The Best War Ever

Friday, March 31, 2006

Former Delay Aide Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy

CBS) WASHINGTON A former top aide to Rep. Tom DeLay pleaded guilty Friday to conspiracy and promised to cooperate with the government's investigation of lobbying fraud.

Tony Rudy, DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, was told by a U.S. District judge that he could receive up to five years in prison but the sentence could be much less depending on his cooperation with prosecutors in the case, which earlier brought a guilty plea from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Rudy is the second former aide to DeLay to plead guilty in the scandal.

As part of the deal for Rudy to plead guilty to the single felony conspiracy count, prosecutors agreed not pursue other possible charges against him or his wife.

Rudy, 39, stood with his head slightly bowed and his hands clasped in front of him as the judge detailed how he took free trips, tickets, meals and golf games from Abramoff while working for DeLay, who was then House Majority Leader.

Rudy and his lawyer left the courthouse by a side door, declining to talk to reporters. They walked briskly to an awaiting black Lincoln Town Car, which sped away.

According to court papers, Rudy took payments from Abramoff in 2000, then helped stop an Internet gambling bill opposed by Abramoff's clients.

Later, while working as a lobbyist, Rudy also was extensively involved in arranging a golf trip to Scotland for Rep. Bob Ney and congressional staffers, the court papers said.

Rudy, who resigned as DeLay's deputy chief of staff in 2001 to become a lobbyist, would be the first person to plead guilty to charges in the case since Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud charges in January.

Rudy was referred to in earlier court papers released in connection with Abramoff's plea. The documents referred to Rudy as Staffer A, and said that Abramoff, on behalf of clients who wanted to stop Internet gambling and postal rate legislation, paid $50,000 in 10 equal monthly payments beginning in June 2000 to Rudy's wife while Rudy was a top aide to DeLay.

The plea agreement alleges no wrongdoing by DeLay, and his attorney, Richard Cullen, said DeLay "expects his current staffers and expected his former staffers to adhere to the highest ethical standards."

"None of this means necessarily that DeLay is going to be indicted," says CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "But a deal like this only strengthens the government's hand."

Cohen says "the closer these guilty pleas come to Tom DeLay the more threatened becomes his legal position. And that's because if there is a criminal case against him over this, and we don't know that yet, it's going to be made and supported and perhaps ultimately proven by those who had the most direct contact with him – and that's people like Rudy."

Rudy joined Abramoff's lobbying team at the Greenberg Traurig law firm in 2001. Soon after, he signed on with another former DeLay staffer, Ed Buckham, at the Alexander Strategy Group.

Abramoff, 47, was sentenced Wednesday to nearly six years in prison for committing fraud in a case in Florida involving the purchase of a fleet of gambling boats.

He will remain free while helping prosecutors with the vast bribery investigation involving members of Congress.

CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports that Abramoff still faces sentencing for his guilty pleas in Washington to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy.

No date has been set for his sentencing in that case.

CEO's to employees ... yeah we're rich and you're not so Suck It!

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. corporate profits have increased 21.3% in the past year and now account for the largest share of national income in 40 years, the Commerce Department said Thursday.
Strong productivity gains and subdued wage growth boosted before-tax profits to 11.6% of national income in the fourth quarter of 2005, the biggest share since the summer of 1966. See full story.
For all of 2005, before-tax profits totaled $1.35 trillion, up from $1.16 trillion in 2004 and just $767 billion in 2001.
Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that's the lowest share for labor income since 1966.
"It's a big puzzle," said Josh Bivens, an economist for the Economic Policy Institute. "If this is a knowledge economy, how come the brains aren't being compensated? Instead, the owners of physical capital are getting the rewards."
Despite the flood of cash coming in the door, corporations are investing comparatively little in expanding their operations. Capital spending has been below average, especially considering the strength of the economy, the level of profits and the special tax breaks given to boost investment.
In the fourth quarter, business fixed investment increased just 4.5%. In the past year, investment has risen 6.8%. The growth rate has been falling for the past four quarters.
Some economists are counting on the corporate sector to pick up their investments in the coming year, to replace the economic stimulus that will be lost as the housing market cools.
Profits have been so high because almost all of the benefits from productivity improvements are flowing to the owners of capital rather than to the workers.
While profits are up 21.3% in the past year, labor compensation is up just 5.5%. After adjusting for inflation, population growth and taxes, real disposable per capita incomes are up just 0.5% in the past year.
Competition, tight labor market may force rise in labor income
But as the labor market tightens, labor's share of income will likely rise, economists say.
"Capital spending will stay strong," said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomic research at Moody's Economy.com. He theorizes that, to maintain productivity growth in a hypercompetitive world, companies will be forced to invest in capital as labor becomes relatively more expensive.
Corporations certainly have the means to invest, but they've been cautious, said Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board. In 2005, corporations retained $460 billion of their profits, while handing back $514 billion in dividends.
Consumers, as always, hold the key. If labor income rises enough, consumers could keep up a healthy pace of spending even if they lose ready access to their home equity as a source of purchasing power, Goldstein said.
But consumers are very wary of rising prices. So far, their incomes have not kept pace with inflation. Goldstein expects consumer spending to slow this year.
And if consumer spending slows, corporations will become more hesitant about expanding their productive capacity. Unless there's stronger demand from overseas markets.
Goldstein figures there's less than a 50-50 chance that business investment will rise significantly in the coming year. The Conference Board expects the U.S. economy to grow 2.5% in the next four quarters, after growing 3.5% in the past four quarters.
That's not horrible, but it's not a boom either
The happy scenario could still play out. But "there are a lot of 'ifs'," Bivens said.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Ann Coulter ... who loves ya?

If anyone who regularly reads this remembers, a few months ago I posted a story that Ann Coulter had voted in the wrong district back in February. Well it seems that there is more now to this story:

This time, claiming she doesn't even live here — as GOP pundit Ann Coulter has been doing on this spring's college speaking tour when she's questioned about her February election meltdown on Palm Beach — isn't going to cut it.

Palm Beach County's elections supervisor has given the right wing's unofficial mouthpiece 30 days to explain why she voted in the wrong precinct.

In a registered letter scheduled to be sent to her this week, Coulter is asked to "clarify certain information as to her legal residence," elections boss Arthur Anderson said.

"We want to give her a chance," Anderson said. "She needs to tell us where she really lives."

Or else? He could refer the case to State Attorney Barry Krischer for criminal charges, Anderson said.

The letter, however, may be headed to the wrong house.

The bestselling author, whose The New Ann Coulter comes out in June, owns a homestead on Seabreeze Avenue, near Worth Ave. Yet, the missive is being sent to the Indian Road home of Realtor Suzanne Frisbie. Coulter claimed in official elections documents to be living there, which Frisbie denied last month.

"We have to send the registered letter to her address in our records," explained Charmaine Kelly, elections chief deputy. "If it comes back unsigned, we'll deal with that."

In his official incident report released last week, poll worker Jim Whited wrote that Coulter tried to vote in the Feb. 7 town council election at Bethesda-by-the-Sea, the right place for a Seabreeze resident. Coulter left in a hurry when, Whited said, he asked her to correct the record. Later she cast her ballot at the St. Edward's precinct, where real Indian Road residents go.

Coulter, a constitutional lawyer who relentlessly made fun of Palm Beach County voters after the botched 2000 presidential election, couldn't be reached for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the question that invariably will arise is why do I give a damn about this story? Well honestly, its because I think that Ms Coulter is the equivalent of hate speech in a dress. I dont like her, never have and never will. Her and Michelle Malkin can go both cat fight it out over who hates us "liberals" more, but to me, they're both pretty much reprehensible as humans and hacks when it comes to writing anything of portent.

Slightly less intelligent .... or can these words be taken out of context?

GRAND RAPIDS -- Jim Rinck believes his reputation as an outspoken and sometimes abrasive member of the Grand Rapids Board of Education will help him be an effective fighter in a new arena: Congress.

Rinck, 48, said Friday he will enter the Democratic primary for the U.S. House of Representatives seat Republican Vern Ehlers has held for 12 years.

Rinck said he has great respect for Ehlers, 72, who is completing his sixth term. But he said it's time for someone new who will fight for residents of the Third District, which includes most of Kent County and all of Barry and Ionia counties.

"Our congressman is the smartest person in the district, and we might be the only place in the country that can say that," Rinck said. "But he falls somewhat short on the charisma meter. And it might take a somewhat less intelligent -- although much noisier -- person to get some things done for this district."

Ehlers plans to announce next month whether he'll seek re-election. But he said he is enjoying his chairmanship of the House Administration Committee and hopes to be named head of the Science and Technology Committee and the Aviation Subcommittee.

"I've known Mr. Rinck for a long, long time and I welcome him to the fray," Ehlers said. "As for being so smart, that's nice of him to say. But I've learned that in the political arena that wisdom is more important than intelligence."

Rinck, an attorney, often is at odds with superintendents and other school board members. But he has a solid constituency, as voters have elected him to the board five times.

He concedes it will be a challenge ousting a popular congressman..

"Conservative people will want to hear the truth, too," he said. "I think the Democrats need to make this race more competitive and know I can do the job."

Sue Levy, chair of the Kent County Democrats, said Rinck is well-known beyond the school district's borders.

"Jim's a newsmaker, and that will be an asset for him," she said.

Levy believes Ehlers will be vulnerable this year because voters are unhappy with the Bush administration, and said Ehlers has done nothing to distance himself from Bush as the president's popularity has dipped to its lowest level.

"This is a Watergate kind of year," she said. "Vern talks a good game, but he has supported the president and all of his policies."

Karl Hascall, co-chair of the Kent County Republicans, called Rinck "one of the saner voices on the school board" but said he doesn't think Ehlers can be beat.

"The saying is that all politics are local, and Congressman Ehlers won't be affected by what is happening in Washington," Hascall said.

---------------------------------------------------
Boy, I want to be on this guys election staff.

Conversation overheard at Jim Rinck's office:

"Just remember, dont play to their intelligence, play to their belligerence."

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Bring out your God fear

WASHINGTON - American society looks down on Christianity, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay asserted Tuesday at a conference of religious conservatives, but God and Jesus Christ have chosen Christians to stand up for faith.

DeLay, who is facing tough times of his own, offered a half-hour speech that was part history lesson and part sermon to a crowd of about 300 gathered at a Washington hotel for a two-day conference titled "The War on Christians and the Values Voter in 2006."


The Sugar Land Republican said some commentators — the "chattering classes" — will argue that there is no war on Christianity in this country.

"But in a sense, there always has been and always will be," he said. "Our faith has always been in direct conflict with the values of the world. We are, after all, a society that provides abortion on demand, has killed millions of innocent children, degrades the institution of marriage and all but treats Christianity like some second-rate superstition."

Despite those factors, DeLay said, "we have been chosen to live as Christians at a time when our culture is being poisoned. ... God made us specifically for it. ... Jesus Christ himself made us just so that we could live in this nation at this time."

The conference was convened by Vision America, a group founded by the Rev. Rick Scarborough to mobilize "patriot pastors" of all denominations to promote Christian involvement in government.

Scarborough, the former pastor of the First Baptist Church in Pearland, is a long-time DeLay ally.

"This is a man, I believe, God has appointed ... to represent righteousness in government," Scarborough told the audience, which included Eagle Forum Founder Phyllis Schlafly, former ambassador Alan Keyes, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

DeLay made no mention of his own political troubles, including a looming trial on state charges of campaign money-laundering. The indictment in Travis County last fall forced DeLay to step down as House majority leader, a position that had cemented his power in Washington. DeLay has denied wrongdoing.

In addition to having been admonished multiple times by the House ethics committee, DeLay also has faced questions over his friendship with Jack Abramoff, the disgraced former lobbyist at the center of a federal investigation of influence-peddling on Capitol Hill.

Scarborough said DeLay had been "nearly destroyed in the press," and he made a vague pitch for the conference participants to support DeLay in his general election race in November. DeLay should not worry about it, however, he said: "God always does his best work after a crucifixion."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, who heads Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the gathering was more about partisan politics than religion or cultural values.

"This 'war' is nothing real," Lynn said in a telephone interview with Cox News Service. "The fact is Christians in America are a cultural majority, and they are an extremely powerful group. But what you have here are second-tier preachers who are hoping to hit the big time, desperately hoping for a national spotlight ... ."

------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that Tom thinks that lying or trying to launder money is something that Christians do. Yet another example of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

China bans eating of dogs and cats

China’s animal welfare groups have called for end to dog eating. In what will be an historic and bold move, Chinese animal welfare groups have unanimously called for a ban on dog eating.

Guangzhou, 27 March, 2006-- The first China Companion Animal Symposium took place this March in Guangzhou - the dog and cat eating capital of Asia. This historic advancement in Chinese animal welfare also saw the call for an outright ban on the century’s old practice of dog and cat eating.

Millions of dogs and cats are slaughtered for consumption in China annually. Many suffer deliberate, horrific abuse in the mistaken belief that ‘torture equals taste’. A gaping hole in the law leaves them with no protection.

The meeting brought together 32 grassroots groups from around the country, plus international groups such as Britain’s RSPCA and was called by UK and Hong Kong charity the Animal Asia foundation

The meeting also called for an end to the dog and cat fur trade and the introduction of countrywide de-sexing programmes for companion animals.

Many of the delegates spoke of the horrors they faced daily in their fight to save and house abandoned dogs and the need for laws to protect domestic animals from abuse and neglect.

Guest speaker Professor Song Wei, a lecturer in law at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province, said, “Abuse cases today always spark huge public outrage. There is much more awareness of animal welfare.”

Guangzhou veterinary surgeon, Dr John Wu, who runs Leader Animal Clinic, said it was crucial to change this way of thinking, now, while the trend of keeping pets was sweeping China’s middle-class.

Jill Robinson, founder and CEO of Animals Asia said the symposium showed that there was a groundswell of change, with community concern for companion animals rapidly increasing and authorities becoming more aware of the need for animal welfare. “Imagine this forum happening 10 or even five years ago - it simply wouldn’t have been possible,” she said. "Caring people in China are speaking out – it’s time to use their voices for change.

Further proof that airport security is not very secure

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two teams of government investigators using fake documents were able to enter the United States with enough radioactive sources to make two dirty bombs, according to a federal report made available Monday.

The investigators purchased a "small quantity" of radioactive materials from a commercial source, according to a Government Accountability Office report prepared for Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican.

The investigators posed as employees of a fictitious company and brought the materials into the United States through checkpoints on the northern and southern borders, the report stated.

"It's just an indictment of the system that it's easier to get radiological material than it is to get cold medicine," said a senior subcommittee staffer about the findings.

The report, along with two others by the GAO on the subject of smuggling and detection of nuclear materials, were provided to reporters by congressional sources in advance of the first of two hearings by the subcommittee scheduled to begin Tuesday.

The focus will be on what the federal government has done to protect the country against nuclear terrorism. This week's hearings come after almost three years of bipartisan and bicameral investigations into the subject.

A second GAO report notes that while the departments of State, Energy and Defense have provided radiation-detection equipment to 36 countries since 1994 to combat nuclear smuggling, operating the equipment has proven challenging.

Those challenges include technical limitations of some of the equipment, a lack of supporting infrastructure at some border sites and corruption of some foreign border security officials.

The report also notes that the State Department, the lead interagency coordinator in this effort, has not maintained a master list of U.S.-funded radiation-detection equipment in foreign countries.

Without such a list, program managers at the agencies involved "cannot accurately assess if equipment is operational and being used as intended; determine the equipment needs of countries where they plan to provide assistance; or detect if an agency has unknowingly supplied duplicative equipment," the report says.

It further criticizes the State Department, saying that "without taking steps to ensure that all previously provided radiation-detection equipment, specifically hand-held equipment, is adequately maintained and remains operational, State cannot ensure the continued effectiveness or long-term sustainability of this equipment."

A third GAO report observes that, while the Department of Homeland Security has made progress in deploying radiation-detection equipment at U.S. ports -- which include 670 portal monitors and more than 19,000 pieces of hand-held radiation detection equipment as of last December -- the agency's program goals are "unrealistic" and its cost estimate is "uncertain."

GAO's analysis concluded that the program may exceed its budget by $342 million.

David McIntyre, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told CNN that the agency disagreed with the GAO over the risk significance of the materials taken across the border, but then said he didn't know what materials were involved.

The NRC ranks radioactive materials by order of their security significance, such as radioactivity, dispersability and how attractive they might be to terrorists.

On the issue of the fake NRC documents downloaded from the Internet and doctored by the GAO investigators to get their shipment past border officials, McIntyre said, "We are concerned about their ability to counterfeit an NRC document, and we are taking steps to address that."

The steps include finding ways to make NRC documents more difficult to counterfeit and working with customs officials if they need information about NRC licenses or licensees.

----------------
From the wonderful mind of George Carlin:

I'm getting tired of all this security at the airport. There's too much of it. I'm tired of some fat chick with a double-digit IQ rooting' around inside my bag for no reason and never finding anything.....The whole thing is fucking pointless. And it's completely without logic. There's no logic at all. They'll take away a gun, but let you keep a knife! Well, what the fuck is that? In fact, there's a whole list of lethal objects they will allow you to take on board. Theoretically, you could take a knife, an ice pick, a hatchet, a straight razor, a pair of scissors, a chain saw, six knitting needles, and a broken whiskey bottle, and the only thing they'd say to you is, "That bag has to fit all the way under the seat in front of you.

Anyone can get on an airplane and I'll tell you why. They know they are not a security risk because they have answered the three big questions.

Question #1:

"Did you pack your bags yourself?"

"No, Carrot Top packed my bags. He and Martha Stewart and Florence Henderson came over to the house last night, fixed me a lovely lobster Newburg, gave me a full body massage with sacred oils from India, performed a four way 'round the world', and then they packed my bags.

Next question:

"Have your bags been in your possession the whole time?"

"No. Usually the night before I travel---just as the moon is rising---I place my bags out on the street corner and leave them there, unattended, for several hours. Just for good luck.

Next question:

"Has any unknown person asked you to take anything on board?"

"Well, what exactly is an 'unknown person'? Surely everyone is known to someone. In fact, just this morning, Kareem and Youssef Ali ben Gabba seemed to know each other quite well. They kept joking about which one of my suitcases was the heaviest.".............

Airport security is a stupid idea, it's a waste of money, and it's there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe! That's all it's for. To provide a feeling, an illusion, of safety in order to placate the middle class. Because the authorities know they can't make airplanes safe; too many people have access. You'll notice the drug smugglers don't seem to have a lot of trouble getting their little packages on board, do they?......

And by the way, an airplane flight shouldn't be completely safe. You need A little danger in your life. Take a fucking chance, will ya? What are you gonna do, play with your prick for another 30 years? What, are you gonna read PEOPLE magazine and eat at Wendy's till the end of time? Take a fucking chance.....

You have to be realistic about terrorism. Certain groups of people---Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalist, and just plain guys from Montana---are going to continue to make life in this country very interesting for a long, long time. That's reality.

Angry men talkin' to god on a two-way radio and muttering incoherent slogans about freedom are eventually gonna provide us with a great deal of internal linkentertainment. Especially after your stupid fucking economy collapses all around you, the terrorists come out of the woodwork. And you'll have anthrax in the internal linkwater supply and sarin gas in the air conditioners; there'll be chemical and biological suitcase-bombs in every city, ......

As far as I'm concerned, all of this airport security--the cameras, the questions, the screenings, the searches--is just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can fuck with you anytime they want. Because that's the way Americans are now. They're willing to trade away a little of their freedom in exchange for the feeling---the illusion---of security.

What we now have is a completely neurotic population obsessed with security, safety, crime, drugs, cleanliness, hygiene, and germs. "

"One phrase that come up quite a bit in abortion discussions is "sanctity of life." What about that? Do you think there's a thing as sanctity of life? Personally,, I think it's a bunch of shit. Who says life is sacred? .....god? Great, but if you read your history you know that god is one of the leading causes of death and has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jews, all taking turns killing one another, because god told them it was a good idea. The sword of god, the blood of the lamb, Vengeance is mine, onward Christian soldiers. Millions of dead people. All because they gave the wrong answer to the god Question: Do you believe in god?

No.

BAM! Dead.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Breakin' the Law .... breakin' the law

WASHINGTON – For anyone who took fifth-grade social studies or sang “I’m Just a Bill,” how legislation turns to law always seemed pretty simple: The House passes a bill, the Senate passes the same bill, the president signs it.

“He signed ya, Bill – now you’re a law,” shouts the cartoon lawmaker on “Schoolhouse Rock” as Bill acknowledges the cheers.

But last month, Washington threw all that old-fashioned civics stuff into a tizzy, when President Bush signed into law a bill that never passed the House. Bill – in this case, a major budget-cutting measure that will affect millions of Americans – became a law because it was “certified” by the leaders of the House and Senate.

After stewing for weeks, Public Citizen, a legislative watchdog group, sued Tuesday to block the budget-cutting law, charging that Bush and Republican leaders of Congress flagrantly violated the Constitution when the president signed it into law knowing that the version that cleared the House was substantively different from the Senate’s version.

The issue is bizarre, with even constitutional scholars saying they could not think of any precedent for the journey the budget bill took to becoming a law. Opponents point to elementary school civics lessons to make their case, while Republicans are evoking an obscure Supreme Court ruling from the 1890s to suggest a bill does not have to pass both chambers of Congress to become law.

“We believe that the law is constitutional and that this is yet another political attempt by the Democrats to stop us from cutting spending,” said Ronald D. Bonjean Jr., a spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

But liberal interest groups hoping to bring down the budget law have the backing of many legal scholars, who say that a $2 billion mistake cannot be ignored.

“The Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 may be something, but it is not law within the meaning of the Constitution,” said Jamin Raskin, an American University law professor.

No one disputes the central facts of the lawsuit: Last December, Vice President Cheney broke a tie vote in the Senate to win passage of a bill that would cut nearly $40 billion over five years by reducing Medicaid rolls, raising work requirements for welfare, and trimming the student loan program, among other changes.

Among those other changes was a provision to save $2 billion by restricting Medicare payments for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and oxygen tanks. Under the Senate bill, government-funded leases for such equipment could last only 13 months.

As the measure was being sent to the House last month, a Senate clerk inadvertently changed that 13-month-restriction to 36 months, a $2 billion alteration. With the mistaken change, the measure squeaked through the House, 216 to 214.

After the mistake was revealed, Republican leaders were loath to fight the battle again by having another vote, so White House officials simply deemed the Senate version to be the law.

“This is simple elementary school civics,” said Public Citizen attorney Adina Rosenbaum, announcing that the group sued in U.S. District Court to nullify the law. “The courts should declare void laws passed in an unconstitutional manner.”

The suit has the sympathy of constitutional scholars.

“I think it’s an open and shut case,” agreed Michael Gerhardt, director of the Center on Law and Government at the University of North Carolina School of Law. “It would be a horrible precedent to set if this is how Congress is allowed to make laws.”

For their part, congressional leaders and administration officials point to an 1892 Supreme Court decision, Field v. Clark, to argue that as long as the Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate certify a bill passed, it is passed. In that case, a bill signed by President Benjamin Harrison and authenticated by the leaders of the House and Senate was different from the version printed in the official journals of Congress, known now as the Congressional Record.

“Congress presented a bill certified by both chambers. It’s been signed into law, and we consider the matter closed,” said Scott Milburn, spokesman for the White House budget office.

In the 1892 case, the Supreme Court did not rule that the law really was a law, but instead said the dispute was not a matter for the courts to decide, said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University. The main problem for Public Citizen will not be showing that the budget law is technically not a law, but getting the courts involved, Dorf said, especially with a measure as sweeping as this one.

“An honest application of precedents would probably lead to the conclusion that the courts should strike this down,” Dorf said. But, he added, “The courts will probably try to find a way to not throw the law out because it is so broad.”

The issue would be solved if the House voted again, this time on the version that passed the Senate.

But that would mark the third time House members would have to cast their votes on a politically difficult bill, containing cuts in many popular programs, and it would be that much closer to the November election.

But the issue may be snowballing. On Feb. 13, James Zeigler, a Republican lawyer in Alabama who specializes in elder-care issues, filed a similar suit, challenging the budget measure’s constitutionality.

“The Constitution is broad and vague on a number of things; this is not one of them,” Zeigler said. “The same bill must be passed by House and Senate and signed by the president. Otherwise it’s not law. Case over.”

Computers are the VCR's of this age

ok so I'm gonna bitch be aware.....

I'm sitting and listening to the office chatter that occurs around me and it seems like the one thing I consistently hear is "theres a problem with my PC," or some such varient. Now, this is pretty typical for most offices (from what I understand,) and me being the ever angry desk monkey I just want to go shit on their desks and tell them to hire a competent IT person or better yet ... Let me do it. But alas, I continue to hear the same diatribe daily. I understand that PCs are highly technical "advanced" mentality types of devices. They require that LOGICAL part of your brain to make them work. In other words, if you're smart enough to make your VCR stop flashing 12:00, then realistically you should be able to operate a PC. But yet I digress. IT has taken on a lustre of phrases like Idiots in Training, or Idle Technology or such shite like that. My counter to that is that machines are just that ..... machines. Computers are based on input and output. Yes I know that I'm marginalizing but its to make a point. It has been my theory (unofficial though it is) that most corporate people in this world would be at a total loss without their staff supporting them and most good mangers will tell you that. The ones who dont are the same people who will rant and rave, bitch and moan, about how computers make their work more difficult. That IT staff are a waste of time and resources. I will say this though, the next time you have a PC related issue, just think to yourself, how badly do you want to piss off your IT staff?

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Iraq.... Iran .... its just a misspelling

VIENNA — With efforts to halt its nuclear program at an impasse, Iran is moving faster than expected and is just days from making the first steps toward enriching uranium, said diplomats who have been briefed on the program.

If engineers encounter no major technical problems, Iran could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within three years, much more quickly than the common estimate of five to 10 years, the diplomats said.

Iran insists that it is interested only in producing electricity, which requires low-grade enrichment of uranium.

New information about Iran's program came from diplomats representing countries on the United Nations Security Council. They were briefed by senior staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which maintains monitors in Iran. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because the briefing was private.

Even as Iran apparently moves forward, diplomatic efforts to persuade it to halt its nuclear work appeared to be faltering in the face of distrust among powerful Security Council members and disagreements over the best strategy.

"We're getting conflicting signals from the United States; it now appears they want to escalate the situation," said a senior diplomat in Vienna. "The Russians see that as a slippery slope."

Officials said Iran was on the verge of feeding uranium gas into centrifuges, the first step toward enrichment. That move is in keeping with Iran's experience level and its previous statements, experts said.

According to one non-Western official who closely follows Iran's progress, engineers at a pilot plant in Natanz are likely to start crucial testing in the next couple of days to ensure that the centrifuges and the pipes connecting them are properly vacuum sealed. They are likely to begin feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into a series of 164 connected centrifuges within about two weeks, the official said.

Diplomats and experts say Iran has forgone usual testing periods for individual centrifuges and small series of linked centrifuges, instead apparently trying to put together as many as possible, as quickly as possible.

They said Iran also was likely to begin assembling more centrifuges in mid-April to put together additional cascades of linked centrifuges. The pilot plant can hold up to six cascades of 164 centrifuges each. It could take many months to complete that work, the diplomats said.

The U.S. and its British, French and German allies believe Iran intends to build nuclear weapons, and must be stopped before learning how to enrich uranium. They view the ability to operate a series of centrifuges as a technological tipping point.

"If you can do one centrifuge, you can do 164," said Emyr Jones Parry, British envoy to the U.N. "If you can do 164, you probably can do many more. That means you have the potential to do full-scale enrichment. If you can do enrichment up to 7%, you can do 80%. If you can do 80%, you can produce a bomb."

Policymakers watching Iran's program are making two separate assessments: a technical one based on Iran's ability to enrich uranium and a political judgment on whether Iran is attempting to make a bomb or merely trying to enrich uranium to a low level for civilian purposes, as Iranian officials insist.

The three-year time frame for Iran to produce a bomb cited by diplomats is the same as an estimate by former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright.

In a paper that will be released Monday by the Institute for Science and International Security, which Albright founded, he and a colleague give a detailed description of how, under a best-case scenario, Iran would be able to manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a crude nuclear device in three years. Albright cautioned, however, that Iran faces many technical hurdles it might find difficult to overcome.

Gary S. Samore, a former nonproliferation expert at the National Security Council, now at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, also said it was far more likely that the Iranians would encounter problems and that it could take them four to five years.

If Iran decides to make highly enriched uranium, it would need either to do so clandestinely, or leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which prohibits signatories from producing highly enriched uranium.

The IAEA board of governors reported Iran to the Security Council for failing to respond to requests from inspectors for information about its program, which it kept hidden for 18 years.

All the members of the Security Council agree that Iran should not be permitted to produce a bomb. Under an agreement with Russia and China, the council only began to discuss Tehran's case in mid-March. The next steps are hotly disputed.

The European Union and the Americans want to exert vigorous pressure on Iran. They insist on a reinstatement of a total moratorium on uranium enrichment that Iran had voluntarily put in place in late 2004 while negotiating with the EU. The U.S. and EU are willing to use a U.N. procedure that gives Security Council resolutions the force of law, and to impose sanctions.

====================================================

Who says that Irans not next? Just watch citizens.

Quotes across the table

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Remember this citizen ....

Thursday, March 23, 2006

And from my own backyard

PLANO, Texas -- The new Wal-Mart Supercenter going up at West Plano Parkway and the Tollway in Plano is not like any store shoppers have seen before.

Wal-Mart did not want anyone to know what was happening inside the building until now because of competition in retail.

The whole store is a laboratory, and customers will tell Wal-Mart what works.

Some changes: the aisles are very wide and open and some even have cut-throughs so shoppers don't have to circle around the end.
Click here to find out more!

There is a selection of fresh sushi, and a beer and wine selection one would expect to find at a liquor store with 1,200 different varieties available. A computer can tell shoppers which of the hundreds of wines go with which foods. And there are 500 items that are either all natural or organic.

"We think that's what our customer is looking for today... we hope it is. We've seen it in other stores. Organic products are doing very well. That's what we are hoping to find here, too," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Nikki Bayne said.

The home decor department features a wider selection of stylish accessories.

In electronics, there's an entire wall of the latest flat-screen TVs.

Even the greeting card aisles have been redesigned to feel more like a cozy bookstore.

"We always want to have what our customers are looking for, and I think customers are changing and looking for different things," Bayne said.

At a coffee shop at the entrance, customers can get a cappuccino or a latte, take it with them as they shop, or take a break in a big cozy chair and surf the Internet on the store's Wi-Fi system.

The restroom is definitely not like anything customers have seen at a Wal-Mart before: There are flowers in the ladies' restroom, plus there's a potty designed especially for children.

The men's room is nice, but pretty standard stuff: no flowers.

---------------------------------

I have driven past this behemoth store and still say this. Yes its different, but if you've ever been to Plano, you know that rich fuckheads dont need more shit to stuff down their gullets and crap to put in their homes from people who make poverty level wages. Cant they just go out and buy that little boy from Mexico who cleans their pool a new hat?

Network Neutrality may be a thing of the past

FCC Chief Kevin Martin yesterday gave his support to AT&T and other telcos who want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees. Martin made it clear in a speech yesterday that he supports such a a "tiered" Internet.

Martin told attendees at the TelecomNext show that telcos should be allowed to charge web sites whatever they want if those sites want adequate bandwidth.

He threw in his lot with AT&T, Verizon, and the other telcos, who are no doubt salivating at the prospect at charging whatever the market can bear.

He did throw a bone to those who favor so-called "net neutrality" -- the idea that telcos and other ISPs should not be allowed to limit services or bandwidth, or charge sites extra fees. He said that the FCC "has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations. He added that it had done so already, when it stepped in to stop an ISP from blocking Vonage VoIP service.

But Martin's interpretation of "net neutrality" is far too narrow, and almost besides the point. By siding with telcos who want to be able to offer adequate bandwidth to sites that pay up, and to limit bandwidth to sites that don't, he'll help kill off new sites that can't afford to fork over the money.

That could help end Internet and network innovation, and we simply can't afford that.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Contracters getting rich off of Katrina reconstruction

New Orleans - How many contractors does it take to haul a pile of tree branches? If it's government work, at least four: a contractor, his subcontractor, the subcontractor's subcontractor, and finally, the local man with a truck and chainsaw.

If the job is patching a leaking roof, the answer may be five contractors, or even six. At the bottom tier is a Spanish-speaking crew earning less than 10 cents for every square foot of blue tarp installed. At the top, the prime contractor bills the government 15 times as much for the same job.

For the thousands of contractors in the Katrina recovery business, this is the way the system works - a system that federal officials say is the same after every major disaster but that local government officials, watchdog groups and the contractors themselves say is one reason that costs for the hurricane cleanup continue to swell.

"If this is 'normal,' we have a serious problem in this country," said Benny Rousselle, president of Plaquemines Parish, a hurricane-ravaged district downriver from New Orleans. "The federal government ought to be embarrassed about what is happening. If local governments tried to run things this way, we'd be run out of town."

Federal agencies in charge of Katrina cleanup have been repeatedly criticized for lapses in managing the legions of contractors who perform tasks ranging from delivering ice to rebuilding schools. Last Thursday, Congress's independent auditor, the Government Accountability Office, said inadequate oversight had cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, by allowing contractors to build shelters in the wrong places or to purchase supplies that were not needed.

But each week, many more millions are paid to contractors who get a cut of the profits from a job performed by someone else. In instances reviewed by The Washington Post, the difference between the job's actual price and the fee charged to taxpayers ranged from 40 percent to as high as 1,700 percent.

Consider the task of cleaning up storm debris. Just after the hurricane, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded contracts for removing 62 million cubic yards of debris to four companies: Ashbritt Inc., Ceres Environmental Services Inc., Environmental Chemical Corp. and Phillips and Jordan Inc.

Each of the four contracts was authorized for a maximum of $500 million. Corps officials have declined to reveal specific payment rates, citing a court decision barring such disclosures. But local officials and businesspeople knowledgeable about the contracts say the companies are paid $28 to $30 a cubic yard.

Below the first tier, the arrangements vary. But in a typical case in Louisiana's Jefferson Parish, top contractor Ceres occupied the first rung, followed by three layers of smaller companies: Loupe Construction Co., then a company based in Reserve, La., which hired another subcontractor called McGee, which hired Troy Hebert, a hauler from New Iberia, La. Hebert, who is also a member of the state legislature, says his pay ranged from $10 to $6 for each cubic yard of debris.

"Every time it passes through another layer, $4 or $5 is taken off the top," Hebert said. "These others are taking out money, and some of them aren't doing anything."

Defenders of the multi-tiered system say it is a normal and even necessary part of doing business in the aftermath of a major disaster. The prime contracts are usually awarded by FEMA or other government agencies well in advance, so relief services can be brought in quickly after the crisis eases. These companies often must expand rapidly to meet the need, and they do so by subcontracting work to other firms.

The two federal agencies that administer most disaster-related contracts, FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, say the system benefits small and local companies that do not have the resources to bid for large federal contracts. At the top end, prime contractors must be large enough to carry the heavy insurance burdens and administrative requirements of overseeing thousands of workers dispersed across a wide area, agency officials say. They also note that contractors have a legal right to hire subcontractors as they need them.

"Our purview of a contract goes to the prime contractor only," said Jean Todd, a Corps contracting officer.

But watchdog groups that monitor federal contracting say Katrina has taken the contract tiering system to a new extreme, wasting tax dollars while often cheating companies at the low end of the contracting ladder. In some cases, the groups say, companies in the top and middle rungs contribute little more than shuffling paperwork from one tier to the next.

"It's trickle-down contracting: You're paying a cut at every level, and it makes the final cost exponentially more expensive than it needs to be," said Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "And in almost every case, the local people who really need to be making the money are at the bottom of these upside-down pyramid schemes."

The gap is particularly large for roof repairs. Four large companies won Army Corps contracts to cover damaged roofs with blue plastic tarp, under a program known as "Operation Blue Roof." The rate paid to the prime contractors ranged from $1.50 to $1.75 per square foot of tarp installed, documents show.

The prime contractors' rate is nearly as much as local roofers charge to install a roof of asphalt shingles, according to two roofing executives who requested anonymity because they feared losing their contracts. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the contractor heap, four to five rungs lower, some crews are being paid less than 10 cents per square foot, the officials said.

At least the prime contractors for roofing and debris removal owned equipment that could be immediately applied to the job at hand. In the world of Katrina contracting, this has not always been the case.

For example, one company hired as an ice vendor owns no ice-making equipment. Landstar Systems Inc., a $2 billion Florida company placed in charge of the bus evacuation of New Orleans, is a transportation broker that specializes in trucking and has no buses of its own. In 2002, the company was awarded a $100 million contract to provide emergency transportation services for the federal government during major disasters. The contract, which is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration, was expanded in the fall to a maximum $400 million. Landstar declined a request for an interview.

Thousands of New Orleanians had been stranded in the Superdome for more than 48 hours by the time FEMA issued the first order for a bus evacuation early on the morning of Aug. 31. The order was passed to Landstar, which then turned to other companies to locate buses, according to an official chronology prepared by the Department of Transportation. Landstar hired Carey International Inc., of Washington, which then hired the BusBank, of Chicago, and Transportation Management Systems of Columbia, Md. Bus Bank and TMS called private charter-bus companies - some from as far away as California and Washington state - asking them to send buses and drivers to New Orleans.

More than 1,100 buses eventually responded, some arriving four days later, after traveling hundreds of miles. Daily earnings averaged about $700 per bus, according to bus company owners. Landstar's daily earnings were nearly $1,200 per bus, government records show.

"A lot of that money is going to brokers who didn't have to do anything," said Jeff Polzien, owner of Red Carpet Charters, an Oklahoma bus company that sent coaches to New Orleans as a fourth-tier subcontractor.

Lower pay is hardly the worst problem subcontractors face. With many tiers to navigate, money trickles down slowly, delaying payment by weeks and months, and frequently imposing hardships on the smallest firms.

Several bus company owners said they were still owed tens of thousands of dollars for work they did in the fall. For some, the delays have been ruinous.

Thomas Paige, owner of Coast to Coast Bus Line of Dillon, S.C., laid off staff, and two of his four buses were repossessed by creditors after payment for his New Orleans work fell behind by three months.

"I went to New Orleans to help people - and hopefully to help myself - but now I feel like I've dug a ditch and fallen into it," Paige said. "If I would have known what I know now, I never would have gotten involved. It's just not worth it."

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Majority of Americans think Bush is an "Idiot" "Incompetent" or a "Liar"

Deep doubts about the Iraq war and pessimism about America's future have shattered public confidence in President George W. Bush and helped drive his approval ratings to their lowest level ever.

A new round of opinion polls found growing skepticism about Iraq and distrust of Bush. His image declined sharply, with one poll finding "incompetent" to be the most frequent description of his leadership.

Bush's approval rating dipped as low as 33 percent in one recent poll after a string of bad news for the White House, including uproars over a now-dead Arab port deal, a secret eavesdropping program, a series of ethics scandals involving high-profile Republicans and a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe Bush is "out of touch," the poll found. When asked for a one-word description of Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by "idiot" and "liar."

This is great news. Could it be possible that the American people are finally seeing the truth? I am very guarded about this. I still have several friends I consider to be very intelligent that still support this moron.

Capitalism

Friends, there are days, in fact, when I want to wrap my hands around the warm sinewy neck of capitalism and squeeze until my fingers meet. Today being one of those days, I have to pick my targets carefully. Of who to inflict my venomous vitriola towards. Politicos now just leave me impotent against rage. When rage is your daily diet, how do you know when you're outraged?
Bush can't help that he is what he is. A monkey lead on parade by other powers that be. The warmth he must feel at night, wrapped in his lie infested American flag, surely must shine brighter than any sun. Secure in his bullshit bureacracy, the emperor truly is naked. The last lone monarch. All hail King George the simple. Little Joe and the rest of the family waiting for his call to come back to the ranch. Hurrah! Bonanza Ho!
The cruel truth is, we deserve the bastard, lumps and all. If we were'nt so busy pissing away the best years of our lives watching "reality TV" that retards zoo animals but make us sedate and happy in our little castles. Society crumbles and who really gives a shit? Yes, there are days and days.
For those wanting to debate this point with me, Fuck You! You know this is right, just because I'm saying what you dont have the balls to say, dont come pissing in my yard. The terrorist should be YOU! You should be the one writing to say that you cant look anymore at the pile of shit that we've become and realizer that that smell isnt a future lost but of a you just giving up.

Lexicon

Citizens,

Your word of the day is kakistocracy:

kak·is·toc·ra·cy Audio pronunciation of "kakistocracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kk-stkr-s, käk-)n. pl. kak·is·toc·ra·cies

Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Friday, March 17, 2006

You Dropped a Bomb on Me

WASHINGTON - Imagine an explosion strong enough to blow a car's trunk apart, caused by a bomb inside a passenger plane. Government sources tell NBC News that federal investigators recently were able to carry materials needed to make a similar homemade bomb through security screening at 21 airports.

In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one discovered the materials.

"I'm appalled," he said. "I'm dismayed and, yes, to a degree, it does surprise me. Because I thought the Department of Homeland Security was making some progress on this, and evidently they're not."

Investigators for the Government Accountability Office conducted the tests between October and January, at the request of Congress. The goal was to determine how vulnerable U.S. airlines are to a suicide bomber using cheap, readily available materials.

Investigators found recipes for homemade bombs from easily available public sources and bought the necessary chemicals and other materials over the counter. For security reasons, NBC News will not reveal any of the ingredients or the airports tested. The report itself is classified. But Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, says the fact that so many airports failed this test is a hugely important story that the American traveler is entitled to know.

NBC News asked a bomb technician to gather the same materials and assemble an explosive device to determine its power. The materials for the bomb that exploded a car's trunk fit in the palm of one hand. NBC News showed the results to Leo West, a former FBI bomb expert.

"Potentially, an explosion of that type could lead to the destruction of the aircraft," said West.

The Transportation Security Administration would not comment on the tests Thursday , but issued a statement to NBC News, saying "detecting explosive materials and IEDs at the checkpoint is TSA's top priority." The agency also said screeners are now receiving added training to help identify these materials.

That’s not soon enough for Tom Kean.

"They need to do it yesterday," Kean said, "because we haven’t got time."

Given hardened cockpit doors and other improvements, experts say explosives now are the gravest threat posed by terrorists in the sky.

Water Wars

Water is worth fighting for - even to the death, activists holding an "alternate" forum outside the world water summit said Friday. That attitude might seem strange in developed countries, where water flows at the touch of a faucet. But it isn't nearly as accessible in the developing world.

And water wars aren't an apocalyptic vision of the future. They're already starting to happen, the protesters say.

"We've been beaten, we've been jailed, some of us have even been killed, but we're not going to give up," said Marco Suastegui, who marched alongside about 10,000 protesters Thursday outside a convention center where the international Fourth World Water Forum is being held.

Suastegui is leading the battle against a dam being built to supply water for the Pacific coastal resort of Acapulco. Opponents fear the dam will dry up the nearby Papagayo River.

"We will defend the water of the Papagayo River with our lives, if need be," Suastegui said.

Protesters on Friday organized an alternate forum in Mexico City, miles from the convention site, in which they accused the official summit of serving as cover for companies that want to privatize water services.

"The Fourth World Water Forum doesn't represent us," said Audora Dominguez of the nongovernmental Mexican Committee for the Defense of Water Rights. "It's a forum where you have to pay to speak. It's a forum where the poor aren't included."

On Thursday, youths in ski masks attacked journalists and fought with police, smashing a patrol car and hurling rocks during largely peaceful water forum protests involving about 10,000 marchers. The disturbances appeared to be carried out by mostly radical youths not directly involved with the groups demonstrating against the forum.

Many of the battles over water in Mexico don't involve people who would otherwise be considered radicals. Those on the front lines are residents of low-income neighborhoods in Mexico City who get in fistfights over water-truck deliveries, or housewives who can no longer stand the stink of untreated sewage flowing beside their homes.

And then there are the Indian families whose crops are ruined by the diversion of water to feed a nearby city, while their children go without safe drinking water.

For farmers and fishermen whose river is about to be dammed, or a rural resident who sees his town overrun by tens of thousands of new housing units in the space of a few years, water is a fighting issue.

"We will fight for the rest of our lives. For us, fear doesn't exist," said Victoria Martinez Arriaga, a 33-year-old Mazahua Indian woman who led a militant protest in 2004 to demand safe drinking water for local families. The demonstration temporarily cut off part of Mexico City's water supply.

Martinez stressed, however, that the last thing her community wants is violence.

"Our wooden rifles are symbolic," she said, referring to the props the Indians carry in their protests. "They're symbols of the idea that we still can stop the wars for water from breaking out. We still have time to solve things through dialogue and understanding."

Local Mexico City legislator Aleida Alavez Ruiz says the conflicts may intensify, especially in the capital, whose combination of floods and water shortages, urban sprawl, pollution and wasteful practices make it a sort of poster child for the world's water woes.

"It's getting critical, and if we don't recognize the problem now, when the dry season comes, the conflicts will get worse," Alavez Ruiz said of her district, where residents have fought over water trucks that make deliveries when tap water runs out.

Residents have to line up for hours to sign up for such a delivery, and tempers sometimes boil over when a neighbor tries to get water out of turn.

The concept of battles breaking out in the future over shrinking water supplies is gaining credence. Loic Fauchon, president of the nongovernmental World Water Council, and a co-chair of the official water forum, has proposed the creation of a peacekeeping force to solve water conflicts as they erupt around the world. The force would be modeled after the U.N.'s "blue helmets."

"We don't want to override national governments," Fauchon said. "We just need a force that will take over in cases of water conflicts."

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Mexico City

So I´m not posting much this week as I´m in Mexico City. If you´ve ever been here, this is undoubtably one of the more intersting cities I´ve been too. There are supposedly 20 million people in this city. I hope to get some pictures to be able to post here sometimes in the next few weeks. I´m just taking pics with my digital cam so I´ll have to get the pictures processed. Anyway, if you´re reading this thus far you care. I´ll be back on Friday.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Halliburton Suspected of Overcharging for Katrina Restoration

WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The DOD is investigating whether a Halliburton subsidiary has overcharged the Navy for hurricane reconstruction.

A review of KBR's bills to the Navy by the Department of Defense's inspector general for work last year restoring Navy facilities in Pensacola, Fl, damaged by Hurricane Ivan suggest KBR may be charging the Navy too much in labor.

Like its contract in Iraq, KBR's Navy construction contract is a cost-plus award arrangement. That means the company earns more in profit if its costs are higher, because its profit is figured as a percentage of the contract's cost.

"The rates paid to some KBR subcontractors for labor were significantly higher than the prevailing Bureau of Labor Statistics rates for the area impacted by the hurricane," the March 3 inspector general report states.

"The underlying documentation for the invoice that KBR submitted in January 2005 for the Hurricane Ivan recovery effort causes us concern about the ability of the Navy to obtain a fair and reasonable price for the labor and material needed to accomplish the tasks associated with natural disaster recovery efforts.... We plan to evaluate the costs paid on task orders issued in response to natural disasters in a follow-on audit," it says.

KBR and the Navy said KBR had to pay higher rates for labor because of the high demand for construction workers after the hurricane. However, the inspector general's report said the Navy's incentive fee to KBR to keep its costs down may not outweigh the added profit from paying higher labor fees.

KBR has been paid nearly $300 million for reconstruction work since it won the Navy Construction Capabilities contract in July 2004, including $35 million for the construction of a new prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and more than $160 million for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction and mortuary services.

The inspector general's report, undertaken at the request of Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, found that there was nothing inherently wrong in the Navy's award of the five-year emergency reconstruction contract worth up to $500 million to Kellogg, Brown and Root.

However, the report said the Army and Navy had failed to consider KBR's performance under the controversial $13 billion Iraq logistics contract, a contract that has included documented bribery, kickbacks, and overcharges.

KBR's past performance on government contracts was one of the major measures by which it was supposed to be judged for the new contract, but neither the Army nor the Navy had entered the Iraq contract information into a military database that tracks contractor performance.

Of the 36 task orders completed on the Iraq Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, only one, worth $1 million, had made it into the database. The $209 million task order that included kickbacks worth $6 million paid to KBR employees was not entered into the database, and therefore was not considered by the Navy in its source selection. The Army has since entered the missing information, according to the inspector general's report.

Moreover, the Navy only checked the database for past performance on government contracts by business units that the companies discussed in their proposals for the work. If they did not highlight a business unit -- perhaps because of past performance problems -- it would not have been found in the check.

"As a result, actual technical factor ratings are difficult to justify, relevant past performance information was not available, and available information was not considered as a part of the source selection decision process for a $500 million contract," the report states. "Although we found nothing to indicate that the Construction Capabilities contract should have been awarded to one of the other offerers, the source selection procedures that the Naval Facilities Engineering Command used to support the decision to award the contract to KBR had shortcomings that could be improved."

The Pentagon is expected to direct in April that all significant performance data be entered into the database as it occurs, not just after the contract is completed.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

US Charities win over $2 Million in grants

The Bush administration channelled $2.15bn (£1.25bn) to faith-based charities last year, advancing its mission to increase the share of government aid money given to religious organisations.

The figure, contained in a White House report unveiled on Thursday, does not account for all of the grants awarded by an administration determined to increase the involvement of churches and religious organisations in social services provision.

The revelation deepened concerns among aid professionals and civil liberty groups about the quality of services offered by some of the religious groups - especially at a time when funds for social programmes are being cut. There are also charges that the Bush administration is underwriting proselytising campaigns by the Christian right.

About 10.9% of competitive federal grants for programmes for the needy went to religious charities last year, up from 10.3% in 2004. Religious groups played an especially large role in public housing, receiving 24% of grant money . They also received 14.2% of funding from the international development agency.

In the five years that George Bush has been in the White House, 11 government agencies have set up religious offices, ostensibly to help coordinate the provision of social services by faith-based organisations. This week, the president established one in the department of homeland security.

"It used to be that groups were prohibited from receiving any federal funding whatsoever because they had a cross or a star or a crescent on the wall," Mr Bush told religious leaders at the annual White House conference on faith-based initiatives on Thursday, adding: "and that's changed for the better."

Mr Bush's belief in faith-based charities has long provoked controversy overseas, where pressure from the US Christian right has diverted a quarter of the £15bn the White House pledged to fight Aids to abstinence programmes.

At home, civil liberty groups accuse the Bush administration of using the faith-based charities to cover up for spending cuts. They also say there is not enough monitoring to ensure that funds are not used to spread religion. "Some of these organisations do good work, but for some of them their first goal is winning a new soul to convert, and that type of activity should always be funded with private dollars," said Rob Boston of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "There is virtually no attempt to monitor these religious institutions unless someone forces the issue."

Last month, the Bush administration cut off funds to the Silver Ring Thing, an organisation preaching teenage abstinence that has a branch in Britain. The decision followed a law suit by the American Civil Liberties Union, which found the group had been urging young people to embrace Christianity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that this is from a UK web site and NOT the US.

30 Members of Congress are looking at Impeachment proceedings

ATLANTA – 30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.

“We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’s resolution,” Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,” Goodman said.

Meanwhile, at least eight (8) US cities, including Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California; and Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, and Putney, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bush’s impeachment.

The recent city resolutions in Vermont have directly led to US Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) having signed H. Res 635 on March 09, 2006, David Swanson, 36, Washington DC Director of ImpeachPAC, asserted in an interview with Atlanta Progressive News.

“One of the big stories here is the town resolutions helped someone sign on the resolution that could move us in the direction of impeachment. Even though getting your city or town to pass a resolution doesn’t legally force the house to impeach, it can compel your congress member to get on board,” Swanson said.

Sanders’s Office did not provide a statement about his co-sponsoring H. Res 635, prior to deadline, and referred this writer to an official statement on Sanders’s website.

“I can very well understand why the citizens of Newfane, Putney, Dummerston, Marlboro, and Brookfield voted yesterday to support the impeachment of President Bush and ask me, as Vermont’s Congressman, to introduce those articles. It is my view that President Bush’s Administration has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well have been illegal,” Sanders said. Sanders, the only Independent, or non-Democrat, currently co-sponsoring H. Res 635, is current for US Senate to replace retiring US Senator Jim Jefforts (I-VT).

However, Sanders stopped short of saying he would introduce outright articles of impeachment, saying citizens should focus on getting Republicans out of power in the 2006 election if they want to end Bush’s disastrousness. Signing H. Res 635 indicates Sanders’s support for a more exploratory investigation.

Mr. Swanson, along with Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, have been perhaps the most prominent citizen activists on this issue. ImpeachPAC was featured in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. “Bob has been pushing for impeachment since Gore won the election. This is Bob’s moment now after five years,” Swanson said.

US Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) was the other latest member of US Congress to sign on to the bill. Capuano’s Office did not immediately return calls from Atlanta Progressive News.

Over 14% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; almost 7% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.

The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (7), New York (6), Massachusetts (3), Georgia (2), Minnesota (2), and Wisconsin (2).

The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

“I have a Citizen Co-sponsorship page on my website, http://johnconyers.com, where over 42,000 people have added their names to the 30 Members of Congress calling for the creation of a special committee to investigate possible impeachable offenses. My website also has a form for people to write a letter-to-the-editor for their local newspaper. It is grassroots activity like this, and the efforts of thousands of others, that has led to greater awareness of and support for my resolution,” Rep. Conyers told Atlanta Progressive News.

“What a lot of activists group want is the next step, which is Articles of Impeachment. You don’t have to pass this type of bill first. I think there’s a fair chance that if the list of co-sponsors grows dramatically, Conyers and others will take that next step of introducing articles of impeachment,” Swanson said.

At least two members of Congress are prepared to sign such a bill if it were to be introduced, sources tell Atlanta Progressive News. One of them is US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), whose office clarified earlier Associated Press reports, by saying Lewis would indeed sign such a bill, assuming that any bill of impeachment would of course be introduced as a result of a thorough process, such as one including the investigation called for in H. Res 635.

Shocking allegations appeared in The Baltimore Chronicle today. Dave Lindorff writes that he and Barbara Olshansky (also an attorney at CCR) will reveal in an upcoming book that “members of Congress–even firebrands like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)–have been strong-armed behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee not to introduce an impeachment bill in the House.”

Conyers’s bill was initially referred to the US House Rules Committee, which has not taken action. None of the US House Democrats on the Rules Committee have signed on as co-sponsors. The Ranking Democrat on the Committee is US Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Democratic members of the Committee are Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Doris Matsui (D-CA), and James McGovern (D-MA). Republicans currently outnumber Democrats on the committee by about a two-to-one ratio.

The US House Rules Committee would need to take action on H. Res 635 because it calls for the creation of a Select Committee, in other words the creation of a new committee that is not a standing committee, Jonathan Godfrey, Communications Director for US Rep. Conyers, told Atlanta Progressive News. Such a Committee would need to be staffed, Godfrey noted.

If the Democratic Party is able to retake the US House of Representatives, Rep. Conyers would become Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, whereas he is currently the Ranking Democrat on the Committee. The Judiciary Committee would oversee any actual impeachment investigation.

If not acted on this session, the bill would have to be reintroduced next session. It is possible that a new bill could include new language regarding Bush's approval of illegal NSA domestic wiretapping.

For now, however, sources in Washington DC tell Atlanta Progressive News that H. Res 635 is a venue for coalition among members of Congress who are willing to consider impeachment for a variety of reasons.

Even though H. Res 635 does not specifically reference the NSA domestic wiretapping issue, some Members of US Congress have found the wiretapping issue to be a compelling reason to sign on as a co-sponsor, sources say.

In other words, why introduce separate legislation to address a single issue when momentum has been built with H. Res 635?

The thing about H. Res. 635 is, it deals with impeaching Bush over a cluster of issues from misleading the public to go to war, to authorizing torture. Wiretapping was not listed as one of the reasons to investigate the grounds for Bush's impeachment in the bill because the existence of the secret, illegal wiretapping had not come to light yet when the bill was being prepared.

US Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) withdrew her name from H. Res 635 last month, whereas she had been listed as a cosponsor throughout January 2006. Lofgren cited a clerical error for her name having been listed in the first place. Lofgren's Office told Atlanta Progressive News the Representative learned of her being listed as a co-sponsor after reading an exclusive article by Atlanta Progressive News issued January 01, 2006.

H. Res 635 reads as its official title: "Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

Friday, March 10, 2006

Bush's approval rating continues to slide ..

WASHINGTON — More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

"I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote GOP. "I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

"You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

"People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,'" he said.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

"Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

While the gap worries Republicans, Cole and others said it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

"While I don't dispute the fact that we have challenges in the current environment politically, I also believe 2006 as a choice election offers Republicans an opportunity if we make sure the election is framed in a way that will keep our majorities in the House and the Senate," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him — and them — politically.

"When issue like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win," said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports. Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.

"We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent," he said. "People vote for change and hope for the best."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All I have to say is ... DUH!

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

No Pension, No Future ..... No Shit ...

Margo Bryerton, 56, a Verizon network service manager based in Syracuse, N.Y., had a rude awakening when she came to work on Dec. 5. That day, Verizon announced it was freezing its pension plan. As part of a move expected to save the company $3 billion over 10 years, the telecommunications giant announced that managerial workers would no longer earn pension benefits after June 30 this year.

Because of the way such traditional defined benefit pensions are calculated—generally as a percentage of the salary earned during the last several years of service—the freeze will take a big bite out of Bryerton's anticipated pension. The 17-year veteran says that if she retires at 65, she'll have about $300,000 less than she expected. "I have a job I love and make pretty good money," she says. "But I no longer have financial security."

The move to freeze pensions at solid, profitable companies like Verizon—and at others, including IBM, Sprint, Nextel, Tribune Corp., Lexmark, Alcoa and Russell Corp.—is the latest sign of pressure on traditional guaranteed pension plans. "It's an entirely new phenomenon for healthy companies to freeze their pensions," says Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

In 2003, 41 percent of workers with pension coverage had defined benefit pensions, down from 83 percent in 1980, according to the latest data released in February by the center. For the last several years, employees in struggling industries such as airlines, steel, coal and textiles have watched as their firms declared bankruptcy and terminated their plans altogether. And more may be in trouble, particularly in industries such as auto parts.

Not only that, new regulatory and legislative changes now in the works could encourage companies to freeze their pensions—or get out of the pension business altogether. And questions are being raised about the funding of pensions for public-sector employees.

Add it all up, and it's hard not to conclude that defined benefit pensions are under assault. "The old three-legged stool of retirement security—Social Security, employer-provided pensions and retirement savings—isn't going to exist for many people if these trends continue," says Shaun O'Brien, assistant policy director at the AFL-CIO.

By law, companies may unilaterally freeze pensions for nonunionized employees, provided they give 45 days' notice. "Since there is no requirement that they offer [a pension] in the first place, there's no requirement that they keep doing it," says Jack VanDerhei, a professor at Temple University and research director at the Washington-based Employee Benefit Research Institute.

The changes are primarily cost-cutting. IBM will save $3 billion over the next few years by freezing its pension—savings that will come out of the pockets of employees. Linda Guyer, a 51-year-old software project manager at Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM, has just seen her anticipated pension chopped by about 25 percent. Guyer, a 24-year veteran, says if she works until age 65, she would have received an annual pension of about $37,000. With the plan frozen and benefits ceasing to accrue, "it's going to be about $28,000 a year," she says. "I almost think it's a way to encourage older people to leave the company."

By switching from traditional pensions to defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s and cash-balance plans—a kind of hybrid of traditional pensions and 401(k)s—companies are clearly passing responsibility for retirement to the worker. The result is what Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker calls "the great risk shift."

Hardest hit are baby boomers and older employees who don't have enough investment years left to build up a sizable portfolio. Even younger workers face problems if they fail to participate in a 401(k) plan or make bad investments.

Furthermore, there's nothing to stop companies from reducing—or ending—their contributions to employees' 401(k)s if times get tough. For example, in December General Motors announced it would end its policy of matching salaried employees' contributions to 401(k) plans on a 20-cents-per-dollar basis, up to 6 percent of salary. (Before April 2005 the company contribution had been 50 cents per dollar.)

Competitive pressures certainly play a role in pushing companies to freeze pensions and offer 401(k)s. But the changing work force, one in which younger employees don't expect to stay with a company for long periods, is also having an impact.

"From an attraction perspective, companies find employees are only interested in 401(k)s," says Cecil Hemingway, a managing principal at the consulting firm Towers Perrin. "So I think as time goes on, we'll see more come to the conclusion that they don't need to offer defined benefits plans."

Legislation now moving through Congress may also have the effect of encouraging companies to freeze defined benefit pensions. Some of the measures are intended to make sure companies adequately fund their pensions. But in general, the legislation could give less protection to workers and more to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC), the federal agency that insures pensions and pays benefits when companies can't meet their obligations.

In the proposed legislation, companies with underfunded plans would be required to fully fund pensions sooner—within seven years—and pay higher premiums to the PBGC (the Senate bill would give struggling airlines 20 years). Under the House plan, a company would be forbidden from paying out lump sums if the funding for its pension plan fell below 80 percent. And under both bills, if funding fell below certain levels, benefit accruals would cease.

"While I think the legislation well-intended, by putting more pressure and more funding requirements on companies that sponsor plans, they're really encouraging companies to freeze pensions," says Don Fuerst, a partner at Mercer Human Resource Consulting.

New regulatory changes in the arcane world of accounting could have a similar effect. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which issues guidelines for publicly held companies, is reviewing a new standard for pension accounting. Under current practice, companies are allowed to "smooth" the investment results from pensions. That means that a bad year (or a good year) in the markets doesn't wind up unduly skewing the company's results. But it also means that companies aren't necessarily reflecting the true market value of their pension assets from year to year. Experts believe the FASB may recommend a new rule that requires companies to record annual pension fund fluctuations in their profit and loss statements. "So if IBM's $50 billion pension plan has a 10 percent loss in a year, a $5 billion loss would flow straight into the company's income report," says Jack VanDerhei.

That sort of volatility doesn't play well on Wall Street, or in the executive suite. Many experts believe that if the liabilities show up on the bottom line, shareholders—and the CEOs beholden to them—may push for companies to drop their plans.

Also facing increasing scrutiny are benefit costs for the public sector—workers for states, cities, schools and other government entities, who tend to enjoy comparatively generous pensions. Governments that are generally strapped and reluctant to raise taxes may be increasingly less willing to support public pensions. Alaska, for example, has replaced its pension with a 401(k) for new state employees and teachers, and similar legislation has been discussed in Colorado. And California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year embarked upon a high-profile—and unsuccessful—campaign to replace the traditional pensions of California's public employees with a 401(k)-style plan. "With public employees, the day of reckoning is more in the distance," says Boston College's Munnell.

As the great pension shift continues, the worst impact is being felt by workers in their late 40s and 50s, workers like Margo Bryerton, whose long-term plans were made based on expectations of a pension that is no longer a reality. Bryerton chose to work at Nynex—Verizon's predecessor company—because, she says, "I believed that if I did the best I could for them, they would do the best for me."

By Bryerton's account, Verizon has broken a promise, devastating her dreams of retirement security. She has a 401(k), and plans to keep contributing to it, but she won't be able to close the gap between the pension she expected and the pension she'll receive. "I don't have enough time to catch up," she says.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Military censorship leans to the right

If we may do a brief update to a post of ours that got a substantial amount of attention last week:

We were originally going to say that we don't actually believe that we here at Wonkette are being “censored” by anyone just because military computers in Iraq are blocked from viewing our site. We were going to point out that, yes, we're blocked from more than one workplace (though, thankfully, not too many), often for non-human reasons such as automated filters that don't look too kindly on words like “assfucking.” The hyperbolic Call to Arms tone of the original post was just that — hyperbole. We even got emails from US Military spokespeople kindly explaining that soldiers and marines are allowed to check their email (though only through their .mil addresses, we think, and they all come out signed “Irving Washington”), and we were going to tell everyone to calm down, etc. etc.

But our embedded operative who sent us the initial heads-up sent an update.

Unfortunately anonomizers don't work out here (never have). Anyway, I had a few minutes today and thought I'd look and see what else was banned on the Marine web here. I think the results speak for themselves:

* Wonkette – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion.”
* Bill O’Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) – OK
* Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
* Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) – OK
* ABC News “The Note” – OK
* Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
* G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) – OK
* Don & Mike Show (www.donandmikewebsite.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/) is categorized as: Profanity, Entertainment/Recreation/Hobbies.”

And, uh, now we're just a wee bit suspicious. And even more upset than before, actually — they're making them read the goddam Note? No fucking wonder 72% of 'em want to get the hell out of there.

Monday, March 06, 2006

Is Iran the next target?

The US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has told British MPs that military action could bring Iran's nuclear programme to a halt if all diplomatic efforts fail. The warning came ahead of a meeting today of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which will forward a report on Iran's nuclear activities to the UN security council.

The council will have to decide whether to impose sanctions, an issue that could split the international community as policy towards Iraq did before the invasion.

Yesterday the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said: "Nobody has said that we have to rush immediately to sanctions of some kind."
However the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, visiting Washington last week, encountered sharply different views within the Bush administration. The most hawkish came from Mr Bolton. According to Eric Illsley, a Labour committee member, the envoy told the MPs: "They must know everything is on the table and they must understand what that means. We can hit different points along the line. You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down."

It is unusual for an administration official to go into detail about possible military action against Iran. To produce significant amounts of enriched uranium, Iran would have to set up a self-sustaining cycle of processes. Mr Bolton appeared to be suggesting that cycle could be hit at its most vulnerable point.

The CIA appears to be the most sceptical about a military solution and shares the state department's position, say British MPs, in suggesting gradually stepping up pressure on the Iranians.

The Pentagon position was described, by the committee chairman, Mike Gapes, as throwing a demand for a militarily enforced embargo into the security council "like a hand grenade - and see what happens".

Yesterday Mr Bolton reiterated his hardline stance. In a speech to the annual convention of the American-Israel public affairs committee, the leading pro-Israel US lobbyists, he said: "The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve ... we must be prepared to rely on comprehensive solutions and use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat that the Iranian regime poses."

The IAEA referred Iran to the security council on February 4, but a month's grace was left for diplomatic initiatives. By yesterday, those appeared exhausted. A meeting of European and Iranian negotiators broke down on Friday over Tehran's insistence that even if Russia was allowed to enrich Iran's uranium, Iran would enrich small amounts for research. Iran says that it needs enrichment for electricity.

According to Time magazine, the US plans to present the security council with evidence that Iran is designing a crude nuclear bomb, like the one dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. The evidence will be in the form of blueprints that the US said were found on a laptop belonging to an Iranian nuclear engineer, and obtained by the CIA in 2004. However, any such presentation will bring back memories of a similar briefing in February 2003 in which Colin Powell, then US secretary of state, laid out evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which proved not to exist.

While the US and Britain keep a united front over Iraq in the UN security council, there are clear differences over Iran. Britain has ruled out a military option if diplomatic pressure fails. The US has not. There is no serious consideration of large-scale use of ground forces, but there are disagreements in the administration over whether air strikes and small-scale special forces operations could be effective in halting or slowing down Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme.

Some believe Iran has secret facilities that are buried so deep underground as to be impenetrable. They argue that the US could never be certain whether or not it had destroyed Iran's "capability".

free web counters

Powered by Blogger

Get Thunderbird!

Web browser

Blogwise - blog directory

Blog-Watch - The Blog Directory

Blogarama - The Blog Directory\

Find Blogs in the Blog Directory

Subscribe in Bloglines

Rate Me on BlogHop.com!