Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Why are Democrats so racist?
State Bar of California, Civil Rights Group Spar Over Affirmative Action
Monday, October 15, 2007
By William LaJeunesse
Does affirmative action work? An explosive study that suggests it does not is pitting the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights against the State Bar of California in a battle over admissions data that could determine once and for all if racial preferences help or hurt minority students.
"Currently only about one in three African-Americans who goes to an American law school passes the bar on the first attempt and a majority never become lawyers at all," says UCLA law professor Richard Sander.
In an article published in the Stanford Law Review, Sander and his research team concluded several thousand would-be black lawyers either dropped out of law school or failed to pass the bar because of affirmative action.
Known as the ‘mismatch’ effect, Sander claims students who are unprepared and whose academic credentials are below the median are admitted to law schools they are unqualified to attend. If those same students instead were to go to less elite or competitive schools, more would graduate, pass the bar and become lawyers.
"This is a serious issue and we need to see more research in the area of mismatch," argues Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "What we need now is more cooperation from the California Bar" Association.
Recently, a California bar committee voted 5-3 to turn down Sander’s request to use bar data collected over the last three decades on student test scores, law school admissions, academic performance and bar passage rates.
The data, considered a gold standard by affirmative action researchers, is considered key to determine if racial preferences work.
"There is no answer but to give him the information," says black civil rights attorney Leo Terrell. "What is the state bar afraid of? We need to know."
But the Bar refuses to give Sander the data.
"The release (bar exam) applicants sign does not allow us to release the information to third parties," Whitnie Henderson told FOX News. "Looking at all the information we just decided it was not something that fit within the committee’s purview."
Henderson headed the committee that rejected Sander’s request. Contrary to her statement, twice in the last 15 years the California Bar released individual information to outside researchers.
Law Professor Vikram Amar at UC Davis believes the Bar rejected Sander's request because the study is "controversial," examining the huge disparities in bar passage among different racial groups attending the same law school.
Law schools do not disclose attrition, graduation and bar passage rates to minorities admitted through preferences and have opposed pressure to do so. About 62 percent of today's top black lawyers attended the most elite U.S. law schools, according to Law Professor Richard Lempert at the University of Michigan.
Unlike Sander, Lempert believes the number of black lawyers would decrease if affirmative action ended. He says race, ethnicity and LSAT scores do not predict future income or satisfaction.
The Board of Governors of the California Bar may reconsider Sander’s request during its November meeting, but for now no one can say whether affirmative action actually does what's intended.
my final post here....BUSH WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS MOST POPULAR AND BEST PRESIDENT WE EVER HAD AND I AM HAPPY TO HAVE VOTED FOR HIM 2 TIMES.
Ex-Bush Admin Lawyer: Parts Of Domestic Spy Program IllegalLast update: 10/2/2007 12:05:05 PMWASHINGTON (AP)--A former top lawyer for the Bush administration on Tuesday said that parts of President George W. Bush's controversial eavesdropping program were illegal. There were certain aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program "that I could not find the legal support for," Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he would not say exactly what law or constitutional principle the surveillance violated. Goldsmith said the White House has forbidden him from saying anything about the legal analysis underpinning the program - key details long sought by majority Democrats and some Republicans. Goldsmith served as the Justice Department's top legal adviser to the White House from 2003 to 2004. The legal rationale for the program is so secretive that it was initially not even shared with the top lawyer of the National Security Agency, which conducted the surveillance. Goldsmith said he assumes that the White House does not want the TSP program scrutinized. "There's no doubt the extreme secrecy not getting feedback from experts, not showing it to experts led to a lot of mistakes," he said. The legal justification for the president's eavesdropping program has been a central point of a standoff between the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. The Democrat has said he wants certain information about the administration's surveillance and interrogation methods before he will schedule confirmation hearings for Michael Mukasey, Bush's choice for attorney general. Key to the debate is a March 2004 showdown at the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft as he recovered from gall bladder surgery. Goldsmith, who was in the room, confirmed earlier accounts that Ashcroft rebuffed White House officials who were trying to get him to reauthorize the eavesdropping program. According to Goldsmith, Ashcroft said he believed the program was illegal. (END) Dow Jones NewswiresOctober 02, 2007 12:05
Truckers Voice Support for Thompson CandidacyLast update: 9/4/2007 6:06:00 PMVolunteers launch website and plan rally to help bring Senator Thompson into the Presidential Race ATLANTA, Sept 04, 2007 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- When Fred Thompson announces his entry into the 2008 Presidential campaign, he'll have at least one group of hardworking Americans to help carry the message -- Truckers with Fred. The group, a movement of volunteers has been organizing quickly with two goals in mind: first, to convince Fred Thompson to enter the race and second, to help him win. Volunteers have posted a website and the group's named its first National Directors, with promises of more names to come. "This thing has really started to move," says Bob Fauls, who along with his wife Chris Fauls, have been named the first National Directors of TwF by the initial group of members. "It's a real labor of love. We knew, from talking with friends in the industry that a lot of truckers were interested in a Fred Thompson run. The more we talked about it, the more we realized it would be great if the industry could voice their support together." According to the Fauls, there is a growing list of drivers, company owners and others who want to be part of the Truckers with Fred movement. "We'll be announcing a 'Founders' group soon," says Chris. "Our biggest problem has been setting a cutoff. As one person says they want to be part of this, they almost always say -- but wait, I know a friend that might want their name in, too." Mrs. Fauls noted that anyone who would like to be counted among the first Founders group can use the contact page at . "If we get their e-mail in time, we'll gladly count them in." Whether a trucker signs up or not, the Fauls say they hope that folk will carry Truckers with Fred signs, in the blue green and blue lettering of the website, to various Fred Thompson rallies. "Fred Thompson supports what is strong and good about the heartland and heart of America," says Bob Fauls, "Truckers with Fred signs help show the heartland of America supports him." SOURCE Truckers with Fred
Copyright (C) 2007 PR Newswire. All rights reserved Copyright © 2007 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved. Please see our Terms of Use.
US Sen Leahy Threatens Bush Admin With Contempt ProceedingsLast update: 8/20/2007 5:43:58 PMWASHINGTON (AP)--A top U.S. Senate Democrat on Monday threatened to hold members of the Bush administration in contempt for not producing subpoenaed information about the legal justification for President George W. Bush's secretive eavesdropping program. "When the Senate comes back in the session, I'll bring it up before the committee," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I prefer cooperation to contempt. Right now, there's no question that they are in contempt of the valid order of the Congress." Leahy's committee on June 27 subpoenaed the Justice Department, National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president for documents relating to the National Security Agency's legal justification for the wiretapping program. White House lawyer Fred Fielding, in a Monday letter to Leahy, said that the administration needed more time. "A core set of highly sensitive national security and related documents we have so far identified are potentially subject to claims of executive privilege and that a more complete collection and review of all materials responsive to the subpoenas will require additional time," Fielding said. Leahy said they had waited long enough. "It has been almost two months since service of the subpoenas, three weeks since the time they asked for additional time. And still, we have nothing at all," Leahy said. Leahy also questioned whether the Senate would again reauthorize laws that expand the government's authority to spy on foreigners without the subpoenaed information. Congress, before it left for its August recess, approved an update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowing the government to eavesdrop on terror suspects overseas without first getting a court warrant. The overhaul was the result of a recent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruling that banned eavesdropping on foreigners when their messages were routed though communications carriers based in the U.S. The provisions expire after six months, but the White House wants them made permanent. "For Congress to legislate effectively in this area, it has to have full information about the executive branch's interpretations of FISA," Leahy said. "We cannot, and certainly, we should not legislate in the dark, where the administration hides behind a fictitious veil of secrecy." The White House said it wasn't looking for a conflict with Congress over FISA. "Extending and modernizing FISA is critical to our national security, and our intelligence professionals consider it imperative that we do not weaken the tools they feel are necessary to protect America's national security interests," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. Leahy also indicated that the committee would continue to seek recently resigned White House adviser Karl Rove's appearance on the U.S. attorney firings. Fielding has said President Bush would invoke executive privilege to keep Rove from answering questions or submitting documents to Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee has been investigating whether the White House ordered the prosecutor firings in ways that might help Republicans in elections. "I don't think he had a valid claim of executive privilege, because all the testimony has been it wasn't discussed with the president. If it wasn't discussed with the president, there's no executive privilege," Leahy said. "And they've just lost the other claim they could make that he's too important to the operation of the White House to be able to take time to testify. That's not going to be the case anymore." On the Net: Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov (END) Dow Jones NewswiresAugust 20, 2007 17:43 ET (21:43 GMT)Copyright © 2007 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved
lex luther bails:
Karl Rove to Resign
At the End of August
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
August 13, 2007 10:09 a.m.
Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas, marking a turning point for the Bush presidency.
Mr. Rove's departure removes one of the White House's most polarizing figures, and perhaps signals the effective end of the lame duck administration's role in shaping major domestic policy decisions, where the former Texas political consultant was a driving force. Mr. Rove revealed his plans in an interview with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. (See related commentary.)
'THE MARK OF ROVE'
Read the commentary by The Wall Street Journal's editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, on his interview with Karl Rove.
• Discuss: What do you think of Karl Rove's decision to resign?Mr. Rove, who has held senior posts in the White House since President Bush took office in January 2001, told Mr. Gigot he first floated the idea of leaving a year ago. But he delayed his departure as, first, Democrats took Congress, and then as the White House tackled debates on immigration and Iraq, he said. He said he decided to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.
"I just think it's time," Mr. Rove said in the interview. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Mr. Rove and his wife have a home in Ingram, Texas, and a son who attends college in nearby San Antonio.
In the interview, Mr. Rove said he expects Democrats to give the 2008 presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he described as "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate." He also said Republicans have "a very good chance" to hold onto the White House in next year's elections.
Mr. Rove also said he expects the president's approval rating to rise again, and that conditions in Iraq will improve as the U.S. military surge continues. He said he expects Democrats to be divided this fall in the battle over warrantless wiretapping, while the budget battle -- and a series of presidential vetoes -- should help Republicans gain an edge on spending restraint and taxes.
Mr. Rove established himself as the political genius behind the rise of George W. Bush and the brief period of united Republican rule. But he did it largely through highly divisive policies and campaign tactics, such as the attacks on Democratic rival John Kerry the 2004 campaign. That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush's low poll numbers.
Mr. Rove has advised Mr. Bush for more than a decade, working with him closely since Mr. Bush first announced he was running for governor of Texas in 1993 and serving as chief strategist in his presidential campaign in 2000. Before joining the White House, he was president of Karl Rove & Co., the Austin, Texas-based public affairs firm he founded. Mr. Rove first became involved in Republican politics in the 1970s.
Mr. Bush was expected to make a statement at about 11:35 a.m. Monday with his aide at the White House, before they fly to Texas to Mr. Bush's Crawford ranch retreat. Mr. Rove might also make comments to reporters flying on Air Force One with the president. A senior White House official said Mr. Rove plans to write a book, and perhaps teach politics.
"Obviously it's a big loss to us," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said. "He's a great colleague, a good friend, and a brilliant mind. He will be greatly missed, but we know he wouldn't be going if he wasn't sure this was the right time to be giving more to his family, his wife Darby and their son. He will continue to be one of the president's greatest friends."
Mr. Rove, 56 years old, has been embroiled in many White House controversies in Mr. Bush's second term, and faced investigation -- but wasn't indicted -- in the White House leak case that ensnared I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. He also has become a target of intense scrutiny in Congress over the firings of a number of U.S. attorneys. Mr. Rove and his political operatives in the White House had some involvement with the decision, but the extent of their role isn't clear, because the White House has asserted executive privilege in refusing to comply with congressional demands for documents and interviews, including with Mr. Rove. Mr. Rove's departure is likely to lessen the intensity of that constitutional clash, if only slightly.
Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com
RELATED ARTICLES AND BLOGS
Related Content may require a subscription | Subscribe Now -- Get 2 Weeks FREE
Related Articles from the Online Journal
• 'The Mark of Rove'
• Presidential Hopefuls' Reaction to Rove?
• Bush Invokes Executive Privilege
• White House Won't Rule Out Eventual Pardon for Libby
FBI director contradicts Gonzales By LAURIE KELLMAN and LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writers
1 hour, 29 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The head of the FBI contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony and Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation Thursday in a fresh barrage against President Bush's embattled longtime friend and aide.
In a third blow to the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, in connection with its investigation of the firings of federal prosecutors.
"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement calling for a special counsel to investigate.
"I'm convinced that he's not telling the truth," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The developments marked a troubling turn for Gonzales as well as the administration, which has been on the political defensive since congressional Democrats opened an investigation seven months ago into the firings of U.S. attorneys.
That probe revealed information that Democrats have sought to weave into a pattern of improper political influence over prosecutions, of stonewalling and of deceit in sworn testimony before Congress.
The White House defiantly stuck by Gonzales on the perjury matter and flatly denied that FBI Director Robert S. Mueller on Thursday contradicted the attorney general's sworn testimony on internal Bush administration dissent over the president's secretive wiretapping program.
Gonzales repeatedly and emphatically told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that the program was not at issue during his dramatic hospital bedside visit with ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004. Mueller, before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday, said it was.
Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said Gonzales and Mueller can make only limited comments in public about the classified program.
"The FBI director didn't contradict the testimony," Snow said. "It is inappropriate and unfair to ask people to testify in public settings about highly classified programs."
"The president, meanwhile, maintains full confidence in the attorney general," he added.
Democrats also insisted that the White House had encouraged top aides to flout congressional subpoenas in the prosecutor firings inquiry.
But Gonzales took the toughest hits Thursday, when four Senate Democrats issued a list of examples of what they said was the attorney general lying to Congress under oath — the basis for their request to Clement to appoint a special counsel to investigate.
Among examples of what Democrats called Gonzales' untruthfulness was his insistence in his statement to the Judiciary Committee Tuesday that his hospital visit with Ashcroft was not related to an internal administration dispute about the president's secret warrantless eavesdropping program.
Last year, Gonzales told the panel that there had been no internal administration dispute about the program, but former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the panel that he, Ashcroft and Mueller were among the top Justice Department officials who believed the program was illegal and were prepared to resign over it.
In his own sworn testimony Thursday, Mueller contradicted Gonzales, saying under questioning that the terrorist surveillance program, or TSP, was the topic of the hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials.
Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the March 10, 2004, confrontation between Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.
"Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.
"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.
Jackson Lee sought to clarify: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"
"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.
The NSA, or National Security Agency, runs the program that eavesdropped on terror suspects in the United States, without court approval, until last January, when the program was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
In a statement late Thursday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse maintained Gonzales was referring during his testimony to a separate intelligence operation that has not yet been revealed.
"The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified," Roehrkasse said.
Roehrkasse also suggested the newly revealed intelligence operation was discussed with lawmakers at a March 10, 2004, briefing in the White House Situation Room, along with a discussion of the terrorist surveillance program.
Democrats said there were other examples of Gonzales "lying" that merited a probe by a special prosecutor.
They included the attorney general's sworn testimony that he had not spoken about the firings with other witnesses because the matter was under investigation.
His former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, testified under a grant of immunity that Gonzales had privately recounted his recollections of the firings and asked for her opinion on his version.
"There's no wiggle room," Schumer said. "Those are not misleading. Those are deceiving. Those are lying."
Not signing the letter to Clement was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who instead sent a letter to Gonzales Thursday giving him a week to resolve any inconsistencies in his testimony.
"The burden is on him to clear up the contradictions," Leahy said.
Ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania agreed, calling the call for a special counsel premature, and he took particular aim at Schumer, who has led the probe into the firing.
"Senator Schumer's not interested in looking at the record, he's interested in throwing down the gauntlet and making a story in tomorrow's newspapers," Specter said.
Meanwhile, Leahy subpoenaed Rove, the architect of Bush's rise to the White House and his top political adviser, to provide testimony and documents related to the firings by Aug. 2. Also subpoenaed is a White House political aide, J. Scott Jennings. The Justice Department included both men on e-mails about the firings and the administration's response to the congressional investigation.
White House Counsel Fred Fielding has consistently said that top presidential aides — present and past — are immune from subpoenas and has declared the documents sought off-limits under executive privilege.
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a contempt citation against two other Bush confidants, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. The full House is expected to vote on the citation in the fall, but the Justice Department has said it won't prosecute the two.
___
Associated Press writers Ben Feller in Washington and Brendan Riley in Carson City, Nev., contributed to this report.
Email Story IM Story Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (3555 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: U.S. Attorney Firings
Off the Wires
FBI director contradicts Gonzales AP, 1 hour, 21 minutes ago Justice Dept. statement on Gonzales AP, 1 hour, 33 minutes ago Feature Articles
A Bush Aide's Long Road From The White House at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Jul 12 Is the Noose Tightening on Gonzales? at TIME Magazine, May 15 News Stories
Democrats Urge Perjury Probe of Gonzales at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Jul 26 Gonzales Digs a Deeper Hole Time.com via Yahooo! News, Jul 25 Opinion & Editorials
'That Strikes at the Core' at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), May 24 The Gonzales Coverup at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), May 17
saturday they just might finally find Bin laden:
Bush To Be Given Routine Colonoscopy SaturdayLast update: 7/20/2007 12:28:01 PMWASHINGTON (AP)--President George W. Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy Saturday, his spokesman said, revealing that Bush will hand over presidential powers to Vice President Dick Cheney while he is under under anesthesia. White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that Bush would have the procedure at the Camp David, Md., mountaintop retreat. (END) Dow Jones NewswiresJuly 20, 2007 12:28 ET (16:28 GMT)Copyright © 2007 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved.
Bush Jr's policies weaken our Constitutional rights...which in turn move us closer to his daddy's dream of a NWO.
The invasion of privacy provisions in the Homeland Security Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and its elimination of habeas corpus.
Eerily familiar historic precedence to...Hitler’s rise to power.
The July 31, 1932, election produced a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, making it Germany’s largest political party, but it still fell short of a majority in the 608-member body.
On the basis of that victory, Hitler demanded that President Hindenburg appoint him chancellor and place him in complete control of the state. Otto von Meissner, who worked for Hindenburg, later testified at Nuremberg, "Hindenburg replied that because of the tense situation he could not in good conscience risk transferring the power of government to a new party such as the National Socialists, which did not command a majority and which was intolerant, noisy and undisciplined.
Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election, this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters."
Attempting to remedy the chaos and the deadlocks, Hindenburg fired Papen and appointed an army general named Kurt von Schleicher as the new German chancellor. Unable to secure a majority coalition in the Reichstag, however, Schleicher finally tendered his resignation to Hindenburg, 57 days after he had been appointed.
On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.
The Reichstag fire
On February 27, Hitler was enjoying supper at the Goebbels home when the telephone rang with an emergency message: “The Reichstag is on fire!” Hitler and Goebbels rushed to the fire, where they encountered Hermann Goering, who would later become Hitler’s air minister. Goering was shouting at the top of his lungs,
"This is the beginning of the Communist revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found. Every Communist deputy must this very day be strung up."
The day after the fire, the Prussian government announced that it had found communist publications stating, Government buildings, museums, mansions and essential plants were to be burned down... . Women and children were to be sent in front of terrorist groups.... The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war.... It has been ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.
So how was Goering so certain that the fire had been set by communist terrorists? Arrested on the spot was a Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe. Most historians now believe that van der Lubbe was actually duped by the Nazis into setting the fire and probably was even assisted by them, without his realizing it.
Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history — that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for “security.” And that’s exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis.
Suspending civil liberties
The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, “For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:
Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted, “Germany will be free, but not through you!” When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against, giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution. On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act” made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.
The judiciary under Hitler
One of the most dramatic consequences was in the judicial arena.
Under the Weimar Constitution judges were independent, subject only to the law, protected from arbitrary removal and bound at least in theory by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.
In fact, in the Reichstag terrorist case, while the court convicted van der Lubbe of the crime (who was executed), three other defendants, all communists, were acquitted, which infuriated Hitler and Goering. Within a month, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People’s Court, which, as Shirer points out, soon became the most dreaded tribunal in the land. It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials, the S.S. and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote. There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held in camera. Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given, the foreign correspondents were invited to attend.
One of the Reichstag terrorist defendants, who had angered Goering during the trial with a severe cross-examination of Goering, did not benefit from his acquittal.
The German communist leader was immediately taken into “protective custody,” where he remained until his death during the second war.
In addition to the People’s Court, which handled treason cases, the Nazis also set up the Special Court, which handled cases of political crimes or “insidious attacks against the government.” These courts consisted of three judges, who invariably had to be trusted party members, without a jury. A Nazi prosecutor had the choice of bringing action in such cases before either an ordinary court or the Special Court, and invariably he chose the latter, for obvious reasons. Defense lawyers before this court, as before the Volksgerichtshof, had to be approved by Nazi officials. Sometimes even if they were approved they fared badly. Thus the lawyers who attempted to represent the widow of Dr. Klausener, the Catholic Action leader murdered in the Blood Purge, in her suit for damages against the State were whisked off to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where they were kept until they formally withdrew the action.
Even lenient treatment by the Special Court was no guarantee for the defendant, however, as Pastor Martin Niemoeller discovered when he was acquitted of major political charges and sentenced to time served for minor charges. Leaving the courtroom, Niemoeller was taken into custody by the Gestapo and taken to a concentration camp.
The Nazis also implemented a legal concept called Schutzhaft or “protective custody” which enabled them to arrest and incarcerate people without charging them with a crime.
Protective custody did not protect a man from possible harm, as it did in more civilized countries. It punished him by putting him behind barbed wire.
On August 2, 1934, Hindenburg died, and the title of president was abolished. Hitler’s title became Führer and Reich Chancellor. Not surprisingly, he used the initial four-year “temporary” grant of emergency powers that had been given to him by the Enabling Act to consolidate his omnipotent control over the entire country.
Accepting the new order
Oddly enough, even though his dictatorship very quickly became complete, Hitler returned to the Reichstag every four years to renew the “temporary” delegation of emergency powers that it had given him to deal with the Reichstag-arson crisis. Needless to say, the Reichstag rubber-stamped each of his requests.
For their part, the German people quickly accepted the new order of things. Keep in mind that the average non-Jewish German was pretty much unaffected by the new laws and decrees. As long as a German citizen kept his head down, worked hard, took care of his family, sent his children to the public schools and the Hitler Youth organization, and, most important, didn’t involve himself in political dissent against the government, a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.
Keep in mind also that, while the Nazis established concentration camps in the 1930s, the number of inmates ranged in the thousands. It wouldn’t be until the 1940s that the death camps and the gas chambers that killed millions would be implemented.
The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country.
Do these historical events seem at all familiar?
THIS WAS A JOKE... not the explosion... but... you know :)
EXPLOSION IN NYC... BUSH DID IT!
Explosion Forces Evacuation On East Side
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=71803
thanks bush ice cream cone (med) $4 in maine
From The TimesJuly 16, 2007
Ice-cream makers frozen out as corn price risesSuzy Jagger and Carl Mortished
What’s the connection between ethanol, the biofuel produced from corn, and a cherry vanilla ice-cream?
Answer: the first is responsible for pushing up the price of the other.
This month, the price of milk in the United States surged to a near-record in part because of the increasing costs of feeding a dairy herd. The corn feed used to feed cattle has almost doubled in price in a year as demand has grown for the grain to produce ethanol.
Christina Seid, whose family have been making ice-cream at the Chinatown Ice Cream Factory for 28 years, said yesterday that she expected to have to raise her prices, along with all competitors in the short term. “We are holding out as long as we can, but prices will rise,” Ms Seid said.
Related Links
Milk price soars as drought hits industry
British dairy farmers on way out too soon
Amy Green’s Ivanna Cone ice-cream emporium in Lincoln, Nebraska, has already raised its prices for a small cone to $3.50 before tax, up from $2.95 a few months ago. She also estimates that she is paying $150 more a week for the butterfat that she uses in her ice-cream.
The squeeze on ice-cream makers, chocolate manufacturers and pizza companies – all of whom use dairy produce as a raw material – is set to tighten as the price of a gallon of milk in the US – up 55 per cent in the past 12 months in some American states – is now the same as a gallon of petrol, with dairy prices accelerating faster than the cost of fuel.
Prices for dairy products have also risen because of increasing demand from China and the Middle East along with the drought in Australia, reduced subsidies in the European Union and the rocketing cost of corn.
Have your say
Nik Nak said:
"The amount of energy required to produce more energy is so inefficient that we are going backwards in our efficient consumption."
Excellent point. Most people don't realize that it takes three gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol, at the plant. Add to that the amount of water it takes to grow corn, coupled with more and more acres of corn being planted because of its inflated price, and we'll all see an already overstressed Ogallah Aquifer in the plains continue to be depleted.
Where is the leadership? Isn't there any common sense left anymore?
Tj, Goodland, KS
I was at the store yesterday and Milk was $4.17 per gallon. Gas here is $2.89 per gallon... but my kids can't drink gas.
I always thought it was stupid that juice cost twice (if not more) than soda.
Yup, all the "experts" are screaming about our nation's children getting fat, but there isn't much help out there for the average joe trying to make an honest living and still feed his family healthy food when food and gas prices keep rising when wages don't
Mom of Twins, Ft. Worth, TX
Of course, if we were to end the crazy "price supports" system of farm subsidies (that go mostly to large corps and practically never to small farmers), then farming would be based on market needs instead of on politics. And prices would be based on consumers' choice instead of on campaign rhetoric.
Would that be so bad?
Andy Horning, Freedom, IN
There is a basic flaw in any concept that uses food as a fuel in a motor vehicle.
William Herbert, Hedgesville, West Virginia
It is a sin for us to use human food as a fuel for our transportation and energy addicted society. Another unintended consequence of such delinquent behavior is the escalating cost of staple foods in third-world countries. Imagine being a Mexican campesino whose survival depends on the corn meal that makes their bread products. Our demand for corn ethanol quite literally takes food out of his childrens' mouths by making it less affordable.
Let us also not forget the dangers of soil nutrient depeltion caused by continual planting and harvesting and not allowing for natural replentishment of the soil.
Ray Lenz, Virginia Beach, VA
When meat and dairy producers say the prices for corn and soybeans as feed grains are pushing up their prices, something doesn't add up. Ethanol production converts only the sugars and starches in corn to ethanol. The high fat and protein residue is dried and sold as a cheap livestock feed. You can even buy it in some Wal-Mart stores. Similarly, after oil is removed from soybeans, the dry cake is used in animal foods. When producers say they are having to pay higher feed prices, is the truth really that they don't want to learn a different way of handling the feeds?
Marc Reid, St. Simons Island, GA
Corn is a grass. It's ok to feed cows corn. They like it. You're standing on the coal. It's under your feet. Don't like dirty coal? Too bad- the nuclear leftovers cause more harm longer. If California doesn't want to drill any offshore wells-too bad , they still use a lot of oil out there and there are wells off LA and TX. The cost of corn isn't that high. The cornflakes box costs more than the corn in the box. How about a big box of cornflakes for fifty cents?
steve crumbaugh, LeRoy, IL
I am glad the American Farmer is finally making some money. They have had it very rough since the early 80's. The rest of the whiners in the USA should see what real work is about and join a farmer in his field. The irony is the myth that is bio-fuel, ethanol etc ... The amount of energy required to produce more energy is so inefficient that we are going backwards in our efficient consumption. Do the people who support ethanol realize the corn has to be planted, fertilized,cultivated, harvested, trucked to market, then processed before we can derive one drop of oil from the corn? All of those processes require fuel and energy expendature.... it is like giving your money to the gov't and expecting 100% of it back in serivces and refunds .... too much is syphoned off at each level.
Nik Nak, Lake Forest, Ca
This is, once again, evidence of the law of supply and demand. However, the current increased demand is not from converting corn into fuel as the article says; it's because both India and China have become massive importers of grain, including corn.
We are currently in the midst of one of the greatest increases in food consumption the world has ever seen. Over 2 billion people in India and China are rapidly increasing the amount of calories they consume. Like with all other raw materials in the world, the demand for more food in India and China is pushing up the price of it around the world, just as has happened with copper, gold, lumber, scrap metal, etc. Food cannot escape the laws of supply and demand simply because it is so vitally important to human survival.
Brett Champion, Alexandria, Virginia
Why not, those of us who have fought Ethanol subsidies for the likes of Archer-Daniels Midland have been ridiculed and pilloried by the Likes of Sen Bob (Ethanol) Dole, Charles Grassley and the immensely Powerful Ethanol Lobby, i,e. Advocates of the great taxpayer rip-off. The problem for a largely ignorant public is, Ethanol is a rotten fuel, very low Calloric Value, (Low BTU Content) Difficult to handle, Hard to distribute, but still the ripp-off goes on. The poor fools who are shown regularly of TV filling their fuel tanks with this garbage fuel, seemingly not realising they will consume twenty percent more fuel for the sames mileage. Was it P.T. Barnum who said "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public"
Robert Granville Lee, Bloomfield hills,, Michigan, USA
to TK...Actually, it is easier to stay thin on a decent income than a low income where all you can afford is filler like spuds, pasta, rice, etc..
Linda, Wausau, WI
Congratulations to all of the enviromentalist! You will now effectively starve to death the world's poorest, yet not affect the wealthy. I have been saying this was coming for quite sometime. The price of chicken is now nearly equal to the price of salmon. A pound of chicken has went from $1.99 just over 6 months ago to $3.99 a pound today. Don't take my word for it go to the grocery store. By the way chickens can't eat grass. This has also driven up the price of rice and other grains. I am not poor but I am certainly feeling the pinch at the grocery store. I cannot imagine what this is doing to those who barely scrape by. But hey, at least you can feel better about your carbon footprint. What a crock you have all bought into. If we are going to go with an alternative fuel it needs to be hydrogen, it is limitless in supply clean burning and extremely cheap to make. This is why the oil companies have tricked you into going with ethanol.
Brandon, Nashville, TN
To: TK, Stamford, Conecticut , USA
Obesity is caused by NUTRITIOUS foods costing significantly more then processed foods which are high in fat and sodium.
How many rich obese people do you see? Now think about all the poor people who are obese.
I am sure you are also all in favor of a "fat-tax", well guess who that will hurt the most? The kids of the fat, poor people in this country.
Congrates on being a mind-numbed robot of the left.
You have $2, what are you going to buy? A tomato or a Whopper?
Ron, Orlando, USA
Linda from Bradenton hit the nail on the head.
Catia, Houston, Texas, USA
Inflation, what inflation? Of course there is one benefit to all of this, it makes obesity that much more costly to achieve.
TK, Stamford, Conecticut , USA
I'm completely in favor of corn prices going up.
If raising corn prices encourge food makers to switch from high fructose corn syrup back to sugar, then it is possible that the current high levels of diabetes and obesity will decline.
And maybe we'll have more pasture raised beef instead of corn fed beef. Corn fed beef may be more economical to raise, but many of us who grew up on pasture fed beef would prefer to never have to settle for corn fed beef.
Walter, Amarillo, Texas
Maybe burning out food wasn't such a good idea.
Dan C, Coldwater , MI
Farmers have not been paid a fair price for milk or corn in many of the last 50 years. Now people have to pay as much for milk as they do for Coke and its time for a revolution. Get over it and let the market prevail.
Charles Parker, North Hero, VT, USA
We, the middle are to blame for putting these politicans into office, think about it,.... there are more of us than the rich republicans.
Blame yourselves, you are voting for your own demise!
lyn, St. Louis, mo
if cows were fed grass like they are supposed to eat, the cost of corn wouldn't matter to the cost of milk. and we'd have better quality milk.
Edward, Morristwon, NJ/USA
What a wonderful idea indeed. Maybe it does actually only take 8 gallons of oil to make 10 gallons of ethanol. That means we really gain 2 gallons of fuel. Only thing is, my car will go about twice as far on a gallon of gasoline as on a gallon of ethanol. Ethanol has far less calorific power per gallon than gasoline. You get far less energy from burning a gallon of ethanol than you get from burning a gallon of gasoline.
Starry eyed greenies do not care about conservation and the incredible waste of resources to carry out their programs. Their real motive is to wreck the economy so we live in idyllic circumstances and lay around under a palm tree enjoying nature, swatting mosquitos, and waiting for a coconut to fall on our heads so we can dine on low fat coconut milk.
vadinho, houston, texas
Let's continue to use ethanol, but maybe instead of allowing construction industries to buy up and use farmland for new housing developments, the U.S. should simply go back to just about the only thing it's ever been good at: farming. I still remember all the places where open corn fields used to be in my part of PA, but all I see now are houses, malls, and restaurants. It's a shame that our country looks down on agriculture so much these days, and instead chooses to save lost causes like the dying auto industry, which should have been given up on years ago. Ford said months ago that it will not turn any profits until after 2007! Give it up... we're chasing the wrong dreams in almost every industry and aspect of our lives.
Jess, Bethlehem, PA
u should only drink milk from grass fed cows
more omega 3 or 6
Audrey, Somers, USA/ NY
It's a farce. It will never help in any energy crunch. It will only damage the food supply.
James, VAncouver, Can
Call your Congressman and Senators now. The biofuel ethanol is not the way to solve our energy problems. We need a combination of alternative energies, including drilling for oil and nuclear, for our future needs in order to grow. The government also needs to give incentives or prizes to private enterprise so they can develop other technology quickly. At this rate we will be paying $10 for a gallon of gas and $10 for a gallon of milk. Who said there isn't any inflation?
Lindy, Bradenton, USA
Blame it on the environmental nazis. Algore and his komrad `green with envy' tree hugging schemers want to destroy this country at any cost. We have the oil for our cars, the gutless polititions are afraid to drill for it.
Corn on the table, oil in the cars.
Ron, Raymond,
That's what happens when you burn food instead of eating it.
Brad, St Louis, USA
You might want to take a closer look into the true reason for the increased costs of most everything you consume, and how the "price" of corn is being used as a weapon against the farmer. The "price of corn" in almost all these type of news releases is being quoted from the CBoT, this is not the price that farmers are recieving, but rather this is the price being traded by large funds (check your IRA, Mutual funds, etc.). It's a paper market and really has not much to do with corn. Call any corn buyer and see the truth about prices. The real kicker here is petroleum, it is used to move just about everything you eat and use. Walmarts and grocery stores are filled by trucks, the food and minerals were mined or harvested by diesel trucks, tractors, or machines. The cup for your coffee to the bottle for your water or soda are made from fuel, and fuel is no longer $48 per barrel, it's headed to 80, nearly double and will get worse because it sells to a captive market.
Kent , Ephrata, Wa. USA
You guys need to read the Ominvours Dilemma by Michael Pollan and you will learn that corn is detrimental to cattle. It cause bloating, illness and the use of antibiotics and radiation to kill e coli which doesn't occur in grass fed cattle. If done properly and the patures are rotated there is no problem of evergrazing. The meat is also more nutritious from grass fed beef. It has a better omega 3 to omega 6 ration-almost 1:1. Corn is used to sweeten everything the USA and is one of the reasons there is so much obesity. In Germany, the Coke is sweetened with cane sugar which is easier for the body to process. Corn is subsidized by the government. Cows are not meant to eat corn. It is not natural for them and it is unhealthy, They need to eat grass and the meat tastes much better-not all pasty. All meat here is grass or hay fed. I am AMerican but know the truth on this matter. grass fed beef will be the future- it uses sun energy and not fossil fuel to raise the corn. Read the book.
Michael, Lörrach, Germany/ BAden Würtemburg
The Bush administration has once again showed it's utter disdain from working class and poor Americans. As Nick pointed out, the Corn lobby is much more powerful than other, more efficient sources of ethanol. Look at Brazil.. they produce their ethanol from Sugar Cane, and it costs less to produce, and the final price of a gallon of sugar cane based ethanol is HALF that of a comparable gallon of unleaded gas. It's cleaner burning, too. Plus, besides Milk and Ice Cream prices going up, Beef prices are rising too. Next time you're in a grocery store, look at all of the products we use daily that have "High Fructose Corn Syrup" among their ingredients. ALL of these products will see significant price increases as the price of corn continues to rise. So, instead of simply our GAS prices rising many of the everyday items we use and take for granted will cost much more. Add to this sobering fact that pay has not kept pace with the Cost of Living and it spells TROUBLE!
Todd, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Higher corn prices don't even benefit the farmer. Mandated ethanol has caused the price of seed to rise and well as the cost of water usage. Ethanol plants use lots of energy and water. It uses more energy to make than you get out of it. The only thing ethanol benefits is the ethanol makers.
Ethanol is the "pretend" green we see a lot of today. We make national policy via slogan. "Ethanol is made from corn so it doesn't use oil." Politicans don't ask how much oil is needed to produce ethanol, what ethanol will do to the price of food, or how that effects the poor. They like their quick soundbites and being seen as being "green." No logic.
We need more scientists, engineers, and economists in government and less politicans who are solely seeking the next election.
Christopher M, Houston, TX / USA
This is another very good example of the "unintended consequences" effect that seemingly disparate items can cause. Who would have thought that milk prices and corn syrup would be related, but then here we are. This is another example of Politicians meddling with the marketplace and the disastrous consequences that messing with free markets can cause. God save us not from our enemies but from our own gubbermint and its hordes of professional bureaucrats with “good†ideas… Now that they have messed up energy supplies (by not letting US companies drill in The Arctic national wildlife refuge and off Gulf Coast), by refusing to allow new refineries to be built (we haven’t had a new one since 1979!!!!!!), and shutting down the Nuclear Power industry. The effects of their incompetence can be seen and felt in elevated energy & food costs. Let’s hope that we ( i.e. the American People) are never stupid and ignorant enough to let them near our Health Care System…If you think it ( healthcare) is expensive now, just wait until the gubbermint gives it away for “freeâ€.
John E Ritenour, Pensacola, USA, Florida
This is corny.
Parley, Becker,
Is there not a single person with a modicum of common sense left in a position of power? This is insanity! Why are we using our food supply to augment our energy supply? It's settled, we have become a global suicidal socicety.
RDK, Orlando, Florida
Sheer insanity -- it takes more fossil fuels to create a gallon of ethanol (including all the steps from farm to fuel tank) than ethanol gives back in energy. And now food prices are rising dramatically while we pay subsidies to corn growers.
We should vote out any incumbent politician that has supported this debacle called "renewable energy".
James, New Britain, CT/USA
Hurray for Ethanol!
Subsidize the burning of food for fuel!
What a terrific idea!
A Special thanks for all the greenies out there for spreading the misery so broadly throughout the world.
Tad Denton, Tucson, AZ, USA
Enviro-Socialists to the rescue, again. Thanks President Bush, the Senate, and the House. Just what the middle class needs. Make sure you help illegals, too.
Mark, Roanoke, USA/Virginia
Celluosic ethanol doesn't use corn and is the only viable future fuel. Only recycleables. No food.
Google "Bluefire Ethanol"
mike, chico, ca
This is just one more reason why it's stupid to burn our food supply when we should be taking advantage of domestic oil reserves, developing clean coal technologies, and building modern nuclear power plants. Ethanol production requires more energy inputs than it produces. Without massive government subsidies to big agribusiness (approximately 60¢ per gallon in the U.S.) simple economics would have killed the idea years ago. Additionally, converting every square mile of farm land in the U.S. to corn and soybean production for ethanol would still leave us largely dependent on imported oil and force us to start importing our food as well.
Dean Johnson, Gainesville, Florida, USA
The perversity is not in feeding cows corn, the perversity would be overgrazing. The idea allowing all cows to graze, so called "good old common sense", would put a huge strain on a limited natural resource: grazing land.
Cattle, unlike some other large animals, notably the Bison, are not picky when it comes to grazing. They decimate large areas of ground, leading to erosion. Feeding cattle corn is not perverse, desertification would be. Just look at Inner Mongolia (in China) for an example of what erosion can do to a country. Sandstorms in Beijing are the result of decimating natural grasslands.
Zach Elmore, Hainan, China
Pete, get a clue! Farmers use corn instead of "natural" grass because it is more efficient at producing the end product be it meat or milk. You like efficiencies in other areas of your life. Raising crops for livestock feed is an efficient way to harvest the energy from the sun and turn it into a useful product. Maybe you prefer to eat grass.
Why is it only in the ag sector that people get looney and want to live in the good old days?! Yeah, let's go back to the horse and buggy and manure lined streets.
Everybody adores advances in science and technology in other areas of life. Anybody want to go back to the medical practices of a couple hundred years ago?! I didn't think so!
Dan, Hallstead, PA
The authors need to get a clue. Dairy prices are up because cheap milk prices the last several years forced out many dairies. Plus the increased world demand and lower supplies. The recent rise in grain prices have very little to do with it. But , let's blame ethanol anyway.
david, higginsville, MO
I've simply stopped buying milk and ice cream. Kinda like meat. The U.S. wants to export meat so my price for a steak goes from 6$ to 9$ a lb. I do not buy it. If the U.S. would develope their own petroleum resouces instead of importing them, and use alternate fuels, and practice conservation which seems to be alien to Americans, these problems would solve themselves. Take a bike ride or learn to walk again.
James, Saint James, Missouri
Ethanol is a scam, is not a clean fuel and will hurt all food makers and consumers. STOP THE MADNESS!!
TOM, saint paul , USA/MN
The cost of gasoline for transportation and cooling is a larger cause of the rise in the price of dairy products. than is ethanol. Ethanol gets blamed by Big Oil for every price increase in order to undermine support for alternatives to oil.
L Hammargren, Avon, Illinois USA
This is a direct result of the Government handing out money to farmers NOT to grow crops in the past. Another nail in the coffin of all humanity.
Cheaprudy, Millbrook,
Ethanol is not the reason milk (and ice cream) prices are increasing. First, milk prices are adminstratively setI. Second, n the U.S. the majority of dairy cattle feed is hay which has not been affected by higher grain prices. Corn accounts for about 10 perent of a dairy annual operating costs. Third, cash market corn prices have declined about $1.00 US per bushel since the first of the year and we are poised to harvest a recond 13 billion (or more) bushel crop.
John M. Urbanchuk, Doylestown, US, PA
Sugar should be used for ethanol..! Brazil has the right idea..
joe, nisky, NY
I guess it's time to buy a goat,
Dan, Fletcher, USA/NC
it is immoral in my view to turn food, which so many hungry people in this world desperately need, into fuel so we Americans can drive around in our SUVs. And the irony is, when you factor in the energy you use to turn corn into fuel, it's not a clean fuel after all. Sugar cane and willow bark provide MUCH more energy for their mass.... but the corn lobby is so strong they pretty much get whatever they want.
Nick, Phoenix, AZ
Food products are not what we want to use for fuel. Bio fuels from non food products ok. We in the US must drill all available petroleum rescores build new nuclear power plant – to goal should be 80%. That would significantly reduce greenhouse gases and petroleum and food prices would drop significantly. No rocket science here.
harvey, jacksonville, fl
To slightly prolong the narcissistic presumption of the American cheap oil economy, food, the most basic of needs, is getting pricier. What a sad commentary on a "civilization" of greed and self-centeredness. The whole ethanol system should be stopped right away--and it's time to end the oil-centered civilization and the gasoline (or ethanol) engine.
Dayahka, Aberdeen, Washington State
somebody is artficially manipulating the price of corn...since the means to process that much corn into ethanol is not advancing, the glut of corn will will drop like a rock and the gov. will be forced to buy it.and lots of people will get rich....remember this article as of 7/15/o7......
ee swider, greenwood , mississippi
No War for big Ice Cream!
Chris, Streator,
To bad if you are numb enough to pay 3.50 for a cone when you can buy a gallon of ice cream for 4.00 and make 20 -6 oz. servings.
food is to cheap, holstine, iowa
Why is this such a surprise, when you use our food to fuel our vehicles you have to know that the price of corn will go up. It is folly for those in charge to mandate the use of ethanol to burn in our cars, the price of food goes up and it wil hurt everyone, and what is so sily is that the amount of energy to produce the ethanol does not off set the amount of energy saved. Come on congress and state legislators, use some common sense!
Leland Holland, Merrillville, Lake, IN
This article illustrates how perverse modern (industrialized) farming has become - what on earth should corn have to do with cows.
Cows are supposed to be eating grass and hay - they dont eat corn in nature. Certainly not soy meal either.
Furthermore there is an irony in the use of corn for cow feed . No doubt this practice became widespread because it was "cheap" filler, but in fact there is nothing "cheap" about it. Mass-farming of corn requires the growers to utilize huge amounts of petroleum resources (which is why the price of it is going up now) - but much if which does not even reflect the true cost to nature - the damage.
When we go back to good old common sense and respect for nature, we might have a chance. Until them, we are in trouble. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Pete Skaw, London,
This is asinine to use food for fuel, this is just the beginning. Will we take a stand or will we keep our heads buried in the sand?
Roger, Monterey,
Al Gore and the elites will not worry, they can afford to pay any price for dairy goods. Its the poor and the middle class who will suffer.
bruce coffin, lisbon falls, maine
So now we should pay high prices for food as well as gas. Who benefits from the high prices? It sure isn't the poor it looks like we have been duped again. I for one will never buy fuel made from corn.
Tom Antrim, Mountain View, Missouri
It is not rocket science to figure that food prices would jump as crops are turned to fuel. Government subsidies are not helping either, taking my tax money to fund uneconomical fuel production which causes the price of my food to go up. I am paying both ways.
maybe oil from coal would make sense if the price were high enough, but good greif, leave the food for feeding the people. stupid politicains, there plan if fully implimented will drive people to starvation.
dave, redwood , America
Read all 61 comments
Have your say
Have your say
* Your View
1000 characters left
* Name
* Email
* Town / City
Country / State
* Required Field
Remember me
Terms and conditions
PrintEmailPost to del.icio.usPost to newsvinePost to Yahoo!
they can't but who gives a crap. these are equivilent to cave men in todays world can only be ruled by the moolas(religion)
Iraq PM: Country Can Manage Without U.S.
BASSEM MROUE | July 14, 2007 11:20 PM EST |
BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."
One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."
Al-Maliki sought to display confidence at a time when pressure is mounting in Congress for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. On Thursday, the House passed a measure calling for the U.S. to withdraw its troops by spring, hours after the White House reported mixed progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting 18 benchmarks.
During a press conference, al-Maliki shrugged off the progress report, saying that difficulty in enacting the reforms was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.
We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment but one in the shadow of huge challenges," al-Maliki said. "So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural."
Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks _ "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."
But he said if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.
"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.
One of al-Maliki's close advisers, Shiite lawmaker Hassan al-Suneid, bristled over the American pressure, telling The Associated Press that "the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."
He sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations and embarrassing the Iraqi government through such tactics as building a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and launching repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's slum of Sadr City.
He also criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala provinces, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.
In addition, he said that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, who he said works along a "purely American vision."
"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," al-Suneid said.
Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the U.S.-drawn list of benchmarks.
But the U.S. focus on the benchmarks has rankled the deep sense of Iraqi pride, even among those who share the goals set forth by the Americans.
U.S. forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring calm to the capital while al-Maliki enacts the political reforms, intended to give Sunni Arabs a greater role in the government and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.
But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one-month vacation _ a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through reforms while American soldiers are dying.
Two more American soldiers were killed Saturday in bombings in the Baghdad area, the U.S. military reported. One of the bombs used was an explosively formed penetrator _ high-tech devices that the U.S. military believes are smuggled from Iran. The Iranians deny the charge.
In other violence, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police said.
Also Saturday, the U.S. military said it captured an alleged high-level al-Qaida in Iraq cell leader at Baghdad's international airport. The suspect, believed to have organized mortar and roadside bomb attacks in the capital and nearby area, surrendered "without a struggle," the military said in a statement.
It did not give details on the suspect or say whether he was traveling in or out of the country when seized.
The Reuters news agency said one of its Iraqi translators was shot to death in Baghdad on Wednesday along with two of his brothers, apparent victims of sectarian death squads. He was the third employee of the news agency killed in Baghdad this week.
An Iraqi reporter for The New York Times, Khalid W. Hassan, was killed by gunmen Friday as he drove to work in southern Baghdad.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070714/iraq/
CHEENY IS THE REAL PRES ANYWAY BUSH IS STUFFED
Watch out for the STAMPEDE - - -
Poll: 'Surge' is considered a FAILURE
The latest NEWSWEEK poll finds that nearly two thirds of Americans
believe President Bush's 'surge' strategy in Iraq has been a failure.
Web exclusive
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 3:03 p.m. CT July 13, 2007
July 13, 2007 - President Bush may be trying to rally support for his strategy in Iraq, but his efforts are not faring well with the American public, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. Nearly two thirds of Americans believe that the president's troop “surge” has been a failure, poll respondents said. The survey also found broad public support for cutting the number of troops deployed on the battlefield. But in a bright spot for the president, less than 20 percent favored immediate withdrawal.
Nearly seven in 10 (68 percent) Americans disapprove of the way the president is handling the war in Iraq. Public approval of the president's handling of Iraq has remained below the 30 percent mark since January, when he announced his plans to increase the number of troops deployed there. (The public's approval of Bush's overall handling of the war has been below the 50 percent mark since February of 2004).
Sixty-four percent of Americans feel the surge in troops has been a failure, while less than a quarter (22 percent) deem it a success. Nearly a third of Republicans surveyed (31 percent) declare the surge a failure, which may help to explain why several high-profile senior Republicans have defected from the White House on support for the war. While Bush's overall approval rating remains low—just 29 percent—it is up 3 points from another NEWSWEEK sounding earlier this month.
Still, Americans remain cautious about the prospect of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, afraid it would leave the country in chaos. Out of four possible options in the poll, 19 percent of the respondents chose immediate total withdrawal. Slightly fewer (13 percent) don't want any cutbacks at all. Nearly a quarter of all Americans (24 percent) would implement a gradual withdrawal plan that would start in the fall and extend until the spring, when the last troops would come home. Forty percent favor keeping a substantial number of troops on the ground there, but only on the condition that they fall back to their bases and focus solely on training Iraqis and targeting Al Qaeda. And yet a majority (53 percent) want troops to remain for no more than a year. Only 19 percent could embrace the idea of maintaining a military presence in Iraq for up to two years, even at a reduced number.
Despite the wide support for cutbacks in troops, only about three in 10 (29 percent) are somewhat or very confident that the Iraqi government is equipped to control sectarian violence and provide security to its citizens once troops pull out. A majority (65 percent) of the public are not too or not at all confident that Iraqi leaders would be able to forge a power-sharing arrangement among competing Sunni, Shia and Kurdish groups. Still, a similar number (55 percent) believe the U.S. should not condition further American troop presence there on Iraqis' readiness to defend themselves. Close to half (48 percent) support dividing the country into three independent states, effectively abandoning the goal of a unified Iraq. One third (33 percent) of the poll's respondents are not prepared to go this route.
At his press conference Thursday, the president characterized the current state of war in Iraq as a showdown with Al Qaeda and warned that withdrawal would risk “mass killings on a horrific scale.” Critics have called his assertions that the organization is responsible for both the violence in Iraq and the 2001 attacks on the U.S. an oversimplification. Last month's poll found that 41 percent of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the attacks on 9/11, even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection.) In the latest poll, a third of Americans (34 percent) believe that the group Al Qaeda in Iraq is the biggest threat to lasting peace in Iraq. Fewer think Shiite militias (14 percent) or Sunni nationalists (9 percent) pose the more serious obstacle to peace.
Still, 40 percent tend to lay the blame for problems in Iraq squarely at the president's feet. A third (33 percent) blame Iraqi leaders and just 13 percent blame Congress, which voted in favor of the war. Just 2 percent feel the U.S. military is responsible for ongoing instability there. Republicans were more likely to blame Iraqi leaders (52 percent) while Democrats tended to fault the White House (54 percent).
The NEWSWEEK Poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on July 11-12. Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,003 adults, age 18 and older; the overall margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. The margin of error for questions asked only of Democrats and Democratic leaners is plus or minus 6 percentage points; for Republicans and GOP leaners, 7 percentage points.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19750254/site/newsweek/page/0/
25th amendment-section 1
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
At the risk of getting lambasted..... here's the reason I have a hard time busting President Bush's ass too much... even before 911... Iraq... War on Terror etc... you people hated him so bad that hatred blinded you. Now he's been bashed so bad that it's hard to tell (for someone in the middle like me) what is right and what is wrong because once something is said so many times, people start to believe it even if it's not true. Therefore, I'm having a hard time reconciling what is actually hatred and what is true criticism. President Bush's approval rating is like 33% so there must be some line between what's real and what's not, however Congress has an all time low approval rating as well, so I'm not sure how much credence to give to approval ratings. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are sooooooooooo soooooooooo depressing when they speak which confuses me even more. Anyway, this club should be Politician Bashers Club not Bush Bashers Club. GLTA
Stupidity runs in the Bush family.....
'bout time !!
Time to hang Cheney from the nearest tree, too.
Arianna Huffington: "Bush's Balanced Assessment Of Iraq Is Utterly Unbalanced"
THIS GUY WENT TO FAR:
Nobel winner apologizes for Bush comment 4:16 PM CT
Irish peace activist's speech at Dallas event gets standing ovation
04:21 PM CDT on Thursday, July 12, 2007
By JAMES HOHMANN / The Dallas Morning News
Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams of Ireland apologized Thursday after telling a Dallas audience a day earlier that she “could kill George Bush.”
The Wednesday remarks prompted an uproar among conservatives across the nation, led to phone and email threats and caused a buzz among delegates at the International Women’s Peace Conference.
“I’m just really passionate about my work. Sometimes it’s ‘open mouth, insert foot,’ ” she said. “I’ll spend the rest of the day saying I’m sorry to everybody.”
Also Online
Audio: 'Right now, I could kill George Bush' (Note: The International Women's Peace Conference states that Ms. Williams' opinions are her own.)
Ms. Williams won the Nobel Prize in 1976 for creating a group that helped start peace talks in Northern Ireland.
Dallas police are investigating an undisclosed number of threatening emails and phone calls that came to the Adam’s Mark Hotel and Conference Center in Dallas and to conference organizers.
Conference chairwoman Carol Donovan stressed Thursday — as she did during the Wednesday program -- that the conference is nonpartisan and that Ms. Williams’ views are her own.
“The remarks were spoken from her heart and were based on her own concern and opinions,” she said. “With over 1,000 delegates, you can imagine the range of opinions is very wide.”
Ms. Donovan said the extra attention because of the speech has not prompted any changes in the conference schedule. “We are continuing to proceed with caution in order to provide an international conference and an inspiring, safe event for all of the delegates.”
From the beginning, she said, organizers had hired off-duty Dallas police officers for security. Ms. Donovan and others met in the afternoon with a police detective.
Ms. Williams said she did not fear for her safety.
“If I would have been concerned about my safety, I wouldn’t have started the peace movement in Northern Ireland,” she said.
The Secret Service did not immediately return a call about whether it is investigating the comments.
The Bush administration’s response was blunt.
"That's surprisingly hostile rhetoric coming from someone who has been recognized for promoting peace and doesn't warrant further comment,” said White House spokesman Blair Jones.
In her keynote speech Wednesday night, Ms. Williams told a crowd of about 1,000 that the Bush administration has been treacherous and wrong and acted unconstitutionally.
"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that."
About half the crowd gave her a standing ovation after she called for Mr. Bush's removal from power.
"The Muslim world right now is suffering beyond belief," she said.
"Unless the president of the United States is held responsible for what he's doing and what he has done, there's no one in the Muslim world who will forgive him."
When an audience member told Ms. Williams that Vice President Dick Cheney would become president if George Bush were impeached, she said, "Can't you impeach them both?"
"It's twisted. It's all wrong," she said. "There are so many lies being told. It's hard to be an American and go out into the world right now."
Ms. Williams started her speech by asking every member of the audience to hug everyone around them. Then she cut to what amounted to both a call for peace and a stinging rebuke of the American government.
Conference organizers have said that the conference is nonpartisan and that no one was invited to speak about the war in Iraq. After Ms. Williams finished her speech, conference chairwoman Carol Donovan took the podium to say that Ms. Williams did not speak for the conference – only herself.
"It's important for us to separate the opinion of the person and the position of the conference," Ms. Donovan said.
Two other Nobel Peace Prize winners, American activist Jody Williams and Rigoberta Menchú Tum of Guatemala, will speak this week as part of the conference. Jody Williams, who was in the audience Wednesday, has also indicated she would speak about Mr. Bush.
"We believe very strongly it was important to have the opportunity to hear these three peace prize winners," Ms. Donovan said.
Betty Williams won the Nobel Prize in 1976 for creating a group that helped start peace talks in Northern Ireland.
In 1992, Texas Gov. Ann Richards appointed Betty Williams to the Texas Commission for Children and Youth.
Many in the crowd found out that Lady Bird Johnson had died when Jan Sanders, the wife of U.S. District Judge Barefoot Sanders and a close friend of the former first lady, gave an impromptu eulogy.
"She was a friend, a doer, an influencer of world events," Ms. Sanders said. "She lived a full life. If she were here, she would say to you, 'Keep on being women doers.' "
Todd Gillman contributed to this report from Washington.
Print E-mail this article Forums
Submit a news tip Subscribe to newspaper
RSS News on your wireless
E-Mail newsletters Desktop News
Advertisement
More Nation
AA flight to London diverted on security scare 8:34 AM CT
White House report on Iraq a mixed review
House panel moving toward contempt proceedings for Miers
More arrested at Swift plants
Nobel winner apologizes for Bush comment 4:16 PM CT
More Nation
En español
Ex asesora, a cuentagotas, ante Senadores
Más republicanos rechazan política en Irak
Una pasantía en medicina ayuda a las minorías
Fallece a los 94 años Lady Bird
Más
Most Read Stories
Updated Thu 7.12.07
Mavs' Wallace wish won't come true
Cowboys have a good one in their grasp
Most E-mailed Stories
Father and son's fun jump yielded tragedy on lake
Nobel winner apologizes for Bush comment 4:16 PM CT
Pucker up for Kool-Aid pickles
Taking a peek at paychecks
Lightning strikes iPods, cellphones
More
Print E-mail this article
I THINK NANCY PELOSI WILL TRY FOR IMPEACHMENT
Bush to troops: Drop dead
He's staying the course - no matter how bad it gets
oh no i meant his middle leg ;)
huh, I thought it was his mah's
Bush Makes No Sense Whatsovever: "Bush acknowledged publicly for the first time Thursday that 'perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name' of then-CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson."
Then why is Karl Rove still in the White House? Why was his security clearance just been renewed? Why didn't Bush follow through on his promise to fire such a person? But then he would have to fire himself. We could handle that.
the best part of dim son ran down his daddy's leg :)
BARBRA SHOULD HAVE USED PROTECTION!
SEE BIRTH CONTROL IS A GOOD THING, LOOK WHAT IT CAN PREVENT
Bush on Iraq is "Staying the Mistake"
Bush's Balanced Assessment of Iraq is Utterly Unbalanced
Arianna Huffington
Posted July 12, 2007 | 01:05 PM (EST)
So to hear the president and the White House spin it (and the media dutiful report it), the interim progress report on Iraq the administration will submit to Congress today is "a mixed bag."
According to Bush's scorecard, progress on eight of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress in May has been "satisfactory," on another eight it has been "unsatisfactory," and two are too close to call.
And this, according to the president, "is a cause for optimism."
That's like a doctor telling you that while your child has shiny hair he also has a brain tumor -- and you coming away thinking the doctor's report is "a mixed bag." That's insane. Trust me, if your kid has a brain tumor, the fact that he has nice hair or is a good speller or has made progress towards playing well with others is not going to even things out and leave you feeling upbeat and optimistic.
As expected, the president asked for more time, said the military had achieved "great things," and blamed the rising unpopularity of the war on "war fatigue." That and restless leg syndrome.
The American people are tired -- of the endless lies the president continues to feed us on the war.
The biggest of these lies remains the assertion that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq to keep from having to fight them here at home. The president today again claimed that one of the reasons we must press on (and on and on) in Iraq is because if we leave we'll "let Al Qaida gain safe haven."
This is shameless, coming the day after a leaked threat assessment from a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that al-Qaeda is "better positioned to strike the West" than at any time since 9/11.
And this is because al-Qaeda has enjoyed a "safe haven" in Pakistan. Not Iraq, Mr. President, Pakistan. One of our supposed allies in the global war on terror. So, please, enough of the endless fearmongering drivel about how the folks blowing up people in Iraq are the same ones who attacked us on 9/11.
The threat of terror attacks in America is certainly a real one (just ask your Homeland Security director's gut); but the war in Iraq is not making us safer. It is making us categorically less safe.
One last thing. The President also made the claim that "there is a convergence of visions between what Iraqi leaders want... and the vision articulated by my administration." Oh, really? Tell that to the majority of the members of the Iraqi parliament who in May, by signing a legislative petition, rejected the ongoing occupation of their country by U.S. forces. Mr. Bush must also have missed the recent poll showing that only 22 percent of Iraqis support the presence of coalition troops in their country.
In June, the White House labeled progress in Iraq a mixed bag. They say it's a mixed bag now.
Does anyone doubt that it will still be a mixed bag in September or December or April 2008 or as long as Mr. Bush is in the White House?
We need to face up to the brain tumor, Mr. President. And we need to do it now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-bushs-balanced-asses_b_55945.html
for certain as well as 2000 florida
I feel like criminal for voting for him, I am sure I am not alone with this thought.
what a freaking snowjob, then he stole election by manipulation of Ohio results I am sure of that.
McCain as metaphor; 'His presidential campaign may be imploding, and his presence on the national stage may be as endangered as a thinking man at a Christian Coalition convention'
WATERGATE WAS NOTHING ANYWAY, BUSH IS A REAL CRIMINAL WHEN AMERICA SAYS ENOUGH, CONGRESS SAYS ENOUGH, SENATE SAYS ENOUGH, DEMOCRATS SAYS ENOUGH, REPUBLICANS SAY ENOUGH,HIM AND JOHN MCCAIN SAY CHARGE FULL SPEED AHEAD!!
NOTICE MC CAINS $$ WENT TO ALMOST ZERO INSTANTLY?
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!
Executive Nonsense, Bush's assertion of privilege is wildly misplaced—and could lead to another Watergate.
more than clinton on monica and their under the table work
and cigar rolling championship. :))
at least they didn't cause needless death and dispare
think how many kids growing up with no father or mother.
If he wants to continue war then his daughters should be on frt line.
Bush is a small man who has brought shame upon his office and embarrassment upon us all.
what a pos:
White House: Bush Would Veto House Troop Drawdown BillLast update: 7/12/2007 12:24:35 PMWASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Moments after President George W. Bush urged lawmakers to support his surge strategy, the White House issued a formal threat to veto a House bill that would require U.S. troops to begin exiting Iraq in 120 days and end a pullout by April 1. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., is expected to come up for a vote Thursday. "This legislation would substitute the judgments of politicians for the considered judgment of our military commanders," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy. "If H.R. 2956 were presented to the president, he would veto the bill." The veto threat is not a surprise. Briefing reporters Thursday, Bush reiterated he view that leaving Iraq now would be "a disaster." He said lawmakers should wait for U.S. Gen. David Petraeus to deliver his report on the administration's surge strategy in September before making judgments on the plan's success. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops," Bush said. "I'm certainly interested in their opinion. But trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure, as far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail." -By Henry J. Pulizzi, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9256; henry.pulizzi@dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones NewswiresJuly 12, 2007 12:24 ET (16:24 GMT)
Overprivileged Executive; 'Executive privilege, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a judge-made right of limited scope, intended to create a sphere of privacy around the president so that he can have honest discussions with his advisers.'
New Bushevik Syndrome: Chertoff Feels Terrorist Attack Coming in His Gut
Bush "Staying the Mistake" on the Backs of Our GIs and Their Families
boy you are a "class act" GOOD LUCK TO YOU
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |