https://twitter.com/That_Hawaii_Guy
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.
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.
More fun with 911:
edit
In a few short words I will try to describe some of the biggest recent developments in a climate that has changed dramatically since disclosure that the US and British governments falsified and misrepresented intelligence to justify a now-failing occupation of Iraq. Those frauds, constituting impeachable offenses offered as a justification for war, have solidly returned 9/11 to the table for debate.
edit
In New York, the sponsorship of radio station WBAI was augmented by organization from Unanswered Questions and 911 Citizen'sWatch along with the efforts of dozens of volunteers to effectively demonstrate that a sizeable segment of the American population are, in spite of media claims to the contrary, willing to aggressively fight to make 9/11 an issue for as long as is necessary to prove and address the crime. For it is September 11, 2001 that has been the singular defining moment of the 21st century.
edit
On September 5 th , Cynthia McKinney and I held a press conference in downtown Berlin that was attended by some of the largest media outlets in Germany including German national television, Reuters, major Berlin newspapers and radio stations. We were treated with respect and the questions posed were intelligent and showed that the reporters had done their homework. Though we did not see much air time or ink as a result, it was clear that posing questions about 9/11 was no longer in the same category as discussions of a flat earth or Elvis sightings. We were being taken seriously.
edit
Britain's The Guardian published an op-ed by former British Minister for the Environment Michael Meacher. Meacher had resigned months ago over the Blair government's fraudulent "sexed up" intelligence, and its obsequious backing of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Powell. Titled "The War on Terrorism is Bogus", Meacher's full-page missive stated that the US government had facilitated the 9/11 attacks, refused to respond to detailed, credible warnings, and went further by adding that the motive was to control diminishing world oil supplies. Had Mr. Meacher asked me to write an article for him I could not have written it better or said more. As McKinney and I read the essay, we realized that we had indeed come a long way.
edit
He had also found material that corroborated my controversial work in the case of Delmart "Mike" Vreeland. Vreeland, who had claimed to be a US Naval officer, while incarcerated in a Canadian jail, had written a note warning of the attacks a month before they took place. He had also provided startlingly accurate details about the murder of Canadian intelligence operative Mark Bastien even before the facts were known to the Canadian government. Bastien's murder occurred well after Vreeland had left Moscow in 2000.
edit
"The nightmare of the people who are in power is that we could come together like this. Let's not let them have one night's sleep, not one night's sleep until we have thrown them out, until we have gotten our answers and until we have won the victory."
Click for the whole thing and pictures:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091703_not_one_night.html
Land of the Free, Home of the Slave
by Steven Greenhut
America is such a wonderfully free country that I thoroughly understand why the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, is so eager to take our freedoms and spread them across the globe. Without the U.S. government, backwards peoples will have to labor on in their own delusions, never understanding what true liberty is all about.
I am so free. If I want to paint my house, or build a deck out back, or install a new air-conditioning system, I am free to call the building inspector and get his approval first. If I want to put a new toilet in the bathroom, I am free to buy only the low-flow toilets the government approves. I am free to buy a property near the beach, provided the government Coastal Commission approves whatever I want to do with that property. That approval might take decades, and the final thing that I build will be what the commissioners want there, not what I want, but I am free nonetheless.
I know I am free because this is America. And America is a free country – the best one in the whole darned world. If you don’t like our freedoms, you should move somewhere else.
Any other questions?
Unlike those pathetic souls in other less-free and non-free countries, I am free to open my own business, provided I pay my employees the minimum salary demanded by the government, and give them overtime in the exact proportion stated by the government, and offer them breaks that conform exactly to the standards set by government. I can operate my business in complete freedom, provided that I meet every one of the hundreds of pages of air-quality standards promulgated by the state and federal governments.
I am free to offer my employees any benefits I choose, provided they are ones approved by the government. I am free to operate my building in compliance with all the building codes and standards defined by the government. I am free to place a sign on that business provided it conforms to the city’s sign ordinance. I am free to hire a lawyer to defend against the government’s charges that I discriminate because I have fewer minority employees than the government says I should have. I am free to pay a $100,000 fine if I complain that a male employee suddenly is showing up in dresses.
I am free to have exactly the same number of parking spaces the government says I should have, and to follow the specific standards the government established when it gave me a conditional-use permit. True freedom always has conditions. I am free to vote in elections, provided that the ethnic balance of those elected conforms to the dictates of the Justice Department. I am free to invest money in the stock market provided I don’t take advice from anyone who knows any real information about the stock. If I do, I am free to spend several years behind bars. I am free to pay half my earnings in taxes. You know what they say, taxes are what we pay for a civilized society. Civilized and free. What more could a person ask for?
I am free to get to work on government-built and managed roads, in a car that meets government safety and pollution standards. I am free to pay hundreds of dollars a year in car taxes and gas taxes. I am free to borrow money from a bank to pay these taxes provided that the lender meets every government code and offers special terms to those people the government says should get special terms. I am free to send my children to the government-run schools, where they are taught whatever the government wants them to learn. I am free to raise them exactly as the government demands, or watch child protective services take them from me and give them to a foster parent.
I am free to get on an airplane and fly anywhere I want in this free country, provided that I let a government employee search my stuff and even my person. I am free to tell the federal government exactly how much I earn and let agents audit me and take me off to jail if I fail to tell them every source of income.
I am free to take any drug I need or please provided it is sold by a pharmacist or a drug store. I am free to work in any sort of profession, provided that I gain the proper government-granted licenses. If I work in manufacturing, I am free to give a union a lot of money or am free to find another job. I am free to hand over my property and take a pittance in return for it when the government uses eminent domain on behalf of a politically well-connected developer.
I am free to have a dog provided I buy him a government-issued license. I am not free to own a ferret, although in truth I hate those nasty little critters and don’t really want one. I am free to let a police officer search my car for any reason. I am free to let federal agents search my property, tap my phone lines, look at my library records.
I am free to live my life in total freedom provided that all my choices are approved by government, all my earnings are taxed by government, and all my moves are subject to close examination by government. No wonder the Iraqi people are so eager for their American overseers to show them how this freedom thing is done.
September 18, 2003
Steven Greenhut (send him mail) is a senior editorial writer and columnist for the Orange County Register.
Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut15.html
Related:
Propagandists for the State
When two famous journalists complain about the pressure to self-censor, we ought to worry about the health of our media.
First, it was Dan Rather, who after the Afghan War, said he would have been "necklaced" if he asked the tough questions during that conflict. After September 11, Rather himself wore an American flag pin in his lapel and offered, on David Letterman's show, to line up wherever George Bush told him to. But in an interview with BBC last year, he talked about the pressures: "It is an obscene comparison-you know I am not sure I like it-but you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that feat that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions." Rather called this "patriotism run amok."
Now Christian Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, has come clean, echoing Rather, but this time about the Iraq War.
"I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled," she said on "Topic A with Tina Brown" on CNBC last week. She added, "I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the Administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, [create] a climate of fear and self-censorship. . . . It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions."
She faulted the media for not asking tough questions especially about weapons of mass destruction. Said Amanpour, "It looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."
For her frankness, Amanpour received a dressing down from the higher ups at CNN. Jim Walton, CNN news chief, had a "private conversation" with her, reported the New York Post on September 16.
Meanwhile, one of the Administration "foot soldiers at Fox News" had this to say, which essentially confirms Amanpour's point about how Fox tries to intimidate other members of the media: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for Al-Qaeda," Fox spokesperson Irena Briganti said.
As if that's the only choice!
Fox would have us believe that Bush's crude philosophy, "You're either with us, or the terrorists," applies now to reporters, who used to pride themselves on their objectivity and their skepticism.
As Amanpour and Rather suggest, what we're getting more and more of these days is TV journalism that serves as an instrument of propaganda for the state.
We need to deFoxify.
-- Matthew Rothschild
http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx091703.html
Lets play "spot the irony":
Bush: Newly Restored Constitution, Declaration of Independence Symbolize Freedom's Power
By Deb Riechmann Associated Press Writer
Published: Sep 17, 2003
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Constitution and other charters that symbolize America's birth belong to the United States, but the "ideals they proclaim belong to all mankind," including people in the turbulent Middle East, President Bush said Wednesday as he unveiled the newly restored documents.
For the past two years, conservators have been doing preservation work on the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, a trilogy of documents known as the charters of freedom.
"The ideals of our founding documents have defined America's purposes in the world," Bush said, his words echoing off the limestone and marble walls of the rotunda at the National Archives.
"Since July 4, 1776, to this very day, Americans have seen freedom's power to overcome tyranny, to inspire hope even in times of great trial," he said. "We have seen freedom's power in Europe and Asia and Africa and Latin America, and we will see freedom's power in the Middle East."
Seven pages of the documents, now safely sealed in state-of-the-art casements and illuminated with fiber optic lights, had not been on display since July 2001, when the rotunda was closed for renovations.
Before, only the first and last pages of the Constitution were exhibited. Now, the public will be able to see all four pages of the document - 4,543 words (including signatures) that embody the fundamental principles of the U.S. government.
On the right side of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution that lay out the rights of individuals, such as freedom of speech, speedy trials and unreasonable search and seizures. On the left is the one-page Declaration of Independence, a badly faded parchment that outlines America's reasons for severing ties with England.
"Looking at the faded names of Hancock and Adams and Jefferson, Franklin and others, you can better see the bravery behind the stirring words declaring independence," Bush said. "It was one thing to nod in agreement as the text was read and approved. It was quite another take the quill and add your name, becoming at that instant the enemy of an empire."
The president, U.S. archivist John Carlin at his side, inspected each of the charters, and thanked conservators for doing the "nerve-racking" work to preserve them. Since the Declaration of Independence first left Philadelphia in a horse cart, the founding documents have been moved many times, including a secret trip to Fort Knox during World War II, he said.
"This new display is certainly preferable to the burlap sacks once used to carry the Declaration," he said.
The papers are yellowing. Some flakes of ink from the charters had begun to curl and lift upward, explained Catherine Nicholson, senior conservator at the archives. Part of the laborious conservation work involved inserting tiny drops of adhesive under the flakes to reattach the ink to the parchment. The new cases, trimmed in 24-karat gold-plated titanium, are filled with argon, an inert gas that helps preserve the documents, according to Rick Judson, engineer of the $4.8 million project.
Bush spoke exactly 216 years after delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time on Sept. 17, 1787 to sign the nation's founding document that begins with the well-known words "We the people."
"Every person in every culture has the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," Bush said. "America owns the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but the ideals they proclaim belong to all mankind."
The president was joined at the rededication ceremony by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and lawmakers, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a former teacher who remembers spending time in muggy classrooms trying to explain to high school students why these old documents were relevant to their lives.
"If we don't teach them why they need to vote, why they need to participate in our democracy, we risk losing all that we have gained in the last 216 years," Hastert said.
Hastert's message was similar to the one President Truman gave in the same rotunda in December 1952 when the three charters were first exhibited there. "Only as these documents are reflected in the thoughts and acts of Americans, can they remain symbols of power that can move the world," Truman said.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA3Q6CPPKD.html
And for eating enjoyment:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1457905
Oh contrare: here in Hawaii we eat it with every meal.
We put it baby bottles...
you can go to gas stations and get spam musube (like a sushi but with spam), for a buck...
Very often you find spam and eggs for breakfast with two scoops of white (sticky) rice, in fact you can get spam at McDonalds here and saimin too (a close cousin of ramin.)
Actually I don't put spam in my mouth except on rare occaision.
But statewide we is spam-aholics...
We also have the most aneurysms...due to nitrates and other vile stuff found in spam but nobody seems to notice the connection or care...
Ben's Super Tasty Itallian Style Ramin Noddles.
One Package Ramin noodles per person to be served.
Throw away nasty flavor packets.
Briing water to a boil. Add noodles.
Cook till soft or al dente depending how you like it but UNDER cooking is better for this.. Strain in colinder. Keep noodles. Throw away water.
Put back in warm pan. Add butter: real butter not margerine.
Add a little olive oil.
Toss.
Add Parmaesan Cheese. Kraft will do or grate your own.
Toss.
Add garlic powder. Parsely flakes. Itallian seasoning. Sweet basil. A dash of dill weed (not the seeds).
Toss.
Add more Parmaesan Cheese.
Toss.
Serve as a side dish, or on it's own.
Ya know: noodles with a little packet of MSG infested imitation shrimp, chicken or rarely beef, flavoring...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22ramin+noodles%22&btnG=Goog....
and SPAM.
So to recap, all you need is water, ramin noodles, hershey bars, and SPAM...
and an ash tray
More stuff to look forward to:
http://www.gfdl.gov/~rt/glob_warm_hurr.html
The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Most hurricanes do not reach their maximum potential intensity before weakening over land or cooler ocean regions. However, those storms that do approach their upper-limit intensity are expected to be slightly stronger -- and have more rainfall -- in the warmer climate due to the higher sea surface temperatures. And more recent work with more comprehensive models incorporating hurricane-generated "cool SST wakes" continue to support these conclusions.
According to a simulation study by a group of scientists at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), a 5-12% increase in wind speeds for the strongest hurricanes (typhoons) in the northwest tropical Pacific is projected if tropical sea surfaces warm by a little over 2 degrees C...
Thing is, first the water gets cooler because the glacial melt cools the water down THEN the water warms up and these things take time.
Hurricanes are good in a glass in New Orleans but other than that they aren't too much fun. Sometimnes they bring good surf...but it's dangerous due to all the floating debris...you know small furry animals, roof tops...etc...
SHRUB: In a column posted yesterday on Salon.com, Joe Conason writes: "Preferring to avoid public scrutiny for obvious reasons, executives at the Carlyle Group usually say nothing about their firm's connections with the Bush dynasty. But last April 23, Carlyle managing director David Rubenstein spoke quite frankly about the comfy sinecure he provided to George W. Bush more than a decade ago -- and how useless Bush turned out to be. Whether he knew it or not, Rubenstein's remarks to the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association were recorded."
Rubenstein said, "We put [Bush] on the board and [he] spent three years. Came to all the meetings. Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years - you know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.
Rubenstein continued: "He said, well I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board. And I said, thanks - didn't think I'd ever see him again. His name is George W. Bush. He became President of the United States. So you know if you said to me, name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the United States, he wouldn't have been in that category. So you never know. Anyway, I haven't been invited to the White House for any things."
A copy of the tape was obtained by freelance reporter Suzan Mazur who recently posted a partial transcript on the Progressive Review website. She also supplied Democracy Now! with a copy of the tape.
Mazur notes that some within the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association want to pull out of investments with Carlyle which is the 11th largest defense contractor. The group has deep ties to the Bush family and the military industrial complex.
Let’s hear what Rubenstein had to say about Bush and the company Caterair International on which Bush served on the board of directors.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3994.htm
David Rubenstein, founder and managing director of the Carlyle Group. This is an excerpt from a talk he gave to investors with the Los Angeles County Retirement Association on April 23, 2003.
Fun, light reading: There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing. (Source: From "Parameters" "http://carlisle-www.army.mil" , Summer 1997, pp. 4-14: US Army War College)
"Constitutional lawyers define it as a change of constitution by means not foreseen therein. By this definition the Nazi revolution of March 1933 was not a revolution. Everything went strictly "by the book," using means that were permitted by the constitution. At first there were "emergency decrees" by the president of the Reich, and later a bill was passed by a two-thirds majority of the Reichstag giving the government unlimited legislative powers, perfectly in accordance with the rules for changing the constitution." (Haffner, Ibid., p. 124)
"There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4719.htm
Color Me Dangerous
Tracking more than luggage at the airport.
First we got color codes from the Department of Homeland Security. Remember when they raised the terror alert to orange and urged us to clear the store shelves of duct tape? (By the way, did you know that almost half of the duct tape in this country is suspiciously made by one Ohio company whose owner happened to be a big Republican donor?) Now, the Transportation Security Administration, created after 9/11 with the intention of protecting us in the air–and which is under attack for spending lots of money while still showing alarming lapses in safeguards–has decided to color-code each and every one of us the moment we buy a plane ticket. You won’t know it, but they’ll be assigning you a hue, color-coding your name in a computer soon after you trudge into the airport. Think of it as electronic tattooing or high-tech branding, all in the name of the war on terror.
If you’re what the TSA deems a no-risk flier, you’ll be colored "green" and will be free to go about your business–including if you actually are a terrorist who’s easily duped them, taking on someone else’s identity with fake i.d. that you can buy on 42nd St. for a few bucks. If the TSA thinks you’re somewhat shady, you’ll be "yellow," and you’ll be more thoroughly tracked at the airport, and that includes things like rummaging through all of your baggage. And if they decide you’re "red," there ain’t no way you’re getting on the plane. Oh, and you may also be arrested.
Unlike in the case of your credit report, however, it doesn’t appear that you’ll be able to learn your color code, nor does it appear that you’ll have any recourse regarding changing it. And how do they decide whether you’re green, red or yellow? According to the Washington Post last week, that will be determined "based in part on [your] city of departure, destination, traveling companions and date of ticket purchase."
The new system, called Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System II (CAPPS II), which will go into effect next year, will have the airlines sending all of your personal information to the government, which will then check you against databases of private companies that collect information on your shopping habits, which will supposedly help the TSA confirm that you are who you say you are. I’m not sure how that is exactly supposed to work. Perhaps they’re going to look at your shoes and see that they are Prada, and then look at your shopping activity in the database and see that you actually buy at Payless. "Sorry honey, you’ve been colored red," the nice ticket agent may tell you. "Guards, haul his ass off to jail–but get those shoes first!"
After your shopping-habit identity check, you will then be matched against government databases, checked to see if you committed any crimes. What other criteria the government will use is still rather vague. For all we know, if you’ve ever been arrested, say, in a protest, or if maybe you’re just a bit suspicious for other reasons–like having an Arabic name, though you grew up in New Jersey–you might not make it to grandma’s for Thanksgiving, sitting in the slammer at the airport.
"This system is going to be replete with errors," Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU told the Post. "You could be falsely arrested. You could be delayed. You could lose your ability to travel."
[Those silly ACLU people: so alarmist. The sheeple weren't using their civil liberties anyway...and besides academics have discovered they don't care. They'll trade liberty for safety every day of the week.]
The TSA is entering the realm of law enforcement on a grand scale, admittedly taking on the role of a secret police, becoming another arm of John Ashcroft’s Justice Department.
"[CAPPS II] will provide protections for the flying public," TSA spokesman Brian Turmail told the paper. "Not only should we keep passengers from sitting next to a terrorist, we should keep them from sitting next to wanted ax murderers."
Of course, it’s not the TSA’s job to protect us from ax murderers–that’s what we have local law enforcement and the FBI for. Besides, how many ax murderers can there possibly be? The TSA estimates that most passengers will be coded green, while up to eight percent will be coded yellow and one to two percent will be colored red. Kevin Drum, a blogger who authors a popular site called Calpundit, estimates that if there are 200 million adults in America, the TSA is expecting to bar two to four million people from traveling by air.
"Color me skeptical that we have several million wanted murderers in the United States," he notes.
Airport security is of course of paramount concern, and there’s no question that we need much tighter controls. That’s what makes this scheme all the more scary. CAPPS II is window dressing–just like the terror alerts–by a government agency that is second only to the airlines themselves when it comes to inefficiency and bumbling. The TSA has spent billions of dollars and, still, federal screeners have been hired without proper criminal background checks; baggage has gotten onto airliners without bomb screening; x-ray machines that are supposed to detect "shoe bombs" don’t do a damn thing; and non-passenger cargo isn’t screened at all for explosives.
Pilots, flight attendants and passengers must walk through metal detectors, but a lot of other people who walk on, off and around planes do not.
"Why aren’t we physically searching the workers who handle the baggage and cargo that goes on planes?" New York security consultant Charles Slepian asked in the San Francisco Chronicle last week.
And a few weeks ago, three teenagers in a rubber raft beached themselves at Kennedy during a storm, right under the TSA’s nose. They scrambled around on runways for an hour, until they eventually found a cop–rather than the other way around.
The way the airlines can’t seem to get your bags from one place to another intact–let alone get flights to take off on time–and the way the TSA can’t seem to get its head out from up its butt, do we really want them embarking on electronic tattoos?
Michelangelo Signorile hosts a daily radio show on Sirius Satellite Radio, stream 149.
He can be reached at www.signorile.com.
http://www.nypress.com/16/38/news%26columns/signorile.cfm
Fewer Americans favor preserving civil liberties
By Kathy Barks Hoffman / Associated Press
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
EAST LANSING -- While more than half of all Americans favored preserving civil liberties immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, that number has dropped to 43 percent, a Michigan State University study has found.
The survey shows that many Americans think it's worthwhile to trade civil liberties for safety and security, its authors wrote.
"We believe that the willingness of Americans to make such concessions of civil liberties a year and a half after the attacks underscores a fundamental change in popular beliefs," said political science professor Darren Davis, who worked on the survey.
The nationwide survey by the Michigan State University Office for Survey Research was first conducted between November 2001 and January 2002. The follow-up survey, which showed the drop in support for civil liberties, was conducted between Jan. 31 and May 28, 2003. A comparison of the two was released this week.
The United States began the war in Iraq on March 19, when a surprise bombing raid was made on Saddam Hussein's compound in southern Baghdad. On May 1, President Bush told Americans from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major military operations had ended. U.S. troops remain in Iraq to help the country rebuild.
Despite the results of the Michigan State and similar surveys that have shown continued support among Americans for trading some degree of civil liberties for security, not everyone is willing to make that trade.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Muslim and Arab groups and a mosque involved in a terrorist investigation filed a lawsuit in late July in federal district court in Detroit challenging a provision of the USA Patriot Act that lets FBI agents secretly order librarians and others to disclose reading lists or other information.
Comparing the responses from 2001 to 2003, the Michigan State investigators found that:
-- Eighty-five percent of those polled earlier this year said they are concerned that another terrorist attack will occur in America in the next few months, the same percentage as 2001.
-- Forty-two percent said earlier this year that they're very or somewhat concerned that the area in which they live might suffer another terrorist attack in the next three months. In 2001, 39 percent voiced fears of another attack.
-- Fifty-nine percent said they feared a bioterrorism attack, the same percentage as 2001.
-- Americans are less fearful now of flying in airplanes, opening mail or finding their food or water supply tampered with than they were in the months after the attack. Forty-seven percent are concerned about being on airplanes, compared to 52 percent in 2001; 19 percent are worried about anthrax or other threats in their mail, compared to 33 percent in 2001; and 44 percent are worried about food and water safety, compared to 48 percent in 2001.
-- Americans worry more about being in stadiums or crowds than in 2001. The number of those concerned has gone from 42 percent in 2001 to 54 percent earlier this year. Thirty-seven percent said in 2001 that they were concerned about being in tall buildings, compared to 39 percent now.
-- Forty-nine percent said in 2001 said they trusted the federal government always or most of the time, compared to 47 percent earlier this year.
-- The percentage who said they always or most of the time trusted law enforcement authorities dropped from 82 percent in 2001 to 63 percent in 2003.
The 2003 survey involved telephone interviews with 1,953 people and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The results above include a comparison of the responses from 679 people who were interviewed both in 2001 and in 2003.
A third survey will be conducted by the university next year.
On the Net: A copy of the report can be found at http://www.ippsr.msu.edu/AboutIPPSR/CivilLiberties.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0309/10/politics-267724.htm
Ohhh IHub lingo...
Yes IHUB beats the heck out of RB on any given day of the week, 24/7...365...all that a bag of chips and a little bit more...
IRS LOOK: I'm pasting in Treasury Financial Management Service record system .014 particulars, relating to debt collection operations of the Treasury. Note that FMS has responsibility for collecting delinquent income taxes as well as all other delinquent debts owed to Government of the United States.
Thanks to Geri Powers of Maryland for forwarding this find from the Federal Register. She copied and pasted in the Treasury/FMS .014 system. I've copied & pasted in the URL where particulars of all FMS systems of records can be downloaded. For request details, see 31 CFR Part 1 as that particular Treasury regulation gives the method by which requests are supposed to be submitted to Treasury departments.
Particular thanks to Geri as she has been bird-dogging this issue since I constructively proved that FMS is the delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury something over a year ago.
Geri was responsible for my getting on this trail in late 1996. She was living in Las Vegas at the time. We visited by telephone two or three times, the primary subject being state-federal tax administration agreements. There was a bridge in some of the 26 CFR Part 301 regulations that linked to 5 U.S.C. § 5517, which authorizes agreements for withholding qualified state income taxes from federal personnel. While in the neighborhood, I read 5 U.S.C. § 5512, which specifies authorization necessary for litigation in the event federal personnel don't voluntarily agree to have wages garnished. In the footnotes I found that the General Accounting Office was general agent of the U.S. Treasury, then tracked back to the treasury act of 1921. Last summer when I was visiting with a GAO attorney via telephone, she provided cites for 1996 legislation in which Congress made the Director of the Office of Management and Budget responsible for settling accounts of the United States. The provision in Public Law 104-316 permits the Director to delegate authority. By wading through mountains of other legalese, I concluded that FMS operates under delegations of authority from the Director of OMB and the Secretary of the Treasury.
I'm not certain who was responsible, but two or three years ago Jack Cohen, Harry Combs (Informer/Big Al), Sean O'Hara or someone else stumbled across the Treasury Financial Manual (available on the FMS web page), and that identifies the consent form necessary to execute garnishment via notice of levy against government personnel.
The FMS system of records Geri forwarded this morning is frosting on the cake. As reading the thing, pay particular attention to the list of authorities for the system of records -- it's longer than a well rope, including several key Internal Revenue Code sections.
The Internal Revenue Service is delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(B), which applies to insular possessions; the Financial Management Service is delegate for purposes of § 7701(a)(12)(A). IRS has certain limited functionary responsibilities through FMS -- IRS has absolutely no authority to unilaterally take involuntary collection action in States of the Union.
This is a tremendously important spoke in the wheel.
Dan Meador
http://www.treas.gov/foia/privacy/issuances/fmspa.html
Treasury/FMS .014
System name:
Debt Collection Operations System--Treasury/Financial Management
Service.
System location:
Records are located in the offices of and with the Debt Management
Services staff of the Financial Management Service, U.S. Department of
the Treasury at the following locations: Liberty Center Building
(Headquarters), 401 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20227; Prince
George's Plaza, 3700 East-West Highway, Hyattsville, MD, 20782; and the
Birmingham Debt Management Operations Center, 190 Vulcan Road, Homewood,
Alabama, 35209.
Categories of individuals covered by the system:
Individuals who owe debts to: (a) The United States, through one or
more of its departments and agencies; and/or (b) States, territories
and commonwealths of the United States, and the District of Columbia
(hereinafter collectively referred to as ``states').
Categories of records in the system:
Debt records containing information about the debtor(s), the type
of debt, the governmental entity to which the debt is owed, and the
debt collection tools utilized to collect the debt. The records may
contain identifying information, such as name(s) and taxpayer
identifying number (i.e., social security number or employer
identification number); debtor contact information, such as work and
home address, and work and home telephone numbers; and name of employer
and employer address. Debts include unpaid taxes, loans, assessments,
fines, fees, penalties, overpayments, advances, extensions of credit
from sales of goods or services, and other amounts of money or property
owed to, or collected by, the Federal Government or a state, including
past due support which is being enforced by a state. The records also
may contain information about: (a) The debt, such as the original
amount of the debt, the debt account number, the date the debt
originated, the amount of the delinquency or default, the date of
delinquency or default, basis for the debt, amounts accrued for
interest, penalties, and administrative costs, and payments on the
account; (b) Actions taken to collect or resolve the debt, such as
copies of demand letters or invoices, documents or information required
for the referral of accounts to collection agencies or for litigation,
and collectors' notes regarding telephone or other communications
related to the collection or resolution of the debt; and (c) The
referring or governmental agency that is collecting or owed the debt,
such as name, telephone number, and address of the agency contact.
Authority for maintenance of the system:
Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (Pub L. 89-508), as amended
by the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub L. 97-365, as amended); Deficit
Reduction Act of 1984 (Pub L. 98-369, as amended); Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, sec. 31001); Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-34); Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-206); 26 U.S.C. 6402; 26 U.S.C.
6331; 31 U.S.C. Chapter 37 (Claims), Subchapter I (General) and
Subchapter II (Claims of the U.S. Government).
Purpose(s):
The purpose of this system is to maintain records about individuals
who owe debt(s) to the United States, through one or more of its
departments and agencies, and/or to states, including past due support
enforced by states. The information contained in the records is
maintained for the purpose of taking action to facilitate the
collection and resolution of the debt(s) using various collection
methods, including, but not limited to, requesting repayment of the
debt by telephone or in writing, offset, levy, administrative wage
garnishment, referral to collection agencies or for litigation, and
other collection or resolution methods authorized or required by law.
The information also is maintained for the purpose of providing
collection information about the debt to the agency collecting the
debt, to provide statistical information on debt collection operations,
and for the purpose of testing and developing enhancements to the
computer systems which contain the records.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories
of users and the purposes of such uses:
These records may be used to disclose information to:
(1) Appropriate Federal, state, local or foreign agencies
responsible for investigating or implementing, a statute, rule,
regulation, order, or license;
(2) A court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course
of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or
witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement
negotiations, in response to a subpoena where relevant or potentially
relevant to a proceeding, or in connection with criminal law
proceedings;
(3) A congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the
request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(4) Any Federal agency, state or local agency, U.S. territory or
commonwealth, or the District of Columbia, or their agents or
contractors, including private collection agencies (consumer and
commercial):
a. To facilitate the collection of debts through the use of any
combination of various debt collection methods required or authorized
by law, including, but not limited to;
(i) Request for repayment by telephone or in writing;
(ii) Negotiation of voluntary repayment or compromise agreements;
(iii) Offset of Federal payments, which may include the disclosure
of information contained in the records for the purpose of providing
the debtor with appropriate pre-offset notice and to otherwise comply
with offset prerequisites, to facilitate voluntary repayment in lieu of
offset, and to otherwise effectuate the offset process;
(iv) Referral of debts to private collection agencies, to Treasury-
designated debt collection centers, or for litigation;
(v) Administrative and court-ordered wage garnishment;
(vi) Debt sales;
(vii) Publication of names and identities of delinquent debtors in
the media or other appropriate places; and
(viii) Any other debt collection method authorized by law;
b. To conduct computerized comparisons to locate Federal payments
to be made to debtors;
c. To conduct computerized comparisons to locate employers of, or
obtain taxpayer identifying numbers or other information about, an
individual for debt collection purposes;
d. To collect a debt owed to the United States through the offset
of payments made by states, territories, commonwealths, or the District
of Columbia;
e. To account or report on the status of debts for which such
entity has a financial or other legitimate need for the information in
the performance of official duties;
f. For the purpose of denying Federal financial assistance in the
form of a loan or loan guaranty to an individual who owes delinquent
debt to the United States or who owes delinquent child support that has
been referred to FMS for collection by administrative offset;
g. To develop, enhance and/or test database, matching,
communications, or other computerized systems which facilitate debt
collection processes; or
h. For any other appropriate debt collection purpose.
(5) The Department of Defense, the U.S. Postal Service, or other
Federal agency for the purpose of conducting an authorized computer
matching program in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended, to identify and locate individuals receiving Federal payments
including, but not limited to, salaries, wages, and benefits), which
may include the disclosure of information contained in the records for
the purpose of requesting voluntary repayment or implementing Federal
employee salary offset or other offset procedures;
(6) The Department of Justice for the purpose of litigation to
enforce collection of a delinquent debt or to obtain the Department of
Justice's concurrence in a decision to compromise, suspend, or
terminate collection action on a debt;
(7) Any individual or other entity who receives Federal payments as
a joint payee with a debtor for the purpose of providing notice of, and
information about, offsets from such Federal payments; and
(8) Any individual or entity:
a. To facilitate the collection of debts through the use of any
combination of various debt collection methods required or authorized
by law, including, but not limited to:
(i) Administrative and court-ordered wage garnishment;
(ii) Report information to commercial credit bureaus;
(iii) Conduct asset searches;
(iv) Publish names and identities of delinquent debtors in the
media or other appropriate places; or
(v) Debt sales;
b. For the purpose of denying Federal financial assistance in the
form of a loan or loan guaranty to an individual who owes delinquent
debt to the United States or who owes delinquent child support that has
been referred to FMS for collection by administrative offset; or
c. For any other appropriate debt collection purpose.
Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies:
Debt information concerning a government claim against a debtor is
also furnished, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C.
3711(e), to consumer reporting agencies, as defined by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 5 U.S.C. 1681(f), to encourage repayment of an overdue
debt.
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining,
and disposing of records in the system:
Storage:
Records are maintained in computer processible storage media, such
as computer hard drives, magnetic disc, tape; in file folders; and on
paper lists and forms.
Retrievability:
Records are retrieved by various combinations of name, taxpayer
identifying number (i.e., social security number or employer
identification number), or debt account number.
Safeguards:
All officials access the system of records on a need-to-know basis
only, as authorized by the system manager. Procedural and physical
safeguards are utilized, such as accountability, receipt records, and
specialized communications security. Access to computerized records is
limited, through use of access codes, entry logs, and other internal
mechanisms, to those whose official duties require access. Hard-copy
records are held in steel cabinets, with access limited by visual
controls and/or lock system. During normal working hours, files are
attended by responsible officials; files are locked up during non-
working hours. The building is patrolled by uniformed security guards.
Retention and disposal:
Hard-copy records and electronic records shall be retained and
disposed of in accordance with National Archives and Records
Administration regulations (36 CFR Subchapter B--Records Retention);
Treasury directives and FMS comprehensive records schedules.
System manager(s) and address:
System Manager, Debt Management Services, Financial Management
Service, 401 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20227.
Notification procedure:
Inquiries under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, shall be
addressed to the Disclosure Officer, Financial Management Service, 401
14th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20227. All individuals making
inquiries should provide with their request as much descriptive matter
as is possible to identify the particular record desired. The system
manager will advise as to whether FMS maintains the records requested
by the individual.
Record access procedures:
Individuals requesting information under the Privacy Act of 1974,
as amended, concerning procedures for gaining access or contesting
records should write to the Disclosure Officer. All individuals are
urged to examine the rules of the U.S. Department of the Treasury
published in 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, and appendix G, concerning
requirements of this Department with respect to the Privacy Act of
1974, as amended.
Contesting record procedures:
See ``Record access procedures' above.
Record source categories:
Information in this system is provided by the individual on whom
the record is maintained, Federal and state agencies to which the debt
is owed, Federal employing agencies and other entities that employ the
individual, Federal and state agencies issuing payments, collection
agencies, locator and asset search companies, credit bureaus, Federal,
state or local agencies furnishing identifying information and/or
address of debtor information, or from public documents.
Exemptions claimed for the system:
None.
Prime Minister? What's a PM? e
Half-baked whoppers hard to swallow
Cheney backpedals on one lie, reinforces others on Meet the Press
Ever since the invasion of Iraq last spring, American and British troops have been sweeping through that devastated land. Armed with the most advanced technology, they search for Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat, as well as certain other scarce souvenirs of the dictatorship. What they have found so far doesn't amount to much -- certainly not a nuclear weapon or the capability to build one. And, lately, nobody seems optimistic that they will discover any such item.
That must be why Vice President Dick Cheney finally admitted the truth during his Sept. 14 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press.
To hear Mr. Cheney or any high-ranking administration figure utter a factual statement about Iraq was startling. For the many concerned Americans who missed the Vice President's interview with Tim Russert, their brief exchange about the mythic Iraqi nuke is worth reproducing in full.
As he often does, Mr. Russert first played a clip from the videotape of his guest's previous appearance. In this case, the host called attention to a notorious remark by the Vice President on Meet the Press last March 16.
Mr. Russert: "And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said [Saddam Hussein] does not have a nuclear program, we disagree."
The Vice President: "I disagree, yes. And you'll find the C.I.A., for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree." (That allusion to the C.I.A. was an additional bonus lie, but I digress.)
The Vice President continued: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. [Mohammed] ElBaradei [director of the IAEA], frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq is concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past."
Turning from the videotape, Mr. Russert said to his guest, a tiny bit too charitably: "Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke."
The Vice President, as if he had merely spelled someone's name wrong, coolly replied: "Yeah, I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show 'weapons capability.' We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon."
They "never had any evidence." They just wanted us to believe they did.
Lest I seem unappreciative, the Vice President's self-correction is certainly welcome, even six months late and at the prodding of a journalist with embarrassing videotape. With Mr. Cheney, it behooves us all to keep our expectations of candor very modest.
He might have said something sooner, if only because his statement -- and other, equally ominous and vague remarks by his colleagues -- had led many Americans to believe that Saddam not only possessed nuclear weapons, but also the means to launch them at the United States. People were frightened.
But Mr. Cheney seems to prefer a mood of fear. The misdirection of gullible, scared citizens has long been the method of this government, particularly with regard to Iraq. The need to mislead has only become more urgent now that the public has begun to notice the administration's stunning incompetence and dishonesty. Ask Americans for an additional $87 billion and the lives of more children or parents or friends, and they might at last begin to ask some hard questions.
Providing answers was presumably Mr. Cheney's purpose in his visit with Mr. Russert. Unfortunately, few of his answers were as frank as his admission about Saddam's nonexistent, unreconstituted nuclear arsenal. Instead, he proceeded to repeat certain very big lies that the administration has used to justify its Iraqi misadventure all along.
Struggling to put the best face on the failure to find any chemical or biological weapons, the Vice President pointed to what he called the two "mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack." He didn't explain why nobody with the relevant scientific expertise believes that those trucks can produce anything more dangerous than gas for artillery balloons -- or why not a molecule of "anthrax or smallpox" has been found in them. He insisted that in the end, something would turn up to show that Saddam was an imminent threat to us and his neighbors.
And Mr. Cheney reasserted the primal myth of the Bush White House, which holds Saddam Hussein responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the 90's," he claimed, "the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization." He provided no new proof. In fact, he cited no evidence whatsoever.
Perhaps someday he will be obliged to admit, again, that he "never had any."
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15646
Diebold:
Or why the recall election was postponed till they could get electronic voting machines in place...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
The memos prove Diebold intends to break the voting laws by selling voting machines that can be tampered with in states where it is illegal to sell voting machines that can be tampered with.
Silver:
Still no correction in sight...keeps climbing albiet slowly.
Sloofy still owns NONE.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/morgan/091603.htm
How the huge federal debt affects Americans
By MARY DEIBEL
Scripps Howard News Service
September 12, 2003
WASHINGTON - What does a record federal deficit mean to most Americans? Absent action, Uncle Sam will go in the red another $1.4 trillion over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office says.
That's $4,795 for every man, woman and child in the United States atop their $23,400-a-person share of the national debt racked up over the nation's 227-year history.
President Bush wants $87 billion more for Iraq next year. That item alone adds $298 to each American's share of the 2004 deficit and pushes White House deficit guesstimates above $500 billion apiece in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 and the new fiscal year.
That's $1 trillion of red ink this year and next - a total that Bush spokesman Scott McClellan calls "manageable."
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the top Bush White House economist picked to head the Congressional Budget Office, isn't worried short-term, either, but concedes "choices do matter" over the long haul.
With $1 trillion, you could:
- Send 1 million students through an Ivy League school for four years, or finance a public university degree for everyone without one. The payoff: adding $20,000 a year to a high-school grad's $26,958 average paycheck, the difference between a college diploma and a high-school diploma in average earning power.
- Provide every U.S. household with a 7 percent down payment on a $146,000 median-priced house, including a home for the 33 million families who rent and vacation homes for the 67 million who already are homeowners.
- Put a new car in every garage - or put a chicken in each American household's pot every day for the next seven years. For fast-foodies, $1 trillion buys 370 billion Big Macs, based on the $2.71 average U.S. price in the Economist magazine's Big Mac Index.
- $1 trillion worth of federal deficits amounts to a stack of $100 bills 67,000 miles high.
Just the money spent on Iraq could provide health care for every American, says former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential front-runner and physician by training.
For now, however, deficits aren't dominating political debates the way they did in the 1970s and '80s after the "guns and butter" days of Vietnam and the Great Society, which helped ignite double-digit inflation, sky-high mortgage rates and the deepest recession since the Depression.
For now, deficits don't seem to have much impact on the economy, either.
"It's a different game today when government borrowing doesn't exert as much pressure at a time when mortgage rates are at their lowest level in 45 years and inflation is at a 40-year low," says Standard & Poor's chief economist David Wyss.
What happens once the economy picks up steam is another matter, says MIT economist and Nobel laureate Robert Solow, who frets that budget deficits will fall prey long-term to Bush tax-cut and spending priorities. "Surplus? All we have to show for it is the city of Baghdad," Solow fumes.
Sooner or later, economic expansion will take hold, and Uncle Sam's massive borrowing costs will bump up against investment needs of private employers that are seeking to modernize and consumers looking to attain or maintain a comfortable lifestyle.
Eventually the federal bills come due, too, including those Social Security IOUs that 76 million baby boomers built up by paying payroll taxes to cushion their retirement.
Boomerang grads moving home after college to cut costs shouldn't be so preoccupied about whether their chances of seeing a Social Security check are less than sighting a UFO, as a Scripps Howard News Service poll once found.
If Mom and Dad don't collect their Social Security, they may move in on you in later years. "As they say," says economist Wyss, "what goes around can come around again."
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=DEFICITS-09-12-03&cat=WW
Last post begs tons of comment but I'm going to let it go.
Bottom line: restore the republic.
Exactly Which Constitution Are You Following?
David Alan Black
In his tour de force entitled Our Secret Constitution, Columbia law professor George Fletcher shows how Lincoln’s War replaced the original charter with a second American Constitution, a “secret Constitution.” The Constitution of 1787 stood for a maximum freedom of expression of individual liberty, at least against the federal government. The second Constitution is dedicated to organic nationhood and popular democracy, emphasizing not freedom from government but equality under the law. The state would now have to do more than leave us alone. It would have to ensure equal protection—and do so at the point of a bayonet if necessary.
Professor Fletcher notes that although the original charter of 1787 remains in place, it has been so radically transformed by our secret Constitution that for all intents and purposes the old charter is a dead letter. Because of Lincoln’s war, the Tenth Amendment was effectively abolished, the conquered states were made into puppet governments set up by the Republican Party, and Lincoln succeeded in consolidating governmental power in Washington by military dictatorship.
This means that Americans face a choice as to whether to defend the old Constitution or to follow the new, secret charter—that is, whether to defend the concept of a limited republic with maximum freedom for the people or to acquiesce to the new consolidated concept of power that is prone to dictatorial and imperialistic expressions.
It is probably true to say that most Americans are firmly in the pro-big government camp. They don’t mind sacrificing most of their earnings to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and unresponsive elected officials, nor do they mind relying on Washington for a host of taxpayer-funded benefits. And they are agreeable to the notion that personal responsibility and independence should be sacrificed for the “security” offered by politicians. At the other end of the spectrum are people who believe in the old Constitution verbatim and who hold personal liberty and responsibility so dear that they dare to expect others to hold similar views. They abhor all but the most limited and narrowly defined forms of taxation because they believe their money belongs to them and that the federal government only needs enough funding to perform its few, narrowly defined, constitutional duties (that is, under the “old” Constitution). They want smaller government, an end to the welfare state, and an end to government intrusions into their lives and businesses. They want to get the federal government completely out of every area where it has made such a mess: health care, education, law enforcement, foreign aid, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc. They want leaders who can read the plain language of the Constitution and who understand that the words “Congress shall make no law” mean Congress shall make no law.
This small but vocal group of Americans is calling for the restoration of a republic founded on the ideals of the old Constitution. Often labeled “paleoconservatives,” they believe that the Founding Fathers designed our system of government in the form of a constitutionally limited republic with minimum government control or interference into our personal lives and business affairs. They further believe that government at all levels—federal, state and local—was originally intended to be controlled by the people, that the Constitution explicitly restricts the power of the federal government, and that the Bill of Rights guarantees that the government may not infringe on our God-given unalienable rights. They are anti-interventionists and despise jingoism and imperialism, especially in the United States.
Paleocons are not isolationists. The word “isolationist” is a pejorative term that is used to describe anyone who does not favor using America’s wealth and power or blood for their particular cause. Paleocons believe that the United States of America is the greatest nation on earth, that it should trade with all nations, that Americans should travel to all nations, that we should have diplomatic contact with all nations, and that we should have regular commerce and cultural exchanges with all nations. They just don’t believe in fighting foreign countries’ wars or paying foreign countries’ bills. That is not isolationism; that is patriotism, and that is Americanism.
Pat Buchanan, in a now famous speech, put it succinctly: “My friends, all the great empires of Europe that began our century so full of swagger and bombast came crashing down to ruin. All are now surrendering their identities and their independence to a super state that pays homage to the god of Mammon. America alone still endures, independent and free. The great questions before us are these: Shall we, too, yield to their temptation, follow their path, and suffer their fate? Is the call to empire irresistible? Is a world government inevitable? Or can America remain forever a light unto the nations, an example to mankind of how a free people should govern themselves, a republic above whose sovereignty stands the sovereignty of God alone.”
The choice is clear. Either the old Constitution or the new, “secret” one. Either a republic or an empire. To acquiesce or not to acquiesce.
As Hamlet would say, that is the question.
http://www.daveblackonline.com/
This guy is bit scary but he has a point here...strongly believes his imaginary friend created the universe...
Zeal on gold as always worth the read.
And all investors, especially us traditionally myopic Americans, ought to strive to maintain a more global perspective on the world financial markets. If we can understand how a given national market or a universal commodity looks through the eyes of the respective native investors, we can gain some excellent insights into the markets that are unavailable if we limit ourselves to one narrow financial perspective.
http://www.zealllc.com/2003/goldfx.htm
War and Debt
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
The president plans to request another $87 billion from Congress to fund operations in Iraq, a number that not surprisingly is much higher than originally called for by the administration. It’s not surprising because everything government does costs more than originally expected, but it’s important to note that some in the administration who warned about the true financial costs of an Iraq war were forced to leave.
Even the White House concedes this spending will swell the single-year budget deficit to a record $525 billion. This is money the Treasury simply does not have, which means it must be borrowed, printed, or raised through taxes. None of these options are good for the American economy. It is especially sobering to consider just how much we eventually might spend in Iraq given our open-ended mission to rebuild it. A decade in Iraq easily could cost American taxpayers one trillion dollars and cause endless budget deficits.
The question we might ask ourselves is this: What if our efforts to rebuild Iraq and install a democratic government do not work? Are we prepared to spend less on domestic programs like Social Security, welfare, and education? Are we prepared to raise taxes? Can we continue to borrow money abroad? Of course Americans are always prepared to make hard choices and sacrifice for causes in which they truly believe, but the stark economic realities of occupying Iraq have not been fairly presented.
Remember, the American people first were told they must pay to invade Iraq; now they are told they must pay to rebuild it. Those who complain risk being called unpatriotic or seen as not supporting the troops. But it’s not unpatriotic to ask how much Iraq is worth to us, and whether rebuilding it is more important than countless domestic priorities. “Whatever It Takes” is an easy mantra for politicians, but you will pay the bills long after the current administration is gone.
We can never hope to impose western, American-style democracy upon a nation that has been rooted in Islam for more than a thousand years. No matter what we say or do, millions of Iraqis and Muslims believe Iraq has simply been invaded by the Christian west. It makes no difference whether American, European, or UN military forces are involved; all are viewed as outsiders seeking to colonize and rule Iraq according to western values. We cannot expect to overcome their resistance and bitterness quickly or easily, and, if we truly intend to stay the course until democracy flourishes in Iraq, we better be prepared to stay quite a long time.
For many in Washington it simply does not matter whether the cause is Iraq, the war on terror, or any other perceived crisis. Any justification to expand the state is welcomed by politicians, lobbyists, and special interests alike. Before we spend a borrowed fortune in Iraq, we might remember the words of General Douglas MacArthur:
“The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear, keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.”
September 16, 2003
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul126.html
Dick's Defeat
Might Dick Cheney's days of stonewalling be coming to an end? Might the Wyoming oilman-turned-Halliburton boss-turned-Vice President finally be foreced to admit how deeply he let his buddies in the energy industry influence the findings of his 2000 federal energy policy task force?
Maybe. Maybe not. And maybe it doesn't really matter.
Last week, those who hope that Cheeny's day of reckoning is approaching were given reason to celebrate as a federal appeals court rejected the Bush administration's latest attempt to evade a federal judge's order calling for the disclosure of records related to the task force. That order, handed down by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, would clear the way for two groups -- Judicial Watch and The Sierra Club -- to get information on who Cheney met with while developing his energy plan.
The administration now has two choices -- honor the 2002 ruling and turn over the documents or take the matter to the Supreme Court. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told The Washignton Post that he hopes Cheney will finally come clean.
"'The vice president has been told by multiple courts that he is not above the law,' Fitton said. 'Perhaps now he will give up his legal stonewalling and begin complying with court orders to turn over his secret energy task force documents.'"
Of course, while the fight over how Cheney developed his plan is being slowly resolved in the courts, many of the policies he proposed are close to becoming law. With both the House and Senate having passed some version of an energy bill, Republican leaders have declared that they intend to push a GOP energy plan through to the president's desk with or without the cooperation of their Democratic counterparts. As Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told The New York Times, "It is an optical illusion that Democrats are involved."
"'To this point, they have not sought involvement of Democrats at all,' said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and a member of the conference committee that is supposed to reconcile the House and Senate energy bills. 'The Republicans are talking among themselves.'"
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/38/we_547_01b.html
Groundswell Against NY Smoking Ban Gets State's Attention
By Jeff McKay
CNSNews.com Correspondent
September 10, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - When New York lawmakers passed one of the nation's most stringent smoking bans in July, anti-smokers hailed their hard-won victory, while smokers' rights groups proclaimed the ban would harm businesses.
Now both the state's Libertarian and Conservative Parties are bringing their case against the smoking ban to Albany, while a recent statewide poll shows voters overwhelmingly want the ban repealed.
The state Libertarian Party, taking a page from the California recall, is beginning a statewide petition drive to repeal the New York smoking ban. The Libertarians say bar and restaurant owners should have the right to decide whether to permit smoking or not on their property.
Laws that impose a ban on restaurant smoking don't address a real problem - they merely address a perceived inconvenience to nonsmokers, said John Clifton, New York State Libertarian Party chairman. "The smoking ban is a petty infringement on recreational liberties, on behalf of a disputed dogma (the supposed health hazards of second hand smoke)."
The smoking ban has so riled some business owners that they are now suing the state.
The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association is challenging the constitutionality of the anti-smoking law, which bans smoking inside bars, restaurants and other workplaces. The association claims the smoking ban is so vague and confusing that it has failed to effectively provide any recourse for businesses that may be suffering economically.
The association plans to argue that many state businesses - from bars to taverns to restaurants -- are suffering a financial hardship, which could eventually put them out of business. Some of those businesses say they have lost up to 50 percent of their business since the smoking ban took effect on July 24.
The state is expected to counter that the ban protects the health of patrons who do not have to breathe secondhand smoke.
"We estimate a thousand people a year die from second-hand smoke exposure that occurs in the work place," said Russell Sciandra, the director for the Center For a Smoke Free New York. He disputes claims that the smoking ban is hurting the overall economy.
However that sentiment does not sit well with some business owners.
Recently, a large group of businesses in New York that have "Quick Draw" lottery machine terminals on their premises turned those machines off. They refused to sell lottery tickets for one day, a protest that cost the state more than $1-million in revenue. Just as their refusal to sell lottery tickets affected state coffers, the state's high cigarette is hurting their businesses in the same way, the protestors said.
"WABC in New York has already run a story stating how the ban has caused restaurants along state borders to lose business, as smoking patrons choose to commute to eat in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, where freedom is still legal," said Clifton.
Even before the smoking ban was signed into law by Republican Gov. George Pataki, the state's Conservative Party has been working hard to fight the ban, which, it says, will hurt business, cause the state to lose tax revenue, and place a needless burden on residents.
"There is little evidence that secondhand smoking is a serious problem. The Conservative Party strongly recommends the repeal of the statewide smoking ban," said New York Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long.
A new poll by McLaughlin & Associates conducted for the New York State Conservative Party shows that a majority of New Yorkers believe the smoking ban is too harsh and should be repealed.
In a poll of 600 likely voters, nearly two of every three people said the smoking ban should be repealed, although they favored some smoking restrictions in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and lounges.
The poll also showed 68 percent of New Yorkers believe politicians went too far in enacting the ban. Six out of every 10 people who categorized themselves as nonsmokers also believe the law is too harsh.
"This poll shows the government has gone too far. The governor and the state legislature need to fix this law," said Long.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200309/NAT20030910c.html
The Personal is Personal
by Wendy McElroy
mac@zetetics.com
Special to TLE
Privacy rights are being battered these days, largely in response to increased security fears. National ID, biometric identifiers, airport screening, increased surveillance powers... all these measures ring alarm bells for privacy advocates. But such advocates ignore a fundamental assault on privacy, which has nothing to do with security concerns: the belief that the Personal is Political.
This '60s feminist motto now dominates society and has severely eroded privacy for decades, not in name of security but for the sake of "political correctness."
What does "the Personal is Political" mean? The theory underlying the motto is that all actions and attitudes, however personal they may seem, have political significance and impact society. Therefore, almost in self-defense, society should encourage proper actions and attitudes; it should discourage improper ones by force of law if necessary. This is the stripped-down core of political correctness.
PC feminist Susan Moller Okin explains in her book Justice, Gender, and the Family (1991). "The earliest claims that the personal is political came from those gender feminists of the 1960s and 1970s who argued that, since the [traditional] family was at the root of women's oppression, it must be 'smashed.'" Otherwise stated: a "just" family was considered to be a prerequisite for a "just" social and political system.
The logic of the "Personal is Political" flows as follows:
Nothing is personal or "behind closed doors" because everything affects society. This erases the traditional distinction between the private and the public spheres.
Therefore, matters formerly in the private sphere -- from marital relations to religious belief -- are the proper subjects of public analysis and political concern.
"Private" actions and attitudes that are found to be negative should be politically discouraged; correct ones should be politically encouraged. In short, social control that leads to correct attitudes is desirable.
Sometimes the social control is iron-fisted: for example, the hate speech laws and campus speech codes that forbid and punish ideas that are considered to be racist, sexist, or homophobic. Sometimes the social control has an air of being voluntary, such as "non-hostile environment" rules in workplace, which result from the fear of lawsuits. Often it is more subtle, such as the politically correct editing of school textbooks to exclude "wrong" words and ideas, or the tax funding of PC organizations and messages.
It all amounts to an attack upon the most basic privacy of all: the right to assess reality and come to your own conclusions about what is right or wrong.
Consider just one aspect of how "the Personal is Political" has impacted society: the idea that everyone's sexuality is of political concern. This means that bad sexual attitudes, like homophobia, should be discouraged; good sexual attitudes, like acceptance of homosexuality, should be encouraged. In short, the sexual lives and attitudes of neighbors, co-workers, or a student in the next seat over are my business and that of society. (I could as easily use heterosexuality for this example. For that matter, I could use "bad" racial, gender, or religious attitudes.)
There is a sense, and one sense only, in which the demand to accept the sexuality of others is absolutely justified. It is this: every individual should have same rights, regardless of his or her sexual bent. Same freedom of speech, same right to security of person and property, same due process.
But more often than not, the "acceptance" demanded is for respect or acknowledgement that a form of sexuality is "valid." Those who disapprove or just don't care are accused of oppression, discrimination, or hatred. This is when problems arise -- when accepting an activity or an attitude doesn't mean legally tolerating it but becomes a demand for approval or respect.
Respect is not a civil right; it is an attitude of approval and admiration. No one can claim a "right" to the emotional or intellectual approval of anyone else. Indeed, to mandate such respect is to violate rights because human beings should be free to assess what is right or wrong, admirable or detestable for themselves. And, then, peacefully live according to their assessments.
If you dislike a form of sexuality and avoid those who practice it -- all the while respecting their rights -- then you have wronged no one. If I am utterly disinterested in my neighbor's sexuality, my indifference is not oppression. It is indifference. I am simply living my own life according to my own interests and values. And, historically speaking, individuals who mind their own business have been safeguards for both privacy rights and sexual freedom.
There is a door that rightfully closes to protect the peaceful individual from the scrutiny of society and government. People call this protection by different names: the Bill of Rights, the private sphere, individual rights.
Those who crusade for privacy rights in an ever more public world should begin with the reconstruction of a crumbling concept: the private sphere. This sphere belongs to the individual and family; PC advocates have intruded into it like neo-Puritans on a witchhunt. They should be heaved out with the door slammed in their faces.
Everyone today is concerned about privacy. Whatever disagreements may exist on how to balance security with privacy rights, perhaps it is possible to agree on one issue: namely, your sexuality is none of my business. The Personal is Personal. It is a start.
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/tle238-20030914-05.html
GOLD: Critical time ahead this week
Click for chart:
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/joubert091603.html
[Me?, I think it's a top...but a top on the way up not a top top...]
Daan Joubert
US commentators for some time have been very concerned about the record level of open interest in gold contracts on the Comex., which reports regularly on the breakdown of the long and short open positions held by three classes of market players - Commercials, Large Speculators and Small Speculators.
Commercials are the institutions and other large players in the gold market who owns or has access to stocks of gold. These are mainly the bullion banks and gold producers who hedge gold by going short of the market on Comex. The Large Specs are the hedge funds and other players who build very large positions, generally going long of gold in direct opposition to the hedging Commercials. The Small Specs, individuals, play the market both ways, but mostly also end up long of gold contracts.
Last week, open interest in gold contracts on Comex reached record levels approaching 290 000 contracts - substantially more than the approximately 240 000 contracts of early February when gold last traded above $380 and then got slammed down by the overnight increase of 50% in margin requirements. The higher level of margin is still in place, which means that the amount of money invested in gold contracts is well over half as much again as in early February. This implies either that the gold bulls of 8 months ago have found new reserves after the losses they suffered during February, as well as a good deal of new confidence in gold, or that the market has attracted many new large and small players who believe gold has a shiny future and are willing to bet on it. Or a combination of the two.
Because they are so over-extended again, it also means that the market is vulnerable to another sell-off if some scare results in the speculators running for cover. If there should happen a sell-off for any reason, one can imagine the Commercials doing their best to get the gold price lower into territory where they can feel more comfortable with their short positions, which probably means back into the low $360's or even below $350. This they can do by selling aggressively into the declining market where buyers will be scarce, with most gold bulls already committed to the maximum and desperately trying to get out of their long positions by selling into any bid that may appear on the screens.
The fact that the gold price sold off on Friday to end around $374 after holding above $380 for so long - and during that time enticing much more buying of gold contracts at the elevated prices - must have an effect on all the holders of long positions on Comex. The early purchasers, with memories of the $60 sell-off in February, must wonder whether they should close out their positions to lock in profit, while more recent buyers are watching their stop loss levels closely, if these were not already triggered on Friday.
The hourly chart of the gold price shows that the recent steep bull channel is still intact. The gold price has hit the top of the channel to reverse down to support at the main lower boundary of the channel, where it ended on Friday. There is nevertheless a lower support level originating from the bottom spike below $360 on August 26th that is today offering final channel support near $371.
We therefore have the gold price at very important support right now, with an important duty resting on the market in Japan where trading for the new week resumes on Monday. If the Japanese can at least keep the market stable, then that could inspire some confidence for the European market later in the day. Yet just remaining stable might not be good enough; there has to be some convincing evidence quite soon that the rising trend in gold can resume despite Friday's late weakness - and this has to happen before the US market later on Monday has an opportunity to pile in on the selling side to see if major stops can be triggered.
If gold should break lower now to test the $371 support level, it will require a great deal of determination on the part of the bulls to hold the price within the channel in the face of some stop loss selling by Specs in combination with what the Commercials are trying to do. It would mean that rumours of one or more really large buyers of physical gold must then manifest in sustained and substantial buying of bullion. The futures market is very fragile, in view of the over-extended positions of large and small speculators and the fears engendered by Friday's break lower to well below $380.
Yet the futures market can rule the roost only as long as the physical market lets itself be influenced by what happens on Comex. If the demand for bullion is large and consistent enough to absorb any arbitrage selling that results from lower futures prices, then Comex has to adjust to that fact, with new shorts scurrying to cover positions that are not making enough progress towards profit because of a stable or rising bullion price.
It could well be that the large buyers have relaxed their buying sufficiently to lower the price to where it is more attractive to be buying gold, but that is a very risky strategy, if true. If a sell-off on Comex is triggered, confidence will be shattered and whatever gold has been picked up by these buyers over recent weeks will suddenly look very expensive. This makes it more reasonable to assume that the sell-off on Friday was another major effort by the Commercials, at a time when the market is traditionally thin, to spook long holders of contracts - and of stocks in gold mines - into a selling spree.
Conclusion
At this point in time it is not possible to predict with any certainty what will happen this week. It is however becoming increasingly evident that demand for bullion is picking up to a level where the influence of Comex and the futures market on the gold price is on the wane, yet not without a near titanic battle between the bulls and the bears.
If there is a new sell-off this week, it should last much less than the 5 month period from the previous low in April to the start of the current bull trend before we again see gold resuming its bull trend. The financial world is appearing more precarious by the day to people who look beyond the short term historic indicators of the US economy to observe trends that spell disaster in months and years to come - and they are buying gold as a hedge for the risks ahead. Their purchases of gold bullion will increase as time passes, irrespective of any sell-off that might occur now and which is more likely to be seen as an opportunity to pick up cheap gold, rather than to frighten them away indefinitely.
It is a matter of time. Gold shorts beware!
16 September 2003
© September 2003 Daan Joubert
All rights reserved to author and www.GOLDSignals.com
MR. ED
[Had to post it...]
A HORSE IS A HORSE, OF COURSE!
By: Ted Lang
If you love animals, it’s easy to understand how politicians even screw up the animal kingdom. Take for example the symbols of the two monopoly parties that believe in unlimited government, unlimited taxation, and unlimited infringements on private property and our individual freedoms. And don’t give me the simpleton Rush Limbaugh bunk that Republicans are good and Democrats are bad and vice versa. But gee, Bush gave US a tax break! Really? Have you checked your state taxes, local cigarette and property taxes lately? Both parties stink!
But getting back to the animal kingdom, of the two symbols of the mainstream parties, which mascot looks more like a horse? Now if you say the symbol of the Democrat Party, then go to the front of the class. And why do I bring up a horse? Because one thing you’ll always seek when making American politics an important aspect of your life, is to constantly get to the truth. Why? Because all politicians constantly lie! You are, therefore, always interested in getting all your facts straight from "the horse’s mouth." Remember [but of course you don’t] that old classic TV show starring Alan Young, entitled "Mr. Ed?" Mr. Ed was a talking horse of course!
As Charley Reese proclaimed recently on his site posting of September 11th, "That is so typical of today's politicians and is, I think, a leading cause of voter apathy. Most Americans don't expect politicians to be infallible and perfect, but they do have a right to expect that politicians will be honest. A free, self-governing society can survive honest disagreements, even serious disagreements, but it cannot survive deception and dishonesty. The whole basis of self-government is that people can make the right decisions if they are given the facts. They cannot do that, however, if they are constantly fed lies. Political lies should be considered a mortal and unforgivable sin."
This is why when you want to find out what’s going on in politics and real news, you’ve got to get it direct from the horse’s mouth, and not from lying politicians or the modern fiction writers over at the New York Times. But returning to donkeys and elephants, Republicans are so ignorant they can no longer tell the difference between the two. In fact, outside observers now use a new term to describe the Bush fiasco, which has the word "conservative" in it after the prefix "neo," as in neo-Nazi. So if you want to find out what Republicans are really all about, you’ve got to go directly to the source; the horse of course! The problem with Republicans, however, has been exacerbated by the fact that all the latest poop is not coming from the horse’s mouth, but the other end of the equestrian anatomy.
And the Republican horse, a breed made famous by a Greek military tactic that also doubles as a famous brand name for a prophylactic, is indeed named "Mr. Ed," as in Mr. Ed Gillespie, Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Gillespie told the Manchester Union Leader that Republicans now believe in big government, and real conservatives can all go to hell and join the Democrats and Libertarians. Rush Limbaugh stated that his 15 years of fighting for conservatism had been flushed down Algore’s water-saving toilet. At least four seconds later, he got back on track pointing out the "stellar performance of George W. Bush." Rush should be coming in for a landing in this galaxy real soon, or at least in time to help out with the elections.
The Democrats have been annihilated. Their media destroyed. Bush’s popularity soared, and then came the revelation of the PNAC neocon conspiracy, no WMD, no Iraqi connection to 9-11, CFR, Patriot Act, Kennedy’s Education swindle, Clinton’s "Assault Weapons" Ban and Mr. Ed’s excellently timed poop scoop. Iraq and the economy are tanking. And Bush and Mr. Ed are telling US all to go to hell! We all heard it from the horse’s whatever. And Halloween is coming. Is that Hillary waxing her broom?
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Crazy huge site:
http://www.uhuh.com
http://www.uhuh.com/unreal/contents.htm
Dig around interesting stuff...don't aagree with all of it and may not be 100% acurate but certainly interesting and represents a monumental amount of work...
Senate Votes to Reverse New Media Rules
Tuesday September 16, 2:09 pm ET
By Jeremy Pelofsky
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Tuesday defied opposition from the Bush administration and voted 55-40 to rescind new regulations allowing large media companies to grow even bigger.
Fearing fewer viewpoints and decreasing local news coverage, 12 Republicans joined most of the Democrats to back a resolution that would undo rules narrowly adopted by the Republican-led Federal Communications Commission (News - Websites) in June.
Those rules would allow television networks to own more local stations and permitting a company to own a newspaper, television stations and radio outlets in a single market.
The FCC rules do "not protect the localism and the diversity, particularly in the newspaper-television market," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican from Texas.
The resolution of disapproval faces a tougher battle in the U.S. House of Representatives and a threat of a veto by President Bush if it reaches his desk. It would take 67 votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.
"I know of no plans to bring it up," House Speaker Dennis Hastert's spokesman John Feehery said of the resolution.
The House has already passed a bill that would prevent the FCC from spending money to enforce its new national television cap for a year, and the Senate is expected to follow. The White House has threatened to also veto that measure.
After ordered by an appeals court to better justify its media ownership rules, the three FCC Republican commissioners approved the new regulations, which would allow television networks to own local stations that collectively reach 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.
The new rules would also permit one company to own a newspaper, a television station and several radio stations in a single market, lifting a decades-old ban on cross-ownership. A company would also be permitted to own two local television stations in more local markets.
The regulations were drawn up under the leadership of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who argued the relaxed limits were necessary to reflect the proliferation of cable, satellite television and the Internet offerings as well as preserve over-the-air broadcast television.
"That disapproval resolution absolutely muddies the media regulatory waters," Powell said in a telephone interview ahead of the vote. He added that if Congress did not like the new rules, it should give the agency better guidance "and not these odd anti-votes that only cloud the picture."
Television networks like Viacom Inc.'s CBS and News Corp.'s Fox contended they need to acquire more local stations to compete against cable and satellite television services.
But the changes have drawn fire from a slew of critics ranging from the National Rifle Association to Consumers Union as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
"If we allow the limited broadcast spectrum to be controlled by a handful of companies, how can we maintain the free marketplace of ideas?" said Sen. Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader.
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has already put the new FCC rules on hold, pending judicial review. The judges plan to hear arguments in early November.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030916/media_congress_3.html
Small victory but a victory none the less...
********Overturn the FCC's June 2 vote********
CauseNET for September 15, 2003
THE VOTE WILL BE CLOSE: Call Your Senator today by using the Capitol Switchboard: 202.224.3121.
Tell your Senator to support the Dorgan-Lott Resolution to overturn the FCC's June 2 vote.
Your voice is getting through to Congress! The full Senate will hold an historic vote on media consolidation today (Tuesday, September 16). Thanks to the millions of calls, letters and petitions from Americans from across the country and the political spectrum, the Dorgan-Lott resolution has moved through the Senate to a vote of the full floor at record pace. This is another example of how your efforts have kept this issue front and center.
The Dorgan-Lott resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn all the media consolidation rules the FCC approved on June 2. The CRA acts as a sort of congressional veto. Congress has successfully used this legislative tactic only once before, just more evidence of the strong bipartisan desire in Congress to address the issue of media consolidation and corporate control of the airwaves.
We expect the vote to be extremely close on Tuesday so your calls will really count! This vote is important because it is the first opportunity the Senate has had to address this issue and for Senators to publicly be counted. A resounding victory for the Dorgan-Lott Resolution sends a clear signal to the House and Senate leadership and the White House that the FCC rules must be rolled back.
Click here to read the latest Common Cause update on media consolidation:
http://www.commoncause.org/action/action.cfm?artid=79&topicid=11
Again, call Your Senator today by using the Capitol Switchboard: 202.224.3121. Tell your Senator to support the Dorgan-Lott Resolution to overturn the FCC's June 2 vote using the Congressional Review Act.
--------------------
To Join Common Cause, or to make an additional donation, please visit:
http://www.commoncause.org/support
The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 126)
September 15, 2003
$87 Billion Edition
[Being a conservative I kinda resent this but then again most of the people on this list aren't really conservative...neocons yes conservatives no.]
So the Bush Administration (1) have once again totally misled America over yet another aspect of the invasion of Iraq. But what's $87 billion between friends? Apparently not much, according to Congressional Republicans (2). And Halliburton (3) is loving it, of course. But while there's $87 billion worth of idiocy this week, it's not all Bush. Take the FCC (4) for example, who have got some funny ideas about what constitutes a "news program." Or Ted Nugent (6) who appears to be yet another right-wing deadbeat dad. And then there's Students For Academic Freedom (7) who have a new affirmative action plan - conservative style. Finally, let's not forget the Drug Enforcement Administration (10) who are making our streets safer by locking up stoner comedians. As usual, don't forget the key!
The Bush Administration
Ah, remember when we were going to get Saddam Hussein, find his weapons of mass destruction, pay for the war using nothing but Iraqi oil revenues, and the only thing getting in our way would be the Iraqi people throwing flowers at us? Yes, those were the days. Unfortunately things haven't quite gone according to the neo-con plan, and now we can't find Saddam or his weapons, the Iraqi people are blowing us and each other up with car bombs, and Our Great Leader had to make a groveling speech to the nation last week asking for another $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. And that's just for one year. That brings the total budget for the war - so far - to $166 billion. But pay no attention to the enormous $550 billion budget hole we're slowly digging, if another $87 billion is what's needed, then another $87 billion is what we shall pay. Just to put things in perspective, $87 billion is three times the amount Bush intends to spend on education this year, twice the budget for Homeland Security, and ten times the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. To put it further into perspective, the 1991 Gulf War cost the United States about $20 billion total. And to put things even further into perspective, ask yourself how much of that $87 billion is going to go directly into Halliburton and the Carlyle Group's back pockets. Let's face it, Bush and Cheney probably don't even care about next year's election - in a few short years the CEO president has already managed to set himself up for the world's biggest golden handshake.
Congressional Republicans
Funny how one day Republicans are all "smaller goverment this" and "cut spending that," and then the next day they're "crack open the piggy bank and let's SHOP TILL WE DROP!" Last week Congressional Republicans gushed over Dubya's $87 billion request, practically soaking the Capitol Building with spittle. Not only that, but to drive the point home they played their "treason" card - again - suggesting that Democrats who criticized Our Great Leader's Great Economic Toilet Flush were "endangering U.S. troops." Ri-i-i-ight. Rep. Ed Schrock of Virginia said that the Democratic presidential candidates were "trying to make this look like the worst thing that's ever happened. Frankly this administration has done a magnificent job and more people need to come out and say that." This administration has done a magnificent job? ON WHAT PLANET IS THAT, ED? This adminstration has screwed the pooch at almost every possible opportunity - alienating our allies, rushing to start a war based on false pretences, lying about the costs - how exactly do you define that as MAGNIFICENT? Anyway, I guess this means the days of the Republican party as a bastion of fiscal responsibility are well and truly over since they're now practically orgasmic at the possibility of throwing good money after bad. Oh and by the way - as George W. Bush is so fond of saying, that's your money.
Halliburton
Speaking of Halliburton, as we were a moment ago, a recent Reuters report indicates that they're making out like, well, bandits in Iraq. The current cost of their no-competition contract to repair Iraq's oilfields is just shy of $1 billion - around $200 million dollars higher than projected last month. Meanwhile - if you can believe this - Halliburton is having such trouble getting the oilfields restored that the United States is currently importing oil into Iraq, which is costing the U.S. taxpayer around $6 million per day. So much for Our Great Leader's claim that we'd be paying for the war using Iraqi oil revenues. Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root has also managed to incur around $1 billion in costs. Incidentally, when Halliburton's no-competition contract expires next month the Army Corps of Engineers will be awarding two new contracts for the long-term rebuilding of Iraq's oilfields. And while a Corps spokesman last week "declined to disclose the number or identity of bidders," one of the companies bidding will be... you guessed it - Kellogg, Brown & Root. Gee, I wonder who's going to get those new contracts?
The FCC
When is a news show not a news show? Why, when it's the Howard Stern Show of course. Yup, I think I can state pretty confidently that the Howard Stern Show is not a news show - but don't tell that to the FCC. Last week the FCC ruled that Arnold Schwarzenegger could appear on the Howard Stern Show without Stern having to offer equal time to all the other candidates in the recall election. Why? Because according to the FCC, Howard Stern's interview with the groping Austrian beefcake qualifies as a "bona fide news interview." So what's next? Can we expect to see the The McLaughlin Group offering up a spot of naked Twister? Or perhaps Tim Russert dressing as a superhero whose special power is breaking wind? We can but hope...
Showtime
So Showtime's blatant propaganda puff piece "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" has come and gone, and the reviews are spectacular...ly bad. Salon.com ran a review by someone who should know 9/11 better than most - World Trade Center widow Kristen Breitweiser. "This film is rated half of a fighter jet - since that is about what we got for our nation's defense on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001," was one of the better things Breitweiser had to say about the movie. Meanwhile Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales thought the movie was "simultaneously dull and disgraceful," "pure fantasy," and "so slanted that it risks sliding right off the screen." Odd really - from what I understand Stalin was particularly keen on this kind of cinematic propaganda, and I certainly wasn't expecting the Bush adminstration to follow in his footsteps... ha ha. Incidentally, I got an email last week from DC 9/11's John Henley, the actor that played the poor firefighter Bush megaphoned on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero. And you know what? He was very nice.
Ted Nugent
Ya gotta love the way staunch conservatives can simply shrug off personal responsibility whenever they feel like it. I mean, it's not like they're constantly preaching about it or anything. And that's why ya gotta love the Nuge. It was revealed last week that a woman is suing Ted Nugent over child support for her 8-year-old son that she says Nugent fathered. Apparently the woman's lawyer claims that Nugent "acknowledges" that the child is his but has only paid "minimal" child support since he was born: "Given the fact he's worth millions and millions of dollars, he's paying the amount someone making about $20,000 per year would pay." The woman is also suing for official custody of the child - which is sensible, since Ted would probably let him loose in the woods and give him a one hour head start before coming after him with a crossbow.
Students For Academic Freedom
Did you think you'd ever see a day when conservative Republicans were endorsing affirmative action? Well hold on to your hats, because that day is here! Of course, this isn't quite the kind of affirmative action that you're familiar with. According to the Rocky Mountain News, "Next year, the GOP leadership hopes to implement the 'Academic Bill of Rights,' which sets out 'to secure the intellectual independence of faculty and students and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity.'" And what does that mean exactly? Well, it simply means forcing colleges to accept more conservative professors. The "brain" (and I use that word loosely) behind this plan belongs to David Horowitz, whose innocent-sounding group Students for Academic Freedom thinks that "Universities should not be indoctrination centers for the political left." You know, I think he's right. What this country needs is more indoctrination centers for the political right. I mean, when you only have the presidency, the House, the Senate, cable TV news, and an entire national talk radio syndicate, what you really need is an affirmative action plan for those poor downtrodden white male conservative professors who are currently being left out in the cold. I mean, they're not asking for special treatment here, right? Only equality.
The Montana Family Coalition
The Montana Family Coalition - aka The Montana Bunch Of Conservative Homophobes With Too Much Time On Their Hands Coalition - last week announced plans for a media campaign against "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy." Julie Millam, head of the Montana Family Coalition, called the show "outrageous,'' a ''joke,'' and said, "To me, that's not a reality show about gay people. A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS." Yeah, that would be, uh, really good. "We don't want to see (gay content) on every single TV show," said Millam. "I'm hearing from people left and right, that every time they turn on the TV it's something to do with gay people. It's not reality." That's right - get thee hence and stuff yourselves back in the closet, weirdos! My guess is that at this point America is probably not crying out for "really good" shows featuring gay men dying of AIDS, but I can understand that Millam would prefer to see more shows which focus on the traditional aspects of the sacred bond of marriage. You know, like "Married by America" or "Who Wants To Marry A Multi-Millionaire?" or "Bachelorettes in Alaska."
The Southern Military Institute
Progress can be a tricky thing, particularly if you're one of those folks who doesn't like women or black people very much. It was announced last week that Michael Guthrie of Madison, Alabama, is planning to start a new organization called the Southern Military Institute, modeled on the old Virginia Military Institute and The Citadel. "Southern traditions that have been tarnished and almost lost will live again," says the group's website, which in this case apparently means "no women allowed." "We believe that education in a military environment is assisted by male bonding," said the SMI's vice president Jack Daniel... although he failed to specify whether the insititute would be implementing a "don't ask don't tell" policy. Oh, by the way, I almost forgot to mention that Michael Guthrie is a former member of the League of the South, a charming organization which believes that it's time the poor, downtrodden white man started standing up to those uppity blacks. Still, the SMI will be a private organization, and as such, they're free to choose their admission policy. Not that it's going to stop me from calling them idiots, you understand.
The Drug Enforcement Administration
And finally, while George W. Bush can't find Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, his misadministration is making good progress tracking down and prosecuting domestic terrorists like Tommy Chong. The 65-year-old actor was sentenced last week to 9 months in federal prison and fined $20,000 for selling his line of bongs and pipes. Phew, now I can finally sleep soundly at night knowing that an evildoer like Chong is safely behind bars. And I expect every man, woman and child in America will feel more secure knowing that this elderly gentleman is off the streets. In fact, now that I know Chong's evil "weapons of grass destruction" are out of commission, I'm going to take the plastic sheeting and duct tape off my windows. Honestly, do we really need to spend $87 billion on Iraq when we can solve the problem of Homeland Security simply by locking up aging comedians for flogging bongs? See you next week...
Expect a whole lot more like this one in the coming years:
US Homelessness And Poverty Rates Skyrocket
While Billions Are Spent On Overseas Occupation
By Jay Shaft
Coalition For Free Thought In Media 7/31/03
As I watch far-away images of body bags being filled, I see much closer images of bodies. I went by a local park the other day and it looked like a concentration camp crossed with a mass murder scene.
There were people in rags and covered with filth lying scattered all over the place. At least twenty people were on crutches, had parts bandaged, or with open wounds not even covered. They were all hungry and a large majority were sick.
All around this city I live in, and nation-wide, the level of homelessness and poverty is growing alarmingly. From the last counts and estimates nation-wide, there has been at least a 35-45% increase in homelessness and poverty. The increases have come over the last two years with the biggest increases being in 2002 and especially in the first six months of 2003.
Add to that the barely subsisting or borderline homeless/poor, and we start to see a very alarming trend that shows no sign of going away. Over 30% of Americans are on the borderline of poverty. A lot just do not quite make the cut to receive food stamps or some kind of benefits and live on a razor edge of desperation and starvation.
I have talked to people that run food banks, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters. Places like Day Star, Catholic Charities, St., Vincent De Paul, and many other major support agencies. They all tell me they have seen a vast increase in people that would starve or be without clothes if not for their services.
The most shocking sight to see is homeless and starving children, living right near some of the richest neighborhoods! Right here in "humanitarian" America, home of the world's largest "humanitarian" and "liberating" force (or is it FARCE?).
This country is putting more and more of our citizens on the brink of homelessness and desperate poverty. In addition, it seems that we have pushed countless others over the brink and into the bottomless pit of despair and need. All you have to do is look around, open your eyes, and you will see the vast sea of hungry and destitute.
I have seen more and more children and families out on the street or in feeding centers and at food handouts. To think that the world's richest country allows this to happen is sickening! To think that we turn a blind eye to starving children because it is easier to tolerate than do something about it!
We cannot afford to hire teachers, build new schools, or even maintain the ones we have. Our children slip farther into the void of illiteracy and neglect. We are the lowest among the industrialized "first" world nations in literacy scores! Many "third" world countries now have higher literacy rates than the US.
We are setting ourselves up to turn the world's richest country into a third world quagmire. This country is sinking into a swamp of drowning poor and so-called "Economically Challenged!" The rich meanwhile buy bigger SUVs (self indulgent ubiquitous vulture mobiles), and bigger gated houses to keep out the flotsam and detritus of the castaways.
Homelessness Reaches New Levels
Some 3.5 million people, 39% of them children, currently experience homelessness every year. 60% of all new homeless cases are single mothers with children.
Recent studies suggest that the United States generates homelessness at a much higher rate than previously thought. By its very nature, homelessness is impossible to measure with 100% accuracy. More important than actually knowing the precise number of people who experience homelessness is how to go about ending it.
A growing number of cities, including Los Angeles, Seattle, and Atlanta, are criminalizing activities of the homeless, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. More than 60 cities are introducing measures to make it illegal to beg or sleep on the streets, to sit in a bus shelter for more than an hour, or to walk across a parking lot if the person doesn't have a car parked there.
In 2002 the US Conference of Mayors reported a 19% increase in shelter requests due to homelessness in 25 surveyed cities. Requests for shelter by families increased by 20%.
On average 30% of all requests for shelter went unmet in 2002, with 38% of requests by families going unmet. In 60% of the reporting cities, emergency shelters had to turn away families due to lack of resources, with 56% reporting they had to turn away other homeless people.
People are remaining homeless for at least 6 months on average with 82% of cities reporting an increase in the length of time people are homeless.
There has been a 40% increase in the Berkeley, California homeless population over the last two years. New York City has reported a 42% increase over the last two years, Boston a 37% increase, Los Angeles, CA a 47% increase, San Diego, CA 41%, Washington, DC 39%, Seattle, WA. 43%, Portland, OR 36%, Chicago, IL 47%, St. Louis, MO 34%, Atlanta, GA 40%, Tampa, FL 46%, St. Petersburg, Fl 45%, Miami, FL 49%, New Orleans, LA 41%, Phoenix, AZ a staggering 56%, with most other major cities reporting at least a 25-30% increase over the last two years.
Forty-one percent of all homeless are single males, 41% families, 13% single females, and 5% being unaccompanied minors. The homeless population is estimated to be 50% African American, 35% white, 12% Hispanic, 2% Native American, and 1% Asian.
An average of 23% suffer from mental illness, 38% suffer from substance abuse, 10% are veterans, and 22% are employed.
Over 40% of homeless persons are eligible for disability benefits, but only 11% actually receive them. Most are eligible for food stamps, but only 37% receive them. Most homeless families are eligible for welfare benefits, but only 52% receive them.
Published reports suggest that most homeless families with children are headed by single women between the ages of 26 and 30 who have never been married and have two children. According to one study, homeless women are significantly more likely to have low birth weight babies than are similar poor women who have housing.
Lack of affordable housing leads the list of causes for homelessness, with mental illness and lack of needed services, substance abuse, low paying jobs, domestic violence, unemployment, poverty, prison release, down-turn in economy, limited life skills and cuts in public assistance being the other top reported causes.
The average wait for public housing was 19 months; the average wait for Section 8 certificates and vouchers was 21-23 months. 45% of cities have stopped taking public housing applications in at least one assisted housing program due to extensive waiting lists.
The other group sometimes considered homeless is the precariously housed population. People who are precariously housed are in danger of becoming literally homeless because they have no place of their own to live or their current housing situation is tenuous. This group includes, among others, people who are doubled up... those who are living for short periods of time with friends or relatives and thus lack a fixed, regular nighttime residence.
Children often appear among the precariously housed population because parents who become homeless may place their children with friends or relatives in order to avoid literal homelessness for them. Because some individuals and families choose to share housing as a regular, stable, and long-term arrangement, distinguishing the precariously housed from those in stable sharing arrangements is difficult.
President Bush claimed that his FY2004 budget "helps America meet its goals both at home and overseas." Yet, upon examination of the budget numbers, the goals of many Americans appear not to have been included.
At a time when unprecedented numbers of families and individuals are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, the President proposed no new resources to meet their needs. His budget maintains funding levels for most homeless assistance programs; levels so woefully inadequate that each year record numbers of people are turned away from life-sustaining services.
In releasing his FY2004 budget, President Bush claimed "human compassion cannot be summarized in dollars and cents." Neither, can the untold suffering of the 1.35 million children whose lives will be disrupted by loss of housing and health care this year, or the sorrow of their parents, who struggle against the odds to provide stability and hope, or the frustration and pain of those who work but cannot afford housing, or the fear of those whose health conditions, coupled with lack of housing, threaten their very survival.
In particular, the President's Medicaid proposal threatens to leave many more families and children uninsured, dramatically increasing their risk of becoming homeless due to illness or injury. Children are especially vulnerable to losing coverage under the proposed merging of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Hunger and Starvation Increasing, Especially for Children
In 2001, the USDA reported that the number of Americans who were food insecure or hungry or at risk of hunger was 33.6 million. In the last year it is estimated that there has been an additional 5-10 million additional people who are now in jeopardy of hunger and starvation. T
http://www.coastalpost.com/03/09/17.htm
We went to war over a lie, says Crean
By John Kerin
September 16, 2003
JOHN Howard was yesterday accused of sending Australian troops to war on the basis of a lie as Simon Crean stepped up his attack on the Prime Minister's justification for invading Iraq.
Mr Crean said a British intelligence analysis that found attacking Iraq would increase the risks of terrorist attacks on the West demolished one of Mr Howard's pretexts that removing Saddam Hussein would help the war against terror.
On invasion day March 20, when Australian SAS soldiers were in western Iraq, Mr Howard said he believed the war would make it less likely that Australians would be targeted in terrorist attacks by removing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
"Prime Minister, why were you telling the Australian people the exact opposite to what the British intelligence agencies had told you a month before?" Mr Crean demanded.
"There can be no more reprehensible a position for a Prime Minister to take than sending young men to war based on a lie," he said.
But Mr Howard said he had not seen or been briefed on the report at the time and neither had his staff nor other ministers.
"It was the judgment of the Government that the longer-term proliferation and terrorism risk of leaving Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in place outweighed the shorter-term risks," Mr Howard said.
The parliamentary row follows a report last Thursday from the Intelligence and Security Committee of the British parliament, which said the Joint Intelligence Committee had judged in February that a collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare agents falling into the hands of terrorists.
The JIC analysis said there was no intelligence that Iraq had provided biological material to the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
The committee also told the Blair Government that al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations remained by far the greatest threat to Britain's security.
On February 27 as part of his justification for the coming war, Mr Howard said Iraq may pass on weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. He said yesterday the JIC report was received by Australian intelligence agencies on February 10.
Mr Howard told parliament yesterday that as was normal practice neither he, nor anyone in his office nor other Ministers had seen it, but it was used by Australian intelligence agencies to make their assessments on the risks posed by the war.
Mr Howard said one of the reasons the Government increased travel alerts after the war started was because of concerns raised by the JIC.
"It so happens that we thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, you thought leaving him there was the right thing to do," Mr Howard said.
"If the world had listened to the Australian Labor Party, Saddam would still be in Baghdad."
The Australian
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7280010%255E2,00.html
Humour: $1 billion international image campaign isn't enough to buy U.S. love
By Carl Weiser, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration spends $1 billion a year trying to polish the United States' image around the world, yet polls show anti-Americanism rising to record levels, especially in Muslim and Arab nations where the government is concentrating its efforts.
Now, a new report from Congress' General Accounting Office explains why the federal government's efforts at "public diplomacy" have been such a failure.
The report, released Sept. 4, concluded that the State Department's efforts have been scattershot and uncoordinated, foreign service officers charged with promoting the nation's image too often get stuck filling out paperwork, and one in five foreign service officers who are supposed to be helping America's image aren't fluent enough in the language of the country in which they're stationed.
Most damning, the report said the government isn't even trying to scientifically measure whether its public relations efforts are having any effect on foreign hearts and minds. Instead, it gauges success through anecdotes or even by how many speeches a local ambassador gives.
Public diplomacy spending has risen 9% in the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks — and more than 50% in the Middle East and South Asia. But a comprehensive poll in foreign countries this spring showed that in Muslim nations from Morocco to Indonesia the United States has never been more loathed. In many places Osama bin Laden gets more favorable ratings than President Bush.
"Americans are brilliant at communication. Why in the world we are all thumbs in this particular area just strikes me as one of the anomalies of history. But it's an important one to solve pretty fast," said Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
It's so important because the Bush administration believes public relations is a key part of the war on terror.
Public diplomacy, the government's effort to sway regular folks as opposed to government elites, became a top priority after the terrorist attacks. The Bush administration pledged to dispel mistaken impressions of America, challenge anti-American views, and tout the United States' good deeds around the world.
But report after report has criticized the government's public diplomacy efforts.
Charlotte Beers, the Bush administration's first undersecretary for public diplomacy, resigned earlier this year for health reasons and has not been replaced. The State Department itself said it largely concurred with the GAO's report.
Congress was so dismayed at public diplomacy results that it created a special commission to recommend how to reach the Arab and Muslim world better. That commission, headed by the State Department's former Middle East expert, Edward Djerejian, is supposed to report its findings Oct. 1.
One of the report's top criticisms: Unlike private companies, the federal government spends little on polling or focus groups abroad. Marketing and public relations experts the GAO interviewed said the $3.5 million the State Department spends on overseas opinion research is about a tenth of what it needs to spend.
"The people in the marketing department at Colgate, they're doing lots of research," said Charles "Tre" Evers III, president of an Orlando communications firm and since May a member of the U.S. Advisory Commission for Public Diplomacy.
Private and business groups aren't waiting for the government to solve its public diplomacy problems. A group of Kuwaiti and American citizens last week launched the American-Kuwait Alliance.
"Homeland security is too important to leave to the government alone," said Kenneth Minihan, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who helped organize the group.
Yousef H. Al-Ebraheem, a Kuwait University professor helping organize the alliance, said he believed perceptions of the United States among Arabs would improve if the United States makes good on its word to turn Iraq into a democracy.
"They want to see some results," he said. At the very least, they'd like to see the United States set some dates for elections or transition.
Earlier this summer, Keith Reinhard, chairman of advertising giant DDB Worldwide, organized business leaders — their names have not been released — to launch their own public diplomacy campaign.
Without government's bureaucracy, stifling mandates or money problems, business has more freedom to influence public opinion abroad.
"Anti-Americanism is indeed a business problem," Reinhard said. "And one that U.S. business is uniquely positioned to solve."
The United States has had some successes. A government-financed station broadcasting in the Middle East, called Radio Sawa, has proved hugely popular among Arab youth. Some question whether its news snippets are helping in the public relations battle — its songs are what draw listeners — but the government is sufficiently encouraged that it plans an Arabic-language satellite TV station later this year.
The $1 billion taxpayers spend is about evenly split between State Department efforts like exchange programs and talking to reporters, and broadcasting efforts, like Radio Free Europe, Voice of America and Sawa.
Barbara Barrett, a Phoenix lawyer who chairs the public diplomacy advisory commission for Public Diplomacy, said the government is still "retooling" its efforts after being geared toward fighting communism. Following the Soviet Union's collapse, public diplomacy all but disappeared from government priorities.
Evers, as well as the GAO, noted figuring out the exact impact of any public relations campaign can be hard. Some U.S. policies, no matter how well explained, will never be popular.
"The end result won't be perfect affection for America," Bennett said. "We will, however, keep working to have an honest and fair perception of America encouraged around the world."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-14-prawar-gns_x.htm
The virus rarely kills but in rare cases it can lead to deadly inflammation of the brain.
http://www.nbc4.tv/health/2485676/detail.html?treets=la&tid=2651905941813&tml=&tmi=&...
An odd way to put it...
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug"
~ Mark Twain