The fall of the House of Bush
Herein we see that the family counts more than the country. Herein we see Bush the elder, whose Iran/Contra iniquities have been dutifully hidden by the son, continue to discredit himself as a process inseparable from his drawing breath.
The Bushes MUST live with the knowledge that they WILL be found out and their history as presidents will be known to all as shameful. They might die before it happens, but they must know: it will happen.

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

Pink Floyd - Wish you were here

Killing the Buddha is a religion magazine for people made anxious by churches, people embarrassed to be caught in the "spirituality" section of a bookstore, people both hostile and drawn to talk of God. It is for people who somehow want to be religious, who want to know what it means to know the divine, but for good reasons are not and do not. If the religious have come to own religious discourse it is because they alone have had places where religious language could be spoken and understood. Now there is a forum for the supposedly non-religious to think and talk about what religion is, is not and might be. Killing the Buddha is it.

March 29, 2004

How we live our days is how we live our lives

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.

[...]
In short, the future will be made of a series of present moments. As the Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh has said, “By taking good care of the present, we take good care of the future.” Whatever we regularly contain in our daily actions is what we choose to contain in our lives. If we want to buy low and sell high, we should hold that in mind in our daily actions. If we want happiness and peace, we should probably do the same.
[...]

news from "not from a news dept" dept

Scott MacLennan in Nepal

Failure

More...

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24792 > ===============================

WHITE HOUSE, 4/01: FOCUS ON BIN LADEN "A MISTAKE"

A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks (1).

Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious
change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden." (2).

The move to downgrade the fight against Al Qaeda before 9/11 was not the only instance where the Administration ignored repeated warnings that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent (3). Specifically, the Associated Press reported in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions" (4). Meanwhile, Newsweek has reported that internal government documents show that the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism prior to 9/11 (5). When "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

Sources:
1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 03/22/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24793.
2. CNN, 04/30/2001.
3. Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry,
ABC News, 05/16/2002, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24794.
4. "Top security advisers met just twice on terrorism before Sept. 11
attacks", Detroit News, 07/01/2002, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24795.
5. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24796.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. --> < http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24797 >

Clarke messed with the truth
Ah, it seems relatively small, but it is quite at the nub of the question: who knew what and when. Clarke did present us a different timeline while he worked for the White House. Clarke attributes any and all differences between his testimony now and he words then to "minimizing embarassment".
The fact that the administration was looking very very hard in the completely wrong direction is therefore considered an "embarassment"?
Nah: Clinton getting cum on Lewinsky's dress: THAT's an embarassment. Getting your country ambushed because you did poor work? Embarassing?
So, not a lie: we misspoke. Not a lie: we were minimizing embarassment.
No, judge, I was NOT stealing!!! I was trying to improve my lot and care for my family. It was certainly not my intent to steal!

I just had to post this one.

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24515 > ===============================

PUBLIC RECORD: BUSH IGNORED TERRORISM BEFORE 9/11

In the face of Richard Clarke's well-documented testimony to the 9/11 commission yesterday, the White House is continuing to say that it made counterterrorism its top priority upon coming into office in January 2001. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, echoing similar comments from top Administration officials, said that "this Administration made going after Al Qaida a top priority from very early on" in the face of increased terror warnings before 9/11 (1). But, according to the public record, the Administration made counterterrorism such a "top priority" that it never once convened its task force on counterterrorism before 9/11, attempted to downgrade counterterrorism at the Justice Department, and held only two out of more than one hundred national security meetings on the issue of terrorism. Meanwhile, the White House was cutting key counterterrorism programs -- Bush himself admitted that he "didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11 (2).

According to the Washington Post, President Bush and Vice President Cheney never once convened the counterterrorism task force that was established in May 2001 (3) -- despite repeated warnings that Al Qaida could be planning to hijack airplanes and use them as missiles. This negligence came at roughly the same time that the Vice President held at least 10 meetings of his Energy Task Force (4) and attended at least six meetings with Enron executives (5).

Similarly, Newsweek reported that internal government documents show that, before 9/11, the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism (6). When the "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

Additionally, the Associated Press reported in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions." This is consistent with evidence Clarke has presented showing that his January 2001 "urgent" memo asking for a meeting of top officials on the imminent Al Qaida threat was rejected for almost eight months (7). At the time, the White House said that they simply "did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat" (8).

Finally, the White House threatened to veto efforts putting more money into counterterrorism (9), tried to cut funding for counterterrorism grants (10), delayed arming the unmanned airplanes (11) that had spotted bin Laden in Afghanistan, and terminated "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaida suspects in the United States (12).

Sources:
1. Press Briefing Scott McClellan, 03/22/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24516.
2. The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment, 2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24517.
3. Statement by the President, 05/08/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24518.
4. Process Used to Develop the National Energy Policy, US General Accounting
Office,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24519.
5. "Cheney: We Met With Enron Execs", ABC News, 01/09/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24520.
6. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24521.
7. "Clarke's Take On Terror", CBS News, 03/21/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24522.
8. "White House Rebuttal to Clarke Interview", Washington Post, 03/22/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24523.
9. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24521.
10. "FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11", Washington Post, 03/22/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24524.
11. "Officials: U.S. missed chance to kill bin Laden", Helena Independent
Record, 06/25/2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24525.
12. "In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly
Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.", PR Newswire, 03/21/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24526.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. --> < http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=24527 >

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

Subscribe to the Daily Mislead! Go to http://www.misleader.org and enter your e-mail address in the "Receive the Daily Mislead" box in the top-left corner of the page.

To unsubscribe send an email to latest@daily.misleader.org with only the word "remove" in the subject line of your e-mail, or visit http://daily.misleader.org/unsubscribe/ and follow the instructions listed there.

Corporate state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The concept of the Corporate State developed under the context of Fascism in Mussolini's Italy as a means of regulating industrial relations. The theory divided society into a limited number of corporations. This collectivism then functioned as a means of control and a channel for government intervention. Theoretical underpinning came from the medieval traditions of guilds and craft-based economics.

Caldenvera! Heaven on Earth!

March 22, 2004
A Gathering Storm

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.

Near the peak of the stock market bubble a few years ago, as many technology stocks were soaring, Yale economist Robert Shiller appeared on CNBC, detailing his views about the overvaluation of the U.S. stock market. Answering a question about what investors or policy makers could do to avoid the consequences of the bubble, Shiller noted that while certain investors could defend themselves, it was impossible for the market, in aggregate, to do so. Summing it all up, he said, “It's just an unfortunate situation.” I'll never forget that phrase, and the baked-in-the-cake inevitability that it implied.

Examining the condition of the U.S. economy with regard to personal, corporate, federal and international indebtedness, the same conclusion is unavoidable. It's just an unfortunate situation.

Amid the glib opinions of CNBC guests that the economy is expanding, the unrelenting déjà vu that jobs are just around the corner, and the misplaced confidence that stock prices will follow corporate earnings higher, there is only faint recognition of how profound the U.S. debt problem is, and how ineffective standard fiscal and monetary policy tools will be in escaping its consequences.

More
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc040322.htm

It works! e-Voting works! It works! It works! Yes!!! Hot Damn!
from the "just like you thought it would" dept.

..."After recounting more than 13,000 absentee paper ballots, Northern California's Napa County reported Thursday that an electronic voting machine used in the March 2 primary election missed more than 6,000 votes." here

..."If the problem had occurred with their electronic ballots or with the tabulation software (that sits on the county server) they would have been hard pressed to reconstruct their election," she said. "Or they might not have ever known there was a problem at all. If they were doing the manual count on the electronic ballots there would be no record to look at to determine what the accurate vote count should be."
and here

A QUOTE FROM STERLING HAYDEN'S BOOK, WANDERER

To be truly challenging, a voyage, like a life, must rest on a firm foundation of financial unrest. Otherwise, you are doomed to a routine traverse, the kind known to yachtsmen who play with their boats at sea... "cruising" it is called. Voyaging belongs to seamen, and to the wanderers of the world who cannot, or will not, fit in. If you are contemplating a voyage and you have the means, abandon the venture until your fortunes change. Only then will you know what the sea is all about.

"I've always wanted to sail to the south seas, but I can't afford it." What these men can't afford is not to go. They are enmeshed in the cancerous discipline of "security." And in the worship of security we fling our lives beneath the wheels of routine - and before we know it our lives are gone.

What does a man need - really need? A few pounds of food each day, heat and shelter, six feet to lie down in - and some form of working activity that will yield a sense of accomplishment. That's all - in the material sense, and we know it. But we are brainwashed by our economic system until we end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade.

The years thunder by, The dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed.

Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?

Sterling Hayden

Worth Reading Again.
THEY CALL IT DEMOCRACY by Bruce Cockburn (1985)

Padded with power here they come
International loan sharks backed by the guns
Of market hungry military profiteers
Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared
With the blood of the poor

Who rob life of its quality
Who render rage a necessity
By turning countries into labour camps
Modern slavers in drag as champions of freedom

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called "developed" nations'
Idolatry of ideology

North south east west
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

I see the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
And it's open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy, and they call it democracy
And they call it democracy, and they call it democracy

You see the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you're going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt
And they call it democracy

Cockburn Bruce They Call It Democracy Guitar Tab - All Good Tabs and Lyrics

Bush fears the truth will set him free

Bookman

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/15/2004

Last November, the Bush administration and congressional GOP leadership did some extraordinary arm-twisting to pass a Medicare prescription-drug plan that President Bush wanted as a centerpiece of his re-election. Republican conservatives were particularly reluctant to pass the bill, given its $400 billion price tag over the next 10 years at a time when the deficit is soaring.

At one point, things got so heated that one Republican congressmen later accused his party leaders of attempted bribery on the House floor, a charge reportedly now under FBI investigation.

What none of those congressmen realized, however, was that they were being snookered. Some of them had been promised that the program's cost would not exceed the $400 billion estimate; yet five months before the vote took place, government analysts had concluded that the program's actual cost would be closer to $550 billion.

In a serious breach of ethics, the actuaries who produced that figure were ordered by Bush appointees to conceal their findings from Congress and the public on pain of being fired. Even congressmen who asked specifically about cost estimates were told they did not exist.

"This whole episode, which has now gone on for three weeks, has been pretty nightmarish," actuary Richard Foster wrote in an internal e-mail to colleagues back on June 26. (The message was recently obtained by Knight-Ridder newspapers.) "I'm perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policy-makers for political reasons." (Foster still has his job.)

Two months after the critical vote in Congress, the White House finally admitted the truth, after a fashion. It announced that it was shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that the actual cost of the Medicare bill had zoomed to $534 billion.

"That really is a shocker," Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the anti-deficit Concord Coalition, said at the time. "It's a huge change. If a number like this had been floating around the Capitol last fall, it never would have passed."

Exactly.

What we have here is government by willful deception, a scandal compounded by the fact that ethical public servants were actually intimidated into not doing their jobs. And unfortunately, it is only part of a pattern of such behavior.

Three weeks before the crucial congressional vote committing this country to war against Iraq in 2002, the Bush administration had learned that North Korea had restarted its nuclear weapons program, a fact that dramatically altered the nation's strategic situation. With that news, the possibility of a military conflict on the Korean peninsula rose sharply.

Members of Congress needed that information if they were to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities wisely; with that knowledge, they might have been less likely to commit our troops to Iraq, where roughly half of the Army is now deployed. But the administration chose to keep Congress in the dark about the information until after the Iraq vote had been cast.

Again, in the days leading up to the war vote, administration officials told Congress it had no idea what a war would cost. When Lawrence Lindsey, then head of the White House's National Economic Council, let it slip that it would probably cost somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion -- far higher than unofficial estimates by the Pentagon at the time, and in the end pretty accurate -- it led to his dismissal.

Even now, the administration is playing the game again by refusing to include the cost of occupying Iraq in the 2005 budget it has submitted to Congress, a ploy that keeps the projected 2005 deficit artificially low. That budget takes effect Oct. 1, yet the White House says it won't release its request for additional money until January, long after people have cast their ballots.

Apparently, the White House finds the specter of well-informed voters pretty frightening.

from the "gee, isn't that wrong?" dept.
WASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.
more...Hey, lighten up! It isn't at if they invaded another country or anything!

Fighting a War
In WW II, battle techniques were designed to fight the submarine wolf packs that attacked the Atlantic merchant fleet. There's a lesson in here: terrorism is a tactic: what is an effective counter measure?

Why is this man smiling?

Widespread Panic Over Dihydrogen Monoxide

Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info

Stupid Intern! DOH!

March 15, 2004
The Art of Reading Tea Leaves

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.

Thousands of years ago, the ancient Chinese developed the practice of reading tea leaves, which would follow ceremonial tea meditation (a way of focusing mindfulness on even the smallest aspects of life). The belief was that the configuration of tea leaves remaining in the cup was a reflection of the state of the world at that particular moment.

If you're in a meditative mood, or just completely bored out of your mind, you can go ahead and try this (not that I have, but it could be fun). Brew some loose, unstrained tea in a white, large-bottomed tea cup. Sip the tea mindfully while you observe each action, and maybe meditate gently on something, like Intel's second-quarter revenue outlook or the next rate hike by the FOMC.

As you finish the cup, swirl the remaining tea a few times so the loose leaves get up along the sides of the cup, invert it over a saucer to drain the leftover liquid, then turn the cup over again and look inside.

The basic idea is that the dispersion of the tea leaves will create patterns. Patterns of tea leaves near the rim of the cup tell of events in the near future, while patterns near the bottom tell of more distant things. Fortunately, the patterns that the ancient Chinese looked for were fairly straightforward. Here are a few of them:

Good luck: bell, angel, fruit, kite, horseshoe, rainbow.

Bad luck: bear, raven, lock, tower.

Travel: boat, palm tree.

Argument: bull, closed hand.

Harmony: dove, open hand.

Financial gain or advancement: ladder, coin, fountain, whole eggs.

Financial loss or difficulty: broken eggs, Martha Stewart.

You get the picture. Anyway, there's an interesting aspect of reading tea leaves that comes straight from information theory: the best information comes from a pattern of dispersion that tells a story. If the tea in your cup always settles in a single nondescript clump at the bottom of the cup, you're not going to be able to say much that's interesting. It's the variation, dispersion, and patterns in the tea leaves that tell the richest stories.

More ...

Mary Poppins agrees with Jerry!

ARTIST: Richard and Robert Sherman
TITLE: Spoonful of Sugar
PERFORMED: Julie Andrews (Mary Poppins)

In every job that must be done
There is an element of fun
You find the fun and - snap! - the job's a game
And every task you undertake
Becomes a piece of cake
A lark, a spree
It's very clear to see

That a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down, the medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way

A robin feathering his nest
Has very little time to rest
While gathering his bits of twine and twig
Though quite intent in his pursuit
He has a merry tune to toot
He knows a song will move the job along

For a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down, the medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way

The honeybees that bring the nectar
From the flowers to the comb
Never tire in ever buzzing to and fro
Because they take a little nip
From every flower that they sip
And hence (and hence) they find (they find)
Their task is not a grind Ah!

Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down, the medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way

There's lead in them thar hills (Capital hill, that is)

from the "why are you out there" department:
"As revealed in an exclusive Knight-Ridder report, the White House threatened
to fire its own top Medicare actuary "if he told lawmakers about a series of
Bush administration cost estimates" that priced the bill at more than $500
billion. "
The daily mislead
"Beware the man who holds his job and not his soul"

What a cool idea - Nation simulation!

Jennifer Government: NationStates

Defining God
I had to define my religion today for some adoption related paperwork. It was challenging, here's what I came up with:

I believe there is an organizing, creative force in the universe and that our reality is an expression or manifestation of this power. We can describe and measure aspects of this structure, but no level of understanding, no matter how complex and scientific, can diminish the ultimate awe with which one must behold all that is. This is how I define God.

Funny, I don't feel like a heathen?

Sugar: counting the wrong calories.
Sugar is the substance that informs the body that what you are eating is good. Sort of like salt (except, we don't count the calories in salt): both substances will enable us to eat a lot more of whatever contains that substance that the same substance without that signal.
Put sugar and pasta, on vegetables, on dark brown bread, or broccoli, spinach, okra, hamburger, buns, ketchup, tomatoes, lemons, brusquely sprouts, eggplant... You will be able and eager to consume more.
Like the story of the man that carried a wheelbarrow of dirt out of the plant everyday... The dirt was searched, nothing found, day after day. Yet surely, he was stealing something! "Tell us, please, we'll stop searching, what are you stealing in the dirt?"
"I'm stealing wheelbarrows".
Sugar is the wheelbarrow that carries tons of calories, fats and carbohydrates, past the gate. (Notice how sweet the McDonald's hamburgers are).
Use sugar to your advantage: sprinkle on the things you know are very very good for you. You can even put sugar on those orange pieces of wood the Canadians call carrots: yum. That'll fill you up! Like salt, don't mix it in, but keep it on the surface, where the taste buds can find it. Yeah, its a trick, but they're only taste buds! No sin in tricking them.

I'm busy, busy, busy. But here is a quick post...
Ken

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8126-1032889,00.html
March 10, 2004

Cups of coffee can ward off diabetes . . .
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent



DRINKING coffee can substantially reduce the risk of developing diabetes, scientists have discovered.
A major study involving more than 14,000 people in Finland, which has the highest rate of coffee consumption in the world, has revealed that those who drink most have the lowest incidence of adult-onset or type 2 diabetes.



When people drank three to four cups of coffee a day, their risk of developing diabetes fell by 29 per cent for women and 27 per cent for men.

“Coffeeholics” who drank very large amounts of coffee — ten or more cups a day — were even less likely to suffer from the disease: such high consumption reduced the risk by 79 per cent for women and 55 per cent for men.

In the study, a team at the Finnish National Public Health Institute in Helsinki combined the results of three surveys conducted in 1982, 1987 and 1992, involving a total of 6,974 Finnish men and 7,655 women.

The subjects, who were all aged between 35 and 64 and had no history of stroke, coronary heart disease or diabetes, were asked to record their coffee consumption and were then followed up by doctors to assess their health.

Jaakko Tuomilehto, who led the research, said it suggested that coffee drinking offered some protection against adult-onset diabetes, particularly in women.

“This study revealed un- equivocal evidence for an inverse and graded association between coffee consumption and type 2 diabetes mellitus, independent of other risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus,” he said.

“Because the Finnish population drinks more coffee than other populations, we had power to determine the risk of diabetes mellitus at high levels of coffee consumption”.

The research, details of which are published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, does not indicate why coffee appears to protect against diabetes. Scientists believe caffeine is a likely candidate, though minerals such as potassium and magnesium and the vitamin niacin have also been suggested.

Dr Tuomilehto said more research was needed to determine this. “The mechanisms or process by which coffee contents may exert their beneficial effects . . . are nevertheless unclear,” he said, The results add to a growing body of evidence. Previous studies at the Harvard School of Public Health in the US, and the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, have made similar findings.

The benefits, however, seem to be greatest at much higher levels of coffee consumption than are recommended for general health. The Dutch study, for example, found that men who drank seven cups a day were 50 per cent less likely to develop diabetes than those who drank just two cups daily.

Excessive coffee drinking has been linked to a range of health problems, including miscarriage, insomnia, anxiety, diarrhoea and an irregular heartbeat. Most nutritionists advise against drinking more than four cups a day, particularly during pregnancy.

Type 2 diabetes, which usually develops in middle age and is often linked to obesity, has become a worldwide epidemic. While it can be controlled by diet and drugs, it can have long-term consequences such as heart disease and blindness.

The condition develops when the body becomes insensitive to insulin. Coffee reduces insulin sensitivity but other components in it, such as magnesium or chlorogenic acid, may have beneficial effects.

On January 23, 2004 President Bush said, according to a report by the Associated Press: “I have no ambition whatsoever to use [9/11 or national security] as a political issue.” liar.
On the other hand, it was a stupid statement: national security IS a political issue. So is 9/11, GW. So is 9/11. And both were handled badly.

Let me just bookmark this thought: that the mean spiritedness of B**h, the environmental excesses, the bowing to big business is NOT something purchased by large contributions. Rather they are salutes from people of like mind and for whom the B**h primitiveness of thought is gladdening.
The priciple applied here is really the same as applied by Thomas Paine at the start of this country: King George was NOT the victim of bad advice, he was its author, and those around him were selected for their agreement.
So it is with our George: he is the author of grim progress of this nation, and he not so much bought by corporate greed and influence, but simply in complete aggreement with it.
George B**h is going for a great and self indulgent ride. He is taking riders. They mean no harm throwing their beer bottles out the window as they gaily ride: they just don't give a shit for anyone but their own self righteous selves.
Proposal: America has the government she deserves. Proof: The last time she took argument with this, there was revolution. There is no revolution, hence there must be no argument, hence, she does have the government she deserves. QED.

Gay Marriage Assignment: Read the following two articles, then, taking into account the arguments therein, formulate your own argument as to why polygomy and/or bigamy should be legal/illegal.

The case for gay marriage

Feb 26th 2004
From The Economist print edition

It rests on equality, liberty and even society

SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.

Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilisation” from what he sees as “activist judges” who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those “activist judges”, who, by the way, gave Mr Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that “the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.

Let them wed

That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago (“Let them wed”, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?


Civil unions are not enough
The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a “marriage”. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash—of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.

New fuel for the culture wars

26th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage adds thorny legal and political questions to a troublesome moral debate

AT A speech to the Republican Governors' Association on February 23rd, George Bush argued that voters face a stark choice between “two visions of government”: one (his) that encourages individual freedom, the other (the Democrats') that “takes your money and makes your choices”. Twelve hours later, he presented Americans with an equally stark question: do you want a constitutional ban on gay marriage? By any measure, this would take away gay Americans' choice. By supporting the proposed ban, President Bush has re-ignited the culture wars, given a new, possibly nastier character to the presidential race and committed America to a long, maybe unresolvable, debate about fundamental mores.

America's culture wars have the virtue of ventilating profound questions of personal behaviour and responsibility. Their drawback is that they are sometimes poisoned by majoritarian actions. So it may be this time. The underlying issue of gay marriage turns on basic attitudes towards sexuality, on the extent to which marriage should be buttressed by law, and on whether gay marriage would undermine the institution itself. But the particular form in which the issue is now being presented—as a proposed amendment to the federal constitution—raises questions about who should make decisions like this and what is the proper role of the state and federal governments.

Supporters of a constitutional ban want to stop gay marriages everywhere, of course. But in practice they focus on a slightly different issue: how to stop gay marriage spreading from state to state through a clause in the constitution that says “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.” The fear is that, as the president put it, “some activist judges and local officials” will permit gay marriage in one place. Gays from all over the country will then rush to marry, return home and sue in their home state's courts to have their marriage contract recognised. In support of this view, proponents of the ban point out that, in practice, states always recognise each other's marriage laws. Gay marriage would be no exception.

They point out that the federal government has twice stepped in to strike down marriage laws deemed acceptable in one state but not elsewhere. In both cases, this involved polygamy among Mormons, first when Lincoln banned bigamy in 1862 (the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act) and again in 1890 when the federal government insisted Utah outlaw polygamy as a condition of becoming a state. If the feds can ban polygamy, why not gay marriage too?

Lastly, they argue, a constitutional ban would stop only marriage among homosexuals, not civil unions. States could still, they claim, write their own laws granting gays some legal rights short of marriage, as Vermont has done.

Opponents of the ban reject these arguments one by one. Most important, they say, proponents are factually and legally wrong about the constitution's “full faith and credit” clause. It has long been established in law that if an issue comes within the purview of states, and if states have their own public policy on that issue, then they do not have to recognise another state's law. This exception is essential to the operation of the federal system itself, which would otherwise be rendered meaningless.

There is no doubt that marriage is a matter for the states, not the federal government. It has been so for centuries. There is no doubt that many states have their own policy, since 38 have passed “defence of marriage acts” defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. It is true, opponents concede, that states have always recognised each other's marriage laws. But that was because there was consensus. Now that the consensus is fraying, Texas (say) will not be required to recognise a gay marriage made in Massachusetts. The result will be messy, but that is the price of federalism.

Moreover, opponents of a ban point out, the “full faith and credit” clause gives Congress a role in deciding “the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be provided”. Congress made clear its view by passing, in 1996, its own Defence of Marriage Act. In sum, opponents say, the constitutional defences against extending gay marriage by judicial activism are strong.

Lastly, they claim, proponents of a constitutional ban are plain wrong—or lying—when they say their amendment would permit civil unions. As it stands, the proposal before Congress would prevent “marital status or the legal incidents thereof [being] conferred upon unmarried couples or groups”. If the phrase “legal incidents thereof” means anything, it must refer to civil unions. These would be banned.

Could such an amendment pass? Since the Bill of Rights, there have been only 16 amendments in 200 years. Most guarantee or extend the operation of democracy (such as women's suffrage), rather than defend social norms (such as Prohibition). Any amendment requires the approval of three-quarters of the states, plus a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.

This looks hard, but is not out of the question. Three-quarters of the states have passed laws banning gay marriage, though some might vote against an amendment on states'-rights grounds. The decisive factor, though, will be public opinion.

It is often said that Americans disapprove of gay marriage but support civil unions. Not so. Gay marriage is more unpopular than unions (about 60% dislike the former), but, depending on how the question is asked, a small majority disapproves of civil unions too. That suggests that public pressure on legislators could be strong.

But opinion is fluid. It is sensitive to news. Support for an amendment rose when the Supreme Court struck down Texas's sodomy law last year. It shifts depending on how the debate is framed: the more you talk about equal rights under the law, the greater the support for civil unions. And there is a yawning generation gap: 55% of 18-29-year-olds support gay marriage, but only 21% of those over 65.

Mr Bush may therefore be taking a bigger political gamble than is apparent on the surface. Democrats complain that by supporting a constitutional ban he is seeking a “wedge issue” for the election (something that splits Democrats but unites Republicans). And it is true that Republican-voting evangelicals strongly support a ban, and may well turn out in even greater numbers as a result. But Republicans too are split on the ban. Libertarians dislike legislating on sexual behaviour. Federalists deplore the proposed overriding of a core competence of states. Around 1m gays voted Republican in 2000.

So there are costs as well as benefits for the president. And those costs may spread to the country as a whole. In Roe v Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court imposed a uniform law on a country divided and in flux on abortion. The issue still splits the nation. A constitutional amendment would stop state experimentation and impose a national norm on a country divided and in flux about gay marriage. Debate could fester for years.

And now here's something completely different
Greenpeace. And England ("your totally silly country...")

A linux WIKI
(The call it a knowledge base, but it isn't. But it's still very nice!)
Yeah, its Linux. But consider the possibilities!
But then, at some point:
"Mission Control, we have a problem of Sisyphus-ian proportions: we cannot learn fast enough to get more knowledge to the top of the pile"

Last year's deadly summer in Europe probably was the hottest on the continent in at least five centuries, according to researchers who analyzed ancient temperature records. More than 19,000 people died.
Gee.*
*Summary of US reaction and outpouring of sympathy

Stop Hiding the Toll of War

By Nancy Lessin and Gordon Clark, AlterNet
March 4, 2004

President Bush's rationale for taking us to war in Iraq has crumbled. The truth about supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is being told. At the same time, another truth remains hidden by the Bush administration: the 550 troops who have returned from Iraq in caskets and the thousands returning with severe physical and psychological damage.


The military planes carrying human remains fly into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware under cover of darkness. Unlike Vietnam, when Americans could see the consequences of war, the media are now banned from Dover Air Force Base by military order, reinforced for the Iraq war by an edict from Mr. Bush.

more...
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18030

February 28, 2004 -- Besieged shock jock Howard Stern taunted his government critics yesterday by skipping his usual congressional and FCC attacks and tearing right into the top guy - President Bush.
Stern also said he fears his "suspension" last Wednesday by radio behemoth Clear Channel has turned into a firing.

"I might be taken off all the stations very soon, and my last words to you are 'G.W.B.,' " Stern told listeners yesterday.

"Get him out of office. I'm tellin' you, man, he's in dangerous territory [with] a religious agenda and you gotta vote him out - anyone but Bush," Stern railed.

Stern, whose raunchy wake-up show was yanked from six Clear Channel stations until, according to the company, they are "assured [it] will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting," said he fears he's history.

"It doesn't sound like I'm going to be asked back," Stern said, after playing an ominous quote from Clear Channel's CEO's testimony to a congressional indecency panel Thursday:

"The Bubbas of the world and the Howard Sterns of the world are the exception rather than the rule, and they will no longer have a platform on our stations," said John Hogan, who fired Florida's even-rowdier "Bubba the Love Sponge" on the eve of the hearings.



Hogan told committee members he was "ashamed" of both shows.

---

The latest hubbub about the Clear Channel flap is how Clear Channel cut Stern IMMEDIATELY after:

a) Stern started using profanity and sexual references on the radio
b) The FCC first warned that they were getting serious about cracking down on decency standard violations
c) The FCC first fined radio stations for Howard Stern's trangressions
d) Howard Stern started bashing the Bush Administration after years of supporting it

Wanna guess which one is most accurate?

THIS is how you do networking: here
(Or you could move to Utah? Mormon might grease the skids for you)

Wire the state with fiber. The whole state. Connect everybody.

Review recommends renewables
A review of the World Bank Group’s involvement in extractive industries has recommended an annual increase of 20 per cent investment in renewable energy in developing countries. portfolio, increasing annually at 20 per cent (up from 6 per cent of investment) to achieve a better balance with support for fossil fuel projects; n internalising the cost of greenhouse gas emissions into all WBG economic decision-making; n assisting governments to adopt sustainable energy strategies that address the energy needs of the poor and minimise externalities such as climate change; and n initiatives for technology transfer related to climate change and further research into appropriate technology. One recommendation that was highly contentious at the workshop was to cease WBG investment in oil projects by 2008. The Review also recommended continuing the current cessation of investment in coal projects. Stop all fossil fuels?

I think the events that you referenced have been a long time in the making -- the political stalemate which followed the flawed 2000 ... elections was central to the crisis. But at the most basic level, recent events were rooted in [the president's] choices as a leader, in the way he exercised the power of his office. And so that's why we pointed out over the weekend that this was a long-simmering crisis, largely of [the president's] making. He failed to adhere to democratic principles, which contributed to the deep polarization ... in [the country], and his own actions called into question his fitness and ability to continue to govern [the country].

White House spokesperson Scott McClellan on the Haiti situation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040301-4.html

Monday, March 01, 2004

Think Tank's Take on Copyright in the Digital Age

The Committee for Economic Development, a Washington, D.C., policy group, has issued a report suggesting that new copyright restrictions to prevent online piracy may be bad for business and the economy.

The committee is thought to have significant pull in setting economic and business policy. It was previously involved in initiatives like the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods agreement, which created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Debora L. Spar, a professor at Harvard Business School, notes that the ideas of the "copy-left" (supporters of a more liberal copyright system) are gaining wider support, but we're not going to be throwing out the copyright laws anytime soon.

The report is prompting reactions all over the board from various quarters, including, of course, the entertainment industries.

"Report Raises Questions About Fighting Online Piracy," The New York Times, March 1.
Keywords: copyright, digital rights management, entertainment, movies, music, policy

posted by Debbi @ 11:38 PM

The Passion Posted on Fri, Feb. 27, 2004

LEONARD PITTS JR./COMMENTARY
Debate [misses] the message of Passion...
To understand The Passion, though, [one] needs at least familiarity with the four Gospels and, ideally, faith in them. The movie does not concern itself with back story; it assumes that you come to it with a certain body of knowledge.
...
But there's something critics of The Passion, Jewish and otherwise, are missing. Namely, that this movie -- there's no delicate way to say this -- was not made for them -- or for that matter, for Muslims or atheists. It is deliberately exclusionary to a degree I've seldom seen. You didn't have to be Jewish to get Schindler's List or African-American to get Roots. Being those things might have deepened your appreciation, but they were not necessary.
...
Otherwise, all you will see is a man being hit over and over and over again, such extravagantly brutal torture that you cringe and pray for it to be done. But it never is. There is always another blow, a fresh gout of blood. If you know the Gospels, however, you might see something more than violence. You might see the embodiment of Christ's message. Which was not simply ''love and faith'' but redemption, ransom, sacrifice, the willingness to take upon Himself, upon His body, punishment for all the sins of humankind.

gmb: Now THIS makes it seem worth seeing. I wonder if I can see that message.

It's Monday, so it must be time to hear from the Hussman Funds agian. This one might need to be read a few times before it really sinks in. On a personal note, I had a fantastic time snowboarding this past weekend and Matt, you'll be pleased to know that I didn't hurt myself.

Ken

[...]
The savings-investment identity and its implications

At the risk of activating synapses that would rather just sit there and accumulate amyloid plaque, let's review the definition of GDP:

GDP = Consumption + Investment (real, not financial) + Government spending + eXports – iMports

Or simply,

Y = C + I + G + X – M

Let's add and subtract taxes (T) and rearrange, which still preserves the identity:

I = (Y – C – T) + (T – G) + (M – X)

This puppy is known as the “savings-investment identity.” I've included some comments about this in the latest Semi-Annual Report of the Hussman Funds.

Basically, it says that all real investment (plant, housing, equipment, and other capital spending) must be financed by one of three types of savings: 1) private savings - what is left of income after consumption and taxes, 2) government savings – an oxymoron, which measures the excess of taxes over spending and is usually a really big negative number and thus a drag on investment, largely traceable to the spending side since the identity is neutral to the level of taxes except to the extent that they affect the other variables, and 3) foreign savings – the capital that flows here from foreigners – for every $100 of stuff we import, we have to export $100 of stuff. If we import $100 of goods and services and export only $70 in goods and services, we've got to export $30 of other stuff, and that stuff is U.S. securities. So what we call a $30 “trade deficit” also represents an import of $30 in foreign savings.

There. If you want U.S. domestic investment to grow, you've got to observe expansion in one of those three forms of saving. And there's your trouble. U.S. private savings are unusually low, though there is some pickup there from higher corporate saving due to an earnings rebound, the government is running a deep deficit, and as a result, U.S. domestic investment is now dependent on the deepest continuing inflow of foreign capital in history (i.e. the U.S. current account deficit).

As a result, the prospects for sustained growth in U.S. domestic investment are very poor. In the worst case, the U.S. could become protectionist, or China (the source of the largest inflows of foreign capital as they buy U.S. Treasury securities in attempts to support the dollar) could abruptly revalue its currency. In that case, we could see a quick “improvement” in our current account deficit – that is, a substantial decline in the amount of foreign savings flowing to the U.S.. One need only look at the left side of the savings-investment identity to understand why rapid improvements in the U.S. current account have always been associated with deep, investment-led recessions. The last thing that the U.S. needs is protectionist trade or currency policies aimed at rapid progress toward “balanced trade.”

In the best case, the current account moves toward adjustment through a gradual increase in U.S. domestic savings. In that event, U.S. domestic investment, consumption, and government spending would have to grow more slowly than U.S. output, thereby releasing output that could be used to expand net exports. In that event, we are likely to see little sustained growth in U.S. domestic investment (though at least not a sharp dropoff), with moderate growth in capital spending offset by moderate declines in other types of investment such as housing.

Social Security isn't (and can't be) a saving program, it's a transfer program

Last week, Alan Greenspan made some comments about Social Security that prompted very strong reactions. Personally, I'm not at all convinced that the difficulty with Social Security is the level of benefits. The difficulty is its profoundly regressive structure and the illusion that it is an insurance program at all.

Nearly 80% of Americans pay more in payroll taxes (including the employer share, which economists widely agree fall on the worker anyway) than they do in income taxes. But no matter how much income individuals earn, they only pay Social Security on the first $87,000.

Income tax cuts are often supported, with some amount of reason, by the observation that the top 5% of income earners in America earn about 30% of the income, but pay about 56% of the income taxes. So the income tax is progressive, and that's a good thing, because it lowers the burden at the lower end of the income scale. But if you include payroll taxes, the share of total federal taxes paid by the top 5% falls back to about 40%, which isn't much larger than their share of the income.

As conservative economist Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institution has noted, the regressive structure of Social Security is preserved “to maintain the fiction that Social Security is a retirement insurance program in which contributions are linked to benefits, rather than what it is—a transfer of income from workers and the self-employed to retired people.” Payroll taxes single-handedly reverse the progressivity of the federal income tax. The appropriate policy in this regard is simple, but vastly under-considered: lower the rate and broaden the base. In other words, define the base beyond payroll income, but reduce the tax rate in a way that reduces the tax burden on the vast majority of income earners, but maintains the total revenue. This would vastly improve the distributional problems regarding Social Security.

The other issue is solvency. In order to see the reality of the situation, we again have to think in terms of accounting. The simple fact is that people consume goods and services, and the ability to transport these from one period to the next is very limited. Inventories are useful for smoothing short-term fluctuations in the supply and demand of goods, but not very useful in doing this over decades or between generations.

If the U.S. was a closed economy (with no foreign trade), it would follow that the only thing that can ultimately provide for the consumption of goods and services of Social Security beneficiaries in future decades will be the overall ability of the U.S. to produce goods and services at that time. While individuals may very well be able to “save for the future,” so that they can claim a larger share of the production that exists when they retire, we cannot do the same thing in aggregate, as a nation. In other words, far and away the most important factor in the Social Security debate is the issue of future productivity.

On that note, the sort of “productivity” that we've observed in recent years from imports, downsizing, and outsourcing, is inadequate. For more details on this, see The U.S. Productivity Miracle (Made in China). To be more productive in the long-run, we need greater U.S. savings, and fiscal policies adequately targeted to increasing investment in research and development, rather than indiscriminate stimulus plans that work largely by dropping money from helicopters.

Finally, there is one additional wrinkle, which could potentially work in our favor, but currently works against us. The U.S. is not a closed economy, and while the level of U.S. productivity is quite high, the prospects for rapid growth in productivity are much higher in many countries such as China. To the extent that we could potentially satisfy the needs of future Social Security recipients through the future import of goods and services from other countries, we would be well served by accumulating claims on that future production today.

We're doing exactly the opposite. Rather than improving private and government saving in a way that would allow us to run a current account surplus and accumulate foreign securities (i.e. claims on future foreign production), we are running the deepest current account deficit in history. In effect, we are promising future U.S. production not only to our own citizens, but to foreign countries as well. This is one of the most profound economic mistakes that America could make.

In short, the economic future of the United States is linked to unpleasant arithmetic called the savings-investment identity. Over the next several years, the growth or vulnerability in U.S. investment (plant, housing, capital spending) is dependent on whether our reliance on foreign capital is adjusted by a reduction in the supply of it from foreign countries like China, or on reductions in our demand for it based on improved saving behavior. Which is winning? The less willing foreign countries are to supply capital, the greater the downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Over the longer-term, the U.S. savings imbalance has important implications for our ability to provide for the retirement needs of Americans.

It's useful to remember that every sustained U.S. economic expansion began from a current account surplus. Given the deepest deficit in history, my views on the sustainability of this recovery should be clear. It's notable that even this far into the rebound, capacity utilization and help wanted advertising remain near their recession lows (as they did before the fragile 1980 recovery failed). While it's possible that internet advertising and the like might impact the level of the help wanted index, it does not follow that this would prevent the index from reversing its trend. To the contrary, the poor level of help wanted advertising is consistent with anecdotal evidence from surveys of corporate hiring which indicate only tentative improvement in hiring plans.

Bottom line: the evidence is not nearly convincing that the U.S. economy is out of the woods.

[...]