From the "it ain't just for breakfast anymore dept"
Marriage for all
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
full lyrics
Somebody has to ask what Jesus would say. They've already speculated on the kind of car He'd drive.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
"I RETURNED HOME ON APRIL 6, the day before my 60th birthday -- the beginning of the rest of my life, a cliche that suddenly had new meaning. Virtually everything suddenly had new meaning, beginning with "family" and "friends."... When friends now ask what lessons I learned from this adventure, my first answers are hardy perennials: Seize the day, appreciate the ordinary. Wisdom or just cliche, the label does not alter the satisfaction I can now take from a wife's smile, a daughter's tease, a friend's hug, the angular light of a bright winter sun in an infinite blue sky."Consider the "near death" experience
Consider the "lost opportunity costs" of not having one.
from the Washington Post
Friday, February 27, 2004
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2001/01/26/global_warming/index.html
January 26, 2001 | After this week's release of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report on global warming -- the strongest scientific evidence ever linking climate change to man's activities -- environmentalists and scientists say the time has come for President Bush to come up with a policy to address this slow-moving ecological crisis.
The study predicts that the Earth's temperature could increase up to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. In fact, it says we just exited the warmest decade in the last 140 years.
While there's been little doubt that the climate is indeed warming -- glaciers are retreating, sea levels are rising, precipitation is changing -- there have been some high-profile skeptics, Bush included. They question the science linking this general warming trend to things that humans do, such as burning fossil fuel, which releases carbon dioxide. The increase of carbon dioxide and methane, another greenhouse gas, is believed to enhance the "greenhouse effect" that traps heat in Earth's atmosphere that otherwise would be released.
"I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet and I don't think we've got all the facts," said Bush during his second presidential debate. (The president's office did not return phone calls from Salon seeking comment on his current position.)
January 26, 2001 | After this week's release of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report on global warming -- the strongest scientific evidence ever linking climate change to man's activities -- environmentalists and scientists say the time has come for President Bush to come up with a policy to address this slow-moving ecological crisis.
The study predicts that the Earth's temperature could increase up to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. In fact, it says we just exited the warmest decade in the last 140 years.
While there's been little doubt that the climate is indeed warming -- glaciers are retreating, sea levels are rising, precipitation is changing -- there have been some high-profile skeptics, Bush included. They question the science linking this general warming trend to things that humans do, such as burning fossil fuel, which releases carbon dioxide. The increase of carbon dioxide and methane, another greenhouse gas, is believed to enhance the "greenhouse effect" that traps heat in Earth's atmosphere that otherwise would be released.
"I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet and I don't think we've got all the facts," said Bush during his second presidential debate. (The president's office did not return phone calls from Salon seeking comment on his current position.)
Many distinguished scientists are accusing the Bush administration of
distorting and suppressing scientific analysis in the government's
decision-making process. Looks like finally they are drawing a line
in the sand. Some of their examples:
"The report charges that administration officials have:
Ordered massive changes to a section on global warming in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's 2003 Report on the Environment.
Eventually, the entire section was dropped.
Replaced a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet on
proper condom use with a warning emphasizing condom failure rates.
Ignored advice from top Department of Energy nuclear materials
experts who cautioned that aluminum tubes being imported by Iraq
weren't suitable for use to make nuclear weapons.
Established political litmus tests for scientific advisory boards. In
one case, public health experts were removed from a CDC lead paint
advisory panel and replaced with researchers who had financial ties
to the lead industry.
Suppressed a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist's finding
that potentially harmful bacteria float in the air surrounding large
hog farms.
Excluded scientists who've received federal grants from regulatory
advisory panels while permitting the appointment of scientists from
regulated industries.
"I don't recall it ever being so blatant in the past," said Princeton
University physicist Val Fitch, a 1980 Nobel Prize winner who served
on a Nixon administration science advisory committee. "It's just time
after time after time. The facts have been distorted." "
from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-02.htm
Also look at the report itself:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/RSI_final_exsum.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html
distorting and suppressing scientific analysis in the government's
decision-making process. Looks like finally they are drawing a line
in the sand. Some of their examples:
"The report charges that administration officials have:
Ordered massive changes to a section on global warming in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's 2003 Report on the Environment.
Eventually, the entire section was dropped.
Replaced a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet on
proper condom use with a warning emphasizing condom failure rates.
Ignored advice from top Department of Energy nuclear materials
experts who cautioned that aluminum tubes being imported by Iraq
weren't suitable for use to make nuclear weapons.
Established political litmus tests for scientific advisory boards. In
one case, public health experts were removed from a CDC lead paint
advisory panel and replaced with researchers who had financial ties
to the lead industry.
Suppressed a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist's finding
that potentially harmful bacteria float in the air surrounding large
hog farms.
Excluded scientists who've received federal grants from regulatory
advisory panels while permitting the appointment of scientists from
regulated industries.
"I don't recall it ever being so blatant in the past," said Princeton
University physicist Val Fitch, a 1980 Nobel Prize winner who served
on a Nixon administration science advisory committee. "It's just time
after time after time. The facts have been distorted." "
from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-02.htm
Also look at the report itself:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/RSI_final_exsum.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html
"An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security" (Oct. 2003)
by Peter Schwartz and Dough Randall
by Peter Schwartz and Dough Randall
Update on global warming? Or tabloid journalism.
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters....
gmb: the good ship Mother Earth is looking like the Titanic. No work for terrorists at all!
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters....
gmb: the good ship Mother Earth is looking like the Titanic. No work for terrorists at all!
PBS Frontline series - The Invasion of Iraq
I believe that the Frontline public affairs series on PBS has initiated a new trend in acquiring and disseminating to a mass audience, extremely timely and therefore highly sensitive information. The documentary below has interviews with Iraqi military commanders, U.S. generals, troops active in Iraq, etc. The people in this program are taking risks to talk as candidly as they do, risking being fired, damaging their careers, or even being targeted by the administration. We usually have to wait years and years to get this type of information out of the insiders. Definitely worth seeing.
Frontline: The Invasion of Iraq
Notes from Richard Sanders, the director and co-producer of "The Invasion of Iraq," on the making of the documentary.
"The Invasion of Iraq" was a joint venture between PBS/FRONTLINE and Channel 4 in Britain. It was almost a year in the making. Production began while the fighting was still in progress as producer Jeff Goldberg and I started to closely monitor newspaper and television reports of the fighting. We then began an exhaustive series of off-the-record interviews with journalists and photographers who had been embedded with British and U.S. units. It was this that first alerted us to what would become many of the key stories in the program.
At the same time we began negotiating with the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence over access. This proved a lengthy process. The British in particular were wary, having been unhappy with previous documentary projects on British television. Their approval didn't come through until September, although the Pentagon had given its blessing in June.
Having decided to come on board, both gave full access. Soldiers of all ranks were enormously generous of their time. Each on-camera interview was preceded by a lengthy, off-the-record, background interview. These interviews proved invaluable in filling out our understanding of the war.
In July 2003 associate producer Ani King-Underwood made an initial three-week research trip to Iraq. We were keen that the program should reflect the experiences of all sides in the conflict. Ani immediately began gathering testimony from Iraqi civilians who had been caught up in the fighting and putting out feelers to obtain interviews with high-ranking Iraqi military figures.
The filming in Iraq in August posed major logistical problems. Temperatures were frequently well over 50 degrees Centigrade (122 degrees Fahrenheit). And safety was a major issue. Banditry was widespread and western television crews appeared to be a popular target. There was also a fear that Westerners in general were becoming targets of the insurgency. A young English freelancer had been shot in the head in a Baghdad street in July. Once filming began in August, suicide bombings quickly became a major issue. In Baghdad there was a curfew and travel between towns after dark was not an option.
Ordinary Iraqis were hospitable and willing and eager to share their experiences with us. Initially a number of senior military figures were also lined up for interviews. But as the situation in Iraq deteriorated over the summer of 2003, one by one they dropped out, or simply disappeared. Fear of the Fedayeen, of the insurgency, of the local population, and of the coalition forces all played a part. But one interviewee remained -- General Raad Majid Al-Hamdani, who had been the Supreme Commander of the Republican Guard divisions to the south of Baghdad. He became a key voice in the program.
A three-week whistle-stop tour of Army, Marine and Air Force bases around the U.S. followed in September and October. Then we interviewed Marc Garlasco in New York. Now a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, during the war he had been the chief of high-value targeting at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. He provided a dramatic exposé of intelligence failings during the conflict.
A crew returned to Iraq in the new year to tie up some loose ends. They paid a visit to General Al-Hamdani. He told them he had been offered a job in the new Iraqi army, but had declined. Today he drives a taxi.
Richard Sanders
Feb. 26, 2004
I believe that the Frontline public affairs series on PBS has initiated a new trend in acquiring and disseminating to a mass audience, extremely timely and therefore highly sensitive information. The documentary below has interviews with Iraqi military commanders, U.S. generals, troops active in Iraq, etc. The people in this program are taking risks to talk as candidly as they do, risking being fired, damaging their careers, or even being targeted by the administration. We usually have to wait years and years to get this type of information out of the insiders. Definitely worth seeing.
Frontline: The Invasion of Iraq
Notes from Richard Sanders, the director and co-producer of "The Invasion of Iraq," on the making of the documentary.
"The Invasion of Iraq" was a joint venture between PBS/FRONTLINE and Channel 4 in Britain. It was almost a year in the making. Production began while the fighting was still in progress as producer Jeff Goldberg and I started to closely monitor newspaper and television reports of the fighting. We then began an exhaustive series of off-the-record interviews with journalists and photographers who had been embedded with British and U.S. units. It was this that first alerted us to what would become many of the key stories in the program.
At the same time we began negotiating with the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence over access. This proved a lengthy process. The British in particular were wary, having been unhappy with previous documentary projects on British television. Their approval didn't come through until September, although the Pentagon had given its blessing in June.
Having decided to come on board, both gave full access. Soldiers of all ranks were enormously generous of their time. Each on-camera interview was preceded by a lengthy, off-the-record, background interview. These interviews proved invaluable in filling out our understanding of the war.
In July 2003 associate producer Ani King-Underwood made an initial three-week research trip to Iraq. We were keen that the program should reflect the experiences of all sides in the conflict. Ani immediately began gathering testimony from Iraqi civilians who had been caught up in the fighting and putting out feelers to obtain interviews with high-ranking Iraqi military figures.
The filming in Iraq in August posed major logistical problems. Temperatures were frequently well over 50 degrees Centigrade (122 degrees Fahrenheit). And safety was a major issue. Banditry was widespread and western television crews appeared to be a popular target. There was also a fear that Westerners in general were becoming targets of the insurgency. A young English freelancer had been shot in the head in a Baghdad street in July. Once filming began in August, suicide bombings quickly became a major issue. In Baghdad there was a curfew and travel between towns after dark was not an option.
Ordinary Iraqis were hospitable and willing and eager to share their experiences with us. Initially a number of senior military figures were also lined up for interviews. But as the situation in Iraq deteriorated over the summer of 2003, one by one they dropped out, or simply disappeared. Fear of the Fedayeen, of the insurgency, of the local population, and of the coalition forces all played a part. But one interviewee remained -- General Raad Majid Al-Hamdani, who had been the Supreme Commander of the Republican Guard divisions to the south of Baghdad. He became a key voice in the program.
A three-week whistle-stop tour of Army, Marine and Air Force bases around the U.S. followed in September and October. Then we interviewed Marc Garlasco in New York. Now a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, during the war he had been the chief of high-value targeting at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. He provided a dramatic exposé of intelligence failings during the conflict.
A crew returned to Iraq in the new year to tie up some loose ends. They paid a visit to General Al-Hamdani. He told them he had been offered a job in the new Iraqi army, but had declined. Today he drives a taxi.
Richard Sanders
Feb. 26, 2004
Thursday, February 26, 2004
You know, when a bleeding heart liberal like me has to sit around lecturing a Republican administration on fiscal responsibility, we're in a sorry pass. I watch the entire corporate and financial structure of this country running around raising money like crazy for the re-election of George W. Bush, and I am reminded once more that capitalism will destroy itself if you let it.
Molly Ivans
Molly Ivans
Antibiotics legislation needs your support today!
Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) recently joined their House colleagues, Representatives Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) to introduce legislation that, if enacted, will end the overuse of medically important antibiotics in animal agriculture.
The overuse of antibiotics contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans that are costly and difficult to treat. Moreover, the burden of antibiotic resistance is borne by the most vulnerable in our society: children, the elderly, and those with already weakened immune systems, such as people undergoing chemotherapy or persons with HIV/AIDS.
The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (S. 1460/H.R. 2932) will phase out the practice of feeding massive quantities of antibiotics to food animals within two years of enactment. Livestock and poultry producers misuse these life-saving medicines to accelerate animal growth and prevent diseases caused by overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on industrial-style factory farms, not to treat disease. An estimated 70% of antibiotics and related drugs produced in this country--nearly 25 million pounds per year--are used in animal agriculture for these nontherapeutic purposes. This amount is more than 8 times the antibiotics and related drugs used to treat human illness.
While some producers and retailers of meat products have announced policies that take steps to curb antibiotic use, private-sector initiatives to reduce antibiotic use in animal agriculture are rare, limited in scope, and difficult to verify. Federal action is needed to achieve comprehensive reductions and create a level playing field for all producers and retailers.
Passage of The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act is critical to keep antibiotics working for human health. In addition to averting the harmful effects of antibiotic overuse on human health, ending this practice will force producers to raise animals using more sustainable methods.
The American Medical Association and over 300 other health, consumer, environmental, agricultural, and humane organizations support The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.
Your voice is needed to build support for this critical legislation. Write to your Senators and member of Congress and urge them to cosponsor this legislation to preserve antibiotics as an important tool to protect human health!
From house.gov Search for H.R. 2932
(5)(A) an estimated 70 percent of the antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs used in the United States are fed to farm animals for nontherapeutic purposes, including--
(i) growth promotion; and
(ii) compensation for crowded, unsanitary, and stressful farming and transportation conditions; and
(B) unlike human use of antibiotics, these nontherapeutic uses in animals typically do not require a prescription;
Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) recently joined their House colleagues, Representatives Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) to introduce legislation that, if enacted, will end the overuse of medically important antibiotics in animal agriculture.
The overuse of antibiotics contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans that are costly and difficult to treat. Moreover, the burden of antibiotic resistance is borne by the most vulnerable in our society: children, the elderly, and those with already weakened immune systems, such as people undergoing chemotherapy or persons with HIV/AIDS.
The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (S. 1460/H.R. 2932) will phase out the practice of feeding massive quantities of antibiotics to food animals within two years of enactment. Livestock and poultry producers misuse these life-saving medicines to accelerate animal growth and prevent diseases caused by overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on industrial-style factory farms, not to treat disease. An estimated 70% of antibiotics and related drugs produced in this country--nearly 25 million pounds per year--are used in animal agriculture for these nontherapeutic purposes. This amount is more than 8 times the antibiotics and related drugs used to treat human illness.
While some producers and retailers of meat products have announced policies that take steps to curb antibiotic use, private-sector initiatives to reduce antibiotic use in animal agriculture are rare, limited in scope, and difficult to verify. Federal action is needed to achieve comprehensive reductions and create a level playing field for all producers and retailers.
Passage of The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act is critical to keep antibiotics working for human health. In addition to averting the harmful effects of antibiotic overuse on human health, ending this practice will force producers to raise animals using more sustainable methods.
The American Medical Association and over 300 other health, consumer, environmental, agricultural, and humane organizations support The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.
Your voice is needed to build support for this critical legislation. Write to your Senators and member of Congress and urge them to cosponsor this legislation to preserve antibiotics as an important tool to protect human health!
From house.gov Search for H.R. 2932
(5)(A) an estimated 70 percent of the antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs used in the United States are fed to farm animals for nontherapeutic purposes, including--
(i) growth promotion; and
(ii) compensation for crowded, unsanitary, and stressful farming and transportation conditions; and
(B) unlike human use of antibiotics, these nontherapeutic uses in animals typically do not require a prescription;
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
'Grey Album' Exposes Gray Areas of Copyright Law
As part of a mass protest last Tuesday against record company EMI, more than 150 Web sites offered free downloads of "The Grey Album," a compilation of tracks from the Beatles' "White Album" and rapper Jay-Z's "The Black Album."
Protestors say a work like the "Grey Album" should be permissible under the "fair use" doctrine. Recording industry lawyers saw the protest as nothing more than widespread copyright infringement.
Jonathan Zittrain, a director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, says, "As a matter of pure legal doctrine, the Grey Tuesday protest is breaking the law, end of story." However, Zittrain adds that the copyright laws weren't passed with today's technologies in mind.
"Defiant Downloads Rise From Underground," Infoshop News, Feb. 25.
Keywords: copyright, fair use, file-sharing, Internet, music
// posted by Debbi @ 11:42 PM
'Grey Album' Exposes Gray Areas of Copyright Law
As part of a mass protest last Tuesday against record company EMI, more than 150 Web sites offered free downloads of "The Grey Album," a compilation of tracks from the Beatles' "White Album" and rapper Jay-Z's "The Black Album."
Protestors say a work like the "Grey Album" should be permissible under the "fair use" doctrine. Recording industry lawyers saw the protest as nothing more than widespread copyright infringement.
Jonathan Zittrain, a director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, says, "As a matter of pure legal doctrine, the Grey Tuesday protest is breaking the law, end of story." However, Zittrain adds that the copyright laws weren't passed with today's technologies in mind.
"Defiant Downloads Rise From Underground," Infoshop News, Feb. 25.
Keywords: copyright, fair use, file-sharing, Internet, music
// posted by Debbi @ 11:42 PM
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Why may the state recognize a contract formed under an organization not subject to the laws of the state? Why may that state deny certain contracts formed in those churches? Some aspects of a marriage are against the law, while some are made into law.
Civil unions are the realm of the state the those unions are subject to enforcement and management under the state. Marriage is the realm of the spiritual, and is separate from the state. Churches are free to define a sacrament of marriage, and who may participate. The church may NOT call on the state to enforce a church definition. Nor may the state demand that the church must perform the marriage according to the rules of the state.
George Bush would change the equal protection clause of the constitution.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
From Harpers:
An internal Pentagon report warned that global climate
change will soon lead to drought, famine, and widespread
warfare as countries begin to fight over scarce water, food,
and energy supplies. Climate change, the report argues,
"should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern."
An internal Pentagon report warned that global climate
change will soon lead to drought, famine, and widespread
warfare as countries begin to fight over scarce water, food,
and energy supplies. Climate change, the report argues,
"should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern."
If this isn't a reason for a strong military and nulcear weapons, I don't know what is!
Monday, February 23, 2004
The Military-Industrial Complex
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Reading this whole speech is like a road map. What Eisenhower warns us against, the neo-fascists are doing. Can we predict the future by reading this speech?
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Reading this whole speech is like a road map. What Eisenhower warns us against, the neo-fascists are doing. Can we predict the future by reading this speech?
Postcards from Iran: Surfing the net
In the run-up to parliamentary elections in Iran, Abbas Azimi, a writer from the BBC Persian Service, gives a snapshot of an aspect of contemporary life in the Islamic Republic.
Gulestan internet café is the kind of place you want to spend some time. Tucked into the corner of a busy market in west Tehran, it's tastefully decorated with plants and pictures of mountains and seascapes. more...
gmb: (alas, we in the US still depend on corporate media)
In the run-up to parliamentary elections in Iran, Abbas Azimi, a writer from the BBC Persian Service, gives a snapshot of an aspect of contemporary life in the Islamic Republic.
Gulestan internet café is the kind of place you want to spend some time. Tucked into the corner of a busy market in west Tehran, it's tastefully decorated with plants and pictures of mountains and seascapes. more...
gmb: (alas, we in the US still depend on corporate media)
Friday, February 20, 2004
Cheap Fast Eyeglasses from a Desktop Fabricator
Slashdot Friday February 20
from the blind-as-a-bat dept.
purduephotog writes "Doctoral candidate Saul Griffith of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and inventor of the Lego powered chocolate printer was awarded the Lemelson-MIT Student Prize for inventing a device that molds eyeglasses rapidly and cheaply. Best of all, he's motivated for the good of humanity."
here
Slashdot Friday February 20
from the blind-as-a-bat dept.
purduephotog writes "Doctoral candidate Saul Griffith of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and inventor of the Lego powered chocolate printer was awarded the Lemelson-MIT Student Prize for inventing a device that molds eyeglasses rapidly and cheaply. Best of all, he's motivated for the good of humanity."
here
Thursday, February 19, 2004
A really great speech by Al Gore... starts at minute 15...
here
amazing!
This is much more than a political speech... it is a lesson in the processes of modern democracy.
here
amazing!
This is much more than a political speech... it is a lesson in the processes of modern democracy.
WASHINGTON - A group of more than 60 top U.S. scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and several science advisers to past Republican presidents, on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes.
On February 9th, President Bush endorsed and personally signed his name to a
White House economic report that promised he would create 2.6 million jobs
by the end of 2004. The report was released to great fanfare, yet, less than
two weeks later, the president and his top Cabinet officials are now
refusing to stand by those predictions.
here
Its taking Bush at least 2 weeks now to disavow his statements.... somebody is falling down on the job!
White House economic report that promised he would create 2.6 million jobs
by the end of 2004. The report was released to great fanfare, yet, less than
two weeks later, the president and his top Cabinet officials are now
refusing to stand by those predictions.
here
Its taking Bush at least 2 weeks now to disavow his statements.... somebody is falling down on the job!
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
From the article below
"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," he testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was funny."
Nevertheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to more than 3 years in prison.
Threats Against the President
by Paul Krassner
Groucho Marx said in an interview with Flash magazine in 1971, "I think the only hope this country has is Nixon's assassination." Yet he was not subsequently arrested for threatening the life of a president. In view of the indictment against David Hilliard, chief of staff of the Black Panther Party, for using similar rhetoric, I wrote to the Justice Department to find out the status of their case against Groucho. This was the response:
Dear Mr. Krassner:
Responding to your inquiry of July 7th, the United States Supreme Court has held that Title 18 U.S.C., Section 871, prohibits only "true" threats. It is one thing to say that "I (or we) will kill Richard Nixon" when you are the leader of an organization which advocates killing people and overthrowing the Government; it is quite another to utter the words which are attributed to Mr. Marx, an alleged comedian. It was the opinion of both myself and the United States Attorney in Los Angeles (where Marx's words were alleged to have been uttered) that the latter utterance did not constitute a "true" threat.
Very truly yours,
James L. Browning, Jr.
United States Attorney
At the time, I was the host of a radio talk show on ABC's FM station in San Francisco. Naturally, I went on the air and read that letter. And then I added, "Well, I'm an alleged comedian. Kill Richard Nixon." But I would never get away with doing something like that in these ultra-fearful times.
In July 2003, the Los Angeles Times published a Sunday editorial cartoon by conservative Michael Ramirez. Depicting a man pointing a gun at President Bush's head, it was a takeoff on the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo from 1968 that showed a Vietnamese general executing a Viet Cong lieutenant at point-blank range. In the cartoon, the man with the gun was labeled "Politics" and the background was labeled "Iraq."
"I thought it was appropriate," said Ramirez, "because I was drawing a parallel between the politization of the Vietnam war and the current politization that's surrounding the Iraq war related to the Niger uranium story." He said that he was not advocating violence against Bush. "In fact, it's the opposite."
He explained that he was trying to show that Bush was being undermined by critics who said the president overstated the threat posed by Iraq and lied in his State of the Union speech about Saddam Hussein's alleged effort to illegally obtain uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons. Bush has since admitted that the accusation was based on faulty intelligence.
"President Bush is the target, metaphorically speaking," he said, "of a political assassination because of 16 words that he uttered in the State of the Union. The image, from the Vietnam era, is a very disturbing image. The political attack on the president, based strictly on sheer political motivations, also is very disturbing."
Nevertheless, the cartoon was enough to prompt a visit on Monday by a Secret Service agent who asked to speak with Ramirez. He was turned away by an attorney for the Times. The agent had called Ramirez and asked if he could visit. Ramirez assumed it was a hoax and jokingly said yes.
"How do I know you're with the Secret Service?" he asked.
"Well," replied the agent, "I've got a black suit and black sunglasses and credentials."
"Sure, come on down, and make sure you bring your credentials." The agent arrived half an hour later.
However, in an interview by Brooke Gladstone on WNYC radio, Ramirez said, "The firestorm began actually with Matt Drudge's report on Sunday evening, which was a little interesting because he had the headline on his report that said that I was being investigated by the Secret Service. And I really wasn't contacted by the Secret Service until the next morning at 10:30."
Gladstone: "Sounds like he has a line in to the Secret Service."
Ramirez: "I think Matt Drudge is with the Secret Service."
Gladstone: "Now, threatening the president is against federal law, and it's the Secret Service's job to protect the president against potential threats. Do you think that Bush's security detail should have felt threatened by your cartoon?"
Ramirez: "No, I think that this is a pretty famous image, and I think the use of the metaphor [is justified] especially in light of the fact that it really is a cartoon that favors him and his administration." That irony aside, if Bush were actually assassinated, then Vice President Dick Cheney would be demoted to the presidency.
Other examples of the thought police in action:
A man who shall remain anonymous sent Bush a letter saying that if he required a smallpox shot for the troops, he should get a shot himself. He was visited by a Secret Service agent. Another man, Richard Humphreys, happened to get into a harmless bar-room discussion with a truck driver. A bartender who overheard the conversation realized that Bush was scheduled to visit nearby Sioux Falls the next day, and he told police that Humphreys--who was actually making a joke with a Biblical reference--had talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone pouring a flammable liquid on Bush and lighting it. Humphreys was arrested for threatening the president.
"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," he testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was funny."
Nevertheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to more than 3 years in prison. He decided to appeal, on the basis that his comment was a prophecy, protected under his right to freedom of speech.
In August, Donnie Johnston, reporter for the Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Virginia, wrote about the trickle-down effect of such official repression:
"A few days ago, a public official called me over to his car to discuss his displeasure with the war in Iraq and the way the Bush administration is handling the nation's economy. This well-respected man would talk only from his vehicle, saying he was fearful of criticizing the president or his policies in public. Before our conversation ended, the man told me of other public officials who also are fearful of speaking out. 'You have to be careful what you say in public these days,' he added...."
"Almost daily, someone informs me that he is scared of openly expressing his views. Even those who do dare to speak out do so in hushed tones, fearful of what ears might overhear. In the politically charged atmosphere that exists in America today, having the wrong person hear criticism of the government can lead to trouble. That became evident recently when an entertainer [a singer] who innocently joked that President Bush had 'chicken legs' was banned from performing further at Borders Books and Music in Fredericksburg."
The nation continues to gallop toward a police state in the guise of security. And, in the process, rampant paranoia has now become our Gross National Product. Some elementary schools have even gone so far as to ban parents from bringing cameras to record their children performing in the annual Christmas pageant, because authorities are afraid that those videotapes might somehow find their way into the horny hands of breathless pedophiles.
Paul Krassner can be reached at www.paulkrassner.com
"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," he testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was funny."
Nevertheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to more than 3 years in prison.
Threats Against the President
by Paul Krassner
Groucho Marx said in an interview with Flash magazine in 1971, "I think the only hope this country has is Nixon's assassination." Yet he was not subsequently arrested for threatening the life of a president. In view of the indictment against David Hilliard, chief of staff of the Black Panther Party, for using similar rhetoric, I wrote to the Justice Department to find out the status of their case against Groucho. This was the response:
Dear Mr. Krassner:
Responding to your inquiry of July 7th, the United States Supreme Court has held that Title 18 U.S.C., Section 871, prohibits only "true" threats. It is one thing to say that "I (or we) will kill Richard Nixon" when you are the leader of an organization which advocates killing people and overthrowing the Government; it is quite another to utter the words which are attributed to Mr. Marx, an alleged comedian. It was the opinion of both myself and the United States Attorney in Los Angeles (where Marx's words were alleged to have been uttered) that the latter utterance did not constitute a "true" threat.
Very truly yours,
James L. Browning, Jr.
United States Attorney
At the time, I was the host of a radio talk show on ABC's FM station in San Francisco. Naturally, I went on the air and read that letter. And then I added, "Well, I'm an alleged comedian. Kill Richard Nixon." But I would never get away with doing something like that in these ultra-fearful times.
In July 2003, the Los Angeles Times published a Sunday editorial cartoon by conservative Michael Ramirez. Depicting a man pointing a gun at President Bush's head, it was a takeoff on the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo from 1968 that showed a Vietnamese general executing a Viet Cong lieutenant at point-blank range. In the cartoon, the man with the gun was labeled "Politics" and the background was labeled "Iraq."
"I thought it was appropriate," said Ramirez, "because I was drawing a parallel between the politization of the Vietnam war and the current politization that's surrounding the Iraq war related to the Niger uranium story." He said that he was not advocating violence against Bush. "In fact, it's the opposite."
He explained that he was trying to show that Bush was being undermined by critics who said the president overstated the threat posed by Iraq and lied in his State of the Union speech about Saddam Hussein's alleged effort to illegally obtain uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons. Bush has since admitted that the accusation was based on faulty intelligence.
"President Bush is the target, metaphorically speaking," he said, "of a political assassination because of 16 words that he uttered in the State of the Union. The image, from the Vietnam era, is a very disturbing image. The political attack on the president, based strictly on sheer political motivations, also is very disturbing."
Nevertheless, the cartoon was enough to prompt a visit on Monday by a Secret Service agent who asked to speak with Ramirez. He was turned away by an attorney for the Times. The agent had called Ramirez and asked if he could visit. Ramirez assumed it was a hoax and jokingly said yes.
"How do I know you're with the Secret Service?" he asked.
"Well," replied the agent, "I've got a black suit and black sunglasses and credentials."
"Sure, come on down, and make sure you bring your credentials." The agent arrived half an hour later.
However, in an interview by Brooke Gladstone on WNYC radio, Ramirez said, "The firestorm began actually with Matt Drudge's report on Sunday evening, which was a little interesting because he had the headline on his report that said that I was being investigated by the Secret Service. And I really wasn't contacted by the Secret Service until the next morning at 10:30."
Gladstone: "Sounds like he has a line in to the Secret Service."
Ramirez: "I think Matt Drudge is with the Secret Service."
Gladstone: "Now, threatening the president is against federal law, and it's the Secret Service's job to protect the president against potential threats. Do you think that Bush's security detail should have felt threatened by your cartoon?"
Ramirez: "No, I think that this is a pretty famous image, and I think the use of the metaphor [is justified] especially in light of the fact that it really is a cartoon that favors him and his administration." That irony aside, if Bush were actually assassinated, then Vice President Dick Cheney would be demoted to the presidency.
Other examples of the thought police in action:
A man who shall remain anonymous sent Bush a letter saying that if he required a smallpox shot for the troops, he should get a shot himself. He was visited by a Secret Service agent. Another man, Richard Humphreys, happened to get into a harmless bar-room discussion with a truck driver. A bartender who overheard the conversation realized that Bush was scheduled to visit nearby Sioux Falls the next day, and he told police that Humphreys--who was actually making a joke with a Biblical reference--had talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone pouring a flammable liquid on Bush and lighting it. Humphreys was arrested for threatening the president.
"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," he testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was funny."
Nevertheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to more than 3 years in prison. He decided to appeal, on the basis that his comment was a prophecy, protected under his right to freedom of speech.
In August, Donnie Johnston, reporter for the Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Virginia, wrote about the trickle-down effect of such official repression:
"A few days ago, a public official called me over to his car to discuss his displeasure with the war in Iraq and the way the Bush administration is handling the nation's economy. This well-respected man would talk only from his vehicle, saying he was fearful of criticizing the president or his policies in public. Before our conversation ended, the man told me of other public officials who also are fearful of speaking out. 'You have to be careful what you say in public these days,' he added...."
"Almost daily, someone informs me that he is scared of openly expressing his views. Even those who do dare to speak out do so in hushed tones, fearful of what ears might overhear. In the politically charged atmosphere that exists in America today, having the wrong person hear criticism of the government can lead to trouble. That became evident recently when an entertainer [a singer] who innocently joked that President Bush had 'chicken legs' was banned from performing further at Borders Books and Music in Fredericksburg."
The nation continues to gallop toward a police state in the guise of security. And, in the process, rampant paranoia has now become our Gross National Product. Some elementary schools have even gone so far as to ban parents from bringing cameras to record their children performing in the annual Christmas pageant, because authorities are afraid that those videotapes might somehow find their way into the horny hands of breathless pedophiles.
Paul Krassner can be reached at www.paulkrassner.com
Today my candidacy may come to an end—but our campaign for change is not over.
I want to thank each and every person who has supported this campaign. Over the last year, you have reached out to neighbors, friends, family and colleagues—building one American at a time the greatest grassroots campaign presidential politics has ever seen. I will never forget the work and the heart that you put into our campaign.
In the coming weeks, we will be launching a new initiative to continue the campaign you helped begin. Please continue to come to www.deanforamerica.com for updates and news as our new initiative develops. There is much work still to be done, and today is not an end—it is just the beginning.
This Party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process. I want you to think about how far we have come. The truth is: change is tough. There is enormous institutional pressure in our country against change. There is enormous institutional pressure in Washington against change, in the Democratic Party against change. Yet, you have already started to change the Party and together we have transformed this race. Along the way, we’ve engaged hundreds of thousands of new Americans in the political process, as witnessed by this year’s record participation in the primaries and caucuses.
The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back.
Gov. Howard Dean M.D.
I want to thank each and every person who has supported this campaign. Over the last year, you have reached out to neighbors, friends, family and colleagues—building one American at a time the greatest grassroots campaign presidential politics has ever seen. I will never forget the work and the heart that you put into our campaign.
In the coming weeks, we will be launching a new initiative to continue the campaign you helped begin. Please continue to come to www.deanforamerica.com for updates and news as our new initiative develops. There is much work still to be done, and today is not an end—it is just the beginning.
This Party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process. I want you to think about how far we have come. The truth is: change is tough. There is enormous institutional pressure in our country against change. There is enormous institutional pressure in Washington against change, in the Democratic Party against change. Yet, you have already started to change the Party and together we have transformed this race. Along the way, we’ve engaged hundreds of thousands of new Americans in the political process, as witnessed by this year’s record participation in the primaries and caucuses.
The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back.
Gov. Howard Dean M.D.
Too Much of a Good Thing
John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.
There's a saying that goes “History doesn't repeat itself. Only we can do that.”
With the stock market trading at nearly 22 times peak earnings (the historical median is 11), and 62 times dividends (the historical median is 26); a market in which corporate insiders are liquidating stocks at upward of 5.7 shares sold for every share purchased (Vickers), while just 14.6% of individual investors (AAII) and 19.2% of investment advisors (Investor's Intelligence) are bearish, it is clear that investors are already far along the path to repeating their mistakes.
Last month, new inflows into mutual funds hit $40.8 billion – the highest figure on record. One would think that this might have bullish implications, at least over the short run. But then, one would be wrong. Mutual fund inflows are statistically correlated with movements in the stock market, but they are both a lagging and a contrary indicator. Specifically, mutual fund inflows are positively correlated with past stock market movements, and negatively correlated with subsequent stock market movements. The strength of these correlations is strongest about 12 months in either direction. So for example, strong gains in the stock market over the prior 12 months are reliably associated with above average mutual fund inflows, which are in turn associated with below average stock market returns over the following 12 months.
Interestingly, this isn't just a case of strong market returns in one year being followed by weaker returns the next. The mutual fund inflows do add independent explanatory power. So for example, if mutual fund inflows are stronger than can be explained simply by the past year's market strength, the market's performance over the following 12 months also tends to be weaker than can be explained simply by the past year's market returns. These correlations aren't strong enough to make reliable market forecasts, but it's clearly incorrect to interpret heavy mutual fund inflows as bullish evidence. Probably the best conclusion to draw is simply that the recent data on mutual fund inflows are consistent with the extremes we see in other contrary indicators such as bullish sentiment.
Fundamentals don't drive short-term market direction
Nothing in these remarks should be interpreted as a forecast of impending market weakness, particularly over the short term. As I frequently emphasize, overvaluation does not imply poor short-term returns. Rather, overvaluation means only that stocks are priced to deliver disappointing long-term returns. What matters in the short-term is investor's willingness to take risk. That's a psychological preference, and it's impossible to stand in front of investors saying “No, enough is enough.” All we can do is attempt to read investor's risk preferences out of market action. Hands down, the worst losses for stocks have historically occurred when valuations were elevated and investors became skittish toward risk, as evidenced by market action.
In my view, the major stock market indices have little investment merit from the standpoint of valuations, but there still enough speculative merit to warrant some exposure to market risk. What is essential, however, is the recognition that we are taking risk purely on the basis of speculative merit, that we have already established a line of defense against the potential failure of that speculative merit, and that our exposure to risk is modest and proportional to the return/risk profile that we currently observe.
Mistaking earnings trends for investment value
Unfortunately, many investors and analysts honestly seem to believe the idea that stock valuations are justified by fundamentals, and that at worst, stocks have run up a bit too fast over the short run.
That's where we part company. Investors' willingness to ignore value is based on a mistaken focus on earnings trends rather than levels; a belief that so long as earnings and the economy are improving, the actual prices paid for stocks will be justified by those fundamentals.
Unfortunately, this is the same faith that investors displayed at many market peaks throughout history, not least in 1929. As Benjamin Graham and David Dodd later wrote in their 1934 book, Security Analysis:
“The 'new-era' doctrine - that 'good' stocks (or 'blue chips') were sound investments regardless of how high the price paid for them -- was at bottom only a means for rationalizing under the title of 'investment' the well-nigh universal capitulation to the gambling fever… Why did the investing public turn its attention from dividends, from asset values, and from earnings, to transfer it almost exclusively to the earnings trend? The answer was, first, that the records of the past were proving an undependable guide to investment; and secondly, that the rewards offered by the future had become irresistibly alluring ... The notion that the desirability of a common stock was entirely independent of its prices seems incredibly absurd. Yet the new-era theory led directly to this thesis. If a stock was selling at 35 times the maximum recorded earnings, instead of 10 times its average earnings, which was the pre-boom standard, the conclusion to be drawn was not that the stock was too high but merely that the standard of value had been raised. Instead of judging the market price by established standards of value, the new-era based its standards of value on the market price.”
That willingness of investors to turn their attention “from dividends, from asset values, and from earnings, to transfer it almost exclusively to the earnings trend,” is something that we need to watch carefully. This doesn't mean that stock prices have to turn down anytime soon. But it is dangerous to assume that stocks are priced to deliver strong long-term returns to buy-and-hold investors.
more...
John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.
There's a saying that goes “History doesn't repeat itself. Only we can do that.”
With the stock market trading at nearly 22 times peak earnings (the historical median is 11), and 62 times dividends (the historical median is 26); a market in which corporate insiders are liquidating stocks at upward of 5.7 shares sold for every share purchased (Vickers), while just 14.6% of individual investors (AAII) and 19.2% of investment advisors (Investor's Intelligence) are bearish, it is clear that investors are already far along the path to repeating their mistakes.
Last month, new inflows into mutual funds hit $40.8 billion – the highest figure on record. One would think that this might have bullish implications, at least over the short run. But then, one would be wrong. Mutual fund inflows are statistically correlated with movements in the stock market, but they are both a lagging and a contrary indicator. Specifically, mutual fund inflows are positively correlated with past stock market movements, and negatively correlated with subsequent stock market movements. The strength of these correlations is strongest about 12 months in either direction. So for example, strong gains in the stock market over the prior 12 months are reliably associated with above average mutual fund inflows, which are in turn associated with below average stock market returns over the following 12 months.
Interestingly, this isn't just a case of strong market returns in one year being followed by weaker returns the next. The mutual fund inflows do add independent explanatory power. So for example, if mutual fund inflows are stronger than can be explained simply by the past year's market strength, the market's performance over the following 12 months also tends to be weaker than can be explained simply by the past year's market returns. These correlations aren't strong enough to make reliable market forecasts, but it's clearly incorrect to interpret heavy mutual fund inflows as bullish evidence. Probably the best conclusion to draw is simply that the recent data on mutual fund inflows are consistent with the extremes we see in other contrary indicators such as bullish sentiment.
Fundamentals don't drive short-term market direction
Nothing in these remarks should be interpreted as a forecast of impending market weakness, particularly over the short term. As I frequently emphasize, overvaluation does not imply poor short-term returns. Rather, overvaluation means only that stocks are priced to deliver disappointing long-term returns. What matters in the short-term is investor's willingness to take risk. That's a psychological preference, and it's impossible to stand in front of investors saying “No, enough is enough.” All we can do is attempt to read investor's risk preferences out of market action. Hands down, the worst losses for stocks have historically occurred when valuations were elevated and investors became skittish toward risk, as evidenced by market action.
In my view, the major stock market indices have little investment merit from the standpoint of valuations, but there still enough speculative merit to warrant some exposure to market risk. What is essential, however, is the recognition that we are taking risk purely on the basis of speculative merit, that we have already established a line of defense against the potential failure of that speculative merit, and that our exposure to risk is modest and proportional to the return/risk profile that we currently observe.
Mistaking earnings trends for investment value
Unfortunately, many investors and analysts honestly seem to believe the idea that stock valuations are justified by fundamentals, and that at worst, stocks have run up a bit too fast over the short run.
That's where we part company. Investors' willingness to ignore value is based on a mistaken focus on earnings trends rather than levels; a belief that so long as earnings and the economy are improving, the actual prices paid for stocks will be justified by those fundamentals.
Unfortunately, this is the same faith that investors displayed at many market peaks throughout history, not least in 1929. As Benjamin Graham and David Dodd later wrote in their 1934 book, Security Analysis:
“The 'new-era' doctrine - that 'good' stocks (or 'blue chips') were sound investments regardless of how high the price paid for them -- was at bottom only a means for rationalizing under the title of 'investment' the well-nigh universal capitulation to the gambling fever… Why did the investing public turn its attention from dividends, from asset values, and from earnings, to transfer it almost exclusively to the earnings trend? The answer was, first, that the records of the past were proving an undependable guide to investment; and secondly, that the rewards offered by the future had become irresistibly alluring ... The notion that the desirability of a common stock was entirely independent of its prices seems incredibly absurd. Yet the new-era theory led directly to this thesis. If a stock was selling at 35 times the maximum recorded earnings, instead of 10 times its average earnings, which was the pre-boom standard, the conclusion to be drawn was not that the stock was too high but merely that the standard of value had been raised. Instead of judging the market price by established standards of value, the new-era based its standards of value on the market price.”
That willingness of investors to turn their attention “from dividends, from asset values, and from earnings, to transfer it almost exclusively to the earnings trend,” is something that we need to watch carefully. This doesn't mean that stock prices have to turn down anytime soon. But it is dangerous to assume that stocks are priced to deliver strong long-term returns to buy-and-hold investors.
more...
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
All fiber all the time here
This is not the first time the idea has been promulgated (peter somethingorother about 4 years ago) but here it is again.
Now, if you add the notion of the 100 all digital theatres going into Brazil, that's another thing. Holographic virutual reality projection can't be far behind. A test: think of something that simply can't be done: that's probably the way to find out what the next product is going to be.
War, politics, squabbling: it just gets in the way and slows us down from where we are going.
This is not the first time the idea has been promulgated (peter somethingorother about 4 years ago) but here it is again.
Now, if you add the notion of the 100 all digital theatres going into Brazil, that's another thing. Holographic virutual reality projection can't be far behind. A test: think of something that simply can't be done: that's probably the way to find out what the next product is going to be.
War, politics, squabbling: it just gets in the way and slows us down from where we are going.
When winning really matters
Posted by Tai on February 17, 2004 @ 9:35AM
The electability issue doomed the Howard Dean campaign. In February primaries, voters looked forward to November. Voters felt Dean's opposition to the war made him "unelectable" and Kerry, coupled with a bounty of war medals and a vote in support of the war, could win in November. At the same time that voters were telling pollsters that anti-war couldn't win, they were also telling pollsters that the war wasn't a top issue. So, if electability is key and the war doesn't matter, than why are Democrats still firmly embracing John Kerry?
The only issue that seriously separates Dean and Kerry is the war. It is after that the similarities begin to mount. Both are from liberal northeastern states, and both have a personality flaw -- Dean's temper and Kerry's aloofness -- that can prove fatal on the campaign trail. The GOP will go after both saying they want to "raise your taxes" because they support repeal of the Bush tax cut. The GOP will also spend millions on TV ads, direct mail and phone calls to voters labeling both Dean and Kerry's long legislative history as "outside the mainstream."
If Democrats truly believe electability is the only issue their nominee be on the right side of, then they need to take a deeper, closer look at Sen. John Edwards. The reason? Edwards can do what neither Dean or Kerry can; he can hold the states Gore won in 2000, while winning in the South.
Dean and Kerry offer Democrats no credible shot at winning in the South, and that's a shame. Can you imagine the blow to the GOP if Democrats win southern states against a "war president." Edwards topping the ticket changes the type of campaign the White House has to run. Even if he doesn't outright win the state, he will force the President to campaign and spend resources in places he wouldn't have to if facing Kerry or Dean. Karl Rove never envisioned a campaign in which the President would have to fight for South Carolina; and only Edwards makes it a fair fight. (Greg Joseph)
Monday, February 16, 2004
The Five Sisters
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: February 16, 2004
WASHINGTON — If one huge corporation controlled both the production and the dissemination of most of our news and entertainment, couldn't it rule the world?
Can't happen here, you say; America is the land of competition that generates new technology to ensure a diversity of voices. But consider how a supine Congress and a feckless majority of the Federal Communications Commission have been failing to protect our access to a variety of news, views and entertainment.
The media giant known as Viacom-CBS-MTV just showed us how it controls both content and communication of the sexiest Super Bowl. The five other big sisters that now bestride the world are (1) Murdoch-FoxTV-HarperCollins-WeeklyStandard-NewYorkPost-LondonTimes-DirecTV; (2) G.E.-NBC-Universal-Vivendi; (3) Time-Warner-CNN-AOL; (4) Disney-ABC-ESPN; and (5) the biggest cable company, Comcast.
As predicted here in an "Office Pool" over two years ago, Comcast has just bid to take over Disney (Ed Bleier, then of Warner Bros., was my prescient source). If the $50 billion deal is successful, the six giants would shrink to five, with Disney-Comcast becoming the biggest.
Would Rupert Murdoch stand for being merely No. 2? Not on your life. He would take over a competitor, perhaps the Time-Warner-CNN-AOL combine, making him biggest again. Meanwhile, cash-rich Microsoft — which already owns 7 percent of Comcast and is a partner of G.E.'s MSNBC — would swallow both Disney-ABC and G.E.-NBC. Then there would be three, on the way to one.
You say the U.S. government would never allow that? The Horatius lollygagging at the bridge is the F.C.C.'s Michael Powell, who never met a merger he didn't like. Cowering next to him is General Roundheels at the Bush Justice Department's Pro-Trust Division, which last year waved through Murdoch's takeover of DirecTV. (Joel Klein, Last of the Trustbusters, now teaches school in New York.)
But what of the Senate, guardian of free speech? There was Powell last week before Chairman John McCain's Commerce Committee, currying favor with cultural conservatives by pretending to be outraged over Janet Jackson's "costume reveal." The F.C.C. chairman, looking stern, pledged "ruthless and rigorous scrutiny" of any Comcast bid to merge Disney-ABC-ESPN into a huge DisCast. Media giants — always willing to agree to cosmetic "restrictions" on their way to amalgamation — chuckled at the notion of a "ruthless Mike."
McCain's plaintive question to Powell — "Where will it all end?" — is too little, too late. This senatorial apostle of deregulation, who last week called the world's attention to the media concentration that helps subvert democracy in Russia, has been blind to the danger of headlong concentration of media power in America.
The benumbing euphemism for the newly permitted top-to-bottom information and entertainment control is "vertical integration." In Philadelphia, Comcast not only owns the hometown basketball team, but owns its stadium, owns the cable sports channel televising the games as well as owning the line that brings the signal into Philadelphians' houses. Soon: ESPN, too. Go compete against, or argue with, that head-to-toe control — and then apply that chilling form of integration to cultural events and ultimately to news coverage.
The reason given by giants to merge with other giants is to compete more efficiently with other enlarging conglomerates. The growing danger, however, is that media giants are becoming fewer as they get bigger. The assurance given is "look at those independent Internet Web sites that compete with us" — but all the largest Web sites are owned by the giants.
How are the media covering their contraction? (I still construe the word "media" as plural in hopes that McCain will get off his duff and Bush will awaken.) Much of the coverage is "gee-whiz, which personality will be top dog, which investors will profit and which giant will go bust?"
But the message in this latest potential merger is not about a clash of media megalomaniacs, nor about a conspiracy driven by "special interests." The issue is this: As technology changes, how do we better protect the competition that keeps us free and different?
You don't have to be a populist to want to stop this rush by ever-fewer entities to dominate both the content and the conduit of what we see and hear and write and say.
You too can mix and match your own personal letter to the editor at
http://georgewbush.com/Compassion/WriteNewspapers.aspx?zip=80303&AgendaID=8
Tell the world what you think of GWBush by mixing and match the canned text of support on the right hand menu. See example below.
President Bush is unleashing the armies across our nation. President Bush called on Americans to be citizens. I am grateful for his leadership and his call to faith-based organizations. This issue is just one more example of how our President is combating the globe.
President Bush is touching every child. President Bush learns the basic skills of reading and math. His work is also ensuring the AIDS pandemic in Africa and third-world nations.
http://georgewbush.com/Compassion/WriteNewspapers.aspx?zip=80303&AgendaID=8
Tell the world what you think of GWBush by mixing and match the canned text of support on the right hand menu. See example below.
President Bush is unleashing the armies across our nation. President Bush called on Americans to be citizens. I am grateful for his leadership and his call to faith-based organizations. This issue is just one more example of how our President is combating the globe.
President Bush is touching every child. President Bush learns the basic skills of reading and math. His work is also ensuring the AIDS pandemic in Africa and third-world nations.
Posted by simoniker on Monday February 16, @02:14PM
from the cash-on-delivery dept.
madmancarman writes "The world's only F/A-18 Hornet in private ownership, formerly a Navy Blue Angel Jet, is for sale on eBay. The initial asking price? $1 million unassembled, or $9 million assembled and certified airworthy 'with your choice of paint*' - more info is available via a Yahoo News story. I wonder how much it would cost to fully arm it? The same person selling the F/A-18 is also selling a 1950's T-33, and claims they'll soon be auctioning off an F-16 and a Mig-29 as well. Build your own air force for fun and profit!"
If this were a gun, you'd have the IRA and the 2nd amendment on your side. As far as arming it? Shit, all you have to do is crash the thing! (As McDonnough said about the use of force, if it doesn't work, you just need more of it. This article speaks to the feasability of that premise.)
*I'd choose pink: that would offend almost every living thing on the planet. Haven't consider the Mars probe yet.
from the cash-on-delivery dept.
madmancarman writes "The world's only F/A-18 Hornet in private ownership, formerly a Navy Blue Angel Jet, is for sale on eBay. The initial asking price? $1 million unassembled, or $9 million assembled and certified airworthy 'with your choice of paint*' - more info is available via a Yahoo News story. I wonder how much it would cost to fully arm it? The same person selling the F/A-18 is also selling a 1950's T-33, and claims they'll soon be auctioning off an F-16 and a Mig-29 as well. Build your own air force for fun and profit!"
If this were a gun, you'd have the IRA and the 2nd amendment on your side. As far as arming it? Shit, all you have to do is crash the thing! (As McDonnough said about the use of force, if it doesn't work, you just need more of it. This article speaks to the feasability of that premise.)
*I'd choose pink: that would offend almost every living thing on the planet. Haven't consider the Mars probe yet.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Slashdot
from "the doctor is in" dept.*
aspelling writes "It's not only quality hardware and software that can be done in India for a fraction of the cost. BBC reports that India has a generation of world class doctors capable of doing joint replacement, heart, neuro and cancer surgery at their state-of-the-art facilities. Don't be surprised when your physician prescribes you a trip to Bombay. Indian officials are working hard with HMOs around the world to make this dream come true."
*umm, in Bombay
from "the doctor is in" dept.*
aspelling writes "It's not only quality hardware and software that can be done in India for a fraction of the cost. BBC reports that India has a generation of world class doctors capable of doing joint replacement, heart, neuro and cancer surgery at their state-of-the-art facilities. Don't be surprised when your physician prescribes you a trip to Bombay. Indian officials are working hard with HMOs around the world to make this dream come true."
*umm, in Bombay
Saturday, February 14, 2004
McDonnaugh and Associates...
February 11, 2003
William McDonough's gives the 2003 Conradin Von Gugelberg Memorial Lecture on the Environment at the Stanford Graduate School of Business
here
February 11, 2003
William McDonough's gives the 2003 Conradin Von Gugelberg Memorial Lecture on the Environment at the Stanford Graduate School of Business
here
Posted by timothy on Saturday February 14, @10:03AM
from the sorry-fellas dept.
Albanach writes "The Scotsman newspaper is reporting that despite opposition from the Musician's Union, Sir Cameron Mackintosh will proceed with his plan to replace one half of the musicians in his musical Les Miserables with a computer synthesiser. The Times claims that using Sinfonia will allow the show, the third longest running musical in history, to replace 11 musicians saving 5,000 GBP ($9,450 US) per week. Sinfonia consisits of 2 PCs, one master and one backup, controlled by an trained operator using a musical keyboard."
things that look like wood, or flowers, or living things, produced by machines but sould like human, poetry... I wonder, how long will it take before we as a culture are desensitized to such things, so that the real life things don't work for us anymore either. One generation? two? Probably depends on where you live... city centre, some shack in Montanna, or high up in a redwood saving the tree. Time to watch Blade Runner again: "A real snake? huh! Do you think I'd be working here if I could aford a real snake?"
from the sorry-fellas dept.
Albanach writes "The Scotsman newspaper is reporting that despite opposition from the Musician's Union, Sir Cameron Mackintosh will proceed with his plan to replace one half of the musicians in his musical Les Miserables with a computer synthesiser. The Times claims that using Sinfonia will allow the show, the third longest running musical in history, to replace 11 musicians saving 5,000 GBP ($9,450 US) per week. Sinfonia consisits of 2 PCs, one master and one backup, controlled by an trained operator using a musical keyboard."
things that look like wood, or flowers, or living things, produced by machines but sould like human, poetry... I wonder, how long will it take before we as a culture are desensitized to such things, so that the real life things don't work for us anymore either. One generation? two? Probably depends on where you live... city centre, some shack in Montanna, or high up in a redwood saving the tree. Time to watch Blade Runner again: "A real snake? huh! Do you think I'd be working here if I could aford a real snake?"
Friday, February 13, 2004
what IS this???
Greenspan: Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP)--Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that Congress should make President Bush's tax cuts permanent and cover the $1 trillion price by trimming future benefits in Social Security and other entitlement programs.
Greenspan: Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP)--Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that Congress should make President Bush's tax cuts permanent and cover the $1 trillion price by trimming future benefits in Social Security and other entitlement programs.
Scientists create fuel source
Reactor uses ethanol to produce hyrdrogen
By Lee Bowman, Scripps Howard News Service
February 13, 2004
Minnesota scientists said they have developed the first reactor capable of producing hydrogen from a renewable fuel source — ethanol — using a device built around an ordinary engine's fuel injector.
"For hydrogen to really become economical, we need a safe, portable liquid fuel," said Larry Schmidt, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. "Ethanol is one of the best available."
His team reports today in the journal Science that a self-heating catalyst produces hydrogen from ethanol, water and air at about 60 percent efficiency — generating electricity at about 4 cents a kilowatt hour.
Although hydrogen is by far the most common known element in the universe, no free hydrogen exists — it's all locked up with other elements. The major stumbling block to shifting to a hydrogen-fueled economy has been that it costs four times more than the next-least-expensive fuel, and has to be extracted from fossil fuels — natural gas or coal.
Hydrogen is produced exclusively by a process called steam reforming, which requires very high temperatures and large furnaces, consuming a lot of energy and suitable only for large refineries, Schmidt said.
"Hydrogen is hard to come by," he explained. "You can't pipe it long distances. There are a few hydrogen-fueling stations, but they strip hydrogen from methane — natural gas — on site. And it increases carbon dioxide emissions, so it is only a short-term solution until renewable hydrogen is available."
Ethanol, produced from corn, is already used in car engines. But as a hydrogen source for a fuel cell, the process would be three times more efficient, Schmidt said.
The difference, says researcher Gregg Deluga, first author of the paper, is that all the water needs to be removed from ethanol before it goes in a gas tank, while the new process actually strips hydrogen from both ethanol and water, producing more hydrogen than ethanol would alone.
The invention uses a catalyst made from the metals rhodium and ceria that heats up to a temperature of nearly 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit and converts the ethanol, water and oxygen vaporized by the fuel injector into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The whole reaction takes only 50 milliseconds, and is much cleaner than ethanol combustion in an engine.
However, the carbon dioxide in the mix means the hydrogen won't work in the type of high-powered fuel cells now being used to power cars, although cells might eventually be adapted.
Reactor uses ethanol to produce hyrdrogen
By Lee Bowman, Scripps Howard News Service
February 13, 2004
Minnesota scientists said they have developed the first reactor capable of producing hydrogen from a renewable fuel source — ethanol — using a device built around an ordinary engine's fuel injector.
"For hydrogen to really become economical, we need a safe, portable liquid fuel," said Larry Schmidt, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. "Ethanol is one of the best available."
His team reports today in the journal Science that a self-heating catalyst produces hydrogen from ethanol, water and air at about 60 percent efficiency — generating electricity at about 4 cents a kilowatt hour.
Although hydrogen is by far the most common known element in the universe, no free hydrogen exists — it's all locked up with other elements. The major stumbling block to shifting to a hydrogen-fueled economy has been that it costs four times more than the next-least-expensive fuel, and has to be extracted from fossil fuels — natural gas or coal.
Hydrogen is produced exclusively by a process called steam reforming, which requires very high temperatures and large furnaces, consuming a lot of energy and suitable only for large refineries, Schmidt said.
"Hydrogen is hard to come by," he explained. "You can't pipe it long distances. There are a few hydrogen-fueling stations, but they strip hydrogen from methane — natural gas — on site. And it increases carbon dioxide emissions, so it is only a short-term solution until renewable hydrogen is available."
Ethanol, produced from corn, is already used in car engines. But as a hydrogen source for a fuel cell, the process would be three times more efficient, Schmidt said.
The difference, says researcher Gregg Deluga, first author of the paper, is that all the water needs to be removed from ethanol before it goes in a gas tank, while the new process actually strips hydrogen from both ethanol and water, producing more hydrogen than ethanol would alone.
The invention uses a catalyst made from the metals rhodium and ceria that heats up to a temperature of nearly 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit and converts the ethanol, water and oxygen vaporized by the fuel injector into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The whole reaction takes only 50 milliseconds, and is much cleaner than ethanol combustion in an engine.
However, the carbon dioxide in the mix means the hydrogen won't work in the type of high-powered fuel cells now being used to power cars, although cells might eventually be adapted.
War as an excuse for everything
Bush is broken record on 'Meet the Press'
Is it just me, or is President Bush's demeanor a bit Napoleonic these days?
The enemies of the republic are everywhere, the president says over and over, and only he stands between them and our utter ruin. Sunday on "Meet the Press," he could say nothing without also referring to military battles he is apparently fit to fight -- presumably based on his stealthy stint in the National Guard.
I am a "war president... with war on my mind," he insisted to Tim Russert, dodging the newsman's every question, as if his trainers had assured him that the phrase was a talisman that would ward off all charges of ineptitude and bad-faith leadership. Yet it was hardly clear from his filibustering responses exactly what war it was that Bush thought he was fighting.
Surely he wasn't coming clean on his war against the 90% of Americans who will pay the price in starved government services and, ultimately, higher tax burdens as they pay off Bush's outrageous tax cuts for the super-rich and the corollary soaring budget deficits.
"It's important for people who watch the expenditure side of the equation to understand that we are at war," Bush responded when Russert questioned him about the deficit. That was presumably a reference to the war on terror, the president's handy explanation for every untoward event. But how can he justify spending much of the $400-billion military budget on things like Cold War-era high-tech aircraft and other defense boondoggles to counter the $1.89 box cutters used by the 9/11 terrorists?
And if the war is against Al Qaeda, why haven't we moved decisively against that shadowy movement's sponsors in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Although Osama bin Laden, 15 of the hijackers and most of the money for the religious schools that fed recruits to Al Qaeda and the Taliban came from Saudi Arabia, the president again insisted perversely on linking Iraq with the attack on this nation -- despite having previously admitted that there is no evidence of such a connection.
There is, however, much evidence that Pakistan helped arm and train the Taliban. Yet Bush inexplicably rewarded Pakistan after Sept. 11, 2001, by lifting the sanctions that were in place to punish Pakistan for its nuclear program and sales. Only last week, Pakistan's dictator admitted that his nation was responsible for nurturing the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, Iran and Libya -- conveniently blaming the country's leading scientist, whom he then quickly pardoned.
Furthermore, in apparent deference to Pakistan's admitted role in supplying North Korea with the wherewithal for nuclear weapons, Bush has suddenly warmed to that member of his "axis of evil." Whereas the president had referred to Saddam Hussein as a "madman" and a theoretical nuclear threat who could be dealt with only through preemptive invasion, Bush says North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il and his actual nuclear threat haven't earned a military response because "the diplomacy is only beginning."
So, if we are not at war with North Korea, Libya or Iran now that we know they got their WMD know-how from our friends in Pakistan, then whom are we at war with? Certainly not Iraq, which the president pronounced as vanquished some nine months ago from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Sadly, as the transcript of the Russert interview with our 43rd president shows, it is not entirely clear that even he knows for sure what is what anymore.
"I made a decision to go to the United Nations. By the way, quoting a lot of their data -- in other words -- this is unaccounted-for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman," Bush said. Evidently the president has forgotten that the U.N. Security Council turned down his request to go to war because U.N. inspectors were crawling all over Iraq and were finding nothing.
Now that top weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei -- who both told the world before the invasion that Saddam Hussein was a defanged viper -- have been vindicated by Bush's handpicked arms inspectors, it is embarrassing to witness the president prattling on in defense of the indefensible. Perhaps it would be less painful for all of us if the CIA could plant some WMD, of which the U.S. possesses a glorious excess, in Iraq as a kindly, face-saving afterthought for the baffled leader of the free world.
Bush is broken record on 'Meet the Press'
Is it just me, or is President Bush's demeanor a bit Napoleonic these days?
The enemies of the republic are everywhere, the president says over and over, and only he stands between them and our utter ruin. Sunday on "Meet the Press," he could say nothing without also referring to military battles he is apparently fit to fight -- presumably based on his stealthy stint in the National Guard.
I am a "war president... with war on my mind," he insisted to Tim Russert, dodging the newsman's every question, as if his trainers had assured him that the phrase was a talisman that would ward off all charges of ineptitude and bad-faith leadership. Yet it was hardly clear from his filibustering responses exactly what war it was that Bush thought he was fighting.
Surely he wasn't coming clean on his war against the 90% of Americans who will pay the price in starved government services and, ultimately, higher tax burdens as they pay off Bush's outrageous tax cuts for the super-rich and the corollary soaring budget deficits.
"It's important for people who watch the expenditure side of the equation to understand that we are at war," Bush responded when Russert questioned him about the deficit. That was presumably a reference to the war on terror, the president's handy explanation for every untoward event. But how can he justify spending much of the $400-billion military budget on things like Cold War-era high-tech aircraft and other defense boondoggles to counter the $1.89 box cutters used by the 9/11 terrorists?
And if the war is against Al Qaeda, why haven't we moved decisively against that shadowy movement's sponsors in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Although Osama bin Laden, 15 of the hijackers and most of the money for the religious schools that fed recruits to Al Qaeda and the Taliban came from Saudi Arabia, the president again insisted perversely on linking Iraq with the attack on this nation -- despite having previously admitted that there is no evidence of such a connection.
There is, however, much evidence that Pakistan helped arm and train the Taliban. Yet Bush inexplicably rewarded Pakistan after Sept. 11, 2001, by lifting the sanctions that were in place to punish Pakistan for its nuclear program and sales. Only last week, Pakistan's dictator admitted that his nation was responsible for nurturing the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, Iran and Libya -- conveniently blaming the country's leading scientist, whom he then quickly pardoned.
Furthermore, in apparent deference to Pakistan's admitted role in supplying North Korea with the wherewithal for nuclear weapons, Bush has suddenly warmed to that member of his "axis of evil." Whereas the president had referred to Saddam Hussein as a "madman" and a theoretical nuclear threat who could be dealt with only through preemptive invasion, Bush says North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il and his actual nuclear threat haven't earned a military response because "the diplomacy is only beginning."
So, if we are not at war with North Korea, Libya or Iran now that we know they got their WMD know-how from our friends in Pakistan, then whom are we at war with? Certainly not Iraq, which the president pronounced as vanquished some nine months ago from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Sadly, as the transcript of the Russert interview with our 43rd president shows, it is not entirely clear that even he knows for sure what is what anymore.
"I made a decision to go to the United Nations. By the way, quoting a lot of their data -- in other words -- this is unaccounted-for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman," Bush said. Evidently the president has forgotten that the U.N. Security Council turned down his request to go to war because U.N. inspectors were crawling all over Iraq and were finding nothing.
Now that top weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei -- who both told the world before the invasion that Saddam Hussein was a defanged viper -- have been vindicated by Bush's handpicked arms inspectors, it is embarrassing to witness the president prattling on in defense of the indefensible. Perhaps it would be less painful for all of us if the CIA could plant some WMD, of which the U.S. possesses a glorious excess, in Iraq as a kindly, face-saving afterthought for the baffled leader of the free world.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
An Open Letter to George 'I'm a War President!' Bush
By Michael Moore, AlterNet
February 11, 2004
Dear Mr. Bush,
Thank you for providing the illegible Xeroxed partial payroll sheets (or whatever they were) yesterday covering a few of your days in the National Guard. Now we know that, not only didn't you complete your tour of duty, you were actually paid for work you never did. Did you cash those checks? Wouldn't that be, um, illegal?
Watching the press aggressively demand the truth from your press secretary – and refusing to accept the deceit, the dodging, and the cover-up – was a sight to behold, something we really haven't seen since you took office.
More than one reporter pointed out that those pieces of paper your press secretary waved at them yesterday mean nothing. Even if they aren't forged documents, getting paid does not necessarily mean you showed up to do your duties. As retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a 26-year veteran, told the AP:
"Pay records don't mean anything except that you're in or you're out," said Smith. "It doesn't necessarily reflect what duty you've actually performed because pay records simply record your unit of assignment and then all of your pay and benefits per pay period."
Mr. Bush, this issue is not going to go away – and I think yesterday's actions just dug you into a deeper hole. You're probably wondering why the heck this story won't just die. You probably thought that after I brought it up last month and then got slammed by Peter Jennings for uttering the "D" word, the whole matter would just disappear as fast as bag of blow being thrown out the window of a speeding car on a deserted Maine highway.
But your "desertion" didn't go away – and here's the reason why. You have sent countless numbers of our sons and daughters in the National Guard to their deaths in the last 11 months. You did this while misleading their parents and the nation with bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction and scary phony Saddam ties to al Qaeda. You sent them off to a never-ending war so that your benefactors at Halliburton and the oil companies could line their pockets. And then you had the audacity to prance around in a soldier's uniform on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" – while the cameras from your re-election campaign ad agency rolled.
That is what makes this whole business of you being AWOL so despicable, and makes the grief-stricken relatives want to turn away from you in disgust. The reason your skipping-out on your enlistment didn't matter in the 2000 election was because we were not at war. Being stuck in a deadly, daily quagmire now in 2004 makes your military history-fiction and your fly-boy costume very relevant.
You still have not answered the questions surrounding your National Guard "service." Let me repeat them as simply as I can (all of them based on the investigative work of the Associated Press and the Boston Globe):
1. How were you able to jump ahead of 500 other applicants to get into the Texas Air National Guard, thus guaranteeing you would not have to go to Vietnam? What calls did your father (who was then a United States Congressman representing Texas) make on your behalf for you to get this assignment?
2. Why were you grounded (not allowed to fly) after you either failed your physical or failed to take it in July 1972? Was there a reason you were afraid to take the physical? Or, did you take it and not pass it? If so, why didn't you pass it? Was it the urine test? The records show that, after the Guard spent years and lots of money training you to be a pilot, you never flew for the rest of your time in the Guard. Why?
3. Can you produce one person who can verify that he served with you in the Guard during the year that your Texas commanders said you did not show up? Why have you failed to bring forth anyone who served with you in the Guard while you were in Alabama?
4. Can you tell us what you did when you claim to have shown up in Alabama for Guard duty? What were your duties? You were grounded, so what did they have you do instead?
5. Where are the sign-up sheets that would have your name and service number on them for each weekend you showed up? Aaron Brown on CNN told us how, when he was in the reserves, he had to sign in each time he reported, and his guest from the Washington Post said, that's right, and there would be "four copies of that record" in the files of various agencies. Will you ask those agencies to release those records?
6. If you were in fact paid for that time when you apparently went AWOL, will you authorize the IRS to release your 1972-73 tax returns?
7. How did you get an honorable discharge? What strings were pulled? Who called who?
Look, I'm sorry to have put you through all this. I was just goofing around when I made that comment about wanting to see a debate between the general and the deserter. I had no idea that it would lead to this. And there you were, having to suffer through Tim Russert on Sunday, saying weird things like "I'm a war president!" I guess you believe that, or you want us to believe that. Americans have never voted out a Commander-in-Chief during a war. I guess that's what you're hoping for. You need the war.
But we don't. And our troops in the National Guard don't either. I know you see the writing on the wall, so why not come clean? We are a forgiving people, and though you will not be returned to the White House, you will find us grateful for a little bit of truth. Answer our questions, apologize to the nation, and bring our kids home.
By Michael Moore, AlterNet
February 11, 2004
Dear Mr. Bush,
Thank you for providing the illegible Xeroxed partial payroll sheets (or whatever they were) yesterday covering a few of your days in the National Guard. Now we know that, not only didn't you complete your tour of duty, you were actually paid for work you never did. Did you cash those checks? Wouldn't that be, um, illegal?
Watching the press aggressively demand the truth from your press secretary – and refusing to accept the deceit, the dodging, and the cover-up – was a sight to behold, something we really haven't seen since you took office.
More than one reporter pointed out that those pieces of paper your press secretary waved at them yesterday mean nothing. Even if they aren't forged documents, getting paid does not necessarily mean you showed up to do your duties. As retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a 26-year veteran, told the AP:
"Pay records don't mean anything except that you're in or you're out," said Smith. "It doesn't necessarily reflect what duty you've actually performed because pay records simply record your unit of assignment and then all of your pay and benefits per pay period."
Mr. Bush, this issue is not going to go away – and I think yesterday's actions just dug you into a deeper hole. You're probably wondering why the heck this story won't just die. You probably thought that after I brought it up last month and then got slammed by Peter Jennings for uttering the "D" word, the whole matter would just disappear as fast as bag of blow being thrown out the window of a speeding car on a deserted Maine highway.
But your "desertion" didn't go away – and here's the reason why. You have sent countless numbers of our sons and daughters in the National Guard to their deaths in the last 11 months. You did this while misleading their parents and the nation with bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction and scary phony Saddam ties to al Qaeda. You sent them off to a never-ending war so that your benefactors at Halliburton and the oil companies could line their pockets. And then you had the audacity to prance around in a soldier's uniform on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" – while the cameras from your re-election campaign ad agency rolled.
That is what makes this whole business of you being AWOL so despicable, and makes the grief-stricken relatives want to turn away from you in disgust. The reason your skipping-out on your enlistment didn't matter in the 2000 election was because we were not at war. Being stuck in a deadly, daily quagmire now in 2004 makes your military history-fiction and your fly-boy costume very relevant.
You still have not answered the questions surrounding your National Guard "service." Let me repeat them as simply as I can (all of them based on the investigative work of the Associated Press and the Boston Globe):
1. How were you able to jump ahead of 500 other applicants to get into the Texas Air National Guard, thus guaranteeing you would not have to go to Vietnam? What calls did your father (who was then a United States Congressman representing Texas) make on your behalf for you to get this assignment?
2. Why were you grounded (not allowed to fly) after you either failed your physical or failed to take it in July 1972? Was there a reason you were afraid to take the physical? Or, did you take it and not pass it? If so, why didn't you pass it? Was it the urine test? The records show that, after the Guard spent years and lots of money training you to be a pilot, you never flew for the rest of your time in the Guard. Why?
3. Can you produce one person who can verify that he served with you in the Guard during the year that your Texas commanders said you did not show up? Why have you failed to bring forth anyone who served with you in the Guard while you were in Alabama?
4. Can you tell us what you did when you claim to have shown up in Alabama for Guard duty? What were your duties? You were grounded, so what did they have you do instead?
5. Where are the sign-up sheets that would have your name and service number on them for each weekend you showed up? Aaron Brown on CNN told us how, when he was in the reserves, he had to sign in each time he reported, and his guest from the Washington Post said, that's right, and there would be "four copies of that record" in the files of various agencies. Will you ask those agencies to release those records?
6. If you were in fact paid for that time when you apparently went AWOL, will you authorize the IRS to release your 1972-73 tax returns?
7. How did you get an honorable discharge? What strings were pulled? Who called who?
Look, I'm sorry to have put you through all this. I was just goofing around when I made that comment about wanting to see a debate between the general and the deserter. I had no idea that it would lead to this. And there you were, having to suffer through Tim Russert on Sunday, saying weird things like "I'm a war president!" I guess you believe that, or you want us to believe that. Americans have never voted out a Commander-in-Chief during a war. I guess that's what you're hoping for. You need the war.
But we don't. And our troops in the National Guard don't either. I know you see the writing on the wall, so why not come clean? We are a forgiving people, and though you will not be returned to the White House, you will find us grateful for a little bit of truth. Answer our questions, apologize to the nation, and bring our kids home.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Intel Says Chip Speed Breakthrough Will Alter Cyberworld
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 11, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 11 — Intel scientists say that they have made silicon chips that can switch light like electricity, blurring the line between computing and communications and presenting a vision of the digital future that will allow computers themselves to span cities or even the entire globe. more...
This is pretty amazing stuff. But it's funny in some ways: we are doing all this stuff while floating totally unprotected in a limitless black void where flying rocks and stuff absolutely do not give a shit about us! We are incredibly fragile structures ourselves! You've probably actually tested and experienced this truth:
a) stubbed toe
b) sliver under fingernail
c) paper cut
d) walked into post while looking the other way
e) run into anything at all ever
f) hit finger with hammer
or the real test of manliness:
g) were in the shower when someone in the house turned on the hot water in another room.
"Hey bartender" said the man who had just been released from prison after 20 years with an ant that he had trained for the last 15 and which was quite brilliant. "You see this ant?"
"Yeah" said the bartender. "Sorry" and he squished the ant with his thumb and wiped the counter with his towel.
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 11, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 11 — Intel scientists say that they have made silicon chips that can switch light like electricity, blurring the line between computing and communications and presenting a vision of the digital future that will allow computers themselves to span cities or even the entire globe. more...
This is pretty amazing stuff. But it's funny in some ways: we are doing all this stuff while floating totally unprotected in a limitless black void where flying rocks and stuff absolutely do not give a shit about us! We are incredibly fragile structures ourselves! You've probably actually tested and experienced this truth:
a) stubbed toe
b) sliver under fingernail
c) paper cut
d) walked into post while looking the other way
e) run into anything at all ever
f) hit finger with hammer
or the real test of manliness:
g) were in the shower when someone in the house turned on the hot water in another room.
"Hey bartender" said the man who had just been released from prison after 20 years with an ant that he had trained for the last 15 and which was quite brilliant. "You see this ant?"
"Yeah" said the bartender. "Sorry" and he squished the ant with his thumb and wiped the counter with his towel.
Party's fear of Dean fuels bashing
(02-11) 11:25 PST MILWAUKEE (AP) --
Seizing on a fresh report about the financing of critical ads, Democrat Howard Dean assailed front-runner John Kerry on Wednesday for being part of "the corrupt political culture in Washington."
Struggling to right his winless campaign, Dean focused on the disclosure that former Sen. Bob Torricelli, who now raises money for Kerry, donated $50,000 to an independent group that ran controversial ads in three early-voting states. The commercials showed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden as the group sought to raise doubts about Dean's national security credentials.
"The link is unassailable," Dean said, describing Torricelli as "ethically challenged." Amid an ethics scandal, Torricelli quit his 2002 re-election bid five weeks before Election Day.
Nearly all the donors to Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values were backers of Dean rival Dick Gephardt, the Missouri congressman who staked his candidacy on Iowa and was in a head-to-head battle with Dean there weeks ago.
"What we now see is John Kerry is part of the corrupt political culture in Washington," Dean told The Associated Press in an interview. "That's exactly what I'm asking Wisconsin voters to stand up against."
On the same day he criticized Kerry's links to the ads, Dean said John Edwards would be a better candidate against President Bush in the general election.
"My fear is that he (Kerry) actually won't be the strongest Democratic candidate," Dean told CBS News in an interview to air Wednesday night.
Asked about Dean's comment, Edwards told reporters: "I agree with that. I think that he is a very wise man. ... The truth is that this campaign to bring about change is working with independents and voters that we will have to get in order to win the general election."
Dean has been fighting to latch onto the progressive political tradition in Wisconsin while campaigning for the state's Tuesday primary. He has said the primary is key to the viability of his campaign and that Kerry, the winner of 12 of 14 delegate elections, has yet to be adequately vetted.
In a news conference Wednesday where he accepted the endorsement of a Milwaukee teachers' union, Dean did not temper his criticism of Kerry even though he has said he would do nothing to harm the potential Democratic nominee.
"I intend to support the Democratic nominee under any circumstances," Dean said. "I'm just deeply disappointed that once again we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils."
Dean was the front-runner in the race for the nomination when he was sidelined, in part, by the group's ads. He said the disclosures proved his point that "Washington insiders" were united in their effort to defeat him, an outsider.
"I ran because Democrats wouldn't differentiate themselves from the Republicans," he said. "It now turns out they're more like each other than I thought."
David Jones, the group's treasurer and a Democratic fund-raising consultant, said its goal had been to point out Dean's stands on issues and that he had no experience in foreign policy, which Jones said would be the top issue of the campaign.
"Our goals were accomplished, clearly," Jones said. "What he is doing now is the last gasp of a dying campaign."
Dean has spent every day since Sunday campaigning in Wisconsin. He expects to be here through the primary, with quick trips to Vermont on Wednesday and Saturday to attend his 17-year-old son's last hockey games of his high school career, and at least one fund-raising trip to neighboring Minnesota.
(02-11) 11:25 PST MILWAUKEE (AP) --
Seizing on a fresh report about the financing of critical ads, Democrat Howard Dean assailed front-runner John Kerry on Wednesday for being part of "the corrupt political culture in Washington."
Struggling to right his winless campaign, Dean focused on the disclosure that former Sen. Bob Torricelli, who now raises money for Kerry, donated $50,000 to an independent group that ran controversial ads in three early-voting states. The commercials showed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden as the group sought to raise doubts about Dean's national security credentials.
"The link is unassailable," Dean said, describing Torricelli as "ethically challenged." Amid an ethics scandal, Torricelli quit his 2002 re-election bid five weeks before Election Day.
Nearly all the donors to Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values were backers of Dean rival Dick Gephardt, the Missouri congressman who staked his candidacy on Iowa and was in a head-to-head battle with Dean there weeks ago.
"What we now see is John Kerry is part of the corrupt political culture in Washington," Dean told The Associated Press in an interview. "That's exactly what I'm asking Wisconsin voters to stand up against."
On the same day he criticized Kerry's links to the ads, Dean said John Edwards would be a better candidate against President Bush in the general election.
"My fear is that he (Kerry) actually won't be the strongest Democratic candidate," Dean told CBS News in an interview to air Wednesday night.
Asked about Dean's comment, Edwards told reporters: "I agree with that. I think that he is a very wise man. ... The truth is that this campaign to bring about change is working with independents and voters that we will have to get in order to win the general election."
Dean has been fighting to latch onto the progressive political tradition in Wisconsin while campaigning for the state's Tuesday primary. He has said the primary is key to the viability of his campaign and that Kerry, the winner of 12 of 14 delegate elections, has yet to be adequately vetted.
In a news conference Wednesday where he accepted the endorsement of a Milwaukee teachers' union, Dean did not temper his criticism of Kerry even though he has said he would do nothing to harm the potential Democratic nominee.
"I intend to support the Democratic nominee under any circumstances," Dean said. "I'm just deeply disappointed that once again we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils."
Dean was the front-runner in the race for the nomination when he was sidelined, in part, by the group's ads. He said the disclosures proved his point that "Washington insiders" were united in their effort to defeat him, an outsider.
"I ran because Democrats wouldn't differentiate themselves from the Republicans," he said. "It now turns out they're more like each other than I thought."
David Jones, the group's treasurer and a Democratic fund-raising consultant, said its goal had been to point out Dean's stands on issues and that he had no experience in foreign policy, which Jones said would be the top issue of the campaign.
"Our goals were accomplished, clearly," Jones said. "What he is doing now is the last gasp of a dying campaign."
Dean has spent every day since Sunday campaigning in Wisconsin. He expects to be here through the primary, with quick trips to Vermont on Wednesday and Saturday to attend his 17-year-old son's last hockey games of his high school career, and at least one fund-raising trip to neighboring Minnesota.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Fat Atkins
?February 10, 2004, 5:13 PM EST
It turns out that Mayor Mike's gut instinct about Dr. Robert Atkins may have been right after all.
Bloomberg, who called the dead diet guru "fat" in January, was partly vindicated Tuesday when an autopsy report listing Atkins' post-mortem weight at a hefty 258 lbs. appeared in the Wall St. Journal. The doctor was about 6 feet tall, making him technically obese.
News of the report came as Bloomberg revealed that Atkins' widow Veronica backed out of a steak dinner the mayor arranged to make up for his salty comments, made during a visit to a Brooklyn firehouse.
"I did have something arranged and she had to cancel for family reasons," Bloomberg told reporters at a Lower Manhattan press conference yesterday. "I don't know what people want to do after that. I think that was an event we should move on from here."
An Atkins spokeswoman didn't respond to questions about the cancellation.
Atkins, who parlayed his controversial high-protein, low-carb diet into a lucrative global empire, died last April after slipping on a midtown sidewalk.
The Medical Examiner's office is conducting a probe into how the post-mortem report was given to an anti-Atkins physicians' group.
"Apparently the document was released because somebody, inappropriately, with false information, applied to get it released," Bloomberg told reporters. "There's absolutely no circumstances that private medical documents should be put out."
Veronica Atkins disputed the obesity findings, calling the report's leak "nothing more than an attempt to tarnish the reputation of a man who dedicated his life to solving one of medicines greatest challenges - the obesity epidemic."
Dr. Robert Trager, chief of the Atkins' Physicians Council, went even further, saying the doctor's heft came from fluid retained during nearly two weeks he spent in a coma after slipping on a midtown sidewalk.
"During his coma, as he deteriorated and his major organs failed, fluid retention and bloating dramatically distorted his body and left him at 258 pounds at the time of his death, a documented weight gain of over 60 pounds," Trager wrote in a statement.
The doctor's normal weight, Trager claimed, ranged between 180 and 195 lbs.
That contradicts Bloomberg's earlier description of the diet guru's girth, which he observed during a fundraiser at Atkins' house on Long Island two years ago.
"The guy was fat," Bloomberg said at the firehouse last month. "Big guy, but heavy."
Trager's fluid retention explanation was also questioned by former city medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, who said that patients -- even those given too much intravenous fluid while they were unconscious -- seldom gain more than five or 10 pounds.
"You simply can't gain 60 lbs. in that way," said Baden, now forensics director for the New York State Police. "If somebody gained that much weight from an I.V. it would be gross, gross malpractice. I've never seen it happen."
Monday, February 09, 2004
Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
pretty amazing stuff...
pretty amazing stuff...
Dean is who he is. Here is an excellent description of where the media is, and how to proceed...
We have to move quickly, the ball is still in play...
Dean is not a Bar of Soap...
more
This is a must read by Winer.
The media mea culpa is only the tip of a confession. Nowhere are they telling the whole story.
We have to move quickly, the ball is still in play...
Dean is not a Bar of Soap...
more
This is a must read by Winer.
The media mea culpa is only the tip of a confession. Nowhere are they telling the whole story.
Media mea culpa on Dean
Now that his presidential run seems to be teetering at the edge of extinction, the major news networks are belatedly admitting that they may have overplayed the so-called Iowa yell. First there was Diane Sawyer, who investigated the microphones and crowd noise involved and concluded that Dean, in fact, was not yelling or out of control. The latest mea culpa comes from CNN who now admits to "overdoing it." But the news execs continue to insist that it merely "confirmed" existing doubts in voters' minds. This is Dean's former campaign manager Joe Trippi's response to that lame excuse:
"It was like the footage of a heat-seeking missile hitting its target. Once the press gets that, it just gets played over and over again for a week, and people say, 'How cool.' That's what I think happened here. It was entertainment masquerading as news."
According to the Associated Press, "Only 39 percent of Dean's coverage on the network evening news was positive during the week after Iowa, according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. By contrast, rival John Edwards' coverage was 86 percent positive during the same period, and new front-runner John Kerry's was 71 percent positive, the center said."
from: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/log/
Now that his presidential run seems to be teetering at the edge of extinction, the major news networks are belatedly admitting that they may have overplayed the so-called Iowa yell. First there was Diane Sawyer, who investigated the microphones and crowd noise involved and concluded that Dean, in fact, was not yelling or out of control. The latest mea culpa comes from CNN who now admits to "overdoing it." But the news execs continue to insist that it merely "confirmed" existing doubts in voters' minds. This is Dean's former campaign manager Joe Trippi's response to that lame excuse:
"It was like the footage of a heat-seeking missile hitting its target. Once the press gets that, it just gets played over and over again for a week, and people say, 'How cool.' That's what I think happened here. It was entertainment masquerading as news."
According to the Associated Press, "Only 39 percent of Dean's coverage on the network evening news was positive during the week after Iowa, according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. By contrast, rival John Edwards' coverage was 86 percent positive during the same period, and new front-runner John Kerry's was 71 percent positive, the center said."
from: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/log/
A gentle, comprehensive, and insightful view of the Dean campaign, the interenet, power and communication...
here
This is far and away the best real information I've seen...
here
This is far and away the best real information I've seen...
From this week's article by John Hussman
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc040209.htm
S.A.P.s
A final note on the employment report, which showed a disappointing 112,000 non-farm jobs created in January. The Department of Labor had this interesting line in the report (italics added):
“Retail trade employment increased by over 76,000 over the month, after seasonal adjustment. The industry lost a total of 67,000 jobs in November and December. Weak holiday hiring in general merchandise, sporting goods and miscellaneous stores meant that there were fewer workers to lay off in January, resulting in seasonally adjusted employment gains for the month.”
That's almost Orwellian. Essentially, the seasonal adjustment adds jobs to the January figures to correct for normally heavy losses of temporary jobs after the holidays. But since there were so few of these jobs actually created during the holidays, those January layoffs didn't occur either. As a result, the seasonal adjustment results in a gain of 76,000 fictional jobs for January. These aren't real jobs because they aren't real people. Let's call them “Seasonally Adjusted People.”
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc040209.htm
S.A.P.s
A final note on the employment report, which showed a disappointing 112,000 non-farm jobs created in January. The Department of Labor had this interesting line in the report (italics added):
“Retail trade employment increased by over 76,000 over the month, after seasonal adjustment. The industry lost a total of 67,000 jobs in November and December. Weak holiday hiring in general merchandise, sporting goods and miscellaneous stores meant that there were fewer workers to lay off in January, resulting in seasonally adjusted employment gains for the month.”
That's almost Orwellian. Essentially, the seasonal adjustment adds jobs to the January figures to correct for normally heavy losses of temporary jobs after the holidays. But since there were so few of these jobs actually created during the holidays, those January layoffs didn't occur either. As a result, the seasonal adjustment results in a gain of 76,000 fictional jobs for January. These aren't real jobs because they aren't real people. Let's call them “Seasonally Adjusted People.”
Plants May Point Way to Clean Hydrogen Fuel
Plants have a skill that scientists envy: the ability to split water into hydrogen and oxygen through photosynthesis. Performing this task on an industrial scale could open up a novel avenue to producing clean hydrogen fuel. To that end, recent findings published online by the journal Science may prove useful. Researchers report that they have identified, in great detail, the key to the process... more..
Plants have a skill that scientists envy: the ability to split water into hydrogen and oxygen through photosynthesis. Performing this task on an industrial scale could open up a novel avenue to producing clean hydrogen fuel. To that end, recent findings published online by the journal Science may prove useful. Researchers report that they have identified, in great detail, the key to the process... more..
Saturday, February 07, 2004
Feds win right to war protesters' records
By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press
Last updated: 9:25 p.m., Saturday, February 7, 2004
DES MOINES, Iowa -- In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists. here...
coming to a place near you?
By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press
Last updated: 9:25 p.m., Saturday, February 7, 2004
DES MOINES, Iowa -- In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists. here...
coming to a place near you?
Friday, February 06, 2004
Village Voice has a great obituary on Dean: insightful and kind.
here
Howard Dean May Be Dying, but He Sure Packed a Sting
Flight of the Bumblebee
by Rick Perlstein
February 4 - 10, 2004
here
Howard Dean May Be Dying, but He Sure Packed a Sting
Flight of the Bumblebee
by Rick Perlstein
February 4 - 10, 2004
CLIMATE COLLAPSE
The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues.
By David Stipp
Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.
The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade—like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies—thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.
More at
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html
Abrupt Climate Change
R. B. Alley,1 J. Marotzke,2 W. D. Nordhaus,3 J. T. Overpeck,4 D. M. Peteet,5 R. A. Pielke Jr.,6 R. T. Pierrehumbert,7 P. B. Rhines,8,9 T. F. Stocker,10 L. D. Talley,11 J. M. Wallace8
Large, abrupt, and widespread climate changes with major impacts have occurred repeatedly in the past, when the Earth system was forced across thresholds. Although abrupt climate changes can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events. Were such an event to recur, the economic and ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious. Unpredictability exhibited near climate thresholds in simple models shows that some uncertainty will always be associated with projections. In light of these uncertainties, policy-makers should consider expanding research into abrupt climate change, improving monitoring systems, and taking actions designed to enhance the adaptability and resilience of ecosystems and economies.
from:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5615/2005
may require a subscription
1 Department of Geosciences and EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
2 Southampton Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.
3 Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
4 Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
5 Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA, and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA.
6 Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.
7 Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
8 Department of Atmospheric Sciences and
9 Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
10 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
11 The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
GM Mice Make Heart-Friendly Fish Oils
Beneficial oils typically produced by fish can now be manufactured by mammals, according to a new report. Research published today in the journal Nature describes genetically modified mice that contain high levels of so-called omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to protect against heart disease and improve circulation
here...
I dunno... here come the superhumans... they eat shit and DON"T die.
Beneficial oils typically produced by fish can now be manufactured by mammals, according to a new report. Research published today in the journal Nature describes genetically modified mice that contain high levels of so-called omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to protect against heart disease and improve circulation
here...
I dunno... here come the superhumans... they eat shit and DON"T die.
AWOL Story Won't Die
Thursday, Feb 05, 2004; 10:29 AM
It's a busy little blog today. Here's a summary of what you'll get when you scroll:
• AWOL Watch: The Boston Globe, which in 2000 was the first paper to report on President Bush's spotty record as a National Guardsman, returns to the issue this morning and finds once again that Bush did not report for required Guard duty for a full year at the height of the Vietnam War. Reporter Walter V. Robinson tells Salon he thinks some documents have been removed and inserted from Bush's military file. Howard Dean says the questions are "fair game." And the blogosphere wants to see Bush come clean with his records.
• Scalia Watch: The Los Angeles Times has another twist in the story of how Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia won't recuse himself after going duck-hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney, who is a named party in a case pending before the court. Today, the paper reports Scalia actually flew in on Air Force Two as Cheney's guest.
• Gay Marriage: In the wake of the same-sex marriage ruling by the Massachusetts court, the New York Times reports that White House political guru Karl Rove told at least one conservative Christian group recently that the president will soon endorse an amendment to the United States Constitution that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.
• Halliburton Watch: Newsweek reports that the Justice Department is looking into whether Halliburton Co. was getting kickbacks in Nigeria in the late 1990s when Cheney was chairman of the company.
• Commission Watch: The Washington Post reports that the White House reversed itself and agreed to a two-month extension of the deadline for completion of an independent investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack -- but only after receiving assurances that the final report won't be too hard on Bush.
• Plame Watch: The Talking Points blog posted a letter from the CIA which suggests it took the Justice Department two months to agree to investigate the White House's leak of a CIA operative's identity.
And there's more. Bush compared to Winston Churchill. Bush traveling to South Carolina in the wake of the Democratic primary. Bush not being told immediately about the ricin sent to the White House. Your suggestions on where Bush should go shopping today. And this final headline: "White House to Press Corps: Clean Up Your Act."
goto: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P72144.asp
Restless youth, resurgent fundamentalism and a resentful middle class are an increasingly imminent threat to Saudi Arabia's rulers -- and to oil-addicted Westerners.
By Jon D. Markman
Saudi Arabia faces its gravest economic, social and political threat in years as hundreds of thousands of Muslims make their annual hajj to the nation’s holy sites this week. And if the House of Saud is threatened, so, too, are the price of oil and the great American right to own two SUVs, a Harley and an RV.
The menace, long simmering under the surface of a seemingly content society, has boiled to the surface recently with clashes between Saudi police and armed extremists in Riyadh and Mecca. And we’re not talking about the 250-plus pilgrims trampled while stoning Satan last weekend.
Last week, the Independent newspaper of Great Britain reported “an extraordinary level of political violence” in the al-Jouf province, power base of the al-Sudairy branch of the royal family, including assassinations of the deputy governor, police chief and a judge.
The Saudi government was forced Thursday to deny accounts in their own media of the existence of terrorist training camps in the kingdom. In a land already ruled with an iron fist, the German news service DPA reported that more than 1,000 surveillance cameras had been installed on roads to allow soldiers to monitor pilgrims’ every move.
A South Africa newspaper, the Cape Argus, said police in its country had intercepted a Pakistani plot to use fake passports to fly to Saudi Arabia via Cape Town.
And Reuters reported that diplomats said the Saudi government was deeply worried the hajj could become a target for attack or be used as a cover for militants to infiltrate the kingdom. In 2003, more than 50 people died in suicide bombings in Riyadh.
Even if violent disruption is avoided this week, there is little doubt that extremist elements are gaining strength in the homeland of the West’s most reliable Arab partner. The problem is not just al-Qaeda, which recruited most of the 9/11 suicide hijackers there. According to veteran observer John Bradley of the Independent, it’s also merchant families and tribes who were prominent in the country before the Sauds consolidated power in the early part of the last century and now see a chance to reassert themselves upon the death of the aged, ailing King Fahd.
American investors ignore this danger at their peril. For if three disparate forces hook up -- the disenfranchised non-royal merchant class, religious fundamentalists and disaffected youths -- our cheap, easy access to the Saudis’ vast petroleum reserves could be threatened for anywhere from a few weeks to years, sending oil prices north of $60.
Restless youth, resurgent fundamentalism and a resentful middle class are an increasingly imminent threat to Saudi Arabia's rulers -- and to oil-addicted Westerners.
By Jon D. Markman
Saudi Arabia faces its gravest economic, social and political threat in years as hundreds of thousands of Muslims make their annual hajj to the nation’s holy sites this week. And if the House of Saud is threatened, so, too, are the price of oil and the great American right to own two SUVs, a Harley and an RV.
The menace, long simmering under the surface of a seemingly content society, has boiled to the surface recently with clashes between Saudi police and armed extremists in Riyadh and Mecca. And we’re not talking about the 250-plus pilgrims trampled while stoning Satan last weekend.
Last week, the Independent newspaper of Great Britain reported “an extraordinary level of political violence” in the al-Jouf province, power base of the al-Sudairy branch of the royal family, including assassinations of the deputy governor, police chief and a judge.
The Saudi government was forced Thursday to deny accounts in their own media of the existence of terrorist training camps in the kingdom. In a land already ruled with an iron fist, the German news service DPA reported that more than 1,000 surveillance cameras had been installed on roads to allow soldiers to monitor pilgrims’ every move.
A South Africa newspaper, the Cape Argus, said police in its country had intercepted a Pakistani plot to use fake passports to fly to Saudi Arabia via Cape Town.
And Reuters reported that diplomats said the Saudi government was deeply worried the hajj could become a target for attack or be used as a cover for militants to infiltrate the kingdom. In 2003, more than 50 people died in suicide bombings in Riyadh.
Even if violent disruption is avoided this week, there is little doubt that extremist elements are gaining strength in the homeland of the West’s most reliable Arab partner. The problem is not just al-Qaeda, which recruited most of the 9/11 suicide hijackers there. According to veteran observer John Bradley of the Independent, it’s also merchant families and tribes who were prominent in the country before the Sauds consolidated power in the early part of the last century and now see a chance to reassert themselves upon the death of the aged, ailing King Fahd.
American investors ignore this danger at their peril. For if three disparate forces hook up -- the disenfranchised non-royal merchant class, religious fundamentalists and disaffected youths -- our cheap, easy access to the Saudis’ vast petroleum reserves could be threatened for anywhere from a few weeks to years, sending oil prices north of $60.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Florida predicted for Gore. For Bush. For Gore. For Bush. (Happily, after the west coast polls closed)
10% of the delgates selected, and 8 months before the convention, the media puts Kerry as the candidate. and 90% of the votes aren't even cast!
Talk about media influence on the democratic process. These guys get paid by the word.
CNN, MSNBC, Charlie Rose, everybody, racing to be right. And having a lot of the power to make things come out quite as they "predicted", gathering favors, now, on the chance their pick will win. And they helped.
They are not reporting, they are campaigning, they are pull reporting, push reporting, now reporting 24/7 on Kerry.
The media have a serious vested interest in the outcome.
10% of the delgates selected, and 8 months before the convention, the media puts Kerry as the candidate. and 90% of the votes aren't even cast!
Talk about media influence on the democratic process. These guys get paid by the word.
CNN, MSNBC, Charlie Rose, everybody, racing to be right. And having a lot of the power to make things come out quite as they "predicted", gathering favors, now, on the chance their pick will win. And they helped.
They are not reporting, they are campaigning, they are pull reporting, push reporting, now reporting 24/7 on Kerry.
The media have a serious vested interest in the outcome.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Army Study of Iraq War Details a 'Morass' of Supply Shortages
Powell and White House Get Together on Iraq War
The war had and has some serious upsides:
We got to use our equipment, our people and get new stuff
We put on one helluva show
We got to practice, and although we made mistakes, the world knows we are better and even better.
Now adding misile defense, theatre nuclear weapons, we are a lethal nation.
Alas, we are almost Spartans, and need to fight and kill: its our economy, its what's for breakfast now.
And a real alas: it was done incredibly badly by this administration. Criminal.
"One more such victory, and we are undone."
Powell and White House Get Together on Iraq War
The war had and has some serious upsides:
We got to use our equipment, our people and get new stuff
We put on one helluva show
We got to practice, and although we made mistakes, the world knows we are better and even better.
Now adding misile defense, theatre nuclear weapons, we are a lethal nation.
Alas, we are almost Spartans, and need to fight and kill: its our economy, its what's for breakfast now.
And a real alas: it was done incredibly badly by this administration. Criminal.
"One more such victory, and we are undone."
From Gerald. Thanks for sending. I wanted to post my comments on this article, so I put it up here.
TIME.com: Why I'm Rooting for Dean -- Feb. 09, 2004
TIME.com: Why I'm Rooting for Dean -- Feb. 09, 2004
Monday, February 02, 2004
Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski states the incredibly obvious (except, duh, I missed it)...
on NPR ATC, today.
Read this: when you think about it, it is a very very powerful indictment of Bush.
He was asked about President Bush's statement that the whole world was wrong about Iraq, not just us. Brzezinski says, well, if it weren't so serious a question it would be a joke: does anyone think that Argentina, South Korea, Finland, Portugal, etc had their own independent intelligence on Iraq?
The whole world thought Iraq had weapons because WE told them!
England? They had political interests: Blair and Bush are "born again", certain so did Russia and Israel. France? Yeah, they too had an agenda. But thats it: that's the "whole inteligence community"!
Up until now, we, the United States, were a reliable, honest source, and they believed us. (We're the guys that brokered peace in Ireland!!) Not any more.
It is the president who lied. Absolutely.
A question: IF, as a simple matter of fact, the president lied, would he be guilty of war crimes? If he lead his country into war on false pretenses? I'm sure he had the best of intensions, but of course, everyone who invades has the best of intensions: that's a tautology.
on NPR ATC, today.
Read this: when you think about it, it is a very very powerful indictment of Bush.
He was asked about President Bush's statement that the whole world was wrong about Iraq, not just us. Brzezinski says, well, if it weren't so serious a question it would be a joke: does anyone think that Argentina, South Korea, Finland, Portugal, etc had their own independent intelligence on Iraq?
The whole world thought Iraq had weapons because WE told them!
England? They had political interests: Blair and Bush are "born again", certain so did Russia and Israel. France? Yeah, they too had an agenda. But thats it: that's the "whole inteligence community"!
Up until now, we, the United States, were a reliable, honest source, and they believed us. (We're the guys that brokered peace in Ireland!!) Not any more.
It is the president who lied. Absolutely.
A question: IF, as a simple matter of fact, the president lied, would he be guilty of war crimes? If he lead his country into war on false pretenses? I'm sure he had the best of intensions, but of course, everyone who invades has the best of intensions: that's a tautology.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Factory Farms & Grass Fed Beef - An audio program I heard on NPR dealing with cattle industry health issues. A well organized and interesting discussion of feed lots, corn feeding, medicating, grass feeding, etc.
For the past two years, we've been buying grass fed beef from local farmers in a cooperative manner where we organize with friends to buy an entire cow, then split it up when it is ready to butcher. It is great tasting meat and we know the people who feed it and take care of it every day. Even though it is more expensive for a rancher to raise cattle this way, we actually save money vs. buying at the grocery store (and especially vs. buying grass-fed at whole foods) because we're buying in bulk with no middle-men.
Living On Earth
For the past two years, we've been buying grass fed beef from local farmers in a cooperative manner where we organize with friends to buy an entire cow, then split it up when it is ready to butcher. It is great tasting meat and we know the people who feed it and take care of it every day. Even though it is more expensive for a rancher to raise cattle this way, we actually save money vs. buying at the grocery store (and especially vs. buying grass-fed at whole foods) because we're buying in bulk with no middle-men.
Living On Earth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)