Some People Never Learn

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Gov. Mitt Romney has apologized for referring to the troubled Big Dig construction project as a "tar baby" during a fundraiser with Iowa Republicans, saying he didn't know anyone would be offended by the term some consider a racial epithet.

In a speech Saturday, Romney, a Republican considering a run for president in 2008, acknowledged he took a big political risk in taking control of the project after a fatal tunnel ceiling collapse, but said inaction would have been even worse.

"The best thing politically would be to stay as far away from that tar baby as I can," he told a crowd of about 100 supporters in Ames, Iowa.

Black leaders were outraged at his use of the term, which dates to the 19th century Uncle Remus stories, referring to a doll made of tar that traps Br'er Rabbit. It has come to be known as a way of describing a sticky mess, and has been used as a derogatory term for a black person.

"Tar baby is a totally inappropriate phrase in the 21st century," said Larry Jones, a black Republican and civil rights activist.

"He thinks he's presidential timber," Jones said. "But all he's shown us is arrogance."

Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, said the governor was describing "a sticky situation."

"He was unaware that some people find the term objectionable and he's sorry if anyone's offended," Fehrnstrom said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow sparked similar criticism in May when he used the term in response to a question about government surveillance.

Let The Police State Begin

A Penn State college senior was arrested after he pointed his camera cell phone at police activity in his neighborhood. A Philadelphia NBC News Channel 10 report says the family of Neftaly Cruz, 21, is claiming the cops had "no right to come onto their property and arrest their 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera."

Cruz had heard a commotion outside his parents' home and walked out the door to investigate it. When he saw the street lined with police, he flipped his phone open to take a picture. Within moments, an officer came to his back gate, put him into a police car, cuffed him and took him to jail. According to a neighbor's report, the cop spoke only once during this process, allegedly saying, "You should have just went [sic] in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone."

The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz is quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of the local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could actually be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street."

Are we surprised?

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 29 — The State Department agency in charge of $1.4 billion in reconstruction money in Iraq used an accounting shell game to hide ballooning cost overruns on its projects there and knowingly withheld information on schedule delays from Congress, a federal audit released late Friday has found.

The agency hid construction overruns by listing them as overhead or administrative costs, according to the audit, written by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent office that reports to Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department.

Called the United States Agency for International Development, or A.I.D., the agency administers foreign aid projects around the world. It has been working in Iraq on reconstruction since shortly after the 2003 invasion.

The report by the inspector general’s office does not give a full accounting of all projects financed by the agency’s $1.4 billion budget, but cites several examples.

The findings appeared in an audit of a children’s hospital in Basra, but they referred to the wider reconstruction activities of the development agency in Iraq. American and Iraqi officials reported this week that the State Department planned to drop Bechtel, its contractor on that project, as signs of budget and scheduling problems began to surface.

The United States Embassy in Baghdad referred questions about the audit to the State Department in Washington, where a spokesman, Justin Higgins, said Saturday, “We have not yet had a chance to fully review this report, but certainly will consider it carefully, as we do all the findings of the inspector general.”

Bechtel has said that because of the deteriorating security in Basra, the hospital project could not be completed as envisioned. But Mr. Higgins said: “Despite the challenges, we are committed to completing this project so that sick children in Basra can receive the medical help they need. The necessary funding is now in place to ensure that will happen.”

In March 2005, A.I.D. asked the Iraq Reconstruction and Management Office at the United States Embassy in Baghdad for permission to downsize some projects to ease widespread financing problems. In its request, it said that it had to “absorb greatly increased construction costs” at the Basra hospital and that it would make a modest shift of priorities and reduce “contractor overhead” on the project.

The embassy office approved the request. But the audit found that the agency interpreted the document as permission to change reporting of costs across its program.

Referring to the embassy office’s approval, the inspector general wrote, “The memorandum was not intended to give U.S.A.I.D. blanket permission to change the reporting of all indirect costs.”

The hospital’s construction budget was $50 million. By April of this year, Bechtel had told the aid agency that because of escalating costs for security and other problems, the project would actually cost $98 million to complete. But in an official report to Congress that month, the agency “was reporting the hospital project cost as $50 million,” the inspector general wrote in his report.

The rest was reclassified as overhead, or “indirect costs.” According to a contracting officer at the agency who was cited in the report, the agency “did not report these costs so it could stay within the $50 million authorization.”

“We find the entire agreement unclear,” the inspector general wrote of the A.I.D. request approved by the embassy. “The document states that hospital project cost increases would be offset by reducing contractor overhead allocated to the project, but project reports for the period show no effort to reduce overhead.”

The report said it suspected that other unreported costs on the hospital could drive the tab even higher. In another case cited in the report, a power station project in Musayyib, the direct construction cost cited by the development agency was $6.6 million, while the overhead cost was $27.6 million.

One result is that the project’s overhead, a figure that normally runs to a maximum of 30 percent, was a stunning 418 percent.

The figures were even adjusted in the opposite direction when that helped the agency balance its books, the inspector general found. On an electricity project at the Baghdad South power station, direct construction costs were reported by the agency as $164.3 million and indirect or overhead costs as $1.4 million.

That is just 0.8 percent overhead in a country where security costs are often staggering. A contracting officer told the inspector general that the agency adjusted the figures “to stay within the authorization for each project.”

The overall effect, the report said, was a “serious misstatement of hospital project costs.” The true cost could rise as high as $169.5 million, even after accounting for at least $30 million pledged for medical equipment by a charitable organization.

The inspector general also found that the agency had not reported known schedule delays to Congress. On March 26, 2006, Bechtel informed the agency that the hospital project was 273 days behind, the inspector general wrote. But in its April report to Congress on the status of all projects, “U.S.A.I.D. reported no problems with the project schedule.”

In a letter responding to the inspector general’s findings, Joseph A. Saloom, the newly appointed director of the reconstruction office at the United States Embassy, said he would take steps to improve the reporting of the costs of reconstruction projects in Iraq. Mr. Saloom took little exception to the main findings.

In the letter, Mr. Saloom said his office had been given new powers by the American ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, to request clear financing information on American reconstruction projects. Mr. Saloom wrote that he agreed with the inspector general’s conclusion that this shift would help “preclude surprises such as occurred on the Basra hospital project.”

“The U.S. Mission agrees that accurate monitoring of projects requires allocating indirect costs in a systematic way that reflects accurately the true indirect costs attributable to specific activities and projects, such as a Basra children’s hospital,” Mr. Saloom wrote.

Lets Remind Each Other of the Truth

NEW YORK -- Profits at Exxon Mobil surged 36 percent to a near record $10.4 billion in the second quarter as surging oil prices helped the world's largest publicly traded company soundly beat Wall Street forecasts.

The company's profit - which amounts to a cool $1,318 a second - is the second biggest ever reported by a U.S. company, behind only the $10.7 billion Exxon itself earned in the fourth quarter of 2005.

The earnings equaled $1.72 a share, topping the $1.64 a share analysts had forecast on average, according to First Call. Total revenue in the quarter was just a bit more than $99 billion.

Exxon (Charts) shares rose modestly in afternoon New York Stock Exchange trading.

The $1,318 a second would buy enough gasoline, even at the current $3 a gallon national average, to drive a Hummer H3 between Los Angeles and New York three times.

One analyst said Exxon's record fourth-quarter earnings in 2005 included a $400 million tax charge that analysts were not including as part of that quarter's profit.

"Apples to apples, this quarter is the highest by any organization ever," said Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at Oppenheimer.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil caught considerable flak from the general public for its record fourth quarter, which came soon after gasoline prices hit record highs.

Compounding matters, the company gave its outgoing CEO Lee Raymond a retirement package worth about $350 million around the same time.

That combination of events led to a public outcry calling for restrictions on CEO pay and calls from lawmakers who wanted to institute a windfall profits tax on the oil industry or even break up some of the oil giants that merged in the 1990s.

But the industry says that oil prices fluctuate widely over time and that, in the long run, it's actually less profitable than a number of other industries.

Officials have also argued against a government-forced breakup, saying oil companies need to be big to compete in a global market against foreign state-run firms, some of which are larger than Exxon Mobil.

Surging oil prices helped Exxon in the second quarter, when crude prices jumped 31 percent.

Exxon said spending on exploration and production rose 8 percent in the quarter, to $4.9 billion, while overall output rose 6 percent.

Investors have been concerned that high oil prices would lead the company to boost spending even further.

But the desire to restrain spending may run counter to consumer's interests, as more oil on the market would help lower gas prices.

Gheit said the company sent $7.9 billion back to shareholders in the second quarter in the form of dividends and stock buybacks.

He said Exxon's expenditures on exploration and production were sufficient, as most of the world's oil reserves are by now widely known. Extracting those reserves, he said, is constrained more by politics than it is by lack of spending on exploration.

"They can't just go and push [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and say, 'let us in,'" he said. "They need access to resources, what can they do?"

Gheit thought the company was striking a good balance with how it is spending its cash.

When asked about investing in renewable energy technologies, an Exxon official said that, apart from ethanol, it's generally not part of the company's plan.

"There are very few that are economical without subsidies," said Henry Hubble, vice president for investor relations, on a conference call. "We don't think it makes sense to invest in it at this point."

The company's mammoth earnings, and its reluctance to get into the alternative energy market, drew fire from critics.

Shawnee Hoover, director of Exxpose Exxon, a coalition of groups including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, said Exxon will continue to post record profits until consumers have other energy choices.

"Exxon wants to preserve [its] market by not doing anything about global warming," Hoover said on a conference call.

Industry experts say that it's becoming increasingly expensive for oil companies to get easily refinable crude oil out of the ground.

At the same time, high prices have led to surging demand for exploration and drilling equipment and workers, causing the price of such services to jump at least 15 percent a year over the last several years, industry executives and analysts say.

Then there's the geological fact that new, large, high-quality oil fields are simply getting harder to find.

Meanwhile, new production hasn't kept pace with surging demand - not only from the United States but from China, India and other rapidly growing economies - which has driven prices up nearly fourfold, from around $20 a barrel in early 2002 to a trading high of $78.40 earlier this month on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Tensions in the Middle East and other parts of the world and speculative buying by big investment funds have also helped fuel the run-up.

Gimme Some Truth

Yeah .... so I'm listening a lot to John Lennon lately .... tell me it doesnt fit


I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

I'm sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mama's little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
It's money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

Correction

Over the past couple of years, the issue of Internet governance has become a hot topic. Currently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is responsible for parceling out IP addresses and domain names. In turn, ICANN operates under the auspices of the US Commerce Department, an arrangement that doesn't sit too well with parts of Europe, the UN, and many developing nations.

Contrary to some reports, things are not about to change. After a meeting at the Commerce Department, Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, John M.R. Kneuer, said that the existing arrangement was likely to continue, at least for another year. "There certainly are still strong arguments that there's more work to be done," said Kneuer.

When ICANN was created in 1998, the US government intended for it to be fully privatized by 2000. However, that has failed to happen for a couple of reasons, namely a reluctance on the part of the US to let go control and ICANN's inability to meet some performance benchmarks.

At last fall's World Summit on the Information Society, attendees called for international control of the Internet. What would constitute an ideal alternative to US control differs depending on who one asks. The European Union is on record as desiring a public-private partnership; nations such as Iran, China, and Cuba would like to see "anyone but the US"; and another bloc of countries prefer UN oversight, perhaps via the century-old International Telegraph Union.

Kneuer did reiterate the US government's commitment to ultimately relinquishing control over ICANN, saying that "that we're all gathered here today and we've undertaken this process is a clear indication that we are committed to this transition." That's a big change from last summer, when the Commerce Department declared that it would "retain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file" while reiterating its stance against interfering in how other countries handle their own top-level domains.

So for now, it looks as though the status quo wins out.

US to relinquish control of the Internet(s)

In a meeting that will go down in internet history, the United States government last night conceded that it can no longer expect to maintain its position as the ultimate authority over the internet.

Having been the internet's instigator and, since 1998, its voluntary taskmaster, the US government finally agreed to transition its control over not-for-profit internet overseeing organisation ICANN, making the organisation a more international body.


However, assistant commerce secretary John Kneuer, the US official in charge of such matters, also made clear that the US was still determined to keep control of the net's root zone file - at least in the medium-term.

"The historic role that we announced that we were going to preserve is fairly clearly articulated: the technical verification and authorisation of changes to the authoritative root," Kneuer explained following an afternoon of explicit statements from US-friendly organisations and individuals that it was no longer viable for one government to retain such power over the future of a global resource.

Despite the sentiments, however, it was apparent from the carefully selected panel and audience members that the internet - despite its global reach - remains an English-speaking possession. Not one of the 11 panel members, nor any of the 22 people that spoke during the meeting, had anything but English as their first language.

While talk centered on the future of the internet and its tremendous global influence, the people that sat there discussing it represented only a tiny minority of those that now use the internet every day. Reflections on the difficulty of expanding the current internet governance mechanisms to encompass the global audience inadvertently highlighted the very parochialism of those that currently form the ICANN in-crowd.

When historians come to review events in Washington on 26 July 2006, they will no doubt be reminded of discussions in previous centuries over why individual citizens should be given a vote. Or, perhaps, why landowners or the educated classes shouldn't be given more votes than the masses.

There was talk of voting rights, or what the point was of including more people in ICANN processes, and even how people could be educated sufficiently before they were allowed to interact with the existing processes.

Ironically, it was ICANN CEO Paul Twomey who most accurately put his finger on what had to be done. One of the most valuable realisations that ICANN has ever come to, he noted, was that when it revamped itself last time, it recognised it hadn't got it right. Even more importantly, Twomey noted, was the fact the organisation recognised that "it would never get it right. And so ICANN put a review mechanism into its bylaws".

The reason Twomey's observations are particularly noteworthy is that it is Paul Twomey himself who has consistently - and deliberately - failed to open ICANN up, keeping meetings secret, and refusing to release information about discussions either before a meeting and, in some cases, after the meeting.

A stark warning came from the Canadian government - the only government except for the US government invited to speak. Recent arrival, but highly knowledgeable representative, Bill Graham was extraordinarily clear. "It is time for ICANN to recognise that it is in many ways a quasi-judicial body and it must begin to behave that way," he said.

"The ICANN board needs to provide adequate minutes of all its meetings. There needs to be a notice of what issues will be considered, and the timeframe when a decision is made. A written document needs to be posted setting out the background and context of the issues. There needs to be an acknowledgment and a summary of the positions put forward by various interested parties; there needs to be an analysis of the issues; there needs to be an explanation of the decisions and the reasons for it; and ultimately there needs to be a mechanism for the board to be held accountable by its community."

Everyone recognised the meeting as an historic turning point in the future of the internet, causing a strange amount of one-upmanship among those taking part, most of it covering how long they had been involved with ICANN. Paul Twomey referred to the Berlin meeting (1999); an irregular ICANN contributor (on the panel thanks to US governmental influence) spoke of "being there before ICANN was even created". The swagger got so bad that several well-informed contributors were forced to apologise because they had only been to three ICANN meetings.

Ultimately, what came out of a gathering of the (English-speaking) great and the good regarding the internet was two things:
That the US government recognises it has to transition its role if it wants to keep the internet in one piece (and it then has to sell that decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate)
That ICANN has to open up and allow more people to decide its course if it is going to be allowed to become the internet's main overseeing organisation

If you ignore the fact that the conversation only happened within a tiny subset of the people that actually use the internet, everyone can feel quite content in walking away feeling that at least people now understand their point of view.

As a rare non-US contributor, Emily Taylor, Nominet's lawyer, UK citizen, and a member of the IGF Advisory Group told us she felt that "the fact that the meeting took place was as valuable as anything that was discussed".

That much is certainly true. The US has recognised that it can no longer hope to control the internet. The next step is for everyone invited into the party this time to recognise that they too play only a small role in the global revolution that is this jumble of interconnected computer networks.

FEMA FU

Members of Louisiana’s congressional delegation said Monday that FEMA’s policy restricting media access to residents living in FEMA-managed trailer parks is absurd, outrageous and denies park residents their rights as American citizens.

“FEMA just strikes you as a bureaucracy that’s out of control,” said U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner. “You don’t lose your fundamental rights just because you’re living in temporary housing. It’s an outrageous pattern of behavior.”

Jindal was referring to a July 15 article in which The Advocate detailed an incident in a Federal Emergency Management Agency-operated trailer park in Morgan City where a reporter and photographer were ordered off of the site.

The two had been invited into a trailer occupied by resident Dekotha Devall and her family. But during the interview a security guard ordered the reporter and photographer to leave.

The security guard called the police after the reporter attempted to give Devall a business card, an act the guard said was forbidden.

Later, the security guard told another resident, Pansy Ardeneaux, she was not allowed to speak to the media through a chain link fence surrounding the park and ordered Ardeneaux to return to her trailer.

When FEMA officials were told of the incident, they said the media has to be escorted at all times by FEMA representatives.

“If a resident invites the media to the trailer, they have to be escorted by a FEMA representative who sits in on the interview,” said Rachel Rodi, a FEMA spokeswoman. “That’s just policy.”

Jindal said that policy is ridiculous.

“How in the world can you stop someone in their home from talking to whomever they want?” Jindal asked. “It’s a freedom of speech issue; it’s a freedom of association issue.”

Jindal also criticized FEMA for defending its position.


To read the rest of the article go here

Nobody Told Me

Everybody's talking and no one says a word
Everybody's making love and no one really cares
There's Nazis in the bathroom just below the stairs
Always something happening and nothing going on
There's always something cooking and nothing in the pot
They're starving back in China so finish what you got

Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed -- strange days indeed

Everybody's runnin' and no one makes a move
Everyone's a winner and nothing left to lose
There's a little yellow idol to the north of Katmandu
Everybody's flying and no one leaves the ground
Everybody's crying and no one makes a sound
There's a place for us in the movies you just gotta lay around

Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama

Everybody's smoking and no one's getting high
Everybody's flying and never touch the sky
There's a UFO over New York and I ain't too surprised

Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama

Your rights mean nothing

CHICAGO - Citing national security, a federal judge Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at blocking AT&T Inc. from giving telephone records to the government for use in the war on terror.

"The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities," U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said.

A number of such lawsuits have been filed around the country in the wake of news media reports that AT&T and other phone companies had turned records over to the National Security Administration, which specializes in communications intercepts.

Kennelly's ruling was in sharp contrast to last week's decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, who said media reports of the program were so widespread there was no danger of spilling secrets.

Kennelly ruled in a lawsuit filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on behalf of author Studs Terkel and other activists who said their constitutional rights were violated because of an NSA program of gathering phone company records.

Justice Department attorneys had argued that it would violate the law against divulging state secrets for AT&T to say whether it had provided telephone records to the supersecret spy agency.

The ACLU argued that the practice was no longer secret, because numerous news reports had made it clear that phone records had been given to the agency.

But the judge said the news reports amounted to speculation and in no way constituted official confirmation that phone records had been turned over.

He also said Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which sought class-action status, had not shown that their own records had been provided to the government. As a result, they lacked standing to sue the government, he said.

ACLU legal director Harvey Grossman said in a statement that his group respectfully disagreed.

"A private company — AT&T — should not be able to escape accountability for violating a federal statute and the privacy of their customers on the basis that a program widely discussed in the public is secret," Grossman said.

The San Antonio-based company, known as SBC Communications Inc. until it acquired AT&T Corp. last year, is poised to become the nation's largest phone company later this year when it completes its proposed purchase of BellSouth Corp., announced in March.

In his ruling, Kennelly noted that he had received written statements from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander in his chambers, with ACLU lawyers not allowed to be present.

The statements were designed to reinforce with confidential material the government's argument for the need for secrecy.

Kennelly said that his public decision was not premised on the classified materials. But he added that he was issuing a separate memorandum discussing the points raised in the classified material.

It too, he said, would have to be classified and "unavailable for inspection by the public or any of the parties or counsel in this case other than counsel for the government."

Again I am reminded of the quote "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Your Tax Dollars At Work Part 4,000,000

DENVER -- You could be on a secret government database or watch list for simply taking a picture on an airplane. Some federal air marshals say they're reporting your actions to meet a quota, even though some top officials deny it.

The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they're required to submit at least one report a month. If they don't, there's no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.

"Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong," said one federal air marshal.


These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system.

"Do these reports have real life impacts on the people who are identified as potential terrorists?" 7NEWS Investigator Tony Kovaleski asked.

"Absolutely," a federal air marshal replied.

7NEWS obtained an internal Homeland Security document defining an SDR as a report designed to identify terrorist surveillance activity.

"When you see a decision like this, for these reports, who loses here?" Kovaleski asked.

"The people we're supposed to protect -- the American public," an air marshal said.

What kind of impact would it have for a flying individual to be named in an SDR?

"That could have serious impact ... They could be placed on a watch list. They could wind up on databases that identify them as potential terrorists or a threat to an aircraft. It could be very serious," said Don Strange, a former agent in charge of air marshals in Atlanta. He lost his job attempting to change policies inside the agency.

That's why several air marshals object to a July 2004 memo from top management in the Las Vegas office, a memo that reminded air marshals of the SDR requirement.

The body of the memo said, "Each federal air marshal is now expected to generate at least one SDR per month."

"Does that memo read to you that Federal Air Marshal headquarters has set a quota on these reports?" Kovaleski asked.

"Absolutely, no doubt," an air marshal replied.

A second management memo, also dated July 2004, said, "There may come an occasion when you just don't see anything out of the ordinary for a month at a time, but I'm sure that if you are looking for it, you'll see something."

Another federal air marshal said that not only is there a quota in Las Vegas for SDRs, but that "it directly reflects on (their) performance evaluations" and on how much money they make.

The director of the Air Marshal Service, Dana Brown, declined 7NEWS' request for an interview on the quota system. But the agency points to a memo from August 2004 that said there is not a quota for submitting SDRs and which goes on to say, "I do not expect reports that are inaccurate or frivolous."

But, Las Vegas-based air marshals say the quota system remains in force, now more than two years after managers sent the original memos, and that it's a mandate from management that impacts annual raises, bonuses, awards and special assignments.

"To meet this quota, to get their raises, do you think federal air marshals in Las Vegas are making some of this stuff up?" Kovaleski asked.

"I know they are. It's a joke," an air marshal replied.

"Have marshals in the Las Vegas office, I don't want to say fabricated, but 'created' reports?" Kovaleski asked.

"Creative writing -- stretching a long ways the truth, yes," an air marshal replied.

One example, according to air marshals, occurred on one flight leaving Las Vegas, when an unknowing passenger, most likely a tourist, was identified in an SDR for doing nothing more than taking a photo of the Las Vegas skyline as his plane rolled down the runway.

"You're saying that was not an accurate portrayal of a potential terrorist activity?" Kovaleski asked.

"No, it was not," an air marshal said.

"It was a marshal trying to meet a quota ..." Kovaleski said.

"Yes, he was," the air marshal replied.

Strange said he didn't have a quota in the Atlanta office when he was in charge.

"I would never have done that ... You are going to have people reporting every suspicious looking activity they come across, whether they in their heart feel like it's a threat, just to meet the quota," Strange said.

Strange and other air marshals said the quota allows the government to fill a database with bad information.

A Las Vegas air marshal said he didn't write an SDR every month for exactly that reason.

"Well, it's intelligence information, and like any system, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out," the air marshal said.

"I would like to see an investigation -- a real investigation conducted into the ways things are done here," the air marshal in Las Vegas said.

Although the agency strongly denies any presence of a quota system, Las Vegas-based air marshals have produced documents that show their performance review is directly linked to producing SDRs.

Not My President

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.

ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.

The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said.

Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate.

"Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws."

Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.

The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.

Not that you didnt have enough to think about

Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November. With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.

The election ultimately will be decided in 435 House districts and 33 Senate contests, in which incumbents typically hold the upper hand. But the survey underscored the difficulty Republicans face in trying to persuade a skeptical public to return them to Washington.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted Monday through Wednesday found that President Bush has stopped his political freefall, with his approval rating of 36 percent basically unchanged from last month. Bush received slightly higher marks for his handling of the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism, weeks after his surprise trip to Baghdad and the killing of Iraqi terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike last month.

But a Democratic takeover of either the House or Senate would be disastrous for the president, leaving both his agenda for the last two years in office and the chairmanship of investigative committees in the hands of the opposition party. To seize control of Congress, the Democrats must displace 15 Republicans from House seats and six Republicans from the Senate.

The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.

Not surprisingly, 81 percent of self-described liberals said they would vote for the Democrat. Among moderates, though, 56 percent backed a Democrat in their district and almost a quarter of conservatives _ 24 percent _ said they will vote Democratic.

Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters _ those who are undecided or wouldn't say whom they prefer. A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican.

"We still have wind in our face. It's a midterm election in the president's second term," said Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Today is a little bit better in the atmospherics of Washington than it was maybe a month ago."

The president's party historically has lost seats in the sixth year of his service. Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 72 House seats in 1938; Dwight D. Eisenhower 48 in 1958. The exception was Bill Clinton in 1998.

By another comparison, polls in 1994 _ when a Republican tidal wave swept Democrats from power _ the two parties were in a dead heat in July on the question of whom voters preferred in their district.

"It comes down to a fairly simply question: Can Democrats nationalize all the elections? If Republicans prevent that, they have a shot. If they don't, they lose," said Doug Gross, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Iowa in 2002 and the state finance director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.

Overall, only 27 percent approved of the way Congress is doing its job. Lawmakers get favorable marks from 36 percent of conservatives, 28 percent of moderates and 17 percent of liberals.

Some criticism of Congress has focused on lawmakers' inability to control spending, with lawmakers tucking in special projects for their home districts.

"They used to say there's nothing worse than a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat," said Gary Wilson, 51, a self-described liberal from Gaithersburg, Md. "There is something worse: It's a borrow-and-spend Republican. This is going to come back to haunt us."

One bright spot for the GOP is that Republicans hold an advantage over Democrats on issues such as foreign policy and fighting terrorism _ 43 percent to 33 percent _ and a smaller edge on handling Iraq _ 36 percent to 32 percent.

The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted after the divisive Democratic debate in the Senate over setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. Potential voters were paying attention to the GOP complaint that Democrats want to "cut and run."

"It seems like the Democrats want to pull out or start to pull out, and I don't think that's the correct thing to do," said Eric Bean, 24, a college minister in Fort Worth, Texas. "I'd much rather see a Congress that would support our president. I think George Bush is doing the best he can. I think Republicans will support him."

John Dendahl, the Republican candidate for governor in New Mexico, said Democrats, with the help of some Republicans, have been successful at obstructing legislation in Congress while heaping the blame on the GOP.

Tom Courtney, a Democratic state senator in Iowa, said U.S. voters are ready to trust his party to lead.

"I honestly think it's ours to lose," Courtney said. "My experience, we're not above that. Americans are ready for change."

The poll of adults had a margin of error of 3 percentage points and the survey of registered voters had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Yet another example of your tax dollars at work.

Houston police and the federal Transportation Security Administration disagree over who is responsible for allowing a man with what appeared to be bomb components board an aircraft at Hobby Airport last week.

Although the FBI eventually cleared the man of wrongdoing, police officials have transferred the officer involved and are investigating the incident while insisting that the TSA, not police, has the authority to keep a suspicious person from boarding a flight.

"Our job is not to be the gatekeepers," police Capt. Dwayne Ready said. "That burden falls squarely on the airline and TSA to make that final decision.

"We are looking at our role in the situation to make sure our policies were adhered to," he said. "During follow-up, we are finding that there simply was not a material threat."

TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said screeners have the authority to stop people from going beyond the checkpoint to the boarding areas, but they rely heavily on local police.

"It's just agencies talking with each other," Ready said, downplaying the disagreement.

Details of the dispute
McCauley and Ready would not comment about the June 26 incident, but a confidential TSA report obtained by the Houston Chronicle details a dispute between screeners and a police officer on duty at the airport.

The report states that a man with a Middle Eastern name and a ticket for a Delta Airlines flight to Atlanta shook his head when screeners asked if he had a laptop computer in his baggage, but an X-ray machine operator detected a laptop.

A search of the man's baggage revealed a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it and a copy of the Quran, the report said. A screener examined the man's shoes and determined that the "entire soles of both shoes were gutted out."

No explosive material was detected, the report states. A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.

A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying "the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself," the report says.

The officer retorted, "I thought y'all were trained in this stuff," TSA officials reported.

The report says the TSA screener notified Delta Airlines and talked again with the officer, who said he had been unable to check the passenger's criminal background because of computer problems.

FBI involvement
The incident gained enough attention at higher levels of the TSA that the FBI was asked to investigate. The TSA issued a statement saying its screeners "acted in accordance with their training and protocols."

FBI Special Agent Stephen Emmett in Atlanta said agents there investigated the passenger.

"It was looked at and deemed a non-event," Emmett said, declining to give further details.

Meanwhile the officer involved in the dispute, J.O. Reece, has been transferred to a desk job, "the same place they send officers who are relieved of duty," said Chad Hoffman, attorney for the Houston Police Officers Union.

Hoffman said Reece doesn't understand why he was transferred "when it seems clear from the onset of the investigation that he didn't have probable cause to detain anybody and that his actions were consistent with the law and HPD policy."

(All I can say is that I'm glad that I'm flying through George W Bush Airport rather than Hobby)

Strangest E Mail Heading Today

she felt pierced with huge flesh equipment

I think that I want to start posting all of the weird and bizarre e mails I get on here. Its kind of creepy.

Bush sings Sunday Bloody Sunday

30,000K Millionaires

Yes believe it or not ... there is a film being made about this phenomena ... right here in Dallas Texas

I'm SO excited. NOT!

Which Joe is worse Lieberman or Biden?

"You cannot enter into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have an Indian Accent"

Can we have a fucking choice for '08 please? Are you telling me that its going to be between McCain and Clinton? Wait and watch ....

Coulter + Plagiarism = Old fashioned witch burning?

Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show featured an interview with the CEO of a plagiarism recognition system which was used to look through conservative pundit Ann Coulter's latest book Godless and a year's worth of her columns, RAW STORY has found.

John Barrie, the creator of iThenticate, called attention to three examples of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in Coulter's book, as reported on Sunday by the NY Post.

Barrie told Olbermann that he stopped looking after he found more than enough examples of "lifted" passages, and that many of her footnotes appeared to be in error, as well.

The Rude Pundit first blogged about the apparent plagiarism in a June 2005 column by Coulter a year ago, and Raw Story followed up on the blogger's work, revealing that the column was little more that a cut-and-paste repetition of points authored by conservative religious groups in the early 1990s. Barrie briefly mentions the 2005 column in the MSNBC interview as another example found by iThenticate.

One of the three "textbook plagiarism" examples in Godless cited by Barrie was also noted first by The Rude Pundit last month days after the book's release. RAW STORY then reported that Coulter "cribbed" a list of adult stem cell treatments from a Right To Life website for the seventh chapter of her book nearly word-for-word.

According to TPM Muckraker, Universal Press Syndicate, the company that syndicates Coulter's columns, will be reviewing Barrie's examples of "textbook plagiarism." Earlier in the day, Kathie Kerr, the media relations chief for the company, first told TPM's Justin Rood that Coulter "is the one that needs to address this."

Editor & Publisher notes that Coulter's latest column does "address" the NY Post. Coulter attacks the tabloid by calling it the city's "second-crappiest paper," but never refers to the plagiarism allegations that the paper broke first in print.

Wonkette is skeptical about any Universal Press Syndicate "probe."

"But now, tired of the phone calls, the hand-wringing, the tears and pouting, Ms. Kerr has done a totally convincing about-face, and vaguely promised a maybe-tomorrow-maybe-someday investigation which no doubt will totally condemn the woman who makes them wheelbarrows full of money which, placed end-to-end, could totally reach Uranus," writes Wonkette. "Oh, the wheels of fake justice are swift. I’m giddy, aren’t you?"

(I was too lazy to post all of the links, so if you want to read the full story with links to all of this I suggest you read the original story -- ME)

Cell phone Etiquette .... from Virgin Mobile

If you want to avoid driving your fellow commuters crazy, or work out why your date is giving you dirty looks over dinner, then read on as Virgin Mobile answers the nation’s talk and text dilemmas, with the Virgin Mobile Top Ten Golden Rules of mobile phone etiquette.

DON’T… engage in a long and noisy conversation with a caller when in a bar or restaurant with a friend, either move yourself away from the situation or send a text

DO… either switch your mobile to silent at a restaurant or hand it to reception and ask them to alert you if you receive an important call

DON’T… have your mobile phone visible on a table in a restaurant or bar, this is bad etiquette and will turn your phone into the modern equivalent of a comfort blanket

DO… place your mobile out of sight, in your handbag, briefcase or pocket. However, it is your responsibility to make sure that you check it regularly in case there is an emergency

DON’T… walk along the road talking loudly on a handsfree phone – it is not only silly and disconcerting, but bad manners

DO… keep your ringtone style and volume at a sensible level – not everyone will necessarily enjoy your selection

DON’T… hold long, thoughtless unnecessary calls at the top of your voice on public transport – very few people are interested in your private life

DO… text friends when they are abroad – in some countries, recipients have to pay towards the call, and texting is a cheap and easy alternative

DON’T… forget your posture. Posture can be affected by leaning the ear towards the shoulder, locking arm and hand in a cradling position to hold the phone…Relax shoulder and hand and keep the head straight.

YOU MUST… switch off your phone at theatres, cinemas, funerals and weddings.

And for anyone about to join the dating game, remember…

DO… text a girl to ask for a date after your first meeting if you are shy (it’s OK)

DO… phone to confirm the details if the date is accepted (don’t forget)

DON’T… send a text if you are running late – CALL!

And Girls….
DO… phone your date and thank him afterwards, (although, if it was just a casual drink you can text him). Either way, it is your prerogative to say thanks!

DON’T….spend the whole date texting or talking on your phone, you might want to look popular but you will turn off your prospective partner

Alison Bonny from Virgin Mobile comments: ‘The mobile phone has never been more key to social interaction as it is now. Everyone is guilty of the occasional bout of bad mobile etiquette and Virgin Mobile’s new guidelines will prevent talk and text faux pas’

-ENDS-