intelligence community revised its 1999 estimate because it was even less sure that Cuba had any such effort to develop offensive weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the mercurial, finger-wagging policymaker appears to have had it wrong, and the cautious analyst who refused to be intimidated had it right.

Who ya gonna believe?

LAUGH? CRY?

Rumsfeld Cheered At Grand Ole Opry

NASHVILLE, Tenn., April 24, 2005 (CBS/AP)

As members of the U.S. military watched on television via satellite from Iraq, Dolly Parton invited their boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, onstage at the Grand Ole Opry on Saturday.

Rumsfeld was sitting in the front row as Parton sang her hit "Coat of Many Colors" before he was introduced.

The audience applauded as Rumsfeld appeared and thanked the troops serving in the military.

As people entered the auditorium for Saturday's show they were given postcards with "America supports you," printed on them.

Audience members waved the cards and shouted their support to the troops watching on television.

In contrast, a human rights group is accusing Rumsfeld of not supporting the troops, but rather shifting blame for prison abuse down the ladder.

Human Rights Watch called for a criminal investigation of Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet and other U.S. intelligence and military officials who it says condoned or ignored the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and other locations.

The report, to be released Sunday, takes no stance on the ultimate culpability of the officials but says an investigation is warranted by growing evidence against them.

It criticizes Rumsfeld and Tenet for trying to pass blame for the abuse to military subordinates and individual soldiers.

"This pattern of abuse across several countries did not result from the acts of individual soldiers who broke the rules," Reed Brody, special counsel for the group, said in a statement. "It resulted from decisions made by senior U.S. officials to bend, ignore, or cast rules aside."

The report says coercive questioning techniques authorized by Rumsfeld for use at Guantanamo Bay spread not only to Abu Ghraib, but to sites throughout Iraq, Afghanistan and other "secret locations."

Can someone please explain why the audience is cheering? Please.

Signs of the times

Conservation isn't what it used to be.

"Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall develop and implement measures to conserve petroleum in end-uses throughout the economy of the United States sufficient to reduce total demand for petroleum in the United States by 1,000,000 barrels per day from the amount projected for calendar year 2013."

-- Energy amendment

passed by the Senate,

99 to 1, June 10, 2003

"Not later than six months after the date of enactment of this act, appropriate Federal Departments and agencies, as identified by the president, shall propose voluntary, regulatory, and other actions sufficient to reduce demand for oil in the United States by at least 1.0 million barrels per day from projected demand for oil in 2013."

-- Energy amendment

defeated by the House,

262 to 166, April 20, 2005

Howard Dean, the Dems, and Cultural Issues

DNC Is Told Where to Move Into Bush Bloc

By Dan Balz
Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page A05

Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee has been studying the electorate, and the party's problem with voters of faith is both worse and better than he feared.

The former Vermont governor, in one of his first actions as DNC chairman, commissioned pollster Cornell Belcher to survey voters in eight states won by President Bush last November: Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New Mexico and Nevada.

What Belcher found that worries the Democrats is that a significant percentage -- 47 percent of voters and 51 percent of white women in the eight states -- said their voting decisions are influenced as much or more by their religious faith as by traditional political issues. Not surprisingly, they went heavily for Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), with 66 percent backing the president.

But Belcher's survey also persuaded Dean and other DNC officials that these voters may not be beyond their reach. "These so-called values or faith voters are some of the most economically anxious voters in the electorate," Belcher said. "They're tremendously cross-pressured between their pocketbook concerns and their moral values concerns."

Dean believes that provides an opening for Democrats, but only if Democratic candidates learn to speak a different language. "Democrats wonder why people vote against their own economic interest," he said. "The answer is that Democrats don't connect with people's fears about how to raise their children in a difficult social environment."

The former presidential candidate said issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion are not the major obstacles facing Democrats, but the impression that Democrats convey to these voters is that their answer to those fears is more government. "The message people hear is, 'Oh, we'll raise your children for you.' That's the wrong message," Dean said.

Dean called the survey "the best poll I'd seen in 10 years," and said he hopes to road-test a message designed to reach enough voters in competitive red states to turn the tide. "If it works," he said, "the other folks in Washington will pick it up very quickly."

After the telephone interview, an aide to Dean called to say he wanted to make clear this was not a maverick enterprise on the chairman's part to create a new message, noting that he had spoken with Democratic congressional leaders and that all were working together on it.

This is the sort of thing that reminds me that Dean's a lot more than just someone who will fight for what Dems should be fighting for. Insights like this are an awfully pleasant bonus. Democrats very definitely need to connect with people's fears about how to raise their children in what is a much more difficult social environment than my parents had to deal with, forty years ago.

As Cornel West and Sylvia Ann Hewlett pointed out at length in The War Against Parents, raising children has gotten more challenging for American parents over the past few decades in a whole host of ways. Economically, it takes two incomes for most families to do what one income used to do. Culturally, there's just a lot more stuff thrown at kids that parents have to somehow sort through and decide whether/how to fend it off than there was wehn I was growing up forty years ago. Whether a parent is worried about their kids getting hooked by consumerism or porn, concerned more about violent video games or hucksters for foods that will super-size their kids, there's just a lot more out there, and overworked parents have less time to deal with it all.

Into this environment step the two political parties. The Republicans have a simple answer: porn and gays and sex and condoms and video games are bad; we'll fight for you against their malign influences.

Democrats have had a simple answer, too: it's up to already-overburdened parents to deal with all this crap.

So in this particular marketplace, parents have a choice between two brands: the GOP, which will give them all the wrong kind of help; and the Dems, who won't help them at all. Guess who's been doing better.

I'm not Bill Clinton's biggest fan. But with such initiatives as the V-Chip, Clinton found ways to be on parents' side in this cultural environment, without trampling on civil liberties in the process. It's good to see Howard Dean trying to raise the issue of how to do that sort of thing in a new decade.

I think the problem for Democrats has been a confusion about free speech. If you're a Democrat, you're for free speech, with pretty much no ifs, ands, and buts. This is good; hell, it's non-negotiable. We Dems must continue to be the party that's willing to fight for free speech, because the GOP certainly won't. The GOP has a less complicated path with respect to cultural issues: once you get more than a few steps away from Barry Goldwater, the GOP has been far less committed to free speech over the years. Free speech is good, they say, as long as it doesn't denigrate God or America or saying things about our enemies that distinguish them from evil incarnate. So their answer to cultural influences they don't like is simple: outlaw them, censor them, shut them up.

We Democrats can't take that path. But what we can do is recognize the difference between media (like the Internets) where everyone has the right to speak up, and media like TV and radio, where the 'right' of speech seems to belong only to a tiny but powerful elite. As Democrats, it's our job to keep an eye on powerful elites, and to try to rein them in when they're acting against the interests of most Americans. We shouldn't have to put up with big corporations pushing fattening foods and an ethic of consumerism on our kids practically before they go to kindergarten, and there are ways we can fight that. For instance, we can fight for reforms to rein in broadcasters' exploitation of children as just another market, since broadcasters theoretically have to serve the public interest.

And even with media like the Web, we can find ways to help parents let their kids explore it, without having to stand over their shoulder every minute to make sure they don't trip over cumshot photos. Net-nanny software is getting more sophisticated all the time; the line about its being unable to tell the difference between a breast-cancer site and a porn site is so five years ago. A Democratic approach to helping parents protect their kids from Internet porn would be to periodically rate the best, most flexible net-nanny software out there, and pay them a nice chunk of change to make it available to everyone for free.

But just like national security, this is not an area where the Democratic Party can afford to be missing in action. And I'm very glad that Howard Dean realizes that.

You didn't need those Tax Breaks!

Commission says too many tax breaks exist

By MARY DALRYMPLE
AP TAX WRITER
Sunday April 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- As taxpayers recover from finishing their annual filing chores, a presidential commission studying the tax laws has reached the conclusion that there are just too many deductions and credits.

"We have lost sight of the fact that the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues to fund government," according to President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.

The commission's chairman, former Florida Sen. Connie Mack, said its nine members have been surprised at the number of tax deductions and credits.

"It wasn't until we really had the opportunity to listen to so many different people talk about so many different aspects of the code that it really sunk in about how much and how often the code is being used these days to either create incentives or disincentives for either investment or behavior," Mack said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The White House budget office ranks the cost of a deduction for businesses that provide health insurance to employees as the top tax break, worth $126 billion next year. Also high on the list are the popular mortgage interest deduction, a capital gains break for home sales, a deduction for charitable contributions and the child tax credit.

Bush has asked the panel to preserve tax breaks that promote homeownership and charitable giving.

Tax benefits that provide indirect subsidies to homeowners add up to more than the entire budget of the Housing and Urban Development Department.

The earned income tax credit for low wage workers is bigger than any welfare program, including food stamps.

The tax break for businesses that provide health insurance is growing faster than almost all other domestic programs.

Some critics say no one tracks the tax breaks to find out if they succeed in promoting the behavior lawmakers want to encourage. Limitations often mean that some breaks are not available to wealthier taxpayers or poorer ones.

"It is worth noting that the deductions are of little or no benefit to the 40 percent of taxpayers who don't owe taxes," Fred Goldberg Jr., a former Internal Revenue Service commissioner, told the presidential panel.
and fairer.

This summer, the panel plans to recommend ways to make the tax laws simpler and fairer.

Just great... so we (the people's government) are busy trying to make sure that > .01% of the population won't have to pay inheritence taxes and we (the same government) want to make sure that tax cuts for this same group will remain forever and ever amen.

So how will we balance this... by removing all of the little cuts that go for everyone else naturally. After all, the math will work until we throw in all of those special appropriation bills... don't we have some oil money somewhere Dicky?

Granted, I've never written off too much on the teacher supply category, mostly because my desk is way too messy to find all of the receipts, but some of the rest of them do add up. Now I'm all for simplifying things, but the tax breaks that are dropped need to be for all income levels, and not just the ones who can't afford fancy lobbyists.

And I'm sorry, but Senator Mack if you don't know how complicated the tax code is then why did you vote for so many of these breaks? It's not like most citizens are shocked to see that the government finally discovered the tax code is obtuse. I just have to wonder how much of our hard earned tax dollars was spent discovering the sky is blue....

Social Justice Sunday

"We religious progressives value the diversity of thought and opinion among people of faith. We agree that no individual, group or side of any issue owns our faith. As people of faith, we find hope and compassion in witnessing the questions and answers of others and honoring their struggles.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln: My concern is not whether God is on our side. My great concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

--Clergy and Laity Network

LEVERAGED BUG OUT

Intel gets extension of tax breaks

4/22/2005, 12:15 a.m. PT
The Associated Press

The proposed 15-year pact would exempt as much as $25 billion in new equipment upgrades from local property taxes and take effect whenever Intel exhausts $12.5 billion in exemptions from its last agreement, approved in 1999. Intel estimates that will happen in 2010.

The company, which hasn't committed to any new Oregon investment, contends it would be too expensive to build its multibillion-dollar factories and research centers in Oregon if it were taxed on the full value of its equipment.

"What they have asked us to do, and what we have done, basically, is level the playing field," Hillsboro Mayor Tom Hughes said Thursday. He said the property tax breaks help keep Oregon competitive with other places vying for Intel investment.

Intel's new deal, like its current arrangement, provides property tax exemptions for the company's equipment but requires the company to pay regular property taxes on its land and buildings.

Emphasis mine. Hmmm...I wonder why they haven't committed to any new investment? Perhaps they're creating leverage? Believe me, if Intel finds a better deal someplace else they'll be gone. Down here in Tampa, in a space of 6 months, we've had two major corporations, Capital One and Chase, each announce that they were closing down their Tampa operations and laying off a combined 3,000 workers. I don't know what specific tax breaks or other incentives either company may have received for locating here. My question is - will they pay a penalty for leaving town and dumping all those workers into a crappy job market? No? Why not?

Say one thing...

Frist Tells Conservatives That Judges Deserve 'respect, Not Retaliation' Regardless of How They Rule

By David Espo
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was telling conservatives on Sunday that judges deserve "respect, not retaliation," no matter how they rule, and he defended his effort to strip Democrats of their ability to block votes on President Bush's court nominees.

"I don't think it's radical to ask senators to vote. I don't think it's radical to expect senators to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities," said Frist, whom Democrats have accused of engaging in "radical Republican" politics.

A potential candidate for the White House in 2008, the Tennessee Republican made no overt mention of religion in a brief address taped for a rally Sunday evening in Louisville, Ky., according to a text of his remarks released before the event.

Instead, Frist seemed intent on steering clear of the views expressed by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and other conservatives in and out of Congress who have urged investigations and even possible impeachment of judges they describe as activists.

"Our judiciary must be independent, impartial and fair," Frist said in his taped remarks.

"When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so. But we must also be clear that the balance of power among all three branches requires respect - not retaliation. I won't go along with that," Frist said.

The event, organized by the conservative Family Research Council, was being held in a church and was to be broadcast around the country. Fliers for "Justice Sunday - Stopping The Filibuster Against People of Faith" said the filibuster, a tactic used by the minority party to stall debate and sometimes scuttle votes on presidential nominees, is "being used against people of faith."

The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate said on Sunday that the Constitution prohibits a religious test for a person to be appointed to a public office.

"What's happening today with the Family Research Council is wrong," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told "Fox News Sunday."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaking on the same show, said the Family Research Council should not question whether Democrats are people of faith or religious bigots.

"I don't think that helps the country and I don't think it's fair," Graham said.

For months, Frist has threatened to take action that would shut down the Democrats' practice of subjecting a small number of judicial appointees to filibusters. Barring a last-minute compromise, a showdown is expected this spring or summer.

Watch what they do regardless of what they say.

Elections in Saudi Arabia

Islamic Activists Sweep Saudi Council Elections

By Steve Coll
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page A17

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia, April 23 -- Saudi Arabia's limited 10-week experiment with electoral democracy ended here Saturday in a sweeping victory for slates of Islamic activists marketed as the "Golden List," who used grass-roots organizing, digital technology and endorsements from popular religious leaders to defeat their liberal and tribal rivals, even here in Jiddah, for decades Saudi Arabia's most diverse and business-driven city.

The staggered contests for seats on half of the kingdom's 178 municipal councils, the first governmental elections here in more than three decades, offered a rare measure of public opinion and political strength across Saudi Arabia -- or at least the opinions of men, as women were barred from voting or running as candidates, as were active soldiers and police.

The rest of the story's at the link.

I think it's pretty clear that in most Arab states currently run by kings, princes, generals, or whatnot, these rulers will be succeeded by strongly religious Islamic governments when they eventually fall. Why? Because - for the time being - that's who the Arab people want.

I'm actually for this evolution; I just don't think there's a direct path for them from authoritarian rule to secular democracy that resembles anything we're used to. Some sort of Islamic rule will be a way-station on the road.

The question has always been, how much is it worth to us to help this process along? What should we do to nudge erstwhile allies (such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) and more hostile nations (Syria, prewar Iraq) in that direction, and what should we avoid?

What we ultimately want are democracies where people aren't denied basic human rights due to their creed, gender, or ethnicity; we want to use diplomacy, for the most part, to nudge nondemocratic states towards greater democracy, and pressure states that deny human rights to various groups to stop doing so.

But I can't see that it's worth very much in the way of treasure, or worth a single American life, to replace a Saddam or an Assad with a state operating under Sharia law. The benefits to us - or them, from our POV - just aren't that great.

Fristing

Frist Initiative Creates Rift in GOP Base
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers

April 24, 2005

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will draw a chorus of amens tonight when thousands of evangelicals across the nation hear his call to put more conservative judges on the federal bench.

But even as the Tennessee Republican addresses "Justice Sunday" — a 90-minute simulcast to conservative churches that enthusiastically backs a Senate rule change to speed judicial confirmations — the leader faces apprehension from another key GOP constituency.

The country's leading business lobbying associations, close GOP allies in recent legislative efforts and political campaigns, have told senior Republicans that they would not back the Frist initiative to force votes on President Bush's judicial nominees.

Business leaders say they fear the move would lead to a shutdown of Senate action on long-awaited priorities — as Democrats have threatened if Frist moves ahead with a rule change that they say would drastically alter the traditions of a body designed to respect the rights of the minority party.

"If we do that, then all else is going to stop," Thomas J. Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said during a meeting with reporters Friday.

He then reeled off a list of business priorities that could be delayed for months in the resulting partisan uproar. He expressed the same concerns directly to Frist's office in recent days.

The lack of support from business presents a dilemma for Frist, who wants to build ties with the Republican base ahead of his likely 2008 presidential bid but now must balance competing demands from two pillars of Republican politics: evangelicals, who can marshal millions of voters, and businesses, which donate millions of dollars. Both groups played pivotal roles in securing Bush's reelection last year and expanding the GOP majority in Congress — and both have made clear that they expect to be rewarded.

But though business groups can already point to several victories — such as passage of laws on class action lawsuits and bankruptcy — evangelicals look to the judicial fight as the signal moment to exert newfound influence.

Party officials concede that the tension between business leaders and social conservatives could foreshadow problems for Republican candidates in 2006 and 2008 who, like Bush, will rely on an energized and unified base to win closely fought contests.

"Every day that this does not get resolved there could be increased tension or pressure put on the situation," said one GOP strategist, who requested anonymity citing the sensitive nature of the rift. "Depending on how artfully or inartfully this is resolved, there is some fence-mending that needs to be done."

Senators, let's see the results of your handiwork played out on C-Span. Display your partisan politics and let the people decide.

Cross-posted at Just a Bump in the Beltway, American Street and Judging the Future.

Today is going to be a busy day. Check back in for a blogburst to counter the catkiller's appearance at the Family Research Council event. The rest of us have some faith and morals to wave in his face.

OPEN THREAD

So, what's on Bumpers' minds tonight?

Is Saudi Arabia Running Out of Oil?

Simmons hopes he’s wrong
Leading energy analyst believes Saudi Arabia’s crude oil supply near peak;
calls for greater global reserve transparency to anticipate ‘cataclysm’

F. Jay Schempf
Petroleum News Contributing Writer (Houston)

Matt Simmons hopes he is wrong.

But if he’s right in his belief that Saudi Arabia’s giant oil fields might already have peaked and could start into rapid decline in as few as three years, somebody better have a “Plan B” ready or there’s no way, he says — absolutely no way — to avoid a world energy cataclysm.

Pretty strong words. Stronger, perhaps, than any uttered before about energy. Simmons spoke them, and more, at a July 9 Washington, D.C., presentation made at a meeting on Saudi Arabia’s future. The Hudson Institute sponsored the meeting.

Simmons asked for anybody, including the Saudis themselves, to refute his claim. But so far, in his view, nobody’s stepped up. He acknowledges, however, that the Saudis recently have been more forthcoming about their ability to supply all the extra oil the world will require from Saudi fields. But still, it appears that nobody is willing to counter his specific charges.

Simmons knows whereof he speaks. He views the world oil supply picture from the vantage point of 30 years’ experience as founder of Simmons & Company International, Houston, which today is one of the world’s largest energy investment banking groups. Since opening the company’s first office in Houston back in 1974, Simmons and his group have guided a broad client base to complete more than 500 oil and gas investment banking projects with a combined dollar value of some $58 billion. The company now has additional offices in Boston, London and Aberdeen, Scotland.

A few fields produce almost all Saudi oil
But all the investment capital in the world won’t be much help if, as Simmons suspects, Saudi Arabia can no longer open the tap wider at its key oil fields as the world’s “plug” producer in meeting steadily increasing world oil demand. Contrary to widespread opinion, the “gift” to the world of Saudi Arabia’s oil, in Simmons’ view at least, is not one that will keep on giving.

Despite recent comment by Saudi Aramco that it has discovered 85 oil fields in the country and has so far developed just 23 of them, Simmons says only a handful of fields account for virtually all Saudi Arabian oil production. The largest, Ghawar — the world’s single largest oil field — has accounted for about 60 percent of all the oil the country ever produced, he said. Today, he added, Ghawar still produces about 5 million barrels per day of the current Saudi oil output of 7.5 to 8 million bpd. Five other fields produce the remainder, he said: Abqaiq, Safaniyah, Zuluf, Berri and Shaybah.

But all six of these fields, he noted, are more than 30 years old. Abqaiq was discovered in 1940, Ghawar in 1948, and Safaniyah in 1951. The last three were discovered in the mid-1960s.

There’s no Act 2
Normally, Simmons said in a July 23 interview with Petroleum News, Saudi fields would be subject to the same decline curves as those experienced by any of the world’s oil fields, once reservoir pressure begins to dwindle. The difference is, he said, Saudi Aramco doubled up to catch up, almost from the start, by keeping reservoir pressures — and individual well flow rates — as high as possible, seemingly for as long as possible.

In simple terms, says Simmons, the Saudis have produced their fields under simultaneous primary and secondary recovery, having instituted huge waterflooding programs relatively soon after completing field development.

“All of these fields are old,” he pointed out, “but Saudi Aramco has managed them in a ‘gold standard’ fashion by instituting careful and rigorous water injection to maintain very high reservoir pressures. They’re effectively sweeping the reservoirs until the easily recoverable oil is gone. In so doing, they have defied the standard decline curves. With water injection, they’ve maintained reservoir pressures above the bubble point. The trouble is, once they finally finish the sweep, they’ve done both primary and secondary depletion. There isn’t any Act 2.”

Apparently, detailed knowledge of this double dipping has not been common. Saudi production figures and field statistics have been regarded largely as state secrets since the 1980s. Nevertheless, said Simmons, most world oil supply studies assume that Saudi production is nearly inexhaustible and can be increased almost effortlessly by whatever world demand dictates.

No new giant oil fields in Saudi Arabia
But according to Simmons, enough data exists in the public domain today that, when combined and analyzed, reveals a much different picture.

During the past decade or so, he said, the lack of hard field data from most producing countries, particularly from OPEC member countries and even more particularly from Saudi Arabia, made it extremely difficult for his company to plan various energy investment scenarios for its clients.

So, Simmons instituted a 12-month study of technical presentations on Saudi Arabian oilfield activity made before various meetings around the world of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, beginning in 1961 and going through 2003. The study amassed more than 200 such tech papers, he said, delivered largely by oilfield service companies and dealing with highly technical aspects in all six of the Saudi giant fields.

“Each individual paper doesn’t tell you a lot,” he said. “But, by going through this incredible stack and then going back and isolating each by the specific field they dealt with, chronologically, you could see the history of what had been going on in Saudi Arabia during that time.”

While the study revealed a “whole litany” of surprises, said Simmons, the most important one is that while the six Saudi Arabian giant fields have accounted for everything Saudi Arabia has produced so far, there is sufficient evidence to argue that once those fields are in decline, the Saudis won’t have much else in the way of new oil from which to draw.

Saudi Aramco has explored the country thoroughly, Simmons said, and no new ‘giant’ fields have resulted.

“Meanwhile, Saudi Aramco’s senior management are adamant that their existing oil fields are in great shape and can reliably produce as much as 15 million bpd for another 50 years,” said Simmons. “They also insist that their proved reserves are actually conservative and there are still another 200 billion barrels of oil yet to be found in various unexplored pockets of Saudi Arabia.” The world has only the company’s word on this, said Simmons.

New technology won’t do it
He added that Saudi Aramco senior managers also believe “with some passion” that the technological tools they are now employing would contain the rise of water in existing fields. Such tools, he noted, include horizontal and extended-reach wells and multi-lateral well completions, among others.

“My worry is that too many other oil companies around the world also believed these same tools would allow them to steadily grow their production from a reduced amount of wells drilled,” he said. “Instead, it turned out that virtually every key oil producer using these same tools sadly ended up seeing their production growth peter out.”

While the tools did extract more oil per well, he explained, they also accelerated the recovery of economical oil. In turn, this created decline rates never seen before in existing production.

Simmons has taken his study’s findings and conclusions and currently is writing a book, which he plans to self-publish late this coming fall.

The book, Twilight in the Desert, published by Wiley, is due out on May 27.

Here's the full transcript of Simmons' presentation. Plus Q&A; afterwards. I found it to be a very compelling read. He provides a number of additional details that give further credence to his claim.

I'm a mathematician, not an oilman. I can't judge Simmons' claims. But he's raised a pretty serious matter here. If he's right, we've got to get our house in order - fast. And even if he's wrong, peak oil's going to find us anyway. Francis Harper of BP, a senior oil industry executive, expects global oil production to peak between 2010 and 2020. And once it does, the price of oil will inevitably skyrocket as supply decreases. We might as well get ready sooner rather than later.

This means, quite simply, getting ready to live with less petroleum. The big, obvious things are more energy-efficient vehicles, and more public transportation. Here's how a barrel of oil breaks down into different products. A 42-gallon barrel of crude is turned into 19.5 gallons of gasoline, 9.2 gallons of diesel, 4.1 gallons of kerosene (jet fuel - something I learned only recently), and assorted other products - but transportation is clearly what drives demand.

If the world's biggest economy doesn't get ready for peak oil, it's going to be far too interesting times when it gets here - and not just for America.

What about the Anthrax?

U.S. Yields In Anthrax Lawsuit Standoff
Some Questioning Allowed on Leaks

By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A11

A federal judge ordered the Justice Department yesterday to begin providing testimony to attorneys for Steven J. Hatfill, the former Army scientist who is suing the government for identifying him as "a person of interest" in the anthrax investigation.

For months, the Justice Department had opposed Hatfill's attempts to begin deposing government witnesses, citing the sensitive nature of the investigation. Hatfill's attorneys said that stalled their efforts to identify the source of leaks in the massive probe.

Until yesterday, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton deferred to the government's concerns. But Walton also said that Hatfill must eventually have an opportunity to explore the subject, and the Justice Department told the judge that it is now willing to permit some questioning.

Hatfill filed suit in 2003, alleging that then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and other federal officials defamed him and violated his privacy. No one has been arrested for the anthrax-laced mailings that killed five people and sickened 17 in the fall of 2001, and Hatfill has said that he had nothing to do with the crime.

Hatfill, a physician and bioterrorism expert, worked from 1997 to 1999 in the Army's infectious diseases laboratory at Fort Detrick. He did not attend yesterday's hearing at the federal courthouse in Washington.

The government, in its written submission to the court and in its statement yesterday, sought to preclude Ashcroft and other individual defendants from being deposed because the judge is still considering their claims of immunity.

It was unclear from the court filings and statements what led to the government's turnabout. Last year, Walton expressed doubts that authorities were on the verge of solving the case. The government said in a filing this week that the investigation into the anthrax attacks is "active and ongoing." But law enforcement sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there have been no significant new developments.

Permit me a moment to rise from my bunker of clutter that passes for a home and mutter “Very interesting...”

I wonder if this is a case where secrecy is truely the issue or if it another instance where Ashcroft’s Justice Department, which has had a great deal of trouble winning any sort of terroism convictions unless they scared the defendent to death, completely bungled things so basly that the public will never really know what happened.

One would think that there are only so many potential suspects that had access to weapons grade anthrax and that after almost 4 years someone could be charged with the crime and put on trial. Perhaps we should hold them just as accountable as the Army did Lt. Gen. Sanchez for the prision scandal .

Federal Time Out

Texas fined for No Child defiance
Toe the line, education chief warns the agency she once headed
By JUSTIN GEST
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Education Secretary Margaret Spellings fined Texas $444,282 Friday for the state's continued defiance of the No Child Left Behind Act.

For the last two years, the Texas Education Agency has exceeded the federal cap on how many students with learning disabilities can be exempted from regular state testing, mandated by the act, in favor of an easier exam.

It is only the second fine ever levied against a state under the 2001 landmark education law. It is also the steepest.

Minnesota was fined $113,000 by Spelling's predecessor, Rod Paige, for not testing an adequate number of students in 2003.

Texas' fine comes a little more than two weeks after Spellings announced that she would offer more flexibility in meeting No Child Left Behind requirements to states that otherwise adhere to federal rules.

But Texas had flouted the federal guidelines.

Neeley's defiance touched off a public dispute between her and Spellings, who helped design the original No Child Left Behind Act in Texas when she advised then-Gov. George W. Bush from 1994 to 2000.

Neeley was accused of exempting the extra students to falsely inflate state scores. In response, she said the Education Department was out of touch with needs of students in Texas.

Texas may be subject to further sanctions.

The federal limit on the number of students who can take the special exam remains capped at 1 percent, and Texas again exempted nearly 9 percent of its students during the current school year.

The $444,282 fine represents a fraction of Texas' $1.1 billion federal allocation, and a sliver of the state's $33 billion annual public education budget.

"Texas got a slap on the hand for breaking a fundamental principle of No Child Left Behind. Now any other state that doesn't comply is going to expect a similar financial penalty," said Scott Young, a policy adviser for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"Texas called their bluff. Apparently, the department's not going to jeopardize public education in Texas and the individual students there. I can only imagine what Utah and Connecticut are thinking right now."

On Tuesday, Utah's Legislature passed a resolution that declares federal education laws subordinate to state policy.

Last week, Connecticut officials announced plans to sue the Education Department for the right to disregard federal rules, saying the federal government fails to provide enough money.

It is unclear how Texas will return the money from its 2004 federal allocation, all of which has been spent.

Curiouser and curiouser indeed! It looks like the Dept of Education is going to make sure to close every loophole out there... considering the current head of Education knows how Houston pulled off it’s “educational miracle” (with the help of Eron accounting methods), she’s going to make sure that it won’t happen again! I do wonder how much longer the states will tolerate this unprecidented unfunded mandate, even though the recent actions by Utah and Connecticut
prove this is not a red/blue issue. Most states are running a deficit as we speak and will do good not to cut their education budgets, much less expand them. North Carolina is projecting a huge deficit for the coming year.

Get ready to hear about more fines like this where the local systems push weaker kids into “special education” catergories... because everyone will have to do it to pass the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) standards. While I work at a very good school, one of the only reasons why we have met AYP the last few years is because we did not have enough students in certain categories to be counted towards out AYP scores, though that will probably change this year. In other words, the poorer and more diverse schools get punished the quickest even if they improve their scores.

And remember, by the time my 2 year olds are in school, 100% of the kids in public schools are supposed to be functioning at grade level, even the ones who come in my class, lay down, and refuse to do anything.

Oil: demand keeps rising, supply chain is maxed out

Matt Simmons has been running an energy investment banking firm for the past 30+ years, and was on Bush's Energy Advisory Committee between 2001 and 2004; nobody can accuse him of being a lefty enviro know-nothing alarmist. He says we've got some problems:

Ten years ago there was a widespread belief that oil demand was unlikely to ever resume any significant long-term growth. The biggest contributor to this belief was that global oil demand had stayed in a narrow band of 66 to 68 million bpd for the prior seven years. The first year that global oil demand crossed 70 million bpd was 1995. Over the next nine years, global oil demand grew from 70.0 to 82.4 million bpd. It is easy to pin this seemingly surprising demand leap on China, which played a key role. But the reason this growth in oil use was so powerful was because it came from everywhere.

According to a (now-firewalled) story in last Sunday's Tampa Tribune, oil demand was up to 84.7 million bpd for the first quarter of 2005.

And then there's the supply side. I'll for the time being skip Simmons' claims about Saudi Arabia's future production, because that's a big issue that needs its own post. (Later.) But in terms of the mechanics of getting accessible oil out of the ground and into our cars, life is very complicated right now:

Lack of spare capacity exists at every step of the supply chain. From drilling and producing, to transportation, and on to processing, there is little or no spare capacity available to accommodate demand growth similar to that in 2004.

If any spare wellhead capacity still exists, it is for crude that is both heavy and sour. The refineries that are equipped to refine this type of crude are currently operating at 100% capacity. Compounding this problem is the fact that the world's light sweet crude supply is also in decline. Almost 90% of new oil projects produce oil that is either sour, heavy, or both.

The world's network of crude oil pipelines also is now operating at virtually 100% capacity. For most of 2004, the world's tanker system operated at full capacity, too. This sparked an unprecedented rise in tanker rates, which added up to $5 to $6 per barrel to the wellhead price of oil in some key long-haul export routes.

The fleet of high-quality drilling rigs is now close to 100% utilized, even though utilization remains soft in drilling markets like the Gulf of Mexico, Venezuela and the North Sea. A high percentage of the offshore drilling fleet is approaching an age that used to signal obsolescence, yet the global capacity to replace even 10% to 15% of the existing fleet over the next five years is almost non-existent. Many of these capacity bottlenecks can be corrected over time, assuming sufficient investment is made. The industry must begin replacing the aging rig fleet, but fleet expansion is also required to drill more wells and fight the growing decline curve.

A lack of qualified manpower is looming high on the list of capacity problems. In addition to the many layoffs and downsizing events that our industry has endured, we've only been hiring a handful of entry level employees each year. As a consequence, we now have an aging workforce at a time when the technical intensity of the industry is increasing each year. This manpower issue is an industry-wide problem and there is little evidence that anyone is creating a plan for resolving the problem.

And in this Administration of oilmen, nobody's minding the store. Even if 'peak oil' is fifty years away, the oil still has to be pumped, shipped, refined, and shipped again. There's no excess capacity in this system, and if demand keeps growing while effective supply hits its ceiling, things are going to get awfully expensive. And nobody who's in charge seems to be even paying attention to the problem.

Blatant Self Promotion

While the boys are collecting themselves this morning, let me remind you that I (Melanie) will be working at Judging the Future this weekend and we've got big doings coming up tomorrow afternoon. Sen. Frist is going to, um, make a mess on the carpet tomorrow at that Family Research Council event, while the lefty blogosphere gets ready to shout back. And we will. The blogburst is on for 2:30 EDT.

Wayne, RT, Chuck and Mike are doing a great job. Reward good behavior with your comments. This is tangible proof that Bumpers are some of the best people in the blogosphere.

ANWR and ESKIMOS

Alaska Town Split Over Drilling in Wildlife Refuge
Oil Money Tantalizes, but Many Fear Effect on Way of Life

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A01

KAKTOVIK, Alaska -- In the long struggle over drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Inupiat Eskimos who live in this outpost have played a key role. Their steadfast support for development is routinely cited as a major reason to allow oil companies into the refuge.

But when a delegation of U.S. senators and Cabinet secretaries landed on the unpaved runway here last month, an unusual sight greeted them: the first protest anyone can remember in Kaktovik. A handful of residents chanted slogans and unfurled signs opposing oil drilling, reflecting a small but significant shift in sentiment against proposed legislation that would permit drilling on the nearby tundra.

Residents in this town of compact wood houses and unpaved roads -- the only settlement within the refuge -- have long equated oil development with financial well-being. But a recent petition opposing drilling attracted the signatures of 57 of Kaktovik's 188 adults, and Mayor Lon Sonsalla said he is no longer certain where the majority stand.

Many Inupiats here question whether opening the refuge will endanger something they value most: their traditions -- especially the annual bowhead whale hunt, their strongest link to the past. They worry that drilling on land will eventually expand into the waters offshore, where residents have long opposed drilling for fear it will interfere with whale migration. Recent comments by Gov. Frank H. Murkowski (R) predicting that opening the refuge would lead to offshore development ignited their concerns.

After decades of debate, Congress appears closer than ever to approving drilling. The House on Thursday passed an energy bill that calls for drilling, and the Senate last month included it in a budget resolution. Supporters expect to iron out those differences in conference and include the refuge in the budget.

The opinions of natives in Kaktovik have become critical to the debate. While the town has no vote in the matter, members of Congress have been saying that Kaktovik strongly favors drilling, citing that as a reason for opening the refuge.

"My position is based on my experiences in Alaska when I visited the village of Kaktovik in 1995 and spoke to the Inupiat peoples, who greatly desire this opportunity for economic self-determination," Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) said last month on the Senate floor before voting for drilling. "To me, [the issue] is really about whether or not the indigenous people who are directly impacted have a voice about the use of their lands."

So: one of the reasons ANWR drilling passed was because Democratic Senators like Akaka believed the local Eskimos favored drilling. But with nearly one-third of the townspeople on record as opposing drilling, it's a lot less cut and dried.

And the residents of Kaktovik aren't the only ones affected:

Some Inupiats who live in Kaktovik and elsewhere on the North Slope have an added financial incentive to support oil. Shareholders in Inupiat corporations could profit from oil development rights on 92,000 acres in the refuge if it is opened -- a result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 and a subsequent land swap with the federal government. Some of those shareholders have been lobbying to open the refuge.

Kaktovik has long had to battle the image that it wants oil out of greed. Its residents are often contrasted with Gwich'in people who live just outside the refuge and oppose drilling for fear it would harm the caribou, which is central to their culture.

Avian Flu Update

In Vietnam, A Dark Side To Good News On Bird Flu

By Alan Sipress
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A01

HANOI -- Nguyen Sy Tuan can barely talk. His wasted frame is tucked beneath a thin white sheet on the hospital cot. His cheeks are sunken and his bulging eyes stare blankly at the ceiling. But the young man has begun to eat rice again and can finally breathe without a mechanical ventilator, a dramatic turnaround for a bird flu patient whom doctors had assumed would die.

More than a year after avian influenza emerged in East Asia, killing more than two-thirds of the people with confirmed cases, Vietnamese doctors are reporting that the mortality rate in their country has dropped substantially.

But while this is good news for survivors, it could mean the outbreak of bird flu in Southeast Asia is taking an ominous turn. If a disease quickly kills almost everyone it infects, it has little chance of spreading very far, according to international health experts. The less lethal bird flu becomes, they say, the more likely it is to develop into the global pandemic they fear, potentially killing tens of millions of people.

"The virus could be adapting to humans," said Peter Horby, an epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Hanoi, the Vietnamese capital. "There's a number of indications it could be moving toward a more dangerous virus."

The mortality rate for bird flu in Vietnam this year is about 35 percent, almost exactly half that of last year, according to Health Ministry statistics. The mortality rate of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, by comparison, was less than 5 percent, but the outbreak killed an estimated 40 million people worldwide. Officials said the drop in the bird flu mortality rate was more marked in northern Vietnam than in the south. While the virus in southern Vietnam is still killing at the same pace as last year, the rate in the area around Hanoi and elsewhere in the north has dropped from that level to as low as 20 percent. Vietnamese health experts said their suspicion that the disease is shifting is further supported by preliminary research showing a genetic change in the virus in the north resulting in the production of a protein with one less amino acid than in the south.

Health researchers believe that nearly all the 52 people known to have died of bird flu in Southeast Asia caught the virus from infected poultry. But with more clusters of cases among families reported in Vietnam this year -- including that of Tuan, his sister and their grandfather -- experts say they are growing increasingly suspicious that the disease has begun passing from one human to another.

Also worrying is the discovery of at least five cases, including that of Tuan's grandfather, in which people tested positive for bird flu but showed no symptoms. This could make it more difficult to contain an epidemic because people could transmit the disease without anyone realizing it.

Last year, U.S. researchers reported that ducks in Southeast Asia had begun carrying the bird flu virus without showing symptoms. Now, scientists in Vietnam have found numerous asymptomatic cases in the country's vast chicken population, according to Nguyen Tran Hien, director of the National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology.

"It seems that the virus may adapt in humans and in poultry a little bit. Therefore, the symptoms are not as severe as before," Hien said. "Also, the transmission may be faster and easier."

Moreover, the existing virus strain is not the only threat. Each human case also presents a chance for the bird flu virus to swap genetic material with an ordinary flu bug -- if the person becomes infected with both strains at the same time -- potentially creating a new hybrid that is highly lethal and even easier to catch.

"We are concerned that if the virus is changing, maybe a new virus is coming in the future," Hien said.

I'm no expert, but while I consider this a threat to keep a watch on out of the corner of my eye, it's not one of my prime concerns. Yet.

What worries me is that the US government's response, as Melanie has previously documented, has been to actually reduce preparedness. The overall pattern of our government to refuse to be a grownup and make appropriate preparations and contingency plans for threats on the horizon is what really scares me.

Because it doesn't matter whether the threat is avian flu, a 'dirty bomb' that arrives via container ship, a 'hard landing' for the dollar, the day of 'peak oil' reckoning hitting us out of the blue, or some other threat that I haven't itemized here, it just seems there's nobody keeping watch on the city walls. And so whichever threat does materialize, our nation will be just as ready for it as we were for the planes that flew into the World Trade Center.

Posted by RT at 06:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

THE MIGHTY QUINN

This Bet May Cost You Big

The plan to reform Social Security will mean a double cut in benefits. Returns from private accounts are unlikely to cover both.
By Jane Bryant Quinn
Contributing Editor
Newsweek

One part of your payroll tax would go toward a monthly Social Security benefit, just as it does today. It will be smaller than under present law, due to whatever cuts are made to restore the program's solvency.

The other part of your payroll tax would go toward a private account invested in stocks, bonds or a mixture of the two. When you retire, your annual benefit would be docked by the amount of money you contributed to your private account, plus 3 percent a year, plus each year's inflation rate. For example, if you contributed $1,000 with inflation at 3 percent, you'd lose $1,060 in benefits—your contribution plus 6 percent "interest." Over 35 years of $1,000 ontributions, your promised retirement check might be reduced by roughly half ($12,000 a year), says economist Jason Furman of New York University. That's the second benefit cut.

What's the purpose of the second cut? To repay the government for the money it borrowed to finance the entire system of private accounts. You'd make this fixed repayment whether your private account made money or not. The gamble is that your investments would rise by enough to offset the amount that's subtracted from your retirement check, plus something more.

What are the odds that you'd succeed? Yale economist Robert Shiller looked at what you might earn if you're 21, save continuously for 44 years and retire at 65. He used the returns from various types of U.S. investments over every 44-year period since 1871. The results surprised me. With money invested half in stocks and half in bonds, young people would have broken even or made money only 80 percent of the time. Your odds of coming out behind were one in five. If you played it "safe" by investing entirely in bonds, you'd have lost money 89 percent of the time.

Emphasis mine. This is not news to us Bumpers. Krugman, Max, De Long, Josh & Matt Y. have all covered this. But two things: first, it's good to have another mainstream media type who actually has a clue about the second benefits cut (I call it "The Offset", others call it "the Clawback"). Second, when I ask people about the Offset, none of them are aware of this. None. They are shocked to find out they have to repay all that money with interest. Bushco has turned a 401K into a balloon note. Now that's impressive! I've never seen a magic trick quite that good.

The Fog of Mind

HIGH TIME FOR 'GEN RX'

By BILL HOFFMANN
New York Post
April 22, 2005

One in five teenagers has popped Vicodin, OxyContin or some other prescription painkiller to get high, a shocking new study has revealed.

And, just as disturbing, today's teens can get those drugs almost effortlessly — simply by raiding their parents' medicine cabinets, according to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

"A new category of substance abuse is emerging in America: Increasingly, teenagers are getting high through the intentional abuse of medications," said Roy Bostock, chairman of the Partnership.

"For the first time . . . today's teens are more likely to have abused a prescription painkiller to get high than they are to have experimented with a variety of illicit drugs — including Ecstasy, cocaine, crack and LSD.

"In other words," Bostock said, " 'Generation Rx' has arrived."

The 2004 Partnership Attitude Tracking Study, released yesterday, found the most popular prescription drug misused by teens to be Vicodin, with 18 percent — or about 4.3 million kids — admitting to having used it on purpose to get high.

One in 10 also admitted recreational use of OxyContin — the drug Rush Limbaugh was addicted to — and Ritalin or Adderall, normally used as treatment for attention-deficit disorder.

And one in 11 said they had even used such over-the-counter products as cough medicine to catch a buzz.

What's more, some 48 percent of those quizzed said they saw no great risk in fooling around with prescription medicines — believing them, in fact, to be "much safer" than street drugs.

When asked why prescription-medicine abuse was increasing among their peers, teenagers cited "ease of access" — specifically, the medicine cabinets of their parents or their friends' parents.

I knew we had gone too long without the generic “Look, our teenagers are all scum who can’t do anything right,” report in the media. Man, I hope these reporters didn’t suffer through too many withdrawal symptoms before cranking this thing out... it’s tough to type when your fingers are shaking so much.

I really do wish they had looked at the willingness for us as a society to prescribe our problems away, instead of trying to deal with them here and now. What type of message do they (parents, media, creators of this study) think the kids are getting if the ads in TV, sports logos, and e-mails inform you that there is yet another magical pill that will take care of all of your problems. Even better, we have cure for a whole host of debilitating conditions you never knew you had (really, did you ever consider yellowing toe nails to be that worrisome until you saw those animated bugs). So, people will be shocked to find kids abusing these medicines?

Remind me again... why are we the only industrialized that nation that allows advertising to be targeted at children under 7? Wouldn't this be a logical place for a party or candidate trying to claim the "family values" label to actually push for legislation that would value families and appeal to all kinds of voters?

Cyber Probate

Apr 22, 2005
Legal Experts Say E-Mail Conflicts Upon Death Bound to Increase
By Adrienne Schwisow
Associated Press Writer

DETROIT (AP) - Yahoo Inc. may have resolved its dispute with a family over accessing the e-mail account of a Marine killed in Iraq, but legal experts say such conflicts are bound to be more common as e-mail becomes a crucial component of our lives.

John Ellsworth sought his son's e-mails after Lance Cpl. Justin Ellsworth was killed Nov. 13 while inspecting a bomb in Iraq. But the father didn't know his son's password, and Yahoo said it couldn't break its confidentiality agreement with the Marine.

The family was granted access this week after an Oakland County probate judge ordered Yahoo to do so. Yahoo had said all along that it would comply with any such order.

Henry H. Perritt Jr., a professor and expert in cyberlaw at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, said he knows of no other case where battles over a dead person's e-mail have gone to court, but he expects to see more.

"I think that as it is now, the service providers for the most part just hand it over when they've established death and that someone is the administrator of the estate," Perritt said Thursday. "But they are really just beginning to think about this."

Other e-mail service providers, including America Online Inc., EarthLink Inc., and Microsoft Corp., which runs Hotmail, have provisions for transferring accounts upon proof of death and identity as next of kin. AOL says it gets dozens of such requests a day.

Yahoo's policy, however, states that accounts terminate at death.

This sad story raises some interesting questions about cyber property and cyber probate. We may need to update our wills to include our blogs.

RIP Sister Thomasita Fessler

She was an artist and teacher. I studied under her in college back in the late 1970's. Her classes on actually producing art were pretty good, but when she taught about esthetics she was something else. Her ideas on what beauty is, and why it is important, and what art is, and why it is important to experience it and to create it, have probably had more influence on my life (except for the work part) than anything else I studied in college.

She said that some people told her "I can't be an artist - I can't draw a straight line" and she answered "straight lines are boring."

Her style was modern abstract but representational. Pretty much in keeping with the times.

She was quoted on a bumper sticker that was common at least in Wisconsin: Children who create will not destroy.

She seemed immovable, but we had a long argument in class in which she insisted there is no such thing as line, just shapes between shapes and I argued that line both exists and can be an important feature in an artwork. Neither of us backed off, I eventually sat down and shut up because she was the professor and a nun and better at yelling than I was. But several of her works from the year after that argument have a great deal of linearity.

The entire grade for the esthetics class was based on typed and then decorated lecture notes - 3 pages per class minimum and most classes didn't cover much material - and I didn't complete mine. However, the synchronization between small computers and printers back then was not good, and after a few dozen pages the computer had completely outpaced the printer and the last half of my paper was garbled. She accepted my "the computer ate my paper" excuse.

A great many of the students at that college go on to teach. I doubt that anyone who took any of her classes ever went on to mark a child's coloring page wrong because an apple was green or yellow instead of red.

I hope she didn't yell at the little kids the way she yelled at college students.

It's Just History

Japanese Premier Reiterates Apology to China for World War II

By DONALD GREENLEES,
International Herald Tribune

Published: April 22, 2005

AKARTA, Indonesia, April 22 - Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan reiterated an apology today for his country's aggression in World War II ahead of an expected meeting with President Hu Jintao of China in an attempt to defuse a diplomatic row over how Japan interprets its wartime history.

Echoing remarks of previous Japanese prime ministers, Mr. Koizumi expressed "deep remorse" over the pain inflicted on Japan's neighbors in Asia during a speech to a gathering of Asian and African leaders here.

The repetition of the longstanding apology over Japan's war record was significant for its timing: Mr. Koizumi and Mr. Hu are expected to meet Saturday in an effort to calm a dispute that has set off bitter anti-Japanese protests in China.

It also comes as Japan tries to use a two-day meeting of more than 100 Asian and African heads of state, government leaders and ministers to bolster its campaign for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council - a move some of its neighbors oppose.

Relations between China and Japan have been severely tested in recent weeks by the issues of how Japanese school history books treat aspects of Japan's wartime conduct and overlapping claims to a group of islands surrounded by oil and gas fields. The tensions have been given focus by Japan's push to gain the Security Council seat.

In the midst of the furor, Mr. Koizumi began his speech to the summit meeting in Jakarta today by immediately acknowledging concerns among many regional countries over how Japan views its war record.

"In the past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations," he said. He said the country "with feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology" was committed to peace and resolving differences "without recourse to force."

The comments were undoubtedly aimed at a wider audience than just the Chinese delegation. The Japanese and Chinese leaders appear intent on using the Asian-African summit meeting to show their concern for the developing countries of the two regions. Both want to win friends and allay concerns over how they will wield their economic and political clout.

So we have this crisis that appears at just the right moment for China to humiliate their regional rival, especially one that is so closely tied to Washington.

The whitewashing of history by the extremists in Japan is disgusting and should elicit protests, but the level of complaints seems a bit excessive for the situation.
It is scary to think that a small group can influence the history books so much to try and create a "collective amnesia" on shameful events.

Now, we might have similar reactions if our textbooks decided to "forget" that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Who knows what the textbooks will say about our current war in 10 years, considering they have already tried to explain the Twin Towers in our most recent textbook from 2 years ago.

Chuck

Earth Day, Part 2: President Bush's Energy Bill

Energy Bill Is Passed By House
Focus Is Production, Not Conservation

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 22, 2005; Page A04

The House yesterday approved a wide-ranging energy bill that would permit new drilling in Alaska and give producers billions of dollars of incentives.

The 1,000-page bill was approved by a vote of 249 to 183 after a spirited debate over a provision providing legal protections to a gasoline additive linked to drinking-water contamination. Much of the legislation focuses on conventional sources of energy and provides relatively little for conservation and alternative forms of energy.

The measure calls for opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development, and alters the Clean Air Act by giving localities whose polluted air comes from distant states more time to meet national air-quality standards. It would grant funding for research into oil and natural gas drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico -- at a cost as high as $2 billon.

At a time of surging energy costs, including gasoline prices well above $2 a gallon, supporters said the legislation eventually would help bring down prices. Opponents said it would not moderate consumer prices and instead would further inflate energy companies' soaring profits.

The House provided far more tax breaks to the oil and natural gas industry and less to alternative energy and efficiency than President Bush had proposed. Even so, the president believes the overall bill is "largely consistent" with what he is seeking, spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The House-passed bill is similar to legislation that was approved by a House-Senate conference committee in 2003. That measure died as the result of a Senate filibuster.

Senate leaders this year are trying to forge a bipartisan compromise. A Senate bill has not been introduced, but lawmakers said they expect to take up the matter soon.

Among provisions added to the House bill this year are an extension of Daylight Savings Time by two months and granting the federal government ultimate authority to determine where to locate liquefied natural gas terminals that receive imports by tanker. The House defeated a provision requiring increased automobile mileage and some other conservation measures.

The Earth's atmosphere is warming, in large part because there's more CO₂ up there, trapping heat in the atmosphere. Burning hydrocarbons (petroleum, natural gas, coal, etc.) puts CO₂ into the atmosphere. This energy bill is all about finding and burning more hydrocarbons, which adds to the problem of global warming, rather than finding ways to do the same work with fewer hydrocarbons.

Global warming aside, it's still a bad bill. As Jared Diamond points out in Collapse, First World resource consumption is at an unsustainable level - even without increased consumption by the 2.2 billion people of China and India, who quite understandably desire our standard of living.

I enjoy a pleasantly affluent lifestyle, and I'm selfish: I want to keep enjoying an affluent lifestyle for the rest of my life. But that isn't going to happen unless we - as a nation, as a world - figure out how to create the same lifestyle while using up a lot less of the Earth's resources. And the time to start is now, given the lead time involved in making these kinds of changes. This bill takes the exact opposite approach.

Earth Day, Part 1: the View from the Bottom of the Globe

Antarctic Glaciers in Retreat from Climate Change

Reuters, Thursday, April 21, 2005; 8:11 PM
By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - Most of the glaciers on the Antarctic peninsular are in headlong retreat because of climate change, a leading scientist said on Thursday.

Fellow BAS researcher Alison Cook, who spent three years studying thousands of old aerial photographs, said they clearly showed a general glacial retreat which had accelerated sharply in the past five years.

One more piece of evidence to put on the rather huge pile of facts that say the world is warmer than it's been. I'm visiting Glacier National Park again in August, another place where the diminishing of the glaciers is well documented by photographs taken over the past century.

The Big Lie

While we are waiting on the new kids, this popped into my radar screen this morning:

Senate OKs $81B for Iraq, Afghanistan

Thursday April 21, 2005 11:16 PM

By LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would give President Bush much of the money he requested. But the bills differ over what portion should go to military operations.

The Pentagon says it needs the money by the first week of May, so Senate and House negotiators are expected to act quickly to send the president a final bill.

Other issues to be resolved in the competing versions include immigration changes, a U.S. embassy in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, military death benefits and the fate of an aircraft carrier.

``I'm confident we will be able to come back with a product, in the form of a conference report, which the Senate can support,'' said Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

He said the bill gives strong support to troops in the fight against terrorism and provides needed dollars for the State Department.

Overall, the Senate version would cost about $81 billion, compared with the $81.4 billion the House approved and the $81.9 billion that Bush requested.

Congress has passed four similar emergency spending measures for the wars since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This one would put the overall cost of combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide - past $300 billion.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, says lawmakers previously approved $228 billion. The latest money is to last through Sept. 30, the end of the current budget year. Pentagon officials have said they will have to ask for more money for 2006.

In both the House and Senate, lawmakers struggled to give troops whatever they needed and pay only for projects deemed urgent. Congress was leaving other items to be dealt with in the regular budget for the new budget year starting Oct. 1. In doing so, they were sending a message to the White House that it cannot expect a rubber stamp from Congress on its emergency war-spending requests.

Still, as Bush requested, the bulk of the money - about $75 billion - would go to the Pentagon. The Army and the Marine Corps, the two service branches doing most of the fighting, would get the most.

It seems that we are going to throw however many dollars down this sink hole that it takes to assuage the Bush honor, since "winning" is not an option. We are going to sink more billions, untold human lives, into a failing strategy.

Hmm. At some point, you'd think the American people would wake up to that.

Now, I'm outta here. The new kids have checked in and they are ready to rumble. Go, team, go.

Guest Blogger #3 Checking In

Good morning, y'all! I'll try not to be too cheerful, too early; not everyone's an early riser like me.

I'm another member of Melanie's backup team this weekend. I'm a middle-aged number-cruncher for the Federal government, a Virginia expat currently living in the Maryland exurbs of D.C. I'm looking forward to this adventure in blogging, and am glad to give Melanie the chance to take a much-needed break. My interests...well, you'll see some of them over the next few days. I'll be back with an actual post before too long.

Cheers,
RT

New Kid in Class

Greetings to everyone out there... my name is Ringo and I have a hole in me pocket...

Ok, that’s not really true, except for the hole in the pocket. I’m Chuck and Melanie is kind and brave enough to provide me with the opportunity to post here on the Bump for a while. As we all know, she’s set a standard for excellence that will be hard to live up to. I think I can speak for all of us in thanking you for your support as we toddle on our training wheels these first few days.

I first made it to this blog through the Right Christians web site when my wife and I were first searching for the voices of progressive Christians on the web. Needless to say, this site was quite a boon for these wandering Presbyterians out in the wilderness of cyberspace.

During the day, I’m a History teacher in North Carolina in a rural high school. My undergraduate degree from Tulane is in American Studies and before my children were born two years ago, I was working on a Masters in Media Literacy at Appalachian State University in Boone during the summers. Currently, I live in Raleigh.

A good description of my politics is that I’m an old fashioned Southern Progressive, much along the lines of the late Governor Terry Sanford and the Fusionist candidates of the late Reconstruction period (who were an interesting hybrid of Populists and old time Republicans).

So with that I just have to say that I can't wait to hear your feedback and here we go!

Overture, curtains, lights,
This is it, the night of nights
No more rehearsing and nursing a part
We know every part by heart
Overture, curtains, lights
This is it, you'll hit the heights
And oh what heights we'll hit
On with the show this is it

Tonight what heights we'll hit
On with the show this is it

Chuck

INTRO

(Gulp)
(sly peek around the edge of the curtain)
(OK - oops..wait...check fly!)
(shuffle on stage...smattering of applause)
(deep sigh)

Greetings fellow Bumpers. My name is Wayne and I have been invited to guest blog here at The Bump while Melanie indulges in her Vacation Vocation.

I want to express my gratitude to Melanie for her generosity of spirit in allowing me and the other guests to test our mettle here at Just a Bump. We are all excited at the opportunity and awed by the challenge before us. Melanie has set a high standard of hard work and dedication for each of us.

I have been an avid reader of blogs since September 2002 (initially due to the March to War); posting a few comments here and there, but mainly e-mailing links to interesting posts and articles to my favorite bloggers, including Melanie.

I am not totally new to guest-blogging; I was privileged to post in September 2003 at a blog called Brief Intelligence (now defunct) run by Kimberley Fox. Kimberley was an early, ardent and vocal supporter of Gen. Wesley Clark. In addition to her blog she also posted at the Clarksphere blog (an unofficial Clark for Prez site). My thanks to Kimberley for being such a gracious hostess as well.

As all of us Bumpers are aware, Melanie is involved in projects which will greatly expand the scope of Just a Bump and the new site as well. I am thankful for the opportunity to be a part (however small) of it all.

I’ll be back with more later, but for now...

Let the adventure begin!

In for the Night

That's it for today, Bumpers. The guest crew comes in tomorrow, make sure to show your appreciation in comments. I think you'll enjoy the fresh voices and approaches. I'm taking the weekend off to recuperate from the strain of getting Judging the Future up and running today. We'll go live sometime this evening.

Just Us Sunday

This is from the Center for American Progress's Daily Progress Report today:

THE "AGAINST PEOPLE OF FAITH" MYTH: How ironic that the House will pass their energy bill even as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist continues to defend his endorsement of the claim that opponents of President Bush's judicial nominees are "against people of faith." The connection? Evidence "in polling and in public statements of church leaders" shows that a "growing number of evangelicals view stewardship of the environment as a responsibility mandated by God in the Bible." Last October, the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals adopted "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," a platform that included an "unprecedented" plank on "creation care." As Rev. Rich Cizik, the association's vice president, said, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created." We can offer a much better answer than this energy bill.

Much of the energy which fuels this blog comes out of Frist's arrogant assertion. I'm inviting you to join me in countering Frist's Just Us Sunday. We on the left don't think that faith is only for Republicans. Or that only Republicans have values, ethics or morals. All of those things CAN be derived from a faith tradition, but they can equally be found in the Universal Charter of Human Rights, the Seven Principles of Unitarian Universalism and Bob Fulgham's "Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten." The right doesn't own the franchise on morals. Or religion.

Unlike Sen. Frist, I do have standing to speak on this matter because I am a theologian.

In my country, the people of faith include Ba'hais, Jains, Jews, Wiccans, Pagans, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Anamists, Methodists and Friends. And that is just part of the official chaplaincy list kept by the Department of Defence. They may have added Scientologists since the last time I checked. In my book, doubt and scepticism rank real high on the list of accepted faiths.

The Christian(ist) evangelical right doesn't have a lock on "faith" as much as they would like to think they do. On Sunday, they are going to hear from Americans of every faith and none at all that this is our country, too.

Please join us.

I"ll have details later today, but a show of hands would be appreciated early. I have people on the Hill I need to notify.

Down, Down, Down

Greenspan Renews Warning on Budget Deficits

By Jeannine Aversa
AP Economics Writer
Thursday, April 21, 2005; 1:18 PM

Bloated budget deficits pose a danger to the nation's long-term economic health, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned anew Thursday. He issued a fresh call to policy-makers to move swiftly to put the government's fiscal house in order.

Greenspan only very briefly touched on the economy's current performance, saying "activity appears to be expanding at a reasonably good pace," an assessment he has made repeatedly this year.

His comments to the Senate Budget Committee came as some private economists are concerned about the extent to which high energy prices will crimp economic activity.

Responding to questions, Greenspan suggested he is not concerned about the U.S. economy falling into a period of "stagflation" -- the worrisome combination of rising inflation and slower economic growth. "It certainly doesn't seem that way," he said.

Greenspan also said China "should be moving sooner rather than later" to overhaul it currency system, which U.S. manufacturers contend hurts sales and has contributed to job losses.

The United States has been pressing China to stop directly linking the yuan to the dollar. Treasury Secretary John Snow, in recent days, said Beijing -- having taken a number of steps to prepare for such a change -- is now ready to take the move. China has indicated it needs more time.

It's about time the clueless central banker got on board. Every serious economist I know has been railing about the deficits for years. Even if Bushco were of a mind to do something about it, it's probably too late. We sure as hell have no leverage with China, given that if they aren't buying entire oceans of Treasury debt, our economy goes down the tubes alarmingly quickly.

Why didn't Greenspan speak up, oh, about four years ago, when something could have been done about. We're already at the edge of the cliff and the momentum is all forward.

Brad deLong is channelling Bruce Bartlett:

Bruce Bartlett: Steering clear of a recession: The place where the greatest danger lies is with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... even the tiniest mistake by them could roil markets... the impending retirement of Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Fed.... Lastly... [h]uge budget and current account deficits mean that vast amounts of capital flows are necessary to keep them funded. So far, this has gone well... the Chinese have been so accommodating about financing the.... But now the U.S. is strongly pressuring China to stop doing this in order to allow its currency to rise against the dollar. It is hoped that this will reduce China’s production advantage in dollar terms and bring down the bilateral trade deficit. However, the cost to the U.S. economy if this happens could be greater than the potential gain. At least in the short run, any scale-back in China’s buying of Treasury securities might cause interest rates to spike very quickly. This could prick the housing bubble and bring down home prices, eroding personal wealth and putting a squeeze on those with floating rate mortgages. Hopefully, this can all be managed smoothly and without either a recession or a market break. But it will take great skill and a lot of luck to avoid both.

See? I told ya.

Deconstructing the Propaganda Machine

I hear the Daily Show was just devestating on Bush's Social Security plan and the fake town halls. Samantha Bee interviewed Repub media consultant Frank Luntz. It's about 5 minutes, you can watch it over your afternoon coffee.

Since I'm usually on the computer by 5 AM, I don't usually get to see The Daily Show, so these little multi-media snippets are very handy.

Judging the Future

The new site will go live latter today here, but you can view the draft site, which I'm building with Reid Stott's help today. Go take a look and give Reid a hand for the design work.

Creeping Corrections

The filibuster fight will be disastrous for the GOP

In 1936, President Roosevelt had just won reelection by one of the largest margins in history. His Republican adversary, Kansas Gov. Alf Landon, carried only Maine and Vermont.

Riding this swell of popular approval, FDR challenged the conservative rulings of the Supreme Court, which had invalidated many of his prized New Deal measures. Knocking the “nine old men” of the court, he proposed to add six new judges to help with the workload — in reality, to pack the court.

Despite his top-heavy Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the public backlash was so severe that Roosevelt couldn’t pass the court-packing bill. The unpopularity he triggered by trying so weakened him that he was unable to pass much of anything for the next four years.

A similar fate could await President Bush if the Christian right succeeds in embroiling him in a battle to change the filibuster rule for judicial nominations. The filibuster, once seen as the last refuge of racists seeking to thwart the progress of civil-rights legislation, has increasingly become part of our checks-and-balances system. Changing the rules in the Senate will be seen as the modern equivalent of the court-packing scheme of FDR.

Read the polls. Newsweek’s survey of 1,000 adults March 17-18 fairly worded a question to find out public opinion on this issue:

“U.S. Senate rules allow 41 senators to mount a filibuster — refusing to end debate and agree to vote — to block judicial nominees. In the past, this tactic has been used by both Democrats and Republicans to prevent certain judicial nominees from being confirmed. Senate Republican leaders — whose party is now in the majority — want to take away this tactic by changing the rules to require only 51 votes, instead of 60, to break a filibuster. Would you approve or disapprove of changing Senate rules to take away the filibuster and allow all of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees to get voted on by the Senate?”

The results show the trouble the Republicans will make for themselves by trying to jam through a change in the filibuster rules. Only 32 percent approved of the change in rules, while 57 percent, including 60 percent of independents, opposed it. Even among Republicans, 33 percent disapproved of the change in the rules.

The Schiavo case amplifies the concern of moderate voters over a possible rules change to block filibusters. The attitude of GOP conservatives, led by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), that moderate judges needed to be punished for their independence sends a chill up the spines of most independent voters.

With the filibuster decision bookended by the Terry Schiavo case before and a Supreme Court confirmation battle likely following it, the issue has the potential to spell disaster for the Republican Party.

Hubris always brings nemesis.

An Ethics Offer

Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A22

REPUBLICANS on the House ethics committee made a surprise offer yesterday to resolve a partisan standoff and launch an immediate investigation of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). The proposal represents welcome progress on the part of committee Republicans. It is important that a thorough investigation be conducted of the various allegations swirling around Mr. DeLay, and it's a healthy sign that four of the five Republicans on the committee said they are prepared to take that step.

Ultimately, though, yesterday's offer isn't good enough. The plan presented by the panel chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), would leave in place the troubling rules rammed through the House earlier this year in a departure from the traditional method of changing ethics committee rules based on bipartisan agreement. The rules require that an ethics complaint be automatically dismissed if no action is taken within 45 days. Under the previous rules, a majority vote was needed to dismiss a complaint.

The change proposed by Mr. Hastings is his commitment, "while I am chairman," to "in every instance grant a request" by the ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), to extend the review to three months. Mr. Hastings said he would provide more time beyond that "whenever necessary for bona fide investigation." He also promised that no complaint would be dismissed without a committee vote -- but, unlike in the past, a partisan split on the evenly divided panel would result in dismissal.

There's no doubt that this is an improvement. The promise of a vote at least demands some accountability from committee members, and the guarantee of three months and potentially more to investigate a complaint is positive. But the setup would still tilt the ethics panel, which after all has not been disposed to hyperactivity, in favor of inaction. If members know that a deadlocked vote will simply end the matter once and for all, they will have less incentive to reach bipartisan accommodation.

Not perfect, but the camel's nose is now under the tent.

The Pope of All of Us

A Pope for Better or Perhaps Worse

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A23

But in other areas -- particularly population control and the worldwide fight against AIDS -- what the pope does, how the Vatican rules, affects us all. We can fully expect that the new pope will not depart one iota from John Paul II's fervent opposition to anything other than the most rudimentary forms of birth control -- abstinence in one form or another -- including, of course, opposition to the use of condoms as a method of preventing the spread of the HIV virus. Here is where we all have a stake.

This emphasis on condoms is sometimes derided as "latex theology." But condoms happen to be the cheapest and most effective way of preventing the spread of the HIV virus. This is particularly meaningful in the world's poorer regions, where there are often no medical facilities to speak of. In sub-Saharan Africa -- home to 10 percent of the world's population but 60 percent of the people infected with HIV -- some 25 million children and adults currently have AIDS. That's not about latex, it's about death.

The catastrophe of AIDS and the population growth in areas of the world that can least afford it are matters that concern us all. The near collapse of the African middle class, riddled by AIDS, is a calamity. It will cost us all money, of course, and it may result in a war or two, but the immediate consequence is the death of so many people and the orphaning of children -- misery upon misery for people whose lives are already miserable enough. All over Catholic regions of the Third World, the church instructs against the use of condoms. It advocates abstinence. It fights human nature itself.

When I raised these matters in a recent column discussing the legacy of Pope John Paul II, I was barraged by e-mail, some of it favorable but some of it simply demanding that I butt out. This was none of my business, some Catholics told me. I beg to differ. It shows no disrespect to an intellectual such as Benedict XVI to engage him intellectually on these matters -- and boldly so. He is a man of firm convictions, not mere prejudices.

But the task ultimately has to fall to Catholic dissidents. True, there are fewer than there used to be -- Cardinal Ratzinger saw to that -- and they have to be respectful of the new pope. But they, like their brethren in the liberal Protestant churches, have to be more forceful in their opposition and their challenge to authority. In the United States these churches have been downright wimpish when compared with the more politically robust ones to their right. The liberal to moderate Christian churches in America, once in the forefront of the civil rights and other progressive movements, have muted their voices and faded as a political and social force. They are missed.

This is why the papal porn we've seen on cable actually matters (although you've heard little about it from the cable channels) and Benedict XVI is really "the pope of all of us." One way or another, we're going to end up paying for what he says, Catholic or not.

Finding Fault Instead of Solutions

ANALYSIS-Iraq's insurgency exploits delay in forming govt
20 Apr 2005 13:05:09 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD, April 20 (Reuters) - For a while after Iraq's election in January, it looked as if the country's nearly two-year-old insurgency was showing signs of flagging.

Attacks against U.S. forces fell more than 20 percent in the weeks immediately after the poll, and March's U.S. death toll was the lowest in more than a year, the U.S. military said.

While Iraqi security forces were still dying every day, with more than 400 police and soldiers killed over the past two months, positive signs were appearing. Iraqi troops even captured several senior militant leaders, the government said.

But over the past two weeks, much of that optimism has been wiped away as insurgents have hit back with a series of deadly attacks targeting both U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies.

Insurgents shot dead 19 Iraqi National Guards in a soccer stadium on Wednesday after taking them prisoner, a hospital spokesman and a witness said.

There were three car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, a day after a car bomb in the capital killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded four others. There have been about 10 car bomb attacks in just the past four days.

"I don't think the insurgency has gone away at all," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, who asked not to be named. "Perhaps we just had a spike in success against it."

The resurgence of violence has coincided with deepening uncertainty over the formation of the next government, with Iraq's new prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, still no closer to naming his cabinet more than 80 days after the election.

The delay has created a climate of indecision, officials say, and allowed the momentum built up by January's successful poll, when more than 8 million Iraqis defied insurgent threats to vote, to slip away.

"All this talking and deliberating over the government isn't helping when it comes to taking on the insurgency," Sabah Kadhim, an adviser to the Interior Ministry, said recently.

"We were having some successes against them, we were. But now it isn't clear if the new government will follow the same policies, and that could have an impact on our effectiveness."

This piece implies a causality that I'm not at all sure of. The "insurgency" appears to be quite independent of whatever the titular "government" does or doesn't do. This reads like something from the annals of victimology: somehow, it must be the Iraqis fault. I don't think so.

Choosing Passion

Contrast this piece with Brooksie today. The right is leaning into the law as the left is leaning into life, as messy as it is.

For Marla, No Sacrifice Too Great
By BOB HERBERT

Published: April 21, 2005

"She was born with a passion to help somebody, and she never wavered." Clifford Ruzicka

There was always a tendency to stereotype Marla Ruzicka. People couldn't seem to help themselves. She was young. And she had the blond hair and fresh-faced California-girl look that is widely viewed as an American ideal. On that score she was great cheerleader material. No reason, at first glance, to take her too seriously.

Or even at second glance, for that matter. Because, face it, she did like to party.

So if you were into stereotyping, you might see her, even admire her, and still miss the fact that in her short life she gave us a stunning example of what it means to function full time, and with all one's energy, at the highest level of humanity.

With a cellphone (that she had a tendency to misplace), a backpack and an apparent genius for working with very different types of individuals and organizations, she would head off to the most dangerous spots on the globe, determined to bring aid and comfort to the afflicted, wherever she found them. This meant, of course, that her constituency was impossibly large. The world is filled with people who have nowhere to turn.

"I think going to Afghanistan and seeing the innocent victims of the war had a particular impact on her," said Medea Benjamin, a close friend of Ms. Ruzicka's who traveled with her to Afghanistan, and later to Iraq. "We were all stunned when we actually saw the widows that had no way to feed their families because their husbands had been killed when a bomb fell on their neighborhood by mistake. Or a little boy who picked up a cluster bomb and had his arm blown off, and nobody was helping him get a prosthetic limb. Or people whose homes had been destroyed and were living in the cold, literally just living outside."

That trip, and subsequent trips to Iraq, inspired Ms. Ruzicka's last big campaign. She would try to do what her government had refused to do. She began personally gathering as much information as possible, often going from door to door in the war zones, sometimes covered by an abaya and a hijab, in an effort to document the destruction and the suffering.

Her goal was twofold: First, to secure compensation for the relatives of innocent victims who were killed, and for the many thousands of noncombatants who have been wounded or displaced. And, second, to get the U.S. government to establish an office or agency, perhaps within the State Department, to collect data and report on the civilian casualties of war.

For an individual with so few obvious resources - she established a tiny organization called the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (Civic) and had very little money - Ms. Ruzicka's reach was tremendous. She worked tirelessly over the past three years with the office of Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, to get millions of dollars in compensation for civilian victims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tim Rieser, an aide to the senator, said: "She came here as a very sort of naïve antiwar protestor, really, and became someone who was extraordinarily effective at putting politics aside - not trying to cast blame, but rather working with everyone from U.S. military officers to the Congress and others on how to actually help people. She was out there doing something that all of us knew was really needed, but that was too dangerous for most people to want to do, or be willing to do."

Ms. Ruzicka, 28, was killed on Saturday in the chaos of Iraq. She and an Iraqi colleague, Faiz Ali Salim, were trapped in their car on the airport road in Baghdad when a suicide bomber attacked a convoy that was passing nearby. Ms. Ruzicka's vehicle was engulfed in flames. She and Mr. Salim burned to death.

I interviewed many people who were grief-stricken but anxious to share memories of Ms. Ruzicka. None were as eloquent as her dad, Clifford, a civil engineer from Lakeport, Calif. When I asked if he and his wife, Nancy, both rock-solid Republicans, had been surprised by their daughter's intense commitment to humanitarian causes, he said: "No. She's been like that all her life.

My prayer for you this morning: that you have a passion to do something. I hope it won't get you killed (my passion today is to get the hummingbird feeder up) but that we all find a reason to love so hard that we can live with the consequences. Live hard and love with everything you've got.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes (Learn to face the change)

A couple of reminders, Bumpers. You are going to be seeing some new things in the coming weeks. There will be guest posters this weekend, and I think you'll like the thoughtful new crew a lot. I do. That's why they are going to be here, while I'm giving my fingers a break from the keyboard, one I really need. Please support them with your ongoing thoughtful commentary in the comments.

I'm going to be traveling some this spring and summer, I need to see new things and go new places. I haven't been out of the region for anything other than family funerals in far, far too long. My perspective needs refreshing. The new crew are going to be helping me out as I get out of dodge to preach, teach some workshops and just plain go visiting and take a vacation. I'll be in Fr. Myers, FL, next month and would love to meet you if you are a local. Atlanta is in my sites for later, and then a vacation in SW Ontario and Toronto in July. I've been a hermit/monk/blogger for a year and a half, it is time to go out and meet the world. With a Wi-Fi laptop in tow and some support back at the home site and a rebuild to a new platform in the works.

The new site launches tomorrow (is there a smiley for "fingers crossed?) It is going to need tweaking for the first few days, but I'm so pleased with Reid's work that it won't need much. Judging the Future will be handsome, even when I'm having a bad day.

It's a bloomin' spring in the mid-Atlantic and it is gorgeous. It also means that my chronic winter sinus infection (forced air heat and I don't get along) has morphed into allergies over whatever is blooming this week. I'm a sneezer, but a happy one. This was a long winter here, and it felt good to wear shorts and a tee today. Tomorrow is going to be chilly, but today was enough in itself. I worked on the top 10% of what I'm capable of and things are going to happen because of that. My evening prayer:

Lord take me where You want me to go; Let me meet who You want me to meet; Tell me what You want me to say; and Keep me out of your way.

It's just easier that way.

Power to the Teachers

Teachers' Union Sues Over No Child Left Behind

By SAM DILLON

Published: April 20, 2005

Opening a new front in the growing rebellion against President Bush's education law known as No Child Left Behind, the nation's largest teachers' union and eight school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont sued the Department of Education today, accusing it of violating a passage in the federal law that prohibits any requirement that states spend their own money to carry out its mandates.

Some legal scholars said the union had assembled a rigorous complaint, thoughthey said it was difficult to judge the suit's prospects because the case has few close precedents. But it was clearly another headache for Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, who is trying to quash a federal-state conflict that has taken on several new forms in recent days. Hours before the suit was filed, Utah's Republican-dominated Legislature approved the most far-reaching legislative challenge to President Bush's signature education law.

Both the Utah bill, which requires educators there to spend as little state money as possible in carrying out the law's requirements, and the teachers' union lawsuit filed today, rest heavily on the same section of the federal law, which forbids federal officials from requiring states to spend their own money on the law. The Connecticut attorney general announced the state's intentions to sue the Department of Education on the same grounds two weeks ago.

"If the facts about educational spending are as the plaintiffs allege, then this lawsuit has good prospects of winning," said David B. Cruz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California. "It is a very strong case because the statutory language is clear. The law says nothing in the act shall be interpreted to impose requirements that aren't being funded."

More than 30 states - including many Republican strongholds - have raised objections to the law. Some, like Connecticut's, argue that the federal government is not adequately financing its requirements, which include a broad expansion of standardized testing. Others object to federal intrusion into an area long considered the domain of the states.

This is a legitimate ground for criticism of this lousy law, but no one has really gone into the real core problems with this law. It is mandated federal testing, when control of the schools are supposed to be a state and local affair. It is also just another test to teach to. Wanna know why kids arrive in college with absolutely no critical thinking skills? Mandatory testing. Teachers break up information into little test-sized bits. None of the information is presented holistically, without any sense that there are connections within a discipline much less that there are connections between disciplines. This isn't education, it's atomized information.

One of the things that's important backstory in the AP piece is that teachers are trying to do something to take their profession back from the testing mavens. That's a good thing.

Fixing the Fourth Estate

A Time for Disobedience
Faced with Bush's lockdown on information, reporters have to stand up
by Sydney H. Schanberg
April 19th, 2005 10:24 AM

The press has been grappling with how to cope with this extreme control and distortion of news, some reporters and editors more than others. One possibility they might consider is civil resistance, as in quiet, nonviolent, respectful rebellion.

Take Ron Hutcheson, the White House correspondent for the Knight-Ridder papers. He has been fighting the battle—and at times has found himself alone. When the White House billed a press briefing about a Bush foreign trip last year as on the record and then changed it on the spot to off the record, a couple of other journalists complained briefly. Hutcheson kept arguing for a return to the original ground rules or at least an explanation. It was futile. The anonymous official told him: "This is the way we do it. If you don't like it, you can leave." "I just got pissed off and I walked out," recalls Hutcheson. None of the others followed him.

What would have happened if the rest of the newspeople at the briefing had also walked out? Well, not a great deal all at once, but a message would have been sent. It would have said to the White House: "We are professionals, and our job, from this country's founding, is to elicit reliable information for the public—and you are distorting that flow of information by delivering it off the record, anonymously, thereby making no one accountable for its credibility."

I would guess the message might at first evoke some cynical laughter inside the White House, but if other Washington reporters began embracing this and similar dissenting practices, and stand-up journalism became the norm, the laughter could fade. It could turn into an embarrassment for the Bush stonewallers. Especially if reporters and editors were able to effectively explain to the American people why the press's role is still so important to them. The public often seems to see us as part of the entertainment circus that parts of the "media" business have become and, therefore, not people to be taken seriously.

I've been saying this for five years. Hey, VV, where's my contract?

Something Completely Different

WaPo's Al Kamen "In the Loop."

Raise Your Right Hand

Everyone has seen how the TV lawyers get in some outrageous cheap shot question at the hapless witness or defendant, and there's an objection and then the lawyer says, "I withdraw the question." The same happens all the time on the Imus in the Morning show.

Don Imus, interviewing Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) yesterday, asked about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

"Tom's a very good leader. I don't think anyone can question that," Santorum said, adding he thought DeLay would prevail in the end.

"He's a weird little dude," Imus opined.

"He's not a weird dude," Santorum interjected. "He's a good guy. . . . "

"He just looks to me like a guy that has some kind of weird, kinky, sexual thing going on," Imus said. "I don't know why I think that."

"I don't think it's appropriate," Santorum scolded, "to talk about the majority leader of the House of Representatives that way." Hard to argue with that.

"I agree," Imus said. "I apologize. I'm just telling you what I think."

The jury will disregard the above exchange.

Just-Us Sunday

So much religion as political news this week, with the 24/7 Pope-a-thon and the wingnuts getting loud. I am very happy to see this:

Churches challenge US senate leader on ‘anti-Christian’ jibe -20/04/05

The head of the ecumenical body that brings together major Protestant and Orthodox denominations encompassing nearly 50 million US Christians has called on the leader of the Senate majority to distance himself from a lobby being run by the religious right against people of faith who disagree with them politically.

He added: 'I will be praying for the Lord to minister to them and change their hearts so that they will not continue to take our nation down this destructive path.'

Spoiled Brat Entitlement

This morning's Think Progress from the Center for American Progress brings some pretty serious information:

Is Rice Obstructing the Bolton Investigation?

This is serious enough that a reporter covering the State Department should inquire about Rice’s conduct. What, exactly, did Rice tell her subordinates? How is this consistent with their full cooperation with a Congressional inquiry.

The LAT says:

Bolton Should Step Aside

President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to become United Nations ambassador began as an embarrassment and is ending as a disgrace. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was right to delay a scheduled vote and resist being railroaded by the administration into approving him.

Bolton's infantile crack that it would make no difference if the U.N. lost its top 10 floors already testified to his unfitness to serve as the United States' diplomat to the world. It may have been Bush's right to appoint someone provocative yet capable. But the revelations that have emerged over the past weeks in the Senate call into question Bolton's basic ability to do the job.

On issue after issue, whether North Korea or Iraq, Bolton has wielded a wrecking ball. It might be possible to wave off one allegation of the misuse of intelligence — infighting always takes place in the government bureaucracy — but Bolton appears to have willfully and systematically suppressed and misused classified information, including bullying civil service officials who dared to challenge his apocalyptic assessments of North Korean, Iraqi and Cuban weapons programs. Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin apparently had to intervene to protect a Latin American analyst from Bolton's wrath; Carl W. Ford Jr., the State Department's former assistant secretary of intelligence and research — the only government bureau to get it right on Iraq — describes him as a "serial abuser." And Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is rightly inquiring about Bolton's unusual request to look at National Security Administration intercepts and why he asked for the identities of analysts. Why indeed?

The man is an embarrassment. I watched some of the hearing yesterday, each new detail paints the picture of a power freak who is out of control. DC is a magnet for people like this, if they can manage to mask their greed for power behind some generally acceptable grown up behavior. Bolton doesn't meet that pretty low bar.

Remember the War?

150 hostages and 19 deaths leave US claims of Iraqi 'peace' in tatters

By Patrick Cockburn in Mosul
18 April 2005

Iraqi and United States-led forces were last night preparing to launch a rescue mission for up to 150 Shia hostages held by Sunni insurgents.

The threat by Sunni militants in the town of Madaen, south of Baghdad, to execute the hostages unless Shias leave the area, intensified the growing sectarian fears.

The upsurge in violence across Iraq in the past four days has left claims made by the Pentagon that the tide is turning in Iraq and there are hopeful signs of a return to normality in tatters.

At least 17 Iraqis were killed during the day and two US soldiers were reported dead after a series of attacks.

Ironically, one reason why Washington can persuade the outside world that its venture in Iraq is finally coming right is that it is too dangerous for reporters to travel outside Baghdad or stray far from their hotels in the capital. The threat to all foreigners was underlined last week when an American contractor was snatched by kidnappers.

When I was travelling in the northern city of Mosul this week, my guards ­ Kurdish members of the Iraqi National Guard ­ said it was too dangerous for them to travel with me in uniform in official vehicles. They donned Arab gowns, hid their weapons and drove through the city in a civilian car.

Most violent incidents in Iraq go unreported. We saw one suicide bomb explosion, clouds of smoke and dust erupting into the air, and heard another in the space of an hour. Neither was mentioned in official reports. Last year US soldiers told the IoS that they do not tell their superiors about attacks on them unless they suffer casualties. This avoids bureaucratic hassle and "our generals want to hear about the number of attacks going down not up". This makes the official Pentagon claim that the number of insurgent attacks is down from 140 a day in January to 40 a day this month dubious.

US casualties have fallen to about one dead a day in March compared with four a day in January and five a day in November. But this is the result of a switch in American strategy rather than a sign of a collapse in the insurgency. US military spokesmen make plain that America's military priority has changed from offensive operations to training Iraqi troops and police. More than 2,000 US military advisers are working with Iraqi forces.

With US networks largely confined to their hotels in Baghdad by fear of kidnapping, it is possible to sell the American public the idea that no news is good news. General George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, said recently that if all goes well "we shall make fairly substantial reductions in the size of our forces". Other senior US officers say this will be of the order of four brigades, from 17 to 13, or a fall in the number of US troops in Iraq from 142,000 to 105,000 by next year.

Juan Cole reveals this morning:

Guerrillas killed some 20 persons in Iraq on Tuesday and late Monday night, according to ash-Sharq al-Awsat. In the upscale Sunni Azamiyah district of Baghdad, a suicide bomber killed 4 National Guards and wounded 38 persons when he attacked a police recruitment center. Gunmen assassinated Baghdad University professor Fu'ad al-Bayati. In Khalidiyah west of Baghdad, guerrillas fired on National Guard members, killing 5 and wounding 4.

Meanwhile back in Washington, the US Senate showed disdain for Bush's attempt to keep the Iraq funding requests, now totaling over $200 billion, out of the budget deficit figures.

This is all going SO well. I get the impression that Bush and Rummy think they can run a war by remote control and that no one will notice. The rest of the planet notices all these things. So does Al Jazeerah.

The Church Universal

Tests for an Unbending Pope . . .

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005; Page A25

ROME -- Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Ratzinger, is not afraid to be unpopular. That is why he was elected pope Tuesday. It is also why he will face excruciating difficulties in holding together the most ethnically, geographically and ideologically diverse religious institution in the world.

The simple political truth is that Ratzinger won election because he had a base. To say that is not inappropriately political but an acknowledgment of the obvious. The new pope was supported from the outset by a substantial cadre of traditionalist cardinals who believe, with him, that the church's main task -- and the key to its survival -- is to present an uncompromising alternative to modern secularism.

The obligation of the Christian, Ratzinger has said, "is to recover the capacity for nonconformism." Just because the world (or at least certain wealthy, educated parts of it) is going in one direction does not mean that the church should follow. On the contrary, he and those who follow him believe that the key to Catholic survival in the face of militant Islam and an evangelical Christianity that is growing rapidly in Latin America is to offer an alternative that is unembarrassed in declaring itself as the true path to God. Some may be bothered by that. Ratzinger is not.

In the mid-1980s, for a profile of Ratzinger I was writing for the New York Times Magazine, he answered written questions and offered this intriguing, unbending response to a question about his stern public image: "If it is true that a Christian faith taken seriously means nonconformity with a not inconsiderable number of contemporary social standards, then a more-or-less negative image is unavoidable. Nonconformists, after all, who enjoy general applause, are somewhat ridiculous figures, or at least unconvincing."

The new pope is definitely not a ridiculous figure. But he has a great deal of convincing to do. One can be absolutely certain that at the moment his name was announced yesterday before the crowd that had run down Roman streets to pack St. Peter's Square, liberal Catholics around the world were filled with anxiety and foreboding. Will the new pope's vision of a pure, hard and, if necessary, smaller corps of believers leave them out? Does he want them to leave? Will he make them want to go?

As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger presided over the disciplining of theologians whose views he believed were outside the range of acceptable Catholic opinion. His targets were North American liberals such as the Rev. Charles Curran, who dissented on issues related to sexuality and gender, and South American liberation theologians such as the Rev. Leonardo Boff, whom Ratzinger viewed as too enchanted with Marxism.

At a moment when liberals and moderates in the church want to open questions (such as whether only celibate men may be priests), Ratzinger thinks it is time to end uncertainty. Because of his crackdowns, the new pope will take the seat of Saint Peter with an exceptionally large battalion of public enemies inside the church. "Joseph Ratzinger is afraid," the liberal Catholic theologian Hans Kung declared in 1985. "And just like Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, he fears nothing more than freedom."

Thus the question: Why did the College of Cardinals make such a controversial choice, and with such dispatch? The simple answer is that the 78-year-old pope is a transitional figure. Barring a medical miracle, it is likely that a new pontiff will be elected in a few years. One need not be Machiavelli to suggest that potential popes sitting in the Sistine Chapel decided they did not have the votes or the standing to make it this time, and would use a Ratzinger papacy to prepare for the next.

But the political realist's explanation does not do full justice to the radical nature of this choice. What is happening inside the church is a slow erosion of the progressive hopes created by the Second Vatican Council, often said to have opened the church to the world. The forces on the rise believe, as the conservative historian James Hitchcock once put it, that the core issue before Catholics is whether they will confront modernity or capitulate to it.

Pope Benedict XVI was elected because he had a clear sense of where the church needs to go. He will make liberal Catholics and many moderates uncomfortable. They should see his election as a sign of how urgent it is to revive -- and make credible -- Vatican II's hopeful vision of a church that has much to teach the modern world, and much to learn from it, too.

Sorry, E.J. That last paragraph makes no sense. Benedict's election is a sign that the Curia is in open revolt from Vatican II. Liberal Catholics are now aware that they have no voice in the contemporary Church. The new pope has stated that he's comfortable with a Church which is both smaller and more orthodox. He's well on the way to getting it.

Here is Christianity's dirty little secret: the "growth market" is in southern part of the planet, Africa and Latin America. That's where the bodies are. But that growth is paid for by North America and Germany. Alienate the faithful there and the $$$ go away. Pope Benedict's church will be both smaller and poorer.

Perfect Storm

Senate Panel Postpones Vote on U.N. Nominee

By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: April 20, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 19 - A surprise last-minute defection by an Ohio Republican forced the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to postpone a vote that had been scheduled for Tuesday on the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

The chairman of the panel, Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, reluctantly agreed to put off any vote until next month to allow a review of what Democrats portrayed as troubling new accusations that cast doubt on Mr. Bolton's temperament and credibility.

Until the defection, by Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, the panel had appeared prepared to send the nomination to the Senate floor on a strict party-line vote. But Mr. Voinovich stunned other senators by announcing that more time was needed to explore accusations against Mr. Bolton.

"My conscience got me," he said after the stormy two-hour session. He said he had gone to the meeting planning to vote for Mr. Bolton, but changed his mind after hearing the case against the nominee made by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, both Democrats.

"I wanted more information about this individual, and I didn't feel comfortable voting for him," Mr. Voinovich said.

The Democrats called the delay a significant setback to Mr. Bolton's prospects, providing opponents with time to seek corroboration for the accusations made since he appeared before the committee a week ago.

Among those highlighted by Mr. Biden was a statement from Melody Townsel of Dallas, a former contract worker for the Agency for International Development who wrote in an "open letter" to the committee that Mr. Bolton, as a private lawyer, routinely visited her hotel room "to pound on the door and shout threats" over two weeks in 1994 in Moscow because she had complained about inefficiency by Mr. Bolton's client, the prime contractor in a foreign aid program.

Ms. Townsel actively opposed President Bush's re-election. Mr. Biden said that her accusations remained unsubstantiated but that there was some independent corroboration.

Mr. Bolton has not addressed the accusations since they became known late last week. His aides have said that he will not respond to reporters' inquiries during the confirmation process and that any statement will be in response to questions from the committee.

A spokesman for the White House, Scott McClellan, said that Democrats were raising "unfounded allegations" and that administration would address them.

"We are more than happy to answer any questions that members of the committee have," Bloomberg News quoted Mr. McClellan as saying. "John Bolton is exactly the person we need at the United Nations, and we look forward to his confirmation."

Among the 10 Republicans on the panel, two in addition to Mr. Voinovich expressed concerns on Tuesday about the nomination. One senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said that he was ready to vote to send the nomination to the full Senate, but that he would not guarantee that he would vote in favor of the nomination on the floor.

"I think the charges are serious enough that they demand, or cry out, for further examination," Mr. Hagel said at the committee meeting.

The second Republican, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, did not make his views known at the hearing, but told reporters later that he was glad that the vote had been postponed.

"I don't know if I've ever seen, in a setting like this, a senator changing his mind as a result of what other senators said," Mr. Chafee said. "The process worked. It's kind of refreshing."

Until Mr. Voinovich spoke up near the end of the session, he had not figured in speculation about wavering among Republicans. Mr. Voinovich had not attended either of the committee hearings last week on the Bolton nomination, citing the press of other Senate business. The only doubts expressed in public by Republicans on the panel had come from Mr. Chafee and Mr. Hagel.

Mr. Lugar had pushed throughout the session for a vote, saying President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice deserved a swift decision on the nomination.

Asked to comment on the decision, a spokesman for the State Department, Adam Ereli, said: "Our only comment is that we believe that Mr. Bolton's nomination is a good one. He'll be a strong candidate, and we hope for him to be in New York so he can begin the important work he has there."

The Washington Note's Steve Clemmons quotes from last night's "Nelson Report:"

Bolton. . .it may be that Republican Senators George Voinovich and Chuck Hagel have taken a stand which will empower a Republican center to emerge and hold on other issues.

Inside baseball comment: you have to wonder if Voinovich and Hagel, have given Chairman Richard Lugar some operating space. He was well known to be worried about Bolton's fitness, but as chair, felt it was his duty to try and support the president's nominee.

The perfect storm is met in John Bolton's nomination.

God Speaks

Hero of church's conservative wing
Becomes Pope Benedict XVI

By John L. Allen, Jr.
Rome

In electing the 265th pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the College of Cardinals made a daring choice for a man who, despite his 78 years of ago, seems destined to lead a strong, consequential pontificate: Joseph Ratzinger, the intellectual architect of John Paul II’s papacy as the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Whatever one makes of his theological positions, Ratzinger is almost universally recognized as one of the preeminent Catholic intellectuals of his generation, a man of vast culture and refinement. He plays the piano in his spare time, and his brother Georg served as the director of the Regensburg choir. Ratzinger once said of Mozart that his music “contains the whole tragedy of human existence.

Let's see what the honeymoon looks like. As a systematic theologian, I learned to read him as a poor copy of his teacher, Karl Rahner, the great champion of universalism.

You are In The Loop

Today, the Judging the Future team went into high gear. I bought all the tools for Reid Stott to create the site, the domain will be ready when he's ready to go live. Pogge will be around at the end of the week to help me with technical issues as we put the thing up and debug (and de-spam.)

You rarely observe the work these two gentlemen do behind the scenes here at Bump in the Beltway. pogge has been an undefatigable spam fighter and code tweaker. If you are in Toronto and southeast Ontario searching for an IT consultant and programmer, you could really do no better than this guy. Reid did the design for this site and designing websites is what he does. Click on the link above, you'll see his blog, his photo collection (he's a professional photog) and his web and print design portfolio. He's in Atlanta, just like the Bump benefactress, Melanie Goux. Who knew, Mel, back when we started this thing in 2003, that I'd become a professional blogger? Mel and Mr. Brushstroke will be in DC for a conference in June and this year, I'll be able to take them out for dinner, rather than the other way around. Feels good.

That conference is in a Wi-fi enabled hotel, so I'll be live blogging it as soon as I can puzzle my way through the laptop maze. You are going to be getting more events live-blogged from me in coming months. Hey, I live at the political nerve center of the country, a press credential is in process. I live a 5 minute busride from Metro. Sean-Paul Kelley of The Agonist, with whom I do some cooperative reporting, is egging me to get a White House pass. One thing at a time S-P, let me get the new site live, first. Both Bump and Judging will be moving to Expression Engine early this summer for that Scoop like experience without the hassle.

I'm delighted to be able to re-assemble the original Bump team as my team at Judging the Future. This time, we're all getting paid for it. These gentlemen are a couple of the finest human beings I've ever had the pleasure to work with. For me, who I work with is more important than what I do, and the new situation is one that'll having me leaping out of bed in the morning. I'll be seeing both pogge and Reid later this year. A little travelin' music maestro, I'm planning to take my first vacation since 1998 this summer.

So, I'm getting ready for my interview with Revere tomorrow afternoon, putting up a new site, running my ministry and getting ready for a trip while welcoming the new crew of guest bloggers and negotiating a new license with MT. There's lots happening at this little Bump in the Beltway and it's going to be shorts and t-shirt weather tomorrow. Oh, and I gotta find time to put the herb garden in by May 1. Fresh pesto by July is always my goal.

Wave of the Future

Bumpers, I'm doing spiritual direction this evening and won't be around until later. There will be a slow stretch tomorrow afternoon: I'm doing an interview with one of the Reveres of Effect Measure tomorrow afternoon. We'll talk about avian influenza, of course, but there are lots of other interesting topics in public health and infectious diseases. And, of course, we'll roll out the new crew of guest posters this weekend. Lot's of good new things happening here.

If you have questions for the Revere, leave them in comments. I'm interviewing by IM tomorrow, which should be interesting.

To The SCOTUS

Court Declines Case of Reporters in Leak Case
By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: April 19, 2005

Two reporters facing up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify about their sources lost another round in the courts today. The reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, now have only one appeal left, to the United States Supreme Court.

But it is hardly certain that the justices will agree to hear the case or that the reporters will remain free even while that court considers how to proceed.

Today's decision, by the full federal appeals court in Washington, declined to reconsider a unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the court. The earlier decision, in February, required the reporters to testify about conversations they might have had with government officials concerning Valerie Plame, an undercover C.I.A. operative, whose identity was first disclosed by Robert Novak, the syndicated columnist.

Seven judges participated in today's decision. One of them, David S. Tatel, published an explanatory concurrence; none noted a dissent.

The reporters, who have remained free, now face what could be a fast-paced conclusion to the matter. Unless they can make a deal with the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, or persuade one of the courts involved to issue a stay, the usual procedural rules suggest that they may face jail as soon as a week from now, when the appeals court will issue its mandate and return jurisdiction in the case to the trial court.

A spokesman for The New York Times Company, Toby Usnik, said in a statement, "We are disappointed with the court's decision and we will seek a stay in order to have sufficient time to seek U.S. Supreme Court review."

The chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, Thomas F. Hogan, ordered the reporters jailed in October unless they agreed to testify, and he has given no indication that he has changed his mind. Mr. Fitzgerald has consistently urged the courts to take quick action, adding recently that his investigation is all but complete.

In a speech in Montana last week, Judge Hogan suggested that he expected the Supreme Court to hear the case, according to reports in the local papers there.

This will be a real test of repertorial privilege, which is more a matter of custom than of law. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Turning Right

Cardinal Ratzinger's Challenge

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page A19

Ratzinger, who is German, spoke for the conservative side of a culture-war argument that is of primary interest to Europe and North America. When Ratzinger said on Monday that "to have a clear faith according to the church's creed is today often labeled fundamentalism," his words were undoubtedly welcomed by religious conservatives far outside the ranks of the Catholic Church. One can also imagine that liberals of various stripes shuddered.

But for the many cardinals here from the Third World -- 20 of the 115 voting are from Latin America, 11 from Africa, 10 from Asia -- the battle over relativism is far less important than the poverty that afflicts so many of their flock. Some of these cardinals -- Claudio Hummes of Brazil is a representative figure -- may share points in common with Ratzinger on doctrine. But for them the struggle against suffering and social injustice is part of their lives every single day.

Many of these same cardinals, and some in Europe and the United States, place a higher priority on Christianity's rekindled competition with Islam and the urgency of Muslim-Christian dialogue. It's not clear where Ratzinger's approach would take these efforts.

Ratzinger, in other words, is now central to two very different dynamics inside the conclave. Cardinals will be asked to decide -- by voting for or against him or someone he favors -- whether Ratzinger's theological approach is right. And they will decide whether Ratzinger's priorities involve the things that matter.

It makes perfect sense that Ratzinger would be the decisive player in defining the church after the papacy of John Paul II. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the Vatican spokesman, once said that John Paul's choice of Ratzinger as his doctrinal chief was "one of the most personal choices of his pontificate."

Ratzinger is a brilliant, tough-minded intellectual who started out as moderately liberal and -- like so many American neoconservatives -- developed a mistrust of the left because of the student revolt of the 1960s. He once said that "the 1968 revolution" turned into "a radical attack on human freedom and dignity, a deep threat to all that is human." The pope knew what he was getting with Ratzinger, and he got what he wanted.

With Ratzinger playing the tough cop against dissent, John Paul was free to be more expansive. Rocco Buttiglione, a philosopher who was close to the late pope, captured their division of labor perfectly in an interview some years ago. "The pope has more the gift of synthesis, because of his office," Buttiglione said. "Cardinal Ratzinger has more the gift of polemic."

There was also the matter of their personalities. Where John Paul was sunny, Ratzinger was serious -- and a worrier. Walls in Rome are plastered with memorial posters to John Paul that carry his famous quotation, "Be not afraid." Cardinal Ratzinger declared yesterday that the church has much to fear.

Ratzinger now carries on his battle without the charismatic support of his friend. He is proposing that the church take one aspect of John Paul's synthesis -- the battle against relativism reflected in doctrinal rigor -- and make it the late pope's central legacy. The cardinals who marched solemnly into the Sistine Chapel yesterday afternoon will be deciding if that is the right fight for the future.

The Holy Spirit has apparently spoken, but what She means is up for grabs.

Do It Now!

Unholy trio menace Firefox
By John Leyden
Published Tuesday 19th April 2005 13:05 GMT

The Mozilla Foundation has released updated versions of its popular Firefox (version 1.0.3) and Mozilla (version 1.7.7) web browsers to correct a number of recently discovered security flaws. The updates fix a trio of critical vulnerabilities, two of which have become the subject of proof-of-concept hacker exploits.

Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla 1.7.7 also addresses six lesser security risks as described by Secunia here. Users of the popular browsers are strongly urged to apply the appropriate update.

We have a Pope.

Habemus papam. Details to follow.

The thing I don't get: if they could announce his predecessor's death by email, why go through with this funky smoke and bells thing? Smells and bells Catholcism?

Pillage, Then Burn

The Dollar Danger

Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page A18

TREASURY Secretary John W. Snow did his best to sound serious over the weekend about the fault lines in the world economy. He called on China to stop pegging its currency to the dollar, a reform intended to allow the Chinese currency to rise, easing the flood of cheap exports that contributes to the record U.S. trade deficit. At the same time, Mr. Snow promised cuts in the U.S. budget deficit, which would reduce the nation's consumption, including the consumption of imports; Japan and the European Union were urged to promote growth, which would suck in U.S. exports. All of these reforms are intended to bring the nation's trade deficit back toward balance. If they fail, markets may cut the trade deficit in their own blunt way -- via a precipitous collapse of the dollar.

The problem is that nobody believes Mr. Snow's rhetoric. He reiterated the administration's plan to cut the deficit to less than 2 percent of gross domestic product, down from 3.6 percent last year. But this plan leaves out the cost of operations in Iraq and the general war on terrorism, and it assumes no reform of the alternative minimum tax and no rise in federal spending. Using more plausible assumptions, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities expects the budget deficit to hit a low of 2.5 percent in 2010 and then start rising again.

Perhaps because Mr. Snow's budget promises are not credible, the United States has done little to force its international partners to play their parts. European leaders are dragging their feet on pro-growth structural reform, and the chief of the European Central Bank refuses to contemplate lower interest rates, baffling most independent observers. Japan's recovery continues to be weak, and the Japanese conspicuously refused to join the Europeans and the United States in calling on China to change its currency policy. In short, the Bush economic team is failing diplomatically as well as failing to present a plausible budget policy.

It becomes clear to me that Bushco has no interest in the business of "governing," they are just here to plunder and pillage. Whether or not there is a functional democracy left when they are done is of no interest.

Telling it Like it Is

Wanted: Complete Asshole for U.N. Ambassador
John Bolton has left a trail of alienated colleagues and ridiculed ideas. He's a shoo-in for Senate confirmation.
by Jason Vest
April 14th, 2005 12:19 PM

Truly righteous indignation is rare in Washington, and in that respect former State Department intelligence chief Carl Ford Jr.'s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on [last] Tuesday was about as good as it gets. Ford's sterling reputation as analyst—coupled with his staunchly conservative, pro-Bush/Cheney credentials—made it impossible for anyone to question his veracity or his judgment as he described U.N. ambassador hopeful John Bolton as a "quintessential kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy" and a "bully" whose "serial abuse" of subordinates causes so much "collateral damage and personal hurt" that he's unworthy of any high office.

Injection of no-bullshit language into normally staid Senate proceedings aside, Ford's testimony also seemed a potentially heady moment for Bolton-loathing Republicans, who, armed with Ford's ammo, were presented with a rare opportunity to show some spine. Alas, wishing does not make it so: Surrendering senatorial prerogative in the name of deference to presidential desire, committee chair and well-known Bolton foe Dick Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, all but put his nuts in a jar stamped "To W and Dick, w/love from our end of Pennsylvania Ave to yours." On par with Lugar was Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee, whose public antipathy to Bolton has been such that some expected him to mount a zealous opposition that might even culminate with a vote against the nominee. Rather than channel his inner Mr. Smith, Chafee said he was "inclined" to support Bolton as Ford's testimony was "focused on one incident," and was not part of a "pattern."

Committee Democrats, however, stated they had depositions from other intelligence officials that show a pattern of similar behavior in recent years. Whether those testimonies will ever be revealed is anyone's guess. But when it comes to gauging if Bolton is in fact a chronic bully who's so off-putting that he shouldn't be anywhere near one of America's most important and prestigious diplomatic jobs, it's worth looking back a little further than his recent stint at the State Department—where, in news reports of years past, words like "brusque," "abrasive" and "caustic," appear near Bolton's name with some regularity.

As some may recall, Bolton entered public life in the Reagan Administration, arriving at the White House first and then the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1982 as general counsel. Despite having no foreign policy or development experience, Bolton seemed to have the right stuff, and within a year had risen to become USAID's assistant administrator for policy and programs. At a 1982 conference of the International Fund for Agricultural Development—an organization where, as the Christian Science Monitor put it, "power blocs that hardly ever seem to agree" found unusual common ground—Bolton, according to officials present at and familiar with the conference, alienated many by announcing "with inappropriate gusto," as one put it, cutbacks in U.S. support for the organization.

After his stint at USAID, Bolton went in 1985 to Ed Meese's Justice Department as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs—in effect, Justice's lobbyist in Congress. By 1988, according to Washington lawyers and published accounts, Bolton was itching to leave government service for the world of high-priced lobbying. Yet Bolton stayed on at Justice, moving laterally to head the department's civil division, for a reason almost unheard of in a town that worships at the altar of the revolving door: No one would hire him to work as a lobbyist.

There are a number of things which I know I'm tempermentally unsuited for, and ambassador to the UN is probably one of them. I'd be a lousy parish minister, for example. Both diplomacy and congregational ministry require a certain willingness to suffer fools gladly.

But Bolton's problems go beyond temperment to pathology. The guy has an anger management problem, an authority problem and a few more. I had a boss like him once, and I suspect we all have. That's why I like this Nation piece. Let's call an asshole an asshole.

Hubbert's Peak

Sorry for the late start this morning. No, I didn't oversleep, I drowned another keyboard last night and had to wait until Staples opened to replace it. Here's a little something to get you started, and it is time to start thinking about that Peak Oil thing. Post links in comments.

The Great Engine of China Is Low on Fuel
By KEITH BRADSHER

Published: April 19, 2005

GUANGZHOU, China, April 15 - Service stations across China are starting to run short on diesel this spring, while electricity blackouts here in southeastern China are growing worse as power stations cut back on purchases of fuel oil.

For truckers and factory owners, the diesel and electricity shortages are a nuisance, sometimes a costly one. The Guangzhou Boaosi Appliance Company, which makes refrigerators here, is without electricity from the municipal grid four days a week, and just bought a costly generator last month to continue operating on diesel.

The diesel and power shortages have one thing in common: they are largely the result of the clash between China's Communist past and its increasingly capitalist present. The government has set retail prices too low for diesel and electricity. So businesses, facing high world oil prices, are supplying less of both.

Disruptions in Chinese markets for fuel oil, diesel and other oil products are causing ripples in global markets in turn, as traders and investors around the world struggle to interpret the effects on international oil supply and demand.

The puzzle for oil analysts is how Chinese households, factory owners and refinery managers will react when the government eventually liberalizes prices, which is expected in the next few weeks. Government officials have already announced that they will raise retail electricity prices for industrial users, although probably not homes, on May 1. An increase in diesel prices is also widely expected.

As buyers of everything from cotton pajamas to construction equipment gathered here from around the world Friday for the opening of the two-week Canton Trade Fair, the nearest Sinopec service station had signs on all its diesel pumps saying they were sold out of fuel, though the gasoline pumps were still flowing. A couple of trucks loitered nearby. In contrast, lines of trucks waiting for diesel have been reported at scattered service stations elsewhere in China over the last few days.

The Chinese government raised the regulated retail price of gasoline by 7 percent on March 23, to $1.66 a gallon. But it left diesel unchanged at $1.57 a gallon to avoid antagonizing farmers, who need a lot of diesel in their tractors for spring planting.

Speculators across China have responded by hoarding diesel in the expectation of a price increase after the planting, said Evan Jia, a spokesman for Sinopec, China's main refiner.

This is one of those "read the whole thing" moments. This has implications for all of us and our own behavior. The energy crisis of the 1970's is worth reviewing.

The Bubble

Morgan Stanley's Steven Roach is alarmed. And so am I.

Global: Tilt!

An unbalanced global economy is at risk of becoming unhinged. Beset by record imbalances between current account deficits and surpluses, it doesn’t take much to derail a system that is already in serious disequilibrium. Such a possibility now seems less remote in the face of a confluence of powerful blows -- an energy shock, threats to European unity, an outbreak of overt hostility between China and Japan, and the rising tide of US-led protectionist sentiment. Meanwhile, steeped in denial, global policymakers are asleep at the switch. With an unbalanced world lacking the inherent resilience needed to overcome these mounting tensions, the global expansion is now at risk. That conclusion does not seem to be lost on stretched and still overvalued financial markets.

That deeper meaning, in my view, is tied to very worrisome signs of a potential failure in the global policy architecture. Around the world, politicians and policy makers have become a source of increased instability. For an already unbalanced global economy, that’s a very dangerous combination. The interplay between mounting global imbalances and rising political risks raises the odds of a more disruptive strain of rebalancing -- complete with a dollar crisis and a wrenching sell-off in both tocks and bonds.

Bush is ruining the markets. Hmm. That can't last. This is about to get very interesting.

I told a friend yesterday that I'm never going to get bored blogging the Bush administration and its economic reaction. I would LOVE to be bored, love it. I would love to be blogging recipes. I would love to be blogging birding, but I don't have my hummer feeder up yet. I would love to be blogging gardening, because I am going to steal a few moments to get out of the house and put in my kitchen door herb garden purchased from the Farmer's Market next month. I would love to be blogging new books, but I don't have time to read them, not while the media is whoring for Bush.

Ya do what ya gotta do. I'm called here, and that means making some sacrifices.

Roach goes on:

Cracks in the policy architecture are opening up at a fast and furious pace. The risks associated with the French 29 May vote on the European constitution are a big deal. A rejection -- a little more than a 50-50 possibility at this point -- wouldn’t necessarily spell the end of the European Monetary Union (see Eric Chaney’s various missives on this topic). But a French “non” would serve to underscore what has long been the weakest link in the vision of a United States of Europe -- a centralized monetary policy working at cross-purposes with a politically fragmented fiscal policy. The politicians have already trashed the Stability and Growth Pact -- all but obliterating the notion of a pan-regional budgetary constraint. The French vote could take fragmentation one step further and raise serious questions about the likelihood of a harmonized legal structure -- long viewed as a linchpin of the “straight jacket” that would drive pan-regional efficiencies. This underscores the most basic contradiction of European integration -- politics and economics do not mesh.

Alarmed yet? You should be. Even my Republican accountant is listening to me.

First Day

Well, this has been a VERY full day. For the most part, most of what I did today for Earthjustice was behind the scenes: working to build networks of cooperative liberal religious blogs and sympathizers. The new blog isn't up yet, but I hope to have that fixed by the end of the week. Other bloggers have been very helpful in showing me how to go about the mechanics, but there just hasn't been time to deal with it yet. I've ordered the new, ergonomic mouse (I note that Susie Madrak is taking the week off to let her body rest from the repetitive motion injuries she's picked up blogging. Believe me, I know what she's talking about.) The only reason I haven't developed carpal tunnel is because I already had the surgery 12 years ago. While I'm chasing this anti-Frist event down for the Coalition, it makes sense to leave it on this blog with an established reputation for religion and politics.

At any rate, I'm pooped and taking the night off. It was a good day, but the amount of juggling I had to do to get anything up on Bump was pretty tiring.

Nightmare Nomination

Bolton Often Blocked Information, Officials Say
Iran, IAEA Matters Were Allegedly Kept From Rice, Powell

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A04

John R. Bolton -- who is seeking confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- often blocked then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and, on one occasion, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, from receiving information vital to U.S. strategies on Iran, according to current and former officials who have worked with Bolton.

In some cases, career officials found back channels to Powell or his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, who encouraged assistant secretaries to bring information directly to him. In other cases, the information was delayed for weeks or simply did not get through. The officials, who would discuss the incidents only on the condition of anonymity because some continue to deal with Bolton on other issues, cited a dozen examples of memos or information that Bolton refused to forward during his four years as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Two officials described a memo that had been prepared for Powell at the end of October 2003, ahead of a critical international meeting on Iran, informing him that the United States was losing support for efforts to have the U.N. Security Council investigate Iran's nuclear program. Bolton allegedly argued that it would be premature to throw in the towel. "When Armitage's staff asked for information about what other countries were thinking, Bolton said that information couldn't be collected," according to one official with firsthand knowledge of the exchange.

Intra-agency tensions are common in Washington, and as the undersecretary of state in charge of nuclear issues, Bolton had a lot of latitude to decide what needed to go to the secretary. But career officials said they often felt that his decisions, and policy views, left the department's top diplomat uninformed and fed the long-running struggles inside the agency.

Bolton's time at the State Department under Rice has been brief. But authoritative officials said Bolton let her go on her first European trip without knowing about the growing opposition there to Bolton's campaign to oust the head of the U.N. nuclear agency. "She went off without knowing the details of what everybody else was saying about how they were not going to join the campaign," according to a senior official. Bolton has been trying to replace Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who is perceived by some within the Bush administration as too soft on Iran.

Publicly, Rice has staunchly defended Bolton's credentials and urged the Senate to quickly confirm him. But privately, officials said, she has kept him out of key discussions on Iran since taking over in January.

Bolton's staff spent the weekend answering dozens of follow-up queries from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is conducting his confirmation hearings. Nominees traditionally refrain from responding to questions outside that process, and the State Department has not directly commented on allegations and testimony in recent weeks from former officials who characterized Bolton as a bully who has sought the removal of intelligence analysts who challenged him on facts and evidence related to weapons of mass destruction.

This guy sounds like the last person we'd want representing us anywhere. The fact that he's done dirty to Rice means that the impetus for this nomination is coming from someplace other than State. I'm guessing Cheney.

Unifying the Left

One of the first truisms I learned as a labor organizer is that the best organizer is the employer: the worse they are, the easier to organize the workers. I witnessed a similar phenomenon on the religious left this morning. I took part in a conference call sponsored by the Clergy Leadership Network. In less than 20 minutes, this interfaith group crafted a consensus statement to be released this Sunday to counter the event at which Sen. Frist is speaking. Part of the strategy will be to release it through the blogs simultaneously on Sunday. I'm in the process of creating a network of liberal religious bloggers to carry the statement at the same time on Sunday. Moveon.org will be sending out a mailing on Friday to publicize this event and the press conference that will precede it.

At one time or another, each of the secular lefty bloggers has complained, in one form or another, that we on the religious left haven't done enough to counter the religious right. Actually, there has been a fair amount going on, they just aren't aware of it because it tends to be covered on the Saturday religion pages of the papers, if it gets covered at all. All you have to do is look at the TV talking heads to know what kind of coverage we get there. Sunday's blog event is an attempt to "get past the filter."

Odd, isn't it, that it took Sen. Frist to unify the left? This initiative comes out of the faith outreach units of the judicial nominations lobbying shops of a broad coalition of liberal advocacy organizations including Moveon, Earthjustice, People for the American Way, Americans United, Center for American Progress, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, etc. who have lobbying units here in DC.

It was a personal thrill for me to be in communication with some of the strongest voices on the religious left this morning, people like Rabbi David Saperstein who are personal heroes of mine. I'm getting the opportunity to do some genuine good with this initiative: this, too, is ministry.

Human Rights

A Radical in the White House
By BOB HERBERT

Published: April 18, 2005

Last week - April 12, to be exact - was the 60th anniversary of the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "I have a terrific headache," he said, before collapsing at the Little White House in Warm Springs, Ga. He died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on the 83rd day of his fourth term as president. His hold on the nation was such that most Americans, stunned by the announcement of his death that spring afternoon, reacted as though they had lost a close relative.

That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944. He was already in declining health and, suffering from a cold, he gave the speech over the radio in the form of a fireside chat.

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the future of the United States. It was the clearest statement I've ever seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years between the end of World War II and now. Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that."

Herbert doesn't say this, but it is worth making the point that Nixon was actually the last progressive president we had. More good labor and civil rights legislation was passed in his truncated two terms than in all the years since.

But the point Herbert does make is that this really is a radical agenda: the right to work, housing and health care? There is a continuing Calvinism on the right: only the elect are entitled to these things through their industry.

Crappy Job Situation and Stagflation

A Whiff of Stagflation
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 18, 2005

What's driving inflation? Not wages: labor costs have been falling, because wages are growing less than productivity. Oil prices are a big part of the story, but not all of it. Other commodity prices are also rising; health care costs are once again on the march. And a combination of capacity shortages, rising Asian demand and a weakening dollar has given industries like cement and steel new "pricing power."

It all adds up to a mild case of stagflation: inflation is leading the Fed to tap on the brakes, even though this doesn't look or feel like a full-employment economy.

We shouldn't overstate the case: we're not back to the economic misery of the 1970's. But the fact that we're already experiencing mild stagflation means that there will be no good options if something else goes wrong.

Suppose, for example, that the consumer pullback visible in recent data turns out to be bigger than we now think, and growth stalls. (Not that long ago many economists thought that an oil price in the 50's would cause a recession.) Can the Fed stop raising interest rates and go back to rate cuts without causing the dollar to plunge and inflation to soar?

Or suppose that there's some kind of oil supply disruption - or that warnings about declining production from Saudi oil fields turn out to be right. Suppose that Asian central banks decide that they already have too many dollars. Suppose that the housing bubble bursts. Any of these events could easily turn our mild case of stagflation into something much more serious.

How do we get out of this bind? As the old joke goes, I wouldn't start from here. We should have spent the years of cheap oil encouraging conservation; we should have spent the years of modest growth in medical costs reforming our health care system. Oh, and we'd have a wider range of policy options if the budget weren't so deeply in deficit.

So if any of these things does come to pass, we'll just have to see how well an administration in which political operatives make all economic policy decisions, and the Treasury secretary is only a salesman, handles crises.

I can personally testify to this situation. I've changed not just jobs but careers several times in my life. When it came time to find a new position, it never took me more than a month and a half-dozen resumes. In the last three years, I've earned a paycheck exactly 14 months and sent out literally hundreds of resumes. Some of it is age: younger workers are willing to work cheaper, but some of it is that there aren't a lot of jobs and there is tremendous competition for them.

Nothing New Under the Sun

The man is a sociologist by trade, and used to studying the behavior of humans in groups. He's worth a listen.

Evolution of the Conclave

By Andrew Greeley
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A17

There was a time when one could make a lot of money out of a conclave like the one that begins today in Rome. The ineffable Cesare Borgia -- model it is said, for Niccolo Machiavelli's Prince -- managed to buy 19 of the 21 cardinals who voted in the election of his father, Pope Alexander VI.

Pope Pius II spoke of the conspiracy to deny him the election by bribes handed out in the latrines, a deal that he said smelled of its place of origin. In fact, the buying and selling of votes in conclaves was routine until the end of the 18th century, especially by sovereign nations seeking to elect an ally: France, Austria, Spain, Portugal. Their money helped win the election of Clement XIV, who was expected to suppress the Jesuits and did so. Even in the early 19th century the Catholic writer Chateaubriand was sent to Rome by the restored French monarchy with 100,000 livres to influence a papal election.

The reason for this investment in the outcome of conclaves was that the papacy was a rich and potent European power. The new pope had at his disposal the coinage of corruption, money and jobs. He would appoint one of his nephews the "Cardinal Nephew," who was, among other things, the dispenser of patronage. It was taken for granted that the pope would make his relatives rich, some even as cardinals, even young men, such as Borgia, who had no taste for celibacy.

With the collapse of the Papal States in 1870, the reasons for such simony (buying and selling of church offices) disappeared. While it might make a good story if there were still traces of it, the truth is that there simply aren't any. The Vatican's endowment is less than that of a medium-size Catholic university, its annual income lower than that of a major American archdiocese. St. Peter's and the Vatican museum are loss leaders, barely breaking even on votive candles and admission prices. The Vatican is so poor that it had to take out a loan to pay for the second papal funeral in 1978. The only ones who might make money on the outcome of a conclave are gamblers who bet and win on a very long shot -- such as any American cardinal you might want to name.

Nor has a pope much in the way of patronage to reward those who supported him. Most priests from other countries are not eager to work in Rome in any event. Some powerful archbishops may populate a country with bishops who are their underlings, as did Cardinal Bernard Law, but that's not usually because they voted right in a conclave.

John Paul II probably owed his election to the intervention of Cardinal Franz Koenig of Vienna. Yet when it came time for Koenig to retire, the pope snubbed him and appointed a conservative theologian utterly unlike Koenig. (The new man turned out to be a child abuser and was forced out of the College of Cardinals. The next appointment was of a young aristocrat who belongs to the Dominican order and has made a mess out of Vienna.)

In Chicago politics we have a saying: If you're not loyal to your friends, who will you be loyal to? In Chicago, the mayor doesn't have much patronage to offer to his allies, but even so he has a lot more than the pope. What, then, are the trade-offs, the grease that oils the halyards of the bark of Peter?

I am not a fan of either the present method of selecting the spiritual head of a billion people or of the men who are getting ready to vote. Many of them (not all) are clueless careerists. Yet I do not doubt that when the doors of the Sistine Chapel close and they begin to vote, they will sincerely profess that they are trying to choose the best man for the "good" of the church -- however ill-advised their notions might be of who is "best" or what is "good."

Here in the US, all of this is going to be played for its entertainment value this week. It's all about men in funny clothes who are doing strange and mysterious things that no one really understands. The media aren't really philo-Catholic, they are just playing to another funny subculture they don't really understand for the purpose of being able to say, "we covered it. It was historic, but we can't tell you why because we don't know anything about history."

Religion and Politics, Round 5

Ralph Reed's Zeal for Lobbying Is Shaking His Political Faithful
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
and PHILIP SHENON

Published: April 18, 2005

ATLANTA - In 30 years of culture wars, few conservative Christian standard bearers have traveled further in American politics than Ralph Reed. The former head of the Christian Coalition has been a high-priced communications consultant, a top Bush campaign adviser, chairman of Georgia's Republican Party and now a candidate for lieutenant governor here.

Campaigning in early April at a Republican district meeting outside Atlanta, Mr. Reed talked of his small-town roots in northeast Georgia.

"I'm not going to forget where I came from," he said. "I am not going to forget what I stand for."

But as he completes his journey from Christian advocate to professional politician, Mr. Reed, 43, finds himself carrying some baggage: his ties to an old friend, the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

In Washington, federal investigations of Mr. Abramoff, a close ally of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, have revealed that Mr. Abramoff paid Mr. Reed's consulting firm more than $4 million to help organize Christian opposition to Indian casinos in Texas and Louisiana - money that came from other Indians with rival casinos.

Mr. Reed declined to comment for this article; he has said publicly that he did not know that casino owners were paying for his services and that he has never deviated from his moral opposition to gambling. But the episode is a new blemish on the boyish face that once personified the rise of evangelical Christians to political power in America.

Some of Mr. Reed's past patrons - including the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Christian broadcaster who set Mr. Reed on the national stage by hiring him to run the Christian Coalition - say his work with Mr. Abramoff's Indian casino clients raises questions about how he has balanced his personal ambitions with his Christian principles.

"You know that song about the Rhinestone Cowboy, 'There's been a load of compromising on the road to my horizon,' " Mr. Robertson said. "The Bible says you can't serve God and Mammon."

In Georgia, Mr. Reed's rival in the Republican primary is playing up his links with Indian casinos to try to revive longstanding criticism from conservative Christian purists that Mr. Reed has sometimes put his own ambitions ahead of their goals. At the meeting near Atlanta, for example, his opponents were doing their best to sow doubts in the crowd.

"The Christian Coalition, they may have some shady background," said Robert McIntyre, the treasurer of the Spalding County Republican Party, who still wore a Ralph Reed sticker on his lapel. "I was being loyal to Ralph Reed, but since now some things have come up, I need to listen. I am now wavering."

Gotta have a few questions for those who want to foist orthodoxy on the rest of us while making their private compromises with the faith for personal gain. When a seeker looks at the signs on the road and decides to follow the one that reads "power" instead of the one that reads "further questions," you know there is going to be trouble.

I'm reminded of something Brother Guestmaster said when I made my first monastic retreat many years ago. "Don't come here looking for answers. We don't have any. But if you are diligent and lucky, you may come away with a really good question, one you can chew on for years." Thank you, Steve. I wonder how many people have been moved by your words?

Distrust those who claim to know the answers. There aren't any.

Fog of War

Via Friendly Fire at Today in Iraq:

What I Didn't See in Iraq

by JIM MCGOVERN
The Nation
May 2, 2005 issue

"Trust me when I tell you things are so much better in Iraq," said one US military official to me on my recent visit to that war-ravaged country. I didn't know whether to scream or pull the remaining two strands of hair out of my head. I was in Iraq as part of a delegation of eight members of Congress, led by House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Everything we have been told about Iraq by the Bush Administration has either been an outright lie or overwhelmingly false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; we have not been greeted as liberators; and the cost in terms of blood and treasure has outpaced even their worst-case scenarios. Trust is something I cannot give to this Administration.

If things in Iraq are so much better, why are we not decreasing the number of US forces there? Why is the insurgency showing no signs of waning? Why are we being told that in a few months the Administration will again ask Congress for billions of dollars more to fight the war? Why, according to the World Food Program, is hunger among the Iraqi people getting worse? It's time for some candor, but candor is hard to come by in Iraq.

We were in Iraq for one day--for security reasons, it is US policy that Congressional delegations are not allowed to spend the night. We spent most of our time in the heavily fortified Green Zone, which serves as coalition headquarters. It's the most heavily guarded encampment I've ever seen--and it still gets attacked. I even had armed guards accompany me to the bathroom. The briefings we received from US military and diplomatic officials were, to say the least, unsatisfying. The Nixonian approach that our military and diplomatic leaders have adopted in dealing with visiting members of Congress is aimed more at saving face than at engaging in an honest dialogue. At first, our briefers wanted to get away with slick slide presentations, but we insisted on asking real questions and attempting to get real answers.

During one such briefing, Lieut. Gen. David Petraeus, tasked with overseeing training of Iraqi security forces, informed us that 147,000 Iraqis had been trained. That sounded good to me. Perhaps we could start reducing the number of American forces, I suggested. But upon further questioning, General Petraeus conceded that less than one-fourth of the 147,000 were actually "combat capable." Why didn't he say that to begin with? I asked--respectfully--our military and diplomatic officials what the gap was between the Iraqis we have trained and the number we needed to train in order to draw down the number of US troops. I could not get a straight answer.

During the morning of our visit, US military officials crowed about a recent operation in which Iraqi security forces had killed eighty-five insurgents. By the afternoon, when more reports came in, it was unclear how many insurgents had actually been killed and whether the Iraqi security forces had exaggerated their own actions.
....
Shortly before we traveled to Iraq we visited Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who lamented the mistakes the United States has made post-invasion, including the total dissolution of all the Iraqi security forces. He said, "The army you disbanded is now the army you're fighting." But I couldn't get a single US official to acknowledge any mistakes. The standard line remains, "We're moving in the right direction."
....
What worries me almost as much as our misguided policy in Iraq is that so many of my colleagues and so many citizens have become resigned to the fact that the war will go on. Congress is not being inundated with letters and phone calls and faxes and e-mails and street protests demanding an end to our presence in Iraq. President Bush's re-election seems to have taken much of the energy out of the antiwar movement. My recent visit to Iraq only strengthened my belief that this war is wrong. And only renewed, passionate dissent by the American people can end it.

Everything we are being told about Iraq is misdirection or outright lie. Here is The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index. Judge for yourself. In my eyes, the news is not good.

Blogkeeping

We now have a full set of guest posters to get us through the month. And let me be frank, to get me through the month. This is one tired blogger. The last couple of weeks have been particularly intense, in negotiation with a new client, learning new technology (I'm not good at this) and trying to get ready to get a new site ready to go next week in addition to this. I'll post the URL as soon as I know that we are ready to go live. You'll love the content. Add a GI bug into the mix for the last few days. Ugh. I'm fried.

Guest posters: I've notified all of you. Over the weekend, would you all send me an email from the address that you'd prefer I use, with the name you'd prefer to use when you post. I need to set up MT to be ready to receive you next weekend and send you all some style guidelines on posting. Again, the content is up to you, but I want to keep a consistent "look" to the site. I'll be sending you some email with my "helpful hints" for blogging at Bump and sharing some of the things I've learned the hard way from doing this 7/365 for a year and a half (God, do I need a vacation, and that's a prayer) On the other days when I turn the site over to you, I may have information (I have my own sources) that you will want to follow up on. Let me know the fastest way to communicate with you.

Starting next week, Bumpers all, some interesting new voices will join the mix on the front page. I regard this as a healthy development. This won't be a group blog, at least not any time soon, but I'm going to spend more time as the moderator of the front page, rather than its only voice. Why? I've gotten tired of my own writing and want to spend more time working on it. I want to give you more complex original essays and take more time to give you context. We are about to enter into one of the most difficult eras in the history of the Republic. I want to make sure that I'm understanding it correctly and rendering for you accurately. I'm glad for the help, Kos is right, we are entering the days of we rather than me, if we want to be in dissent. We cannot do this without many coalitions. I'm keeping notecards next to the keyboard to keep track of my new associations and passwords.

Lastly, I'm looking to move this site to a new platform. I like Expression Engine which would give us more community, Scoop-like features and all, without the tech headaches. Click on the link and come back to tell us what you think. I'm going to have to spend some money to do this, and my sponsorship by Mel Goux is coming to an end. I have a quarter time job, for the moment, so I'm going to be out of pocket for all of this. If you can help, there is a Pay Pal link up on the top right below the ad (I'm getting $17 and change for this, BTW, for each of your $20. Re-registering this domain, due shortly is going to take a bit more than that.) I'm looking around for a good host that doesn't charge an arm and a leg for excellent uptime, and I have some suggestions that I like.

Because it is Friday night when I post this, when traffic craters, I'm going to leave this pinned up at the top of the site through the weekend. You all need to be thinking about this and I'm going to let it sit around, like a melting ice cube in Iced Tea for a couple of days.

Pope-A-Thon, Vol. 3, The White Smoke

I find I need to do an update, and then I'm going to return to my Chardonnay haze.

For those of you who are interested religious liberals, if you want to know what is going on with the "pope search" (the search committee/executive placement firm is the Curia of the RCC) don't read the secular papers. They don't have a clue about this stuff. That said, nobody has a clue what's going to happen, remember that the Holy Spirit is at work (in an intensely political climate, that dove is going to have to work to get anyone's attention, but she's flown into my face more than once.)

Here's what to read:

Special reports at this National Catholic Reporter site, John Allen, the NCR's Vatican reporter presides. Read a Vatican pro.

The Tablet is the UK Roman mag, and they tend to be a little more "insiderish" than the NCR, but have fewer features available for free. I wish I could link to America Magazine, but most of their content is behind the subscription wall. Those American Jesuits tend to be ahead of the curve. If you are American and interested in Catholic thought, this is a worthwhile subscription for what the top brains are working on. Good stuff. It occurs to me that this week might be a good time to post a subscription list. There is a lot of good ink out there, but it takes culling to find it. I've already done it for you if I just download my bookmarks.

Any of you have a clue about how to go about that? I'm always willing to be schooled in Mozilla.

Philocrites, you could school me here.

You'll get a couple of posts in the morning and then I'm in meetings until noon. This burden won't come round often, but it is the start of my new relationship with Earthjustice and I do need to show up looking like I have my act together. I just get to do it from home in my jammies and my warm bathrobe. It will be warm enough tomorrow that I think I can abandon the fuzzie socks, my feet like to be free.

Bumpers, we are going to be going through change as I change roles, platforms and the whole nine yards. Your thoughts are actively sought. I thought, when I started blogging, that this was all about me. You cured me of that pretty quickly, and now I want your thoughts about all of this, the new platform and what you want out of it all.

My Mousehand cramped today so seriously that I have to take it as a warning. Damn, that hurts. I need to get off the Internets for a few days. And I will next weekend when I turn the place over to the guest posters, get out of Dodge and cook breakfast for Susie for a couple of days. I make cottage cheese pancakes that you wouldn't believe with sour cream. Start the day with protein and complex carbs.

Over to you.

Thank God for the Guest Posters so I can get out of here and renew my spirit at some of Philly's geat museums. With Suze as a guide.

I'll be back in this chair at between 4-5 in the morning as always, but I'm taking the night off.

The Web and Real Life Collide

My on-line life and my "real" life had an interesting intersection today. I was on DKos this morning to check out the Diaries --there are a lot of interesting writers in that community and I check in at least once a day. One of the writers wrote what is, essentially, a hymn to religious liberalism and tolerance. Let me quote a bit:

My name is Kenneth Bernstein. On various electronic fora I am known as Teacherken. Much of my life has been an inchoate search for meaning. During my almost 59 years of life I spent time in a variety of religions. While I am now officially a member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), I have at various times attended regularly at synagogues (Reform, Conservative and Orthodox), been an active member of churches (Episcopalian and Orthodox Church in America), received a masters degree from a Roman Catholic seminary, taught comparative religion in synagogue, church and public high school. As I write this I sit in a room full of books on religion. Trained as a musician much of the music I love is derived from people's dedication to their faith, and I have served as a choir director in the Orthodox Church.

It was clear that this Kossak has had a walk in faith at least as complicated as my own. Later in the piece, he mentions that he lives in Arlington, Virginia, the town next door to mine, so I left a comment on his diary suggesting that it might be nice to have a cup of coffee and talk. Literally 10 minutes later, I get an email from teacherken with his phone numbers and the note that he's sitting in the Starbucks down the street from me. We had coffee and a couple of hours conversation earlier this afternoon, and his lovely wife, an active member of the Orthodox Church in America, joined us. It's always a pleasure to have passionate conversation with well-informed religous liberals, and I'm certain it won't be the last. One of the things that was amazing is how similar our backgrounds are, Ken is a musician, his wife's father was affiliated with the Shalem Institute, where I received my training and formation for spiritual direction and we knew many of the same people. In a metropolitan area as large as this, I find this remarkable. Jurretta, his wife, will be working on environmental issues for the National Council of Churches this spring, so my new professional responsibilities coincide with her need for information. I'm told that the Holy Spirit works in remarkable ways. She certainly did today, but only because I was willing to get up out of my computer chair and make a phonecall.

You can see the rest of Ken's statement at the Kos link, or at Ken's blog. I'm certain that this was just the beginning of a long and fascinating conversation.

I think this will be the last post of the day. Your tired blogger needs a little R&R.;
I may get inspired later, you never know, but now I want a glass of wine and a little Book TV.

The Future

Will write about media for food, shelter, readers

Phil Rosenthal
Published April 17, 2005

No sooner do I finally reach the deep waters of Mainstream Media--arriving here at the Chicago Tribune, the paper my family read when I was a kid--than word comes from one of its captains that Mainstream Media may not stay afloat for long.

And, hey, if you can't trust News Corp. boss Rupert Murdoch, who can you trust?

Murdoch brightened the American Society of Newspaper Editors' annual get-together in Washington with a Wednesday speech telling the assembled majordomos they may be doomed.

"Scarcely a day goes by without some claim that new technologies are fast writing newsprint's obituary, yet, as an industry, many of us have been remarkably, unaccountably complacent," Murdoch said.

Murdoch's message, in short, was that the traditional media must evolve or they will die, trumped by the Next Big Thing, which looks like the Internet today but could be something else a decade from now.

That's OK. I can work with that. This new column will focus on media--TV, radio, print, digital, whatever--and apparently will be either an epic obituary in thrice-weekly installments or the ongoing saga of the industry's salvation.

Or both. As my writer friends in Hollywood like to say, I'm not married to the ending.

My marching orders are to keep it interesting and relevant, so my new colleagues and I don't wind up on the street with signs that read: "Will discuss news for food, shelter, cable and Internet access."

According to Murdoch, whose global empire includes Fox News Channel and the New York Post, four out of five Americans were reading a paper daily in 1964 while just half do today. Those of us addicted to wood pulp probably started young, a rarity now.

The key will be for Mainstream Media to somehow embrace young people, make them feel part of the process, so that young people will embrace Mainstream Media or some facsimile thereof.

"We need to realize that the next generation of people accessing news and information, whether from newspapers or any other source, have a different set of expectations about the kind of news they will get," Murdoch said. "[These include] when and how they will get it, where they will get it from, and who they will get it from."

According to a Carnegie Corporation study, people between the ages of 18 and 34 increasingly rely on the Internet for news. TV remains popular. Newspapers? "Only 9 percent describe [newspapers] as trustworthy, a scant 8 percent find us useful, and only 4 percent of respondents think we're entertaining," Murdoch said.

So the "Ziggy" comics apparently aren't cutting it, Rupe?

Young people, Murdoch believes, want news on demand, news with a point of view and venues to discuss and debate the news.

One such venue is the Web log or blog, a format that varies from online diaries to hard-edged commentary. Blogs are the new black.

I have been writing for newspapers since I was 17. That was nearly 25 years ago. If I were 17 today, I probably would be a veteran blogger. But I got paid $25 a story in 1980, which kept me in gas money. I don't know how much I could make as a blogger, but at current pump prices even this job may not keep my tank full.

But I've been interested in media ever since my dad tossed sections of the Trib to me as he finished with them each morning. That's probably how I wound up in this business, which has taken me all around the world on assignments.

For most of the last 16 years, with a couple years off in sports, my primary focus has been on covering television, first for the Los Angeles Daily News and most recently the Chicago Sun-Times. This looks to expand on that. There's a lot happening. There's a lot to talk about.

People have never been more sophisticated about media, and they still want to know more.

And, if you're wondering why this column is in the business section, all you have to do is follow the money.

Who knows where we're headed, but we're headed there fast. The current is strong.

Phil, get with the program. I know how I'm going to be earning my living.

In Our Lifetimes

An end to death from cancer?
Research breakthroughs will turn the fatal disease into a treatable chronic ailment, specialists told

ELAINE CAREY
MEDICAL REPORTER

ANAHEIM, CaLIF.—Death from cancer can be eliminated by 2015, thanks to an "explosion" in cancer research, the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute said yesterday in a dramatic revelation.

"This is something you've never heard before," Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach said at the opening forum of the 96th annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research, a gathering of more than 16,000 of the world's leading cancer specialists and researchers.

"By 2015, we can eliminate cancer suffering and death."

Last October, the prestigious Economist magazine said "the battle against cancer is at a turning-point," adding that "because of recent advances it is becoming possible to imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when new medical treatments will be able to tame the disease, transforming it from a potent killer into something akin to a chronic complaint."

Conceding that bringing cancer to bay might seem like an unreachable goal, von Eschenbach urged his audience to remember that when cycling great Lance Armstrong was born in 1971, there was virtually no chance of surviving testicular cancer that had spread to the brain, lymph nodes and lungs.

But by the time Armstrong was diagnosed with it in 1996, he was not only able to survive it but went on to win the Tour de France for the sixth time last year, where von Eschenbach stood at the finish line with Armstong's mother.

"We have it within our grasp to take what seems to be a dream ... and turn it into reality."

The sequencing of the human genome and new imaging techniques have led to "a virtual explosion in cancer research and cancer knowledge," said von Eschenbach, himself a three-time cancer survivor.

I have been unable to confirm this story in the US press. That seems odd, given that it is an American institution making this announcement, and that the news seems incredibly good. If, in your travels today, you find confirmation elsewhere, please don't hesitate to send me a link.

Creation and the Human

Rowan Williams: A planet on the brink
The Archbishop of Canterbury warns that the price of our continued failure to protect the earth will be violence and social collapse

17 April 2005

Too often in recent decades, the two big "e" words - ecology and economy - have been used as though they represented opposing concerns. Yes, we should be glad to do more about the environment, if only this didn't interfere with economic development and with the liberty of people and nations to create wealth in whatever ways they can.

Or, we should be glad to address environmental issues if we could be sure that we had first resolved the challenge of economic injustice within and between societies. So from both left and right there has often been a persistent sense that it isn't proper or possible to tackle both together, let alone to give a different sort of priority to ecological matters.

But this separation or opposition has come to look like a massive mistake. It has been said that "the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment". The earth itself is what ultimately controls economic activity because it is the source of the materials upon which economic activity works.

That is why economy and ecology cannot be separated. Ecological fallout from economic development is in no way an "externality" as the economic jargon has it; it is a positive depletion of real wealth, of human and natural capital. To seek to have economy without ecology is to try to manage an environment with no knowledge or concern about how it works in itself - to try to formulate human laws in abstraction from or ignorance of the laws of nature.

It is time to look seriously at the full implications of this. We need to start by recognising that social collapse is a real possibility. When we speak about environmental crisis, we are not to think only of spiralling poverty and mortality, but about brutal and uncontainable conflict. An economics that ignores environmental degradation invites social degradation - in plain terms, violence.

It is no news that access to water is likely to be a major cause of serious conflict in the century just beginning. But this is only one aspect of a steadily darkening situation. Needless to say, it will be the poorest countries that suffer first and most dramatically, but the "developed" world will not be able to escape: the failure to manage the resources we have, has the same consequences wherever we are. In the interim, we can imagine "fortress" strategies (with increasing levels of social control demanded) struggling to keep the growing instability and violence elsewhere at bay and so intensifying its energy.

And we are not talking about a remote future. There are arguments over the exact rates of global warming, certainly, and we cannot easily predict the full effects of some modifications in species balance. But we should not imagine that uncertainty in this or that particular seriously modifies the overall picture. On any account, we are failing.

It is relatively easy to sketch the gravity of our situation; not too difficult either to say that governments should be doing more. But governments depend on electorates; electors are persons like us who need motivating. Unless there is real popular motivation, governments are much less likely to act or act effectively. There are always quite a few excuses around for not taking action, and, without a genuine popular mandate for change, we cannot be surprised or outraged if courage fails and progress is minimal. Our own responsibility is to help change that popular motivation and so to give courage to political leaders. And this means challenging and changing some of the governing assumptions about ourselves as human beings.

But this separation or opposition has come to look like a massive mistake. It has been said that "the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment". The earth itself is what ultimately controls economic activity because it is the source of the materials upon which economic activity works.

That is why economy and ecology cannot be separated. Ecological fallout from economic development is in no way an "externality" as the economic jargon has it; it is a positive depletion of real wealth, of human and natural capital. To seek to have economy without ecology is to try to manage an environment with no knowledge or concern about how it works in itself - to try to formulate human laws in abstraction from or ignorance of the laws of nature.

It is time to look seriously at the full implications of this. We need to start by recognising that social collapse is a real possibility. When we speak about environmental crisis, we are not to think only of spiralling poverty and mortality, but about brutal and uncontainable conflict. An economics that ignores environmental degradation invites social degradation - in plain terms, violence.

It is no news that access to water is likely to be a major cause of serious conflict in the century just beginning. But this is only one aspect of a steadily darkening situation. Needless to say, it will be the poorest countries that suffer first and most dramatically, but the "developed" world will not be able to escape: the failure to manage the resources we have, has the same consequences wherever we are. In the interim, we can imagine "fortress" strategies (with increasing levels of social control demanded) struggling to keep the growing instability and violence elsewhere at bay and so intensifying its energy.

And we are not talking about a remote future. There are arguments over the exact rates of global warming, certainly, and we cannot easily predict the full effects of some modifications in species balance. But we should not imagine that uncertainty in this or that particular seriously modifies the overall picture. On any account, we are failing.

It is relatively easy to sketch the gravity of our situation; not too difficult either to say that governments should be doing more. But governments depend on electorates; electors are persons like us who need motivating. Unless there is real popular motivation, governments are much less likely to act or act effectively. There are always quite a few excuses around for not taking action, and, without a genuine popular mandate for change, we cannot be surprised or outraged if courage fails and progress is minimal. Our own responsibility is to help change that popular motivation and so to give courage to political leaders. And this means challenging and changing some of the governing assumptions about ourselves as human beings.

Archbishop Williams here articulates something I've been thinking about for a long time but have found difficult to put into words: the difference between liberals and conservatives is found in a fundamental difference in worldviews, particularly in what is called "religious anthropology," the role of the individual in relationship to himself, others, creation and God. For the liberal, that relationship includes accountability as a primary value, for the conservative, the leading value is autonomy.

Rubber Stamp

Judges Battle Transcends Numbers
# Republicans already rule most federal courts. The issue is how far right the GOP can take them.

By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The looming battle over President Bush's nominees to the U.S. appeals courts might derail the Senate, but it probably won't make much difference in the federal courts. That's because Republican appointees already dominate them.

Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. And, since 1976, at least seven of the nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees.

Even if Bush wins approval for the dozen disputed nominees who have been blocked by Senate Democrats, only one circuit would change its ideological balance — hardly a seismic shift. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, now evenly divided, would become 10-6 Republican.

Though it remains a staple of conservative rhetoric that the courts are "out of control" and driven by "liberal activists," the GOP's control of the White House for 24 of the last 36 years has given Republicans — if not conservatives — a firm grip on the federal judiciary.

But the fact is that party labels don't necessarily mean much on the bench.

For Republicans, that has become especially clear as the party has moved further to the right, in some cases leaving "conservative" judges looking "moderate."

That's why last year's Republican Party platform took aim at the GOP-dominated federal courts and pledged to "stop activist judges from banning the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments."

The fight may have more to do with the kind of Republican who joins the courts, in particular the Supreme Court. While Democrats are determined to block judicial nominees they see as conservative ideologues, the Republican leadership pushes for right-leaning judges.

Under the Constitution, the president's judicial nominees need only a majority vote in the Senate to be confirmed. However, under the Senate's rules, it takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to cut off debate, breaking a filibuster.

That means the 44 Democrats can block Bush's nominees by refusing to cut off debate. To prevent that, Republicans now threaten to remove the ability to filibuster judicial nominations.

The imminent fight over appeals court nominees is widely considered a rehearsal for this summer, when the ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, is expected to retire. He could be the first of several high court justices to depart during Bush's second term.

"The only way to explain the fever pitch over this issue [of filibusters] is its potential impact on a Supreme Court fight," said Washington attorney Brad Berenson, a White House lawyer during Bush's first term. "It is about whether the Democrats will be able to block a Supreme Court nomination."

The dominance of GOP appointees on the Supreme Court has not led to predictably conservative rulings.

This isn't about judicial philosophies, it is about power and turning the courts into a rubberstamp for the wingnut-wing in Congress. The only thing standing between us and our increasingly out of control Repub-majority Congress is an independent judiciary. This matters. Remind your Republican friends and family members that there will come a time when they will be the minority party in the Senate and will want to have a say on some Democratic president's nominees. If Frist exercises the nuclear option and loses, there go his presidential chances in '08.

There are some interesting knife-edge tensions in all of this, no?

Culture Pimps

Get Tom DeLay to the Church on Time
By FRANK RICH

Published: April 17, 2005

This time the plot begins with money. Two K Street fixers, a lobbyist named Jack Abramoff and a flack named Michael Scanlon, managed to snooker six American Indian tribes into handing over $82 million in exchange for furthering their casino interests. According to The Washington Post, some of their tribal takings, cycled through a nonprofit center for "public policy research," helped send Mr. DeLay golfing in Scotland. The pious congressman, a gambling foe, says he had no idea of his trip's sinful provenance. Never mind that Mr. DeLay was joined abroad by Mr. Abramoff, whom he has described as one of his "closest and dearest friends," or that Mr. Scanlon had once been his spokesman. Mr. DeLay was as innocent of the goings-on around him as a piano player in a brothel.

Beltway cronyism, dubious junkets, loophole-laden denials are all, of course, time-honored Washington fare. The few on the right backing away from Mr. DeLay, from The Wall Street Journal's editorial page to Newt Gingrich, make a point of reminding us of that. As they see it, more in sorrow than in anger, the Gingrich revolutionaries who vowed to end the corruption practiced by Congressional Democrats have now been infected by the same Washington virus as their opponents. That's true, but this critique of Mr. DeLay and company by their own camp all too conveniently sidesteps the distinguishing feature of this scandal. Democratic malefactors like Jim Wright and L.B.J.'s old fixer Bobby Baker didn't wear the Bible on their sleeves.

In the DeLay story almost every player has ostentatious religious trappings, starting with the House majority leader himself. His efforts to play God with Terri Schiavo were preceded by crusades like blaming the teaching of evolution for school shootings and raising money for the Traditional Values Coalition's campaign to save America from the "war on Christianity." Mr. DeLay's chief of staff was his pastor, and, according to Time magazine, organized daily prayer sessions in their office. Today this holy man, Ed Buckham, is a lobbyist implicated in another DeLay junket to South Korea.

But it's not merely Christian denominations that figure in the religious plumage of this crowd. Mr. Abramoff, who is now being investigated by nearly as many federal agencies as there are nights of Passover, is an Orthodox Jew who in his salad days wore a yarmulke to press interviews. In Washington, he opened not one but two kosher restaurants (I hear the deli was passable by D.C. standards) and started a yeshiva. His uncompromising piety drove him to condemn the one Orthodox Jew in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, for securing "the tortuous death of millions" by supporting abortion rights. Mr. Abramoff's own moral constellation can be found in e-mail messages in which he referred to his Indian clients as "idiots" and "monkeys" even as he squeezed them for every last million. A previous client was Zaire's dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, who, unlike Senator Lieberman, actually was a practitioner of torture and mass murder.

Another Abramoff crony is the political operative Ralph Reed, whom Mr. Abramoff hired for his College Republicans operation in the early 1980's. Mr. Reed, who has called gambling "a cancer on the body politic" and is running for lieutenant governor in Georgia, is now busily explaining that he, like Mr. DeLay, had no idea that some of his consulting firm's Abramoff-Scanlon paydays ($4.2 million worth) were indirect transfers of casino dough. Mr. Reed, of course, is best known for his stint as the public altar boy's face of Pat Robertson's political machine, the Christian Coalition.

Rank hypocrisy is never attractive. But when you stick a pair of praying hands in front of it, the eeew factor goes up by a multiplier of 10.

Almost every part of ordinary family life has been pimped by the right, from marriage to child-bearing to the schools to vacations. Now they are pimping faith. It's part of a pattern, turning the ordinary and usually costly part of our lives into gain for them. It's time for it to stop.

The Four Horsemen

In Real Estate Fever, More Signs of Sickness
Some Economists Warn of Housing Bubble

By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page A01

It's another insane spring in the local real estate market. As the prime season for buying and selling unfolds, very few homes are for sale, prices are climbing rapidly and desperate would-be buyers are bidding feverishly against each other.

It feels a lot like last spring, and the spring before, and the spring before that.

But now the question comes up more and more: How long can this last?

"It feels like we're on the tip of the razor blade right now," said real estate agent Eric Stewart at Llewellyn Realtors in Rockville. "And we can't remain at the edge of this blade very long."

Although there are no official government tallies yet on how much real estate prices have gone up in the Washington area this spring, local real estate agents and builders estimate that prices may have risen about 15 percent just since the beginning of this year. And that's on top of the 21 percent they rose last year, according to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, a federal agency that tracks sale prices. Over five years, according to the agency, prices here have risen 89 percent.

For homeowners, those increases have meant a rapid rise in wealth, at least on paper, and higher property tax bills. But would-be buyers such as Marshman have found that they have to stretch their budgets more than they ever imagined. Homeowners who believed that by now they would be able to trade up to bigger, better houses find themselves stuck in what were supposed to be starter homes. That means they don't sell, further tightening the supply of houses available.

There are signs that things could be getting out of whack, prompting some economists to warn that the real estate market in at least some parts of the country is in a condition much like the stock market bubble of the late 1990s.

Other economists, however, say rising house values in many metropolitan areas, including Washington, are supported by changing demographics, job creation and still-attractive mortgage rates. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said the central bank does not think there's a national problem.

Among the symptoms that some say point to a bubble: a widening gap between rental and ownership costs, a spike in the number of investors rather than occupants buying, and a ever-tighter affordability squeeze. Much of the boom in recent years has been sustained by low interest rates, which kept monthly payments down even as purchase prices rose. But the consensus among economists is that interest rates will rise at least a little this year.

"We're in a bubble, and prices could fall substantially," said Robert J. Shiller, a professor of economics at Yale University and author of the 2000 book, "Irrational Exuberance," which appeared just months before the stock market began its slide. A second edition of Shiller's book recently hit stores, with a new section on real estate. In it, Shiller presents figures that show that American house prices have gone up only an average of 0.4 percent a year since 1880, when adjusted for inflation, with most of the gain in the past eight years. "It's just not the investment people think it is," he said. "It's only been a good investment for the past few years."

Let's see now, what are the signs of imminent disaster? Housing bubble? Check. Overextended consumers with ARMs? Check. Rising interest rates? Hmm. What's going on with the yuan?....

The American Way of Death, Tax Version

Yeah, I heard this one tonight on "Inside Washington," too. Father Krauthammer (check his column in the morning) claimed that the estate tax consumed 50% of what people get to leave their kids. The wingnuts really do just make things up. Comrade Max, of happy memory, is here:

1. The event that triggers the tax is NOT death. "Death tax" is a politically-interested misnomer. Most who die (98%) pay no such tax. The occasion for the tax is the transfer of a large amount of wealth. That's why it is called "The Estate and Gift Tax."

Best single reference on the E&G; Tax is here.

Now ya know why I keep Comrade Max around. He is one interesting fellow, an atheist Jew reading religion at midlife. Needless to say, we had a lot to talk about over drinks last night. The book he fished out of his murse was one I have on the stack for later, like maybe vacation time this summer. Major brain. I couldn't read this stuff on the subway, I've got to be out in the woods with uninterrupted time.

70% of the American public thinks they are going to be subject to the estate tax. 70% of the American public is fucking nuts. Ask your friends, family and co-religionists if they really think they are going to be worth $7 M at death. Do they really think that? Why? Their heirs will be lucky to be dividing up the worth of their house and personal effects. Why don't Americans know this?

Irony

Arms Equipment Plundered in 2003 Is Surfacing in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ

Published: April 17, 2005

KIRKUK, Iraq, April 16 - Equipment plundered from dozens of sites in Saddam Hussein's vast complex for manufacturing weapons is beginning to surface in open markets in Iraq's major cities and at border crossings.

Looters stormed the sites two years ago when Mr. Hussein's government fell, and the fate of much of the equipment has remained a mystery.

But on a recent day near the Iranian border, resting in great chunks on a weedy lot in front of an Iraqi Border Patrol warehouse, were pieces of machine tools, some weighing as much as a car, that investigators say formed the heart of a factory that made artillery shells near Baghdad. Military equipment, including parts for obscure armaments used by Mr. Hussein's army, is also turning up in Baghdad and Mosul in the north, they say.

For more than a year, large quantities of scrap metal from some of the sites have routinely been filling the scrap yards of Iraq and neighboring countries like Jordan. But with this new emergence of a huge panoply of intact factory, machine and vehicle parts, it appears that some looters may have held back the troves they stole two years ago, waiting for prices to rise.

"Spare parts?" said Staff Sgt. William Larock, an American reservist in a division out of Rochester, N.Y., who is stationed near Munthriya and is coordinating repairs of some of Mr. Hussein's old troop carriers to be used for the new Iraqi Army. "A lot of them come from the market in Baghdad."

Sergeant Larock said that some of his repairs to the vehicles, which Mr. Hussein bought from a manufacturer in Brazil, were being delayed because the asking price on the highly specialized wheels - clearly stolen long ago from those same vehicles - was too high. "That's why these things are sitting on blocks," he said with a faint smile.

Interviews with people who identified themselves as arms dealers or members of the resistance in Baghdad, Falluja and other Iraqi cities indicate that a parallel black market operates in the explosives looted from some of the same sites. In fact, sketchy descriptions by members of the Iraqi resistance suggest that the arms market is also a highly developed enterprise with brokers, buyers and looters who have stockpiled their products, including artillery shells, mortar rounds and Kalashnikov rifles. One former Iraqi army officer who said that he had joined the mujahedeen said that in Sadr City, for example, a few trusted brokers would take prospective buyers to weapons caches that ranged in size from a few rounds buried in a garden to whole rooms of ordnance. If the broker and the buyers agreed on a price, the buyers would arrive a day or two later with a vehicle to drive their purchases away. The broker and the stockpilers would have worked out their respective cuts in advance.

Witnesses described looters of varying degrees of sophistication, from local people who stormed the sites in search of precious metals after Mr. Hussein's security forces fled to highly organized operations that arrived with cranes and semitrailer trucks. Some of the most organized groups arrived earliest and drove away with largely intact equipment.

When it comes to buying run-of-the-mill equipment and spare parts that were obviously looted in the past, the American military appears to have adopted some version of a don't-ask, don't-tell policy concerning where the materials originated. The materials, after all, are now being sold openly in street markets. So the Americans appear resigned to buying the equipment back rather than seizing it.

Effing fantastic. WE are funding the resistence. Unfucking believable.

Feeling Safer? Don't be.

G-7 Leaders Vow to Fix Economic Imbalances

By Chisa Fujioka
Reuters
Saturday, April 16, 2005; 1:45 PM

WASHINGTON - Finance chiefs from the Group of Seven economic powers Saturday vowed to fix global economic imbalances with "vigorous" actions, from deficit reduction to reform, and guard world growth from perils like higher oil.

At the close of their meeting in Washington, the G7 finance ministers and central bankers said economic growth looked healthy even in the face of costlier energy.

"The global expansion has remained robust, and the outlook continues to point to solid growth for 2005," the officials said in a statement following their meeting.

They said tame inflation, favorable financing conditions and "appropriate" monetary policies in their regions gave reason to hope for continued solid growth.

But Morgan-Stanley's Stephen Roach says these ministers are delusional:

There seems to be no end in sight to the widening of America’s gaping external imbalance. A record $61 billion trade deficit for February is only the latest in a long string of warning signs for an unbalanced US and global economy. The rebalancing required to temper these deficits requires significant adjustments in macro policies. Yet with America’s fiscal and monetary authorities basically frozen at the switch, politicians are asserting greater control over the adjustment process — firing one protectionist salvo after another. The tradeoff between policy adjustments and political actions lies at the heart of the sustainability debate for ever-mounting global imbalances. A tipping point could be close at hand.

For a US economy that is living dangerously beyond its means, the tough love of fiscal and monetary discipline is the only way America will ever make lasting progress on the road to rebalancing. A further decline in the dollar is needed, as is a meaningful increase in real US interest rates. The longer we wait, the more treacherous the endgame. As Paul Volcker also reminds us, “what can be left to later usually is — and then, alas, it’s too late.”

Bush's imbalances are threatening your personal economy.

New Toys

I just found this. Since I know many of you have taken my advice to ditch IE for Firefox and Mozilla, I provide this for you as a service.

Firefox Upgrade Fixes 9 Security Holes

Mozilla, the maker of the increasingly popular Firefox Web browser, has released a new version (v. 1.0.3) to plug a whole bunch of security flaws found in version 1.0.2 (including three Mozilla deems "critical.")

Once you've done the update, you might notice that the red arrow is still there. I don't know why it does that, but if you just click on it once more it should just give you a message saying something like "there are no updates available," and after that the arrow should be gone.

There is an upgrade for Mozilla Suite, as well, a 1.7.7 release. I'll download it tonight. The current version needs to be uninstalled first of all.

We Write Letters

These are the swing votes on the nuclear option. If you are a constituent, make the call, write the letter. Warner's getting a two-fer from me today.

Collins (ME)
Hagel (NE)
Snowe (ME)
Sununu (NH)
Gregg (NH)
Lugar (IN)
Warner (VA)

Dear Senator Warner,

I write to you this day as a concerned constituent. I am deeply concerned by some of the actions of your party's leader in the Senate. I have always had deep regard for the greatest deliberative body on earth, but your leader is deeply dishonoring the traditions of this house.

Sen. Frist's threat to exercise the nuclear option and remove the filibuster as a parliamentary tool is something which will only come back to bite your party when you are, as is only inevitable, lose your majority status. You can be very sure that it will be remembered at the next election cycle.

Second, I am offended to the point of belligerency by his contention that only far right wing Republicans are people of faith. I appeal to you as an historic moderate to censure this man. As a deeply religious Roman Catholic and a lifelong Democrat, I will gladly contribute for the first time in my life to any Republican who mounts a primary challenge to Sen. Frist's assumed presidential bid in 2008. I have no desire to live in Mr. Frist's theocracy. The founding fathers of this Nation insisted on a wall of separation between church and state in order to keep people like him from mobilizing a religious minority from seizing the government of this country.

I find him utterly alarming and have a hard time finding respect any party which would install him in their leadership.

Your constituent,

Melanie Mattson

Graft, Corruption, Sleaze

MoDo writes half a decent column in the NYT today:

Sleazoid lawmakers like Tom DeLay gulp down the graft from sleazoid lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, who took Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, to play golf in Scotland in 2000 as part of a $70,000 trip with Mr. DeLay's wife and staff, and for a six-day "fact finding" trip to Moscow in 1997.

If there are any ethics questions, Republicans helpfully gut the House Ethics Committee, while DeLay & Co. try to gut the New Deal.

Before he became a $750-an-hour superlobbyist accused of defrauding Indian tribes of tens of millions of their gambling dollars and pitting them against one another to pay for lavish trips for congressmen, "Casino Jack" had never been a White House wise man or spent years in public service. He produced B movies like "Red Scorpion" and "Red Scorpion 2."

Unlike the cultivated Tommy [Corcoran, the lobbiest who sold the New Deal to Congress], who was a bit of a Robin Hood, taking care of lots of people who were down and out, Mr. Abramoff leeched off a group that's always gotten gypped and then wrote ugly e-mail deriding his Indian clients as "monkeys" and "idiots."

Another lobbyist, Tongsun Park, a South Korean at the center of a Congressional bribery scandal in the 1970's known as Koreagate, blasted back from the past this week. Mr. Park has been charged with secretly collecting at least $2 million from Saddam Hussein for clandestine help setting up the corrupt U.N. oil-for-food program and carting away bags of cash from Iraq's diplomats in New York, partly to bribe a U.N. official.

Not exactly broad daylight with a brass band. More like midnight in the sewer.

The only thing that has really changed is that they used to try to hide the corruption. Now they do it all in public. This is the kind of thing which will bring the GOP down: voters like plausible deniability, even though they all think that everybody in Washington is corrupt. They just don't love to have it shoved in their faces.

Dollar's worth

Inquiry Finds Radio Host's Arrangement Raised Flags
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT

Published: April 16, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 15 - Officials at the Education Department expressed concerns about a contract with the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams last year, even bringing it to the attention of a White House policy adviser when it came up for renewal, according to an internal department report released on Friday.

The report, by the department's inspector general, found no evidence of unlawful or unethical behavior in connection with Mr. Williams's contract but criticized top department officials for "poor management decisions" and lax oversight.

"As a result," it said, "the department paid for work that most likely did not reach its intended audience and paid for deliverables that were never received."

The report did not address questions about whether hiring Mr. Williams to promote President Bush's signature education initiative amounted to covert propaganda.

Several measures to tighten accountability over contracts were suggested, and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings promised to put them in place.

The report portrayed former Education Secretary Rod Paige and his top advisers as the driving force behind the $240,000 agreement with Mr. Williams, a commentator who promoted the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. Paige, who is black, told department officials that "his main concern was with reaching the minority community."

Mr. Williams is a prominent black conservative who had a syndicated newspaper column and television and radio programs.

Factions in the Education Department that questioned his contract were ignored.

Two department officials in particular, D. J. Nordquist, the former deputy director of public affairs who is now acting public affairs director, and Ann Radice, former chief of staff, had expressed doubts about the contract, the report found.

"Their concerns included the cost of the program, the inability to measure the effectiveness of the program, and the inherent conflict of Mr. Williams's role as both a public relations executive and commentator," it said.

The "concerns were so strong" that when it came time for the contract to be renewed a year ago, Ms. Nordquist and Ms. Radice each contacted David Dunn, an adviser to Ms. Spellings, who was Mr. Bush's domestic policy adviser. Mr. Dunn is now chief of staff at the department.

Both sleazy AND incompetent. Bushco is really the perfect package, innit?

Bump Goes Multi-Media

Through the wonders of the Internets, we can bring you more than the written word, particularly if you have broadband (this is painful on dialup.) Derek and Sharon Gilbert of Mytharc Radio interview Dr. Henry Niman of Recombinomics on the topics of avian influenza, virology, the Marburg virus and epidemiology. If you are interested, this is a fascinating review that is highly accessible to the lay person.

They split the interview up into two parts, each about 35 minutes, and you can find them here.

The Poor Will Be Always With You

World Officials to Confront Economic Woes
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 16, 2005

Filed at 5:13 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration, already concerned about the impact soaring oil prices will have on the economy, now has to be worried as well about a plunging stock market.

Oil and jittery financial markets were certain to be top discussion topics on Saturday as Treasury Secretary John Snow and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan serve as hosts for a meeting of finance officials from the world's seven richest industrial countries.

On Friday, Wall Street suffered its worst single day loss in nearly two years with the Dow Jones industrial average plunging 191.24 points, its third straight triple-digit decline -- something that hasn't happened since January 2003.

The sell-off was blamed on increasing worries that the U.S. economy -- the locomotive for the global economy -- could be entering a ''soft patch'' that could be worse than last year's spring and summer slowdown. Those also occurred after gasoline and other energy prices skyrocketed.

President Bush has been prodding Congress to pass an energy bill that would allow exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to provide greater supplies in the United States. Other G-7 nations are expected to discuss their efforts to boost conservation.

In addition to the threat that surging oil prices posed to the global economy, the G-7 officials were also expected to talk about threats to global growth posed by America's huge trade deficit and the inability of Japan and many countries in Europe to boost domestic growth.

Another prime debating topic will be competing plans being put forward by the United States, Britain and France to reduce the debt burden held by the world's poorest countries. Officials hope to make progress in resolving differences on this issue but have said it is likely that an agreement will not be reached until early July in Scotland, where Bush and other leaders of the seven wealthy countries along with Russia will hold their annual economic summit.

The G-7 countries are the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada.

Their talks Saturday are in advance of weekend meetings of the 184-nation International Monetary Fund and its sister lending institution, the World Bank.

Since none of these "world leaders" will actually feel any of these "economic woes," I'm certain that they'll wring their hands entertainingly for the assembled poodle media and go back to whatever politics raises the most money for their industrial handlers. Big Oil, Big Pharma and the associated owners of the world will nod and carry on. And the comfortable media denizens of DC's Ward Three will sleep snug in their beds tonight.

Too Stupid for Words

Let's rehearse a few facts. Who goes to church? The Latin American and African Church. Who pays for the Church? North America and Germany. And who is this Horowitz fellow? I've never seen his name on a religion story before. The Times used to put the likes of Niebuhr and Steinfels on religion stories.

Note that the piece is datelined from the Times newsroom.

Italians Feel They Need the Next Papacy as Theirs
By JASON HOROWITZ

Published: April 16, 2005

As 115 cardinals from 52 countries prepare to enter a conclave on Monday to select the next pope, some Vatican historians believe that the election of another foreigner will conclude a historic shift of power away from Italy. According to this school of thought, the papacy needs to mirror Catholicism's growth in the Southern Hemisphere, where the ranks are increasing in Africa and Latin America while shrinking in Europe.

Few church experts think that another loss for the Italians will knock them out as papal contenders for good, but it seems sure once and for all to shatter the idea, reinforced by so many centuries of dominance, that Italians are preternaturally the best men for the job.

Some here think that would be a mistake.

"There is a vocation, an Italian charisma," said Vittorio Messori, an Italian writer who collaborated on John Paul's 1994 book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope." "The Italians have a tradition of centuries behind them, they know how to do the job of pope, it's in their DNA."

Well, until now, anyway. "Another non-Italian pope would confirm Italy's decline," said Giovanni Maria Vian, a Vatican scholar at La Sapienza University of Rome. "It would mean Italy has lost its central role in papal succession."

There are signs that Italy is resisting such a trend, seeking to reclaim its traditional hold and add to the 212 popes it has had in the church's history.

The 20 Italians who will enter next week's conclave still constitute the largest bloc of cardinals for any single nation, and a handful have emerged as frontrunners among those being considered for the papacy. In recent years, as the pope's health waned, a number of them maintained a high level of visibility and weighed in on major issues and challenges facing the church.

Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, 71, the archbishop of Milan, released his major work on bio-ethics as an e-book. Cardinal Angelo Scola, 63, the archbishop of Venice, started a magazine last month promoting dialogue with Muslims, and Cardinal Camillo Ruini, 74, the vicar of Rome, published a book criticizing secularism.

There also seems to be a more subtle campaign, on the part of Italians as a whole, to recast John Paul as one of their own.

Cardinal Ruini presided over a memorial Mass for the pope last week, delivering an uncharacteristically charismatic performance in which he noted that John Paul had entered "so deeply into the hearts of Romans, but also Italians."

Italy's capital, too, has staked its claim, plastering the streets with posters announcing, "Rome mourns its pope." The College of Cardinals also decided that the pope's final resting place should be in St. Peter's crypt, instead of his native Poland.

Regardless of how much Rome may claim John Paul as its own, the fact remains that he was a pope with global appeal, and his enormous personality and long reign left an indelible stamp on the papacy.

"Wojtyla became the church himself, people identified him with it," said Pietro Scoppola, an Italian Vatican expert, using John Paul's name before he became pope. "An Italian could step back and let the church step forward."

Indeed, some Vatican analysts argue that a shift back to an Italian pope may be necessary to properly govern the Curia, or church government, because few have as intimate a knowledge of the inner workings of the Vatican bureaucracy, which manages the daily operations of the church and which John Paul largely ignored.

But an Italian cardinal, Fiorenzo Angelini, who is 88 and too old to vote in the conclave, seemed to disagree in an interview this week with Corriere della Sera of Milan.

"Our perception of the church has broadened, to the point of reaching really global dimensions," he said. "You can't reason any more with a national mentality, and not even a Continental one."

I have at least a dozen sociologists of religion in my Rolodex, and another dozen in my address book, along with some of the smartest centers for the Study of Religion. And I'm just some dumb blogger. The Effing Times of New York doesn't even know what questions to ask.

Like A Tree That's Standing By The River

This is from IUP-APSCUF organizing pages. Bless them and go look at what smart organizers do.

Solidarity Forever

A Song by Ralph Chaplin

When the union's inspiration
Through the workers' blood shall run
There can be no power greater
Anywhere beneath the sun
Yet what force on earth is weaker
Than the feeble strength of one
For the Union makes us strong

Chorus
Solidarity forever, solidarity forever
Solidarity forever
For the Union makes us strong

They have taken untold millions
That they never toiled to earn
But without our brain and muscle
Not a single wheel can turn
We can break their haughty power
Gain our freedom when we learn
That the Union makes us strong

In our hands is placed a power
Greater than their hoarded gold
Greater than the might of armies
Magnified a thousandfold
We can bring to birth a new world
From the ashes of the old
For the Union makes us strong

Notes

Ralph Chaplin was a poet , artist, writer and organiser for the Industrial Workers of the World. He wrote this song in 1915 just six months before his fellow IWW songwriter Joe Hill was executed. It was to become the anthem of the American labour movement. It goes to the tune of the American Civil War song John Brown's Body.Ralph Chaplin said "I wanted a song to be full of revolutionary fervour and to have a chorus that was singing and defiant"

As Alive as You and Me

Joe Hill

(Alfred Hayes)

I dream'd I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me,
Says I "But Joe, you're ten years dead!" " I never died", says he.
"I never died", says he.

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me.
Says I, "But, Joe, you're ten years dead".
"I never died" says he.
"I never died" says he. (softly)

Old Labor Songs Still Tell The Truth

Hard Times Come Again No More

It's a sigh that is wafted across the lowly plains
It's a wail that is heard upon the shore
It's a dirge that is murmured across the lonely grave
Oh hard times come again no more

Hard Times in Detroit

G.M. and Ford Stuck in Neutral as Buyers Look Beyond Detroit
By DANNY HAKIM

Published: April 15, 2005

DETROIT, April 14 - In just the last few weeks, the grand plans that were supposed to carry General Motors and Ford Motor into their second centuries have crumbled.

Sales at G.M. have fallen, profits have tumbled to losses. Last week, Ford also warned of a drop in earnings. Thursday, in yet another blow, its union refused to give much ground on G.M.'s health care coverage. If that were not enough, G.M.'s stock hit a 12-year low. (Related Article)

The Big Two automobile giants offer plenty of explanations, from soaring health care costs to rising gas prices and creeping interest rates. But consumers and industry specialists say G.M. and Ford have swerved off course for a more basic reason: not enough people like their cars.

"I still hate to buy a foreign car," said T. J. Penn, a 44-year-old painting and drywall contractor walking through a Toyota lot this week in Ann Arbor, Mich. "But the quality and reliability makes it hard not to."

Despite free loans and rebates worth several thousand dollars, G.M. and Ford are losing sales to perennial competitors like Toyota and newer rivals like Hyundai, which are more often getting the carmaking formula right: consistent quality, reliability and that intangible appeal.

G.M. and Ford are having such a hard time bringing in the real American consumer that about a third of their sales go to their own employees, their family and friends, or to rental companies and corporate fleets, at razor-thin margins.

I haven't driven American sheet metal since my '72 Duster went toes up in 1982 (man, that was a great car, the slant six engine and roomy front compartment meant that I could do most of the mechanical work myself--a good thing because the carburator needed to be re-built at least once every winter.) I drove Mazdas since then which were basically trouble free, one bought new, one used. I have a five year old New Beetle now, the second new car I've ever bought in my life, and VW will not be getting repeat business from me. The next car (probably in five more years) will be back along the Hondo-Toyota-Mazda axis.

The Summer Ahead

Experts Predict 'Significantly Above Average' Hurricane Activity

FORT COLLINSColo. - Forecasters at Colorado State University said Friday that the Atlantic basin will see "significantly above average" hurricane activity this season.

Gray's team will issue seasonal updates of the hurricane season forecast on May 31, Aug. 5, Sept. 2 and Oct. 3.

Hurricanes are cyclical, so this increased activity is part of the normal cycle, but it is probably enhanced by the effects of global climate change.

Your Taxes at Work

New Twists for Bush's Roadshow
Friday, Apr 15, 2005; 12:23 PM

President Bush's Social Security roadshow pulls into Kirtland, Ohio, today and in at least two ways promises to be a break from the almost indistinguishable events of the past several months.

That's certainly one way to address the issue.

You're paying for it, but you aren't invited. Somebody call Henry Waxman or John Conyers.

Open Thread

I have lots of errands to run today, so posting will be light. And then I'm meeting Max Sawicky for a drink after work. You can use this as an open thread. What stories are you following in the news today? Post links in comments.

Bloggers: Born or Made?

It can be tough to train journalists how to be bloggers

A couple of times a week I hear from newspaper and online editors who are looking for blogging advice.

The goal of many journalistic blogs is to be a one-stop information shop on a specific topic. But you have to understand clearly everything that the readers want and need, and especially to involve them. That’s why I’ve said, with some seriousness, that it might be easier to train a good blogger how to be a journalist that it is to train a good journalist how to be a blogger.

I haven't posted much on blogging because I get a little tired of the endlessly self-referential stuff. This article is an interesting reflection that gets beyond the bloggers v. journalism stuff (of which I'm very sick) and gives us all something to talk about (and the guest posters something to think about.) I look for a lot of the same things on blogs that I look for in my favorite columnists: a distinct personal voice and point of view, a healthy sense of irony and a willingness not to take oneself too seriously.

Profit Motive

"No Blood for Oil?" Think it's not about the oil? Read more:

American Indicted In Iraq Oil Probe

By Colum Lynch and Michelle Garcia
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 15, 2005; Page A01

NEW YORK, April 14 -- A Texas oil executive, his two companies and two foreign associates were indicted Thursday on charges that they illegally paid millions of dollars to Iraqi officials in exchange for lucrative deals to buy discounted oil from the government of Saddam Hussein.

A separate criminal complaint charged Tongsun Park, a South Korean businessman who was at the center of a congressional influence-peddling scandal in the 1970s, with acting as an "unregistered agent" of Hussein's government and with trying to bribe a U.N. official for relief from economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Thursday's action, announced by David N. Kelley, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, represents the largest round of criminal charges against individuals accused of abusing the $64 billion U.N. oil-for-food program. Samir A. Vincent, an Iraqi American businessman, recently pleaded guilty to illegally lobbying U.S. officials on behalf of Hussein's government and agreed to cooperate with Kelley's investigation.

The oil-for-food program was created in December 1996 to offset the consequences of sanctions by allowing Iraq to sell oil to buy food, medicine and other humanitarian goods; it ended after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. The Iraqi government raised more than $2 billion illicitly through the program, which has become the focus of a U.N. probe, six congressional inquiries and a federal criminal investigation.

A federal grand jury in Manhattan charged that David B. Chalmers Jr., founder of Houston-based Bayoil USA Inc. and Bayoil Supply & Trading Limited; Ludmil Dionissiev, a Bulgarian citizen who lives in Houston; and John Irving, a British oil trader, funneled millions of dollars in kickbacks through a foreign front company to an Iraqi-controlled bank account in the United Arab Emirates. If convicted, the three men could each be sentenced to as long as 62 years in prison, $1 million in fines, and the seizure of at least $100 million in personal and corporate assets.

The federal complaint against Park charges that he received a total of $2 million in cash from Iraq, including a fee to "take care" of an unnamed U.N. official. It also states that Park invested $1 million in Iraqi money in a Canadian company owned by the son of another unknown, "high-ranking" U.N. official. Park could face as long as five years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000 or twice the value of profits he earned as a result of his alleged activities.

"The individuals and corporate defendants charged today reaped huge benefits from the corruption of the oil-for-food program," said John A. Klochan, acting assistant FBI director, who accompanied Kelley at a news conference. "But they didn't merely participate in the illegal scheme. They helped further it."

I also see a prosecutor grandstanding. But that's not news.

Pimping Christianity

This is the "nuclear option" for religious liberals. I do believe it is time for us to get out butts off the couch.

Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: April 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

"Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the president their advice and consent through an up or down vote," Mr. Stevenson said, adding, "He has spoken to groups all across the nation to press that point, and as long as a minority of Democrats continue to block a vote, he will continue to do so."

Some of the nation's most influential evangelical Protestants are participating in the teleconference in Louisville, including Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The event is taking place as Democrats and Republicans alike are escalating their public relations campaigns in anticipation of an imminent confrontation. The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees by preventing Republicans from gaining the 60 votes needed to close debate, using the filibuster tactic often used by political minorities and most notoriously employed by opponents of civil rights.

We need to stand up against this perversion of Christianity and call for the separation of church and state. I cannot begin to tell you how many alarm bells went off in my head when I read this.

The filibuster has been in place for 200 years. Republicans used it to block the nomination of Abe Fortas as chief justice of the Supreme Court. They've used it since and Bill Frist has used it. Does the word "hypocrisy" sneak into your consciousness right about now?

The Doctor is In

I don't think it is doctor's salaries. I think it it a corrupt system of wages, bribes and lobbying by Big Pharma that gives us our current system, which works poorly. Third World countries get better healthcare than we do.

The Medical Money Pit
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 15, 2005

In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.

Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government spends more on health care than the governments of other advanced countries, even though the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.

What do we get for all that money? Not much.

Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.

A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services - we have lots of M.R.I.'s - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only average, or even below average. There's also direct evidence that identical procedures cost far more in the U.S. than in other advanced countries.

The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than their counterparts abroad - but they don't actually receive more care. The title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."

Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors' salaries: although average wages in France and the United States are similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts. Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain with the pharmaceutical industry.

Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.

In my next column in this series, I'll explain why the most privatized health care system in the advanced world is also the most bloated and bureaucratic.

Legislative Leach

In Victory for Bush, House Approves Bankruptcy Bill
By STEPHEN LABATON

Published: April 14, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 14 - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a major overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws today, completing Congressional action on the measure and sending it to President Bush for his signature.

The vote, 302 to 126, produced the first significant revision of the federal bankruptcy laws in 27 years. The legislation is the culmination of years of intensive lobbying by the nation's largest banks, credit card companies and retailers, which have complained about what they say is a rising tide of abusive bankruptcy filings.

It is a big victory for Mr. Bush, who supported the measure, and a sharp setback for civil rights organizations and consumer groups. They say the new law will be a huge giveaway to special interests at the expense of many middle and lower income families.

Those groups say that the increase in filings over the last 30 years is a symptom of other problems, including the growing number of uninsured families facing high medical bills. They also link the rise in bankruptcies to the increasingly aggressive efforts by credit card companies, banks and retailers to promote easy credit often accompanied by hidden and high fees.

Supporters of the legislation beat back a variety of attempts to force lenders to cut fees, expand disclosure and curtail what critics have called the abusive marketing tactics of the banks and credit card companies. The supporters also beat back a series of amendments offered by critics to curtail what the critics called the abusive bankruptcy practices of corporations like Enron.

This bill is an absolute disaster for us ordinary people and a windfall to banks and credit card companies. There are Democrats who voted for this abortion. This is nothing but a gift to the credit industry. This bill is so egregiously bad that this single vote should cause voters to cancell the congressional careers of the people who voted for it. It doesn't look like it is going to have success in the Senate, however. You need to be on the phone to your Senators about this, we need to beat this one back. Blog action is working, Bumpers. Just as we made changes on that Brookings panel a couple of weeks ago, the well-informed blog readers are a force for change in this country. This will be a bi-partisan issue, this bill is equally bad for Red Staters and Blue Staters.

All Through the Night

While You Tried to Sleep

Once, back when Puritan forefathers were drafting plans to inflict guilt on countless future generations, the sunset signaled an acceptable end to a day's productive activities, when people might as well go to sleep unless they owned a candle factory. Sleep problems started with electricity, accelerated with TV and worsened with this Internet thing. Even as late as the 1950s, TV had the good sense to play the national anthem at midnight and go silent so everyone had an excuse to sleep. Who knew we should stay awake for the Tokyo markets?

Now there are 500 channels, all the time. Unless you're checking 24/7 or watching what TiVo harvested, you might miss something. Same for the Internet. Who sleeps with any conceivable question un-Googled? Americans are addicted to multi-tasking; some might think cruise control was designed to permit napping on the interstate.

News now is 24/7. Pharmacies, home TV shopping, online browsing, all 24/7. Even grocery shopping is round-the-clock. If you missed one episode of the "Lassie" show in the 1950s, it's available too at any hour. Who could possibly think of sleeping when there's so much to do, even answering a sleep poll? If you're fading, there's always a nearby Starbucks or other caffeinatorium.

People used to say one-third of life is spent asleep. Americans have cut that closer to a quarter now. According to the poll, 75% of Americans say they have some kind of sleep problem. Truth is, sleep isn't the problem. That's the cure. It's all we're now driven to do while awake that's the problem.

Everybody I know is complaining of sleep problems. I could probably use an hour more a night than I'm actually getting.

But television is hardly the compelling issue: most of it is so bad that I don't feel like I'm missing much there. However, I'm sure it is obvious to anyone who has spent more than two seconds on this site that I have a major Internet habit.

Evil Empire

Thanks to reader RT.

Wal-Mart Leaves Bitter Chill
Quebec Store Closes After Vote to Unionize

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page E01

JONQUIERE, Quebec -- The baby buggies are all gone. In electronics, only "Le Gros Albert" and a few other leftover DVDs remain. A few pairs of pink boots are left in the shoe department. Over in household goods, red and yellow liquidation tags dangle beside thin skillets as Wal-Mart prepares to close.

The retailing behemoth, whose $10 billion annual profits are based on low prices, low expenses and its relentless pace of store openings, announced it will shut the doors here May 6 after workers voted to make this the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America.

The closure will leave 190 bitter employees out of work, the town uneasy over the future of unions, and the mayor angry at the company. Supporters of organized labor also say it serves as a warning for workers at other Wal-Mart stores who might contemplate defying founder Sam Walton's sharp distaste for unions.

"It's like we are digging our own grave," said store employee Nathalie Dubois, 38, a single mother with no other job to go to, as she helped pack up the store.

The world's largest retail chain has fiercely and successfully resisted unionization attempts at its 3,600 stores in the United States. Its closest call ended in Texas in 2000 when the store eliminated its meat department after 11 meat cutters voted to join a union. United Food and Commercial Workers is mounting a fresh campaign to organize Wal-Mart workers in the United States, a push it says has been given impetus by recent legal action and a former company vice president's contention that he surreptitiously organized anti-union activities.

In Canada, the battle has been pitched, pitting the country's still-healthy union movement against what is now its largest retailer. While union membership in the United States dropped to 12.5 percent of workers in 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, it was 28.6 percent in Canada. Since entering the country 11 years ago by buying the failing Woolco chain, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. now takes 52 percent of the retail market share in Canada, and is opening around 30 stores a year. It earns three times as much revenue per square foot of store space as Zellers Inc., its nearest competitor.

Quebec, where nearly 40 percent of the workforce carries a union card, has been a focal point. Jonquiere was the first store to be unionized. One other, in Saint Hyacinthe, east of Montreal, has followed. The company says it is bargaining "in good faith" toward a contract at that store but expects the negotiations to "go on for some time."

On April 1, in Brossard, in southern Montreal, employees voted against joining a union.

"They got the message from Jonquiere. People were afraid if they voted for the union the store will be closed," said Louis Bolduc, an organizer for the United Food and Commercial Workers union in Quebec.

A little context here: one of the reasons that Canada has a higher rate of unionization is that it is relatively easier to organize in Canada and the labor laws which prohibit corporate meddling in organizing attempts are actually enforced.

However, about the only way to successfully combat this tactic, closing stores that unionize, is to simultaneously organize ALL of the Quebec stores.

Thursday Smile

I don't know about you, but I can always use a smile. They are a little hard to find these days, so just go read The Onion. (Thanks, Bob.)

Little Victories

Connecticut House Votes To Allow Gay Unions
Governor Expected To Sign Legislation

By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A01

HARTFORD, Conn., April 13 -- Connecticut's House of Representatives passed legislation Wednesday that would make the state the second to establish civil unions for same-sex couples, and the first to do so without being directed by a court.

The state Senate overwhelmingly approved a civil-unions bill last week, and lawmakers said they expect to endorse the House version as early as next week. Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R) said Wednesday that she will sign it.

The House also passed an amendment -- favored by Rell and designed to make the bill more palatable to more conservative members -- that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

"It's an unbelievable victory," said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor (D), one of the bill's main supporters. "The idea that both houses endorsed this concept of civil unions is an incredible step."

Connecticut's push toward civil unions cuts against a national backlash that has followed the legalization of such relationships in Vermont in 2000 and of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts last year. Unlike Connecticut, court rulings prompted the changes in those states.

In November, 11 states outlawed same-sex marriage through ballot initiatives, and at least 18 have passed "defense of marriage" amendments to their constitutions, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Getting over fear of the "other," one small step at a time.

K Street

Congress's Deepening Shadow World

Published: April 14, 2005

When it comes to lobbying Congress, Washington is now a $3-billion-a-year company town. The influence industry is multiplying so fast that no one really knows how many lobbyists are at work these days. Ten years after a law was passed to register and track lobbyists, the Capitol staffs charged with the task are woefully short-handed and lack proper auditing and investigative powers, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

It found the industry doubling in size in just the past six years. At the same time, government's revolving door has ratcheted up to warp speed: an estimated 240 former members of Congress and federal agency heads, as well as 2,000 other senior officials, are now lobbyists, earning salaries only fantasized about in their public service days to gain an entree for major corporations and interest groups.

The some $13 billion spent on lobbying since 1998 is more than twice the amount spent by candidates for federal office, yet campaign financing is vetted far more closely for possible abuses than lobbying. Thousands of required lobbying disclosure documents have not been filed, the center found, with no one making a fuss.

Lobbying has now become an established part of representative government. But that doesn't remove the need for far better disclosure rules and regulation, as should be obvious from the tale of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist-insider being investigated because of allegations that he gulled Indian tribes to collect scores of millions of dollars.

A few lawmakers, like Representative Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, have proposed stronger restraints on the Congressional alumni who so quickly turn around to lobby their old committees. He would also require disclosure by the murky, mushrooming world of "grass roots" lobbying via outside pressure groups and television ads. Such good ideas, of course, don't draw the attention of Washington's power lobbyists.

It's all one industry now. Getting into Congress is just a line item on a lobbiest's resume.

Failing Up

Patrick Nielsen Hayden is having qualms:

What conservatism is. Fred Clark of Slacktivist is impressed by the news that Gen. Tommy Franks has been going from city to city, delivering a talk to “motivational” business seminars entitled “From the Battlefield to the Business World: Strategies that Get Results.”

Welcome to rule by middle-aged white guys who, by definition, can do no wrong.

Who said there are no second acts in American life?

Let's see where Carly Fiorina shows up next.

The Price of a Rack

I watched the hearing the other day and find this outcome incredible:

After 13-year ban, FDA panel backs silicone implants

WASHINGTON - (AP) -- In a surprising turnaround, federal health advisors recommended Wednesday allowing silicone-gel breast implants to return to the U.S. market after a 13-year ban on most uses of the devices -- but only under strict conditions that will limit how easily women can get them.

Mentor Corp. persuaded advisors to the Food and Drug Administration that its newer silicone implants are reasonably safe and more durable than older versions. The 7-2 vote came just one day after a rival manufacturer, Inamed Corp., failed to satisfy lingering concerns about how often the implants break apart and leak inside women's bodies.

The FDA's advisors said that Mentor had performed more convincing research that the implants only rarely break shortly after they're inserted and showed some evidence that they may last as long as 10 years.

They stressed that sales should resume only if Mentor meets strict conditions, including a requirement that patients sign consent forms.

'Kay. They'll make you sick, give you auto-immune disease, but you'll be shapely. God, Pharma bought this decision, science sure as hell didn't.

Blogkeeping

Some things to think about:

I'm still looking for some guest posters. We have two volunteers, but if we had two more, I'm thinking that everybody who fills in could have more fun with it and less pressure when I'm hor's de Combat. There will be an opportunity to try out your blogging skills and desires on the weekend of the 22nd: I'm going to Philly for the weekend to join Suburban Guerilla's blog dinner, stay for the weekend and get a little break. I'm going to finally buy the laptop before I go, and I know I won't be able to refrain from blogging, but Suze and I will have some other things to do besides blogging. I've never been to Philly before and want to see the city, and there are some great shows at the Museums. The Dali show is up at the Philly Museum, and I can't wait to see that.

Those of you who know Philly, tell me what other experiences I must not miss in order to get the flavor of the city. I'm open to everything but swing clubs, and a Philly Cheesesteak 'wid." I hate Chees-whiz. I want to take Susie out for dinner. What can you send me to other than Bookbinder's, or do I have to go there to have the complete Philly experience? I love seafood and this is the last month in which it is safe to eat raw oysters. Oysters. Oysters. Oysters. I freakin' love raw oysters. I have no idea if they are an aphrodisiac, but the experience of slurping them is sexual on it's face. I love the raw sea experience of them. It's like being returned to the sea on the half-shell, discovering your inner Venus.

Eat them raw with a little Tabasco and a spritz of lemon, a slice of paradise.

Peak Oil

Raising our crude oil price baseline for 05 and 06

We’re again marking our oil price trajectory higher, this time by roughly $7/barrel for both Brent and West Texas Intermediate through the end of 2006. We now see Brent quotes averaging $49 this year and $42 next year, versus $42 and $36 in our previous note (“Oil Price Alert: Marking to Markets”, Global Economic Forum, 18 February, 2005). However, unlike many who now see prices rising to $80/bbl. or higher, we believe that by 2006 energy quotes will have been high for long enough to affect demand. Thus, we stubbornly stick to the view that the long-run equilibrium crude price will range between $30-40/bbl.

Nonetheless, the risk for the next 18 months is that prices will stay above that longer-term level. The new driving force is stronger-than-expected global demand for refined products such as gasoline, in particular in the US and in Asia, and the limited capacity of refineries globally to produce them. Specifically, we now expect global growth for oil and products to rise by 2.3 mbd, or about 300,000 mbd more than two months ago. While that sounds miniscule, markets are already tight, and there isn’t sufficient capacity to refine transport fuels from grades other than light, sweet crude. There is little that the Gulf producers in OPEC can do to prevent the overshoot in prices for those grades, as they produce the higher-sulphur, sour crudes. In addition, stimulative monetary and fiscal policies have so far largely offset the negative impact of higher oil prices on global growth and thus on demand for crude and products. Finally, policy makers in oil importers that matter the most at the margin, i.e. China and India seem to have decided to shelter their economies from the negative consequences of higher oil prices by all means, starting with the subsidisation of consumers and some key industrial sectors. Such policies are unsustainable, of course, because they imply ballooning budget deficits in those economies, but we do not see them ending quickly.

Morgan Stanley is generally conservative in their approach, so I'll take this seriously. However, their argument hinges on a piece of human behavior, price affecting demand. I'm not seeing people's behavior changing yet. Gas will have to go over $3/gallon before that happens.

Nuclear Option

Barack Obama, today on the Senate floor:

...[T]he American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And at the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done.

We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.

A Little Entymology

Via WaPo's Dan Froomkin:

The Cornell University News Service reports that Bush, Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld each recently had a slime-mold beetle named in their honor.

Quite the honor, indeed. Apparently the entomologists named some of the other beetles after an ex-wife and "Star Wars" villain Darth Vader.

The only thing that I can think of that would be even better would be if they are dung beatles.

WaPo Hides the Dirty Truth

Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee Who Died

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 13, 2005; Page A07

The dispute over the Bush administration's treatment of military detainees is playing out in a North Carolina courtroom, where a CIA contractor has asserted that his rough interrogation in 2003 of an Afghan who subsequently died was indirectly authorized by deliberations in Washington at the highest ranks of the Bush administration.

A lawyer for David A. Passaro, the sole CIA worker to be indicted publicly as the result of a detainee's death in the war on terrorism, stated in court documents unsealed yesterday that he wishes to call the legal counsel to Vice President Cheney, two former senior Justice Department officials, former CIA director George J. Tenet and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as witnesses in his defense.

The aim of the CIA contractor is evidently to undermine the promised testimony of Army personnel about the brutality of the Afghan's interrogation session by convincing the court that he was acting in concert with detainee treatment policies set out by a range of administration officials, including President Bush. Passaro has pleaded not guilty to four assault charges.

His argument runs contrary to the statement last June of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft at a televised news conference announcing Passaro's indictment. Ashcroft, speaking amid the furor over revelations of prisoner abuse at the U.S. military's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, called Passaro part of "a small group of individuals" who had betrayed U.S. policy and its most basic values.

Passaro, through his public defender, Thomas P. McNamara, has alleged in court documents that he used "necessary and appropriate force" during the interrogation to extract information from Abdul Wali. The government, in its court pleadings, has argued that no official contemplated or approved of acts with a "nature and scope" similar to those that Passaro is accused of committing.

In similar cases involving detainee abuse in Iraq, military personnel have sought to call senior defense officials as witnesses, but military judges have turned them down. Passaro's case is the first such attempt in a civilian court. No government response has been placed on the public record in Passaro's case, which remains months away from a trial.

Write to the Post Ombud and complain that this story should be on A1. This is shameful.

Quelling Risk

Via James Wolcott, I learn that I'm not the only one telling family and friends to get the hell out of the stock market:

Bang a Gong

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.

They don't ring a bell, but as of last week, the Market Climate for stocks has shifted to a clearly negative condition, characterized by unusually unfavorable valuations and now clearly unfavorable market action (I generally report these changes with a lag if there is anything material to execute, but the present shift should be no surprise).

In general, the “spin” that investors most easily accept about a given news event is related to their predisposition to take risk. When investors abandon their willingness to accept increasing levels of market risk and instead begin to show signs of skittishness, no news is good news. For example, in a favorable Climate, rising interest rates are often taken as a favorable sign about economic growth and earnings, while in an unfavorable Climate, rising rates are taken as cause for alarm. Moreover, there seems to be a general tendency for economic surprises and earnings reports to come in on the negative side during unfavorable Market Climates. For this reason, I look at unfavorable market action as both a signal about investors' attitudes toward risk, and also about investors' information about future events. On the basis of what we can infer from current market action, we have to allow for the possibility of unfavorable developments here.

I've been telling you for a year that the combination of federal budget debt, trade deficit, low household saving rate and massive world-wide payments imbalance were going to have to be rebalanced at some point, and the dollar will take it in the neck when it happens. I'd be in cash, munis and Fed funds if I were an investor these days.

Around the House

I'm looking at the stack of books next to the computer--I do stacks, I use the archeological method of finding things. Anyway, there are three books of systematic theology, two of moral theology, two Biblical commentaries, the current Code of Canon Law with its commentary, the New Joy of Cooking, the complete e. e. cummings and the collected Jane Kenyon, the New English Bible, two more cookbooks and the tv schedule, next to a rosary and an ashtray. Am I messy or eclectic? You decide.

And what is on your stack?

Will Democrats Seize the Opening?

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, April 13, 2005; Page A17

A sensible Democratic leadership would gather this very weekend to begin formulating a plan to address America's looming economic crises. These party leaders would develop specific proposals to reduce the trade and budget deficits that are spooking the financial markets. They would gather experts who have been warning that we're heading for a financial crackup -- people such as former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and investor Warren Buffett. Bolstered by their good advice, the Democrats would work cooperatively with the administration and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to reassure markets if the dam begins to crack.

My imaginary Democrats would get serious about energy, too. They would admit that with soaring Asian demand pushing against tight supplies, the world is facing a long-term squeeze. Rather than pretending that the solution is somehow to mandate lower prices, they would do something about increasing supply (yes, even from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and reducing demand (yes, we are all going to be driving versions of the Toyota Prius someday).

Even as they framed plans to deal with the immediate economic dangers, my imaginary Democrats would offer proposals to solve the longer-term threats to the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Above all, they would face up to the reality the Republicans generally have avoided: that there is no way out of the fiscal mess without a mix of higher taxes and benefit cuts for those who can afford to take the hit.

Rather than trying to take political advantage of the president's stumbles on Social Security, these New Democrats would do the right thing. They would reject Bush's half-baked plan for private accounts, but at the same time they would give the president political cover to do what's necessary to begin matching future benefits to future revenue. For Democrats in the wilderness of opposition, it's a chance to become the party of stand-up guys. Not the usual role for Democrats, but one that the duck-and-cover Republicans are handing them.

The Democrats don't deserve this makeover opportunity. On economic issues, they've mostly behaved as irresponsibly as the Republicans since 2000 -- looking for cheap shots and short-term gains. And sadly, they're often as slavishly supportive of their special-interest friends as is the GOP. Do the Democrats have the leadership and political guts to seize the moment? Probably not, but they're fools to let it slip by.

I keep wondering when the opposition party is actually going to, you know, oppose something. And come up with something. I know what I stand for. What do Democrats stand for?

We're standing on the brink of an economic catastrophe. Where are the Democrats? Avian influenza is lurking. Where are the Democrats on public health and the CDC budget?

There are so many topics on which a principled and fact-laden stand could be taken and I'm not seeing a bloody thing out of my party.

Do What I Say, Not What I Do

Rumsfeld warns Iraqi regime not to purge US allies
By Patrick Cockburn in Kirkuk

13 April 2005

The US has warned against a purge of its allies in the defence and interior ministries - crucial to real power in Iraq - by incoming Shia ministers.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, issued a coded warning against the removal of officials from the security ministries which lead the fight against insurgency.

"It's important that the new government be attentive to the competence of the people in the ministries, and that they avoid unnecessary turbulence," he said on his ninth visit to Iraq since the invasion.

The US is increasingly isolated in Iraq, with the announcement yesterday that 1,700 Polish troops in Iraq would leave at the beginning of next year. Poland has been among America's staunchest allies.

The Shia parties, who won a majority in the parliamentary election on 30 January, are pressing for control of the interior ministry in the new government. They also want to take charge of the the intelligence agency. The defence ministry will probably go to a Sunni Arab.

"The Americans have remained largely in control of intelligence, interior and defence despite the handover of power to Iraqis in June last year," an official said.
....
Ironically, Mr Rumsfeld's concern over a purge of Sunni officers is in contrast with the speed with which the Pentagon disbanded the Iraqi army and security forces in May 2003. This was the single most important development fuelling the insurgency which exploded in Sunni areas in the following months. Just how dangerous Iraq is for foreigners was underlined yesterday when an US contractor was kidnapped.

The irony layers on thick and fast. Don't do as we do, do as we say. And while you are at it, don't manage to notice that we are utterly incompetent at everything we do. Copy us anyway.

Tie a Yellow Ribbon

Senate won’t add veterans’ health funds to supplemental

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer

By two 54-46 votes, the Senate blocked efforts Tuesday to add money for veterans’ health care to the 2005 supplemental appropriations bill.

Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, both members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, sought to add $1.9 billion to the $80.6 billion wartime emergency supplemental appropriations bill to cover costs of treating returning combat veterans for war-related injuries and to cover shortfalls in funding for VA programs.

The Bush administration sought no VA money as part of its supplemental funding request, and none was included in the version of the bill passed by the House in March.

Murray, however, said funding for veterans is critical because wounded service members will be seeking treatment from already underfunded facilities.

“The VA is not prepared to deal with soldiers coming home,” she said. “It is an emergency today. If we don’t deal with it, it will be a crisis tomorrow.”

Their amendment would have provided $1.975 billion to the VA, with $525 million earmarked for mental health programs, $610 million provided specifically for the treatment of veterans wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and $840 million evenly divided between VA regions.

The amendment was blocked by a parliamentary motion from Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, who said the funding is not really an emergency need. The Senate voted in support of Cochran’s position, and then voted again when Murray tried to get the amendment approved even if the funding was not characterized as an emergency. The outcome was the same, with 54 senators voting to block funding and 46 voting to provide it.

54-46? Wouldn't that be on party lines? Do the Republicans support the troops?

Get your ass shot up and come home and you are going to be on your own in this Republican paradise.

The Reading List

While CNN plays another day of the Pope-A-Thon (look, I'm Catholic, and I'm really tired of this) and manages to get it all wrong, we've still got a war going on in Iraq. Remember Iraq?

Juan Cole gives you the news round up. And, if you're smart, you'll be reading Today in Iraq and The War in Context. And then you'll be ready to take on Steve Gilliard, The Agonist and me. Until you've studied as much as we have, please hold your fire.

Missing the Point

Depressed? New York City Screens for People at Risk
By MARC SANTORA and BENEDICT CAREY

Published: April 13, 2005

Doctors in New York City have begun to use a simple questionnaire to determine if a patient is at risk for depression, a practice that health officials hope will become a routine part of primary care, much like a blood pressure test or cholesterol reading.

The new program is the first to carry out depression screening using a scored test on a wide scale. It comes amid a spirited national debate among psychiatrists, policy makers and patient-advocacy groups on the wisdom of screening for mental disorders, especially in children.

In 2003, an expert panel convened by President Bush recommended expanding mental health screening, and Congress budgeted $20 million in supporting money for state pilot programs for this year. Several states, including populous states like Florida and Illinois, have begun to investigate large-scale screening plans, and scores of schools and other youth centers throughout the country have used instruments to test youngsters for suicide risk.

But some politicians and advocates for patients argue that testing people broadly for mental conditions is an invitation to overdiagnosis, unnecessary treatment and lifelong stigmatization.

In New York, no federal money is being used for the program, which is under way in hospitals run by the city. The test, which is being given to adults only, derives a depression score from the answers to nine questions. It is not meant to yield a formal diagnosis, but a high score would lead a doctor to recommend a more thorough clinical screening.

The test includes questions about mood and behavior.

For instance, patients are asked if over the past two weeks they have felt "down, depressed or hopeless." They can answer by checking one of four categories: not at all, several days, more than half the days or nearly every day. Dr. Lloyd I. Sederer, who heads the mental health division of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which is leading the New York effort, said he hoped the screening would set an example for other doctors in New York and around the country.

"It is our hope to have this become a standard practice," Dr. Sederer said.

Excuse me? This is nuts. Depression isn't treated with a pill and a pat. It is a tough, difficult disease that requires specialized treatment, not a box of Kleenex. This is the equivelant of a box of tissues and a script. It's just another way of defining mental health down and treating it like fuzzy studies as NOT IMPORTANT.

I'm glad that somebody thinks depression needs to be treated. I'm discouraged that they think it is something like the flu. Toss a couple of pills at it and it will go away.

The Day the Blogger Went to the Dogs

Sorry for the long pause. I know it isn't like me, but this has been a day to sort out some of the business things for the new site, work with designers and IT people, and get this new baby ready to BE. And there was a little IM with the BF.

My brain is buzzing with too much information about too many platforms, hosting recommendations, website recommendations, technical capabilities on stuff I barely understand and such like. Since my tech team is scattered all over the continent, I can't just call a meeting. These are all busy professionals and we aren't yet to the place where I can do a Net meeting (I have the software, thanks.) These have to be human connections and my little piece of grease isn't compelling for something like blocking out time for it. Yet. I'm just grateful that pogge, Reid and GK can make any time for me at all on such short notice. All have chimed in during the last day. I can make some happy recommendations when you have Web needs. We'll get to the point where we need to do Net meetings when my expense account gets a whole lot fruitier than it is right now.

I don't have a URL for the new spot yet, but check back. I'm learning how to do this (this site was a Gift of Blog, so this is my "from scratch" moment.) It ain't pretty or easy, but at least I have decent help.

And I'm drowning in Too Much Information! Garrh! And none of it is in a language I actually speak. The character set looks familiar, though.

Telling It Like It Is

The Big Fix

By Chris Floyd

So let's have no illusions about where we are. Gangsters are in charge, and nothing and no one will be allowed to challenge their dominion. They are waging aggressive war to cement their position and that of their allies: the energy barons, the arms merchants, the construction and services cartels, the investment bankers. These power blocs now command monstrous resources and unfathomable profits; they can buy out, buy off or bury any force that opposes them. Meanwhile, they use the loot of the stolen Republic - its blood and treasure - as fuel for their ever-expanding war machine: Bush now has a "secret watch-list" of 25 more countries ripe for military intervention, the Financial Times reported.

With more war crimes afoot, last month Bush issued an official "National Defense Strategy" that openly declares "judicial processes" as one of the enemies confronting the United States, actually equating them with terrorism, The Associated Press reported. Law is "a strategy of the weak," says the Bush Doctrine, in a chilling echo of Hitlerian machtpolitik: Might makes right. The judicial process must not be allowed to "constrain or shape" American behavior in any way, the gangsters declared.

Think of it: Law is now the enemy. Democracy, as we've seen above, is the enemy. This, the demented code of criminals and tyrants, has become the ruling doctrine of the United States - replacing the Constitution, replacing the noble struggle for liberty and enlightenment with the howl of the beast, with a freak show of avarice and death.

I've got to start reading the St. Pete Times more often.

The Big Dog on the Couch

Clinton finds his surrogate family
Growing friendship with Bush clan pays political dividend to all

By Peter S. Canellos | April 12, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Born after his father's death, Bill Clinton has spent his life searching for connection. His need for approval was, arguably, the yearning that propelled him all the way to the White House.

Now it appears Clinton has found his surrogate family. He is part of a sprawling clan, legendary for its warmth and unity. It is a clan that is so accustomed to acquiring surrogate sons and daughters that adoption has become a part of its strength.

Clinton has become a member of the Bush clan.

Last week in Rome for the pope's funeral, the clan sat lined up in a pew: Laura, W., Dad, surrogate daughter Condoleezza, and Bill, all seeming more at ease than most families on Christmas Eve. Clinton may have looked a little out of place, like a Great Dane who thinks he belongs to a family of dachshunds, but his contented expression suggested he was exactly where he wanted to be.

Like many relationships in public life, the friendship between Bill Clinton and the Bush family is both genuine and opportunistic. At the highest levels of power, personal and political desires tend to merge: The person and the job become one.

Clinton's need to be accepted led him to speak movingly to all segments of society. Skeptics insisted that it was a ruse, intended to convince people he was someone he was not: a pure liberal to liberals, a moderate to moderates, a budget-balancing conservative to conservatives. And, politically, he was all of those things and none of them. But he was true to himself: He genuinely wanted to be respected by everyone.

Likewise, the two Bush presidents replayed their family roles on the national stage. George H. W. Bush was the genial patriarch and polite host, inviting celebrities from all walks of life to join him at the White House, at Kennebunkport, on his cigarette boat. If his friendliness seemed artificial at times, more a function of noblesse oblige than true empathy, it was all genuine to Bush: The good manners his mother taught him proved to be more deeply embedded than his politics.

George W. Bush, the family enforcer in his father's administration, relies more on loyalty than charm. He offers uncommon backing to his underlings: Bush recently draped a Presidential Medal of Freedom on the shoulders of a smiling George Tenet, the former CIA director whose overhyped intelligence briefings led the president astray. In return, Bush's underlings stay loyal to him: No presidential team has stayed as free of damaging leaks as the current one.

Hey, it's a theory. I find this journalistic psychobabble to be fascinating in the same way that you can stop looking at a car accident.

Miserable Failure

Tanker in Chief
Objectively, Bush is one of the least popular presidents in modern American history. So why do you have to read a sentence like that in the Prospect?

By Michael Tomasky
Web Exclusive: 04.11.05

Bush is tanking. The public thinks that his war wasn’t worth it and that he lied about it. His Social Security scheme is distrusted and detested by most Americans. His decision to fly back to Washington from Crawford to “err on the side of life” was opposed by a massive majority. He’s still liked personally, but he’s doing virtually nothing with which the people he was elected to serve agree. His Republican colleagues in Congress are even more unpopular.

Journalists love to say at awards dinners and such-like events that they are the people’s eyes and ears, the watchdogs of the public. But the people, in fact, are way ahead of them. Again: Bush is objectively one of the least popular presidents in modern American history. Let’s hope the day may come when you don’t have to visit the Prospect to read that sentence.

You sure wouldn't know it if you watch the reflexively obsequious CNN. The networks seem to be ahead of them in the skepticism derby.

The Hang-Out Route

In Recent Scandals, a Rethinking Of Capital's Conventional Wisdom

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 12, 2005; Page A01

In the decades after Watergate, Washington figures in legal or political hot water heard some familiar words of wisdom:

The coverup is almost always worse than the crime. Never hunker down. Above all, never lie.

Lately, though, the evidence is mounting that this tried-and-true advice may no longer be true.

Recent evidence suggests that hunkering down can sometimes work just fine, in a political and news media environment that has changed significantly in recent years. Examples include legal controversies involving prominent Democrats as well as the Bush White House. Even people who got caught in falsehoods have resolved their cases with no apparent penalty for the deception.

The case of Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who served as national security adviser in the Clinton White House, is the latest instance in which some old truisms of scandal management were safely abandoned. He and his spokesmen initially said that he took copies of classified documents about terrorism from the National Archives by accident and then misplaced them in what Berger described as an "honest mistake."

Earlier this month, Berger struck a plea bargain with Justice Department prosecutors in which he admitted that he took the copies on purpose and then destroyed some of them at his office with scissors. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, accepting a $10,000 fine and a three-year suspension of his national security clearance -- terms that his friends and defense team said were a good deal for Berger.

At the moment, it is House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) who is most urgently facing the classic Washington choice about how to respond to an ethics uproar.
....
In 2003, when the White House came under investigation in the Valerie Plame case -- with senior administration officials facing political and legal scrutiny for apparently divulging the identity of the covert CIA operative -- many Washington commentators argued that President Bush and his aides needed to yield to the inevitable, by starting a public housecleaning and firing the responsible parties.

Instead, the Bush White House has taken no personnel actions and said virtually nothing in public. The controversy was largely dormant in the closing months of the 2004 election. And last month, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald said he finished his investigation -- with no indictments to date -- except for questioning two reporters who have refused to testify.

In 2001, advocates for greater openness in government predicted that Vice President Cheney was fighting a losing a battle to keep secret the workings of an energy task force he led. To the contrary, last year the U.S. Supreme Court backed him.

The most famous example of a politician who hunkered down and survived to tell about it is former president Bill Clinton. He has said he believes that if he had told the truth about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the first days after the scandal erupted in January 1998, the uproar would have forced him from office. By the time he acknowledged the affair seven months later, polls suggested that a majority of the public had long since concluded that Clinton was probably lying but that the matter was a private transgression.

Wait, wait....we are in the fifth year of a scandal plagued Republican administration which controls two of the branches of government (Halliburton....) and took us to war on a lie and we have to be treated to Clintons BJ yet again? This is some of the WaPo's shabbiest work.

Repeat Madness

Study faults Halliburton unit's work inside Iraq

The New York Times
April 12, 2005

Serious cost overruns and "poor performance" have plagued the Halliburton Co.'s continuing $1.2 billion contract to repair Iraq's vital southern oil fields, a new State Department report says.

The news about Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Texas-based Halliburton, adds an additional layer of troubles to the company's multibillion-dollar operations in Iraq.

Among guerrilla attacks, the unexpectedly decrepit state of oil facilities and delays in repairs, Iraq's oil output of 2.1 million barrels a day in February was lower than it was last fall, says the report, a quarterly update on Iraqi reconstruction that was delivered to Congress last week. Disappointing oil exports are worsening the Iraqi transitional government's budget deficit, which the report estimates could reach $5 billion this year.

The report does not detail what it called the poor performance and excess spending. But it said that on Jan. 19, the U.S. Embassy took the unusual step of issuing a "Cure Notice," a threat to terminate the contract. Kellogg, Brown & Root replaced some senior managers but the government remains dissatisfied, the report says.

The embassy has asked a KBR rival, Parsons Corp., which won the contract to work on northern oil fields, "to execute some of the remaining work" in the south, originally meant for KBR.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I'm reminded of a piece of wisdom I learned in the 12 step programs: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is nuts.

Kill the Sick

Health costs skyrocket
Faced with the largest price hike since 1990, firms pass more insurance costs on to their employees.
September 22, 2003: 6:05 PM EDT
By Sarah Max, CNN/Money Staff Writer

BEND, Ore. (CNN/Money) – The results are in, confirming what a lot of American workers may have already figured out for themselves. Health insurance costs continue to climb.

In 1988, 66 percent of all large employers offered their retired employees health coverage, whereby they could supplement Medicare coverage. Today just 38 percent of large firms are offering such a benefit to retired employees.

"Splain to me, Ricky, how having sicker workers is good for the firm."

"You don't understand. They are just things you can get rid of when you need to. Costs to be zeroed out. They aren't people, they're expenses. Fire 'em when they get sick."

Wide Body Love

EU, US Struggle to Prevent "Sky Wars"

The EU and the US still have a "window of opportunity" to amicably resolve a row over aid to aircraft makers Boeing and Airbus, the EU executive said Monday but warned talks cannot drag on too long.

"Discusions at official level are going on. They have never really stopped," she said. "When the time is right for it, we will resume discussion at official negotiator level."

It would be a horrendous waste of resources to let this dispute go forward.

And Flights of Angels Speed Thee

Headed for the sheets, bumpers. I'm so tired that...I can't believe what I ever did without you. All of you add to my life in ways I never could have predicted, you all tell your stories in such compelling ways. Thanks for making my life bigger by sharing yours.

G'night. Get some sleep.

"I Have a Headache" for the 21st Century

Pardon the Interruption

Fourteen percent of the world's cell-phone users say they have interrupted a sexual encounter to answer their wireless phone, AdAge reported today. The finding came from a survey of 3,000 wireless product users titled "Wireless Works: Exploring New Brand Connections," that was conducted by Omnicom Group's BBDO Worldwide and Proximity Worldwide.

Doesn't she realize that we're usually worried about other fundamental insecurities at those times?

I really have a hard time buying this....

Farewell

R.I.P. Gerald May

I've got an appointment with my spiritual director this afternoon, I'll be back in a couple of hours. Both of us studied with Jerry, a psychiatrist who occupied the place where psychology and spirituality overlap. This is a great loss to all of us in the spiritual direction community.

Nuclear Option

Bush's Neglect of Consensus May Be Kindling Fiery Senate Showdown
By Ronald Brownstein

George W. Bush may be more comfortable operating with a lower public approval rating than any president in modern times. That sounds like a source of strength, but it also may be a weakness that is pushing Bush and the GOP toward a dangerous confrontation with Senate Democrats over the courts.

Every White House says the president isn't concerned about his polls. In Bush's case that actually seems true.

At this point early in their second terms, each of his reelected predecessors since Dwight D. Eisenhower received positive job performance marks from more than half the country in Gallup surveys. Almost all polls show Bush's approval rating below, sometimes well below, the 50% level. Yet "the Bush people are very comfortable operating at this margin," says veteran GOP pollster Bill McInturff.

That attitude partly reflects Bush's belief that a key to leadership is resolve, regardless of public opinion. From that perspective, poor poll ratings can become a badge of honor.

But the calm also reflects a political calculation among Bush's strategists. In their eyes, mass opinion doesn't matter as much as the attitude of the voters motivated to turn up on election day. As long as the president pleases his base, strategists believe they can produce an electorate that is more sympathetic to Bush and the GOP than the country is generally. That means Bush and his party can survive ratings with the general public that might sink other presidents.

"These [job approval] numbers are an interesting discussion, but what matters most is who composes the electorate a year and a half from now," says Matthew Dowd, a senior strategist for Bush's reelection campaign.

This strategy was the key to Bush's win in November. Exit polls showed that Democrat John F. Kerry outpolled Bush significantly among moderates and narrowly with independents. But Bush significantly increased the share of Republicans and conservatives in the electorate from 2000. And they provided him margins lopsided enough to offset his mediocre performance among swing voters.

Bush's congressional strategy follows from his electoral strategy. In issues such as Social Security and taxes, Bush has usually proposed policies that enthuse most Republicans and enrage most Democrats. Most often, he has preferred to pass his initiatives with a skintight partisan majority than to compromise to attract more Democrats (and sometimes even moderate Republicans).

This hardball approach has allowed Bush to advance much of his agenda, often by the slimmest of margins (such as the recent 51-49 Senate vote approving drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). It's also helped him maintain enormous support among rank-and-file Republicans.

But this success has come at the cost of widening the country's political divisions. Bush's electoral strategy makes him inherently less sensitive than most presidents to the concerns of voters outside his core coalition. He appears content to operate as president of half the country. The gap between Bush's approval rating among voters in his own party and the opposition is the largest ever recorded. Bush's approval rating among moderates in Gallup surveys hasn't exceeded 50% since January 2004, and he's passed that milestone among independents just twice in the last year.

Hey, Ron, his Social Security plan isn't even all that popular with Republicans.

This playing to his base may be fine for Bush, but this isn't going to be popular with Congressional Repubs, particularly House members.

Heading into the Driving Season

Average Retail Gas Prices Soar 19 Cents

By ALICIA CHANG
The Associated Press
Sunday, April 10, 2005; 7:07 PM

LOS ANGELES - Gas prices soared an average 19 cents in the past three weeks due to lingering high crude oil prices, growing demand and higher refining costs, an industry analyst said Sunday.

The average retail price for all three grades increased 18.95 cents to $2.32 per gallon between March 18 and Friday, said Trilby Lundberg, who publishes the semimonthy Lundberg Survey of 7,000 gas stations around the country.

The most popular grade, self-serve regular, was priced at $2.29 a gallon, while customers paid $2.38 for midgrade. Premium averaged $2.48 a gallon for the period.

Crude prices, which briefly reached $58 last week, are likely to stay above $50 a barrel well into next year, Lundberg said.

Oil Falls for 6th Day on Signs Refiners Will Have Ample Supply

Crude oil for May delivery fell 67 cents, or 1.3 percent, to $52.65 a barrel at 1:33 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil fell to $52.10 a barrel, the lowest since March 2. Prices surged to $58.28 on April 4, the highest since the contract was introduced in 1983. Futures are 39 percent higher than a year ago.

``OPEC has outlined its determination to reduce prices,'' said Jim Steel, director of commodity research at Refco Inc. in New York. ``Production is up and the market is well supplied.''

Missing the Real Story

Catholics in U.S. Keep Faith, but Live With Contradictions
By DEAN E. MURPHY and NEELA BANERJEE

Published: April 11, 2005

LOS ANGELES, April 8 - Lily Velazquez, who turned 18 on Thursday, is the sixth of 12 children of Mexican immigrants in a poor suburb of Los Angeles. She considers herself both a devoted Catholic and a hopeless sinner.

She attends Mass every Sunday but has had two children out of wedlock. She thinks abortion is murder but chafes at the Vatican's ban on birth control. She mourns the death of Pope John Paul II but hopes his successor will be "new and different."

"My mom gets mad if I don't go to church," Ms. Velazquez said, as her 2-year-old daughter, Emily, sucked on a bottle of juice outside the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, the official hub of the country's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese. "As for me, I think I've done a lot of sin and if I go to church, it's better."

Ms. Velazquez was among the tens of thousands of Roman Catholics who visited the imposing cathedral in downtown Los Angeles this week to pay respects to the pope by lighting a candle or kneeling at his photograph. She is also a vivid example of the contradictions felt by American Catholics as they wait with uncertainty and some anxiety for the selection of a new leader in Rome.

American Catholics, be they Latinos here or African-Americans in Atlanta, or those of Irish, Italian or Polish ancestry in Boston and Baltimore, have come to accept that being Catholic means living with inconsistency. The roughly 65 million Catholics in the United States no longer have as distinctive an identity as they did a generation ago, and as they assimilated more thoroughly into American society, their views on social and moral issues came to mirror those of other Americans.

"Catholics as a whole occupy the mainstream of American life, when 50 or 60 years ago, they were on the periphery of society," said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio and an expert on religion and politics.

As a result, the Vatican's teachings on a number of subjects, including contraception, the ordination of women and homosexuality, are out of step with the beliefs and lifestyles of most American Catholics. But the Americans mostly find a way to stay in their faith by adhering to values most important to them and quietly ignoring those they disagree with.

"Catholics right now are à la carte" in the practice of their religion, said Diana Gonya, 61, a retired insurance agent in Baltimore whose wedding 36 years ago was officiated by Pope Paul VI.

Certainly there are problems. Fewer Americans these days send their children to Catholic schools. Mass attendance in the United States fell during John Paul's papacy. The church faces an acute shortage of priests. And the sexual abuse scandal continues to roil dioceses across the country.

While few American Catholics say they expect doctrine to change markedly under the successor to John Paul, the transition has allowed them to dream a little about what their church could be. Broadly, they say they hope for a church that more readily embraces modernity. For some, it means that priests might be allowed to marry. For others, it could entail the arrival of women as priests. Most, polls show, would like to see a softening of the church's stance on birth control. After years of sexual abuse scandals, many look for a pope who will make ending the abuse a priority.

There is another piece to this that most religion reporters miss because they don't know anything about the history of religion in the US. While the RCC is growing the fastest in the third world, it is North America and Germany which is paying for it. It is North Americans who fund Catholic Charities, pay for the missionaries and religious orders. To the extent that official Rome continues to alienate North Americans--mass attendence has dropped by more than half over the last 30 years--it will kill its effectiveness in the developing world. I know a lot of Catholics who stopped going to Mass as a result of the sex abuse scandals.

Waste, Fraud, Abuse

FEMA Reportedly Overpaid Hurricane-Related Funerals

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Florida officially recorded 123 fatalities from last year's hurricanes, but the federal government has paid funeral expenses for at least 315 deaths, including those of a man who shot himself and a stroke victim hospitalized more than a week before the last storm hit, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.

In one case, a Federal Emergency Management Agency worker tried unsuccessfully to persuade a coroner to count among the hurricane casualties a "morbidly obese" heart patient who purportedly was "scared to death."

"If you were to call around to all the medical examiner offices, people would say, 'No way did we have as many deaths as FEMA is saying,' " said Stephen Nelson, head of Florida's Medical Examiners Commission. "It's just an incredible number -- a difference of 192. This is the Free Funeral Payment Act." As of March 10, the funeral payments totaled $1.27 million, the newspaper said.

FEMA officials declined requests for an interview, instead releasing a statement: "FEMA is in Florida to help the victims of the worst series of hurricane disasters in over 100 years, including helping those families who have suffered the loss of loved ones to this disaster."

In Palm Beach County, where FEMA paid 39 funeral claims from hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, the medical examiner recorded eight storm-related deaths, the biggest gap in the state.

The agency's hurricane payments are under investigation by a Senate committee, prompted by questions about $31 million given to Miami-Dade residents after Hurricane Frances, which made landfall 100 miles to the north. Last month, 14 FEMA aid recipients in the county were arrested on federal fraud charges.

We may get the crap cut out of our Social Security, but if we can manage to die in a hurricane state, there's a chance we'll get our funerals paid for. Jeebus.

Around the Web

Like this is news to any of us. My medical insurance is costing me $300/month. How about you?

Wages Lagging Behind Prices
# Inflation has outpaced the rise in salaries for the first time in 14 years. And workers are paying a bigger share of the cost of their healthcare.

By Nicholas Riccardi, Times Staff Writer

For the first time in 14 years, the American workforce has in effect gotten an across-the-board pay cut.

The growth in wages in 2004 and the first two months of this year trailed inflation, compounding the squeeze from higher housing, energy and other costs.

The result is that people like Victor Romero are finding themselves falling behind.

The 49-year-old film-set laborer had to ditch his $1,100-a-month Hollywood apartment because his rent kept rising while his pay of $24.50 an hour stayed flat.

"There's no such thing as raises anymore," Romero said.

This is the first time that salaries have increased more slowly than prices since the 1990-91 recession. Though salary growth has been relatively sluggish since the 2001 downturn, inflation also had stayed relatively subdued until last year, when the consumer price index rose 2.7%. But wages rose only 2.5%.

The effective 0.2-percentage-point erosion in workers' living standards occurred while the economy expanded at a healthy 4%, better than the 3% historical average.

Meanwhile, corporate profits hit record highs as companies got more productivity out of workers while keeping pay increases down.

Some see climbing profits and stagnant wages as not only unfair but also ultimately unsustainable. "Those that are baking the larger pie ought to see their slices expanding," said Jared Bernstein, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

The EPI website is here. I've been reading it weekly for a few years and guess that I should find it heartening that the LAT finally figured out how to use their web browser.

Sights and Sounds

Today In Congress

Monday, April 11, 2005; Page A05

SENATE

Meets at 2 p.m.

Committees:

Armed Services -- 2 p.m. Emerging threats subc. Chemical demilitarization. 222 Russell Bldg.

Commerce -- 2 p.m. Telephones, universal service fund. 253 Russell.

Foreign Relations -- 9:30 a.m. Nomination of John Bolton as representative to the U.N. 216 Hart Bldg.

HOUSE

Not in session.

Committees:

None.

Markos is on right now. This link will take you to the hearing later.

Propaganda War

Suicide car bombs hit US military position in Iraq
At least two Iraqi or US soldiers wounded in three suicide car bombs on US military position in Al-Qaim.

BAGHDAD - Three suicide car bombs hit a US military position in the western Iraqi city of Al-Qaim near the border with Syria on Monday, the military said, adding that at least two Iraqi or US soldiers were wounded.

"What we have right now is three confirmed suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices," First Lieutenant Kate VandenBossche, a spokeswoman for the US marines, said.

"We are still trying to determine if the casualties were coalition or Iraqi security forces."

Iraqi police in the city, 305 kilometres (190 miles) west of Baghdad in Al-Anbar province, said the attack took place at about 8:30 am (0430 GMT)

"The blast was incredible," said Lieutenant Yasir al-Hadithi adding that US helicopters were over the scene of the attack which was followed by the sound of heavy gunfire.

Qaim, where insurgents are suspected of regularly crossing into Iraq from Syria, is the site of frequent clashes between rebels and US forces.

Despite a massive US-led assault on the former rebel bastion of Fallujah in November, the Iraqi government has been unable to reassert control over Anbar, a stronghold of Islamic fighters and Saddam Hussein loyalists.

In early March, the bodies of at least 30 people, most of them believed to be Iraqi soldiers, were found in Qaim. They had been shot.

CNN, the propaganda arm of the DoD, will trot out a bunch of ex-generals today to tell you everything is getting better. Don't believe them.

Know Your Breeds

Starting your day with Juan Cole gets more important every day. He has a bunch of new things this morning that you will get nowhere else.

Let's pay special attention to the John Bolton nomination this week. The WaPo reports:

During a meeting on North Korea in late 2001, John R. Bolton's repeated talk of overthrowing Kim Jong Il frustrated the State Department's specialist on the country. "Regime change" is not President Bush's declared objective in North Korea, Charles L. Pritchard recalled telling Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

"That is exactly what we are all about," Bolton snapped back, curtly reminding Pritchard and a colleague that U.S. troops had just finished overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, Pritchard said.

The encounter highlights Bolton's combative style as much as it captures his commitment to hard-line foreign policies on various issues he has influenced, including those involving North Korea and Iran. Both have made him perhaps the most controversial figure nominated to serve in Bush's second term.

His record, including allegations that he used unconfirmed intelligence to promote his policy goals, will be the focus of Senate confirmation hearings starting today. Bush has nominated Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, an organization Bolton has described as irrelevant and corrupt.

For the past four years, as the administration's point man on weapons of mass destruction, Bolton has worked to reverse decades of U.S. nonproliferation and arms control policies. He maintains that the system of arms treaties established since World War II -- with milestones under presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush -- have constrained U.S. power and infringed on American sovereignty without holding other nations to account. For the United States, treaties are law, Bolton once wrote. "In their international operations, treaties are simply 'political' obligations."

Bolton is championed by allies who see him as a realist carrying out policies in line with Bush's true vision. "He is very tough-minded and is not romantic about trusting promises, particularly promises of regimes that have a history of saying whatever they need to say to accomplish their purposes," said Richard N. Perle, a former Pentagon adviser who has worked with Bolton at the American Enterprise Institute.

Opponents argue that Bolton is in fact undermining the White House's foreign policy goals, and insist that his emphasis on unilateral action heightens conflicts without offering the means to solve them using American power alone.

He singlehandedly screwed up the negotiations with the North Koreans last year. He is a loudmouth rather than a diplomat, and I would no more hire him than hire me for a job like this. There are some jobs for pit bulls and other jobs that need a golden retriever and you need to know how to tell the difference.

The Future Really Is Us

I'm knocking off early again today. I've got a very challenging week in front of me with several events to attend or present. I want to try to make an early night of it tonight and see if I can get a full night's sleep. In addition to taking a vacation in July, I'll have a houseguest in May (the BF) and anticipate a week of light to non-existent posting when that happens, so I will be giving myself something of a break as we come into the summer.

Now that you've had a couple of days to get used to the idea, I'm looking for a team of three or four guest posters to cover when I'm away. The software is very easy to use. As I did with Charles, you would have the complete run of editorial freedom. You can quote news stories like I do, write short fiction, post resumes, orginal essays or whatever blows your dress up. Experiment and find out what your personal style and authentic voice is like. Pogge will be around to help you with technical issues. He is the most user-friendly consultant you could possibly have: he explains things so clearly that even a tech challenged person like myself can follow his instructions and effect whatever changes I need to make or fix what is broken. Friday, he helped me fix a crashed computer. Gotta get a new data cable. If he can talk me through the scary experience of putting the hands INSIDE THE BOX, you'll be fine for a couple of weeks. Really.

Reply in comments or send me an email (my address is top right on the sidebar.) This is a lot of work, but the interaction with the community makes it a lot of fun, too. I've met so many wonderful people here that I would never have met any other way.

I started my blogging career at dKos in October of 2003 on two days notice, having never coded an HTML tag in my life, ever. It took me about ten minutes to learn. Here's a tutorial. Coming up with consistently interesting content is the hard part.

Mel Goux and I took this site live on November 15, 2003, and I'll never forget those first couple of days, even with the swiss cheese that constitutes my middle aged brain. It was life changing. Now I'm a real, professional blogger who has found her calling. This is cutting edge, with all of the risks that entails, but I wouldn't have missed this ride for anything. Wanna see the future? We're creating it.

Out of the Dark Continent

Angola: Marburg Haemorrhagic Fever Outbreak - WHO Update 9
---------------------------------------------------
As of Thu 7 Apr 2005, 205 cases of Marburg haemorrhagic fever have been
reported in Angola. Of these, 180 have died. Zaire Province has reported
its first 6 cases, bringing the number of affected provinces to 7, all
concentrated in the northwestern part of the country.

2 medical anthropologists are already in Uige and will be joined shortly by
experts in social mobilization from Angola, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, and Mozambique. Public compliance with control measures is not
expected to improve in the absence of intense campaigns to educate the
public about the disease.

Among the infectious diseases emerging out of the Dark Continent, this is one of the scariest because it is not well understood and there is no treatment. The population being affected right now means that this is unlikely to spread much beyond the local infection, but because the WHO has had to withdraw their monitoring teams, we won't know. Quarentine is the only thing which can prevent the spread, and this population is unlikely to be compliant. As with avian influenza, I'll be continuing to monitor this situation.

Scamming the Taxpayers

Bush lobbying effort skirts law
Administration has spent at least $2.2 million so far
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
Last Update: 11:00 AM ET April 10, 2005

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The Bush administration has spent millions of dollars in the past two months on its campaign to overhaul Social Security, narrowly skirting laws that prohibit spending of taxpayer funds to indirectly lobby Congress.
President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and more than 20 other administration officials have blanketed the country since early February, delivering more than 100 speeches in 37 states in an effort to rally the public behind Bush's Social Security plans.

Earlier this year, Waxman and other Democrats complained about what they said was an increasingly political tone in public documents produced by the Social Security Administration.

Let's see if this is going to have any fallout.

Last Things

A Culture of Death, Not Life
By FRANK RICH

Mortality - the more graphic, the merrier - is the biggest thing going in America. Between Terri Schiavo and the pope, we've feasted on decomposing bodies for almost a solid month now. The carefully edited, three-year-old video loops of Ms. Schiavo may have been worthless as medical evidence but as necro-porn their ubiquity rivaled that of TV's top entertainment franchise, the all-forensics-all-the-time "CSI." To help us visualize the dying John Paul, another Fox star, Geraldo Rivera, brought on Dr. Michael Baden, the go-to cadaver expert from the JonBenet Ramsey, Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson mediathons, to contrast His Holiness's cortex with Ms. Schiavo's.

As sponsors line up to buy time on "CSI," so celebrity deaths have become a marvelous opportunity for beatific self-promotion by news and political stars alike. Tim Russert showed a video of his papal encounter on a "Meet the Press" where one of the guests, unchallenged, gave John Paul an A-plus for his handling of the church's sex abuse scandal. Jesse Jackson, staking out a new career as the angel of deathotainment, hit the trifecta: in rapid succession he appeared with the Schindlers at their daughter's hospice in Florida, eulogized Johnnie Cochran on "Larry King Live" and reminisced about his own papal audience with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.

What's disturbing about this spectacle is not so much its tastelessness; America will always have a fatal attraction to sideshows. What's unsettling is the nastier agenda that lies far less than six feet under the surface. Once the culture of death at its most virulent intersects with politicians in power, it starts to inflict damage on the living.

When those leaders, led by the Bush brothers, wallow in this culture, they do a bait-and-switch and claim to be upholding John Paul's vision of a "culture of life." This has to be one of the biggest shams of all time. Yes, these politicians oppose abortion, but the number of abortions has in fact been going down steadily in America under both Republican and Democratic presidents since 1990 - some 40 percent in all. The same cannot be said of American infant fatalities, AIDS cases and war casualties - all up in the George W. Bush years. Meanwhile, potentially lifesaving phenomena like condom-conscious sex education and federally run stem-cell research are in shackles.

This agenda is synergistic with the entertainment culture of Mr. Bush's base: No one does the culture of death with more of a vengeance - literally so - than the doomsday right. The "Left Behind" novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins all but pant for the bloody demise of nonbelievers at Armageddon. And now, as Eric J. Greenberg has reported in The Forward, there's even a children's auxiliary: a 40-title series, "Left Behind: The Kids," that warns Jewish children of the hell that awaits them if they don't convert before it's too late. Eleven million copies have been sold on top of the original series' 60 million.
....
If there's one lesson to take away from the saturation coverage of the pope, it is how relatively enlightened he was compared with the men in business suits ruling Washington. Our leaders are not only to the right of most Americans (at least three-quarters of whom opposed Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case) but even to the right of most American evangelical Christians (most of whom favored the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, according to Time magazine). They are also, like Mel Gibson and the fiery nun of "Revelations," to the right of the largely conservative pontiff they say they revere. This is true not only on such issues as the war in Iraq and the death penalty but also on the core belief of how life began. Though the president of the United States believes that the jury is still out on evolution, John Paul in 1996 officially declared that "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."

We don't know the identity of the corpse that will follow the pope in riveting the nation's attention. What we do know is that the reality show we've made of death has jumped the shark, turning from a soporific television diversion into the cultural embodiment of the apocalyptic right's growing theocratic crusade.

I would go further than Rich: I believe that our obsession with necro-porn has to do with the culture's utter denial of death.

Fear is the emotion which drives all bad behavior; our unwillingness to face our own fear of death creates both materialism and mindlessly triumphalist fundamentalism.

Hobgoblin of the Mind

Reuters, on the other hand, gets it right by asking the last of our great public theologians for an appraisal. U of Chicago Emeritus Martin Marty reviews the long papacy of John Paul II:

As Catholicism waned in Western Europe and, he thought, compromised in North America, he came to be at home in Manila and Lima or wherever poverty was most devastating. He scourged the Catholic "Liberation Theologians" because he thought their criticism sounded too Marxist, and then he sounded like one of them by showing that he believed, with them, that "God had a preferential option for the poor."

He was not beloved as was Pope John XXIII among us who are not of the Roman Catholic obedience. He was consistently unbending and unyielding on causes that so many of us cherish: the ordination of women among them. He did not seem to let the horrors of clerical abuse in so many nations lead him to react vigorously. He scourged experimental theologians, but condemned few. This outsider to Catholic Church doings fears that the downside of his legacy -- and it is really down -- is the absence of imagination or flexibility or will in respect to providing priests for tomorrow's church. A simple shift, one that involves no change in doctrine, namely permitting priests to marry as they once did and sometimes could under his rule, would have gone a long way to heading off the crisis.

He was a philosopher of note, and had a way of condensing grand themes. I once wrote a whole book on a line of his. In it he contended that the church possessed a "special interiority and a specific openness."Interiority" is not a familiar term to many, but it referred to the spiritual life, the necessity the church recognizes that the faithful gather, get their signals, find a common language, and worship. "Specific openness" meant that the church did not just spill its interior life like water on the desert sand. The baptized lay members and clergy alike had to find focus and put Catholic energies to work. For him, that often meant to seek ways of justice. It led him to criticize wars, including our wars, and to oppose capital punishment as much as he supported other "life" issues. Consistently.

Consistency, finally, marked the way he dealt with death. Karl Rahner, the greatest Catholic theologian of our time, spoke of death as "the abyss of mystery." The pope faced it with courage, and set an example for the many of us who are not likely to be as courageous or, in faith, as consistent as he.

Ethics

The Big Three papers all have front page stories on Roman Catholicism this morning, each of which are written by journos who don't know much about religion in general and Catholicism in particular and make whopping mistakes as a result. This is one of those stories I have to let marinate for a few hours before I can write it.

Every letter to the editor that I've written in the last two years which has gotten printed has been about mistakes in religion coverage. I'm listening to the Sabbath gasbags, all of whom are opining on papacy and Catholicism and none of whom know anything about either. This is irresponsible journalism. I'm growing weary of the bloggers v. journos and ethics nonsense.

Millions Said Going to Waste in Iraq Utilities
# A coalition memo says water, sewage and power facilities rebuilt with U.S. funds are falling into disrepair. Iraqis say they need more money.

By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials have crippled scores of water, sewage and electrical plants refurbished with U.S. funds by failing to maintain and operate them properly, wasting millions of American taxpayer dollars in the process, according to interviews and documents.

Hardest hit has been the effort to rebuild the country's water and sewage systems, a multibillion-dollar task considered among the most crucial components of the effort to improve daily life for Iraqis. Of more than 40 such plants run by the Iraqis, not one is being operated properly, according to Bechtel Group Inc., the contractor at work on the project. The power grid faces similar problems. U.S. officials said the Iraqis' inability to properly operate overhauled electrical plants contributed to widespread power shortages this winter. None of the 19 electrical facilities that has undergone U.S.-funded repair work is being run correctly, a senior American advisor said.

An internal memo by coalition officials in Iraq obtained by The Times says that throughout the country, renovated plants "deteriorate quickly to an alarming state of disrepair and inoperability."

"There is no reason to believe that these initial experiences will not be repeated for the other water and sanitation projects currently underway throughout Iraq," the memo said. "This is the antithesis of our base strategy and a waste not only of taxpayer funds, but it deprives the most needy of safe drinking water and of streets free from raw sewerage."

Iraqis are paying the price. Schoolchildren have to step over rancid brown puddles on their way to classrooms. Families swim in, fish and get their drinking water from the polluted Tigris and Euphrates rivers, leading to high rates of child mortality and water-borne illnesses. People jury-rig pumps in their homes to increase water flow — poisoning the water further by sucking sewage through cracks in the lines.

U.S. officials blame insufficient training, logistical problems and an indifferent work ethic learned under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis say the Americans excluded them from the early stages of the projects and have not provided adequate funds for upkeep.

The failures have left U.S. and Iraqi officials contemplating a disheartening scenario: After expending billions of dollars and tremendous effort, some of the reconstruction effort might literally go to waste. One official involved in reconstruction estimated that "hundreds of millions" had been squandered because of improper operation and maintenance of U.S.-funded projects.

It is the result, some U.S. officials said, of a misguided effort that has put more focus on dirt-turning than developing the skills Iraqis need to operate and maintain the expensive equipment that is being installed.

A State Department report to Congress on Thursday acknowledged the problem and proposed shifting $607 million to pay for additional operation and maintenance programs to protect U.S. investment in the projects.

"This has been my biggest problem and concern in Iraq," said Mark Oviatt, who oversees water projects for the U.S. Agency for International Development, America's primary overseas development arm. "Americans are investing hundreds of millions in Iraq. The capacity is not there to maintain it."

The problem is complex, touching on issues of sovereignty and the overall U.S. effort to enable Iraqis to run their own government, armed forces and infrastructure.

The U.S. has required the corporations contracted to carry out the reconstruction to train Iraqis to operate the new power and water plants. Most of those corporations are American.

Once facilities are handed over to the Iraqis, however, U.S. officials say they no longer exert control. If the Iraqis run the projects badly, the U.S. can offer advice, but it does not intervene.

"This is their country. This is their water-treatment plant," said Bill Taylor, head of the reconstruction effort for the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. "They need to take responsibility. We're not going to be responsible for it. If they run it into the ground, we'll be disappointed. But this is their country."

Let's see: their country is completely screwed up because we bombed it back into the stone age so we're going to blame the Iraqis. Sounds like a really brilliant strategy, dunnit?

The Worker and Her Tools

Before you read the morning papers, read Juan Cole. If you want to disagree with him, fine, go ahead, but you'll have to translate a bunch of Arabic papers to do so.

Over on the right, in the sidebar, you'll see links to "brilliant aggregators." I read those before anything else every day. Cursor.org (Hi, Mike!) doesn't go up until 1 PM Eastern on weekdays, but the others are continuously updated and Juan is usually ready by 6 AM.

Because I'm using Mozilla (Firefox will give you the same) I have one browser window set up with these in tabs when I start my day.

See, you could be a Bump guest poster in July. You just have to know the tools.

Civilization or Not

Our Incredible Shrinking Curiosity

By Rick Weiss

Sunday, April 10, 2005; Page B01

"Bones, there's a -- thing -- out there," Captain James T. Kirk says to starship physician Leonard McCoy in the 1979 film, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." That "thing," it turns out, is a huge cloud of intelligence with some kind of object at its core -- an object that calls itself "Veeger."

"Veeger" -- actually "V . . . ger" -- proves to be the spacecraft Voyager, launched from Earth some 300 years earlier. The letters "oya" have been obscured by space grime so that the computerized device has long ago forgotten its full name. But like the ultimate Timex watch, it is still ticking.

For centuries, the spacecraft has been following its simple instructions: Observe and record everything you find. In the process it has become, in Mr. Spock's words, "a highly advanced mentality" that cannot stop "evolving, learning, searching."

I rented the movie again last week after learning that NASA was poised to pull the funding plug on the real Voyagers -- two VW Beetle-sized packages of instruments that have been sending streams of data back to Earth since 1977 and that are now at the outer reaches of our solar system. Corny as the movie is, it left me depressingly convinced that these 8 billion-mile-long extensions of human curiosity are indeed now smarter, or at least more enlightened, than the mortals who made them.

After all, can it be anything but foolish to turn a deaf ear to the most distant human-made objects in the universe -- devices that after nearly three decades of travel are now registering and describing for us the first ripples of interstellar space?

It would be less disheartening if the move to kill the Voyager program were an isolated example. But the U.S. scientific enterprise is riddled with evidence that Americans have lost sight of the value of non-applied, curiosity-driven research -- the open-ended sort of exploration that doesn't know exactly where it's going but so often leads to big payoffs. In discipline after discipline, the demand for specific products, profits or outcomes -- "deliverables," in the parlance of government -- has become the dominant force driving research agendas. Instead of being exploratory and expansive, science -- especially in the wake of 9/11 -- seems increasingly delimited and defensive.

Take, for example, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- arguably the nation's premier funder of unencumbered scientific exploration, whose early dabbling in computer network design gave rise to the Internet. Agency officials recently acknowledged to Congress that they were shifting their focus away from blue-sky research and toward goal-oriented and increasingly classified endeavors.

Similarly, in geology, scientists have for years sought funds to blanket the nation with thousands of sensors to create an enormous, networked listening device that might teach us something about how the earth is shifting beneath our feet. The system got so far as to be authorized by Congress for $170 million over five years, but only $16 million has been appropriated in the first three of those years and just 62 of an anticipated 7,000 sensors have been deployed. Only in fiscal 2006, thanks to the South Asian tsunami, is the program poised to get more fully funded -- out of a narrow desire to better predict the effects of such disasters here.

The Department of Energy in February announced it is killing the so-called BTeV project at Fermilab in Batavia, Ill., one of the last labs in this country still supporting studies in high-energy physics. This field, once dominated by the United States, promises to discover in the next decade some of the most basic subatomic particles in the universe, including the first so-called supersymmetric particle -- a kind of stuff that seems to account for the vast majority of matter in the universe but which scientists have so far been unable to put their fingers on.

"We seem to have reached a point where people are so overwhelmed by the problems we face, we're not sure we really need more frontiers," said Kei Koizumi of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noting that the only segments of the nation's research and development budget enjoying real growth are defense and homeland security. The National Science Foundation in particular, the nation's premier supporter of physical sciences research and science education, has suffered repeated cuts in recent years and now demands that grantees spell out in unprecedented detail how and when their proposed work will pay off.

Why should we care about this demand for results before the research begins? Isn't exploration for exploration's sake a luxury? Money is tight. Terrorists are trying to kill us. And what's a supersymmetric particle going to do for me, anyway?

First, there are practical reasons to care. At least half of this nation's economic growth during the past half century has been the direct result of scientific innovation, according to the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, a coalition of two dozen organizations from industry and academia concerned about America's declining leadership in science and engineering.

Examples abound. Early research on DNA splicing in bacteria unexpectedly gave rise to the biotechnology industry, a huge economic engine that launched today's golden age of biology and medicine. Unfettered studies of electronics at places like the old Bell Laboratories gave the world transistors, lasers and the basic information theory that led to computer networking. Albert Einstein often said that his work on the general theory of relativity was too arcane to ever have any practical application. Yet without it we would not have the global positioning satellite system that today tells our cars -- and the military's "smart" bombs -- where they are and where they need to go.

John Bahcall, a professor of natural science at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, tells the story of Michael Faraday, the 19th-century scientist, who, when asked by skeptics about the value of his recent discovery of electricity, is said to have replied, "What is the value of a newly born baby?" Faraday "certainly had no anticipation of television or that you could send electrical signals on the Internet," Bahcall said. "But he knew that when you found something fundamental, it was going to be valuable fundamentally."

But what about Voyager 1 and 2, which scientists say can probably keep operating until 2020? What good are they? Sure, their instruments have sent back 5 trillion bits of data and 80,000 pictures, including spectacular close-ups of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune and astonishing details from various moons -- 22 of which were previously undiscovered. Yes, they've been detecting the impacts of solar flares at the very edge of the sun's influence and are sensing for the first time what the rest of the universe is made of. But how in the world are we going to take that to the bank?

Well, maybe we won't. But that raises the second, less practical -- yet arguably more important -- reason to support such endeavors: Because our understanding of the world and our support of the quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake is a core measure of our success as a civilization. Our grasp, however tentative, of what we are and where we fit in the cosmos should be a source of pride to all of us. Our scientific achievements are a measure of ourselves that our children can honor and build upon.

What happened to the unbridled and fearless thirst for knowledge that inspired us, as a species and as a nation, to hurl those Voyager probes free of the physical and psychological gravity of our little world? What happened to the trait that, according to Mr. Spock, was the driving force behind Veeger's immense accumulation of knowledge: "Insatiable curiosity."

Crouched today in a defensive posture, we are suffering from a lack of confidence and a shriveled sense of the optimism that once urged us to reach boldly into the unknown. Equally important, we seem to have forgotten that many good things come just from being open to them, without a formed idea of what they are or how they should come out. We are losing, in short, one of the oldest traditions in science: to simply observe, almost monk-like, with an open mind and without a plan.

Do we want to live in a curious world or a dumb one, made stupid through lack of poetry? It is up to you.

New News

Bumpers, I've been working this space 12-15 hours day for almost a year and a half with only two full days off. I've got a new business venture to launch next week, three events to cover, and a bunch of new technology to learn. I'm tired. I'm taking the rest of the day off.

DC area Bumpers, I'll be giving a presentation on blogging, liberalism and reading the news on Thursday night next week at 7 PM. It'll probably be in conjuction with Drinking Liberally at Timberlakes, north of Dupont Circle on Connecticut in the District, but the venue hasn't been confirmed yet. This isn't part of the DL event, I'm not on the official program, but some readers in the area have asked me to come and talk to their group. DL always draws a crowd so it isn't impossible to hive of from the main group for a different discussion. Check in here during the week to confirm the venue or email me as we get closer to the day. I should have confirmation of the venue by Tuesday. Timberlakes has a long reputation for great burgers and American Pub Grub.

And I need to step away from the monitor some more on a regular basis. I haven't read anything that wasn't on-line in months and I'm feeling starved both for books and the great outdoors. It's gorgeous in Virginia right now, the magnolias have just begun to bloom and DC celebrates the cherry blossoms for the next two weeks. I need to get my walking program back in gear before the weather gets DC hot-muggy. I have the belly and butt of a blogger. This is not a good thing. I've been sitting in this chair 'way too long.

I'm going to be doing some traveling over the next couple of months and that means I'm going to have to cough up some bucks for a laptop with wi-fi and ethernet capability. I'm looking for recommendations. The BF, who is a pro, says "Gotta getta Dell." I'm hearing scary things about their tech support and service that are discouraging. And the machines, which are very attractive and light, look fragile to me. Have any of you got reports on the ground and recommendations? I use my machines hard and travel is just plain tough on the little boxes. Give us all the benefit of your experience. This will be my fourth or fifth laptop, they don't hold up, but I'd like something a little more sturdy than my last HP P2. I barely got a year out of that. If you'd like to help with the laptop, of course I want your recommendations, but you can also hit the Paypal link up on the right. Donations are gratefully accepted. Support your bloggers. I could also use a Nexis-Lexis subscription to bring you more research, but I can't support that without help.

Yes, I will be taking a major break in the coming months, I'm planning my first vacation since 1998 for the summer. I'll be heading to pogge country for a couple of weeks in July. My old friend Fr. Judy has use of a cottage in "cottage" country north of Toronto for a couple of weeks and I intend to join her for part of that time, and then take off into the wonderful provincial and national parks in that part of Ontario, which I'll be exploring for the first time by tent. I'm a camper, it is my favorite way to get away from it all. Up in the lakes and woods of Ontario, I'll restore my spirit in Canada as I have done for so many years of my adult life. Atlantic Canada has been my playground in years past but I'm looking forward to renewing my love affair with Ontario this year. I spent many happy days of my youth on the Canadian border in far northwest Ontario and I look forward to acquainting myself with a new corner of this huge province this year.

I will have no regular internet connection for those two weeks and I want it that way. There are internet cafes and clients of pogge's who will probably let me in if I need a fix, but I truly want to get away from the noise and confusion for a couple of weeks. I've been offered a chance to write a book and get it published. I need to go away to think clearly and write without interference or email to do that. I'm already a much-published writer (academic stuff, you wouldn't enjoy it and it isn't on the Net) and my best writing comes out of starting with paper and pen. That's how I learned to write and I need to get back to it. I need to sit on a campground picnic table in the Canadian sun (don't start) with a notebook and a pen in front of me and a pot of tea brewing next to the propane stove for a while. Where what I'm hearing is bird song in the morning and frogs at night.

While I'm gone, I'm looking for a replacement team, ala Atrios. Doing what I do is really hard work--but I like it--and I wouldn't want one person to try to put it together with a life that includes, say, marriage and kids, but it is highly doable for a team. Most days, I post 8-12 times. That's the kind of look I want for the site. Regular updates of the news that the big three are missing. I read beyond the front pages.

If you want to nominate yourself or another Bumper for a spot on the guest blogging team, the thread is below. I already have a pretty good idea who I'd like to ask, but I'd like this to come from you. It will only be a couple of weeks so this shouldn't be burdensome. If you've been wondering if you want to try your own blog, this is a way you and the desire can check each other out (and I can help you get set up with a blog, if you find that it is for you.) It's how I got started at Markos's place. We've plenty of talented thinkers and writers here. Tell me what you think.

I'll be looking for a permanent guest poster or team when I return from my vacation, someone/s who can post a couple of times a day as I take up my new duties with my new client. Wanna fiddle with this blogging thing and find out if it is for you? I'm handing you a couple of opportunities. You'll need a little HTML, not much.

Wanna come out and play?

I'm heading for a bubble bath and bed, so don't expect an answer before 4 AM tomorrow.

Where I will also be providing content at The American Street.

Did I mention that I'm really tired?

Same Old

Union Seeks Wal-Mart Files About Payments
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: April 9, 2005

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union called on Wal-Mart Stores yesterday to release all documents connected with accusations that its former vice chairman, Tom Coughlin, had obtained improper expense account reimbursements to finance secret anti-union activities.

The union's call for release of the materials comes two weeks after Mr. Coughlin resigned, accused by Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, of taking $100,000 to $500,000 through expense account abuses.

The company, based in Bentonville, Ark., said it had turned the matter over to the United States attorney for the Western District of Arkansas for criminal investigation.

The union voiced dismay over a report in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that cited several Wal-Mart employees who said that Mr. Coughlin diverted thousands of dollars in expense account reimbursements as part of a plan to make secret payment to union staff members so they would tell Wal-Mart officials the names of pro-union employees at stores.

"We are deeply disturbed by these allegations," said Bill McDonough, the union's director of organizing. "These are serious criminal offenses and cast Wal-Mart's systematic anti-worker activities on a much more sinister level. Wal-Mart should not try and cover up its activities but should do the right thing and make all of the documents public immediately."

Wal-Mart executives said they knew nothing about such a plan and that the company had not cooperated in any arrangement to funnel money to improper anti-union efforts.

"We reported the unsupported assertion about payments to union representatives to the U.S. attorney when we made our initial report of misappropriated corporate funds," said Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for corporate communications. "Neither Mr. Coughlin nor anyone else at Wal-Mart was ever authorized by the company to make payments to anyone for information about union activity."

Ms. Williams said a company investigation had found no evidence supporting accusations of money being funneled to illegal anti-union activities. Instead, she said, the money was misappropriated for the personal benefit of specific individuals.

Greg Denier, a union spokesman, said the union did not know of any officials who had accepted payoffs from Mr. Coughlin to inform on pro-union employees. He said he would be shocked if any staffers had accepted such payments.

Shocked? Yeah, everbody is shocked, when we've got over a hundred years of this kind of criminal activity going on in union busting situations all the time. There have been documentaries made about it. This is nothing new.

Stunning Incompetence

Projects in Iraq to Be Reevaluated
# State Department faults use of U.S. firms for the reconstruction effort and announces it will shift some money to job creation for locals.

By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The State Department has ordered a major reevaluation of the troubled $18.4-billion Iraq reconstruction effort, blaming problems on early decisions to hire U.S. firms for major infrastructure projects.

In a report to Congress this week, the department says rebuilding officials will cancel several planned water and electricity plants and shift $832 million to focus on immediate job creation and training for Iraqis.

The new approach will also place a strong emphasis on spending remaining funds to contract with Iraqi companies, which have experienced fewer problems with insurgents and have lower overhead than U.S. multinational firms.

"Changing conditions meant that the cost and time necessary to start and complete activities increased dramatically, requiring a significant and ongoing reevaluation of" the rebuilding plan, the report says.

The report, along with an earlier draft obtained by the Los Angeles Times, offers the most sweeping analysis to date of the failures in the reconstruction process and presents the most detailed road map yet for the future of the program.

The adjustment, the third such funding change in nine months, is the latest sign of disarray in the effort to help quell the insurgency by improving living standards and providing jobs for Iraqis.

This is really stunning incompetence. It doesn't take an MBA to figure out that this was the thing to do in the first place. But if the purpose of the "reconstruction" was to hand out grossly inflated, unauditable contracts to your supporters, the thought wouldn't have occured to you, I guess.

Work Hard for a Living

Oddly enough, I was thinking about this as I was standing in line at the grocery last night, preparing to swipe my ATM card in the little machine.

Volunteer Workers of the World, Unite
By NICOLS FOX

Published: April 9, 2005

Bass Harbor, Me. — IT began in the 1970's. Or at least that's when I became conscious of it. People began cleaning up after themselves in fast-food restaurants. I had been living abroad and didn't know about such things, but my children, faster to pick up on American cultural expectations, made sure I took back my tray and put my trash in the appropriate bin.

Cleverly, the restaurants made this choice not only easy but gratifying. Customers were given the sense of being good citizens or helping out the teenage minimum-wage workers who wiped off the tables.

I was never fooled. I knew what was going on. We were doing the restaurant's work and if we didn't we felt guilty. My children would shrink into their coats while people stared disapprovingly if I tried to abandon a cluttered table.

In fact, it was a manifestation of the Great Labor Transfer. Companies that had already applied every possible efficiency to their businesses were looking for other ways to cut costs and saw an entirely new pool of workers who didn't have to be paid. Call them consumers.

In the 1940's - virtually the pre-history of the Labor Transfer Movement - it had been discovered that people could dial numbers without the help of an operator. It was a momentous illumination. What else might they be able to do?

In the 50's, people proved stunningly capable of finding what they wanted in the open shelves of a store without assistance, and clerks everywhere hung up their aprons and filed for unemployment. It was a rudimentary start, but businesses realized that the potential transfer of labor was unlimited.

Ordinary people, it seemed, could operate gas pumps without causing explosions. They could check their own oil. They could fill their tires. They could then be persuaded to complete their purchases with the swipe of a card and be quickly out of the way with no help from any human being at all. And some of them even seemed to prefer to do the work themselves - or, curiously in a country so adamantly anti-Socialist, people began to take pride in doing it, and to look down upon those who still wanted to be served.

In some cases consumers were given no option other than to do it or do without. Sometimes these new consumer-employees could be convinced that doing the work gave them more freedom, or that magic word, "choices." It was all in the way the company phrased it. They could even be made to believe, in a triumph of psychological marketing, that taking on the extra work was for their own convenience.

The consumer as worker had tremendous appeal for employers. Not just no pay, but no health insurance, no taxes, no forms, no personal days, no sexual harassment lawsuits, no problems at all. If these new workers were slow or inept or confused, well, they were only making things more difficult for themselves. And the Great Labor Transfer could and would go even further.

I never use the "self-check" stations at the grocery, they piss me off. Give me an effing discount if I check myself out or don't bother me.

Seen in this light, one could (and I do) view the internets as the ultimate consumer-worker tool.

Starting the Day with Passion

The LA Times Op/Ed space is this morning turned over to a number of thoughtful pieces on education, particularly its "higher" branch. Those of you who have been sweating lately, waiting for the thin or thick letters for your college-bound seniors should read it, those of you with juniors who will play this exercise in a year should print it out and save it.

Here is a little advice from a college prof with 25 years of experience in counseling high school students. You can get a good education at nearly every college in America, if you want it. The quality of your college experience is entirely up to you. The competition for faculty is now so high that nearly every community college in the US can boast about it. You are going to get high-quality teaching every where you go. It is up to you to decide what you are going to do with it. If you decide that you are going to make it to your classes, do your homework, read like a grown up and ask intelligent questions, you are going to get a great education at Enormous State University or Tiny But Historic Little Liberal Arts College. The setting is important for your learning style, but the ability to get a good education doesn't really change from campus to campus. Having a degree from one of the "name" Ivys puts a sheen on an otherwise undistinguished undergrad record, but a great record from a state school isn't going to hold you back.

I spent years teaching in one of the "public Ivys" and know how the admissions process works. Get good grades in high school, pursue your passions in extra-curriculars, and skip the ulcers in the admissions process. You'll get accepted to a good school, get a good degree, and then have to think about how you really want to spend your working years. Find that passion while still in high school and you've got a leg up on the rest of the world.

Saturday Bug Report

Frankly, I never expected to post on this story twice in one week. The fact that I am gives me pause and should wake you up a little. I discussed the disease with revere yesterday, along with a conversation on bunch of other scary, drug-resistent infections. Public health budgets are being cut under Bush as the threats begin to ramp up. That should give anybody with a little knowledge of epidemiology and public health a serious case of watery bowels.

Fear and Violence Accompany a Deadly Virus Across Angola
By SHARON LaFRANIERE and DENISE GRADY

Published: April 9, 2005

LUANDA, Angola, April 8 - The death toll in Angola from an epidemic caused by an Ebola-like virus rose to 174 Friday as aid workers in one northern provincial town reported that terrified people had attacked them and that a number of health workers had fled out of fear of catching the disease.

International health officials said the epidemic, already the largest outbreak of Marburg virus ever recorded, showed no signs of abating. Seven of Angola's 18 provinces have now reported suspected cases and several neighboring countries have announced health alerts.

"It's becoming a huge problem," said Dick Thompson, a spokesman for the World Health Organization, which has dispatched surveillance teams to the country's northern provinces. "We clearly don't know the dimensions of the outbreak."

Health officials said some Angolans are hiding sick relatives out of fear that they will die if taken to the hospitals, thereby increasing the chance the disease will spread. There is no cure or vaccine for the highly contagious virus. Victims suffer a high fever, diarrhea, vomiting and severe bleeding from bodily orifices and usually die within a week.

The initial outbreak appears to have spread through a pediatric ward in Uige, a town in a farming district about 180 miles north of the capital of Luanda. More than 60 percent of the victims so far have been children.

One health official in Uige said that more than a dozen health care workers have perished from the disease, including two doctors, and that many workers are deserting the town's hospital in fear. Some townspeople are refusing to allow their sick relatives to be taken to an isolation unit set up at the hospital there by Doctors Without Borders, fearing it leads only to a graveyard.

As field workers tried to trace suspected cases in two Uige neighborhoods Thursday, townspeople threw stones at them, accusing them of killing people who had been taken away sick and who were returned to them dead. The violence forced the health workers to suspend their checks, according to officials from the World Health Organization and Doctors Without Borders. The government has dispatched soldiers to the province but so far made only a limited effort to educate an increasingly terrified public.

"We want people to understand that in a public health emergency you sometimes have to take unpopular measures," said Monica Castellarnau, the emergency coordinator for Doctors Without Borders in Uige. "At the moment all they understand is that we take someone to a locked-up place in a hospital, and then they die."

The World Health Organization officials said the disease so far appears confined to Angola but have recommended that four bordering countries be on the lookout for cases of the virus. The disease is spread through bodily fluids, including blood, excrement, saliva and vomit.

The United Nations appealed Friday for $3.5 million to fight the disease, saying Angola needs field laboratories, field workers to spot cases early, isolation units for the sick and a huge information campaign. Officials said the epidemic was spreading much faster than it did in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which until now had recorded the highest number of Marburg deaths. That two-year outbreak killed 123 people and ended in 2000.

Allarangar Yokouidé, an epidemiologist with the World Health Organization, told reporters that more than 80 percent of those who contracted the virus in Angola had died, a mortality rate that surpassed previous Ebola epidemics in the region. "Marburg is a very bad virus, even worse than Ebola," he said.

The intensity of Angola's outbreak is apparently partly due to the horrific state of the nation's hospitals after a 27-year civil war that ended in 2002, the failure to identify the disease for months after the first case and some traditional burial customs, including kissing corpses. Only when health care workers began dying in early March, six months after what health officials now believe was probably the first case, was the alarm fully raised.

The number of suspected cases, now at 200, shot up dramatically in the past two weeks, as epidemiologists have fanned out to try to identify the sick. The government is broadcasting daily radio warnings, asking people to transport any people with Marburg-like symptoms to the hospital and not to touch the corpses.

A cousin to the Ebola virus, Marburg is named for the town in Germany where it was first identified in 1967 after laboratory workers were infected by monkeys from Uganda.

No, we aren't going to see Marburg on our shores before Avian Flu. But the point is that if we do, we are hamstrung for monitoring, tracking and treating it. All it takes is one infected person on an airplane. One could say the same thing about Avian Influenza, and this is how a pandemic happens.

Titles

For Charles, Camilla and Britain, a Day of Adjustments
By SARAH LYALL

Published: April 9, 2005

For Charles, Camilla and Britain, a Day of Adjustments
By SARAH LYALL

Published: April 9, 2005

LONDON, April 8 - Maybe we already know enough about Saturday's royal wedding. But the details have been so complicated, the last-minute adjustments so harrowing, the sense of doom over the whole thing so ominous, that it is worth reviewing a few outstanding items.

Given that Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles have been lovers, on and off, for more than 30 years - a good portion of which they were each married to another person, a question immediately arises: are they sorry for committing adultery?

Well, it might seem so.

The couple plan to follow their wedding ceremony with a religious blessing, a centerpiece of which will be a stern prayer of penitence from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The prayer, which they and their 800-odd guests will recite en masse before the archbishop of Canterbury, begins:

"We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, against thy Divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us."

If the combined admitted wickedness of 800 guests seems a lot, it's worth remembering that Charles and Camilla know a lot of people. Their eclectic guest list includes the king of Bahrain, the governor-general of Papua New Guinea, the British prime minister, the actor Kenneth Branagh, Camilla's ex-husband, several of Charles's ex-girlfriends, the writer John Mortimer, the comedian Joan Rivers, assorted courtiers and hangers-on, including someone whose official title is "master of the horse."

And, of course, there are Charles's parents, who will be there - although not for the whole thing.

The queen and her husband are staying away from the small civil ceremony, which is to take place at the Guildhall in Windsor with two dozen members of Charles and Camilla's families in attendance. But they and everyone else will go to the religious blessing afterward, at St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle.

Charles's parents will also be at the reception, in Windsor Castle as well, at which drinks and canapés will be served. But there will be no sit-down dinner, as Charles had hoped.

After the party is over, there may still be some confusion over Camilla's new royal title. In fact, the haggling over it could well last for years. Charles's bride has declared her intention to be known as Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Cornwall (Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, among other things), and then to become the princess consort upon Charles's accession to the throne.

But some constitutional experts say that, like it or not, she will officially become the Princess of Wales when she marries Charles. Furthermore, they say, under current law, she will automatically become queen when Charles becomes king.

The truth is that no one really seems to know. As a spokesman for the prime minister said when all this came up: "The position at the moment is limited to what the title would be on her marriage. In terms of any future events, let's wait until future events arise."

Fat chance of the ravening news media waiting around for anything. It's been some time since Britain's news organizations deferred to the royal family, and their feelings of antipathy are returned: Charles, especially, hates journalists, boasting to friends about never reading the newspapers or watching the news.

She isn't pretty, like Diana, and she's Charles's oldest lover. But the way the media hates her and gets away with it sets feminism back decades.

I wish them both some happiness. Which seems to be vanishingly hard to find anywhere.

Showing Their Appreciation

Bushes, Clinton Attend Pope's Funeral

By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- President Bush joined throngs of the faithful on Friday in paying final respects to Pope John Paul II, the pontiff whose stands on abortion and other social issues meshed with his but who criticized both him and his father for waging war with Iraq.

Not only was Bush the first U.S. president to attend a papal funeral; he also headed a delegation to the 2 1/2-hour funeral Mass that included the first President Bush and President Clinton.

Bush was close to the front of the section reserved for world leaders, who are being seated in alphabetical order - in French. The United States in French is Etats-Unis. A parallel section will seat Catholic leaders.

Bush sat on the aisle in the second row, next to his wife, Laura. Beside them were French President Jacques Chirac and his wife, Bernadette. The two presidents shook hands.

When Bush's face appeared on giant screen TVs showing the ceremony, many in the crowds outside St. Peter's Square booed and whistled.

The U.S. presidential delegation also included Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. There was also a separate U.S. congressional delegation of about 40 members.

More Bad Bugs

Angola Marburg outbreak "wake up call" to world - UN
Fri April 8, 2005 12:03 PM GMT+02:00

By Zoe Eisenstein

LUANDA (Reuters) - Angola's lethal Marburg virus outbreak, one of several animal-borne diseases to jump to humans, should be a "wake up call" to the world to invest more in research, a senior U.N. official said on Friday.

Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, the World Health Organisation (WHO) assistant director general for infectious diseases, told Reuters Marburg was one of more than 30 viruses to jump inexplicably from animals to humans.

"The last 30 years we have seen at least 30 new diseases and most of those have been animal diseases that have jumped into human beings. They include HIV, SARS, BSE," he said in an interview in Angola's capital Luanda.

"We don't really know how they jump," he added.

The current Marburg epidemic in Angola has so far claimed at least 174 lives from a total of 200 cases, the health department said, making it the worst outbreak of the disease to date.

The previous worst recorded Marburg outbreak was during a 1998-2000 epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo when 123 people died.

There is no specific cure for Marburg, which was first contracted by researchers in the German town of the same name from African monkeys. The monkey-to-human transmission is similar to the Ebola virus.

HIV, which 25 million Africans alone are carrying and which continues to spread worldwide, is believed to have passed into people from chimps.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, originated in Guangdong in China in 2002 and went on to kill hundreds around the world. It is a type of atypical pneumonia and is believed to have jumped to people from animals sold as delicacies in a southern Chinese market.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, can pass on to people who eat infected beef products, causing a related disease called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. More than 100 people have been killed of made ill from BSE.

Asamoa-Baah said Angola's Marburg outbreak could provide scientists with an opportunity to learn more about these diseases. He said it is only possible to study them properly during epidemics.

"That is one of the reasons why WHO is interested in this outbreak," he said. "So that we can learn how these diseases come about, we need to learn a little more how they are spread, how they can be prevented and how you can treat (them)."

Marburg is characterised by headaches, nausea, vomiting and bloody diarrhoea and is spread through contact with bodily fluids.

Asamoa-Baah hoped that this outbreak would draw attention to the seriousness of the virus and attract the larger investments needed to develop vaccines and medicines to combat it.

"In terms of the numbers infected, this does not compare with HIV or malaria or tuberculosis. But the bigger problem is that this is new and when something is new and you still don't know how it is spread, you need to pay a lot more respect to it than you have in the past," he said.

revere and I have both been tracking this for the last couple of months. It doesn't have quite the level of immediate threat of avian influenza, but it is an emerging disease whose mechanisms and means of transference are not understood. Into this climate of emerging diseases:

Bush Budget Calls for Cuts in Health Services
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - President Bush's budget for 2006 cuts spending for a wide range of public health programs, including several to protect the nation against bioterrorist attacks and to respond to medical emergencies, budget documents show.

Faced with constraints on spending caused by record budget deficits and the demands of the war in Iraq, administration officials said on Friday that they had increased the budget for some health programs but cut many others, including some that address urgent health care needs.

The documents show, for example, that Mr. Bush would cut spending for several programs that deal with epidemics, chronic diseases and obesity. His plan would also cut the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 9 percent, to $6.9 billion, the documents show.

The cuts are part of an attempt to control the federal deficit, while increasing spending on certain priority programs. Administration officials have said that in the budget, to be unveiled on Monday, Mr. Bush will propose that overall domestic spending, aside from entitlements, grows less than the rate of inflation next year.

But the administration is proposing to increase the Pentagon budget by 4.8 percent, to $419.3 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, according to Defense Department budget documents obtained by The New York Times. That sum does not include the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, now running about $5 billion a month. Within a few weeks, the administration is expected to request about $80 billion to cover those costs.

Oh, brave new world.

Rots from the Head Down

Air Security Agency Faces Reduced Role
Stone Is Third Chief to Leave

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 8, 2005; Page A01

The Transportation Security Administration, once the flagship agency in the nation's $20 billion effort to protect air travelers, is now targeted for sharp cuts in its high-profile mission.

The latest sign came yesterday when the Bush administration asked David M. Stone, the TSA's director, to step down in June, according to aviation and government sources. Stone is the third top administrator to leave the three-year-old agency, which was created in the chaos and patriotism following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The TSA absorbed divisions of other agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration, only to find itself the subject of a massive Department of Homeland Security reorganization.

The TSA has been plagued by operational missteps, public relations blunders and criticism of its performance from the public and legislators. Its "No Fly" list has mistakenly snared senators. Its security screeners have been arrested for stealing from luggage, and its passenger pat-downs have set off an outcry from women.

Under provisions of President Bush's 2006 budget proposal favored by Congress, the TSA will lose its signature programs in the reorganization of Homeland Security. The agency will probably become just a manager of airport security screeners -- a responsibility that itself could diminish as private screening companies increasingly seek a comeback at U.S. airports. The agency's very existence, in fact, remains an open question, given that the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security contains a clause permitting the elimination of the TSA as a "distinct entity" after November 2004.

Every place I've worked that had this kind of turnover was a shitty place to work, and that caused the turnover. Maybe the Bush admin isn't such a hot place to work?

Nasty, Brutish, Short

Black, Dead and Invisible
By BOB HERBERT

Published: April 8, 2005

I once had a young black girl, whose brother had been murdered, tell me she was too old to dream. She was 12.

I remember a teenager in South-Central Los Angeles a few years ago saying, in a discussion about his peers, "Some of us don't last too long."

Don't bother cueing the violins. This is an old story. There's no shock value and hardly any news value in yet another black or brown kid going down for the count. Burying the young has long since become routine in poor black and Latino neighborhoods. Nobody gets real excited about it. I find that peculiar, but there's a lot about the world that I find peculiar.

Tafare Berryman was born on Feb. 16, 1983, in Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn. He debuted at 9 pounds 7 ounces. His mother said he was perfect, and she was still saying it this week as she prepared for his funeral. Tafare grew, as they say, prodigiously. When he was murdered early last Sunday morning, just five weeks short of his college graduation, he was six feet seven inches tall and weighed 240 pounds.

His massive size was no defense against the bullet that came out of the predawn darkness. It was like an instant replay of all the bullets over all the years that have ended so many young lives for no good reason whatsoever.

The fact that he had stayed out of trouble, and that his parents were strict, and that he'd graduated from high school in three years and was serious about his college work - none of that afforded him any protection, either. The fact that he was a popular basketball player at the C. W. Post campus of Long Island University, and that his classmates, teachers and coaches all swear he was a lovely person, counted for nothing. There are a lot of good kids who don't last too long.

The shooting happened on a street in Nassau County on Long Island. There had been a fight at a club, and a friend of Tafare's suffered a knife wound to the head. The two young men left the club in a car, with the friend driving.

After a couple of miles, they had to stop because the friend was bleeding profusely. As they were switching seats, with Tafare climbing into the driver's seat, a car approached. A shot was fired, maybe two shots, and Tafare's life was over. His friend was not hit. The police said they did not think that Tafare had been involved in the fight and that the gunman might have mistaken him for his friend, or someone else.

Tafare's mother, Dawn Thompson, who lives in Brooklyn, got a call about 6 o'clock in the morning. All she was told was that her son had been shot. She and three carloads of relatives rushed to Long Island. In the town of Long Beach, the family was given directions to the morgue.

"He was laid down with his eyes open and his mouth open, like he was saying, 'Oh, God!' " said Ms. Thompson. She began to sob. "He was just tall and stretched out. He's very tall, you know. And his eyes were open like he was looking for somebody. And I started crying. And I said: 'Yes, that's my son. That's my son. He's dead.' "

When I was growing up, I didn't worry about getting shot or getting stabbed, and, frankly, I thought I would live forever. But there have been many cultural changes since then. I've talked to hundreds of youngsters over the years who have either witnessed homicides or been very close emotionally to young people who had died violently.

Entertainers sing ecstatically of rape and homicide, and rappers like 50 Cent and The Game brag about the number of bullets their bodies have absorbed (at least 14 between them). Street gangs have spread from the cities to the suburbs and beyond, moving into those places in the hearts of young people that have been vacated by parents, especially fathers. Guns in some neighborhoods are easier to get than schoolbooks.

I live in a neighborhood where there is very little chance I'll be shot. I had a choice when I moved here. Not everyone does.

But I'm aware that I live in a culture that celebrates violence, in a country which exults in war. As long as some one else is doing the dying.

Washington Whispers

DC ultimate insider Steve Clemmons sez, from the ultimate insider news sheet,The Nelson Report:

Nasty gossip. . .always more fun than plain old gossip. . .there are indications that the Senate committee vote on confirming John Bolton for the UN may be more difficult than the White House (specifically VP Cheney's office) had hoped. Foreign Affairs chair Richard Lugar is known to be distinctly uncomfortable with Bolton, and Ranking Dem Joe Biden is actively opposing.

GOP Presidential hopeful Chuck Hagel is known to be considering the implications of new information he's been given, and therefore his initial strong endorsement may also be up for grabs. Opponents are amusing themselves by noting that Bolton's old boss, former Sec. State Colin Powell, has pointedly refused to endorse him, and they quote the well-known, if private complaints by Sec. Rice about Bolton’s "disloyalty" to Powell, and the President's negotiating agenda with N. Korea.

The "news" today includes that committee member Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee is thinking about voting "no", although his office is being carefully coy, for obvious reasons. Flustered Bolton supporters are countering with threats to run a "true conservative" against Chafee in the GOP primary. Apparently they haven't noticed that Chafee would fit quite nicely into the Democratic Party, and that Rhode Islanders would almost certainly reelect him, regardless.

Chafee may be helped along his Bolton opposition road by word that his Democratic opponent, RI Atty. Gen. Sheldon Whitehouse, is considering a demand that Chafee vote "no". Closer to home, and to the bone, comes word that former State Dept official Carl Ford may be prepared to testify that Bolton had his staff monkey with intelligence, in addition to blocking opponents from attending meetings within State while Ford ran INR.

Ford's personal and professional rep in Washington is impeccable, and any such testimony by him could be devastating, especially for the likes of Hagel and Lugar, observers predict.

Finally, it may be that Bolton's plan to turn over the consolidated non-proliferation Assist. Secretary slot to protege Steve Rademaker may be undone by his successor, and presumed ally, former NSC non-proliferation boss Bob Joseph. Word is that Undersecretary-nominee Joseph wants to bring over his guy for A/S, NSC staffer Will Tobey.

For those trying to follow the reorganization, both Powell and Rice approved combining the non-proliferation and arms control bureaus, so that, at least, is not seen as "payback" by Bolton for all those softies he constantly battled.

Clemmons adds:

Note that Chris Nelson suggests that Hagel may be studying the "totality of concerns" on Bolton and potentially reconsidering his support. I reported this some time ago after UPI Correspondent Christian Bourge confronted Senator Hagel with the "Waxman File" on Bolton after Hagel's effusive support of John Bolton was offered.

These are rumors, nuances, possibilities -- but what is very clear is that a lot is breaking against John Bolton's candidacy.

Bolton is an asshole. Everybody I know at State has been working hard against his candidacy.

Hospitality

Lines Lengthen at the Faith-Based Soup Kitchens
By FRANCIS X. CLINES

Published: April 8, 2005

The 1,130 soup kitchen guests, as they're respectfully called, began gathering outside the church doors an hour early, curling around the corner in a long line to await a free main meal - their safety-net highlight in another day of being down and out, part of the working poor, or surviving somewhere in between.

The repast, at 2,500 calories a serving, steamed aromatically: chicken à la king, rice, buttered spinach, peaches. A staff member in the nave of the building, the Church of the Holy Apostles, cued dozens of volunteer helpers: "Ladies and gentlemen, it's showtime. Thanks be to God." And from Ninth Avenue in Manhattan, the diners flowed in.

The sight of masses of Americans gratefully chowing down on free food is indeed a show, an amazingly discreet one that is classified not as outright hunger but as "food insecurity" by government specialists who are busy measuring the growing lines at soup kitchens and food pantries across the nation. There were 25.5 million supplicants regularly lining up in 2002; they were joined by 1.1 million more the next year. And even more arrive as unemployment and other government programs run out.

Much as the diners at Holy Apostles peered ahead to see what was being dished up at the steam tables, soup kitchen administrators across the country are currently eying governments' trilevel budget season and wincing at all the politicians' economizing vows. They know that "budget tightening" eventually means longer lines outside their doors.

"It's a desperate thing," said the Rev. Bill Greenlaw, director of the Holy Apostles charity, one of the largest among 1,298 kitchens and pantries regularly helping more than one million residents in New York City. "Every level of government seems to have the same mantra, that these programs are vulnerable.

"We're bracing that all three levels of government are coming down at the same time."

Most immediately, food charities are pleading against further cuts in the federal emergency food and shelter program, which directly fights hunger. Last year, 48 soup kitchens closed in the city as supplies were exhausted, and hundreds of others reported to be making do by cutting back on daily portions.

Beyond that, however, administrators know that the myriad of severe program cuts looming in Washington - for everything from low-income wage supplements to health care spending for poor people - can only lead to further cuts down the revenue food chain in statehouses and city halls and, finally, longer lines of people silently begging for food.

The budget debate in the Republican-run Capitol presents a Hobson's choice between the House's five-year, $30 billion-plus in program cuts for the poor and the Senate's $2.8 billion in cuts - one-tenth the pain, but focused most heavily on nutrition programs. The compromise cuts are likely to lean toward the House, levying more than their fair budget share on the poor, even as President Bush and the G.O.P. leaders argue that still more upper-bracket tax cuts are somehow justifiable.

So Father Greenlaw can only turn to pleading for even more charity from the city's better-off residents.

According to a survey by the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, seven out of 10 of the city's pantries and kitchens are "faith based," using the terminology of the Bush administration. But their besieged directors overwhelmingly warn that government, not charities, must take the lead if poverty is to be properly confronted.

"We're faith-based by the old rules, not the new ones," Father Greenlaw carefully noted. "We'll be feeding more guests unless and until society decides we don't have to tolerate a huge underclass in our cities."

In the meantime, the pungent scene in the nave at Holy Apostles is unabashedly hunger-based. People are being fed, not proselytized, at dining tables where the pews used to be. A midday hubbub of satiation rises up, plain as the pipes of the church organ, as the line lengthens outside.

This is the Church, where the least of us are cared for. As Jesus said, "I was hungry, and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me drink."

With the Dead In a Dead Language

The Papal Funerary Mass this morning tells you everything which is right and wrong with the Roman Church: I saw the Eastern Patriarchs exchange the Peace of Christ, but they will not be able to receive communion. John Paul II had 26 years to repair this breach, far longer than most papacies, but didn't. The diplomatic corps, most of them non-Catholic, will likewise be non-communicants. Whatever else he did, John Paul II gave you very good reasons why we are not ONE and the rest of you are simply wrong and The One True Church is right.

And the Mass was in Latin. It isn't the universal language, it's a dead language, spoken only by Roman Catholic clerics.

The face of the Church on display this morning is that it is for old white men.

Eternal Church?

The man has standing to speak.

The Pope's Contradictions

By Hans Küng

Outwardly Pope John Paul II, who has been actively involved in battling war and suppression, is a beacon of hope for those who long for freedom. Internally, however, his anti-reformist tenure has plunged the Roman Catholic church into an epochal credibility crisis.

For the Catholic church, this pontificate, despite its positive aspects, has on the whole proven to be a great disappointment and, ultimately, a disaster. As a result of his contradictions, this pope has deeply polarized the church, alienated it from countless people and plunged it into an epochal crisis -- a structural crisis that, after a quarter century, is now revealing fatal deficits in terms of development and a tremendous need for reform.

Contrary to all intentions conveyed in the Second Vatican Council, the medieval Roman system, a power apparatus with totalitarian features, was restored through clever and ruthless personnel and academic policies. Bishops were brought into line, pastors overloaded, theologians muzzled, the laity deprived of their rights, women discriminated against, national synods and churchgoers' requests ignored, along with sex scandals, prohibitions on discussion, liturgical spoon-feeding, a ban on sermons by lay theologians, incitement to denunciation, prevention of Holy Communion -- "the world" can hardly be blamed for all of this!!

The upshot is that the Catholic church has completely lost the enormous credibility it once enjoyed under the papacy of John XXIII and in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.

If the next pope were to continue the policies of this pontificate, he would only reinforce an enormous backup of problems and turn the Catholic church's current structural crisis into a hopeless situation. Instead, a new pope must decide in favor of a change in course and inspire the church to embark on new paths -- in the spirit of John XXIII and in keeping with the impetus for reform brought about by the Second Vatican Council.

Melanie's Steve Roach Moment

You need us and we need you
Apr 6th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

merica and foreign central banks are locked in a codependent relationship: America is addicted to spending, and the banks can’t stop throwing money at it in order to keep their currencies down. This is unhealthy for both parties, say the IMF and the World Bank. But is there any political will to change it?

AMERICA has been warned many times in recent years that its profligate spending is dangerous, for itself and for the world economy. So far, however, Americans have ignored such doom-mongering, gleefully driving their current-account and budget deficits to record levels. Now the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) seem to be trying to stage an intervention. This week, both have come out with reports on the global financial situation—and both reports give warning that America’s fiscal irresponsibility poses serious risks to the world economy.

Neither organisation issues the kind of scathing indictment that might offend its most powerful constituent. Nonetheless, both make it pointedly clear that America’s copious spending is a real, and growing, problem for the rest of the world. America’s 12-month current-account deficit now stands at $665.9 billion, or 5.7% of GDP. Since a negative balance in the current account must be complemented by a positive balance in the capital account, this means that foreign funds are streaming in. America is mortgaging its future to pay for current spending.

Part of the reason this spending is so hard to get a grip on is that it is happening on multiple levels. With interest rates low, consumers have been tapping into their home equity and taking on credit-card debt—the latest figures from America’s Bureau of Economic Analysis show individuals’ savings were just 0.6% of their income in February. Meanwhile, even after massive tax cuts, the Bush administration has forged ahead with ambitious spending programmes. Thus, in 2004 the federal government’s budget deficit hit $412 billion, a worrying 3.6% of GDP. It is projected to fall only to $365 billion, or 3% of GDP, in 2005.

The gap between income and spending has been financed by foreigners, especially central banks; more than half of all publicly available Treasury bonds are now held abroad (see chart). But the central banks that are buying up all this paper, particularly Asian ones, are trapped in something of a vicious circle.

The natural adjustment mechanism for America’s rapidly growing foreign liabilities would be a declining dollar, which would lower demand for imports and make America’s exports more attractive on foreign markets. But the Asian central banks are stalling this process because they want to keep their currencies from appreciating against the dollar and thus becoming less competitive—and buying sackloads of dollars and then dumping them into US Treasuries achieves just that. This simply enables America to borrow more, making the inevitable adjustment sharper when it comes. That risk, of course, makes dollar-denominated assets less attractive, meaning that the Asian central banks have to go to ever-greater lengths to keep their currencies from appreciating.

Here is the IMF report(.pdf). And here is the World Bank's.

Necessary Resistance

Bush Nominee for U.N. Post Faces Hurdles
By DOUGLAS JEHL and STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Published: April 7, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 6 - A former chief of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research is expected to testify in opposition to John R. Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds hearings on Mr. Bolton next week.

With one Republican member, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, reserving final judgment, the committee's approval of Mr. Bolton's nomination does not appear to be certain, senior Congressional officials said.

Two other administration nominees ran into difficulties in the confirmation process on Wednesday, as a senator threatened to block the nomination of Stephen L. Johnson to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and two Democrats said they were blocking the confirmation of the nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration.

Carl W. Ford Jr., the former State Department official, and Mr. Bolton clashed while at the State Department over what Mr. Ford regarded as Mr. Bolton's intimidation of intelligence officials. The committee is also seeking testimony from two intelligence officials, one a top Central Intelligence Agency analyst, about what the officials have said they believed were Mr. Bolton's efforts to have them replaced for disagreeing with him over the weapons programs of Iraq, Cuba and other countries.

Former government officials have accused Mr. Bolton of improperly circumventing State Department channels to gain access to confidential sensitive intelligence reports, the Congressional officials said.

In addition, there have been accusations that Mr. Bolton has sought to remove dissenters from their posts or bar them from meetings called to discuss policies. A senior Central Intelligence Agency official has become the second government official to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee that he believes Mr. Bolton sought to remove him from his post after he complained that statements Mr. Bolton made in 2002 about a biological weapons program in Cuba did not reflect the views of intelligence agencies, Congressional officials said.

The guy sounds like a real prize, a typical Bushist loyalty enforcer.

Righteous Indignation

Where's the Anger Over Intelligence Failures? Margaret Carlson

April 7 (Bloomberg) -- Everybody says Washington has become too mean. The majority doesn't speak to the minority, except to threaten ``a nuclear option'' to block a filibuster of judicial nominees. Oppose a domestic policy and you'll be branded an obstructionist. Oppose a foreign policy and they'll brand you unpatriotic. It goes downhill from there.

After the commission's report came out on March 31, Powell, in an interview with the German magazine Stern, did allow that he was ``furious and angry'' that ``some of the information was wrong.'' Some and wrong? How about ``most'' and ``dishonest,'' especially about aluminum tubes and mobile labs?

Ms. Carlson obviously hasn't been reading the blogs. I think I've been past "righteous indignation" for more than four years now.

Nuclear Option

Santorum: Frist will go nuclear
By Alexander Bolton

Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, has reassured conservative activist leaders that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is committed to triggering the “nuclear option,” stripping Democrats of the power to filibuster judicial nominees.

Santorum met the leaders Tuesday to dispel growing anxiety among conservatives that Frist was wavering over what some Republicans call the “constitutional” or “Byrd” option — a procedural tactic that would disallow judicial filibusters by a ruling of the Senate chair and a ratifying majority vote.

Conservative alarm surged when the Republican leadership canceled a briefing of Senate staff and activists by Martin Gold, a former Frist aide and master of Senate parliamentary procedure who is advising Republicans on the issue. The cancellation of the special meeting, which was scheduled for the Easter recess, left some with the impression that Frist might be backing away in the face of Democrats’ threat to retaliate by shutting down the Senate.

Business interests on K Street are urging Frist to delay the tactic because it could imperil their legislative agenda, as The Hill reported this week.

The conservatives’ concern was also fueled by Frist’s efforts to negotiate with Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to find a compromise. One Democratic aide said that Frist appeared to be backing away from the tactic.

Conservatives have also expressed concern about a paucity of information about GOP plans to overcome filibusters. GOP aides in the Senate said that they too know little about what is being planned; strategy and negotiations over the nuclear option are closely held within Frist’s office.

My guess? If K Street says No, it won't happen.

Peace, I ask of Thee, Oh River

Peace Accord Reached in Ivory Coast Conflict
# The warring factions, in talks in South Africa, agree to disarm at once and plan for elections.

From Associated Press

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — Ivory Coast's warring factions agreed Wednesday to end hostilities, start immediate disarmament and plan for elections in an effort to prevent a renewed explosion of violence.

The agreement followed four days of talks in Pretoria mediated by South African President Thabo Mbeki, who had summoned all sides to his country's administrative capital to try to rescue the peace process. The negotiations were the factions' first face-to-face meeting since civil war flared again last fall in the West African nation.

"The parties … hereby solemnly declare the immediate and final cessation of all hostilities and the end of the war through the national territory," said the agreement signed in Pretoria.

"In this regard, they unequivocally repudiate the use of force as a means to resolve differences among themselves," the accord said, acknowledging the "untold misery and suffering" inflicted on the Ivorian people and the disastrous economic repercussions of the fighting.

Ivory Coast has been split between the rebel-held north and loyalist south since a failed coup attempt in 2002. A peace accord was reached in France in January 2003, but to little avail. A cease-fire reached in May of the same year was violated twice by Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, raising doubts about elections.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed the accord and urged all parties to follow through with their commitments "promptly and in good faith," his spokesman Fred Eckhard said in a statement.

The agreement commits the warring factions to "immediately proceed with the disarmament and dismantling of the militia throughout the entire national territory" and schedules an April 14 meeting to resolve the details.

If this works, it will be light in a particularly dark place in the world. This conflict has been going on for decades at varying levels of intensity.

Beyond the Pope-A-Thon

Oh, my. This is unprecedented. The career professionals are revolting. Check your C-Span schedules.

Bush Nominee for U.N. Post Faces Hurdles at Senate Panel
By DOUGLAS JEHL and STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Published: April 7, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 6 - A former chief of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research is expected to testify in opposition to John R. Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds hearings on Mr. Bolton next week.

With one Republican member, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, reserving final judgment, the committee's approval of Mr. Bolton's nomination does not appear to be certain, senior Congressional officials said.

Two other administration nominees ran into difficulties in the confirmation process on Wednesday, as a senator threatened to block the nomination of Stephen L. Johnson to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and two Democrats said they were blocking the confirmation of the nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration.

Carl W. Ford Jr., the former State Department official, and Mr. Bolton clashed while at the State Department over what Mr. Ford regarded as Mr. Bolton's intimidation of intelligence officials. The committee is also seeking testimony from two intelligence officials, one a top Central Intelligence Agency analyst, about what the officials have said they believed were Mr. Bolton's efforts to have them replaced for disagreeing with him over the weapons programs of Iraq, Cuba and other countries.

Former government officials have accused Mr. Bolton of improperly circumventing State Department channels to gain access to confidential sensitive intelligence reports, the Congressional officials said.

In addition, there have been accusations that Mr. Bolton has sought to remove dissenters from their posts or bar them from meetings called to discuss policies. A senior Central Intelligence Agency official has become the second government official to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee that he believes Mr. Bolton sought to remove him from his post after he complained that statements Mr. Bolton made in 2002 about a biological weapons program in Cuba did not reflect the views of intelligence agencies, Congressional officials said.

Morning Reading

The NYT Op-Ed pages seem to have found a spine. There is much good food today, here is a little something to read with your oatmeal:

Shameless Photo-Op

Published: April 7, 2005

Imagine this: On his next trip to Japan, President Bush visits the vault at the Bank of Japan, where that country's $712 billion in United States government bonds is stored. There, as the cameras roll, he announces that the bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, are, in fact, worthless i.o.u.'s. He does the same thing when he visits China and so on around the world, until he has personally repudiated the entire $2 trillion of United States debt held by foreigners.

Mr. Bush rehearsed just that act on Tuesday, when he visited the office of the federal Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va. He posed next to a file cabinet that holds the $1.7 trillion in Treasury securities that make up the Social Security trust fund. He tossed off a comment to the effect that the bonds were not "real assets." Later, in a speech at a nearby university, he said: "There is no trust fund. Just i.o.u.'s that I saw firsthand."

Social Security takes in more money than it needs to pay current beneficiaries, and the excess is invested in the Treasury securities that Mr. Bush was discussing. They carry the same legal and political obligations as all other forms of Treasury debt, every penny of which has always been paid in full and on time.

In his speech, Mr. Bush went on to acknowledge that future generations would have to make good on the debt. But the intended meaning of the photo-op was clear. In the hope of persuading people to privatize Social Security - a move that would only add to the growing debt burden for future generations - Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that the trust fund is a joke. But if the trust fund is a joke, so is the full faith and credit of the United States.

Fortunately, the governments, institutions and individuals who hold United States debt can tell a publicity stunt from a policy statement. Still, casting aspersions on a basic obligation of the United States government is insulting and irresponsible.

Mr. Bellow's Planet
By BRENT STAPLES

Published: April 7, 2005

Saul Bellow was the first writer to appear to me in flesh and blood. I got my initial look at him in the fall of 1975, when I was a nervous graduate student at the University of Chicago. I was awed by the lofty environment, away from my hometown for the first time and longing to become a writer. He was the literary eminence of Hyde Park. He taught in the university's loftiest department - the Committee On Social Thought - and prowled the streets with a fedora pulled low over searching eyes. That day he had drawn a huge crowd to the bookstore where he was signing his novel "Humboldt's Gift," which would earn the Nobel Prize.

The man signing those books was surprisingly tiny, given his Olympian reputation, with wisps of white hair floating above the great domed head. But his eyes - hungry, saucerlike - were large enough for any three people. They swept over and seemed to vacuum in the people who came near. Watching him, and greedily consuming his books, in later years, it became clear that he was scanning bodies and faces for the painterly features that made his characters so physically vivid on the page.

The famous novels, including "Herzog," "The Adventures of Augie March" and "Humboldt's Gift," lived at three separate levels. They were praised in the literary world at large for rich, inventive language and probing explorations of the human condition. Within the Chicago city limits, they were often seen as assays of the brawling, big-shouldered city where book-smart, street-dumb characters - based on Mr. Bellow himself - were taken to the cleaners by scoundrels, grifters and ne'er-do-wells.

The Passion of the Tom
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: April 7, 2005

WASHINGTON

Before, Republicans just scared other people. Now, they're starting to scare themselves.

When Dick Cheney tells you you've gone too far, you know you're way over the edge.

Last week, the vice president told The New York Post's editorial board that Tom DeLay should not have jumped ugly on the judges who refused to order that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted. He said he would "have problems" with the DeLay plan to get revenge on the judges: "I don't think that's appropriate."

Usually, the White House loves bullies. It embraces John Bolton, nominated as U.N. ambassador, even though, as The Times reports today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is reviewing allegations that Mr. Bolton misused intelligence and bullied subordinates to help buttress W.M.D. hokum when he was at State.

But there's some skittishness in the party leadership about the Passion of the Tom, the fiery battle of the born-again Texan to show that he's being persecuted on ethics by a vast left-wing conspiracy. Some Republicans are wondering whether they need to pull a Trent Lott on Tom DeLay before he turns into Newt Gingrich, who led his party to the promised land but then had to be discarded when he became the petulant "definer" and "arouser" of civilization. Do they want Mr. DeLay careering around in Queeg style as they go into 2006?

On Tuesday, Bill Frist joined Mr. Cheney in rejecting Mr. DeLay's call to punish and possibly impeach judges - who are already an endangered species these days, with so much violence leveled against them. "I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today," Dr. Frist said. "I respect that."

Of course, Dr. Frist and the White House still want to pack the federal courts with right-wing judges, but they don't want it to look as if they're doing it because Tom DeLay told them to or because of unhappiness at the Schiavo case.

No matter how much Democrats may be caviling over the House Republicans' attempts to squelch the Ethics Committee before it goes after Mr. DeLay (the former exterminator who pushed to impeach Bill Clinton), privately they're rooting for Mr. DeLay to thrive. They're hoping to do in 2006 what the Republicans did in 1994, when Mr. Gingrich and his acolytes used Democratic arrogance and ethical lapses to seize the House.

Mr. DeLay is seeking sanctuary in Rome at the pope's funeral, and he will hang on to the bitter end. He got thunderous applause from his House colleagues yesterday morning, showing once more that Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, has a strong hold on the loyalty of those who have benefited from the largesse of his fat-cat friends and from his shrewdness in keeping them in the majority.

"I think a lot of members think he's taking arrows for all of us," Representative Roy Blunt told the press yesterday, backing up Mr. DeLay's martyr complex.

Tom DeLay as Paschal Lamb? Methinks the Repubs are jumping the shark.

Reality Bites

Controversy Grows Over AP's Pulitzer Win for Iraq Photos

By Greg Mitchell

Published: April 06, 2005 3:30 PM ET

The Pulitzer Board anointed 11 Associated Press photographers as winners in the category of breaking-news photography. The award-winning photos were from war-torn Iraq -- and some in conservative circles claim the images were, on the whole, overly helpful to the insurgent cause. At least one of the photos raised an uproar from the same quarters when it was first published late last year.

“If reality bites, don't blame them.”

Sideshow

David Sirota has rounded up some interesting figures about Bush's Social Security Roadshow:

STAFF COSTS BETWEEN $22,000 AND $59,000 PER EVENT: On 10/3/02, the Associated Press reported, "The White House has estimated that trips, on average, cost between $22,000 and $59,000 for staff, not including security and aircraft."

This, of course, doesn't include the costs to local government of security when he holds these events. And while the amount spent may be small compared to the federal deficit, every little bit counts, especially considering it costs five times more to run Air Force one for an hour ($55,000) than Social Security pays the typical recipient in an entire year ($11,000). When put that way, his abuse of his travel privileges and wasteful attitude toward taxpayer money is no small matter.

Meanwhile, WaPo's Dan Froomkin tells us:

Reps. Dianna DeGette (D-Colo.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) have written a letter calling for a congressional investigation into Bush's bubble:

Ann Imse writes in the Rocky Mountain News: "Six of Colorado's nine members of Congress have criticized removing a person from a presidential appearance because of a bumper sticker -- the circumstances behind a highly publicized incident last month in Denver."

Empire

Afghanistan likely to have permanent US military
By Peter Spiegel in London
Published: April 5 2005 21:47 | Last updated: April 5 2005 21:47

US and Afghanistan flagsAfghanistan's defence minister on Tuesday gave one of the clearest signs yet that Kabul is open to permanent basing of US forces in the country, saying his government was in discussions with the US that could include air bases in Afghanistan after the current nation-building process ends.

General Abdul Rahim Wardak said the details of what would constitute a long-term US presence were still under discussion. But he signalled Kabul was eager for “enduring arrangements” that could include permanent air bases or “pre-positioned” military equipment that would be used by rapidly deployed US forces in a crisis.

“We will certainly seek enduring relations and partnerships with our international friends,” Gen Wardak told a gathering of military analysts in London. “This will prevent the repetition of the catastrophic disengagement of the international community from Afghanistan in the 1990s, which cost us all so dearly.”

The discussions have been under way for several months, but both US and Afghan officials have been reluctant to discuss the issue given geopolitical sensitivities in the region, particularly in neighbouring Iran.

Senator John McCain, an influential Republican on defence issues, first hinted at such a possibility in February, when after a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul, he said it was his “personal view” that permanent joint bases should be established.

Last month, General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, acknowledged during a trip to Afghanistan that the US was considering such a move. Such comments come as the US continues to expand its capabilities at its main air base in Bagram, a Soviet-era facility north of Kabul, where it is building a new runway. Bagram would be the most likely location of a permanent US presence.

The fingerprints of empire, equiped with talons.

Farewell

Saul Bellow, an obituary (someone I'll really miss.)

Saul Bellow

He still writes, and his writing, though not as overwhelming in its greatness as it once was, still inspires the reader, who learns that reading Saul Bellow is an education into the mysteries of the universe, taught by a fellow Jew, whose vision of the possibility of human greatness and the penchant for human failure is singularly distinct and penetratingly clear.

The Back Door Garden

I've got a meeting this morning, I'll be back shortly after lunch. While I'm gone, suggestions for the herb garden are in order. Basil, dill, rosemary and mint for tea are the non-negotiables. Recommendations for chiles are always in order. I'm planning to try to make my own hot sauce this year. If you have experience, type away. BTW, I've raised and eaten Scotch Bonnets, if you've got something hotter, bring it on.

Offset Costs

U.S. Will Tighten Passport Rules
Canada, Mexico Borders to Be Affected by 2008

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 6, 2005; Page A01

Millions of Americans will be required to show passports when they reenter the United States from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean by 2008 under new rules announced yesterday by the State and Homeland Security departments.

The new policy, designed to thwart terrorists from exploiting the relative ease of travel in North America, means that Americans who lack U.S. passports will have to obtain them to travel between the United States and neighboring nations. It also will require Mexicans and Canadians to present either passports or another official document to enter this country, with details to be determined.

Currently, U.S. citizens in most cases need to show only driver's licenses to reenter this country from Mexico and Canada, though officials said that since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, some officials at border crossings at times have asked for additional documents.

"We're asking people to think of travel in and out of the U.S. [in this hemisphere] in the same way they would travel to and from Europe," said Elaine K. Dezenski, deputy assistant secretary for border and transportation security at the Department of Homeland Security.

Some travel industry executives predicted that the initiative could lead to long lines for foreigners entering this country and could discourage U.S. youngsters from traveling on school trips, or spontaneously, to Canada and Mexico. Much smaller percentages of young people have passports than older people do, industry officials said.

An increasing amount of travel planning is being done only days or weeks before a vacation begins because of Americans' harried lifestyles, and the new rules could discourage U.S. citizens without passports from taking quick jaunts to Canada and Mexico, tourism officials said.

"For the last-minute traveler, this could be a problem," said Hank Phillips, president of the National Tour Association, which represents the tourism industry. "We're concerned about this, but we're taking a wait-and-see attitude, because security is a top priority."

Michael Palmer, executive director of the Student & Youth Travel Association, which represents tour operators, said yesterday that the new rules also could "drastically" reduce the number of Mexican and Canadian students who visit the United States.

"I can see the student travel business [from Canada into the United States] almost drying up," said Doug Ellison, who owns a large youth travel firm outside Ontario. The regulations also will discourage Canadian cross-border shoppers, he said. "If you don't want us to come, you're giving us a good reason not to," he said.

The changes, to be phased in over the next three years, were mandated by the intelligence reform law approved last December and have been expected for months.

Sixty million Americans have U.S. passports, and officials expect to issue 10 million more this year. More citizens are obtaining passports every year because of the perceived desirability of having citizenship documents, said Maura Harty, assistant secretary of state for consular affairs.

The new policy was needed to tighten security for travelers around the Western Hemisphere in part because of heightened concern that terrorists could smuggle equipment or operatives into the United States from neighboring countries, officials said. U.S. officials also want to reduce their reliance on state driver's licenses because of the ease of obtaining fraudulent licenses.

State and Homeland Security officials are distributing cards to U.S. and foreign travelers in this hemisphere, warning that "all travelers to and from the Americas, the Caribbean and Bermuda will soon be required to have a passport or other accepted document that establishes the bearer's identity and nationality to enter or reenter the United States."

The rule's first phase will go into effect Dec. 31, 2005, requiring all U.S. citizens traveling by air or sea to or from the Caribbean, as well as Central and South America, to have passports. The next phase, which will apply these rules to all air and sea travel to or from Mexico and Canada, will begin a year later.

What used to be free will now cost you $65 plus the cost of photos, about $25. Are you loving those tax cuts yet? And you have to cough up a copy of your birth certificate and the county of your birth will charge you something for that, too.

Today, if you want to go to Canada, you just go. Tomorrow, its a trip to a foreign country.

The Good Enough Scam

Political Groups Paid Two Relatives of House Leader
By PHILIP SHENON

Published: April 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 5 - The wife and daughter of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by Mr. DeLay's political action and campaign committees, according to a detailed review of disclosure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission and separate fund-raising records in Mr. DeLay's home state, Texas.

Most of the payments to his wife, Christine A. DeLay, and his only child, Dani DeLay Ferro, were described in the disclosure forms as "fund-raising fees," "campaign management" or "payroll," with no additional details about how they earned the money. The payments appear to reflect what Mr. DeLay's aides say is the central role played by the majority leader's wife and daughter in his political career.

Mr. DeLay's national political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, or Armpac, said in a statement on Tuesday that the two women had provided valuable services to the committee in exchange for the payments: "Mrs. DeLay provides big picture, long-term strategic guidance and helps with personnel decisions. Ms. Ferro is a skilled and experienced professional event planner who assists Armpac in arranging and organizing individual events."

Mrs. Ferro has managed several of her father's re-election campaigns for his House seat.

His spokesman said that Mr. DeLay had no additional comment. Although several members of Congress employ family members as campaign managers or on their political action committees, advocacy groups seeking an overhaul of federal campaign-finance and ethics laws say that the payments to Mr. DeLay's family members were unusually generous, and should be the focus of new scrutiny of the Texas congressman.

Mr. DeLay, whose position as majority leader makes him the second-most-powerful House member, has offered a vigorous public defense in recent weeks to a flurry of ethics accusations from Democratic lawmakers and campaign watchdog groups, including charges that he violated House rules on travel. The executive director of Americans for a Republican Majority and a major fund-raiser for the committee were indicted in Texas last year on charges of illegal fund-raising, and prosecutors there have refused to rule out the possibility of charges against Mr. DeLay in the continuing inquiry.

In recent weeks, public interest groups have called on the House ethics committee and the Justice Department to review lavish, privately financed overseas trips for Mr. DeLay and his aides, including a 1997 trip to Russia that was underwritten by a conservative education group closely linked to a powerful Republican lobbyist who often boasted of his influence with the majority leader.

The payments to Mr. DeLay's family have continued into 2005; the latest monthly disclosure filed by Americans for a Republican Majority shows Mrs. DeLay was paid was paid $4,028 last month, while Mrs. Ferro received $3,681. Earlier statements show that the two women received similar monthly fees from the political action committee throughout 2003 and 2004.

Mrs. DeLay has been involved in her husband's political career and his fund-raising operations in Washington and Texas. In an interview in 2003 with Roll Call, a newspaper on Capitol Hill, a spokesman for Mr. DeLay explained Mrs. DeLay's role as "the final signoff of Tom's travel schedule, what events he attends and what his name appears on."

Mrs. Ferro has also helped manage Mr. DeLay's charity operations. Financial disclosure statements filed by Mr. DeLay's House campaign committees, which are separate from Americans for a Republican Majority, show that Mrs. Ferro and her political consulting firm, Coastal Consulting of Sugar Land, Tex., received $222,000 from 2001 through last year, reflecting her role in the re-election campaigns.

Although there has been no suggestion from prosecutors that Mrs. Ferro is under investigation by the grand jury in Austin, her records were subpoenaed in the inquiry, which is focused on the fund-raising activities of Texans for a Republican Majority, a state political action committee modeled on Americans for a Republican Majority. Mrs. Ferro received about $30,000 in fund-raising and consulting fees from Texans for a Republican Majority, the committee's records show.

It's a Republican World. Climb aboard and win the fruits of excess. If you are a Democrat, stay in the line to the left and get a blowjob.

On the Side of the Angels

Md. Drive Against Wal-Mart Advances
Bill Obligates Firms On Health Spending

By John Wagner and Michael Barbaro
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 6, 2005; Page A01

Maryland lawmakers yesterday approved legislation that would effectively require Wal-Mart to boost spending on health care, a direct legislative thrust against a corporate giant that is already on the defensive on many fronts nationwide.

"We're looking for responsible businesses to ante up . . . and provide adequate health care," said Sen. Thomas M. Middleton (D-Charles), the Finance Committee chairman, as the Senate approved the measure with a majority wide enough to survive an anticipated veto. A similar bill has cleared the House of Delegates, and legislators expect to reconcile their differences easily.

Lawmakers said they did not set out to target only Wal-Mart when they drafted a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits -- or put the money directly into the state's health program for the poor.

But as debate raged in the Senate yesterday, it was clear that the giant retailer, which has 15,000 workers in Maryland, was the only company that would be affected.

"This is crossing a bridge," said Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Queen Anne's), who joined the Senate's other Republicans in voting against the bill. "Annapolis is telling private business in the private marketplace what to do."

Wal-Mart officials, likewise, condemned the General Assembly's effort as an unneeded intrusion. "We think that this sets a bad precedent by singling out one employer when it's a much bigger issue," said Nate Hurst, a government relations manager at Wal-Mart.

The retailer already is dealing with a spate of bad publicity, including increasingly intense criticism of its labor practices and a spate of lawsuits. In the past month, the company agreed to pay $11 million to settle claims that one of its cleaning contractors hired illegal immigrants, and Vice Chairman Thomas M. Coughlin resigned after an internal probe questioned his use of as much as $500,000 in company funds.

Sometimes the good guys win.

No Child....

Connecticut Prepares to Sue U.S. Over Bush Education Law
By SAM DILLON

Connecticut's attorney general said today that he was preparing to sue the federal government over President Bush's signature education-reform law, arguing that it forces Connecticut to administer new standardized tests at a cost of millions of dollars and that Washington refuses to pay for them.

Although a handful of local school districts, in Illinois, Texas and other states have filed legal challenges to the law, known as No Child Left Behind, Connecticut would be the first state to do so.

The lawsuit would open a new chapter in a broader struggle between states and the federal government that has seen state legislatures lodge various protests over the law, and at least one state education commissioner, in Texas, issue an order this year that appeared to directly contradict a federal ruling.

The Connecticut attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat first elected in 1992, said that he was announcing his plans now because he is about to contact attorneys general in other states to seek co-plaintiffs or other allies for the legal battle.

"The federal government's approach with this law is illegal and unconstitutional," Mr. Blumenthal said in an interview. He declined to predict whether any of his colleagues elsewhere would join his action, but he said he was finding "fertile ground."

"There is burgeoning unhappiness among both Republicans and Democrats," Mr. Blumenthal said. "The dissatisfaction is felt across the country and is across the board, politically. So I can pretty much call any of my colleagues and get an earful."

The federal law requires Connecticut to spend some $112 million to expand its testing program and to help local districts carry out other federal requirements over the next three years, while Washington has appropriated only about $71 million, leaving the state with an unfinanced burden of $41 million, Connecticut's commissioner of education said in a report last month.

Legal scholars said that previous lawsuits brought against the federal government over so-called unfunded mandates have had mixed success. But Connecticut's suit could gain special traction because the No Child Left Behind law includes a passage, first sponsored by Republicans during the Clinton administration, that forbids federal officials from requiring states to spend their own funds to carry out the federal policies outlined in the law.

Connecticut currently tests public school children in grades 4, 6, 8 and 10, while the federal law requires all states to administer standardized tests in every school year 3 through 8. Expanding Connecticut's testing program to cover grades three, five and seven will force the state Department of Education to spend $8 million of its own money over the next three years, the state's education commissioner, Betty Sternberg, said in the report her office issued last month.

Can you say "unfunded federal mandate?" I thought you could.

5 question Interview--the reply

Say it! Post your answers here (with the questions) or post a link to your reply on your blog.

Preznit Tiny

Former Presidents Clinton and Bush To Attend Pope's Funeral

Former Presidents Clinton and Bush will join President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush at the funeral of Pope John Paul II on Friday. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will also be part of the five person U.S. delegation.

This Friday's service will mark the first time that a sitting U.S. president attended funeral services for a pope. President Bush told reporters, 'I look forward to honoring the memory of Pope John Paul II.'

CNN just reported that Carter requested to be included in the delegation and was told that the delegation had already been selected. This is extraordinarily small minded of Bushco.

Demonisation

In the face of American generals saying that the insurgency is losing steam:

Zarqawi Said to Be Behind Iraq Raid
Assault on Abu Ghraib May Signal New Tactics

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A01

BAGHDAD, April 4 -- Insurgent groups led by foreigners and Iraqis asserted Monday that guerrilla leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's organization was responsible for a major assault on Abu Ghraib prison Saturday that U.S. officers called one of the most sophisticated attacks of the insurgency.

Rocket barrages forced Marine guards to abandon a prison watchtower at the height of the precision-timed offensive, which employed mortars, rockets, ground assaults and a car bomb, a U.S. military spokesman, Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill, said Monday.

U.S. rapid-response troops, backed by Apache helicopters and artillery, fired small arms and grenades to help the guards drive attackers back from prison walls, Rudisill said. The battle wounded 44 American troops and 13 of the more than 3,000 detainees held at the prison.

"It was one of the more concerted attacks that we've seen," said Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman.

Asked if there had been any other insurgent attack that surpassed it, Boylan said, "Not that I'm aware of."

Whether or not Zarqawi is behind this is questionable. The DoD likes to pretend that there is some identifiable individual behind things like this, with the absurd idea that "taking him out" will end the violence. The fact that they haven't found him tells you a great deal about the state of our intelligence--non-existent. Without intel, we have no chance of "winning," whatever that means in this circumstance.

Respect for Learning

An Academic Question
By PAUL KRUGMAN

In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."

The editorial was titled "O.K., We Give Up." But it could just as well have been called "Why So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days." Thirty years ago, attacks on science came mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing of leading Republicans.

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.

And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America, or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. Soon, biology professors who don't give creationism equal time with evolution and geology professors who dismiss the view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old might face lawsuits.

If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose.

It seems to me that the more you know, the more likely you are to be a liberal. Even my theology profs were liberals. The two faculty groups where you are likely find conservatives, however, are in the B schools and the law schools.

Police State

via Suburban Guerrilla:

Patriot Act's 'sneak and peek' searches nearly double

By CHARLIE SAVAGE AND RICK KLEIN
THE BOSTON GLOBE

WASHINGTON -- Justice Department investigators nearly doubled the rate at which they used a controversial new search-and-seizure power allowed under the USA Patriot Act during the past 22 months, according to data released by the Bush administration yesterday on the eve of congressional testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Formally called delayed-notification searches, the warrants are known as "sneak and peek" because they allow investigators to search a person's home or business and to seize property without disclosing for weeks or months that they were there. Although investigators must convince a judge that there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the investigation would be harmed if the subject were notified, no judge has ever denied a request for those searches.

Although the warrants are codified in a law enacted to fight terrorism, they are not limited to terrorism investigations. And, according to the Justice Department, investigators have increasingly resorted to the power since the Patriot Act became law shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department said yesterday that the power was a valuable law enforcement tool for a "wide spectrum of criminal investigations, including those involving terrorism and drugs."

But the American Civil Liberties Union said the release "confirms our worst fears" that the use of the law is expanding beyond terrorism investigations, and called for greater oversight.

The Senate Judiciary Committee today intends to question Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller about how the Justice Department has been using its Patriot Act powers, setting the stage for a year of political debate over whether to make the Patriot Act permanent or to scale it back.

I'm watching the hearing right now. It's surreal, the Dems and the Repubs are existing in parallel universes. And you'll never hear any of the salient and important points raised in this hearing (which is pretty damned important) on any of the major media because it is Popeweek.

The Dark Side

The Price of Infallibility
By THOMAS CAHILL

John Paul II has been almost the polar opposite of John XXIII, who dragged Catholicism to confront 20th-century realities after the regressive policies of Pius IX, who imposed the peculiar doctrine of papal infallibility on the First Vatican Council in 1870, and after the reign of terror inflicted by Pius X on Catholic theologians in the opening decades of the 20th century. Unfortunately, this pope was much closer to the traditions of Pius IX and Pius X than to his namesakes. Instead of mitigating the absurdities of Vatican I's novel declaration of papal infallibility, a declaration that stemmed almost wholly from Pius IX's paranoia about the evils ranged against him in the modern world, John Paul II tried to further it. In seeking to impose conformity of thought, he summoned prominent theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Leonardo Boff to star chamber inquiries and had his grand inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issue condemnations of their work.

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

The situation is dire. Anyone can walk into a Catholic church on a Sunday and see pews, once filled to bursting, now sparsely populated with gray heads. And there is no other solution for the church but to begin again, as if it were the church of the catacombs, an oddball minority sect in a world of casual cruelty and unbending empire that gathered adherents because it was so unlike the surrounding society.

Back then, the church called itself by the Greek word ekklesia, the word the Athenians used for their wide open assembly, the world's first participatory democracy. (The Apostle Peter, to whom the Vatican awards the title of first pope, was one of many leaders in the primitive church, as far from an absolute monarch as could be, a man whose most salient characteristic was his frequent and humble confession that he was wrong.) In using ekklesia to describe their church, the early Christians meant to emphasize that their society within a society acted not out of political power but only out of the power of love, love for all as equal children of God. But they went much further than the Athenians, for they permitted no restrictions on participation: no citizens and noncitizens, no Greeks and non-Greeks, no patriarchs and submissive females. For, as St. Paul put it repeatedly, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; for all are one in Christ Jesus."

Sadly, John Paul II represented a different tradition, one of aggressive papalism. Whereas John XXIII endeavored simply to show the validity of church teaching rather than to issue condemnations, John Paul II was an enthusiastic condemner. Yes, he will surely be remembered as one of the few great political figures of our age, a man of physical and moral courage more responsible than any other for bringing down the oppressive, antihuman Communism of Eastern Europe. But he was not a great religious figure. How could he be? He may, in time to come, be credited with destroying his church.

That's overstated, but he has been guilty of driving the progressives out and encouraging a neo-orthodox, simplistic faith that appeals to the third world where the other choices are militant, infantilized Islam or Christian pentacostalism.

One of the things that ought to be appealing about Catholicism to first world professionals is its tradition of intellectual inquiry. Sadly, that side of the Church has been in eclipse since the pontificate of Paul VI.

Mandatory Service

Support grows for beefing up U.S. forces
Some see situations where volunteers may not be enough

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Monday, April 4, 2005

Washington -- The war-strained all-volunteer U.S. military has a growing manpower problem and a cross-section of Washington policymakers has proposed a solution -- increase the size of the regular military by 30,000, 40,000 or even 100, 000 or more.

While just about all the proponents maintain they want to achieve the increase by offering recruits bigger financial incentives or through appeals to patriotism, lurking in the background is a possibility that for now remains anathema to all but a few. The military draft, which coughed up its last conscript in 1973, could make a comeback if recruiting doesn't pick up and if America's commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan turn into long-term occupations or if the Bush administration's tough-minded foreign policy means military action in places like Iran or North Korea.

It's important to note that the Bush administration adamantly scorns the idea of a resumed draft. It won't even agree to a permanent increase in the Army's size, which Congress temporarily boosted by 30,000 last year, saying instead that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military into a high-tech, mobile force will meet the nation's needs.

But the administration does admit it has a problem, particularly in filling the ranks in the 500,000-person regular Army and the 675,000-person Army National Guard and Army Reserve, which have been called upon to carry a large part of the burden of deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. In a March 23 press conference, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said that in the first two months of 2005, the active Army was meeting 94 percent of its recruiting goal, the Reserve 90 percent and the Guard 75 percent.

"Obviously, I'm concerned about the National Guard. I am cautiously optimistic about the Reserve and the active component,'' he said. "We're doing everything that we know how to do in order to meet our goals."

More recruiters are being sent out to work with young people and their parents. A new advertising agency has been brought in. The maximum enlistment age in the Guard and Reserve has been boosted from 34 to 39.

But, Harvey reiterated, there are no plans to rescind the "don't ask, don't tell'' policy that makes it impossible for gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Plans to expand

Many in Congress and in wider policy-discussion circles aren't waiting to see the results of the Pentagon's stepped-up efforts. Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. and Jack Reed, D-R.I., have proposed adding 30,000 soldiers to the Army. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has proposed a 30,000-person increase in the Army and 10, 000 to the Marines, and Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, wants to add some 20,000 to the Army, 12,000 to the Marine Corps and 29,000 to the Air Force.

A bipartisan group put together by the Project for the New American Century, a group that reflects the thinking of the neoconservatives who have been so influential in determining President Bush's military and foreign policies, sent a letter to congressional leaders in late January. In it, the signatories wrote, "it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.''

Signers included not just such neoconservative stalwarts as magazine editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol, but also Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and James Steinberg of the Brookings Institution, a Clinton administration National Security Council official.

Kerry, for one, has put a price tag on his proposed increase. The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, who says he opposes reinstating the draft, says adding 40,000 people to the regular military would cost $4.5 billion to $5 billion a year in added pay, and $2 billion to $3 billion in more benefits needed to attract and keep recruits.

Military 'stretched'

In proposing a bigger military, Tauscher said the Bush administration is "continuing to stretch the military and turn a blind eye to solutions mandated by Congress'' and "could very well break our military.''

In all, some 310,000 military personnel are serving in 120 countries around the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 40 percent of U.S. forces are members of the Guard or Reserve and some have been called up more than once.

So far, the idea of a new draft has attracted scant support in Congress. Rep Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont -- both military veterans -- want all 19-year-olds to do a year or two of national service. Military service would be one of their options.

'Political hot air'

The idea is widely attacked. "The argument for a draft is political hot air,'' said Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank that supports a smaller role for the federal government.

But he warned that if the Iraq occupation drags on, other foreign military operations are launched and a half-million more soldiers are needed, "I don't think we can get there without a draft."

"Anything less than that, I can't see it's necessary and it would be counterproductive'' by burdening the military with people who don't want to be there, Goure added.

I told you a few things about Army and Marine recruiting yesterday. All branches of the Army are in trouble. I've been talking about the draft for over a year. We'll see.

In Your Name

While the cable channels are on Popewatch, your tax dollars are at work elsewhere. They don't seem to want you to know that.

Having spent TDY in Italy, I'm sure your correspondents are having a wonderful time. The food and the hotels are really delightful.

Iraqi Sunni meeting ends in curses
(AFP)

5 April 2005

BAGHDAD - Sunni Arabs failed to pick a vice presidential candidate for Iraq’s next coalition government after their meeting in Baghdad dissolved into curses and shouting within a divided community now out of power.

“We must be tough, Kurds and Shiites want everything!” shouted one of those in attendance as they took turns to speak.

Members of the so-called National Front met one day after the newly elected parliament chose fellow Sunni Hajem al-Hassani as speaker, following an objection by Shiites over another controversial candidate they had proposed.

The Sunnis, who largely boycotted the elections, are being offered the speakership, one of the vice presidential posts and four to six cabinet posts in the prospective coalition government.

Shiites and Kurds, who dominated the January elections but are still trying to form a government, are trying to reach out to the embittered community, which is accused of leading the relentless insurgency.

Parliament was set to meet again on Wednesday to try to elect a presidency council, made up of a vice president and two deputies.

Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said that prisoners at a US-run detention camp in southern Iraq rioted last week.

“There was a riot at Camp Bucca on April 1. An ICRC delegation was there that day, on one of its regular prisoner visits, and it is now following up the situation,” said Christophe Beney, the head of the ICRC’s Baghdad delegation.

The US military denied any knowledge of a riot at the camp in southern Iraq, home to 6,054 detainees, since an outbreak on January 31 in which four inmates were killed when prison guards opened fired.

In Baghdad, a bomb went off near Abu Ghraib, another US-run prison, wounding five people, including three policemen, according to the interior ministry.

This came two days after a brazen assault by insurgents on the notorious prison where US guards humiliated and abused naked Iraqi prisoners. The attack resulted in 44 US soldiers and 13 detainees being wounded.

The US military said 40 to 60 gunmen were involved in the two-hour assault, which included two car bombs and rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds and small-arms fire. It estimated that 50 of the attackers may have been either wounded or killed.

via Informed Comment. Juan Cole also has Wesley Clark's remarks on the Iraqi guerrilla war. There was a conference call yesterday with some of the Kos people. I'm not A-list enough to get in on such things, but it is worth reading.

Third Rail

Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With BillionsBy EDUARDO PORTER

Published: April 5, 2005

STOCKTON, Calif. - Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez - who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana - contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system.

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections.

Illegal immigration, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University, noted sardonically, could provide "the fastest way to shore up the long-term finances of Social Security."

It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID's to get a job.

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book - with payroll tax deductions.

IRCA, as the immigration act is known, did little to deter employers from hiring illegal immigrants or to discourage them from working. But for Social Security's finances, it was a great piece of legislation.

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

He doesn't tell you this, but this is Bush's real Social Security plan. It is also his immigration plan.

Buy Your Hybrid Now

Iraq north pipeline hit, oil exports at standstill

04 Apr 2005 14:13:40 GMT
Source: Reuters

BAIJI, Iraq, April 4 (Reuters) - An explosion hit an oil pipeline in northern Iraq on Monday as sabotage kept exports to Turkey idle, witnesses said.

A bomb was detonated next to one of the pipelines running through the Riyad area near the refining centre of Baiji, security officials said.

It was not known whether the blast targeted the Iraq-Turkey export pipeline or one of several domestic crude and refined oil products pipelines in the area.

The export pipeline to Turkey's Ceyhan port, which has been idle for most of the past two years, was hit in Riyad last week, further delaying repairs.

The north is producing around 400,000 barrels per day, around half what the region exported before the war.

Iraq's exports have been restricted to the south with 1.4 million bpd flowing from two terminals offshore in the Gulf. Bad weather prevented loadings on Monday.

You might want to be watching Bloomberg throughout the day for more news. Oil isn't going to get cheaper. We've seen the back end of that.

Spring

In a past life, I kept a hummingbird feeder on my patio and want to do it again. It took a year or so to get the little singers to show up, but they did and charmed themselves onto my fingers and into my hair. You haven't really lived until you've been shat on by hummers. I sat there every day and they landed on my fingers. They are the most aggressive little birds and will ban both crows and hawks. Those little beaks scare the crap out of much larger birds.

I need to put up a floating hummingbird garden in a pot on either side of the feeder and I welcome your nominations for flowers for the pots. These will be flying pots, hanging from my eves. Your suggestion of flowers are welcome.

Judicial Nomination Watch

Senate Primed for Filibuster Showdown
# There is little hope that a compromise can head off GOP plans to change the rules so Democrats can no longer block federal judicial picks.

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — After months of taunts and threats, Republicans and Democrats are preparing to escalate a conflict over what each side describes as the "nuclear option" — changing the rules for confirming federal judges.

The countdown begins today when members of Congress return from a two-week spring break. According to some scenarios, it could reach legislative Armageddon by the end of the month.

At issue is whether Senate procedures will be altered so that Democrats can no longer use the most effective parliamentary weapon in their arsenal — the filibuster — to block votes on controversial nominees to the federal bench. The decision on when — or if — the battle begins rests with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

Cooler heads on both sides warn of the potential fallout: partisan warfare on a scale not seen since the government shutdown in the mid-1990s.

Democrats say removing the filibuster for judicial nominations would change the fundamental character of the Senate as designed by the Founding Fathers. In retaliation, they have threatened to grind Congress to a halt in all but its most essential functions.

Frist has offered to talk to Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about possible compromises, but neither side — nor the political interest groups backing them — holds out much hope of a deal to defuse the confrontation.

"No, I don't see any potential compromises," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal lobbying group that focuses on the court system. "Judges are too important. They serve for life."

"It's a train bearing down at everybody," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, a lobbying group. "Everyone can see it coming, but it's hard to get out of the way because each side has too much at stake."

Republicans say the fault for the conflict lies with Democrats for having filibustered 10 judges President Bush nominated to the federal bench during his first term.

"The difference now is that these are the first filibusters in history over judicial nominees," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "That has caused a tremendous amount of animosity."

Democrats note that most of Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed, and say that Republicans have abandoned the long-standing tradition of consulting with the minority party on the more controversial choices.

Judges opposed by the minority party in previous decades often were withdrawn to avoid confrontation.

After the Schiavo episode, we can all see what is at stake: an independent and constitutional judiciary which isn't a rubberstamp for a partisan and lawless majority party. Bush and the Repubs tried to turn checks and balances on its head by ordering a federal district court review of a state court decision on a state right to die law. The courts refused, as they should have, obeying the Constitution. The extreme lawlessness of the Repub majority has been completely missed by both the broadcast channels and the cable outlets. The only thing standing between you and completely stupidity on this issue is the blogs.

I talked with the benefactress of this site this afternoon, Mel Goux, now a Democratic party official in Fulton Co., Georgia. The Repubs took over the state house in the last election and have completely re-written the rules on how the houses conduct their business to the sole advantage of a lawless Repub party, with members floating between committees to pass or squash legislation in committee. Every time you see a Repub utter the words "rule of law" you should be able to see their noses grow.

"A republic, if you can keep it," said Ben Franklin. We are on the verge of losing it.

Light Posting

Working up a budget for a business proposal this afternoon and I'm swamped with research. If it works out, I'll definitely let you know because it will be on the Web.

It's a gorgeous, sunny early spring day in Virginia after weeks of rain. I'm enjoying it.

Call Your Bookie

Bookmakers picking favorites in pope derby
Associated Press
April 4, 2005

DUBLIN, Ireland -— An Italian and a Nigerian cardinal are tied as Irish bookmakers' favorites to succeed Pope John Paul II.

More than 5,000 people have placed bets on who will be the next pope with Paddy Power PLC, Ireland's largest bookmaking chain.

The early favorites are Dionigi Tettamanzi of Italy and Francis Arinze of Nigeria, both listed on 11-4 odds. That means a winning $4 bet would pay out $15.

Betting resumed today in shops and on the Internet on the question, "Who will be the next pope?'' The firm had suspended betting for one day Sunday out of respect to John Paul, who died Saturday.

The biggest bet so far, $1,300, has been on Tettamanzi. The company said most bets are for much smaller amounts.

Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras is third with 9-2 odds, while Joseph Ratzinger of Germany and Claudio Hummes of Brazil both follow with odds of 7-1.

Jaime Lucas Ortega y Alamino of Cuba, Ennio Antonelli of Italy and Christoph Schoenborn of Austria come next, all at 14-1. Giovanni Battista Re of Italy stood alone at 16-1, while three others — Dario Castrillon Hoyos of Colombia, and Crescenzio Sepe and Giacomo Biffi, both of Italy — merited 18-1.

If anybody can find links to the Vegas bookmakers, send 'em to me.

Mixed Blessings

Radical authoritarian

John Paul II's papacy has been one of the longest and most energetic of any in history of the Catholic church, but he has attracted admiration, incomprehension and loathing in almost equal measure

Leader
Monday April 4, 2005
The Guardian

One of John Paul II's greatest achievements was his role in ending the cold war and bringing down the "iron curtain" - one to which Gorbachev paid generous tribute. But having battled against two forms of totalitarianism during much of his life - Nazism and then communism - he hoped a revival of faith would succeed them and was baffled and horrified by the emergence of a triumphalist consumer capitalism. One of his greatest failings was his incomprehension of the quest for freedom of western liberal democracies. His response was to clamp down all the more tightly on the theolo gians, bishops and priests who deviated in the smallest detail from the official line, presiding over one of the most punitive, centralising Vatican regimes in recent history. On a wide range of subjects from women priests and papal authority to homosexuality, contraception and liberation theology, he ruthlessly stamped out any possibility of debate. A similar lack of compromise was evident in his stance towards other Christian churches; while he went some way towards building better relations with other faiths such as Islam and particularly Judaism, he made little progress on ecumenism.

At the same time, he developed in a series of encyclicals a critique of contemporary global capitalism which brought to bear the weight of a long moral tradition on the problems of the human condition at the turn of the millennium. He brought to his office a sharp mind and a love of philosophy - he had the intellectual's appreciation of the importance of the battle for ideas. In his unyielding interpretation of the dignity of each individual, John Paul II was at his very best as he condemned a global economy in which both inequality and the arms industry was spiralling out of control. He opposed the use of force - most notably in the second Gulf war - except as a very last resort and he upheld international law.

More divisive was his concept of a "culture of death" as he lambasted both the death penalty and abortion, which alienated many potential allies for social justice. Equally divisive was his conservatism on the position of women which was closely allied to his intense personal devotion of the Virgin Mary. But the two most serious charges against his papacy are the lamentable failure to deal honestly with allegations of child abuse and the Vatican's pernicious opposition to the use of condoms to combat Aids.

Alongside the social teaching, John Paul II sought to invigorate the spiritual traditions of the church. From his desk flowed a remarkable range of writing - poetry, meditations and encyclicals expressing his vision of the gospel and traditions such as the eucharist which were central to his faith. The sincerity and power of his own belief was evident at every point in his long life, and sustained him through evident physical suffering. His recovery from the assassination attempt in 1981 left him with recurrent physical ailments, compounded by his Parkinson's and his slow physical decline. Refusing to succumb to his frailty, his very public death as he stumbled through prayers and blessings of his final months, was part of the message he sought to convey to the world: the inescapability of suffering and its acceptance in human existence as part of God's greater purpose for redemption. It was a stark message which perhaps perplexed as many as it inspired.

Such mixed interpretations of John Paul II make him one of the most complex and paradoxical figures of his era: he humanised and modernised his office, but not his church. His uncompromising teaching contributed to the decimation of the church in its European heartland, but also to its extraordinary continuing vitality in the developing world.

The Guardian has a boatload of appraisals of John Paul's papacy that are all worth reading if you have the time. This one seems the fairest. The fact that this was one of the most punitive papacies since the institution of the Inquisition I have not seen made elsewhere. The theological doors and windows opened by the Second Vatican Council were slammed shut rather brutally by this pope.

North v. South

Church's Global Agenda Includes Economics, Islam and Science
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: April 4, 2005

The next pope faces challenges so urgent that many church leaders and analysts worry that even a pope with the charisma and capacity of John Paul II will have to resort to a strategy of triage.

The rich nations pose one set of concerns: the Roman Catholic Church is withering in Europe, the continent that once supplied it with priests, cathedrals and intellect, while in the United States, the church is self-consciously struggling to make its message relevant in a materialistic society where even religion is market driven.

The poorer countries pose a different set of concerns: in Latin America, home to 4 of every 10 Catholics in the world, priests say they cannot compete effectively with the exuberant, proliferating evangelical and Pentecostal churches. In Africa and Asia, growing Catholic populations often live uneasily among Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.

The Roman Catholic Church is, more than ever, a global institution with global problems. With more than one billion members, amounting to half the world's Christians and 17 percent of the world's population, it is the largest and wealthiest religious or charitable institution on the planet.

But the biggest concerns of the new century - the turmoil within the Muslim world and the explosive shift of economic power to India and China - did not draw the focus of John Paul. As he proved, the church's leader is capable of changing the course of history. But the church has to make choices.

"One question that the leadership of the church has to ask itself," said Christopher M. Bellitto, academic editor at Paulist Press, a large Catholic publishing house, "is will it invest most of its time and money and energy in what we used to call the third world, or will it try to pull Europe and North America back from the materialism that John Paul II said was the curse of capitalism?"

The choice may be embodied in the selection of a new pope. In the weeks leading to the conclave, the cardinals will be discussing among themselves not only who should lead, but what the church's priorities are. If they choose a candidate from Africa, or more likely, Latin America, it may signal that their primary concern is with the church in the Southern Hemisphere. Or they could choose a pope from Europe because he can speak convincingly to the West about its growing religious indifference.

Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson said, "As a church I think we're kind of tired, and I think we've lost a little bit of our confidence." The church in the United States, and in countries like Austria and Ireland, is still reeling from the disclosures of sexual abuse by priests. Bishop Kicanas's own diocese declared bankruptcy in the face of mounting lawsuits by people asserting abuse.

He says he regularly meets Catholics who are hungry for spiritual teaching but skeptical that the Catholic Church actually lives what it preaches. The major challenge facing the church is, he said, "to articulate the message of the faith in a way that's actually influential and convincing to people."

The most pressing problem facing the church, said Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, is "the secularity of our society, the passivity of people with regard to things of God."

In the third world, the church does not face the problem of making Christianity relevant. By serving the poor, refugees or people with AIDS, by speaking out on corruption, deforestation or global debt relief, churches are engaged in peoples' lives.

A crucial and delicate challenge for the next pope is relations with Islam at a time when militant Islam is on the rise. The church under John Paul focused its major interfaith and ecumenical initiatives on mending relations with Jews and Orthodox Christianity. But now the most urgent interfaith dialogue must be with Muslims, said Daniel Thompson, a theology and religious studies professor at Fordham University.

"There are many countries in the world where the Christian and Muslim populations are at odds with each other," he said. "The south of the Philippines is dominated by a Muslim majority and the northern part is Catholic. There are tensions there."

All of these reporters are missing the dirty little secret: the churches' growth in the third world is mostly paid for by parishioners in the US and Germany (because of the religion tax in Deutchland.) As faith fades in the US, so will the bucks for Third World expansion. Do you think the cardinals meeting in conclave are unaware of this? I think not.

Karl Rove v. The Catholic Church

I have to ask the question: what the hell does Adam Nagourney know about any of this? Since when does he know squat about religion?

New Pope Could Influence Political Life in America
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: April 4, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 3 - The death of Pope John Paul II came at a time when leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, reflecting the tone set by the Vatican, have become increasingly assertive in American political life. Their stance has created strains with some Catholic Democrats just as the White House has sought to make inroads with the once solidly Democratic Catholic constituency.

Advertisement

Several Catholic academics and elected officials said on Sunday that the shift - highlighted last year when some church leaders said Senator John Kerry should be denied communion because he supports abortion rights - reflected the tone set by a pope who was known for being conservative and for being willing to confront governments to press his views. They said the choice of the next pontiff could thus prove nearly as important for American political life as for the Vatican itself, as Democrats and Republicans here face increasingly pitched battles over judicial nominations, abortion, gay rights and euthanasia.

One of the potential successors to John Paul is Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, who during last year's presidential campaign said a politician who supported abortion "is not fit" to receive communion.

"I've seen an increase in directly political kinds of activity: what the responsibilities of Catholics are, how they should vote, etc.," said Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University and the author of numerous books and articles on religion and politics. "Some Vatican officials are pressing for more direct activism in public life and are willing to be more critical of public policy figures who do not take what they consider to be the right positions on policy issues."

John T. McGreevy, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, said: "John Paul had this culture of life vision. And that has sort of radicalized and emboldened some bishops."

The attempt by some Catholic Church leaders to influence American policy goes back at least to the 1930's, when bishops pressed President Franklin D. Roosevelt to create Social Security. The notion of church activism was fostered by the reforms of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago, which encouraged bishops to advocate government programs to help the poor.

But in recent years, the emphasis has shifted away from fighting poverty and standing up for civil rights, issues associated with the Democratic Party, and toward issues like opposition to abortion, gay rights and euthanasia, issues that Mr. Bush and the Republicans have embraced.

At times last year, this assertiveness went beyond policy and into electoral politics, as some bishops hinted that their parishioners should vote for Mr. Bush instead of Mr. Kerry. At St. Patrick's Church in Wareham, Mass., for example, parishioners said that at the Saturday evening Mass right after the death of the pope, they were given pamphlets notifying them that they would be asked next week to sign postcards to Mr. Kerry and the state's other Democratic senator, Edward M. Kennedy, reading: "Please do not make support of the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion decision a litmus test for judicial nominees."

The rising assertiveness of some church leaders is particularly significant for American politics because President Bush has been making a concerted effort to win support among Catholic voters. Mr. Bush's efforts are part of an overall drive by his chief adviser, Karl Rove, to make inroads among typically Democratic groups of voters.

If Karl Rove gets to redefine traditional Catholic teaching for American viewers (this is a teevee moment) Georgetown University had better go out of business.

Insanity

The Billionaires' Club
By BOB HERBERT

Welcome to the billionaires' club. Ordinary New Yorkers need not apply.

When Robert Wood Johnson IV, the fabulously wealthy owner of the New York Jets, craned his neck from a perch in the New Jersey Meadowlands (where the Jets now reside) and trained his eyes on an enormous parcel of Manhattan real estate, his heart began beating wildly and a single obsessive thought began racing through his brain: I want it.

After all, it was waterfront property, right up against the Hudson River. Very valuable. You could walk to it from Times Square.

Not only did he want this publicly owned property turned over to him so he could build a grand stadium for his privately owned franchise, he wanted the city and state to kick in hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to help him realize his dream. Being a member in good standing of the billionaires' club, he asked his fellow billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, to take care of this matter for him.

Mayor Mike was only too happy to oblige. He quickly came up with $600 million in city and state money for his pal Woody (all of Mr. Johnson's friends call him that). To put this in perspective, consider that the $600 million is nearly equivalent to the entire amount ($635 million) that Woody paid for the team. In effect, the public would be reimbursing him for the cost of the franchise.

Then Mayor Mike persuaded the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns this very valuable property on Manhattan's West Side, to agree to hand it over to Woody for a bargain-basement price, hundreds of millions shy of its real value.

So quicker than you can say "scandalous," the billionaire mayor arranged the transfer of more than a billion dollars' worth of goodies from the public domain to the private stash of his friend Woody. Quite naturally, Woody plans to use this windfall, which rightfully belongs to the men and women of New York City and New York State, to further enrich himself. Trust me, it's good to be a billionaire.

There are a few other weird things about this deal. The proposed 75,000-seat stadium - surrounded by the dense, traffic-jammed neighborhoods of Hell's Kitchen, Times Square and Chelsea - will be built with no new provisions made for parking. On game days, the entire West Side of Manhattan will be paralyzed. Fans driving to the stadium will be lucky to make it inside before the final gun.

Then there's the price tag for this stadium. Originally it was supposed to cost $1.4 billion. There is only one appropriate reaction to spending that kind of money for a football stadium: hysterical laughter. (In Philadelphia, a billion dollars bought two new stadiums.) Usually when something is overpriced, it gets marked down. But in this case the price has gone steadily up - to $1.7 billion, and then $2 billion, and now, incredibly, $2.2 billion.

Mayor Mike and his friend Woody have lost all sense of reason. Perhaps their personal fortunes (they've got the better part of $10 billion between them) have warped their sense of proportion. Spending more than $2 billion on a sports stadium is insane. As is anyone who thinks the price of this boondoggle is not going higher still.

Even as the mayor and the M.T.A. are going out of their way to finance Woody's dream, the ordinary New Yorkers who have to go to work or to school are struggling with the higher fares and deteriorating service of the transit system the M.T.A. is supposed to be running. The authority will begin closing token booths and removing token clerks from subway stations in a couple of weeks, leaving passengers in many cases dangerously vulnerable to subway predators. This is occurring even as crime in the subways is increasing.

Subway passengers are also struggling with severe service breakdowns caused by fires, flooding and other foul-ups in a system that is old and in need of billions of dollars' worth of modernization and repairs. Even as Woody Johnson is getting the royal treatment, the M.T.A.'s executive director, Katherine Lapp, has been pleading with the state for billions in additional funds just to keep the quality of transit service at an acceptable level.

New York's subway passengers are not members of the billionaires' club, so they can't be expected to get the same kind of first-class attention that the mayor's friend Woody gets. Woody is special. He has friends in high places. It's good to be a billionaire.

And you are going to get a wonderful seat at the table. Not.

The Return of the Five Question Interview

Lauren at Feministe offered me the five question interview a few weeks back and I promptly lost the email. At my request (and reader palamedes teasing) she resent it. Here are the questions and my answers.

1) When did you realize your political self? What
happened?

In 8th grade, my social studies class required some kind of service project and we were offered some volunteer opportunities. It was 1968 and I lived in the Twin Cities and ended up volunteering on the Humphrey for President campaign. I got the bug and have never lost it. My politics got more in line with my family's through high school and I took to conservatism with a passion and became a baby Bill Buckley (can you believe it:?) When I started grad school in 1978 in Boston, I encountered old east coast urban poverty for the first time and underwent a major conversion very quickly. All of my previous assumptions seemed wrong. I started moving left and never stopped.

2) You're having lunch with President Bush and there
is one thing you want to tell him. What is it?

First, I can't imagine having lunch with W. We really have nothing to say to each other, different classes, different interests and I can't imagine that he'd have anything but disdain for me. Second, I can't imagine saying anything to him that he'd be able to hear. The Bubble Boy is protected from people like me. What I would tell him is that God told me to tell him that he needs treatment for Narcissistic Personality Distorder.

3) If you could change one thing about the political
atmosphere, what would it be?

The vituperation level. If my very conservative family and I can learn to be civil with each other, the rest of us can, too. Oh, and I'd send Ann Coulter into internal exile in Gila, Arizona. Rush, Joe and Sean, however, are going to International Falls, Minnesota.

4) You have the opportunity to design your own news
network. What will it be like?

The Daily Show, and I will force Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruf not to take themselves so bloody seriously. That's the subtext to all the news today that gives it such a funky tone: everybody thinks they are so damn important, particularly inside the Beltway. I'd like to remind the newsers, particularly the TV types, that they really don't matter to anybody outside of their small circle of friends. Humility is the thing lacking the most in the TV news gigs.

5) What is one thing you have done that you don't
think any of your readers have done?

Bumpers are such a various lot, and I'm so boring, that I doubt that I've done anything they haven't done. Oh, wait, I know! I'll bet I'm the only former professional bassoonist in the lot! I can also play a full consort of recorders. If any Bumpers have ever programmed a classical music public radio station, it hasn't been brought to my attention. And I did once perform Francis Poulenc's "Trio for Oboe, Bassoon and Piano" with the Cleveland Orchestra's former first oboist, John Mack. Damn, you asked for one thing....

Some Bumpers were bum[p]med when I had to cut off the last five question interview. Here's the next installment, kids (are you listening, skdadl?) Let me know in comments if you want a five question interview. Include a functioning email address in the usual place. When you answer, put the questions and replies in comments or, if you blog, give a link to your blog post and post the exercise on your blog.

All the Way to the Top

Green light for Iraqi prison abuse came right from the top
Classified documents show the former US military chief in Iraq personally sanctioned measures banned by the Geneva Conventions. Andrew Buncombe reports from Washington

03 April 2005

America's leading civil liberties group has demanded an investigation into the former US military commander Iraq after a formerly classified memo revealed that he personally sanctioned a series of coercive interrogation techniques outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The group claims that his directives were directly linked to the sort of abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib.

Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reveal that Lt General Ricardo Sanchez authorised techniques such as the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners, stress positions and disorientation. In the documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Gen Sanchez admits that some of the techniques would not be tolerated by other countries.

When he appeared last year before a Congressional committee, Gen Sanchez denied authorising such techniques. He has now been accused of perjury.

The ACLU says the documents reveal that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere was the result of an organised and co-ordinated plan for dealing with prisoners captured during the so-called war on terror that originates at the highest levels of the chain of command. It says that far from being isolated incident, the shocking abuse at Abu Ghraib that was revealed last year was part of a pattern.

"We think that the techniques authorised by Gen Sanchez were certainly responsible for putting into play the sort of abuses that we saw at Abu Ghraib," Amirit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, told The Independent on Sunday. "And it does not just stop with Sanchez. It goes to [Defence Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, who wrote memos authorising these sorts of techniques at Guantanamo Bay."

In the September 2003 memo, Gen Sanchez authorised the use of 29 techniques for interrogating prisoners being held by the US. These included stress positions, "yelling, loud music and light control" as well as the use of muzzled military dogs in order to "exploit Arab fear of dogs". Some of the most notorious photographs to emerge from the Abu Ghraib scandal showed hand-cuffed, naked Iraqi prisoners cowering from snarling dogs.

Six weeks after Gen Sanchez issued his memo, a subsequent directive banned the use of dogs and several of the other techniques following concerns raised by military lawyers. The ACLU says that at least 12 of the techniques listed in the memo went beyond the limits for interrogation listed in the US Army's field manual.

Anybody who hasn't already worked this out hasn't been paying attention.

Tissue of Lies

Army Woes: Apathy, Hostility and a Healthy Economy

By Nathaniel R. Helms

It is easier to go to Iraq and take a bullet than it is to try and recruit young men and women for the U.S. Army, according to recruiters charged with filling the combat boots needed so desperately on the ground all over the world.

Adding to the problem is the organized resistance and sometimes-overt hostility Wadyko’s recruiters are beginning to encounter while doing their job.

This is one of those "read the whole thing" articles. The world of service recruiting is filled with deceit on every side.

Good News

President's Proposed Remedy to Curb Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Stalls
Senate Deadlocks; Democrats Plan To Use Filibuster

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page A05

Almost everywhere President Bush traveled on the campaign trail last year, he lashed out at plaintiffs' lawyers for filing "junk lawsuits" that he said were sending the cost of health care out of sight.

These days the president rarely mentions the topic, and the effort in Congress to rein in medical malpractice litigation has stalled, according to proponents and opponents of the bill.

The troubles faced by his "med-mal" proposal may signal a turn in Bush's fortunes on domestic policy. In the first three months of the year, he scored large and comparatively easy victories on legislation to restrain class-action lawsuits and to revamp bankruptcy laws to make it harder for consumers to wipe out their debts -- both measures that had been long sought by business interests.

But those proposals represented what a senior Democratic Senate aide called "low-hanging fruit," easily picked by a newly reelected president. The medical malpractice legislation -- a more complex and more controversial idea -- is proving to be a longer reach.

"The Senate is deadlocked," said Lawrence E. Smarr, president of the Physician Insurers Association of America, one of dozens of health care groups that are working in coalition to promote Bush's plan. "They're at loggerheads on the basic bill."

"They don't have the votes, and they won't get the votes," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), a staunch adversary of the president's drive.

As Kevin Drum pointed out on Friday, there is no "malpractice crisis." There are a variety of studies which demonstrate that over the last 15 years "med mal" awards have tracked with the rate of inflation and that huge premium increases have more to do with lousy investment by the insurers than with pay-outs.

If the AMA would do a better job of policing its own ranks and self-insure, there would be no crisis. 3% of MDs are responsible for 50% of malpractice suits, they are chronic offenders and should lose their licenses.

Facts Before Faith

Panel: U.S. Ignored Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page A06

Of all the claims U.S. intelligence made about Iraq's arsenal in the fall and winter of 2002, it was a handful of new charges that seemed the most significant: secret purchases of uranium from Africa, biological weapons being made in mobile laboratories, and pilotless planes that could disperse anthrax or sarin gas into the air above U.S. cities.

By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested -- and disproved -- by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday.

The work of the inspectors -- who had extraordinary access during their three months in Iraq between November 2002 and March 2003 -- was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and the intelligence community in the run-up to the war, according to the commission led by former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) and retired appellate court judge Laurence H. Silberman.

But the commission's findings, including a key judgment that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, are leading to calls for greater reliance on U.N. inspectors to test intelligence where the United States has little or no access.

"U.N. inspectors are boots on the ground," said David Albright, a nuclear specialist who accompanied the International Atomic Energy Agency to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Albright and others think the IAEA should be given greater access in Iran, and returned to North Korea. It would be up to the agency's board, which includes the United States, to authorize increased powers.

The Bush administration tussled with inspectors before the Iraq war and maintains a hostile relationship with the IAEA, whose director, Mohamed ElBaradei, the United States is trying to replace this year. The administration also wants to shut down a U.N. inspection regime led by Hans Blix that was set up to investigate biological, chemical and missile programs in Iraq.

During more than two years of investigations in Iran, the IAEA has "been critical in uncovering their secret activities so we know the scope and the status of the nuclear programs and the problems," said Albright, who has exposed unknown nuclear sites in Iran and has followed the IAEA's work there. "There is a tremendous amount of detail that the intelligence community didn't have prior to the IAEA going in and intensifying the investigation."

The White House has not publicly presented intelligence to support its assertion that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, as it did with Iraq. Instead, it routinely points to the IAEA investigation, Iran's large oil reserves and the secrecy that surrounded Iran's nuclear program for nearly two decades.

The IAEA has not found evidence that Iran is using its nuclear energy program as a cover for bomb building, as the administration claims. But those findings have been dismissed by some members of the administration.

John R. Bolton, nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has called the findings "simply impossible to believe."

And now you know why John R. Bolton is completely unsuited to be ambassador, prefering ideology over facts.

Body Armor

Drug Makers Race to Cash In on Fight Against Fat
By STEPHANIE SAUL

Published: April 3, 2005

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The L-Marc Research clinic stands at the geographic center of an American epidemic, where the meat-and-potatoes Midwest meets the chicken-fried South, and just across the street from a McDonald's.

The clinic is a leading recruitment post in the drug industry's multibillion-dollar war on fat. Desperate to be thin, overweight people eagerly respond to L-Marc's local newspaper ads for volunteers to test experimental weight-loss drugs. For each trial, the clinic is forced to turn away dozens of volunteers.

"I've had people crying on the phone," said Heather Hausberger, the dietitian who screens applicants. "They've tried everything. Nothing seems to work. A lot of people are looking for the quick fix, the magic pill."

Many drug makers, too, are seeking that magic pill. From pharmaceutical giants to tiny start-ups, the industry is spending billions of dollars developing obesity drugs. An estimated 200 possibilities are now in the research pipeline or under test among patients at dozens of clinics like L-Marc, according to MedMarket Diligence, a health care research firm.

Some drug makers say they are tackling fat in response to public health warnings of a national obesity epidemic - one that has been linked to diabetes, heart disease and other conditions and now accounts for more than $100 billion of the United States' $1.8 trillion annual medical bill. The obese are defined as those with a so-called body mass index of 30 or more. By that measure, obese people now make up one-third of the adult population.

But many drug industry analysts see a potentially even bigger market if such a drug also catches on among the more than 60 percent of adults in this country who are statistically overweight, those with a body mass index of 25 or more. Many experts also see a likelihood - some would say danger - that such a drug might appeal to millions who are by no means fat but would like to drop a few pounds.

"Everybody is just foaming at the mouth to make money" from obesity drugs, said Dr. Donna Ryan, an obesity researcher affiliated with Louisiana State University, which has received millions of dollars in government and drug-industry grants.

Industry forecasters say that an effective weight-loss drug could have annual sales far surpassing the current best-selling drug, the cholesterol treatment Lipitor, which reached $12 billion last year, especially now that Medicare says it will pay for "effective" obesity treatments.

Some experts caution that the complex variables of culture, environment, genetics and lifestyle that contribute to obesity may defy a mass-market solution. "One pill fits all doesn't seem like an outcome we'll be seeing on the horizon anytime soon," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, the physician who directs the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But most of the biggest drug makers feel financially compelled to stay in the hunt. As it becomes more and more difficult to identify blockbusters, many companies see few other prospective best sellers in their research pipelines.

Remember Phen-Fen? Been paying attention to Celebrex? Be real skeptical about whatever Big Pharma comes up with that caters to the culture. Real skeptical.

Empire's End

Panel: U.S. Ignored Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page A06

Of all the claims U.S. intelligence made about Iraq's arsenal in the fall and winter of 2002, it was a handful of new charges that seemed the most significant: secret purchases of uranium from Africa, biological weapons being made in mobile laboratories, and pilotless planes that could disperse anthrax or sarin gas into the air above U.S. cities.

By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested -- and disproved -- by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday.

"We offered eyes and ears," Hans Blix says of his U.N. team's work.

The work of the inspectors -- who had extraordinary access during their three months in Iraq between November 2002 and March 2003 -- was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and the intelligence community in the run-up to the war, according to the commission led by former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) and retired appellate court judge Laurence H. Silberman.

But the commission's findings, including a key judgment that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, are leading to calls for greater reliance on U.N. inspectors to test intelligence where the United States has little or no access.

"U.N. inspectors are boots on the ground," said David Albright, a nuclear specialist who accompanied the International Atomic Energy Agency to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Albright and others think the IAEA should be given greater access in Iran, and returned to North Korea. It would be up to the agency's board, which includes the United States, to authorize increased powers.

The Bush administration tussled with inspectors before the Iraq war and maintains a hostile relationship with the IAEA, whose director, Mohamed ElBaradei, the United States is trying to replace this year. The administration also wants to shut down a U.N. inspection regime led by Hans Blix that was set up to investigate biological, chemical and missile programs in Iraq.

During more than two years of investigations in Iran, the IAEA has "been critical in uncovering their secret activities so we know the scope and the status of the nuclear programs and the problems," said Albright, who has exposed unknown nuclear sites in Iran and has followed the IAEA's work there. "There is a tremendous amount of detail that the intelligence community didn't have prior to the IAEA going in and intensifying the investigation."

Look, Bush was looking to invade Iraq well before 9-11. Let's stop pretending that anything else was going on. After 9-11, the country gave him the will to go and kick ass where ever he wanted. We can now see how stupid that was, but we aren't really paying attention. Flight suit boy gets to play leader and we get to pretend that we notice as the world's superpower gets its ass handed to it in the sands of Mesopotamia and tries to pretend that it has a meaningful future, while it can't balance a budget and the cost of oil screams northward. Empire is done on Bushwatch II. Thank God.

Yesteryear

Moralists at the Pharmacy

Incidents in which pharmacists have refused to dispense contraceptives or morning-after pills have been reported for well over a decade, but the number may be rising. By one count there were some 180 reports of refusals in a six-month period last year, some describing earlier incidents, and the number is likely to grow now that religious conservatives are flexing their muscles in many spheres of life.

An organization of antiabortion pharmacists is pushing for professional associations and state legislatures to adopt "conscience clauses" recognizing the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense a drug or even refer the customer to a pharmacist who will; many pharmacy associations have already adopted such clauses. Several states have laws granting pharmacists the right to refuse, and legislators in at least 10 states are pushing similar legislation.

Meanwhile, legislators in other states are trying to force pharmacists to fill valid prescriptions, and Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, responding to a Chicago pharmacist's recent refusal to provide contraceptives to two women, issued a rule on Friday that pharmacies must fill contraceptive prescriptions without delay. The nationwide struggle was described in a Washington Post article last Monday.

The most responsible conscience clauses try to balance the rights of the pharmacist and the rights of the clients by insisting that steps be taken to ensure patient access to legally prescribed therapy, either through another pharmacist at the same store or through another pharmacy. That may seem at first blush like a reasonable compromise but it is a prescription for disaster in the real world.

To begin with, some pharmacists are so certain of their moral high ground that they berate, belittle or lecture their customers. They are not likely to be helpful in guiding patients to alternative supplies of medications that they deem evil. Worse yet, if this movement picks up steam, right-to-life groups in some areas may pressure one pharmacy after another to refuse service, leaving a diminished pool of pharmacies available to fill prescriptions for birth control purposes. It is disheartening that Wal-Mart, for some years now, has refused to stock the morning-after pill.

In rural areas there may not be another pharmacy nearby, so customers who are turned away may go without the medication or waste time finding another pharmacy. In the case of the morning-after pills, which work best in the first 12 to 24 hours after a sexual encounter, delay could render the treatment ineffective. Indeed, pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for morning-after pills are inadvertently strengthening the case for providing them as nonprescription medicines on the open shelves. Such availability would allow women to get the pills promptly without going first to a doctor and then to a potentially obstructionist pharmacist.

Griswold v. Connecticut was settled 40 years ago. These pharmacists are probably violating the privacy rights of their customers and are open to suit on those grounds. Once our side figures out the proper legal strategy, there will be a test case bubbling up through the courts.

Imposed morality rarely results in real conversions. It nearly always creates a bunch of beaurocracy and hooey.

That said, anybody who thinks that people are going to have less sex because some pharmacist thinks they should hasn't really studied the Bible or human nature. The Bible can and should be read as a document which catalogs human nature, and having sex with the wrong person (and having sex at all) is one of the things we haven't changed in 3,500 years of written history. Our modern moralists want to undo all that history and the human endocrine system.

Should people get a do-over when their hormones overtake their reason? On this score, I say yes, because the consequences of not doing so are too horrific.

Let the Republicans rant and rave. This is a country of laws, not men and and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Daylight Savings Time

US readers: don't forget to set your clocks ahead before your go to bed tonight! Now, I'm going to pour myself a glass of wine and take the rest of the night off. You can use this as an open thread. How's your weather? Global warming appears to be trying to wash Virginia into the sea.

Papabile

Next Challenge for the Church: Choosing a Successor
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Vatican observers have spent years now honing their ever-changing lists of cardinals who are "papabile" or potential popes. Although the chosen successor may not have made any of these lists, there are certain names that keep cropping up as the cardinals to watch.

Among the third-world contenders most often mentioned is an African, Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian with a winning personality, a compelling conversion story and years in the Vatican handling dialogue with leaders of other religions, including Islam - a useful experience for whoever is the next pope.

Several Latin American cardinals are also frequently cited. One is Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, the archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, who advanced a social justice agenda for years president of the Federation of Latin American Bishops' Conferences. Another is Cardinal Claudio Hummes, the archbishop of São Paulo, Brazil, a Franciscan who was born in Brazil of German parents. He, too, is outspoken about social justice for the poor. But he is also said to be more theologically conservative than the man he replaced; Cardinal Hummes once warned a priest who worked with AIDS patients against distributing condoms.

But Vatican experts say that the Italian cardinals have spent this long papacy figuring out how to get it back, and are not likely to cede it once again to an outsider. The pope, among his other titles, is after all the bishop of Rome, and many believe that if there is a consensus candidate from Italy, he will be given first consideration.

Among the Italians that Vatican observers are watching is Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi of Milan, a moral theologian who is close to Opus Dei, an organization of conservative Catholics. Another is Cardinal Angelo Scola, the patriarch of Venice, a media savvy intellectual who has written about bioethics, which is surely one of the immediate issues facing the next pope.

Other Italian cardinals who make the lists of papabile are Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, who has held several powerful positions in the Vatican but has little experience in the role of pastor; Cardinal Ennio Antonelli of Florence; and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, archbishop of Genoa, a canon lawyer who has served as secretary to the powerful Vatican office known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. John Paul II was a largely unknown cardinal from Poland when he was elected 26 years ago, and he has proved that a non-Italian can give the church an epic papacy.

Who ever inherits the job is going to get one I don't want: the tensions between the first and third world church alone is enough to be an ongoing migraine, engagements with the great faiths of the world is very difficult in a world that includes militant Islam and militant evangelical Christianity. His church is at war with itself and many ways.

All of the speculation about who comes next is worth some thought: JP II demonstrated, like no other modern pope, how important the position can be in an internet-linked world with interconnected economies.

My suspicion is that the Italian cardinals are going to try to pull the position back and that they will elect an older, transitional figure. Of course, that's what the College of Cardinals thought they were doing after the long papacy of Pius XII and the man selected, Angelo Roncalli, became John XXXIII who almost single handedly brought the Church into engagement with modernity for the first time when he called the Second Vatican Council in 1962.

UPDATE: Here is a link to another Laurie Goodstein story in tomorrow's NYT which assesses the American Church as JP II found it and how we left it. This is a good round up and explanation for non-Catholics. The Catholic church is a big, messy and often contradictory place and hard for even insiders to get their arms around.

UPDATE 2: James Wolcott, savvy media consumer, was checking the cable channels this afternoon:

Just a minor note on the slow-drip media deathwatch of Pope John Paul II. I've been hopping from cable channel to channel for hours while working--keeping the TV sound low--and it's been a procession of priest, priest, priest, priest, priest, priest--wall-to-wall white collars. Not a nun in sight, and barely a prominent Catholic laywoman. Some of the conversation touches on the ordination of women, the role of women in the church, the Pope's stand on abortion, but the conversation has been conducted almost exclusively among men. It's like that recent God panel on Meet the Press that consisted of five men theologizing, with Jon Meacham of Newsweek mewing the most awful pious twaddle, at one point using Bush and Dante in the same sentence with a straight face.

Another thing. After all the eulogizing the media have been doing over the last 24 hours, what will be left to say once the Pope actually dies? They've talked his death to death before having the decency to let him expire first.

UPDATE 3: The Agonist community contributes a very interesting thread with links and a beautifully written biography by team member Graham72.

Question

Is anyone besides me suffering from cognitive dissonance in the CNN coverage of the Pope's death compared with the way they covered Terri Schiavo's?

The Future is Now

Global: Sputtering

Stephen Roach (New York)

A global slowdown was inevitable in 2005 -- in my view, it was just a question of degree. The 4.8% spurt of world GDP growth in 2004 -- equaling the sharpest increase in 20 years -- was an outgrowth of the extraordinary stimulus that was put in place in 2003 as the world veered dangerously toward deflation. That stimulus obviously achieved considerable traction in 2004, but in doing so undoubtedly borrowed from gains in the future. That future is now. Unfortunately, the payback could well be exacerbated by two new global headwinds -- sharply elevated energy prices and the coming normalization of real interest rates.

An unbalanced global economy is a vulnerable global economy. As the world’s imbalances have continued to mount -- underscored by the sharp recent widening of the US current-account deficit -- those perils have only grown larger. A serious pitfall was averted in 2003 when the authorities opted for a major reflationary policy gambit. But the impacts of those efforts have now worn off. That leaves an unbalanced world with little choice other than to face up to the imperatives of global rebalancing. A slower US growth dynamic is an integral part of that rebalancing. It is up to the rest of the world as to whether there are any compensating offsets. For the time being, that does not appear to be the case. And so an unbalanced global economy is now beginning to sputter.

Communal Pathology

Others Aware of Red Lake Plans, Officials Say
As Many as Four Believed to Have Helped Plot Attack

By Dana Hedgpeth and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 2, 2005; Page A03

RED LAKE, Minn., April 1 -- As many as 20 teenagers may have known ahead of time about plans for the shooting spree that resulted in the deaths of 10 people on the Indian reservation here March 21, tribal and federal officials said Friday.

Capt. Dewayne Dow of the tribal police told a group of parents, teachers and staff at a three-hour school board meeting that authorities believe as many as 20 students were involved.

One law enforcement official said the FBI believes that as many as four students -- including gunman Jeff Weise and Louis Jourdain, a classmate arrested Sunday -- were directly involved in planning an attack on Red Lake High School, and well over a dozen others may have heard about the plot.

"There may have been as many as four of these kids who were active participants in the plot," said the official, who declined to be identified discussing an ongoing investigation. "The question is, how many other kids had some knowledge of this or had heard about it somehow? We think there were quite a few."

FBI agents plan to perform forensic analysis on 30 to 40 computers seized Friday from the high school computer laboratory, FBI and school officials said. Investigators hope to learn more from the school computers, since much of the alleged discussion and planning among Weise and his friends occurred through e-mails and instant messages, the law enforcement official said.

Those developments capped a week in which daily funerals or wakes kept many members of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa in a state of stunned disbelief.

Talk about compounding a tragedy. This says something very frightening about the pathology of life on the rez.

Justice

I spent years in ecclesiastical lay ministry and years as a labor organizer. I know a whole lot about church-based ministry and one of my oldest dreams is to organize all of the clergy into a union to get a better deal. Outside of the Christian evangelical denominations, there is a deepening clergy shortage in the US and low pay and lousy hours have a lot to do with it.

via Suburban Guerrilla:

Priests turn to unions in pay row

Giles Tremlett in Madrid
Saturday April 2, 2005
The Guardian

A group of Spanish priests yesterday placed their faith in the country's trade unions as they decided to fight salary cuts imposed by a bishop who lost millions of euros of church money on internet stocks.

The General Workers union said it had been approached by some of the 200 priests in the diocese of Castellon, eastern Spain, after Bishop Juan Antonio Reig Pla reportedly suggested they dip into their church's alms boxes to make ends meet.

Article continues
"We see them not as priests but as any other worker who is treated badly. The church is another big business," spokesman Tino Calero said.

Bishop Reig Pla imposed pay cuts of 30% or more, without prior warning, in January after his diocese's total debts rocketed to €10m (£6.8m).

"The stock exchange is a place where the rich win and the poor lose. Why was the church playing there?" asked Father Alvaro Miralles, a priest in the town of Vilafranca.

Father Miralles said his own salary had been cut from €520 (£357) a month to just €295 (£202). "We priests have to live off something," he said.

Many priests said that, although the bishop had told them to find funds in their own parishes, they had nowhere left to turn - and could not pay basic bills for electricity, telephones or gas.

"The bishop has lost it," another parish priest, Guillen Badenes, said.

The Tyranny of the Prescription Desk

Fifteen minutes of fame for pharmacists in America
PULSE (Web Log)

Note to Americans: make sure you find out whether your local pharmacy agrees to fill the prescription you think you’ll need before you need it. Articles in The Washington Post, on Alternet.org, CBSnews.com, and the Web sites of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization of Women report that the number of cases in which pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions is increasing in America.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has launched a campaign to protect women’s access to birth control in response to pro-life stands being taken by pharmacists, offering two proactive action plans for activists. In the meantime, the National Organization for Women has put together a quick-reference fact sheet which details why women should pay attention to the repercussions of the recently approved federal “Abortion Non-Discrimination Act,” which both overrides Title X guidelines requiring women to be referred for abortions upon their request, and “allows health care institutions to refuse to comply with federal and state regulations regarding a range of abortion-related services, including pharmacist referrals,” according to a heavily referenced article on the Planned Parenthood Web site.

If I, in the course of doing my job, can force my religious beliefs on you, I wonder what else I can do.

Blagojevich requires pharmacies to fill birth control orders quickly

April 1, 2005 (CHICAGO) — Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies that sell contraceptives to fill prescriptions for birth control quickly, following recent incidents in which a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill orders for contraceptives because of moral opposition.

Under the emergency rule, if the contraceptive is not in stock, the pharmacy must order it or transfer the prescription to another local pharmacy of the patient's choice, Blagojevich said. If the pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist needs to be available to fill it without delay.

Forget legalizing marijuana, we have to legalize the drugs that are already legal.

Oil and Water

Energy Insanity

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted March 29, 2005.

In the long history of monumentally bad ideas, the Cheney energy policy is a standout for reasons of both omission and commission. Dumb, dumber and dumbest.

As a general rule about Bush & Co., the more closely a policy is associated with Dick Cheney, the worse it is. Which brings us to energy policy – remember his secret task force? In the long history of monumentally bad ideas, the Cheney policy is a standout for reasons of both omission and commission. Dumb, dumber and dumbest.

Ponder this: Next year, the administration will phase out the $2,000 tax credit for buying a hybrid vehicle, which gets over 50 miles per gallon, but will leave in place the $25,000 tax write-off for a Hummer, which gets 10-12 mpg. That's truly crazy, and that's truly what the whole Cheney energy policy is.

According to the Energy Information Administration in the Department of Energy, last year's energy bill (same as this one) would cost taxpayers at least $31 billion, do nothing about the projected over-80 percent increase in America's imports of foreign oil by 2025, and increase gasoline prices. (Since every bureaucrat who tells the truth in this administration – about the cost of the drug bill or the safety of Vioxx – seems to get the ax, I'm probably getting those folks in trouble.)

The bill is loaded with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for big oil. Meanwhile, Bush's budget cuts funding for renewable energy research and programs, and anyone who tells you different is lying.

Now, here's the Catch-22 we get with this administration: It is using the exact language of the bill's critics – stealing it wholesale and using it to promote its bill. It's our friend Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who specializes in "framing" issues (framing means the same thing as spinning, and in the non-political world it is known as lying), at work again. Luntz put out a memo in January: "Eight Energy Communication Guidelines for 2005" telling R's how to talk about energy using language people like.

The Natural Resources Defense Council found a Bush speech on energy on March 9 in Ohio that parrots Luntz's suggestions to a laughable point – threat to national security, diversity of supply, innovation, conservation and (my fave) Point 4, "The key principle is 'responsible energy exploration.' And remember, it's NOT drilling for oil. It's responsible energy exploration."

So there was Bush, as per Luntz's memo, talking about "environmentally responsible exploration" and announcing one of his top energy objectives is "to diversify our energy supply by developing alternative sources of energy." Polling shows 70 percent of Americans support a drastic increase in government spending on renewable energy sources.

I'm tired of arguing about whether Bush is so ignorant he doesn't know that he is cutting alternative energy programs and subsidizing oil companies or so fiendishly clever that he knows and doesn't care what he says. In the end, it doesn't make any difference. You get wretched policy either way.
....
t is possible with existing technology to build a car that gets 500 miles per gallon, but the Bushies won't even raise the CAFÉ (fuel efficiency) standards for cars coming out now. The trouble with the Bush plan to develop hydrogen cars is that while you can get hydrogen out of water, you have put energy in to get it out, so there's a net energy loss.

Conservation is simply the cheapest and most effective way of addressing this problem. If you put a tax on carbon, it would move industry to wind or solar power. Wind power here in Texas is at the tipping point now – comparably priced. Our health, our environment, our economy and the globe itself would all benefit from a transition to renewable energy sources.

And as Tom Friedman recently pointed out, it would do a lot for world peace, too: "By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists – and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them – through our gasoline purchases."

I'll take Molly's questions and raise you 5: where do we go first, to the oil wars or the water wars?

Weakovery

Real wages: two years of losses
The economy has been in recovery since late 2001 and has been creating jobs since the fall of 2003. But despite the upward trend for jobs, the hourly wages of most workers (the 80% of workers who are in manufacturing or non-managerial services) have failed to keep up with inflation over the last two years. In the first quarter of 2005, real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) wages were 0.2% below those of the same quarter a year earlier. Real wages have fallen 0.3% over the last two years after rising by 2.0% over the prior two years starting in early 2001. The chart below shows the worsening real wage trends since early 2001. This erosion of real wages despite rapid productivity growth and continued job growth is disappointing and a real detriment to working families' living standards.

Job recovery still lags far behind
Payroll jobs are now 415,000, or 0.3%, greater than at the start of the recession 4 years ago (March 2001). However, private-sector jobs are still down by 389,000, a contraction of 0.3%. The 804,000 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 6.3% more jobs (6.4% 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 7,140,000 more private-sector jobs today.

Turning the Page

I feel like I have to say something about the passing of the Pope, John Paul II, which seems imminent. Since I'm both a public Catholic and a liberal, politically and theologically, I obviously have some differences with this leader of worldwide Catholicism. He has been a champion for the poor, a constant seeker for peace and justice. For those things and his role (a substantial one) in Solidarnosc's rise and the peaceful removal of a brutal dictatorship in his Poland, he will be remembered as one of the great figures of the 20th. century. Justifiably so.

As a theologian (and he was that) his theology of the human body took the Church back to the 12th century, overturned most of what science has learned about the human person, in biology and psychology, and returned it to a "natural law" tradition that never met the Enlightenment or modernity. He also presided over a reform of canon law which is simply admirable in codifying a theology of the laity which even the Unitarians could learn something from. His outreach to other denominations and faiths was simply historic, a postmodern turn. He will probably be a pivotal figure in the history of the Church, but I am unable to say which way the judgement of history will go. Like most liberals, I'm saddened by the passing of this giant figure on the world's stage and curious about what comes next. The Holy Spirit blows where she will.

I pray his passing is without further suffering and that God's will be done.

Class Act

If you read nothing else today, read yankeedoodle's open letter to a brother officer who wrote to call him un-American in his criticism of the Iraq war. yd is the hardest working man in the blogosphere and I have the utmost respect for him. An excerpt:

In the first Iraq War, I was an operations officer on an artillery assault command post. On the last day of the war, I accepted the surrender of an Iraqi artillery battery led by a very brave Iraqi artillery captain. My sergeants and soldiers gave the Iraqi soldiers food and water, and our medics treated the Iraqi wounded. I was very proud of my men that day because they treated those Iraqi soldiers with compassion and dignity.

YD
CW4, USA (Ret)

Go read it all and learn what it means to be "an officer and a gentleman." On a day when many moving things have been written about the historic events of this day, this moved me like nothing else. This is the way my father, a Major, taught me to treat people and to lead. I salute you, yankeedoodle.

Trashing the Bill of Rights

Stepford Town Meetings

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A27

The Bush Social Security tour consists of strictly controlled political meetings similar in spirit to the authoritarian style of Bush rallies during the 2004 campaign. In a famous instance last September, a distraught mother whose son was killed in Iraq was arrested for protesting at a New Jersey rally for first lady Laura Bush. The charges were later dropped, which makes you ask why she was charged in the first place.

The White House's explanation for the treatment of the Denver Three was not reassuring. "If they want to disrupt the event, then I think that obviously they're going to be asked to leave the event," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. But this is free speech preemption. The three had not disrupted the event. Do we live in a country where the president's representatives are authorized to read citizens' minds to determine who is suitable to hear his speeches?

Yes, all presidents try to present themselves in the best light, a fact acknowledged by Joe Lockhart and Doug Sosnik, top aides to former president Bill Clinton who also helped John Kerry in 2004. "We clearly used our allies to try to build crowds," Sosnik said of the Clinton approach. But the Clintonians did not exclude opponents, as a review of scores of news stories reporting hecklers at Clinton speeches confirmed. "I'd guess that at one out of every six events, people heckled," Lockhart said, "and Clinton came out ahead." Facing dissent head-on is part of the job description for the leader of a free people.

And so you wonder why a president who sells himself as a tough, confident bring-'em-on type of guy seems so anxious about facing average citizens who disagree with him. Why does he insist on being surrounded, always, by people who tell him that he's right and great and wonderful?

Some of Bush's Social Security events have been held at public colleges and universities. Conservatives, sometimes rightly, complain about the oppressive nature of liberal "political correctness." But why should institutions devoted to free inquiry allow themselves to be used for the Republican form of political correctness, in which party officials ensure the orthodoxy of Bush's crowds? Shouldn't universities tell the president he is most welcome, as long as he upholds the traditions of free speech by permitting opponents and supporters alike to hear him? And if the president is serious about transcending partisanship, why does he taunt his adversaries at partisan rallies where the opposition is told to get lost by guys in smiley-face ties?

Um, E.J.? What you've just laid out is Bush's unilateral repeal of the first amendment, using taxpayer dollars. Rather than writing reasonable opinion pieces, shouldn't you be using your privileged position to scream bloody murder?

Excuses for Hegemony

Doubts on Weapons Were Dismissed

By Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01

As former secretary of state Colin L. Powell worked into the night in a New York hotel room, on the eve of his February 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, CIA officers sent urgent e-mails and cables describing grave doubts about a key charge he was going to make.

On the telephone that night, a senior intelligence officer warned then-CIA Director George J. Tenet that he lacked confidence in the principal source of the assertion that Saddam Hussein's scientists were developing deadly agents in mobile laboratories.

"Mr. Tenet replied with words to the effect of 'yeah, yeah' and that he was 'exhausted,' " according to testimony quoted yesterday in the report of President Bush's commission on the intelligence failures leading up to his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Tenet told the commission he did not recall that part of the conversation. He relayed no such concerns to Powell, who made the germ- warfare charge a centerpiece of his presentation the next day.

That was one among many examples -- cited over 692 pages in the report -- of fruitless dissent on the accuracy of claims against Iraq. Up until the days before U.S. troops entered Iraqi territory that March, the intelligence community was inundated with evidence that undermined virtually all charges it had made against Iraq, the report said.

In scores of additional cases involving the country's alleged nuclear and chemical programs and its delivery systems, the commission described a kind of echo chamber in which plausible hypotheses hardened into firm assertions of fact, eventually becoming immune to evidence.

We're all clear on that fact that the Bushies were planning to go into Iraq well before 9/11, right? The intelligence was shaped to fit that scenario, and I don't think anybody really following the PNAC manifesto thinks anything different. I don't understand why the conventional media have failed to read what is sitting on the Web right under their noses.

Iraq: The Metrics

IRAQ INDEX
Tracking Reconstruction and Security
in Post-Saddam Iraq

Michael O'Hanlon spearheads the Iraq Index project at Brookings, with assistance from Senior Research Assistant Adriana Lins de Albuquerque. O'Hanlon is a Foreign Policy Studies senior fellow and served on a U.S. government delegation to Iraq to review post-war progress.

Ignore the Pentagon. Read the facts from Brookings.

Grading on a Curve

Pentagon Blamed for Lack of Postwar Planning in Iraq

By Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A03

A study of U.S. military operations in Iraq, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, sharply criticizes Pentagon attempts to plan for the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion two years ago, saying stabilization and reconstruction issues "were addressed only very generally" and "no planning was undertaken to ensure the security of the Iraqi people."

The study, done by the Rand Corp., an independent research group that was created by the U.S. government and frequently does analyses for the Pentagon, also says the experience in Iraq has underscored the Pentagon's tendency "not to absorb historical lessons" when battling insurgencies. It notes a lack of political-military coordination and of "actionable intelligence" in the counterinsurgency campaign, and urges creation in the Army of a "dedicated cadre of counterinsurgency specialists."

The study highlights shortcomings as well in the conduct of the invasion. It cites inflated expectations at the outset about airstrikes in toppling the Baghdad government, poor performance by Apache helicopters in attack missions, delays in bomb damage assessments, gaps in tactical intelligence for battlefield commanders, disruptions in supply lines and inadequate coordination between Special Operations units and conventional forces.

Although the report notes that Iraq's poorly trained and ill-equipped forces proved "no match" for U.S. troops, it says the conflict exposed some important problem areas for the U.S. military that need fixing.

"There is a case for change, and even urgency, in those areas where problems arose even in such favorable conditions," concludes the confidential report, a copy of which was made available to The Washington Post.

Rumsfeld, who received the report last month, sent it to members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and civilian leaders of the military services with a March 1 cover note saying the Rand recommendations "are worth our careful consideration." He set a deadline of yesterday for responses and added that he had asked his then-deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, to gather the group together "and discuss what changes might be appropriate."

Basically, our rulers are completely stupid and incompetent. How many think tank studies do we need before we come to the same conclusion? If you or I performed as badly as Don Rumsfeld, we'd have been fired long ago.

This isn't really hard to understand. Any of us who have ever worked for a living have gone through numerous performance reviews. Either you get the job done, or you get canned. Perform or be gone.

Rummy, be gone. You don't even know what the job is.

Mirrors and Blue Smoke

Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

By John F. Harris and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.

Berger's plea agreement, which was described yesterday by his advisers and was confirmed by Justice Department officials, will have one of former president Bill Clinton's most influential advisers and one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy advisers in a federal court this afternoon.

The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."

Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.

Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney, said in a statement: "Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives."

Now can we talk about all of Tom De Lay's ethical violations? This crap is nothing more than a smoke screen and the happy puppies at the Post willingly lap it up.

Bleeding USA

We Can't Remain Silent
By BOB HERBERT

Published: April 1, 2005

At dinner on a rainy night in Manhattan this week, I listened to a retired admiral and a retired general speak about the pain they've personally felt over the torture and abuse scandal that has spread like a virus through some sectors of the military.

During the dinner and in follow-up interviews, Rear Adm. John Hutson, who is now president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., and Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a lawyer in private practice in New York, said they believed that both the war effort and the military itself have been seriously undermined by official policies that encouraged the abuse of prisoners.

Both men said they were unable to remain silent as institutions that they served loyally for decades, and which they continue to love without reservation, are being damaged by patterns of conduct that fly in the face of core values that most members of the military try mightily to uphold.

"At some point," said General Cullen, "I had to say: 'Wait a minute. We cannot go along with this.' "

The two retired officers have lent their support to an extraordinary lawsuit that seeks to hold Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ultimately accountable for policies that have given rise to torture and other forms of prisoner abuse. And last September they were among a group of eight retired admirals and generals who wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to create an independent 9/11-type commission to fully investigate the problem of prisoner abuse from the top to the bottom of the command structure.

Admiral Hutson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000, said he felt sick the first time he saw the photos of soldiers abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. "I felt like somebody in my family had died," he said.

Even before that, he had been concerned by the Bush administration's decision to deny the protections of the Geneva Conventions to some detainees, and by the way prisoners at Guantánamo Bay were being processed and treated. He said that when the scandal at Abu Ghraib broke, "I knew in my soul that it was going to be bigger than that, that we had just seen the tip of the iceberg and that it was going to get worse and worse and worse."

The letter to President Bush emphasized the wide scope of the problem, noting that there were "dozens of well-documented allegations of torture, abuse and otherwise questionable detention practices" involving prisoners in U.S. custody. It said:

"These reports have implicated both U.S. military and intelligence agencies, ranging from junior enlisted members to senior command officials, as well as civilian contractors. ... No fewer than a hundred criminal, military and administrative inquiries have been launched into apparently improper or unlawful U.S. practices related to detention and interrogation. Given the range of individuals and locations involved in these reports, it is simply no longer possible to view these allegations as a few instances of an isolated problem."

Admiral Hutson and General Cullen have worked closely with a New York-based group, Human Rights First, which, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the lawsuit against Mr. Rumsfeld. A report released this week by Human Rights First said that the number of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan has grown to more than 11,000, and that the level of secrecy surrounding American detention operations has intensified.

Burgeoning detainee populations and increased secrecy are primary ingredients for more, not less, prisoner abuse.

One of the many concerns expressed by Admiral Hutson and General Cullen was the effect of the torture and abuse scandal on members of the military who have had nothing to do with it. "I think it does stain the honor of people who didn't participate in it at all," said Admiral Hutson. "People in the military who find that kind of behavior abhorrent are painted with the same broad brush."

Bob, perhaps it hasn't struck you yet. I now live in a nation which sanctions torture. It is done in my name and makes me feel sick. I don't assent, but my dissent doesn't
keep it from happening.

If the military people feel bad, well, they are the authors and signed up for it. I didn't. I was born into a country which pretended to be a moral entity. In the last 4 years, I've been embarrassed for my country. Now it hurts to be an American.

A life Well lived

Pope in 'Very Grave' Condition After Suffering a Heart Attack
By IAN FISHER

Published: April 1, 2005

VATICAN CITY, Friday, April 1 - The condition of Pope John Paul II was "very grave," the Vatican said early on Friday, and he was given last rites after suffering a heart attack on Thursday.

The pope, 84, whose health has taken a steep dive in the past two months, had decided not to go to the hospital, and on Friday morning was "conscious, lucid and tranquil," his spokesman said Friday. He has also developed a high fever because of a urinary tract infection, the Vatican said.

In a terse statement on Thursday of three sentences, the chief spokesman, Dr. Joaquín Navarro-Valls, said the pope, who has looked gaunt and weak as his health has declined in recent weeks, was receiving antibiotics to treat the infection.

"The clinical situation is being closely watched by the Vatican medical team treating him," the statement said.

With little information from the Vatican - and amid a flow of pilgrims to St. Peter's Square with the news that the pope's health had worsened - there seemed conflicting signs of just how grave this latest crisis was.

Quoting anonymous Vatican sources, ANSA, the Italian news agency, said the pope was responding well to the antibiotics. Nicola Cerbino, a spokesman for the Gemelli clinic in Rome, where the pope was admitted twice in February with the flu and serious problems breathing, said there were no plans to readmit him "tonight - at least for the moment."

Other Italian news agencies reported that the pope, who has suffered for years from Parkinson's disease, had been administered the Roman Catholic sacrament for the sick and dying, often known as last rites and formerly called Extreme Unction. There was no confirmation from the Vatican, and spokesmen for the pope could not be reached early on Friday morning.

The last time he is known to have been administered the last rites was on May 13, 1981, after he was shot by a would-be assassin in St. Peter's Square, almost three years after he was chosen pope.

Early this morning, the pitch of worry around the Vatican and among the pilgrims and tourists was especially high, after a Holy Week in which he was too ill and feeble to attend any of the ceremonies except for Mass on Easter Sunday. Even then he was so weak that no words came out of his mouth when he tried to deliver his traditional Easter blessing from the window of his apartment overlooking St. Peter's Square.

On Wednesday, in his most recent public appearance, he again tried to speak, but also failed. Hours later, the Vatican announced that doctors had threaded a feeding tube through his nose and into his stomach to ensure that he was properly nourished. The news came in the first medical statement from the Vatican in more than two weeks and, unlike a string of earlier, more upbeat reports, it characterized the pope's recovery as "slow."

After months of what seemed relatively stable health, the pope's condition has declined since Feb. 1, when he was admitted to Gemelli hospital suffering from flu, fever and spasms of the throat that caused severe problems breathing. He was discharged on Feb. 10, but was taken back to the hospital two weeks later with similar symptoms. That night, doctors performed a tracheotomy to assist his breathing.

My candle burns at both ends
It will not last the night
But Oh, my friends
and Oh, my foes
It gives a wonderful light.

--Emily Dickenson