I am ready to at least predict that Obama, Romney, and Edwards will loose and will not even come close to winning their parties nomination. They are already out the race to the next president of the United States. Read my blog, my political predictions are about 80% spot on. These candidates can maybe save time if they replace some key campaign staffers, but quickly. After reading this article one would guess they all have the same campaign manager or marketing firm, a loosing one. You tell me?
Romney, you're a Republican.
Edwards, you blew your shot.
Obama, my brother, some free advice. Change your name Mr. Vice-President to be.
Political
Presidential Hopefuls Buzzword Takes Off
Source: Associated Press Newswires 02/21/2007
WASHINGTON (AP) - Meet the transformers. No, they're not toy action figures or electrical components. They're candidates for president, and transformational leadership is their calling card.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama announced he was running for president by declaring, "I want to transform this country."
Republican Mitt Romney launched his candidacy by telling people, "If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now."
And Democrat John Edwards revved up his second presidential bid by offering "transformational change that will strengthen this country," as he phrased it in a recent Associated Press interview.
Just what is a transformational leader?
Presidential historian James MacGregor Burns, whose 1978 book "Leadership" is widely admired and studied, wrote that a "transformational leader stands on the shoulders of his followers, expressing coherently those ideas which lie inchoate in the hearts of the followers -- and in the process makes his followers into new leaders."
That's what Howard Dean tried to do in 2004 with his grass-roots-powered populism -- until his primeval scream in Iowa drowned out the whole thing.
Democratic consultant Joe Trippi, who helped to frame Dean's campaign after reading Burns' book, welcomes the talk about transformational leadership rippling through the early campaign rhetoric this time.
"You see it now popping up on the Internet," he says. "I think it's a very healthy thing that at least we're in some discussion."
He's not sure, however, that the candidates realize how hard it is to avoid the more traditional "transactional" form of political leadership typified by pitches such as: "I'll give you a tax cut for your vote."
"Any one of these candidates could be a truly transformational candidate," Trippi says, "and any one of them could immediately revert to being transactional."
Al Gore, who so far is staying out of the race, has clearly become a transformational leader with his campaign to fight global warming, Trippi says. But if he got back into the race, "the one question mark would be: Does running ruin him being a transformational guy?"
Burns, now 88, is happy to see that candidates are talking about transformational leadership, but he's not sure they fully understand it. And even if they do, he says, "it's hard for them to realize that you don't just suddenly turn yourself into a transforming leader."
From what he's seen of the candidates so far, Burns said: "I think it's a fancy choice of words to indicate that they're going to do big things. Will they do big things? No, not in my view."
The candidates themselves speak of the need for transformation with dead-serious earnestness. Edwards, for example, is out front in calling for tax increases to pay for universal health care coverage. "On these big issues like Iraq and health care, I want to lead, not follow," he said.
Romney uses his transformational pitch to try to distinguish himself from Washington politics-as-usual. "I don't believe Washington can be transformed from within by lifetime politicians," he said.
Obama managed to tweak Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's signature line that "I'm in it to win it," when he expanded on that: "I want to win, but I don't just want to win. I want to transform the country."
It's not just the 2008 candidates who have tried to claim the mantle of transformational leader.
President Bush's aides have often spoken of his desire to be a transforming leader.
But Burns dismisses that notion out of hand.
"I can't imagine him even being serious about that," the scholar said.
Republican consultant Rich Galen thinks that all the "transformational" talk is nothing more than the latest fad in presidential packaging.
"This is the 2008 version of 'soccer mom,'" he said, evoking a catch phrase from campaigns past. And, Galen adds, probably not a very smart one.
"Candidates that are on the edge, no matter how transforming their ideas are, don't really go very far because they just make people uncomfortable," he said. "American politics generally is glacial in its changes. The notion of having somebody burst upon that scene that just changes everything happens very rarely."
Wayne Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said people are "fairly cynical about grandiose claims and terms, and what does it translate into specifically."
"The question of what we're really ready for is complicated," he said. "I'm all for change -- as long as it make me healthier, younger and richer."
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Clinton in Liberty City, FL
Political
Clinton makes early bid to court black voters; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped in Liberty City, as Florida draws candidates earlier than ever before. CAMPAIGN 2008 LIBERTY CITY
Source: The Miami Herald 02/21/2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Liberty City Tuesday for her first public appearance in Florida as a presidential candidate, signaling that she won't forfeit black voters to Democratic rival Barack Obama.
The senator from New York and former first lady set an informal tone at the Joseph Caleb Community Center, fielding questions from community activists seated all around her. She reminded the crowd that she had visited nearby Charles Drew Elementary School 13 years ago, calling out to the former principal, Fred Morley.
''I've been to Liberty City before, so I am happy to be back,'' she said.
Clinton's visit to Florida also generated hundreds of thousands of dollars from private campaign fundraisers in Coconut Grove, Hollywood and Tampa.
Though two South Florida members of Congress -- Alcee Hastings and Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- endorsed Clinton Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who hosted the public forum with her, did not join them. Considered a rising star, Meek said he wanted his constituents to hear Clinton first and that he would make a decision soon.
''It spoke volumes to me that someone ingrained in politics in Florida since 1991 would come here,'' Meek said. ``Usually, a stop like this in the black community is a month or two before the election.''
EARLIER PRIMARY
But the 2008 presidential campaign is far from usual. State lawmakers are poised to bump up the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the last Tuesday in January. That means Florida could, for the first time, play a make-or-break role in choosing presidential nominees.
Clinton's visit follows Florida appearances in the past few days by two Republican candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Florida voters preferred Clinton over her Democratic opponents in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
''But can we ever elect a woman?'' Clinton asked the cheering crowd. ``We'll never know until we try. I am proud to be a woman . . . but I'm not running as a woman candidate. I am running because I believe I'm the best qualified and experienced candidate, who can hit the ground running.''
Clinton did not make any policy-related news Tuesday, repeating her call for universal healthcare and her opposition to President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. She also repeated her support for immigration reform that gives illegal workers a chance to become citizens.
''Let's bring them out of the shadows,'' Clinton said. ``If they're criminals, let's deport them, but for all the others, let's give them a path to legalization. But don't let them jump the line over people who have been waiting legally.''
Clinton responded to several questions of particular concern to minorities, like the achievement gap between white and black students. When asked about helping poor people, she referred to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who cultivated widespread support among black voters.
''We're not talking about ancient history,'' she said of his administration. ``We know what to do. We just have to look back a few years.''
Clinton recently hired Mo Elleithee, who knows Florida politics from working on Bob Graham's 2004 presidential campaign and Janet Reno's 2002 bid for governor. Reno lost to Democratic nominee Bill McBride, whose failure to inherit her popularity among black voters was partly blamed for his loss to then-Gov. Jeb Bush.
''Clearly it is an important constituency, and we're going to spend a lot of time campaigning and talking to folks in the community and in every community,'' Elleithee said.
Several black voters who attended Clinton's hourlong event said they faced a tough choice between her and Obama, campaigning to be the first black president.
`WE'RE TORN'
''We're torn, but when it comes down to it, you have to go with your heart, and I believe it will take a woman to straighten us out,'' said Beverly Bush, an AARP activist from Miami Gardens.
Miami Gardens Mayor Shirley Gibson said she hasn't made up her mind yet.
''As a black woman, at the end of the day I will make the decision of who is best for my community and my country,'' she said.
Obama supporters said they are confident he will pick up more support among black voters in Florida as the race proceeds.
''Like every other segment of America, you have to work for the vote,'' said Obama fundraiser Kirk Wagar, a Coconut Grove attorney. ``The numbers now certainly don't indicate where the race will end up.''
Clinton has the advantage of having campaigned in Florida since 1991, when Obama was just graduating from Harvard Law School.
Clinton makes early bid to court black voters; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped in Liberty City, as Florida draws candidates earlier than ever before. CAMPAIGN 2008 LIBERTY CITY
Source: The Miami Herald 02/21/2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Liberty City Tuesday for her first public appearance in Florida as a presidential candidate, signaling that she won't forfeit black voters to Democratic rival Barack Obama.
The senator from New York and former first lady set an informal tone at the Joseph Caleb Community Center, fielding questions from community activists seated all around her. She reminded the crowd that she had visited nearby Charles Drew Elementary School 13 years ago, calling out to the former principal, Fred Morley.
''I've been to Liberty City before, so I am happy to be back,'' she said.
Clinton's visit to Florida also generated hundreds of thousands of dollars from private campaign fundraisers in Coconut Grove, Hollywood and Tampa.
Though two South Florida members of Congress -- Alcee Hastings and Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- endorsed Clinton Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who hosted the public forum with her, did not join them. Considered a rising star, Meek said he wanted his constituents to hear Clinton first and that he would make a decision soon.
''It spoke volumes to me that someone ingrained in politics in Florida since 1991 would come here,'' Meek said. ``Usually, a stop like this in the black community is a month or two before the election.''
EARLIER PRIMARY
But the 2008 presidential campaign is far from usual. State lawmakers are poised to bump up the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the last Tuesday in January. That means Florida could, for the first time, play a make-or-break role in choosing presidential nominees.
Clinton's visit follows Florida appearances in the past few days by two Republican candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Florida voters preferred Clinton over her Democratic opponents in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
''But can we ever elect a woman?'' Clinton asked the cheering crowd. ``We'll never know until we try. I am proud to be a woman . . . but I'm not running as a woman candidate. I am running because I believe I'm the best qualified and experienced candidate, who can hit the ground running.''
Clinton did not make any policy-related news Tuesday, repeating her call for universal healthcare and her opposition to President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. She also repeated her support for immigration reform that gives illegal workers a chance to become citizens.
''Let's bring them out of the shadows,'' Clinton said. ``If they're criminals, let's deport them, but for all the others, let's give them a path to legalization. But don't let them jump the line over people who have been waiting legally.''
Clinton responded to several questions of particular concern to minorities, like the achievement gap between white and black students. When asked about helping poor people, she referred to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who cultivated widespread support among black voters.
''We're not talking about ancient history,'' she said of his administration. ``We know what to do. We just have to look back a few years.''
Clinton recently hired Mo Elleithee, who knows Florida politics from working on Bob Graham's 2004 presidential campaign and Janet Reno's 2002 bid for governor. Reno lost to Democratic nominee Bill McBride, whose failure to inherit her popularity among black voters was partly blamed for his loss to then-Gov. Jeb Bush.
''Clearly it is an important constituency, and we're going to spend a lot of time campaigning and talking to folks in the community and in every community,'' Elleithee said.
Several black voters who attended Clinton's hourlong event said they faced a tough choice between her and Obama, campaigning to be the first black president.
`WE'RE TORN'
''We're torn, but when it comes down to it, you have to go with your heart, and I believe it will take a woman to straighten us out,'' said Beverly Bush, an AARP activist from Miami Gardens.
Miami Gardens Mayor Shirley Gibson said she hasn't made up her mind yet.
''As a black woman, at the end of the day I will make the decision of who is best for my community and my country,'' she said.
Obama supporters said they are confident he will pick up more support among black voters in Florida as the race proceeds.
''Like every other segment of America, you have to work for the vote,'' said Obama fundraiser Kirk Wagar, a Coconut Grove attorney. ``The numbers now certainly don't indicate where the race will end up.''
Clinton has the advantage of having campaigned in Florida since 1991, when Obama was just graduating from Harvard Law School.
Iraq welcomes British troop reduction
Political
Iraqi politicians welcome British troop reduction
Source: Guardian Unlimited 02/21/2007
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"We honour their sacrifices in helping Iraqis to live in freedom. The redeployment comes in the context of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi government, but activating the economy is the real key to stability."
Mr Salih said the new funds for Basra would be spent "on improving power and water supplies to the city as well as health and sewage and tackling unemployment".
He added that there were also plans to develop Basra's moribund port into the largest and most profitable in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, civic leaders and residents in Basra expressed relief at what they saw as the first step toward the end of the difficult British presence there.
Hakim al-Mayyahi, an influential member of the city's provincial council, said Mr Blair's statement was long overdue.
"Lately, they [the British troops] were not helping the stability of the security situation in Basra," he added. "On the contrary, their constant conflicts with the anti-British groups here was simply contributing to a negative impact among the public."
Mr al-Mayyahi said the city could do without the British presence, and would "depend on extra troops from Baghdad in case of emergencies".
The majority Shia city has largely avoided the sectarian violence and insurgency gripping Baghdad and central Iraq. But fierce rivalry for control among Shia groups and militias and oil-smuggling gangs, all of whom at times have targeted British forces, has kept it on a knife-edge.
Salam al-Maliki, a senior official in the bloc loyal to the radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - which has long opposed a foreign presence in Iraq - said any violence in the city would cease once the foreign troops had left.
"The militias and militant groups in these areas only fired their weapons at the occupier and, when they go, all of the violence here will end," he said.
Jasim al-Obeidi, a Sunni resident of Basra, agreed. "This is very good news, because the British were behind the lack of security," he said. "The city will be much quieter without them."
However, some expressed trepidation at the potential negative consequences of a withdrawal of British forces before their Iraqi counterparts were fully ready to take responsibility for security.
Ali Haidar, a 43-year-old civil servant, agreed with the idea of withdrawal, "but not at the moment." He said: "Iraqi security troops were not prepared to undertake security, and they lack training and weapons.
"Besides, the police in particular are infiltrated by members loyal to special groups, not to the state."
Ahmed al-Bakr, a teacher, said: "We need more time. The British have been acting as a referee between the rival groups, and if they leave it will be like a football game without a referee - chaos."
One senior provincial official in Basra said: "If, after four years, they can't withdraw 1,600 troops without destabilizing the situation, then God help us."
Iraqi politicians welcome British troop reduction
Source: Guardian Unlimited 02/21/2007
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"We honour their sacrifices in helping Iraqis to live in freedom. The redeployment comes in the context of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi government, but activating the economy is the real key to stability."
Mr Salih said the new funds for Basra would be spent "on improving power and water supplies to the city as well as health and sewage and tackling unemployment".
He added that there were also plans to develop Basra's moribund port into the largest and most profitable in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, civic leaders and residents in Basra expressed relief at what they saw as the first step toward the end of the difficult British presence there.
Hakim al-Mayyahi, an influential member of the city's provincial council, said Mr Blair's statement was long overdue.
"Lately, they [the British troops] were not helping the stability of the security situation in Basra," he added. "On the contrary, their constant conflicts with the anti-British groups here was simply contributing to a negative impact among the public."
Mr al-Mayyahi said the city could do without the British presence, and would "depend on extra troops from Baghdad in case of emergencies".
The majority Shia city has largely avoided the sectarian violence and insurgency gripping Baghdad and central Iraq. But fierce rivalry for control among Shia groups and militias and oil-smuggling gangs, all of whom at times have targeted British forces, has kept it on a knife-edge.
Salam al-Maliki, a senior official in the bloc loyal to the radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - which has long opposed a foreign presence in Iraq - said any violence in the city would cease once the foreign troops had left.
"The militias and militant groups in these areas only fired their weapons at the occupier and, when they go, all of the violence here will end," he said.
Jasim al-Obeidi, a Sunni resident of Basra, agreed. "This is very good news, because the British were behind the lack of security," he said. "The city will be much quieter without them."
However, some expressed trepidation at the potential negative consequences of a withdrawal of British forces before their Iraqi counterparts were fully ready to take responsibility for security.
Ali Haidar, a 43-year-old civil servant, agreed with the idea of withdrawal, "but not at the moment." He said: "Iraqi security troops were not prepared to undertake security, and they lack training and weapons.
"Besides, the police in particular are infiltrated by members loyal to special groups, not to the state."
Ahmed al-Bakr, a teacher, said: "We need more time. The British have been acting as a referee between the rival groups, and if they leave it will be like a football game without a referee - chaos."
One senior provincial official in Basra said: "If, after four years, they can't withdraw 1,600 troops without destabilizing the situation, then God help us."
Capitalism Challenged
If Capitalist and corporate America are truly being forth coming with consumers then why do I have contrary observations? I welcome its supporters to please respond to my post.
In the field of health care capitalists including President G.W. Bush have said that technology will reduce cost. Government and polticians instead of addressing the practice that corporations do in fact charge far too exorbitant prices to the public above their cost for providing such services or producing such products give business a free ticket void of regulation. Why then do healthcare cost continue to skyrocket? Why then are medical bills the leading reason for working Americans filing for bankruptcy?
I believe my observation possess merit based on the example that a majority of college economics professors use when teaching the law of supply and demand. It is Oil. Next, health care will be added to this short list of static commodities that consumers and their buying power can have little effect on their cost. Corporate greed for profits has locked the law of supply and demand out of these markets. Call that a free market economy?
Corporations’ marketing strategies are misleading and their prices are irresponsible. I pay attention to the economy and read reports where the cost of crude oil goes down but the cost of gasoline goes up then you what? Something is very wrong in this scenario that is the reality of the American economy.
In the field of health care capitalists including President G.W. Bush have said that technology will reduce cost. Government and polticians instead of addressing the practice that corporations do in fact charge far too exorbitant prices to the public above their cost for providing such services or producing such products give business a free ticket void of regulation. Why then do healthcare cost continue to skyrocket? Why then are medical bills the leading reason for working Americans filing for bankruptcy?
I believe my observation possess merit based on the example that a majority of college economics professors use when teaching the law of supply and demand. It is Oil. Next, health care will be added to this short list of static commodities that consumers and their buying power can have little effect on their cost. Corporate greed for profits has locked the law of supply and demand out of these markets. Call that a free market economy?
Corporations’ marketing strategies are misleading and their prices are irresponsible. I pay attention to the economy and read reports where the cost of crude oil goes down but the cost of gasoline goes up then you what? Something is very wrong in this scenario that is the reality of the American economy.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Weekend Update: Blackness Scale
Humor about Senator Barrack Obama.
Disclaimer: This is not serious folk.
A Road Map Out of Iraq
I just recieved an e-mail from one Democratic Senator (whose name I will not mention) entitled "A roadmap out of Iraq".
Frankly, thats bull. You get paid to vote. Vote to End the War in Iraq!
Frankly, thats bull. You get paid to vote. Vote to End the War in Iraq!
Pentagon manipulated Iraq data
Political
"Accusations of "Twisted Intelligence"; Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers that Pentagon officials manipulated data before the invasion of Iraq
Source: BusinessWeek Online 02/13/2007
Top Pentagon officials, authorized by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "inappropriately" misled the White House in asserting strong prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out not to be true, and intentionally withheld data provided by outside intelligence agencies that challenged the Pentagon's conclusions, Acting Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers Feb. 9.
Gimble's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and a summary report of a year-long investigation by the Inspector General's office shows the deep divide between policymakers at the Pentagon and the intelligence community, as well as stark partisan disagreements on whether the Bush Administration used false data to justify its war in Iraq.
A 52-page rebuttal by the Pentagon disputes most of the inspector general's findings, "except the finding that the activities reviewed were lawful and authorized."
Congressional Clash
Committee Chairman Carl Levin [D-Mich.] said the inspector general's report provides a "devastating condemnation" of the Defense Dept. policy that started the war with Iraq.
"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq when the intelligence assessments of the professional analysts of the intelligence community did not provide the desired compelling case," Levin said.
Senator James Inhofe [R-Okla.] disagreed with Levin. "You can read the same report and come up with different conclusions I don't think in any way that his report could be interpreted as a devastating condemnation, as you point out Mr. Chairman."
Just Following Orders?
Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Dept. expanded the duties of its policy office, then run by former Under Secretary Douglas Feith, to find any connections between al Qaeda and the Iraqi and other governments and to develop its own intelligence assessments -- separate from the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies. Feith's shop under then-Deputy Secretary Paul
"Accusations of "Twisted Intelligence"; Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers that Pentagon officials manipulated data before the invasion of Iraq
Source: BusinessWeek Online 02/13/2007
Top Pentagon officials, authorized by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "inappropriately" misled the White House in asserting strong prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out not to be true, and intentionally withheld data provided by outside intelligence agencies that challenged the Pentagon's conclusions, Acting Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers Feb. 9.
Gimble's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and a summary report of a year-long investigation by the Inspector General's office shows the deep divide between policymakers at the Pentagon and the intelligence community, as well as stark partisan disagreements on whether the Bush Administration used false data to justify its war in Iraq.
A 52-page rebuttal by the Pentagon disputes most of the inspector general's findings, "except the finding that the activities reviewed were lawful and authorized."
Congressional Clash
Committee Chairman Carl Levin [D-Mich.] said the inspector general's report provides a "devastating condemnation" of the Defense Dept. policy that started the war with Iraq.
"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq when the intelligence assessments of the professional analysts of the intelligence community did not provide the desired compelling case," Levin said.
Senator James Inhofe [R-Okla.] disagreed with Levin. "You can read the same report and come up with different conclusions I don't think in any way that his report could be interpreted as a devastating condemnation, as you point out Mr. Chairman."
Just Following Orders?
Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Dept. expanded the duties of its policy office, then run by former Under Secretary Douglas Feith, to find any connections between al Qaeda and the Iraqi and other governments and to develop its own intelligence assessments -- separate from the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies. Feith's shop under then-Deputy Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz disseminated "alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaeda relationship, which included conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community and these were presented to senior decision-makers," Gimble said.
Levin said, "senior Administration officials used the twisted intelligence produced by the Feith office in making the case for the Iraq war."
Feith, who is now teaching at Georgetown University and has been criticized in the past for manipulating intelligence data, released a statement saying it is "bizarre for the Inspector General to disapprove of policy officials' doing work that they were directed to do by the secretary or deputy secretary of Defense." Feith led a group of private contractors who reviewed existing intelligence reports to find any links between al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Bush Administration has already received $503 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Pentagon recently asked Congress for another $235.1 billion to fund war operations this year and next. That's in addition to the $481.4 billion the Defense Dept. just requested from Capitol Hill to fund its regular operations in fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1. "
Feith, who is now teaching at Georgetown University and has been criticized in the past for manipulating intelligence data, released a statement saying it is "bizarre for the Inspector General to disapprove of policy officials' doing work that they were directed to do by the secretary or deputy secretary of Defense." Feith led a group of private contractors who reviewed existing intelligence reports to find any links between al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Bush Administration has already received $503 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Pentagon recently asked Congress for another $235.1 billion to fund war operations this year and next. That's in addition to the $481.4 billion the Defense Dept. just requested from Capitol Hill to fund its regular operations in fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1. "
Commentary: The Senate specifically must act to end the War in Iraq. It is in my analysis that the House of Representatives will pass significant measures to end the War void of pork baloney bills which on the other hand will be present in any Senate efforts. The U.S. Senate led by Harry Reid seems to be forgetting the mandate handed down by the People in November 2006. What the hell is a non-binding resolution on the desk of President & Commander-In- Chief G.W. Bush ? Let me answer that for you, poor use of a tree. Mr. Reid if it your last act as Senate Majority leader End this War in Iraq! Continued wasting time and tax payer dollars would surely spark debate of replacing you with those Senators sincerely committed to ending the War.
Here is a list of Democratic and Republican Senators that are pivotal in this matter: How shall they serve?
Here is a list of Democratic and Republican Senators that are pivotal in this matter: How shall they serve?
Majority Member State Carl Levin, Chairman Michigan Edward Kennedy Massachusetts Robert Byrd West Virginia Joe Lieberman Connecticut Jack Reed Rhode IslandDaniel Akaka Hawaii Bill Nelson Florida Ben Nelson Nebraska Evan Bayh Indiana Hillary Rodham Clinton New York Mark Pryor Arkansas Jim Webb Virginia Claire McCaskill Missouri
Minority Member StateJohn McCain, Ranking Member Arizona John Warner Virginia James Inhofe Oklahoma Jeff Sessions Alabama Susan Collins Maine John Ensign Nevada Saxby Chambliss Georgia Lindsey Graham South Carolina Elizabeth Dole North Carolina John Cornyn Texas John Thune South Dakota Mel Martinez Florida
Friday, February 09, 2007
Health Care: the wrong position
The following position on Health Care is simply idiotic. I do not have time to present my view on this matter at the time, but please feel free to search this blog for my previous comments on healthcare and discuss this the most pressing political issue to come.
'Four Cornerstones'
Will Transform Health
HealthSource: Forbes Online01 February 2007
Editor's Note: This editorial piece now appears on Forbes Online. It is co-written by Dr. Bob Galvin and Newt Gingrich. Dr. Bob Galvin is GE's Chief Medical Officer and director of global healthcare, GE. Newt Gingrich served as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999 and is founder of the Center for Health Transformation.
By Bob Galvin and Newt Gingrich
The president's State of the Union speech last week sparked a healthy debate over what to prescribe for our ailing health care system. Mandates or markets, single-payer or private sector, generic drugs or brand names? The list of differences is endless. What everyone can agree upon is that health care must be fixed. For both government and the private sector, our current system is unsustainable, and Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt is trying to change this.
Many entrenched health care interests often claim that transformational solutions will not work because "health care is different." Health care is, indeed, different, and that is not a good thing. Innovation is slow, quality indicators are down, costs are perpetually on the rise, and tens of millions of individuals are locked out of the insurance market.
Rather than attempting to "fix" health care by himself with one magic bullet, Secretary Leavitt is putting the system on the right course to fix itself. Echoing the renowned Harvard business strategist Michael Porter, Leavitt is moving health care toward a value-based system.
Value-based health care means that providers, health plans and other health care professionals are rewarded--and procedures and products are encouraged and utilized--based upon the true value they bring to the consumer. This means critiquing every aspect of the delivery of care, divining its true value by knowing its cost and quality. This formula works in every other market, and it must be the foundation of health care.
We can bring about real change by centering the system on what Secretary Leavitt calls the "four cornerstones"--information technology, performance measures, transparency and payment reform. The largest purchasers of health care, from state and federal government to the private sector, can change health care by ingraining these four priorities into their purchasing and procurement--and then demanding accountability.
First, we must get information technology into the hands of health care providers. Compared to every other sector of society, most physicians and other providers step back in time when they enter their offices, giving up computers and the Internet for pen and paper. We simply cannot deliver better quality, eliminate waste and improve efficiency without equipping doctors with the point-of-care patient information and decision support tools. And the technology must be interconnected, or interoperable, so that every information technology system, no matter where it is, can deliver the right information on the right person at the right time.
Second, we must accelerate our efforts to create common measures to evaluate performance and cost. Today it is nearly impossible to determine, in any reliable way, who delivers the best quality care and at what cost. Government and industry are working to standardize common measures to enable us to gather and measure performance and cost in a common way, so we can compare apples to apples.
Third, we must widely distribute this information to consumers. Currently, the health care system keeps consumers in the dark about the cost and quality of the care they receive. Try finding out which doctor has the best results for treating patients with asthma or diabetes. Try finding out how much a knee replacement will cost. Sites like FloridaCompareCare.gov and MyFloridaRX.com, which contain a wealth of quality and cost data, have proved to be incredibly valuable to consumers.
Additionally, with the right privacy and security protections, the federal government should release the data it has to let the public see which doctors are delivering the best care. Wouldn't you like to know who has the best track record for delivering high-quality care? You have the right to know this information, and the federal government should release it.
Fourth, we must change the way we pay for care. In our current system, hospitals and providers that deliver better care are reimbursed, for the most part, at the exact same rate as those who provide poorer care. That is like paying the same price for a new Cadillac as you would for a used Yugo. This egregious approach must change so that better performers are rewarded.
Secretary Leavitt is trying to ingrain these "four cornerstones" into the federal government's purchasing of health care, most notably through President Bush's Executive Order No. 13410. This order instructs key federal departments, including Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Veterans Affairs, to say to its contracted hospitals, physicians and other providers, We will not do business with you if you do not agree to these principles.
With a $600 billion budget at HHS that's set to explode in the coming years, Secretary Leavitt knows that sitting idly by is not an option. It is not an option for other big purchasers of health care either, be they from the private sector or state government.
That is why GE (nyse: GE - news - people ), IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ), GM (nyse: GM - news - people ), DaimlerChrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ), Humana (nyse: HUM - news - people ), and others have pledged to instill these cornerstones into their health care purchasing. Gov. Tim Kaine recently signed his own executive order to do the same in Virginia.
If every major employer, be it a corporation or state government, would embrace these four cornerstones, we could indeed build a value-based system that delivers more choices of greater quality at lower cost to every single American. But to get there, we need continued leadership and immediate action from everyone in health care--now.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is founder of the Center for Health Transformation. Dr. Bob Galvin is the chief medical officer and director of global health care at GE. GE, IBM, Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler and Humana are members of the Center for Health Transformation.
'Four Cornerstones'
Will Transform Health
HealthSource: Forbes Online01 February 2007
Editor's Note: This editorial piece now appears on Forbes Online. It is co-written by Dr. Bob Galvin and Newt Gingrich. Dr. Bob Galvin is GE's Chief Medical Officer and director of global healthcare, GE. Newt Gingrich served as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999 and is founder of the Center for Health Transformation.
By Bob Galvin and Newt Gingrich
The president's State of the Union speech last week sparked a healthy debate over what to prescribe for our ailing health care system. Mandates or markets, single-payer or private sector, generic drugs or brand names? The list of differences is endless. What everyone can agree upon is that health care must be fixed. For both government and the private sector, our current system is unsustainable, and Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt is trying to change this.
Many entrenched health care interests often claim that transformational solutions will not work because "health care is different." Health care is, indeed, different, and that is not a good thing. Innovation is slow, quality indicators are down, costs are perpetually on the rise, and tens of millions of individuals are locked out of the insurance market.
Rather than attempting to "fix" health care by himself with one magic bullet, Secretary Leavitt is putting the system on the right course to fix itself. Echoing the renowned Harvard business strategist Michael Porter, Leavitt is moving health care toward a value-based system.
Value-based health care means that providers, health plans and other health care professionals are rewarded--and procedures and products are encouraged and utilized--based upon the true value they bring to the consumer. This means critiquing every aspect of the delivery of care, divining its true value by knowing its cost and quality. This formula works in every other market, and it must be the foundation of health care.
We can bring about real change by centering the system on what Secretary Leavitt calls the "four cornerstones"--information technology, performance measures, transparency and payment reform. The largest purchasers of health care, from state and federal government to the private sector, can change health care by ingraining these four priorities into their purchasing and procurement--and then demanding accountability.
First, we must get information technology into the hands of health care providers. Compared to every other sector of society, most physicians and other providers step back in time when they enter their offices, giving up computers and the Internet for pen and paper. We simply cannot deliver better quality, eliminate waste and improve efficiency without equipping doctors with the point-of-care patient information and decision support tools. And the technology must be interconnected, or interoperable, so that every information technology system, no matter where it is, can deliver the right information on the right person at the right time.
Second, we must accelerate our efforts to create common measures to evaluate performance and cost. Today it is nearly impossible to determine, in any reliable way, who delivers the best quality care and at what cost. Government and industry are working to standardize common measures to enable us to gather and measure performance and cost in a common way, so we can compare apples to apples.
Third, we must widely distribute this information to consumers. Currently, the health care system keeps consumers in the dark about the cost and quality of the care they receive. Try finding out which doctor has the best results for treating patients with asthma or diabetes. Try finding out how much a knee replacement will cost. Sites like FloridaCompareCare.gov and MyFloridaRX.com, which contain a wealth of quality and cost data, have proved to be incredibly valuable to consumers.
Additionally, with the right privacy and security protections, the federal government should release the data it has to let the public see which doctors are delivering the best care. Wouldn't you like to know who has the best track record for delivering high-quality care? You have the right to know this information, and the federal government should release it.
Fourth, we must change the way we pay for care. In our current system, hospitals and providers that deliver better care are reimbursed, for the most part, at the exact same rate as those who provide poorer care. That is like paying the same price for a new Cadillac as you would for a used Yugo. This egregious approach must change so that better performers are rewarded.
Secretary Leavitt is trying to ingrain these "four cornerstones" into the federal government's purchasing of health care, most notably through President Bush's Executive Order No. 13410. This order instructs key federal departments, including Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Veterans Affairs, to say to its contracted hospitals, physicians and other providers, We will not do business with you if you do not agree to these principles.
With a $600 billion budget at HHS that's set to explode in the coming years, Secretary Leavitt knows that sitting idly by is not an option. It is not an option for other big purchasers of health care either, be they from the private sector or state government.
That is why GE (nyse: GE - news - people ), IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ), GM (nyse: GM - news - people ), DaimlerChrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ), Humana (nyse: HUM - news - people ), and others have pledged to instill these cornerstones into their health care purchasing. Gov. Tim Kaine recently signed his own executive order to do the same in Virginia.
If every major employer, be it a corporation or state government, would embrace these four cornerstones, we could indeed build a value-based system that delivers more choices of greater quality at lower cost to every single American. But to get there, we need continued leadership and immediate action from everyone in health care--now.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is founder of the Center for Health Transformation. Dr. Bob Galvin is the chief medical officer and director of global health care at GE. GE, IBM, Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler and Humana are members of the Center for Health Transformation.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Time to include gay troops
"(CNN) -- Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili has had a change of heart about gays in the military.
Shalikashvili, who was the top military man when President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy became law in 1993, wrote in a recent New York Times editorial that he was convinced by gay service members that "don't tell" can disappear.
"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," he wrote in the January 2 edition of the Times. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
The "don't ask" means commanders are prohibited from questioning a service member about sexual orientation while "don't tell" refers to the stipulation that gay and lesbian troops must keep their sexual orientation a secret.
President Clinton's policy brought the highly charged issue of gays in the military to the center of public discussion. At the time, Shalikashvili, supported the policy, believing that openly gay servicemen and women would hurt the military's cohesion.
With President Bush now calling for a larger military, the issue is sure to become fodder again for political and social debate.
Shalikashvili wrote that his position change came after meeting with gay troops, including "some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew.
"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."
'A political issue, not a military issue'
Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN that people should not miss the retired general's point, that the war in Iraq should be the top issue with Washington, but the discussion on gays in the military needs to resume in Congress.
"I think we have to ... take into account the full article," he said. "It was almost as if St. Augustine declaring to God, "Dear God, give me chastity, but not just yet.'"
And in the Shalikashvili piece, he said it's time to start "rethinking this policy."
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd said Shalikashvili's change of heart was a big one but that the policy is a "political issue, not a military issue."
The military doesn't consider the issue a big deal and its concern is with the conduct of its personnel, not their sexual preferences, he said. The change in the policy will reflect a change in social values, he added.
"I think society is moving on and probably Shalikashvili is moving on personally," Shepperd said.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group, applauded the editorial.
"That's a courageous thing to do," said Sharon Alexander, deputy director for policy for the group.
Shalikashvili, who served in the Army for 39 years and is the only immigrant to rise to the pinnacle of military leadership, is very knowledgeable and well-respected, Shepperd said.
World war shaped childhood
Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland, in June 1936, just three years before the Nazis invaded. His father, who was born in the country of Georgia, was an officer in the Polish army until it surrendered to the Germans then joined a unit of Georgians that fought for the Nazis. Eventually his unit fought with the Waffen-SS.
John Shalikashvili and his family lived in Poland through the occupation and destruction of Warsaw. According to a Washington Post article in 1993, the family lived in a cellar after a German bomber blew up their apartment. Near the end of World War II, the family fled to Germany.
In 1952, the family immigrated to Peoria, Illinois. Shalikashvili, a teenager who spoke no English, learned the language by watching John Wayne movies. He was drafted in 1958 into the Army, where he quickly became an officer.
During the Vietnam war, Shalikashvili served as a senior district adviser to South Vietnamese forces in 1968-69. According to the Army, he won a Bronze Star for directing a search team that was attacked from two positions.
He also served in Iraq after the Gulf War, directing relief efforts for Kurds in the northeastern mountainous area of the country.
When Colin Powell stepped down as Joint Chiefs chairman, President Clinton nominated Shalikashvili, who had been one of Powell's deputies. The nomination hit a stumbling block when his father's service with the Nazis came to light, but the general won Senate approval after convincing testimony that he had not known of his father's ties until just before his confirmation hearings.
Despite suffering a massive stroke in 2004, Shalikashvili continues to speak his mind and some say the retired chairman could be the catalyst for change.
"As a former high-ranking military official, people listen to him," Shepperd said. "The lawmakers will listen to him."'
PBS Report: Gays in the Military
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/gays_4-13.html
Shalikashvili, who was the top military man when President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy became law in 1993, wrote in a recent New York Times editorial that he was convinced by gay service members that "don't tell" can disappear.
"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," he wrote in the January 2 edition of the Times. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
The "don't ask" means commanders are prohibited from questioning a service member about sexual orientation while "don't tell" refers to the stipulation that gay and lesbian troops must keep their sexual orientation a secret.
President Clinton's policy brought the highly charged issue of gays in the military to the center of public discussion. At the time, Shalikashvili, supported the policy, believing that openly gay servicemen and women would hurt the military's cohesion.
With President Bush now calling for a larger military, the issue is sure to become fodder again for political and social debate.
Shalikashvili wrote that his position change came after meeting with gay troops, including "some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew.
"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."
'A political issue, not a military issue'
Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN that people should not miss the retired general's point, that the war in Iraq should be the top issue with Washington, but the discussion on gays in the military needs to resume in Congress.
"I think we have to ... take into account the full article," he said. "It was almost as if St. Augustine declaring to God, "Dear God, give me chastity, but not just yet.'"
And in the Shalikashvili piece, he said it's time to start "rethinking this policy."
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd said Shalikashvili's change of heart was a big one but that the policy is a "political issue, not a military issue."
The military doesn't consider the issue a big deal and its concern is with the conduct of its personnel, not their sexual preferences, he said. The change in the policy will reflect a change in social values, he added.
"I think society is moving on and probably Shalikashvili is moving on personally," Shepperd said.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group, applauded the editorial.
"That's a courageous thing to do," said Sharon Alexander, deputy director for policy for the group.
Shalikashvili, who served in the Army for 39 years and is the only immigrant to rise to the pinnacle of military leadership, is very knowledgeable and well-respected, Shepperd said.
World war shaped childhood
Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland, in June 1936, just three years before the Nazis invaded. His father, who was born in the country of Georgia, was an officer in the Polish army until it surrendered to the Germans then joined a unit of Georgians that fought for the Nazis. Eventually his unit fought with the Waffen-SS.
John Shalikashvili and his family lived in Poland through the occupation and destruction of Warsaw. According to a Washington Post article in 1993, the family lived in a cellar after a German bomber blew up their apartment. Near the end of World War II, the family fled to Germany.
In 1952, the family immigrated to Peoria, Illinois. Shalikashvili, a teenager who spoke no English, learned the language by watching John Wayne movies. He was drafted in 1958 into the Army, where he quickly became an officer.
During the Vietnam war, Shalikashvili served as a senior district adviser to South Vietnamese forces in 1968-69. According to the Army, he won a Bronze Star for directing a search team that was attacked from two positions.
He also served in Iraq after the Gulf War, directing relief efforts for Kurds in the northeastern mountainous area of the country.
When Colin Powell stepped down as Joint Chiefs chairman, President Clinton nominated Shalikashvili, who had been one of Powell's deputies. The nomination hit a stumbling block when his father's service with the Nazis came to light, but the general won Senate approval after convincing testimony that he had not known of his father's ties until just before his confirmation hearings.
Despite suffering a massive stroke in 2004, Shalikashvili continues to speak his mind and some say the retired chairman could be the catalyst for change.
"As a former high-ranking military official, people listen to him," Shepperd said. "The lawmakers will listen to him."'
PBS Report: Gays in the Military
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/gays_4-13.html
Monday, January 29, 2007
UN: Iraqi Civilian Deaths at New High
"The UN has reported that over 34,000 Iraqi civilians were killed and over 36,000 were wounded. This toll reported by the UN is almost 3 times more than that reported by the Iraqi government. Also included in the reports is that at least 470,000 people have been internally displaced with over 38,000 in Baghdad alone."
The UN Reports that approx 150,000 innocent Iraqi have died in the USA's War on Terror.
A conservative number in my opinion.
The UN Reports that approx 150,000 innocent Iraqi have died in the USA's War on Terror.
A conservative number in my opinion.
Ari Fleischer Disputes Libby's Account at Trial
"January 29, 2007 · Former White House aide Lewis Libby spoke of the wife of a prominent war critic working at the CIA in the summer of 2003 — before the date Libby told investigators he had learned about the CIA operative. That's the testimony of former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Testifying under an immunity deal with prosecutors, Fleischer says he didn't know at the time of his lunch talk with Libby that the information was classified.
Libby is accused of perjury in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of misleading the public in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Libby is the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.
Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, is accused of lying to obstruct an investigation into the leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity.
Fleischer testified that Libby told him Plame's identity over a private lunch in the White House mess hall on July 7, 2003. That contradicts Libby's account that he learned the information from reporters days later.
Fleischer quoted Libby as saying, "This is hush hush. This is on the QT. Not very many people know about this."
Fleischer told the jury, "My sense is Mr. Libby was telling me this is kind of newsy."
Their lunch conversation took place as the White House was in the thick of an effort to rebut criticism from Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson had gone to Africa to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein sought uranium for nuclear weapons from the Nigerian government. When Wilson found no such evidence and the White House continued to assert otherwise, Wilson began to criticize the White House publicly.
Fleischer is the fifth government official to testify that Libby was part of a coordinated White House effort to refute Wilson's claims. Fleischer said, "I never in my wildest dreams would have thought this information (about Plame's identity) would be classified."
According to Fleischer's testimony, he told Plame's identity to reporters from Time magazine and NBC News a few days later, during a presidential trip to Africa.
Libby's lawyers have argued that the Plame/Wilson controversy was a minor issue compared to the other crises Libby had to deal with at the same time. They say if Libby made false statements to FBI agents and a grand jury months later, those statements were the result of memory lapses—not lies" (NPR).
Testifying under an immunity deal with prosecutors, Fleischer says he didn't know at the time of his lunch talk with Libby that the information was classified.
Libby is accused of perjury in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of misleading the public in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Libby is the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.
Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, is accused of lying to obstruct an investigation into the leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity.
Fleischer testified that Libby told him Plame's identity over a private lunch in the White House mess hall on July 7, 2003. That contradicts Libby's account that he learned the information from reporters days later.
Fleischer quoted Libby as saying, "This is hush hush. This is on the QT. Not very many people know about this."
Fleischer told the jury, "My sense is Mr. Libby was telling me this is kind of newsy."
Their lunch conversation took place as the White House was in the thick of an effort to rebut criticism from Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson had gone to Africa to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein sought uranium for nuclear weapons from the Nigerian government. When Wilson found no such evidence and the White House continued to assert otherwise, Wilson began to criticize the White House publicly.
Fleischer is the fifth government official to testify that Libby was part of a coordinated White House effort to refute Wilson's claims. Fleischer said, "I never in my wildest dreams would have thought this information (about Plame's identity) would be classified."
According to Fleischer's testimony, he told Plame's identity to reporters from Time magazine and NBC News a few days later, during a presidential trip to Africa.
Libby's lawyers have argued that the Plame/Wilson controversy was a minor issue compared to the other crises Libby had to deal with at the same time. They say if Libby made false statements to FBI agents and a grand jury months later, those statements were the result of memory lapses—not lies" (NPR).
Friday, January 26, 2007
Judge Rejects Katrina settlement
State Farm had agreed to pay Mississippi victims $50 million
NEW ORLEANS - A federal judge in Mississippi on Friday refused to endorse part of a proposed settlement that calls for insurance payments to thousands of Mississippi policyholders whose homes were destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. would not sign off on a deal between State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood for at least $50 million in payments to policyholders whose claims were denied but didn’t sue the company.
The Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer also had agreed to pay about $80 million to more than 600 policyholders who sued the company for refusing to cover damage from the Aug. 29, 2005, storm. Senter hasn’t been asked to sign off on that part of the deal.
Senter said he doesn’t have enough information to determine how many policyholders would benefit from the deal or how much each can be paid.
“In the absence of substantially more information than I now have before me, I am unable to say, even preliminarily, that the proposed settlement establishes a procedure that is fair, just, balanced or reasonable,” he wrote.
Senter rejected the settlement “without prejudice,” allowing lawyers to present a new agreement that satisfies his concerns.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company looks forward to “addressing Judge Senter’s concerns,” adding, “We believe, given the opportunity, he will come to view the proposed settlement as fair, just, balanced and reasonable.”
A spokeswoman for Hood would not immediately comment.
In his eight-page ruling Friday, Senter said that although State Farm has agreed to pay $50 million to policyholders who qualify for the class action portion of the settlement, he can’t determine “how thinly this large sum may be spread among the class members.”
Senter also expressed concern about a lack of any “guaranteed” payments to policyholders whose homes weren’t completely destroyed and said he is “uncomfortable” with allowing many cases to be settled by binding arbitration “when none of these individuals has ever agreed to participate in that procedure.”
Mississippi’s mass settlement agreement didn’t involve any claims in other states.
Lawyers involved in the agreement presented the “class action” portion of the deal to Senter on Tuesday afternoon.
Click for related content
State Farm settles hundreds of Katrina lawsuits
Newsweek: The insurance climate change
That part of the agreement would require State Farm to reopen and review claims filed by roughly 35,000 policyholders who live in Mississippi’s three coastal counties but didn’t file lawsuits against State Farm.
After reviewing those claims, the company would be required to make new offers. Any disputes would be heard by an arbitrator whose decision would be binding.
The accord came less than two weeks after a federal jury in Gulfport awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple who sued State Farm for denying their claim after Katrina. Senter took part of that case out of jurors’ hands, ruling that State Farm is liable for $223,292 in storm damage to the Biloxi home of Norman and Genevieve Broussard.
Senter is the only federal judge in Mississippi who has been presiding over the hundreds of lawsuits that policyholders filed against State Farm and other insurers.
In the first trial for a Katrina insurance case, Senter ruled in August that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.’s homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not storm surge. He also has ordered dozens of policyholders who sued their insurers to participate in an experimental mediation program."
NEW ORLEANS - A federal judge in Mississippi on Friday refused to endorse part of a proposed settlement that calls for insurance payments to thousands of Mississippi policyholders whose homes were destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. would not sign off on a deal between State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood for at least $50 million in payments to policyholders whose claims were denied but didn’t sue the company.
The Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer also had agreed to pay about $80 million to more than 600 policyholders who sued the company for refusing to cover damage from the Aug. 29, 2005, storm. Senter hasn’t been asked to sign off on that part of the deal.
Senter said he doesn’t have enough information to determine how many policyholders would benefit from the deal or how much each can be paid.
“In the absence of substantially more information than I now have before me, I am unable to say, even preliminarily, that the proposed settlement establishes a procedure that is fair, just, balanced or reasonable,” he wrote.
Senter rejected the settlement “without prejudice,” allowing lawyers to present a new agreement that satisfies his concerns.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company looks forward to “addressing Judge Senter’s concerns,” adding, “We believe, given the opportunity, he will come to view the proposed settlement as fair, just, balanced and reasonable.”
A spokeswoman for Hood would not immediately comment.
In his eight-page ruling Friday, Senter said that although State Farm has agreed to pay $50 million to policyholders who qualify for the class action portion of the settlement, he can’t determine “how thinly this large sum may be spread among the class members.”
Senter also expressed concern about a lack of any “guaranteed” payments to policyholders whose homes weren’t completely destroyed and said he is “uncomfortable” with allowing many cases to be settled by binding arbitration “when none of these individuals has ever agreed to participate in that procedure.”
Mississippi’s mass settlement agreement didn’t involve any claims in other states.
Lawyers involved in the agreement presented the “class action” portion of the deal to Senter on Tuesday afternoon.
Click for related content
State Farm settles hundreds of Katrina lawsuits
Newsweek: The insurance climate change
That part of the agreement would require State Farm to reopen and review claims filed by roughly 35,000 policyholders who live in Mississippi’s three coastal counties but didn’t file lawsuits against State Farm.
After reviewing those claims, the company would be required to make new offers. Any disputes would be heard by an arbitrator whose decision would be binding.
The accord came less than two weeks after a federal jury in Gulfport awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple who sued State Farm for denying their claim after Katrina. Senter took part of that case out of jurors’ hands, ruling that State Farm is liable for $223,292 in storm damage to the Biloxi home of Norman and Genevieve Broussard.
Senter is the only federal judge in Mississippi who has been presiding over the hundreds of lawsuits that policyholders filed against State Farm and other insurers.
In the first trial for a Katrina insurance case, Senter ruled in August that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.’s homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not storm surge. He also has ordered dozens of policyholders who sued their insurers to participate in an experimental mediation program."
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
China beats USA in Star Wars?
What would President Reagan say?
By Chris Buckley Mon Jan 22, 9:09 AM ET
BEIJING (Reuters) - Blasting a satellite out of the heavens may have been China's blunt way of demanding a bigger say in space security, Chinese experts said on Monday, while voicing puzzlement about the apparent test and Beijing's long silence.
Chinese arms control specialists with military backgrounds told Reuters they did not know if China had indeed fired an anti-satellite missile on January 11 in what Washington last week called an alarming escalation of military rivalry in space.
Xia Liping, a People's Liberation Army (PLA) officer and professor at the Shanghai Institute for International Strategic Studies, said Beijing did not want an arms race in space. But the reported test may have been intended to push Washington toward international talks aimed at preventing a race, he suggested.
"The weaponization of space would be very dangerous; it could lead to a new arms race," said Xia, who stressed he had no firm knowledge of any test. "I would say, though, that in the history of arms control the rule is that the United States is willing to ban a military capability only when other countries possess it."
The Bush administration has announced plans to maintain U.S. dominance of outer space and prevent other states from threatening its satellites, vital nerves of commerce and security. But China is wary.
"Chinese officials believe the real purpose of U.S. space plans is not to protect U.S. assets but to further enhance U.S. military dominance," Hui Zhang, a researcher at Harvard University, wrote in a study recently issued by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (www.amacad.org).
Chinese textbooks and speeches show that the country's diplomats and military are worried that U.S. ambitions are leaving China vulnerable.
"The militarization of space will also become the focus of all military great powers' national security and development strategy," states a 2006 textbook on space weapons written by officers from China's Second Artillery Battalion, which wields the country's nuclear arsenal. "The flames and smoke of war will rise in a new battlefield -- space."
Chinese military writings also leave no doubt that the PLA has been studying how to directly counter U.S. plans, according to a compilation issued last week by Michael Pillsbury, a researcher close to the
Pentagon'
"There is an active group in China not only advocating the weaponization of space, but also putting forward specific proposals for implementation of a Chinese space-based weapons program," Pillsbury wrote in the study for Congress' U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (www.uscc.gov).
But China lags far behind the United States in space technology and does not want to divert its civilian space resources to military uses, said Teng Jianqun, a former PLA officer who now studies space policy at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, a government-run think tank.
"China does not want to follow the United States into this," said Teng, who said he was skeptical about the reported test. "We need to sit down and work out the rules of the game to prevent this trend taking on a life of its own."
But if the January 11 blast was intended to wake up Washington and push for negotiations, the Chinese Foreign Ministry's silence about the claim is "baffling," said Xu Guangyu, another ex-PLA officer at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association.
Chinese diplomats had yet to explain or deny the satellite test, even in private, the New York Times reported on Monday, citing senior Washington officials.
"I don't know whether the American reports about the satellite are true. It's odd and abnormal that they haven't said anything," Xu said of China's diplomats.
"If it is a negotiating chip, it's illogical not to come out and announce something. But a side-effect may be that it makes us sit down together and talk."
Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070122/ts_nm/china_satellite_security_dc
By Chris Buckley Mon Jan 22, 9:09 AM ET
BEIJING (Reuters) - Blasting a satellite out of the heavens may have been China's blunt way of demanding a bigger say in space security, Chinese experts said on Monday, while voicing puzzlement about the apparent test and Beijing's long silence.
Chinese arms control specialists with military backgrounds told Reuters they did not know if China had indeed fired an anti-satellite missile on January 11 in what Washington last week called an alarming escalation of military rivalry in space.
Xia Liping, a People's Liberation Army (PLA) officer and professor at the Shanghai Institute for International Strategic Studies, said Beijing did not want an arms race in space. But the reported test may have been intended to push Washington toward international talks aimed at preventing a race, he suggested.
"The weaponization of space would be very dangerous; it could lead to a new arms race," said Xia, who stressed he had no firm knowledge of any test. "I would say, though, that in the history of arms control the rule is that the United States is willing to ban a military capability only when other countries possess it."
The Bush administration has announced plans to maintain U.S. dominance of outer space and prevent other states from threatening its satellites, vital nerves of commerce and security. But China is wary.
"Chinese officials believe the real purpose of U.S. space plans is not to protect U.S. assets but to further enhance U.S. military dominance," Hui Zhang, a researcher at Harvard University, wrote in a study recently issued by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (www.amacad.org).
Chinese textbooks and speeches show that the country's diplomats and military are worried that U.S. ambitions are leaving China vulnerable.
"The militarization of space will also become the focus of all military great powers' national security and development strategy," states a 2006 textbook on space weapons written by officers from China's Second Artillery Battalion, which wields the country's nuclear arsenal. "The flames and smoke of war will rise in a new battlefield -- space."
Chinese military writings also leave no doubt that the PLA has been studying how to directly counter U.S. plans, according to a compilation issued last week by Michael Pillsbury, a researcher close to the
Pentagon'
"There is an active group in China not only advocating the weaponization of space, but also putting forward specific proposals for implementation of a Chinese space-based weapons program," Pillsbury wrote in the study for Congress' U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (www.uscc.gov).
But China lags far behind the United States in space technology and does not want to divert its civilian space resources to military uses, said Teng Jianqun, a former PLA officer who now studies space policy at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, a government-run think tank.
"China does not want to follow the United States into this," said Teng, who said he was skeptical about the reported test. "We need to sit down and work out the rules of the game to prevent this trend taking on a life of its own."
But if the January 11 blast was intended to wake up Washington and push for negotiations, the Chinese Foreign Ministry's silence about the claim is "baffling," said Xu Guangyu, another ex-PLA officer at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association.
Chinese diplomats had yet to explain or deny the satellite test, even in private, the New York Times reported on Monday, citing senior Washington officials.
"I don't know whether the American reports about the satellite are true. It's odd and abnormal that they haven't said anything," Xu said of China's diplomats.
"If it is a negotiating chip, it's illogical not to come out and announce something. But a side-effect may be that it makes us sit down together and talk."
Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070122/ts_nm/china_satellite_security_dc
Corporations Take on GLOBAL WARMING
"A diverse group of U.S.-based businesses andleading environmental organizations today called on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to achieve significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
The group said any delay in action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidableconsequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future.This unprecedented alliance, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), consists of market leaders Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, and PNM Resources, along with four leading non-governmental organizations – Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and World Resources Institute.
At a news conference today at the National Press Club, USCAP will issue a setof principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change. The solutions-based report, titled A Call for Action, lays out a blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate protection. “The time has come for constructive action that draws strength equally from business, government, and non-governmental stakeholders,” said Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric. “These recommendations should catalyze legislative action that encourages innovation and fosters economic growth while enhancing energy security and balance of trade, ensuring U.S. leadership on an issue of significance to our country and the world.”
USCAP’s recommendations [visit http://www.us-cap.org/ClimateReport.pdf] are based on the following six principles:• Account for the global dimensions of climate change;• Recognize the importance of technology;• Be environmentally effective;• Create economic opportunity and advantage;• Be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted; and• Recognize and encourage early action.The principles and the recommendations outlined in A Call for Action are the result of ayear-long collaboration motivated by the shared goal of slowing, stopping and reversing the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period of time reasonably achievable.
This unique cooperation of business and environmental leaders is a clear signal tolawmakers that legislative action is urgently needed. This non-partisan effort was driven by the top executives from member organizations—companies with a combined marketcapitalization of more than $750 billion and environmental groups with more than one million members worldwide and global policy influence.
A Call for Action reflects a growing public concern about global warming. A recent TIMEmagazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll finds that a significant majority of Americans, about 85 percent, say they believe global warming is probably happening. An even larger percentage, 88 percent, say they think global warming threatens future generations. USCAP urges policy makers to enact a policy framework for mandatory reductions of GHG emissions from major emitting sectors, including large stationary sources and transportation, and energy use in commercial and residential buildings. The cornerstone of this approach would be a cap-and-trade program. The environmental goal is to reduce global atmospheric GHG concentrations to a level that minimizes large-scale adverse impacts to humans and the natural environment. The group recommends Congress provide leadership and establish short- and mid-term emission reduction targets; a national program to accelerate technology research, development and deployment; and approaches to encourage action by other countries, including those in the developing world, as ultimately the solution must be global.
“The Climate Action Partnership recognizes that the undertaking to address climate change is an enormous one, and should not be underestimated,” said Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute. “But enacting environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair climate change law must be a national priority.” USCAP believes that programs to encourage efficiency and to promote cleaner technologies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 enacted by the last Congress and supported by the President were a good step. However, they alone cannot get us to where we need to be on the climate change issue. A mandatory system is needed that sets clear, predictable, market-based requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
The group said any delay in action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidableconsequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future.This unprecedented alliance, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), consists of market leaders Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, and PNM Resources, along with four leading non-governmental organizations – Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and World Resources Institute.
At a news conference today at the National Press Club, USCAP will issue a setof principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change. The solutions-based report, titled A Call for Action, lays out a blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate protection. “The time has come for constructive action that draws strength equally from business, government, and non-governmental stakeholders,” said Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric. “These recommendations should catalyze legislative action that encourages innovation and fosters economic growth while enhancing energy security and balance of trade, ensuring U.S. leadership on an issue of significance to our country and the world.”
USCAP’s recommendations [visit http://www.us-cap.org/ClimateReport.pdf] are based on the following six principles:• Account for the global dimensions of climate change;• Recognize the importance of technology;• Be environmentally effective;• Create economic opportunity and advantage;• Be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted; and• Recognize and encourage early action.The principles and the recommendations outlined in A Call for Action are the result of ayear-long collaboration motivated by the shared goal of slowing, stopping and reversing the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period of time reasonably achievable.
This unique cooperation of business and environmental leaders is a clear signal tolawmakers that legislative action is urgently needed. This non-partisan effort was driven by the top executives from member organizations—companies with a combined marketcapitalization of more than $750 billion and environmental groups with more than one million members worldwide and global policy influence.
A Call for Action reflects a growing public concern about global warming. A recent TIMEmagazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll finds that a significant majority of Americans, about 85 percent, say they believe global warming is probably happening. An even larger percentage, 88 percent, say they think global warming threatens future generations. USCAP urges policy makers to enact a policy framework for mandatory reductions of GHG emissions from major emitting sectors, including large stationary sources and transportation, and energy use in commercial and residential buildings. The cornerstone of this approach would be a cap-and-trade program. The environmental goal is to reduce global atmospheric GHG concentrations to a level that minimizes large-scale adverse impacts to humans and the natural environment. The group recommends Congress provide leadership and establish short- and mid-term emission reduction targets; a national program to accelerate technology research, development and deployment; and approaches to encourage action by other countries, including those in the developing world, as ultimately the solution must be global.
“The Climate Action Partnership recognizes that the undertaking to address climate change is an enormous one, and should not be underestimated,” said Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute. “But enacting environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair climate change law must be a national priority.” USCAP believes that programs to encourage efficiency and to promote cleaner technologies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 enacted by the last Congress and supported by the President were a good step. However, they alone cannot get us to where we need to be on the climate change issue. A mandatory system is needed that sets clear, predictable, market-based requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
Monday, January 22, 2007
G.W. Bush’s Justification for Iraq
President Bush in response to a reporter’s questions in regards to the Iraq War said to paraphrase
“that after 9/11 he made a vow to protect the American people and that we would enter any nation that provided safe haven to terrorist, and that’s why we are in Iraq”.
The fact of today is that this is reasonable justification for the USA being in Afghanistan but it has nothing whatsoever to do with our troops being in Iraq.
“that after 9/11 he made a vow to protect the American people and that we would enter any nation that provided safe haven to terrorist, and that’s why we are in Iraq”.
The fact of today is that this is reasonable justification for the USA being in Afghanistan but it has nothing whatsoever to do with our troops being in Iraq.
Friday, January 19, 2007
The God Experiments
“One Study revealed some overlap between the neural activity of self –transcendence and of sexual pleasure”. –Discover Magazine Dec. 2006, The God Experiments
I think this study deserve more resources. I certainly would volunteer as a subject. Science has now proven all my college rendezvous were not simply that but studies in uhh “religion”.
Comments welcome.
I think this study deserve more resources. I certainly would volunteer as a subject. Science has now proven all my college rendezvous were not simply that but studies in uhh “religion”.
Comments welcome.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Bush puts spy program under courts
"Bush administration puts spy program under court supervision
Source: Agence France Presse 01/18/2007
WASHINGTON, Jan 18, 2007 (AFP) -
President George W. Bush's administration put a controversial domestic spying program under supervision of a special court after months of sharp criticism over the eavesdropping.
Civil rights group had criticized the program, in which Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on phone calls and emails between the US and abroad without a court warrant.
Despite legal challenges after the program was revealed in press reports in 2005, the government had insisted that the president could legally authorize the NSA to eavesdrop on international communications it believes involve terror suspects without seeking court approval.
But in a letter to the top Democrat and Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday Bush would not renew the Terrorist Surveillance Program as it had found an effective and quick system to gain approval through an ultra-secretive court.
A judge from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders on January 10 authorizing the government to target international communications when there is probable cause that one of the individuals is an Al-Qaeda operative or from an associated terror organization, Gonzales said.
"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote.
"Although, as we have previously explained, the Terrorist Surveillance Program fully complies with the law, the orders the government has obtained will allow the necessary speed and agility while providing substantial advantages," he wrote.
"Accordingly, under these circumstances, the president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote to Democrat Patrick Leahy, the committee's chairman, and the ranking Republican, Arlen Specter.
Bush had been re-authorizing the program every 45 days.
A federal judge had ordered a halt to the program in August, saying Bush had overstepped his authority, but an appeals court immediately suspended the ruling at the request of the NSA.
Leahy welcomed the Bush administration's announcement Wednesday.
"We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans including the right to privacy," Leahy said in a statement.
"The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses," he said.
On the Senate floor, Specter cautiously welcomed the move and recalled that the administration had refused to reveal details of the program while he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee last year.
"I am glad to see that we may now have all of that resolved," Specter said, adding, however, "I want to know all of the details of this program."
"It is regrettable that these steps weren't taken a long time ago," he said.
"I would like to have an explanation as to why it took from last spring of 2005 and at least past December 16, when there has been such a public furor and public concern," Specter said.
Melissa Goodman, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, a powerful group that challenged the surveillance program in court, said the new eavesdropping process was still too secretive.
"The Bush administration has conceded that there should be some judicial role on NSA spying on Americans, but unfortunately we still just don't understand enough about what's going on now," Goodman said.
"He's basically moved the program into a completely secret court," she said.
A senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity in a teleconference with reporters, said orders issued by the secret court last 90 days and are "very closely" supervised by a judge.
But the official refused to disclose more details.
fc-lt/mac "
Source: Agence France Presse 01/18/2007
WASHINGTON, Jan 18, 2007 (AFP) -
President George W. Bush's administration put a controversial domestic spying program under supervision of a special court after months of sharp criticism over the eavesdropping.
Civil rights group had criticized the program, in which Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on phone calls and emails between the US and abroad without a court warrant.
Despite legal challenges after the program was revealed in press reports in 2005, the government had insisted that the president could legally authorize the NSA to eavesdrop on international communications it believes involve terror suspects without seeking court approval.
But in a letter to the top Democrat and Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday Bush would not renew the Terrorist Surveillance Program as it had found an effective and quick system to gain approval through an ultra-secretive court.
A judge from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders on January 10 authorizing the government to target international communications when there is probable cause that one of the individuals is an Al-Qaeda operative or from an associated terror organization, Gonzales said.
"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote.
"Although, as we have previously explained, the Terrorist Surveillance Program fully complies with the law, the orders the government has obtained will allow the necessary speed and agility while providing substantial advantages," he wrote.
"Accordingly, under these circumstances, the president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote to Democrat Patrick Leahy, the committee's chairman, and the ranking Republican, Arlen Specter.
Bush had been re-authorizing the program every 45 days.
A federal judge had ordered a halt to the program in August, saying Bush had overstepped his authority, but an appeals court immediately suspended the ruling at the request of the NSA.
Leahy welcomed the Bush administration's announcement Wednesday.
"We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans including the right to privacy," Leahy said in a statement.
"The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses," he said.
On the Senate floor, Specter cautiously welcomed the move and recalled that the administration had refused to reveal details of the program while he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee last year.
"I am glad to see that we may now have all of that resolved," Specter said, adding, however, "I want to know all of the details of this program."
"It is regrettable that these steps weren't taken a long time ago," he said.
"I would like to have an explanation as to why it took from last spring of 2005 and at least past December 16, when there has been such a public furor and public concern," Specter said.
Melissa Goodman, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, a powerful group that challenged the surveillance program in court, said the new eavesdropping process was still too secretive.
"The Bush administration has conceded that there should be some judicial role on NSA spying on Americans, but unfortunately we still just don't understand enough about what's going on now," Goodman said.
"He's basically moved the program into a completely secret court," she said.
A senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity in a teleconference with reporters, said orders issued by the secret court last 90 days and are "very closely" supervised by a judge.
But the official refused to disclose more details.
fc-lt/mac "
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Family and Politics
Political
Family roles, myths seize a bigger stage in new politics
Source: The San Francisco Chronicle 01/17/2007
Change is stressful for any family, the experts say. Marriage, job loss, the birth of a child, divorce, a relative moving in or out, a kitchen remodel -- anything can shift the dynamics, alter delicate balances of power, forge new behaviors, new metaphors, new pathways of negotiation. When the family has 300 million members and is fighting a war half a world away that most of them don't believe in, the problems and challenges multiply madly.
Ever since America underwent its major home makeover in the midterm elections last fall, there's been plenty of sorting out and labeling of the new players and products. Much of it, interestingly, has taken on the forms and metaphorical trappings of family dynamics.
Nancy Pelosi's election as speaker of the House may have been the logical culmination of a political career, but it was also carefully marketed for the values that Pelosi brought to the job as a daughter, wife, mother and grandmother. Every Pelosi photo op, it seemed, had more children of all ages in it than the previous one. Over in the Senate, incoming freshmen Jon Tester (a Montana rancher) and Jim Webb (an ex-Marine and former secretary of the Navy from Virginia) were emblematic of the brawny new "Alpha Male Democrats," as the New York Times dubbed them, flinty Marlboro men minus the cigarettes. The new majority party was cannily having it both ways, as a family that blended warmth and toughness, maternal wisdom and a healthy measure of testosterone.
At the country's most famous home address, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., President Bush has been behaving more and more like a man in need of some serious family counseling. His cherished "surge" of 21,500 American troops in Iraq had pundits flinging out competing images of dysfunction. Several said it was like a couple trying to save a doomed marriage by having a baby. As for the administration's growing pique with the intractable Iraqis themselves, Maureen Dowd mused recently that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and new Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte regard them as "irksome" cousins who have overstayed their welcome or ungrateful children who "leave the playroom a mess."
Politics isn't just personal anymore. It's about the ability to place and define yourself as part of a family, an embracing social structure with a larger unifying purpose. Bush, who rode to power seven years ago on a family-values tailwind that repudiated Clintonian laxness and turpitude, has become the image of a man alone, clinging fast to his failed policy as he teeters on the brink of full-fledged divorce from a Democratic-controlled Congress, from public opinion and even from his own party. Bush in 2007 is a baleful, solitary figure to contemplate.
The English writer W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) would have understood this purposeful mingling of politics and family perfectly. In a long stream of novels, plays, short stories and nonfiction, the author of "Cakes and Ale," "The Razor's Edge" and "Of Human Bondage" returned again and again to the theme of marriage and divorce as forums of power, money, deception, self-delusion and self-assertion. It was politics, in other words, in the most elegant and elemental way.
Maugham is a minor writer who seemed destined for obscurity 40 years after his death. But he's undergoing a timely 21st century rediscovery. His play "The Constant Wife," a 1926 comedy of manners about a woman declaring her economic and erotic freedom from a faithless husband, was revived by the American Conservatory Theater in 2003 and on Broadway in 2005. Now ACT has another Maugham-on- marriage play up and running; "The Circle" (1921) continues through Feb. 4. A fine film adaptation of Maugham's 1925 novel "The Painted Veil," starring Edward Norton and Naomi Watts as an unhappily married couple facing each other down during a cholera outbreak in China, is in theaters.
Seen one way, "Veil" is the more serious, overtly political work. Played out against the menace and human suffering of cholera, with the dramatic Chinese mountainscape as a backdrop, the story has a kind of bleak, tragic grandeur. "This is going to get much worse," Walter (Norton) warns Kitty (Watts) at one point, as the ravages of disease, the gruesome realities of 1920s medicine, the corrosion of English colonialism and the couple's loveless marriage and barren living conditions eat away at them.
"The Circle," by contrast, seems blithely, hermetically sealed. Cocooned inside a luxurious house in Dorset, the characters dress for luncheon, quibble over card games and idly debate the authenticity of an antique chair. Crisis arrives in the form of an older couple who return to England 30 years after an adulterous escape to Italy. Time has turned them into weary comic caricatures of impassioned lovers. One (Kathleen Widdoes) is fat and frivolous; the other (Ken Ruta) is a bitter old man with ill-fitting dentures. The closest thing to a political plotline involves a sexless cold- fish husband (James Waterston as Arnold) whose only real concern about his pretty young wife's plan to leave him is what effects a scandal might have on his future in Parliament.
But Maugham, a homosexual who spent 12 miserable years as a married man, didn't need a larger external world to enhance his subject. Marriage was a minefield in its own right, a realm of treachery, vanity, smiling malice, glimmers of altruism and kindness and acres of stifling suffocation. The power of both "The Painted Veil" and "The Circle" flow from that single source, albeit along different streambeds. Politics, for Maugham, was fundamentally personal, and the personal intrinsically political.
"I did not marry you because I loved you," he once wrote his wife, Syrie, in a letter, "and you were only too well aware of it." That's a line that's repeated, with chilly frankness, by the adulterous Kitty to her husband in "The Painted Veil."
"The Circle," expertly directed by Mark Lamos, moves in a lighter and more satiric vein. But the comedy is shot through with a deep skepticism about romance, marriage and family. "I owe everything to my father," says Arnold, referring to a man (Philip Kerr as Clive) who dismisses his ex-wife as "tinsel" and now amuses himself with women in their 20s. Later on, when Clive schemes to save Arnold's marriage by endorsing the infidelity of his son's wife, the deceit backfires without his realizing it. The lovers and manipulators alike are captives of their own illusions.
Late in "The Painted Veil," Kitty and Walter finally forgive each other their failings and are granted a single night of authentic physical passion. Shortly after that, one of them is dead. But it's finally not Maugham's suave cynicism about human affairs that seems attuned to our own family-inflected politics of the moment. It's his clear-eyed realism about the stories people tell themselves and the damage they can do. "It was silly of us to look for qualities in each other that we never had," Walter tells Kitty. That cautionary line hovers over the film and reaches out to us directly.
As the myths of the Bush era dissolve and America moves to remake itself, we need to think more carefully than ever about the qualities we see -- or think we see -- in our leaders. The American family is a warm and inviting notion, and politicians are eager to invoke the rhetoric and images that surround it. Whatever stories we decide to believe, from Congress and the presidential candidates lining up to run in 2008, let's hope we'll do it with our eyes, ears and minds wide open. "
Family roles, myths seize a bigger stage in new politics
Source: The San Francisco Chronicle 01/17/2007
Change is stressful for any family, the experts say. Marriage, job loss, the birth of a child, divorce, a relative moving in or out, a kitchen remodel -- anything can shift the dynamics, alter delicate balances of power, forge new behaviors, new metaphors, new pathways of negotiation. When the family has 300 million members and is fighting a war half a world away that most of them don't believe in, the problems and challenges multiply madly.
Ever since America underwent its major home makeover in the midterm elections last fall, there's been plenty of sorting out and labeling of the new players and products. Much of it, interestingly, has taken on the forms and metaphorical trappings of family dynamics.
Nancy Pelosi's election as speaker of the House may have been the logical culmination of a political career, but it was also carefully marketed for the values that Pelosi brought to the job as a daughter, wife, mother and grandmother. Every Pelosi photo op, it seemed, had more children of all ages in it than the previous one. Over in the Senate, incoming freshmen Jon Tester (a Montana rancher) and Jim Webb (an ex-Marine and former secretary of the Navy from Virginia) were emblematic of the brawny new "Alpha Male Democrats," as the New York Times dubbed them, flinty Marlboro men minus the cigarettes. The new majority party was cannily having it both ways, as a family that blended warmth and toughness, maternal wisdom and a healthy measure of testosterone.
At the country's most famous home address, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., President Bush has been behaving more and more like a man in need of some serious family counseling. His cherished "surge" of 21,500 American troops in Iraq had pundits flinging out competing images of dysfunction. Several said it was like a couple trying to save a doomed marriage by having a baby. As for the administration's growing pique with the intractable Iraqis themselves, Maureen Dowd mused recently that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and new Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte regard them as "irksome" cousins who have overstayed their welcome or ungrateful children who "leave the playroom a mess."
Politics isn't just personal anymore. It's about the ability to place and define yourself as part of a family, an embracing social structure with a larger unifying purpose. Bush, who rode to power seven years ago on a family-values tailwind that repudiated Clintonian laxness and turpitude, has become the image of a man alone, clinging fast to his failed policy as he teeters on the brink of full-fledged divorce from a Democratic-controlled Congress, from public opinion and even from his own party. Bush in 2007 is a baleful, solitary figure to contemplate.
The English writer W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) would have understood this purposeful mingling of politics and family perfectly. In a long stream of novels, plays, short stories and nonfiction, the author of "Cakes and Ale," "The Razor's Edge" and "Of Human Bondage" returned again and again to the theme of marriage and divorce as forums of power, money, deception, self-delusion and self-assertion. It was politics, in other words, in the most elegant and elemental way.
Maugham is a minor writer who seemed destined for obscurity 40 years after his death. But he's undergoing a timely 21st century rediscovery. His play "The Constant Wife," a 1926 comedy of manners about a woman declaring her economic and erotic freedom from a faithless husband, was revived by the American Conservatory Theater in 2003 and on Broadway in 2005. Now ACT has another Maugham-on- marriage play up and running; "The Circle" (1921) continues through Feb. 4. A fine film adaptation of Maugham's 1925 novel "The Painted Veil," starring Edward Norton and Naomi Watts as an unhappily married couple facing each other down during a cholera outbreak in China, is in theaters.
Seen one way, "Veil" is the more serious, overtly political work. Played out against the menace and human suffering of cholera, with the dramatic Chinese mountainscape as a backdrop, the story has a kind of bleak, tragic grandeur. "This is going to get much worse," Walter (Norton) warns Kitty (Watts) at one point, as the ravages of disease, the gruesome realities of 1920s medicine, the corrosion of English colonialism and the couple's loveless marriage and barren living conditions eat away at them.
"The Circle," by contrast, seems blithely, hermetically sealed. Cocooned inside a luxurious house in Dorset, the characters dress for luncheon, quibble over card games and idly debate the authenticity of an antique chair. Crisis arrives in the form of an older couple who return to England 30 years after an adulterous escape to Italy. Time has turned them into weary comic caricatures of impassioned lovers. One (Kathleen Widdoes) is fat and frivolous; the other (Ken Ruta) is a bitter old man with ill-fitting dentures. The closest thing to a political plotline involves a sexless cold- fish husband (James Waterston as Arnold) whose only real concern about his pretty young wife's plan to leave him is what effects a scandal might have on his future in Parliament.
But Maugham, a homosexual who spent 12 miserable years as a married man, didn't need a larger external world to enhance his subject. Marriage was a minefield in its own right, a realm of treachery, vanity, smiling malice, glimmers of altruism and kindness and acres of stifling suffocation. The power of both "The Painted Veil" and "The Circle" flow from that single source, albeit along different streambeds. Politics, for Maugham, was fundamentally personal, and the personal intrinsically political.
"I did not marry you because I loved you," he once wrote his wife, Syrie, in a letter, "and you were only too well aware of it." That's a line that's repeated, with chilly frankness, by the adulterous Kitty to her husband in "The Painted Veil."
"The Circle," expertly directed by Mark Lamos, moves in a lighter and more satiric vein. But the comedy is shot through with a deep skepticism about romance, marriage and family. "I owe everything to my father," says Arnold, referring to a man (Philip Kerr as Clive) who dismisses his ex-wife as "tinsel" and now amuses himself with women in their 20s. Later on, when Clive schemes to save Arnold's marriage by endorsing the infidelity of his son's wife, the deceit backfires without his realizing it. The lovers and manipulators alike are captives of their own illusions.
Late in "The Painted Veil," Kitty and Walter finally forgive each other their failings and are granted a single night of authentic physical passion. Shortly after that, one of them is dead. But it's finally not Maugham's suave cynicism about human affairs that seems attuned to our own family-inflected politics of the moment. It's his clear-eyed realism about the stories people tell themselves and the damage they can do. "It was silly of us to look for qualities in each other that we never had," Walter tells Kitty. That cautionary line hovers over the film and reaches out to us directly.
As the myths of the Bush era dissolve and America moves to remake itself, we need to think more carefully than ever about the qualities we see -- or think we see -- in our leaders. The American family is a warm and inviting notion, and politicians are eager to invoke the rhetoric and images that surround it. Whatever stories we decide to believe, from Congress and the presidential candidates lining up to run in 2008, let's hope we'll do it with our eyes, ears and minds wide open. "
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Jack's Stance on Iraq
"The Honorable John P. Murtha's Speech on the War in Iraq - The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region."
Popular Vote Movement Makes Headway
"Source: Associated Press Newswires 01/16/2007
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - A movement to essentially junk the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the nationwide popular vote is making some headway in states large and small -- including, somewhat improbably, North Dakota.
The National Popular Vote movement is aimed at preventing a repeat of 2000, when Democrat Al Gore lost despite getting more votes than George W. Bush.
Backers are asking states to change their laws to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally.
A bill to do that was introduced last week in the North Dakota Legislature, even though it could reduce the political influence of small states like North Dakota.
"Its strength is, it is what the people want," said one of the sponsors, Rep. Duane DeKrey, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "It kind of takes out that system where the person who gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win."
John Koza, a Stanford University professor who is one of the idea's principal advocates, said lawmakers in 47 states have agreed to sponsor the plan this year. It was introduced last year in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New York and California, where the Legislature approved the measure only to have Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger veto it.
Backers say it would help bring a national focus to presidential campaigns.
Koza said the current system encourages parties to focus on a few contested "battleground" states -- Ohio and Florida, in recent years -- and exaggerates the significance of issues important to those states.
"Why is the rest of the country interested in Cuba? It's a couple of million people, we don't trade with them, and it's certainly been no military threat for 40 years," Koza said. The reason, he said, is that Florida is a battleground state.
In presidential elections, the American people are not voting directly for a candidate. Instead, under a system created by the founding fathers out of a fear of mob rule, voters choose slates of "electors," who in most cases are expected to cast their ballots for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.
Each state has one elector for every member it has in the House and Senate, a formula that gives small states a somewhat larger vote than population alone would dictate.
There have been other attempts to change the Electoral College system, but all of them foundered. They were aimed at amending the Constitution, an often drawn-out process that requires approval by Congress and ratification by at least 38 states.
This plan would be accomplished instead through an agreement among the states. It would not take effect unless adopted by state legislatures representing a majority of electoral votes.
Robert Hardaway, a University of Denver law professor and Electoral College expert, warned that the proposed interstate compact may need approval from Congress to be legal. In any case, it is "a terrible idea," Hardaway said.
In a close presidential election, recounts would be demanded "in every precinct, every hamlet in the United States," he said. "The practical problems are absolutely enormous."
Lloyd Omdahl, a former University of North Dakota political science professor, state tax commissioner and Democratic lieutenant governor, called the measure ingenious. But he was skeptical the GOP-controlled Legislature would embrace it.
"Republicans in North Dakota would see no benefit from this, because they almost always get the electoral votes," Omdahl said.
Had the compact been in force in 2000, North Dakota's three electors would have had to support Gore, even though Bush carried the state with 63 percent. Since 1900, only three Democratic presidential candidates have carried North Dakota -- Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, in 1964.
Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political science professor and director of the school's Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, warned the proposal would reduce the influence of small states and lead candidates to spend more time campaigning in voter-rich California, New York and Texas.
However, Jacobs said dissatisfaction with the Electoral College system is growing, even in states that may benefit from the current setup.
A lot of Americans "don't like the Electoral College system. They find it to be out of step with expectations about democracy, expectations that our founding fathers did not necessarily share," he said.
"I think time has seen an evolution of a different way of seeing things, a different norm, in which we expect the president to be popularly elected."
------
On the Net:
National Popular Vote:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/
Electoral College:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - A movement to essentially junk the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the nationwide popular vote is making some headway in states large and small -- including, somewhat improbably, North Dakota.
The National Popular Vote movement is aimed at preventing a repeat of 2000, when Democrat Al Gore lost despite getting more votes than George W. Bush.
Backers are asking states to change their laws to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally.
A bill to do that was introduced last week in the North Dakota Legislature, even though it could reduce the political influence of small states like North Dakota.
"Its strength is, it is what the people want," said one of the sponsors, Rep. Duane DeKrey, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "It kind of takes out that system where the person who gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win."
John Koza, a Stanford University professor who is one of the idea's principal advocates, said lawmakers in 47 states have agreed to sponsor the plan this year. It was introduced last year in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New York and California, where the Legislature approved the measure only to have Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger veto it.
Backers say it would help bring a national focus to presidential campaigns.
Koza said the current system encourages parties to focus on a few contested "battleground" states -- Ohio and Florida, in recent years -- and exaggerates the significance of issues important to those states.
"Why is the rest of the country interested in Cuba? It's a couple of million people, we don't trade with them, and it's certainly been no military threat for 40 years," Koza said. The reason, he said, is that Florida is a battleground state.
In presidential elections, the American people are not voting directly for a candidate. Instead, under a system created by the founding fathers out of a fear of mob rule, voters choose slates of "electors," who in most cases are expected to cast their ballots for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.
Each state has one elector for every member it has in the House and Senate, a formula that gives small states a somewhat larger vote than population alone would dictate.
There have been other attempts to change the Electoral College system, but all of them foundered. They were aimed at amending the Constitution, an often drawn-out process that requires approval by Congress and ratification by at least 38 states.
This plan would be accomplished instead through an agreement among the states. It would not take effect unless adopted by state legislatures representing a majority of electoral votes.
Robert Hardaway, a University of Denver law professor and Electoral College expert, warned that the proposed interstate compact may need approval from Congress to be legal. In any case, it is "a terrible idea," Hardaway said.
In a close presidential election, recounts would be demanded "in every precinct, every hamlet in the United States," he said. "The practical problems are absolutely enormous."
Lloyd Omdahl, a former University of North Dakota political science professor, state tax commissioner and Democratic lieutenant governor, called the measure ingenious. But he was skeptical the GOP-controlled Legislature would embrace it.
"Republicans in North Dakota would see no benefit from this, because they almost always get the electoral votes," Omdahl said.
Had the compact been in force in 2000, North Dakota's three electors would have had to support Gore, even though Bush carried the state with 63 percent. Since 1900, only three Democratic presidential candidates have carried North Dakota -- Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, in 1964.
Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political science professor and director of the school's Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, warned the proposal would reduce the influence of small states and lead candidates to spend more time campaigning in voter-rich California, New York and Texas.
However, Jacobs said dissatisfaction with the Electoral College system is growing, even in states that may benefit from the current setup.
A lot of Americans "don't like the Electoral College system. They find it to be out of step with expectations about democracy, expectations that our founding fathers did not necessarily share," he said.
"I think time has seen an evolution of a different way of seeing things, a different norm, in which we expect the president to be popularly elected."
------
On the Net:
National Popular Vote:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/
Electoral College:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Should the Government Negotiate Drug Prices?
Comment: The White House & President said they would veto such a measure because they claim it would raise prices for everyone. Excuse me while I cough “Bull Shit”. The Government already has programs that pay for prescription drugs for some Americans. Negotiated for lower prices will increase competition and in no way increase prices anywhere. Competition lowers prices, basic economics.
I’ll tell you what this is, Big Pharmaceutical Money influencing the White House under the leadership of G.W. Bush once again.
I pray Congress would overturn the President’s veto.
NPR Report:
January 12, 2007 · The House passes a bill that would require the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug makers for lower prices for Medicare patients. The vote was 255-170 in favor of the bill, including some two dozen Republicans. Those supporting the measure ignored a veto threat from President Bush.
The administration contends that government price negotiations — which are currently barred by law — would ultimately threaten the availability of drugs for seniors, and could raise, rather than lower, prices. But polls have shown the public is strongly behind the idea of government negotiation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6837624
And this week, a key Democratic backer of the existing Medicare drug program, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, said he now supports eliminating the ban on government negotiation.
I’ll tell you what this is, Big Pharmaceutical Money influencing the White House under the leadership of G.W. Bush once again.
I pray Congress would overturn the President’s veto.
NPR Report:
January 12, 2007 · The House passes a bill that would require the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug makers for lower prices for Medicare patients. The vote was 255-170 in favor of the bill, including some two dozen Republicans. Those supporting the measure ignored a veto threat from President Bush.
The administration contends that government price negotiations — which are currently barred by law — would ultimately threaten the availability of drugs for seniors, and could raise, rather than lower, prices. But polls have shown the public is strongly behind the idea of government negotiation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6837624
And this week, a key Democratic backer of the existing Medicare drug program, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, said he now supports eliminating the ban on government negotiation.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Bush Wants More Money for Iraq
Mr. President,
"Read my lips" No more money and no more troops for Iraq!
Please notice the word "for". Many people are discussing the fact that BILLIONS of Taxpayer dollars are being used "for" Iraqi citizens when it should be being used "for" the needs of U.S. citizens.
While the Republicans are whining and leaking their wounds after suffering a crushing political defeat the “do something” Democratic Congress are busy writing legislation that will hopefully end this War in Iraq this year.
-Yoda
(Comments welcome)
NPR Report of Bush's Plan:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6781375
"Read my lips" No more money and no more troops for Iraq!
Please notice the word "for". Many people are discussing the fact that BILLIONS of Taxpayer dollars are being used "for" Iraqi citizens when it should be being used "for" the needs of U.S. citizens.
While the Republicans are whining and leaking their wounds after suffering a crushing political defeat the “do something” Democratic Congress are busy writing legislation that will hopefully end this War in Iraq this year.
-Yoda
(Comments welcome)
NPR Report of Bush's Plan:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6781375
CIA chief's lawyer quits case
Political
CIA chief's lawyer quits case, had hoped for political solution
Source: Associated Press Newswires 01/09/2007
MILAN, Italy (AP) - A lawyer for a former CIA station chief accused of involvement in the alleged kidnapping of an Egyptian terror suspect withdrew from the case Tuesday, saying statements by Italian spymasters implicating U.S. agents had undermined her attempts to head off a criminal trial.
Daria Pesce, representing former Milan station chief Robert Seldon Lady, walked out of court as a judge began hearing arguments on whether to indict 26 Americans and five Italian intelligence officials on criminal charges.
A trial would be the first criminal prosecution involving the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, in which terror suspects are secretly transferred to third countries where critics say they may face torture.
No decision on indictments was made Tuesday and further hearings were set for Jan. 29 into mid-February.
"Robert Seldon Lady says that this case should have had a political solution and not a judicial solution," Pesce said. "The Italian government could have decided it was a state secret -- remember, this was a terror suspect. It would have been possible if the Italian government had had the courage to reach an agreement with the U.S. government."
Instead, she said, statements that amounted to confessions from two Italians were so damaging they made it politically impossible for her to seek diplomatic immunity for her client.
"No one expected the secret services to talk," she told The Associated Press in an interview.
She was referring to statements by several Italians cooperating with Milan prosecutors that described Lady's alleged involvement with the Feb. 17, 2003, abduction of Egyptian Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, from a Milan street.
Prosecutors say the operation was a breach of Italian sovereignty that compromised their own anti-terrorism efforts. None of the defendants attended the hearing.
Asked whether he thought Pesce's withdrawal signaled the CIA's attempt to dissociate itself from the case, prosecutor Armando Spataro, who requested the indictments, said her statements were reminiscent of an era when terrorist groups tried to discredit Italian justice.
"I heard the same thing from the Red Brigades during the terror trials in the 1970s," Spataro said.
Pesce, who met with Seldon Lady four or five times in the United States, most recently in September, said the court had already appointed a new lawyer for him.
All but one of the Americans have been identified by the prosecution as CIA agents, including former station chiefs in Rome and Milan; the other is a U.S. Air Force officer who was stationed at the time at Aviano air base near Venice. The Italians include the former head of the Italian military intelligence, Nicolo Pollari.
In Italy, defendants are not required to attend preliminary hearings, or even trials. Spataro has asked Premier Romano Prodi's center-left government to seek the extradition of the American suspects, but there has been no response.
The previous prime minister, conservative Silvio Berlusconi, who was a close ally of President Bush, refused.
Pollari's defense lawyers said Tuesday they intend in the next session to try to have both Prodi and Berlusconi take the witness stand, as well as their respective defense ministers.
Even if a request is made for the Americans' extradition -- a move bound to irritate U.S.-Italian relations -- it was unlikely that the CIA agents would be turned over for trial abroad.
The CIA has refused to comment on the case.
------
Associated Press Writer Colleen Barry in Milan contributed to this report.
CIA chief's lawyer quits case, had hoped for political solution
Source: Associated Press Newswires 01/09/2007
MILAN, Italy (AP) - A lawyer for a former CIA station chief accused of involvement in the alleged kidnapping of an Egyptian terror suspect withdrew from the case Tuesday, saying statements by Italian spymasters implicating U.S. agents had undermined her attempts to head off a criminal trial.
Daria Pesce, representing former Milan station chief Robert Seldon Lady, walked out of court as a judge began hearing arguments on whether to indict 26 Americans and five Italian intelligence officials on criminal charges.
A trial would be the first criminal prosecution involving the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, in which terror suspects are secretly transferred to third countries where critics say they may face torture.
No decision on indictments was made Tuesday and further hearings were set for Jan. 29 into mid-February.
"Robert Seldon Lady says that this case should have had a political solution and not a judicial solution," Pesce said. "The Italian government could have decided it was a state secret -- remember, this was a terror suspect. It would have been possible if the Italian government had had the courage to reach an agreement with the U.S. government."
Instead, she said, statements that amounted to confessions from two Italians were so damaging they made it politically impossible for her to seek diplomatic immunity for her client.
"No one expected the secret services to talk," she told The Associated Press in an interview.
She was referring to statements by several Italians cooperating with Milan prosecutors that described Lady's alleged involvement with the Feb. 17, 2003, abduction of Egyptian Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, from a Milan street.
Prosecutors say the operation was a breach of Italian sovereignty that compromised their own anti-terrorism efforts. None of the defendants attended the hearing.
Asked whether he thought Pesce's withdrawal signaled the CIA's attempt to dissociate itself from the case, prosecutor Armando Spataro, who requested the indictments, said her statements were reminiscent of an era when terrorist groups tried to discredit Italian justice.
"I heard the same thing from the Red Brigades during the terror trials in the 1970s," Spataro said.
Pesce, who met with Seldon Lady four or five times in the United States, most recently in September, said the court had already appointed a new lawyer for him.
All but one of the Americans have been identified by the prosecution as CIA agents, including former station chiefs in Rome and Milan; the other is a U.S. Air Force officer who was stationed at the time at Aviano air base near Venice. The Italians include the former head of the Italian military intelligence, Nicolo Pollari.
In Italy, defendants are not required to attend preliminary hearings, or even trials. Spataro has asked Premier Romano Prodi's center-left government to seek the extradition of the American suspects, but there has been no response.
The previous prime minister, conservative Silvio Berlusconi, who was a close ally of President Bush, refused.
Pollari's defense lawyers said Tuesday they intend in the next session to try to have both Prodi and Berlusconi take the witness stand, as well as their respective defense ministers.
Even if a request is made for the Americans' extradition -- a move bound to irritate U.S.-Italian relations -- it was unlikely that the CIA agents would be turned over for trial abroad.
The CIA has refused to comment on the case.
------
Associated Press Writer Colleen Barry in Milan contributed to this report.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Someone Said "The Children Are Our Future"
"Source: USA Today 01/02/2007
I f you're anything like me, 2006 has left you in an exhausted heap, distressed and depressed that America has been swallowed up in its own star-spangled stew of bitterness and scandal -- from the relentless political infighting and ceaseless clamor on talk radio to the pantyless Britney Spears.
And don't even get me started on Kramer.
But as the curtain rises on 2007, we do have a lot to smile about. I discovered this by conducting my own little experiment in optimism: Combing through a backlog of e-mails and clipped articles, I noticed that I'd been focusing my energy primarily on hot-button issues -- from stem cells to the Iraq War. I suppose this is natural. After all, nothing gets the blood pumping like a good fight, and there are plenty of those to go around lately.
Still, what about those stories that carry a whiff of (dare I say it) hope? Cultural watchdogs like to say that the media focus only on the bad stuff, but in truth, the good news is always out there -- you just have to look for it.
Here are a few items that, to me at least, make the New Year not only palatable, but maybe even something to celebrate:
Keeping hope alive. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis has achieved a 90% survival rate in its treatment of kids with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the most common form of childhood cancer. This is not a small thing. When entertainer Danny Thomas opened the doors to St. Jude in 1962, that survival rate was less than 4% -- all but guaranteeing the death of the child. Now, lives are being saved. Meanwhile, St. Jude stands by its founding promise - - that no child will be turned away for a family's inability to pay. In a nation in which 9 million kids are uninsured, that's not just good news. It's a blessing.
The kids are all right. Not every teen is loitering in the electronic hallways of MySpace or zombied out in front of MTV's Pimp My Ride. Last year, I received a letter from USA TODAY reader Tom Marshall of Laytonsville, Md., responding to a column I had written about teen activism. Tom proudly noted that his 17-year-old daughter, Kathleen (and her friend Charlene Thomas), had devoted the previous summer ("590 hours in all") to organizing a walk-a-thon that generated more than $10,000 for the AIDS Research Alliance. It was the largest fundraising effort by a high school in ARA's history. This single act of charity, says dad, so inspired Kathleen that she subsequently traveled to Africa to lend a hand to AIDS victims in hospitals, clinics and orphanages in Botswana.
Kathleen is in good company: According to a report by the Corporation for National & Community Service, teen volunteerism (ages 16 to 19) has more than doubled since 1989, thanks in large part to such organizations as the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts and 4- H. (Oh, yeah -- some more good news: Girl Scout cookies now have zero trans fats. But that's another story.)
The Pied Piper of pennies. Speaking of active youth, would you believe that children have raised more money for victims of Hurricane Katrina than most of the country's cash-fat corporations? Credit Anne Ginther of Dallas, whose non-profit organization Random Kid has raked in more than $10 million for Americans left homeless by the hurricane's devastation. In 2005, Ginther became captivated by the news-making efforts of a 10-year-old neighbor, Talia Leman, who had convinced a grocery chain to support her trick-or-trick campaign for Katrina relief dollars. Having already built her own kids' coin crusade on the Internet, Ginther joined forces with Talia, and they soon began marshalling a nationwide army of pint- sized fundraisers into the fold -- kids who collect coins in buckets, sell lemonade on street corners and hector business bigwigs with all the self-assurance of a D.C. lobbyist. The money then flows to relief organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, the Bush- Clinton Katrina Fund and Oprah's Angel Network.
But to Ginther, it always comes back to the kids. "The amazing thing about children," she told me, "is that they don't see politics as an obstacle, they don't take no for an answer, and they do take sheer joy in everything they do. It's such a kick to see just how powerful a child can be."
Are there any disadvantages to working with kids seven days a week? Says Ginther, "Well, they tend to get up early ... ."
Special deliveries. While the rest of the country was fighting over the war in Iraq, Californian Carolyn Blashek was busy packing boxes. So began the 2006 holiday drive for her beloved brainchild, Operation Gratitude, which since 2003 has provided our servicemen and women overseas with regular care packages from home, brimming with donated items -- from DVDs and sunflower seeds to baseball caps and Beanie Babies. This past year, more than 60,000 holiday packages found their way to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, bringing Op Gratitude's grand total to more than 200,000. "The idea is to let every servicemember who's been deployed know that someone cares about them," Blashek told me during a rare break from the assembly line. "After more than three years, I feel like a mom to these people. Every one of them is in my blood now."
Although Blashek doesn't like to play favorites, she admits that the most unusual item donated to Op Gratitude was a car. Postage must've been brutal.
So that's what jazzes me these days. If none of the above gives you reason to head into 2007 with even an ounce of cheer, you can always fall back on another little thought -- one that's guaranteed to perk up even the terminally dour: It ain't 2006.
Bruce Kluger, a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors, also writes for National Public Radio and Parenting magazine. "
I f you're anything like me, 2006 has left you in an exhausted heap, distressed and depressed that America has been swallowed up in its own star-spangled stew of bitterness and scandal -- from the relentless political infighting and ceaseless clamor on talk radio to the pantyless Britney Spears.
And don't even get me started on Kramer.
But as the curtain rises on 2007, we do have a lot to smile about. I discovered this by conducting my own little experiment in optimism: Combing through a backlog of e-mails and clipped articles, I noticed that I'd been focusing my energy primarily on hot-button issues -- from stem cells to the Iraq War. I suppose this is natural. After all, nothing gets the blood pumping like a good fight, and there are plenty of those to go around lately.
Still, what about those stories that carry a whiff of (dare I say it) hope? Cultural watchdogs like to say that the media focus only on the bad stuff, but in truth, the good news is always out there -- you just have to look for it.
Here are a few items that, to me at least, make the New Year not only palatable, but maybe even something to celebrate:
Keeping hope alive. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis has achieved a 90% survival rate in its treatment of kids with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the most common form of childhood cancer. This is not a small thing. When entertainer Danny Thomas opened the doors to St. Jude in 1962, that survival rate was less than 4% -- all but guaranteeing the death of the child. Now, lives are being saved. Meanwhile, St. Jude stands by its founding promise - - that no child will be turned away for a family's inability to pay. In a nation in which 9 million kids are uninsured, that's not just good news. It's a blessing.
The kids are all right. Not every teen is loitering in the electronic hallways of MySpace or zombied out in front of MTV's Pimp My Ride. Last year, I received a letter from USA TODAY reader Tom Marshall of Laytonsville, Md., responding to a column I had written about teen activism. Tom proudly noted that his 17-year-old daughter, Kathleen (and her friend Charlene Thomas), had devoted the previous summer ("590 hours in all") to organizing a walk-a-thon that generated more than $10,000 for the AIDS Research Alliance. It was the largest fundraising effort by a high school in ARA's history. This single act of charity, says dad, so inspired Kathleen that she subsequently traveled to Africa to lend a hand to AIDS victims in hospitals, clinics and orphanages in Botswana.
Kathleen is in good company: According to a report by the Corporation for National & Community Service, teen volunteerism (ages 16 to 19) has more than doubled since 1989, thanks in large part to such organizations as the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts and 4- H. (Oh, yeah -- some more good news: Girl Scout cookies now have zero trans fats. But that's another story.)
The Pied Piper of pennies. Speaking of active youth, would you believe that children have raised more money for victims of Hurricane Katrina than most of the country's cash-fat corporations? Credit Anne Ginther of Dallas, whose non-profit organization Random Kid has raked in more than $10 million for Americans left homeless by the hurricane's devastation. In 2005, Ginther became captivated by the news-making efforts of a 10-year-old neighbor, Talia Leman, who had convinced a grocery chain to support her trick-or-trick campaign for Katrina relief dollars. Having already built her own kids' coin crusade on the Internet, Ginther joined forces with Talia, and they soon began marshalling a nationwide army of pint- sized fundraisers into the fold -- kids who collect coins in buckets, sell lemonade on street corners and hector business bigwigs with all the self-assurance of a D.C. lobbyist. The money then flows to relief organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, the Bush- Clinton Katrina Fund and Oprah's Angel Network.
But to Ginther, it always comes back to the kids. "The amazing thing about children," she told me, "is that they don't see politics as an obstacle, they don't take no for an answer, and they do take sheer joy in everything they do. It's such a kick to see just how powerful a child can be."
Are there any disadvantages to working with kids seven days a week? Says Ginther, "Well, they tend to get up early ... ."
Special deliveries. While the rest of the country was fighting over the war in Iraq, Californian Carolyn Blashek was busy packing boxes. So began the 2006 holiday drive for her beloved brainchild, Operation Gratitude, which since 2003 has provided our servicemen and women overseas with regular care packages from home, brimming with donated items -- from DVDs and sunflower seeds to baseball caps and Beanie Babies. This past year, more than 60,000 holiday packages found their way to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, bringing Op Gratitude's grand total to more than 200,000. "The idea is to let every servicemember who's been deployed know that someone cares about them," Blashek told me during a rare break from the assembly line. "After more than three years, I feel like a mom to these people. Every one of them is in my blood now."
Although Blashek doesn't like to play favorites, she admits that the most unusual item donated to Op Gratitude was a car. Postage must've been brutal.
So that's what jazzes me these days. If none of the above gives you reason to head into 2007 with even an ounce of cheer, you can always fall back on another little thought -- one that's guaranteed to perk up even the terminally dour: It ain't 2006.
Bruce Kluger, a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors, also writes for National Public Radio and Parenting magazine. "
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Jesus or Buddha?
The eyes of humanity will truly be opened when it remembers the dying words of Jesus Christ “forgive them father, for they know not what they do”.
Rather you believe in God, a higher power, Buddha, science or your inner self the truth of the matter is that men are a far ways from being socially or intellectually evolved.
We murder each other over our man made values. Such as religion, statues, faith, land, power, wealth, and money. All values which in the end will have no worth.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The Price of Gas
The Price of Gas
I find it ironic that now after the Congressional elections the price of gas is going right back up. Damn “blue-eyed devils” in charge of the oil companies in cahoots with George W. Bush. [God bless freedon of speech].
Corporations today seem to have no regard for the common good. Why do the CEO’s find it necessary to drive these exorbitant profits draining the pockets of people needing that money for other things. (That’s a statement, not a question).
All you rich folk will say there aren’t many people in that boat, well I sure as hell am.
If I met the President of Exxon I would slap him across the face!
I find it ironic that now after the Congressional elections the price of gas is going right back up. Damn “blue-eyed devils” in charge of the oil companies in cahoots with George W. Bush. [God bless freedon of speech].
Corporations today seem to have no regard for the common good. Why do the CEO’s find it necessary to drive these exorbitant profits draining the pockets of people needing that money for other things. (That’s a statement, not a question).
All you rich folk will say there aren’t many people in that boat, well I sure as hell am.
If I met the President of Exxon I would slap him across the face!
Economic Divide in America
Lets remember all the littlle boys and girls that Santa forgot this holiday season.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Marines Charged in Haditha Case
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) -- Eight Marines were charged Thursday in the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians last year during a bloody, door-to-door sweep in the town of Haditha that came after one of their comrades was killed by a roadside bomb.
In the biggest U.S. criminal case involving civilian deaths to come out of the Iraq war, four of the Marines -- all enlisted men -- were charged with unpremeditated murder.
The other four were officers who were not there during the killings but were accused of failures in investigating and reporting the deaths.
The most serious charges were brought against Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, a 26-year-old squad leader accused of murdering 12 civilians and ordering the murders of six more inside a house cleared by his squad. He was accused of telling his men to "shoot first and ask questions later," according to court papers released by his attorney.
The highest-ranking defendant was Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, 42. He was accused of failing to obey an order or regulation, encompassing dereliction of duty.
At a news conference to announce the charges, military officials would not say what they believe prompted the killings. But investigators have raised the possibility that the men went on a rampage in a fury over the roadside bombing that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas of El Paso, Texas, and wounded two other Marines.
Defense attorneys have disputed that, saying their clients were doing what they had been trained to do: responding to a perceived threat with legitimate force.
Terrazas' father denounced the charges, saying his son was murdered by insurgents. "What they are doing to our troops ...it's just wrong," Martin Terrazas said in Texas. "I feel for their families. They are in my prayers."
Wuterich and two comrades charged with murder could get life in prison. The military is not seeking the death penalty. The other men face shorter prison sentences.
The Marine Corps initially reported that 15 Iraqis died in a roadside bomb blast and that Marines killed eight insurgents in an ensuing firefight. That account was widely discredited, and later reports put the number of dead Iraqis at 24.
A criminal probe was launched after Time magazine reported in March, citing survivor accounts and human rights groups, that innocent people were killed.
Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commanding general of the Marine Corps Central Command, said Thursday that the Corps' initial news release, which stated that the civilians in Haditha had been killed by an improvised explosive device, was incorrect.
"We now know with certainty that the press release was incorrect, and that none of the civilians were killed by the IED explosion," Mattis said.
As word spread that charges were imminent, some Iraqis said Thursday that American troops should face justice in Iraq.
"They committed a horrible crime against innocents," Naji al-Ani, a 36-year-old laborer, said by telephone from Haditha.
Other residents of Haditha agreed.
"Are they terrorists or are they fighting terrorism?" said Jamal al-Obaidi, a 40-year-old teacher. "The trial is not fair
because it is taking place in America. Executing them is the minimum penalty."
Besides Wuterich, Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, 24, was accused of the unpremeditated murders of five people and making a false statement. Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 22, of Carbondale, Pa., was charged with the unpremeditated murder of three Iraqis. Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, 25, of Edmond, Okla., was accused of the unpremeditated murders of two Iraqis, negligent homicide of four Iraqis and assault.
The other officers charged were 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson, 25, Capt. Lucas McConnell, 31, and Capt. Randy Stone, 34, a military attorney.
The men are not being locked up for now because they are unlikely to flee and are not a danger to themselves or others, said Col. Stewart Navarre, a Corps spokesman.
In Meriden, Conn., Frank Wuterich's father, Dave, said his son was out Christmas shopping. The father said family members believe his son's version of events.
"He says they followed the rules of engagement," Dave Wuterich said. "They were taking small arms fire. They did what they had to do."
Thursday, December 07, 2006
We need Clinton back in the West Wing
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Hillary leads the presidential pack
from Alexander Mooney-->
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new poll shows Democrats favor Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, as their presidential candidate for the 2008 election. The survey was conducted by the Marist Poll for WNBC-TV in New York.
Question: "If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:
Clinton: 33%
Edwards: 14%
Gore: 13%
Obama: 12%
Kerry: 5%
Biden: 3%
Undecided: 16%
Sample Size: 327 DemocratsMargin of error: +/-4.5%Polling Dates November 27 -- December 3, 2006
Comments: This poll is clearly baloney. Clinton will be the next President. Kerry & Edwards should not even be considered, they blew thier shot big. I will protest the DEM Convention if Kerry or Edwards are even options.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
The Next President (s)
The Democratic Party has fallen into a routine of putting up weak candidates. I wonder if the leaders of the party in Florida and D.C. are being paid by the GOP to choose such candidates as John Kerry and Jim Davis.
Everyone in Florida could have told you Charlie Crist was going to beat Jim Davis from the start ,as member of the DEMS I am frustrated that we continue to waist our time & money on such campaigns.
Kerry & Davis were weak on the issues, that took stances on nothing, and did nothing significant in there time in Washington.
There are now 2 politicians that have records and statements on what they believe.
We need to run candidates like them.
Hilary R. Clinton and Barrack Obama.
Everyone in Florida could have told you Charlie Crist was going to beat Jim Davis from the start ,as member of the DEMS I am frustrated that we continue to waist our time & money on such campaigns.
Kerry & Davis were weak on the issues, that took stances on nothing, and did nothing significant in there time in Washington.
There are now 2 politicians that have records and statements on what they believe.
We need to run candidates like them.
Hilary R. Clinton and Barrack Obama.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Iraq is Over, Mr. President.
A Declaration of (Semi-Autonomous) Independence (Sort Of)
rightwingnuthouse.com
November 9, 2006
"The firing of Rumsfeld is a harbinger. The President stood before the American people less than two weeks ago and assured us that the Secretary of Defense would be there when he left office. How can we now believe him when he says that he is committed to further efforts to bring about a tolerable conclusion to our mission in Iraq?... If he has already decided to leave Iraq short of any outcome that could be considered advantageous to American interests, then every day that passes, every life lost, is a wasted effort in a losing cause and he should bring our people home now. "
Let’s just end this debacled War in Iraq today. The War was unjustified in the first place, the people of Iraq are rebelling against our occupation. Therefore in my eyes there is absolutely ZERO reasons for a single USA troop to remain in the free and sovereign country of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is gone. That is a positive note to end this war.
And what next? Take the $90 Billion that would have been spent in Iraq just next year alone put it into Social Security, and creating a National Healthcare Program not just for seniors, but for all Americans (Hint at the future agenda of Checks & Balances).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
