March 2004 Archives

Condoleezza Rice, on any one of one hundred TV interviews earlier this week:

Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify. I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle here ... it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress.

Bush yesterday:

As the commission has done its work, I've also been concerned, as has Dr. Rice, that an important principle be upheld: A President and his advisors, including his advisor for national security affairs, must be able to communicate freely and privately, without being compelled to reveal those communications to the legislative branch. This principle of the separation of powers is protected by the Constitution, is recognized by the courts and has been defended by Presidents of both political parties.

We have observed this principle while also seeking ways for Dr. Rice to testify, so that the public record is full and accurate. Now the commission and leaders of the United States Congress have given written assurances that the appearance of the National Security Advisor will not be used as precedent in the conduct of future inquiries. The leaders of Congress and the commission agree -- they agree with me that the circumstances of this case are unique, because the events of September the 11th, 2001, were unique.

How do you do something which doesn't serve as a precedent? Do you get inside a magic "this doesn't count" machine? What Bush more accurately should have said was that Rice is finally agreeing to voluntarily testify before the commission. And what "unique" circumstances concerning September 11 have just been discovered to warrant this flip flop? The only thing that has changed since the White House began stonewalling months ago is that now public pressure has turned against it. That's the real "unique" circumstance at play.

And what's with Bush and Cheney making a joint appearance before the commission rather than meeting separately? Josh Marshall offers three possible explanations:

(1) time constraints limit the commission's ability to ask questions--two people eat up the time more quickly than one;

(2) easier to keep their stories straight; or

(3) White House doesn't trust Bush to appear by himself so Cheney will be there to hold his hand.

I suspect that number two is the driving rationale, but number three has some real merit.

Melissa Sheridan, a New Yorker with two years of probation remaining, moved to North Carolina. In order for her to remain in good standing, she needs North Carolina's Department of Community Corrections to agree to monitor the probation. She lives with her boyfriend, also father of one of her children. And according to the North Carolina agency, that's a problem:

North Carolina is one of seven states that prohibits men and women from living together unless they are married. Prosecutors rarely act on the 1805 law, written during an era when state legislators also laid out penalties for "keeping bawdy houses" and "crimes against nature with mankind or beast."

But the ban is still invoked in a number of situations, including when convicted criminals move to the state and seek to transfer their probation.

So here's the deal:

"They told me I had three choices: They can send my kids back to New York, or we can get married, or we can get separate houses," Sheridan said. "I wasn't happy at all. It's breaking up my family."

"Hmmmm," you may be wondering, "there's undoubtedly a lot of unmarried people living together in North Carolina. What is the law doing about them?" Good question. The answer is nothing.

Over the last decade, North Carolina's social trends were tracking the nation's. The number of households with unmarried couples increased from 67,425 to 143,680. In Hanover County alone, where Carolina Beach is located, 3,434 unmarried couples live together as a household, according to the Census Bureau.

Partly for that reason, prosecutors seldom pursue cohabitation cases. They brought just six prosecutions last year, according to court records.

States should get rid of these archaic laws if they are not going to attempt to enforce them except in select or symbolic instances.

President Bush threatens to make this his first veto. Will he deliver? In an election year?

At a time when the federal budget deficit is approaching a record $500 billion a year, the House of Representatives will open debate Wednesday on a bill that includes $4.6 million for water taxis in New York, $2 million to build a bike trail in Durham, N.C., and $74 million for a bridge over the Trinity River in Dallas.

Those projects are part of a massive highway and transit construction bill that would cost $275 billion over six years. Billed as a "jobs creation" measure, the highway legislation is a time-honored way for lawmakers facing November elections to send money back home to their districts.

It would boost transportation spending by 26 percent by authorizing $217 billion for highways, $51.5 billion for public transit and about $6 billion for a variety of safety programs. The House is expected to pass the bill Thursday. The Senate passed its $318 billion version in February.

Of course participating contestants walk away with great parting gifts:

"Everyone on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is each getting $40 million to $90 million for their districts," said Keith Ashdown, the vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a fiscal watchdog group that combed the bill line by line.

Interesting analysis:

The bill is intended to improve American transportation and ease highway congestion. Each year Americans spend 51 hours more commuting during rush hour than they would with manageable traffic, according to Tim Lomax, a research engineer for the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University. The institute tracks congestion patterns in 75 major metropolitan areas. The average delay is four times what it was in 1982.

But building more highways is only part of the solution, Lomax said. In fast-growing areas with open land "you are going to need more roads and transit to serve the people," he said, "but you also have to get more out of the capacity we already have."

Other ways to ease congestion include removing wrecked vehicles more quickly and synchronizing traffic signals. Incentives to encourage commuters to travel in off-peak hours also help. Building residential areas near shops and office buildings allows people to walk instead of drive, Lomax said.

But Congress critters don't get as much bang from urban planning and synchronized traffic flow as they do from nifty new highways and bridges. So guess where the money continues to flow.

Note to self: Don't store guns in this manner:

A San Antonio woman is in the hospital this morning after a loaded pistol, hidden inside her oven, went off while she was cooking.
. . .
Police officers were told that a friend of the woman's boyfriend brought over a gun to show the couple. She wanted nothing to do with the weapon, she told police.

The boyfriend then decided to hide the gun, of all places, in the oven, police were told.

Police said they were told that the woman turned on the oven to cook something Thursday night, and as the heat in the oven rose, the gun went off. She was wounded in the leg, police said.

What does it take to have someone strip searched? If it's a fast food employee, apparently not much:

Authorities say a 39-year-old Taco Bell manager forced a 17-year-old female employee to strip and endure a body search after a caller posing as a police officer gave him instructions to do so at the Fountain Hills restaurant this week.

The girl was taken to a back room in the restaurant and told to disrobe, said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Once naked, she was asked to do jumping jacks and was then subjected to a body search, Arpaio said.

The apparent ruse began when a caller posing as a police officer called the Taco Bell this week giving a general description of a female employee he said needed to be detained as a crime suspect.

Turns out this isn't the only manager to get duped:

It might seem implausible that any manager could be compelled by an unknown caller to order someone to entirely disrobe and submit to a humiliating search for drugs or stolen money. Or that someone would succumb to such an examination. But investigators say there have been dozens of similar cases since 1999, involving Burger King, Wendy's, Applebee's and others. Similar incidents have been reported in Massachusetts, South Dakota, Indiana, Utah and Ohio. The managers and the victims of such incidents have been male and female. Investigators have begun linking the cases and say they believe the hoaxes are the work of a single person calling from North Florida public telephones using a phone card.

His likely motive, they say: Not money, but power and perversion.

These mistakes can be costly:

These cases raise enormous, complex liability issues: Last summer, an Odessa, Texas, Burger King franchise paid $35,000 to settle a civil suit filed by an employee who alleged she was forced to submit to a strip search by a male manager who received a similar phone call. The restaurant's manager was arrested and charged with "illegal restraint," and fined $500.

And last week, Wendy's International Inc. said it had been hit with four lawsuits by former workers of Boston-area company-owned outlets. In February, managers there, acting on a call from a man posing as a police officer, ordered the workers to submit to a strip search for allegedly stolen money.

Employers are justified in being concerned about employee theft, but physical searches are a bad idea, especially when initiated by an anonymous phone call.

More license plate fun. A guy in New York has his custom license plate application rejected. Why? Because the license plate powers that be are--what shall we say--oversensative?

Alas, in mid-January, he received a Dear Noah rejection letter. "The Custom Plate which you requested - DUMPBUSH - cannot be issued at this time for the reason(s) indicated below,'' the letter said. The reason: "Others may view the plate as obscene or offensive.''
. . .
THE Custom Plates Unit has 16 employees, most of them veteran decoders and defenders of proper roadway decorum. All day long, they scrutinize letter-and-number combinations of eight or less to ensure that some Niskayuna knucklehead's license plate does not suggest that your mother wears Army boots.

If a custom-plate specialist feels uneasy about a submission, a committee of specialists will gather to decipher its true meaning, and to advise, aye or nay. "Once in a while, one will get through,'' Joseph Picchi, the department's spokesman, said, referring to inappropriate license plates. "That's why you have to be very careful.''

It turns out that proposed phrases of a political nature are held to a slightly different standard: generally speaking, they should be positive, upbeat - nice. "We don't censor plates for political content or if they're politically related,'' Mr. Picchi said. "We do if they're politically offensive. If they said HATE somebody.''

Why is it that advocating a politician be voted out of office is "hate" speech? Isn't that Democracy 101? And how is that going to offend someone any more than bumper stickers, yard signs, commercials, and any other kind of campaign advertising? If you support a candidate, you're implicitly rejecting his or her opponent.

From an unexpected source:

NOVAK: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: Say that again?

NOVAK: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.

Not once, but twice.

Via The Daily Show.

Daniel W. Drezner notes that this is the ten-year anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. As Nicholas Kristof writes, there's more African slaughter in the making:

For decades, whenever the topic of genocide has come up, the refrain has been, "Never again."

Yet right now, the government of Sudan is engaging in genocide against three large African tribes in its Darfur region here. Some 1,000 people are being killed a week, tribeswomen are being systematically raped, 700,000 people have been driven from their homes, and Sudan's Army is even bombing the survivors.

And the world yawns.

Kristof points out an American trend on this front:

In her superb book on the history of genocide, "A Problem from Hell," Samantha Power focuses on the astonishing fact that U.S. leaders always denounce massacres in the abstract or after they are over � but, until Kosovo, never intervened in the 20th century to stop genocide and "rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred." The U.S. excuses now are the same ones we used when Armenians were killed in 1915 and Bosnians and Rwandans died in the 1990's: the bloodshed is in a remote area; we have other priorities; standing up for the victims may compromise other foreign policy interests.

He adds that in instances such as this, it might not take very much American action to make a difference:

I'm not arguing that we should invade Sudan. But one of the lessons of history is that very modest efforts can save large numbers of lives. Nothing is so effective in curbing ethnic cleansing as calling attention to it.

President Bush could mention Darfur or meet a refugee. The deputy secretary of state could visit the border areas here in Chad. We could raise the issue before the U.N. And the onus is not just on the U.S.: it's shameful that African and Muslim countries don't offer at least a whisper of protest at the slaughter of fellow Africans and Muslims.

One would think that the self-described greatest human rights president in history would be all over this, but I've not heard anything from the bully pulpit, have you?

Why do I get the feeling that the Bush administration's concern for foreign human rights is limited to those areas slated for U.S. military conquest?

Spain is sending more troops to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda:

The incoming Socialist government, under pressure over its plans to withdraw Spain's troops from Iraq, has agreed to double the country's contingent in Afghanistan to 250 soldiers this summer, an aide to the future defense minister said Monday.

The Socialist party insisted its plans on Iraq remain firm, however.

Terrorists don't seem to be very good drivers:

Spanish police were agonisingly close to foiling the Madrid train bombings, it was disclosed yesterday.

A car carrying the explosives used in the March 11 massacre was stopped by police but its Arab driver was fined only for a minor traffic offence, it was reported.

The boot of the Volkswagen was packed with 220 lb of industrial dynamite being transported to Madrid after it had been stolen from a coal mine at Aviles in northern Spain during the last week of February, the El Pais newspaper said.

The car, which had been stolen, was stopped by two Civil Guard patrolmen near Benavente, in the province of Leon, north of Madrid.

But their suspicions were not aroused when they checked the car's registration as the owner had not yet reported it missing. They failed to recognise that the driver was not the registered owner.

The driver was fined for a minor infringement and allowed to drive on. Three of the four bombing suspects are thought to have been in the car.

I wonder how the exchange between the police and the driver. Either the latter is a cool player and eluded suspicion, or the police officer missed signals which could have prompted him (or her) to investigate the driver further. As I recall, the millennium terrorist plot was busted because a border agent detained a driver who was acting suspiciously.

There's not many high value terrorist targets in East Tennessee. Looks like risks remain at one of them:

Despite efforts to beef up homeland security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, recent reports by federal investigators and a watchdog group suggest that the nation's nuclear weapons sites are vulnerable.

The reports focus particularly on the Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge, an 811-acre site about 15 miles from Knoxville. The Oak Ridge facility is the country's primary site for processing highly enriched uranium used to make nuclear bombs. Tons of weapons-grade uranium are stored at the 60-year-old complex, one of the nation's 12 nuclear weapons facilities.

Local representative John Duncan Jr. seems very concerned:

Rep. John Duncan Jr., R-Knoxville, suggested that the problems at the Oak Ridge site have been overblown and that there is no reason for increased alarm. Duncan said the government is spending way too much on anti-terrorism activities.

''The truth is we're going ridiculously overboard in regards to terrorism,'' said Duncan, who also sits on Shays' House committee. ''Almost every department in the federal government has exaggerated the threat of terrorism to get more money.''

Can we get Duncan to serve as a spokesperson for the Bush campaign?

Salon has an article on Sibel Edmonds' allegations of missed 9/11 warnings and the administration cover up (an earlier post on this here):

A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.

Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, "We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available." Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."
. . .
"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we're facing."

Edmonds testified before 9/11 commission staffers in February for more than three hours, providing detailed information about FBI investigations, documents and dates. This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify. "I'm hoping the commission asks him real questions -- like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn't say no," she insists.

This is story is now going to be hard to ignore.

Among Richard Clarke's most pertinent comments concerning the "war on terror" today are his observations on the war in Iraq--a war he opposes. He recently appeared on Larry King Live and offered three reasons why the Iraq invasion was a setback in the "war on terror":

Number one, it diverts us from reducing the vulnerabilities here at home, like protecting the rails from attacks like the one on Madrid. We're spending $180 billion in Iraq. We should be spending that money reducing our vulnerabilities to terrorism here at home, much more than we are. The railroads, the chemical plants, they are all still unprotected.

The second way it reduces the war on terrorism is by inflaming the Islamic world and helping, as Rumsfeld said in his internal memo, helping create more terrorists more rapidly than we can capture or kill them, because of the hatred in the Islamic world generated against the United States by our needless invasion of Iraq.

And the third way, of course, was it actually took troops and intelligence assets away from the hunt for bin Laden. We'll probably catch bin Laden here shortly, but it's two years too late. In those two years, al Qaeda has morphed into a hydra, a multi-headed organization, so that by the time we catch him now, it won't matter very much, because all of these al Qaeda-like organizations have grown up around the world, like the group that attacked in Madrid.

The point is, the war in Iraq was not necessary. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. And by going to war with Iraq, we have greatly reduced our possibility to prosecute the war on terrorism.

This, in the simplest terms, is the case against our attack on Iraq. Well said.

Down in the seedy bowels of the underqround Internet . . .

Republicans have accused Democratic U.S. House candidate Stephanie Herseth of maintaining a secret Web page to receive campaign donations raised from ads on liberal groups' Internet sites.

But a Herseth campaign official scoffed at the charge, saying the Web page is not secret and can be found easily with a standard search of the Internet.
. . .
Jason Glodt, executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party, said the Herseth campaign arranged the special Internet donation site to prevent most South Dakotans from knowing about Herseth's relationship with such liberal groups.

The Herseth Web page takes campaign donations from people directed there from Internet sites called "blogs," which are online bulletin boards that feature journals, opinionated articles and messages.

"There's a reason she's got that secret site. She doesn't want to advertise the fact she's doing this," Glodt said Thursday.

"I think the real point is you judge a person by the friends they keep, and look where she's focusing her fund-raising efforts," Glodt said. "Anybody can look at these blogs and the content, and realize the values they are promoting are completely contradictory to the South Dakota values she purports to represent."

However, Herseth campaign spokesman Russ Levsen said that particular Internet page merely takes donations from people who find out about the campaign when they visit political blogs that feature Herseth ads.

"I would dispute the premise that it's secret because it's an open site on the Internet that anybody can get to," Levsen said.

The supposedly secret Web site is one of the first results when an Internet user does a standard search for the terms "blog" and "Herseth" on the Google search engine, Levsen said.
. . .
People who click on those blog ads are taken to a separate page on Herseth's Internet site, where they can donate to her campaign. There is no link on Herseth's main campaign site to take Internet users to the blog-related page.

Via Talking Points Memo.

UPDATE: Ringleader Kos reveals the secret passage.

If Resonance suddenly vanishes, you'll know why.

This is news to me:

As she prepares to leave her job at the end of the year, Ms. Rice, the president's national security adviser, now finds herself at the center of a political storm, furiously defending both the White House and her own reputation.

I've heard rumors of Secretary of State Powell quitting at the end of the term, but not Rice. If true, this a strange way to report this tidbit--buried in an article.

Looks like our "steady leadership" is becoming increasingly fluid.

Looks like law enforcement have a new interrogation tool:

A repentant Texas man went to police after seeing Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion of Christ and confessed to murdering a 19-year-old woman who was pregnant with his child, authorities said on Thursday.

Police had thought Ashley Nicole Wilson, who died on Jan. 18, had hanged herself, but Dan Leach, 21, went to them on March 9 to admit that he had killed her, said Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Jeannie Gage.

Leach wanted to seek redemption after talking to a friend and seeing the movie about the last hours of Christ's life, she said.

"He mentioned that speaking with the friend and seeing the movie The Passion of Christ made him feel remorse," Gage said.

Unfortunately, I don't think this film will be a very effective tool with our olive-skinned guests at the Cuban concentration camp.

In the spirit of Unity Day, why not throw some coinage here.

I saw footage from the bigwig fund-raiser. The candidates lined up on stage with Carter, Clinton, and Gore for the photo op. It looked like Senator Edwards squeezed his way in so he could stand by Clinton. The Clinton/Gore handshake lasted all of one second, then it looked like Clinton wanted to have a high five and Gore turned away. Kind of funny.

Thanks to this guy for making this all possible.

Remember that debate over the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security? Not a very significant issue for the country, right?

Joe Conason interviewing Richard Clarke:

McClellan also said that although you criticize the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the book, you had attempted to become the No. 2 in that department and were passed over -- and that's yet another reason why you wrote this critical book.

They're trying to bait me, and they're trying to get me to answer all these personal issues. You know, the fact is that Tom Ridge opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. George Bush opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. And then one day, they turned on a dime and supported it. Why?

As I said in the book, the White House legislative affairs people counted votes. Senator [Joseph] Lieberman had proposed the bill to create the Department of Homeland Security -- and the legislative affairs people said Lieberman has the votes; it's going to pass. They said, "You've got the possible situation here, Mr. President, where you're going to have to veto the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. And if you don't support it now, if you don't make it your proposal, not only will it pass but it will be called the Lieberman bill."

The Lieberman-McCain bill.

The Lieberman-McCain bill, in fact. So that there were two outcomes possible. One in which we have this Frankenstein department, created during the middle of the war on terrorism, reorganizing during the middle of a war. That was possible. It was also possible that a second thing would happen, and that was that Lieberman would get credit for it. And therefore the president changed his position overnight, and became a big supporter of the Department of Homeland Security.

kamosa links to this map and points out how states on the low end of the gas price spectrum are "red" and states on the high end are "blue."

I'm sure political demographics explain most of this. Democrats tend to live in urban regions with stricter environmental standards and higher (gas) taxes. Still, it's an interesting observation.

If you watch 60 Minutes, you may recall a segment where a disgruntled Turkish-American FBI translator named Sibel Edmonds was fired after complaining that a supervisor ordered work slow-downs so the department could request a bigger budget.

According to this story, Ms. Edmonds has additional concerns with the Department of Justice:

A former FBI translator said Wednesday that the bureau had "real, specific" information relating to the Sept. 11 attacks before they happened. Sibel Edmonds worked for the agency working from Sept. 20, 2001 to March 2002.

Edmonds said she was hired to retranslate material that was collected prior to Sept. 11 to determine if anything was missed in the translations that related to the plot. In her review, Edmonds said the documents clearly showed that the Sept. 11 hijackers were in the country and plotting to use airplanes as missiles. The documents also included information relating to their financial activities. Edmonds said she could not comment in detail because she has been under a Justice Department gag order since October 2002.

Edmonds has testified before the Sept. 11 commission, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

Hmmm. Sounds like an interesting story. I wonder why I haven't heard about this from the mainstream press.

Richard Clarke, former National Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council, testifying today:

I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance. I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11. To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness.

This is a rare moment when any senior Bush administration official has apologized, much less admit error for mistkaes. It's always someone else's fault.

No wonder the infallible are going after him so hard.

[H]ad my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September the 11th, we would have acted.

George W. Bush
March 23, 2004

Really? It's reassuring to know that had the Bush White House received Mohammed Atta and company's flight plans in advance, they would have been competent enough to act on it. That kind of leadership must be why he is the most powerful man in the world.

The point is that America spends billions of dollars to anticipate and respond to such incidents. The system failed spectacularly, and these silly statements are merely efforts to obfuscate the real issues surrounding this collapse.

On Monday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan had this to say:

Q Scott, this morning, you said the President didn't recall the conversation in the Situation Room on September 12th that Mr. Clarke said he had, where the President asked Dick Clarke three times to pursue links between 9/11 and Iraq. And you said he doesn't -- I had two questions. So did the President tell you or somebody in the White House over the weekend, he doesn't recall?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I talked to him. He doesn't recall that conversation or meeting.

Q And that was -- he said it this morning, or this weekend? When did he say that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this weekend and this morning, yes.

Q Okay. And secondly, Clarke now says that he has three eyewitnesses, and he repeated it again this morning, and he named them -- to the conversation.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's just step backwards -- regardless, regardless, put that aside. There's no record of the President being in the Situation Room on that day that it was alleged to have happened, on the day of September the 12th. When the President is in the Situation Room, we keep track of that.

As Jon Stewart pointed out on last night's Daily Show, if 9/11 didn't warrant meeting in the Situation Room, exactly what does? What kind of "situation" are we saving it for?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rules that South Carolina's "Choose Life" plate is unconstitutional.

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt offers a compromise which would likely dry up the demand for these "Choose Life" plates: add the phrase "End the Death Penalty."

I could go for that.

Here's a a weird crime weapon. Maybe we need federal bowling ball control:

A 69-year-old man tried to kill three law enforcement officers by dropping a 16-pound bowling ball at them from the terrace of his 17th-floor apartment, police officials said yesterday.

The ball narrowly missed the officers, and the district attorney in Brooklyn charged the man, Douglas Stiff of East New York, with attempted murder, attempted assault, reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a weapon.
. . .
Two police officers and a parole officer, on their way to track down a parole violator, diverted their mission and responded to the call. As they walked around the side of the building, a bowling ball thudded to the ground a few feet away, the police said.

The officers looked up and saw a man on a terrace on the 17th floor, law enforcement officials said. When they went up and knocked on Mr. Stiff's door, he answered it, wearing a pair of binoculars around his neck, law enforcement officials said.

The officers found a second bowling ball on the terrace, and arrested Mr. Stiff.
. . .
The practice of throwing things at police officers from rooftops and other high places is somewhat common in New York, enough so that the targets have a name for it. They call it airmail. Even so, a bowling ball is an unusual piece of correspondence, the police said.

This isn't going to help:

On Tuesday, top Shiite clerics pledged allegiance to the Palestinians after Israel's assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Later, angry Muslims took to the streets.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq, urged Muslims to unite against Israel and restore what he said belongs to the Palestinians.

Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric with a powerful base in a poor Baghdad neighborhood, said Iraqi Muslims support the Palestinians.

"We as Muslims stand hand in hand with our brethren in Palestine," he said. "And we say to them that we are ready to extend all forms of assistance, be it moral or physical."

Juan Cole fills in the troubling details.

• West Virginia Governor Bob Wise gets worked up over a T-shirt:

  Gov. Bob Wise sent a letter to Abercrombie & Fitch on Monday demanding that the clothing retailer stop selling a T-shirt that spoofs the state with the slogan, "It's All Relative in West Virginia." Wise said the T-shirt depicts "an unfounded, negative stereotype of West Virginia." "I write to you today to demand that you immediately remove this item from your stores and your print and online catalogues," Wise wrote. "In addition, these shirts must be destroyed at once to avoid any possibility of resale and proof be given thereof."

  I can appreciate the governor's interest in his state's reputation, but it's a T-shirt.


• Via Wizbang!, some loser got in over his head and is now trying to auction his debt:

  I'm sorry for buying things I didn't need, doing things I didn't have to do and I'm sorry for buying into the notion that I need material things to be happy. I sold the world a lie and the world marked it up and sold it back, and now I'm asking for your help. If there is anyone out there that has $20,000 sitting around and doesn't know what to do with it, don't go to the casino, don't go and buy things, don't add an addition to your mansion, forget about the 24" rims on your fully loaded Escalade, pass the caviar, pass the dom and the gucci dress. Forget about the rollie or the diamond tennis bracelet. Those things won't fill your void, so I'm asking you to fill mine.
  . . .
  As I receive donations, I will gradually lower my starting price until my debt is paid. I am not a charity case but I am asking for help. I want to give back the money I owe before I set out. I ask and therefore I shall receive.

• Mars Rover Opportunity has a blog.

I'm sure this will usher in a new era of peace:

Israel will try to kill the entire Hamas leadership, striking whenever an opportunity presents itself, a security official said today.

The decision was made secretly by the Israeli Cabinet last week, in response to a double suicide bombing at an Israeli seaport, the official said on condition of anonymity.

By way of Damn Foreigner, I see in one of Billmon's posts that once upon a time Israel was actually a big financial supporter of Hamas, who it thought would be a useful counterbalance to the PLO. Funny how the wheel turns, isn't it? Just as the United States once supported Saddam Hussein and the fore-runners of the Afghan Taliban as strategic allies.

Now we're engaged in political engineering in Iraq. But I'm sure this time it will be different. This time we have "adults" calling the shots, who've undoubtedly got the new democratic Iraq all planned out.

Nothing unforeseen will happen this time around, will it?

Take a look at what Conrad Malsom had to go through when he attempted to report spotting Ohio highway shootings suspect Charles McCoy Jr. to Las Vegas emergency responders:

Malsom found McCoy's car Tuesday night in a motel parking lot near the Las Vegas Strip and made more than a dozen calls to 911 in which he was transferred or told to call the department's non-emergency phone number.

"Most citizens would have gotten fed up and hung up in disgust," [Sheriff Bill] Young told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "When citizens want to help us, I don't want anything in our system to frustrate or deter them."

On recordings of the calls, a determined Malsom can be heard pleading with operators to send officers to apprehend McCoy.

"This is most important. I've been turned down by 911 because this is not life-threatening. I'm parked next to the Ohio beltway murderer. The shooter, the sniper's car here in Las Vegas," Malsom said in a call placed at 11:35 p.m. Tuesday.

"Mmm-hmm," the operator replied.

"Don't transfer my call, please," Malsom said.

Good thing McCoy didn't shoot anyone else while Malsom was trying to reach the police.

This letter to the editor adds perspective to the Bush administration's priorities:

I was wondering why the Republicans believe that hearing a four-letter word on the radio is more damaging than death or catastrophic injury. Consider that the Bush administration wants to increase FCC fines for indecency up to $500,000 per violation per station, yet at the same time, it wants to restrict noneconomic damages in tort cases to $250,000 or $350,000.

So if a DJ says a four-letter word on the radio, the harm is so appalling that a fine of $500,000 per word, per station is justified. But if someone is paralyzed, killed or otherwise catastrophically injured, the most the family could get for the (noneconomic) loss would be up to $350,000.

Apparently, Republicans have reworked the children's adage about words never hurting to: "Sticks and stones may break someone else's bones, but words will hurt me worsely."

Dennis Mulvihill
Cleveland

Via Eschaton.

More evidence supporting Richard Clarke�s claims. The Center for American Progress has a page up documenting the Bush administration�s 2001 reductions in counterterrorism.

In short, Attorney General John Ashcroft dropped counterterrorism as one of the Department of Justice priorities, rejected FBI requests for more counterterrorism resources, and "cut" money for counterterrorism equipment grants.

jeff-perado (stutz[at]unlv.nevada.edu) offers the following satirical look at current policy:

There was a disturbing article I found. [Editor�s note: Dead link replaced with similar story. An earlier story on this episode here.] It was disturbing to me for two reasons. The first was that the girl was described as a lesbian, when her orientation had nothing to do with losing her virginity to a man. The second was that the act was essentially prostitution. Read the opening paragraphs:

LESBIAN university student Rosie Reid, 18, who auctioned her virginity on the Internet to pay for her studies, has had sex with the highest bidder.

Ms Reid slept with a divorced father-of-two, 44, after he paid her $20,500, the News of the World reports.

"It was horrible. . . I felt nervous and scared," she said. She hatched the plan to avoid graduating from university with debts of $36,700.

Could this happen in our country? Has it already?? I cannot say. But as I read this, it hit me that this type of nonsense -- it is prostitution after all -- could clearly point out one of the major defects of the Republican federal policy doctrine. Since tax cuts for the rich are all the rage, and thus money for scholarships is drying up faster than the Colorado River, somewhere something has to give. Either Bush and his Congressional cronies will have to come out and tell the American public that they don't want middle and working class college-aged students to go to college, or rethink their tax and spend policies. Since Bush is the type of man who tells the world "If I said I was going to drive my car off the cliff, then I don't care what anyone says, I will be going over that cliff in my car -- and with the accelerator pressed to the floor at that." We have seen the effects of Bush's suicidal tax policy; the states, who too face budget problems, have been trimming back on scholarship and grant money, and drastically raising tuition as well. Some states' Universities, I know of Penn State and University of Tennessee Knoxville in particular, have seen double digit tuition increases over consecutive years. (UNLV has been largely immune -- thank god for gambling and booze.)

Since Republicans are making it difficult for working class students to go to college, they have created a huge problem for their policymaking selves. In order for students to go to college, they must get creative to pay the bills. So what is the Republican to do? Why combine other policy elements into a new program, of course! It seems as though the reason they actually pushed "abstinence" programs in high schools around the country now has a clear purpose; that was to increase the girl's economic value when she sells her body for sex, to pay the bills. There's smart economics and good clean free-market capitalism at work. Bush, after all, prefers the private sector to underwrite most social costs, and he also is in favor free-market driven economics of just about anything, including the education of our children. It is just too bad this newest technique for paying for college will drive the religious right up the wall.

But then again, I doubt Bush would support this new policy as it is one of "small business entrepreneurship," and we all know Bush favors growing only the largest corporations at the expense of entrepreneurs. He has shown his contempt of them by making it easy for large companies to outsource jobs to countries where labor is cheap, leaving entrepreneurs stuck with having to hire local and more pricey, American workers, and thus are less competitive with the big corporations - who provide the same product for less cost. This, to Bush, is the meaning of free trade. So Bush will soon after touting it, begin to fight this new concept of girls using their bodies as assets, and their entrepreneurial spirit in favor of having Halliburton control all prostitution in the country. Halliburton will, of course, save labor costs and increase their profit by importing cheaper prostitutes from Thailand, thus putting all those American college girls out of business because Halliburton can pay the Thai girls less for their services -- therefore actually unfixing the tuition cost problem it was intended to fix. Yet, Bush will then claim that he has solved the college tuition problem, and it was done because of cooperation between government and Halliburton. Then in an ironic twist, he will also claim the moral high ground as well, since he will be able to say that he put a stop to "good American Girls" selling their bodies for money, and allowing foreign "professionals" to do that job, which is, according to Bush, beneath Americans. So he can tell America that he has "put a stop" to American prostitution (by importing non-American prostitutes).

I don�t suspect we�ll see many brothels set up on campuses anytime soon. But two related items are worth mentioning. First, in the 2005 budget the administration has proposed a freeze for supplemental grants and work-study aid available to students, and a cut in Perkins loans. This, combined with continued tuition hikes, will only make it more difficult for low- and medium-income families to afford college. Second, there already is organized prostitution in the United States (commercial sex trafficking), but I don�t think many of those females are on their way to college campuses in the near future.

No smoking activists hit the beach:

Ten years after California set a national precedent by banning smoking in restaurants and bars - and months after prohibiting it within feet of government buildings and playgrounds - many of the state's coastal cities are now banning smoking at the beach.

Health and environmental officials say the moves are a logical extension of smoking bans in other public places and are necessary to meet state and federal antipollution requirements.

Some legislators, however, fear the government is prying too far into private lives, with unnecessary and overly puritanical dictums.

Smoking is a very unhealthy practice and I support most of the public bans on indoor smoking. But this does seem to be overkill. Particularly if, as the article claims, only 17% of Californians smoke. I don't see the danger from second-hand smoke in an open air environment like the beach is what some people are making it out to be--one great enough to warrant the government intrusion on private conduct. But, based on the beaches I've seen, the litter issue the smoke-free advocates are raising is a legitimate; something more should be done to deal with all the butts left in the sand.

Today's N.Y. Times editorial looks at Senator Kerry's spring campaign. This point is particularly on target:

More recently, things have gone off course for the Kerry campaign, which is under pressure to accomplish a set of contradictory tasks. It's not easy to set a positive, optimistic tone while simultaneously trying to convince the nation to fire George W. Bush for being a deceitful politician who doesn't care about average citizens.

We'd like to see Mr. Kerry veer more toward his own plans than Mr. Bush's failures. He needs to provide an alternate script to Mr. Bush's presidency -- to explain very specifically what the Bush administration has done that he would do differently. And we'd like him to do it as forthrightly as possible. There was never any doubt that there would be compromises in a presidential campaign, but Mr. Kerry has seemed dishearteningly eager to embrace them. The public needs to see him make the hard choice at least once in a while.

I know TV news coverage doesn't necessarily represent what the true tenor of the campaign trail, but the vast majority of Kerry sound bytes I see on the news are of shots he is taking at Bush. Feeding red meat to sympathetic audiences worked well during the Democratic primaries, but it's not going to carry Kerry to victory during the general election. Sure the senator needs to make the case to throw Bush out of office. But he's got to do more than that. He's got to sell undecided swing voters on his vision for the future, and why he is the man to lead us there.

Although the election is still seven months away, this is a critical period for Kerry to introduce himself to voters on his terms--positive terms. Yes Americans need to see Bush's follies in the "war on terror." But just as importantly they need to hear about Kerry's agenda for job creation, health care, education, and protecting the environment. Because all things being equal in a political race, the optimistic candidate wins more often than not.

I think the warning that the Church of England is "in danger of completely disappearing" is overblown. But there's no question the Church of England is in trouble:

Figures published in The UK Christian Handbook: Religious Trends show that, at the current rate of decline, total Church membership will have fallen to 5,598,000 by 2005, down by more than a million people in 15 years. Over the same period, the number of church buildings will have fallen by 1,400 to 48,600 and the number of ministers by 1,000 to 35,400.

Interesting contrast with America, where there's a lot of people who want to establish a state religion.

Drip, drip, drip:

Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation � and how the new administration was slow to act.

They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.

One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.
. . .
"It was very explicit," Mr. Clarke said of the warning given to the Bush administration officials. "Rice was briefed, and Hadley was briefed, and Zelikow sat in." Mr. Clarke served as Mr. Bush's counterterrorism chief in the early months of the administration, but after Sept. 11 was given a more limited portfolio as the president's cyberterrorism adviser.
. . .
"Until 9/11, counterterrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House," said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counterterrorism programs being cut."

This is not to say that the administration wasn't plotting any strategy during its first nine months. It was apparently busy tuning up the neocon's long-standing plans . . . for Iraq:

A former White House anti-terrorism advisor says the Bush administration considered bombing Iraq in retaliation after Sept. 11, 2001 even though it was clear al Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Richard Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board that gleaned intelligence from the Internet, told CBS "60 Minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he was surprised administration officials turned immediately toward Iraq instead of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," Clarke says.
. . .
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."'
. . .
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Clarke tells "60 Minutes."

"But the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,"' says Clarke.

There you have it. In Bush's "war on terror" whether or not something is a judged to be a "good target" has nothing to do with the direct threat it poses to America. What makes a "good" target then? Beats me. An easy target? A target which provides a great platform for the display of American military might? A target which furnishes photo ops for the administration taking the fight to the "terrorists"?

That's something it would be good for Americans to know.

I'm obviously not NASCAR fan; I didn't hear about this incident from last Sunday's race until yesterday:

NASCAR doesn't share their perception. It ordered driver Derrike Cope to remove the Redneckjunk.com sponsorship logos from his car prior to last weekend's activities at Atlanta Motor Speedway.

Redneckjunk.com is a Naples, Fla.-based company that sells used sporting goods and auto parts.

''We just didn't feel like that projected the proper image of our sport,'' said NASCAR spokesman Herb Branham.

Among sponsors permitted to participate in the Atlanta race were three beer companies and a casino. It's also very difficult to secure a sponsorship.

Funny (and ironic) how this "family-friendly" sport takes ads from beer companies, casinos, and Viagra, but not something containing "redneck." It's all about image, isn't it? Though I suspect this "image" might be a bit different if Redneckjunk.com had a few million to spend on advertising.

Cable's only truly "fair and balanced" broadcaster turns 25 years old today.

If more people watched more C-SPAN, America would be a better place.

Looks like stupid just got stupider. This AP article is poorly written, but apparently the Rhea County commissioners, who on Tuesday approved a resolution urging the state legislature to outlaw homosexuality, have now undone their vote:

Commissioners in the county that convicted John Scopes of teaching evolution 79 years ago on Thursday reversed a vote they made two days earlier to ban homosexuals.

The reason? They got called out by the national media There was a "minsunderstanding":

Rhea County attorney Gary Fritts said the commission's 8-0 vote Tuesday started a "wildfire" of reaction that he contends stemmed from a misunderstanding.

Following the vote that took about three minutes, the commissioners hastily left the meeting in a room filled with about 300 noisy spectators.
. . .
Despite talk about changing state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature, Fritts said the Tuesday vote was intended to support Tennessee's ban on same-sex marriages.

"I'm not saying it wasn't discussed," Fritts said. "It will definitely be clarified because there was a misunderstanding. Sometimes you had five or six people talking."
. . .
"They wanted to send a message to our (state) representative and senator that Rhea County supports the ban on same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is what it was all about," Fritts said. "There has just been so much misunderstanding about this. It was to stop people from coming here and getting married and living in Rhea County."

Who is it that failed to understand what was going on? The commissioners?

It's bad enough that they voted to support an unconstitutional measure. Shall we take it that in addition to being discriminators, they also don't know what they cast votes for during meetings?

Nice.

We've got action:

An asteroid with a diameter of 30m passed close but harmlessly by Earth, astronomers said.

The hurtling rock passed about 42,640km above the southern Atlantic Ocean at 22h08 GMT on Thursday.

It was the closest recorded encounter between Earth and an asteroid, said Steven Chesley, an astronomer at National Aeronautical Space Administration's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory who works on a program looking for such objects.

Such encounters, however, are actually believed to occur at the rate of one every two years and have simply not been detected, he said.

I like how the first sentence, similarly reported in the AP story, points out that the asteroid passed "harmlessly" by the earth. Let's see here: if it misses the earth, there's not much left nearby for it to harm, is there?

Elsewhere, there's planetary controversy. When I was in grade school, the powers that be made out the composition of our solar system to be a cut and dried matter. There's nine planets.

Not so fast. According to Space.com, scientists are just now getting around to defining what a "planet" is. As a result, they may end up declassifying Pluto as a planet, or they may add new planets. The debate is stirring up deep emotions:

"Either Pluto is not a planet, or many other things are planets," Brown said today. "Which is a better choice? I want my planets to be more special, not less special, so I favor Pluto not being a planet. Emotionally, though, I have to admit that I have grown up thinking Pluto this special odd-ball planet at the edge of the solar system. While I now know scientifically that Pluto is less special, it's still hard to let go."

This fight could get ugly.

Score another one for commercialism:

The U.S. fast food firm Wendy's asked diners "Where's the beef?," and Nike commanded sports nuts to "Just do it." Now Donald Trump is seeking to trademark another pithy phrase: "You're fired!"

The real-estate mogul and reality TV star has filed a trademark application for the phrase, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Web site.

Known for his gaudy casinos and unusual mane of copper hair, Trump dismisses underlings on the hit TV show "The Apprentice" with a curt "You're fired."

Trump said he intended to emblazon "You're Fired" on games and casino services, and "You're Fired! Donald J. Trump" on clothing.

Other tyrannical bosses won't have to alter their vocabulary if the application wins approval, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office official said, as it will only protect those specific uses.

Given the success of The Apprentice, the only thing surprising about this is that it took Trump so long to do it. If there's a way to squeeze money out of something, he's sure to be interested.

The SPYBLOCK Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate last month, but I didn't learn of it until now. An e-mail from Senator Boxer (D-CA) describes the intent of the bill:

Our SPYBLOCK (Software Principles Yielding Better Levels of Consumer Knowledge) Act would prohibit installing software on Somebody else's computer without notice and consent, and requires reasonable "uninstall" procedures for all downloadable software. Spyware, adware and other hidden programs often secretly piggyback on downloaded Internet software without the user's knowledge, transmitting information about computer usage and generating pop-up advertisements. Frequently such software is designed to be virtually impossible to uninstall.

This legislation will give consumers control over the programs that are downloaded onto their computers. As more and more people use the Internet, privacy violations become a greater threat, and we want to give computer users the power to protect themselves from spyware and other hazardous software.

The bill also prohibits programs designed to trick users about who is responsible for content a user sees, such as causing a counterfeit replica of a company's Web site to appear whenever the consumer attempts to navigate toward a legitimate company's Web site. These types of programs have been used to fraudulently obtain personal financial information from users confused by dummy Web sites.

Sounds good in theory; whether it can effectively be enforced is another matter. Undoubtedly, some distributors of this software will simply set up shop overseas, next door to the spammers. Moreover, some spyware programs already solicit the computer user's "consent"; people just don't pay attention to everything they download. So even if the bill became law, I'm sure the spiers would find loopholes through which they distribute their wares.

As long as we're working on Internet laws, how about a strong bill which protects computer user's privacy from the government?

Student activism:

Two student legislators at Western Oregon University have launched a drive to ban Red Cross blood drives on campus, claiming the donor screening process discriminates against gays.

The two students are particularly upset about a donor question that reads: "Are you a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once?"

The federal Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the Red Cross screening process, will not accept a donation from someone who answers 'yes' to the question, in order to help eliminate potentially HIV-tainted blood.

"By continuing to allow the Red Cross on our campus, the university is telling all the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students that we don't care about you," said student senator Shauna Bates, who is co-sponsoring the legislation.

Once again, these phony claims of discrimination only pollute the atmosphere and hinder those attempting to raise legitimate issues.

Via Volokh, who asks the obvious: What does a question about males having sex with males have to do with lesbians?

Yesterday word circulated on a Rhea County motion to urge its state legislators to outlaw gay sex, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. County commissioner J.C. Fugate was quoted as saying he wanted to keep homosexuals "out of here."

Meanwhile, over in Nashville, state lawmakers held hearings on a bill to add a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriages and civil unions.

Legislators at their worst. Supporters of this are engaging in political posturing by driving through a wedge issue to confront a non-existent problem. And look at the behavior this silliness has sparked:

''You are so wrong. It's discrimination,'' said Patricia Cash, a Nashville woman, who wagged her finger in [Rep. Chris] Clem's face as television cameras rolled and reporters crowded around the pair.
. . .
As Cash confronted Clem, another audience member, Jack Brown of Hendersonville, approached. ''You are totally right,'' he told Clem as he tried to drown out Cash's criticism.

''You have got to stop playing God,'' Cash told Clem.

Brown turned to Cash and said, ''In Jesus' name, shut your mouth.''

''Oh, shut up. You don't know who Jesus is,'' Cash responded.

Cash, 54, later told reporters she confronted Clem because ''I heard nothing but vile hatred towards people.''

During the meeting, which drew a standing-room-only crowd, state Rep. Beverly Marrero, D-Memphis, asked Clem, ''Don't you think this is unconstitutional?''

And later, ''Don't you think this is un-Christian?'' to which some audience members applauded.

Good grief. Last time I checked the educational system and health care costs in this state are disasters, and our state leaders are engaging in this stuff. Wonderful.

Google is unveiling a local search feature:

Google Local Search

An AP story describes:

Online search engine leader Google Inc. is introducing a new system designed to make it easier for people to find things closer to their homes, paving the way for the company to make more money selling ads to small businesses.

The new algorithmic formulas unveiled Wednesday will allow Google to display more local information in response to search requests that include a ZIP code or a city's name.

Google says these geographic queries will now be more likely to generate phone numbers and specific addresses on its main results page. In many cases, Google also will display an icon of a compass that can be clicked upon to open another page containing a detailed map and directions to the location.
. . .
Despite their rising popularity, Google and the other search engines still haven't found a way to siphon much of the estimated $22 billion that small businesses spend annually on local ads in the Yellow Pages, newspapers and direct mail, Sterling said.

By making it easier to find local information, Google hopes to entice more small businesses to buy text-based ads that eventually will be displayed next to its search results, Mayer said.

Earlier I was watching cable news coverage of the Mount Lebanon Hotel bombing. As is typically the case right after a story breaks, there weren't many details available. I watched for the usual reasons: (1) to survey the scope of the incident, (2) to see if any thing else happens, and (3) to what insightful, strange, or stupid the talking heads say as they kill time. In this case, the scenes of carnage were interrupted by at least two moments of levity.

First, the anchor was talking by cell phone to a reporter near the scene, who momentarily was exposed to an outburst of chaos. The anchor pulled out the old "don't put yourself in danger to give us this report" line. It's really noble for a broadcaster at network headquarters to give the reporter permission to run if hell breaks loose. After all, it would ruin the coverage if the reporter had to move a few blocks to carry on the conversation.

Then, for some reason, in the midst of the turmoil the stations flipped over to the vice president so we could listen to him give a speech questioning Senator Kerry's patriotism. Nothing like the delicious irony of having a split screen with Dick "we will be greeted as liberators" Cheney on one side, and the rubble of a bombed out Iraqi hotel on the other. This guy has zero credibility when it comes to Iraq. It's almost laughable that the news channels gave him air time to talk about national security in the midst of yet another Iraqi meltdown.

Say Uncle ponders the state of the State of Tennessee and offers a new state motto.

Department of Tourism, give this man a contract!

A good segment from Monday's Hardball with Chris Matthews. I think Blix fairly summarizes what went down:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, sir, about the�watching and listening to the administration leaders as they made the case for war with Iraq before we went to war a year ago this week. Did you think there was anything unclear or dishonest even about the presentations made by the president, vice president and secretary of state?

BLIX: Well, I never felt that there was any bad faith. I think they were convinced what they were saying.

But I think that they were inclined to put exclamation marks where they should have a question mark. And, of course, there were some scandals in the material. The question of the contract that was alleged to have been concluded by Iraq with Niger about the import of uranium oxide turned out to be a forgery. And already before I knew that, I was questioning it, because I couldn't quite see why the Iraqis should import uranium oxide, which is a very, very long way from a bomb.

MATTHEWS: What about the whole question of a nuclear threat, period, do you think that was overplayed by the vice president and others?

BLIX: Yes, I think the nuclear was the most overplayed. It was also the most serious.

But, already in the autumn of 2002, not only the inspectors, but also institutes in Washington were questioning whether this�the so-called aluminum tubes were for the�to make centrifuges. And they said they could have other uses. And I think it is now totally established that they were for rockets. So the nuclear, which was the most important, was also the most overblown.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about the nuances here, sir, because you�re the expert and you speak to�you've had the opportunity to speak to our leaders. Was there a nuance of difference in approach to this war between the president and the vice president?

BLIX: You know, the vice president was extremely convinced. Probably--he appeared from the quotes that I've seen the most convinced. But President Bush was also convinced.

In the autumn of 2002, for instance, he was referring to some pictures about a nuclear installation where they used to make centrifuges and they had seen on pictures that there was an extension on it. And he said, what more evidence do we need? Well, not long thereafter, they were looking into�inside this by both inspectors and journalists and they were empty. So one has to be more cautious with the evidence. Satellites see the roofs, but inspectors see the inside.

MATTHEWS: Did the vice president seem to be more or less supportive of your efforts to try to avoid war with inspections?

BLIX: Well, he was clearly very, not say disdainful, of inspections.

In a speech that he made in August of 2002, he said that inspection is useless, at best. So I think he belonged to the group of people which presumably included people in the Pentagon, too, who really had no faith whatever in inspectors. Regrettably, they probably had more faith in the defectors. Mr. Rumsfeld has a great deal of faith in the defectors. And that led them wrong.

We were closer to the reality than the defectors were.

MATTHEWS: Well, here's a statement in The London Daily Telegraph by Ahmad Chalabi, one of�the key defector, who says, "We are heroes in error." He admits that he gave bad information to the Americans to justify the war so he could get his country back. And he said: "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before it is not important."

What do you make of that? In other words, the ends justify the means.

BLIX: Well, not in my mind.

I think it is cynical and I think is dishonest to do so. But I think what's even worse is that the U.S. accepted it.

MATTHEWS: Right.

BLIX: That they believed these things. We knew, for instance, that Khidhir Hamza, who published a book here in the U.S. about being Saddam's bombmaker, and there are enormous errors in it. And I'm sure that CIA didn't�knew that as well. But why didn't they pay more attention to what the inspectors had to say?

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about the gullibility of the American leaders, people in the Pentagon, you mentioned, Wolfowitz, I guess Feith, the others involved in this issue, the vice president�s office, Scooter Libby.

Do you think those people were so driven toward war by ideology that they almost were responsible for the gullibility in accepting the case made by Chalabi about weapons of mass destruction?

BLIX: Yes, I think we would like to ask more critical thinking on behalf of our leaders and our�people high up in the administration. They were a little like the witch-hunters of past centuries. They were so convinced that there were witches that it was only a question seeing whether�if you saw a black cat, that was evidence of a witch.

MATTHEWS: OK, sir, thank you very much for joining us. Hans Blix, thank you, former U.N. weapons inspector. Sir, thank you. Good luck with the new book. Thank you.

Blix's account belies Bush's feigned act as the reluctant warrior. The administration decided in 2001 or the first half of 2002 to take Saddam out, and the whole WMD saga was a ploy for international cover. Thus the administration cherry picked intelligence from defectors who similarly wanted to remove Saddam, and short-circuited a UN inspections program which could have examined and cleared suspected sites.

Thus it really didn't matter what happened in Iraq. Bush was determined to be the war hero. The war hero in error.

It's election time:

At least 289 Palm Beach County residents cast blank votes in the March 9 Democratic presidential primary election -- even though it was the only race on their ballots.

Overall, fewer than 1 percent of voters who were choosing among presidential candidates submitted blank ballots, according to a South Florida Sun-Sentinel computer-assisted analysis of voting results. The phenomenon, known as undervoting, has happened for decades but now gets extra scrutiny after South Florida's election problems in 2000 and 2002.
. . .
Broward County voters last week cast blank ballots twice as often as Palm Beach County residents.

The undervote rate was one-quarter of that in 2000, and some of those were absentee ballots. Still, why does the electronic system allow someone to cast an entirely blank ballot? Doesn't sound like they're ready for November when inexperienced machine users will flood the polls.

I think that Kerry's comment--or failure to deny the misquote--on foreign leaders supporting him is a bad move. Kerry should be using this period to generate a favorable "first" impression among voters who aren't familiar with him. He shouldn't be waging these trivial spats with the White House while the Bush campaign goes about defining him on their own terms.

That being said, the Bushies response of "name the leaders" is disingenuous. If Kerry continues to do the prudent thing and doesn't name any leaders, the right will attack him for making unsubstantiated claims. If Kerry were to name someone, or a foreign leader went public, the rightists would respond by saying, "Why should the UN be picking the American president?" Either way they simply try to discredit Kerry.

Again, pretend he was speaking ironically:

"If you�re going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office after meeting with Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands.

Interesting (and troubling) statistics on the quality and consumption of American journalism, from Columbia University's Project for Excellence in Journalism:

Circulation of English-language daily newspapers has dropped 11% since 1990; network news ratings are down 34% since 1994; late-night local television news viewership has fallen by 16% since 1997; and the number of viewers watching cable news has been flat since late 2001.
. . .
The report catalogued a striking decline in the number of journalists employed in American newsrooms.

There are one-third fewer network correspondents than in 1985; 2,200 fewer people at newspapers than in 1990; and the number of full-time radio newsroom employees fell by 44% from 1994 to 2001.

Only 5% of stories on cable news contain new information, the report found. Most were simply rehashes of the same facts. There was also less fact checking than in the past and less policing of journalistic standards.

Quality news and information were more available than ever before, but so was the trivial, the one-sided and the false.

Yep. That pretty well describes what I see every day, especially on TV. If you sift out the entertainment, celebrity justice, lifestyle/health, and daily he said/she said political pieces (with no fact checking), there's not much "news" left in the broadcasts.

Here's an article on a soldier who refuses to return to duty in Iraq for moral reasons. Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia is believed to be the first soldier to turn himself in after failing to report for duty in Iraq. Those involved in Mejia's defense say he could face several years in prison.

Mejia is not alone:

600 others are AWOL

Font speculated that whatever happens to his client would serve as a precedent for the estimated 600 soldiers who have gone AWOL to avoid service in Iraq. Some, like Mejia, have failed to return to Iraq after being granted temporarily leaves home and others have deserted before deploying overseas.

It's a shame that rather than face criminal prosecution, these soldiers couldn't simply sign up for graduate school or something and "work it out with the military."

It's great to have a "steady" leader whose example our troops can follow.

Couple interesting articles in today's New York Times. President Bush and his apologists have explained our budget deficit with their trifecta of excuses: (1) inherited a recession; (2) 9/11; (3) the media scared economy with war talk. According to a Congressional Budget Office report, the finger pointing isn't going to fly any more:

[A] report released on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that economic weakness would account for only 6 percent of a budget shortfall that could reach a record $500 billion this year.

Next year, the agency predicted, faster economic growth will actually increase tax revenues even as the deficit remains at a relatively high level of $374 billion.

The new numbers confirm what many analysts have predicted for some time: that budget deficits in the decade ahead will stem less from the lingering effects of the downturn and much more from rising government spending and progressively deeper tax cuts.
. . .
The Congressional report, though, concludes that the "cyclical" problems of slower growth are a tiny part of the overall budget problem. The Congressional agency estimated that slower growth reduced tax revenues by $53 billion in 2002, accounting for a third of the budget deficit that year. In 2003, the agency estimated that subpar growth cut tax revenues by $68 billion. The overall budget deficit in 2002 swelled to $375 billion as a result of spending on the Iraq war and Mr. Bush's tax cuts.

But this year, with the economy expanding, the Congressional agency predicted that lingering weakness would drain only $30 billion in tax revenues while the deficit hits $477 billion, less than the White House had forecast, but still a record.

Edmund Andrew's has pulled double duty with another article examining Alan Greenspan's changing stance on economic conditions. Despite the aforementioned federal deficit, a huge trade deficit, the falling dollar, growing personal debt, and record bankruptcies, Greenspan seems strangely "sanguine" on America's imbalances.

Greenspan has been acting a little funny recently. From his testimony on Social Security to his commentary on variable rate mortgages; makes one wonder if something is up.

How bad is our voting system? Bad enough that the Russians now ridicule it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, confronted by Bush administration criticism on the openness of the Russian elections, looked deep into the soul of the 2000 election and responded thusly:

"We will listen to the critical statements, analyse them and, if we think there is something to think about, will draw the corresponding conclusions," he said.

But, Putin added, some "see the splinter in another's eye and ignore the log in his own".

"Four years ago, we watched in bewilderment how the US election system was failing," he said.

Ouch.

Via Counterspin Central.

I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim, but it's out there:

Osama bin Laden has escaped capture in Afghanistan several times and may be linked in some way to the Madrid train attacks that killed 200 people, France's chief of defense staff said Monday.

Gen. Henri Bentegeat said about 200 French troops were operating with U.S. forces in southeastern Afghanistan against the Taliban and bin Laden's al Qaeda. The Saudi-born militant is thought to be there or just across the border in Pakistan.

"Our men were not very far. On several occasions, I even think he slipped out of a net that was quite well closed," he told Europe 1 radio. He did not specify a time frame.

Oh, the delicious irony if our terrorist-loving enemy upstaged Bush's election-year campaign to catch bin Laden.

Anyone who votes against George Bush's policies is voting for Al Qaeda.

More on the Pakistan/North Korean nuclear connection:

A new classified intelligence report presented to the White House last week detailed for the first time the extent to which Pakistan's Khan Research Laboratories provided North Korea with all the equipment and technology it needed to produce uranium-based nuclear weapons, according to American and Asian officials who have been briefed on its conclusions.

The assessment, by the Central Intelligence Agency, confirms the Bush administration's fears about the accelerated nature of North Korea's secret uranium weapons program, which some intelligence officials believe could produce a weapon as early as sometime next year. The assessment is based in part on Pakistan's accounts of its interrogations of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the developer of Pakistan's bomb, who was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf in January.

The report concluded that North Korea probably received a package very similar to the kind the Khan network sold to Libya for more than $60 million � including nuclear fuel, centrifuges and one or more warhead designs.

For a president who pontificates in simplistic, good versus evil platitudes, the leeway granted Pakistan provides quite a conundrum:

The unusual American reluctance to share its full intelligence findings [with Asian allies] has led several senior Asian officials, in interviews in recent weeks, to speculate that the assessment is particularly sensitive because the lengthy timeline of transfers it describes inevitably leads to the conclusion that the Pakistani military was a major partner with Mr. Khan.
. . .
The issue is particularly sensitive for Mr. Bush and Mr. Musharraf. Despite the mounting evidence, the White House has decided not to challenge Mr. Musharraf's contention that the Pakistani military was never involved in nuclear transfers to North Korea, and that he was never personally aware of them.

Although Mr. Bush has vowed to pursue and prosecute those who spread nuclear weapons technology, the administration did not criticize Mr. Musharraf when he decided to pardon Mr. Khan, who ran what now appears to be one of the largest nuclear proliferation networks in the past half-century.

Funny how things work in Washington. We have an administration who repeatedly trumpets Saddam's use of chemical weapons over 15 years ago. Yet they say almost nothing about Pakistan's involvement in helping establish a North Korean nuclear shop, perhaps as recently as two years ago. Mind boggling.

Finally, here's an interesting peek at how this White House operates:

The C.I.A.'s conclusions about North Korea's uranium were presented to senior White House officials, including the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in a series of briefings on March 4 and 5. That followed an inconclusive second round of negotiations involving the United States, North Korea, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia that produced agreements to hold more meetings but no commitment by North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program.

It is unclear whether President Bush, who has been deeply involved setting the strategy concerning North Korea but rarely discusses the issue in public, has yet personally received the new assessment.

Unclear whether Bush has heard the assessment? Hmmm. In all fairness to Bush, he has had a full slate of rodeos, NASCAR races, and fund raisers over the past few weeks. I'm sure he'll get to it when he can.

Marcus Wesson, alleged murderer:

A man suspected of murdering nine of his family members apparently was involved in polygamy and incest, fathering two of the victims with his own daughters, police said Saturday.

The bodies of six females and three males, ages 1 to 24, were found tangled in the back room of in Marcus Wesson's home Friday. Fresno's largest mass slaying ever quadrupled its homicides for the year in a single night and disturbed officers so much that some needed immediate counselling.

Mr. Wesson, described by police as "very calm," was arrested Friday after emerging from his home covered in blood.

Mr. Wesson, 57, has fathered children with at least four women, two of whom are his own daughters, said Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer.

"We are exploring the possibility that there were other women he was involved with, either sexually or in some sort of polygamist relationship," Mr. Dyer said.

Police said they believe all the victims are members of Mr. Wesson's family, but declined to release names pending notification of kin.

I don't know what the phsycological profile of a mass intra-family murderer is, but this guy clearly has serious issues.

From NASA:

NASA Schedules News Briefing About Unusual Solar Object

The discovery of a mysterious object in our solar system is the topic of a listen-and-log-on news briefing on Monday, March 15, at 1 p.m. EST.

Dr. Michael Brown, associate professor of planetary astronomy, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. will present his discovery of the most distant object ever detected orbiting the sun. He and colleagues made the discovery as part of a NASA-funded research project.

A radio report says this object is smaller than Pluto.

I'm a bit slow in picking up on this one. I always thought it was a little strange when I heard people claim you could see the Great Wall from space--it being just a wall.

Duh.

It wasn't until now that I read that your can't see it from space. Anyway, the Chinese Ministry of Education has ordered the myth be removed from that country's textbooks. So I'm now on par with the Chinese school kiddies.

Onward and upward.

UPDATE: The controversy continues.

Via Tennessee Ruck, this story quotes American astronaut Gene Cernan: "At Earth orbit of 160km to 320km high, the Great Wall of China is indeed visible to the naked eye."

Maybe I need to go up there to settle this one once and for all.

This should should serve as a lesson to anyone who dares breach their government-designated free-speech zone:

A snowplow driver in Cleveland has been suspended from his job after displaying an anti-Bush sign.

When President Bush visited Cleveland this week, Michael Gerstenslager, a highway maintenance worker, was asked to help provide security for the president's motorcade by using his snowplow to block access to a highway entrance, the Cleveland Plan Dealer reported.

Gerstenslager hung a sign on the side of the plow that said "traitor" � a message aimed at Mr. Bush.

A state trooper in the president's motorcade saw the sign and reported it to the Ohio transportation department.

A spokeswoman for the agency says the driver has been suspended with pay while his actions are investigated.

Brad Templeton has what he claims may be the first spam e-mail, from 1978. Bump around and you'll find other interesting stuff at his site.

Via Musings of a Philosophical Scrivener.

Gregg Easterbrook links to this chart chart and reminds us that if prices are adjusted for inflation, gasoline is $1.00/gallon below its all-time high:

Another comparison: The average price of gasoline during the 1950s was about $1.80 in today's money--meaning that during the period enshrined in our collective political nostalgia as Energy Heaven, gasoline cost slightly more in real dollars than the amount now being theatrically bemoaned as a "record" price. But wait; in the 1950s, per-capita real income was less than half what it is today. That means that for the typical American in the 1950s, gasoline cost twice as much, in terms of buying power, as today's gasoline. Adjusted for inflation and for buying power, the purported "record"-priced gasoline at your pumps now is substantially cheaper than the gasoline your parents bought.

I was flipping through the TV news quite a bit last night. The big story, of course, was the Madrid train bombings. Once the newsies got through details of the carnage, almost invariably the next story was: Could it happen here?

Good question. I directed it to my crack Resonance staff to the mystery. After hours of intensive digging, we came up with the following complex formula:

Thousands of travelers + pouring in and out of + cramped train cars + with unchecked baggage, which could contain explosives = Yep, it could happen here.

Ooops. I didn't make that very dramatic, did I? Nor did I have a terrorism/security expert from X university pontificating on the foreign chatter. Darn it. Guess that's why I'm here, and not making the big bucks on TV news.

I pick up one thing, however, from watching several of those reports. In the last couple years the U.S. has spend approximately $100 million shoring up train security, as opposed to $11.8 billion for airline security. Granted, much of Al Qaeda's attention has reportedly been on airplanes, but still that ratio seems quite imbalanced.

South Knox Bubba has this disclaimer:

Anything on this site could be real, or it could be parody or satire, or it could be just made up. Sometimes SKB can't even tell.

It's getting to the point where I similarly can't tell when I read stories about this White House. Jimmy Breslin has a column on Bush's visit to a 9/11 memorial in Nassau County. I'd like to think he made this up, but it sounds as if it actually happened:

For days now, the job at Eisenhower Park in Nassau County has been to follow the order from the White House through the Secret Service and down to the park workers:

"The president's feet are not to touch the dirt."

So all yesterday, large crews drawn from all county parks worked to ensure that, as always in his life, George Bush's feet do not touch the ground when he appears in the big park today.

Bush arrives for a fund-raiser at a restaurant in the park. That is indoors and he doesn't have to worry about his feet there. But he has to go over ground to an administration building where he is to meet with families of 9/11 victims. After that, he has to go over more ground to get to the site of a memorial to the victims.
. . .
Bush was to move to a couple of locations on dirty parkland. Last Thursday, the bureaucrats in charge of the park heard from the Secret Service. The word immediately ran through the halls of local government.

Not a foot touches the earth.

And the workers went to work. First, there was the ground from a parking lot to a wood building used for special activities. This probably will be where Bush meets with the families.

"We're not even sure he will use this," a foreman said. "They just tell us he is going to meet with families. We ask, 'Where?' They won't tell us. So we went ahead, anyway."

They put up a concrete sidewalk from the parking lot to a ramp leading into a side entrance to the building.

The rain and sleet made it impossible for the concrete to dry. So they changed from concrete to the asphalt used on streets. They hoped the president wouldn't mind this. After all, it would protect his feet from touching the earth. Gravel and hot steaming asphalt.

When they finally had it done, a full-fledged asphalt path, a Secret Service agent put his foot through the steam and left a large footprint in the walk that was to keep the president's feet off the ground.

The Secret Service man walked on blithely. He gave no indication that he knew where he was. The workmen muttered and had to go back and fix the walk.

Priorities, priorities. We don't want to get the president's feet dirty on a little service for some dead people; he's got important fund raisers to attend.

As you can probably tell from glancing at this page, I'm more political junkie than your average Joe. But even I'm not sure how well my interest will hold up during this eight more month long presidential campaign. You watch a show like "Hardball" and they've got on political analysts going at it as if the election is next week.

The favorite prop for these gurus is the latest polls. I suppose it's interesting to see a poll every week or two to gauge the mood of the nation. But by and large these surveys will be meaningless until the fall. The election isn't held today; there's a host of unforeseeable things that can happen between now and November.

My favorite has been the primary exit polls I've seen on MSNBC. Look! Sixty percent of New York Democrats are "angry" at President Bush, and fifty-five percent of Louisiana Democrats are "angry" at Bush. Duh. Maybe that's why they are voting in the Democratic primary--they don't like Bush.

That being said, the latest Tennessee poll has Bush leading Kerry 48% to 44%. I think this shows that Bush's new commercial with the waving flag has been particularly effective in convincing senior Hispanic women that his educational program has improved the safety of American dairy products.

Okay, okay--you're right; it doesn't mean anything.

Given the pampered culture of professional sports, I guess it shouldn't be any surprise that athletes spout off like this. Ladies and gentlemen, Terrel Owens--great warrior for American rights:

"So that there is no misunderstanding, regardless of what happens with the grievance, under the present circumstances I do not see myself playing for the Ravens," Owens said. "I can assure everyone that I will continue to keep fighting for my right to play for the team of my choice even after the grievance. At the end of this process, I simply want to be able to exercise my right to play for a team of my choosing under a deal that is fair to me and my family."

Responding to a question on his Web site asking why he doesn't "just play the cards you were dealt?" Owens responded, "Sometimes you have to do what's in your heart to do, just can't settle for whatever. Rosa Parks didn't! You have to stand up for your rights and that's what I plan to do, win or lose!" (Owen's chatroom shorthand has been edited for clarity.)

Of course! Terrell Owens--in fighting a trade to the Ravens--is just like a modern day Rosa Parks. Let's get out a postage stamp for him already.

Other than trying to get attention, is there any good reason why the U.S. Senate is dealing with steroids in baseball?

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig and players association executive director Donald Fehr that their sport "is about to become a fraud" because of questions over the accomplishments of some of its leading stars.

"Your failure to commit to addressing this issue straight on and immediately will motivate this committee to search for legislative remedies," McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, told Fehr. "I don't know what they are. But I can tell you, and the players you represent, the status quo is not acceptable. And we will have to act in some way unless the [players' union] acts in the affirmative and rapid fashion."

If the legitimacy of baseball is in question, then let baseball deal with it.

For a century the federal government has been giving baseball special treatment because it's the so-called "national pastime." Well, it's not the most popular sport any more and we don't need Congress acting like they're the guardians of a sacred national institution. If Major League Baseball can't controll itself, tough.

Ooops:

Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, used his harshest language yet to describe his Republican opponents, accusing them today of corrupt and deceitful behavior.

Kerry's comments came during a stop at a sheet metal plant in Chicago as he shook hands with workers.

"Tell it like it is," a man at the Hill Mechanical Group told him. "Keep smiling."

"Oh yeah, don't worry, man," the senator from Massachusetts responded. "We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We're just beginning to fight here.

"These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," Kerry added. "It's scary."

As much as I might agree with this, Kerry shouldn't be saying it in public on the campaign trail. First, it's not very "presidential." And second, he's sure to be asked about it later and is either going to have to back pedal or back it up, and I don't think he wants to get "dirty" this early.

Saying one thing . . . yawn:

GEORGE W. Bush proclaimed himself a "free trader" yesterday, while his chief trade negotiator boasted to Congress that he had protected US beef, dairy and sugar farmers from their Australian competition.

As Mr Bush, facing an election in November, accused Democrats of pushing "economic isolationism", US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick bragged to the Senate finance committee how little the US had opened its key markets to Australian farmers under the new free trade agreement.
. . .
[T]he reluctance to open US markets stands at odds with the claims Mr Bush is now making in his election campaign about his free trade credentials.

"As our economy moves forward and new jobs are added, some are questioning whether American companies and American workers are up to the challenge of foreign competition," Mr Bush said. "There are economic isolationists in our country who believe we should separate ourselves from the rest of the world by raising up barriers and closing off markets. They're wrong.

"If we are to continue growing this economy and creating new jobs, America must remain confident and strong about our ability to trade in the world. Given a level playing field, America will outperform the competition."

Rather than getting upset every time I hear his b.s., perhaps I'll start pretending that Bush is speaking ironically.

Fourty-three and counting!

Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it?

Four years after the Nasdaq hit its peak amid a frenzy for technology stocks, many of the index's top companies have seen their value drop 50 percent or more.

On March 10, 2000, the technology-packed Nasdaq Composite index hit its all-time intraday high of 5,132.52 and its lifetime closing high of 5,048.62. It was the peak of the tech bubble when investors bid up prices of Internet and other technology shares to heady levels that ultimately could not be maintained.

Today the Nasdaq closed at 1964, down 60%. Some of the period's big movers:

The four biggest Nasdaq companies at the peak of the tech bubble were Microsoft Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corp. and Oracle Corp. . They have seen their market caps fall a combined total of nearly $1 trillion since 2000.

Other high-flying tech stocks which saw their values soar during the boom have lost 90 percent or more since the bubble burst. Among these Sun Microsystems Inc. lost 91.3 percent while JDS Uniphase Corp. lost 93.1 percent, Reuters Research said.

I thought the racing donkeys were bad enough. They've topped themselves.

I watched most of President Bush's speech today. A shorter version:

--Nothing bad which has happened in the economy during the past three years is my fault.

--If we continue to do what I've wanted the past three years, companies will suddenly start hiring American workers, as opposed to half-price foreign workers or all the Mexicans I want to bring into the country.

Lou Dobbs had some cutting commentary on the economy last night:

No. 1, we're not creating jobs in the private sector in this country. That has never before happened in our history. Our economists and our politicians, our leaders, need to come up with answers, not dogma.

No. 2, we haven't had a trade surplus in this country in more than two decades. And our trade deficit continues to soar to new record levels.

No. 3, we have lost three million jobs in this country over the past three years and millions more American jobs are at risk of being outsourced to cheap overseas labor markets. That seems to me, at the least, to be more than sufficient evidence for all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, to question critically the policies of both parties that have led to us this critical juncture in our economy and our history.

Frankly, I would love to be proved wrong in my views. And I would gladly change my position if only the critics would answer a few questions factually, empirically and straightforwardly. First, how many more jobs must we lose before they become concerned about our middle class and our strength as a consumer market.

Two, when will the United States have to quit borrowing foreign capital to buy more foreign goods that support European and Asian economies while driving this nation deeper into debt.

Three, what jobs will our currently 15 million unemployed workers fill? Where and when? My critics and proponents of so-called free trade and my views on outsourcing suggest I'm a protectionist because I want to curtail the export of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets just to reduce wage levels and to eliminate our trade deficit and to pursue balanced trade policy.

Our principal trading partners include Canada, China, Japan and the European Union. All typically maintain annual trade surpluses and pursue balanced trade. Why don't my critics call them protectionists? Why not call them economic isolationists.

My critics and proponents of the status quo are offering false choices. They say we must decide between protectionism or economic isolationism as the president said today and so-called free trade. I'm sure they believe those choices are the only ones available. I don't question their sincerity. But perhaps they are also afraid our policymakers may soon discover a middle ground for a desperately needed new U.S. trade policy. A balanced trade policy in the national interest.

I think this criticism is on target. I've been fairly open to the idea of "free trade," but it seems our current policy is leading us further and further from "fair" and "balanced" trade. At some point our deficits are going to become unsustainable. We really do need to step back and reassess the ideological dogma which has dominated the debate.

The world is changing; our policy should reflect this reality.

A task force sponsored by the Council of Foreign Relations has issued a report examining the situation in Iraq one year after the United States invaded. The report warns against allowing election-year politics to jeopardize the process of rebuilding Iraq:

While noting "significant progress" in the post-conflict reconstruction and political transition effort, the Task Force reports that the planned transfer of sovereignty on June 30, combined with U.S. troop reductions from Iraqi cities and uncertainty about long-term U.S. funding, has created doubts about U.S. staying power. To avoid destabilizing the effort and demoralizing Iraqis, the Task Force urges the Bush administration, the Democratic nominee, and Congressional leaders to:

* Declare that coalition forces will continue to provide essential security in Iraq until the Iraqi security forces can do so on their own;

* Emphasize that the transfer of sovereignty does not signal a diminished U.S. commitment to supporting stability, reconstruction and a peaceful political transition;

* Affirm that the United States is prepared to sustain a multi-billion dollar commitment to Iraq for at least the next several years; and

* Ensure broad involvement of Iraqis, and promote a leading role for the United Nations in the political transition process.

Other than providing the Bush campaign with a "milestone," does this June 30 so-called power transfer really have any meaning? It's not like Iraq will an autonomous government. We'll still have to provide the security, pay the bills, and likely call the shots behind the scenes. . . .

This is a weird excuse:

Outdated computers are partly to blame for the delayed release of the U.S. producer price index and only "God knows when" the data will be ready, a top analyst at the Bureau of Labor Statistics said on Monday.

The U.S. Labor Department statistical agency has indefinitely delayed the release of the January and February PPI reports due to problems converting the data to a new industry classification system.

The January PPI, which measures prices paid to farms, factories and refineries, was originally scheduled for release on Feb. 19. The February report was due to be released this coming Friday.

The nearly three-week delay for the January report is unheard of in the government's statistics system. Some economists said they miss the wholesale price data, in part because it can offer early clues on profits and, by extension, hiring.

Computers? Hmmm. The PPI isn't the most significant of economic numbers to hide; still, a delay like this seems a bit suspicious.

Better stick with the $20 or $100 bills:

A Georgia woman who tried to use a fake $1 million bill to buy $1,675 worth of merchandise at Wal-Mart was arrested, and police later found two more of the bills in her purse.
. . .
A store clerk immediately noticed the bill was fake when 35-year-old Alice Regina Pike handed it to her on Friday, Cotton said.

Pike then tried to use two gift cards worth only $2.32 to buy the merchandise, but when that did not work she again asked to cash the $1 million bill, Cotton said. The store then called police.

Can I get my $998,325 in change?

Oh my. Whenever I start to think there may be hope for society, I always hear stories about idiots like this to bring me back to earth.

Hey, didn't we try out proportional people during the slavery era?

Four Democratic California lawmakers on Monday proposed giving teenagers as young as 14 the right to vote in a move that would make the often trailblazing state the first in the nation to do so.

Under the proposal, youths under the current legal voting age of 18 would be able to cast ballots in state and local elections only, although their vote would not have full weight that an adult vote would.

For example, a vote cast by a 14 or 15-year-old would be counted as a quarter of a vote, and a vote by a 16 or 17-year-old would be counted as half a vote.

Seems like an administrative mess to me, trying to verify ages, tally fractional votes (some state already have problems adding whole numbers), and partition the state and federal ballot. Is it worth the trouble? I think there are easier ways to get kids involved in the political process. Like making it interesting in school.

Not being a gospel music fan, I don't know anything about this guy, other than the fact that he's a writer who ran as a GOP candidate for the senate against Richard Shelby in 1992. But I'm not going to argue with this:

Author and Gospel singer Bob Miller, a registered Republican shocked his fellow song writers at their annual conference this week with his most unexpected political opinions. Miller said, "With the backbone of the Democratic Party, William Jefferson Clinton, out of the way and the Bush Storm Troopers in place, democracy took the day off. Then this war-for-profit crew moved forward with their plans as if world opinions were irrelevant."
. . .
"I am grateful for the many invitations to join the Democratic Party, but I'll stick it out here. I mean, how could it possibly get any worse than having the second most hated man to live in the last 200 years as your candidate?"

There were no hecklers, but then most everyone appeared speechless except Miller, "I'm not campaigning against a fellow Republican. The truth is, Bush does not represent the Republican Party or any other party for that matter. He represents the Bush dynasty. Is it not bad enough that another four years of his dictatorship will produce yet more unemployed, homeless and demoralized Americans?

"Can we also risk having to cope with his uncontrollable ego? The leadership of this father and son team can be critiqued using a term that epitomizes their presidencies: Collateral Damage. Clearly, America's integrity and economy fall into this category when they clash with the prosperity of Bush and his accomplices."

Mr. Miller followed this up with a gospel song.

Having the second most hated man to live in the last 200 years as your candidate? My!

When will this hate-filled "liberal" venom cease flowing?

Via Rob.

The Guardian has a piece on Karl Rove, aka "Turd Blossom." Looks like Rove started out his political consulting old-school style:

In the autumn election season of 1970, a cherubic, bespectacled teenager turned up at the Chicago campaign headquarters of Alan Dixon, a Democrat running for state treasurer in Illinois. No one paid the newcomer much attention when he arrived, or when he left soon afterwards. Nor did anyone in the office make the connection between the mystery volunteer and 1,000 invitations on campaign stationery that began circulating in Chicago's red-light district and soup kitchens, promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing" for all-comers at Dixon's headquarters.

As political dirty tricks go, it was minor league. Hundreds of the city's heavy drinkers and homeless turned up at a smart Dixon reception looking for free booze. Dixon was embarrassed but the plot failed to stop his momentum: he was elected state treasurer and went on to become a senator. But the teenager who stole his letterheads, Karl Rove, has gone even further.

I bet that's a much more effective vote getter than a mission to Mars. I wonder if Turd Blossom will break out that offer again if the campaign goes south this fall.

I was doing a little channel surfing last night and came across this "reality"-type show "Now Who's Boss?" on TLC. I gather it's a newish program, though I don't watch enough TLC to know.

The plot, from what I gather, is to take corporate executives "down the latter," making them doing the jobs of entry-level grunts.

I only caught the end of the show, but it was truly educational to hear the exec's shocking revelation that it's physically demanding working in a hot dish room, waiting tables, hauling gear, and that kind of stuff.

This is why these guys get paid the big bucks.

Iraq's leaders have signed the interim constitution. Yes, it contains a quota, or the legal "aim" of a quota, whatever that means:

The National Assembly shall be elected in accordance with an electoral law and a political parties law. The electoral law shall aim to achieve the goal of having women constitute no less than one-quarter of the members of the National Assembly and of having fair representation for all communities in Iraq, including the Turcomans, ChaldoAssyrians, and others.

Chapter 4, Article 30 (c)

Interestingly, by my count our own U.S. Senate only has 14% females (and no African-Americans), which wouldn't cut it under this provision. Time for senatorial affirmative action.

UPDATE: Say Uncle points out another constitutional goodie:

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.

Chapter 2, Article 14

Perhaps we should be importing "democracy trainers" from Iraq!

Yesterday's New York Times had a piece warning that Chinese Internet stocks might be in a bubble similar to the one the U.S. had in 2000:

SHARES of three Chinese Internet portals have been among the highest fliers on the Nasdaq market recently, tripling in value over the last 12 months.

But some financial analysts warn that the Chinese stocks are likely to fall sharply, much as American Internet stocks did in 2000.

"The bubble is going to burst," said Andy Xie, a Morgan Stanley economist based in Hong Kong. "It's going to be bad."

Meanwhile, Warren Buffet thinks the U.S. dollar will continue to take a hit:

Warren Buffett, the American investment guru and chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, has issued a fresh warning over the way the US is deluging the world with dollars to fund its huge trade deficit.

In his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, the world's second wealthiest man says the consequences of this could be "troublesome", reaching far beyond the currency markets. He also discloses that Berkshire is loading up with foreign currency to offset its exposure to the dollar.

"Prevailing exchange rates will not lead to a material let-up in our trade deficit. So whether foreign investors like it or not, they will continue to be flooded with dollars," Mr Buffett writes.

Although Mr Buffett said the bulk of Berkshire's $120bn in net worth would continue to be held in US assets, such as its stakes in Coca-Cola and American Express, the company was spreading its risk by increasing its exposure to currencies including the euro. "Berkshire holds many billions of cash-equivalents denominated in dollars. So I feel more comfortable owning foreign exchange contracts that are at least a partial offset to that position," he tells shareholders. In 2002, the company took a deliberate decision to increase its holdings of junk bonds denominated in euros and now owns $1bn worth of these.

According to news reports, Buffet is making a $12 billion bet against the dollar. [His annual report and shareholder letter are available here.]

If Buffet is correct (I just heard currency "gurus" on CNBC talking about the dollar falling to $1.35-1.40/euro range), it won't do much to help gas prices. The "stealth tax" continues.

Wow. It sounds as if Tom Delay just awoke to the concept of separate branches of government. He may actually do something without Karl Rove's permission:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, criticized by some conservatives for toeing the White House line too often over the past three years, is about to announce his own legislative agenda.

"I have not discussed this with President Bush or anyone else in the White House, and have no desire to," Mr. DeLay told The Washington Times in an interview in his majority leader's office. "But if you don't set these conservative goals, you don't get conservative governance."

On Wednesday, Mr. DeLay will take the extraordinary step of introducing his own set of legislative and policy goals, for this year and beyond. He said that while he was still working on the specifics, his proposed initiatives "will cover three basic issues: security, prosperity and family."

If you don't set these conservative goals, you don't get conservative governance? Just who is it that's be calling the shots in Washington, anyway?

Sounds to me like trouble in the ranks.

Foreign policy isn't the only thing the war bunch is experimenting with in Iraq. William Arkin writes on how they will also be messing with a new weapon:

Marines arriving in Iraq this month as part of a massive troop rotation will bring with them a high-tech weapon never before used in combat � or in peacekeeping. The device is a powerful megaphone the size of a satellite dish that can deliver recorded warnings in Arabic and, on command, emit a piercing tone so excruciating to humans, its boosters say, that it causes crowds to disperse, clears buildings and repels intruders.

"[For] most people, even if they plug their ears, [the device] will produce the equivalent of an instant migraine," says Woody Norris, chairman of American Technology Corp., the San Diego firm that produces the weapon. "It will knock [some people] on their knees."

Undoubtedly there are some situations where a nonlethal crowd dispersion device might be useful. But it can cause hearing loss and injure innocent people. Arkin rightly questions the ethical propriety in breaking out such a weapon without public debate. Who approves this kind of thing, anyway?

One also should question what might happen if this technology gets in the wrong hands--or what will happen when it inevitably gets into private sector commercial hands.

UPDATE: More on the Long Range Acoustic Device here.

Via Atrios, here's another instance of Bush leading by example:

Presidential brother Neil Bush -- putting aside remnants of a scandalous divorce, paternity questions and a scorned ex-wife -- married Maria Andrews Saturday night in the Memorial-area mansion of Rania and Jamal Daniel, longtime Bush family friends.

Close to 150 guests joined the newlyweds after a small family ceremony that included former President George Bush and Barbara Bush, parents of the groom. President George W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush did not attend.

There was a good reason why Bush couldn't make the wedding. He was working on his marriage promotion initiative, pontificating on the sanctity of marriage, vacationing at his Crawford ranch. So of course he had to send his regrets.

What kind of person goes around lecturing about marriage, then doesn't attend his brother's own wedding? I don't know. Maybe the kind of person who talks of fiscal discipline as he racks up the biggest deficits in history. Or the kind of person who waxes on job creation as he oversees the first net job-loss presidential term in 70 years. Or the kind of person who talks about a "humble" foreign policy, then embarks in one of the largest nation-building experiments in U.S. history.

A hypocrite, that's who.

On February 27, Morgan Stanley Chief Economist Stephen Roach wrote an open letter urging Allen Greenspan to raise the federal funds rate from 1% to 3%. He continues his argument in Friday's commentary claiming such a move may be necessary to ward off the danger of more asset bubbles.

It does seem odd that during the great economic recovery we are supposedly experiencing the fed continues to leave rates at historically-low levels.

This will save you the trouble of dressing up to go worship. It's in search of a pastor with "the ability to work creatively in a new and untested environment."

I'd say so.

What about weddings? Funerals? Are they available?

Did Mrs. O'Leary's cow spark the Great Chicago Fire of 1871? Retired McDonnell Douglas physicist Richard Wood says "no":

New research lends credence to an alternative explanation: The fire, along with less-publicized and even more deadly blazes the same night in upstate Wisconsin and Michigan, was the result of a comet fragment crashing into Earth's atmosphere.
. . .
The likely suspect, in Wood's eyes, is a fragment from Biela's Comet, which had been circling the sun every six years and nine months before a close encounter with Jupiter caused it to break into two large fragments in 1845. During its next passage, astronomers noted a 1.5-million mile, 15-day gap between the two pieces.

Wood said his analysis of the fragments' positions during subsequent orbits shows that Jupiter's gravity again affected their speed and trajectory, sending the smaller fragment on a path toward Earth that ended in October 1871. He presented his findings at a conference last week titled "Planetary Defense: Protecting Earth from Asteroids," held in Garden Grove, Calif.

Wood cited eyewitness reports of spontaneous ignitions, lack of smoke and "fire balloons" falling from the sky to bolster his theory. If the fire had been caused by comet debris, which is believed to have consisted of small pieces of frozen methane, acetylene or other highly combustible chemicals, it also would explain the cause of the fires blazing north of Chicago, which wiped out 2,000 people and burned 4 million acres of farm and prairie lands.

Is this the answer? It bets me. But this explanation doesn't sound a whole lot less plausible than a cow.

Josh Marshall compares and contrasts:

I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency ... How this administration handled that day as well as the war on terror is worthy of discussion and I look forward to discussing that with the American people.

George W. Bush
March 6th, 2004

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks won't accept strict conditions set by the White House for the panel's interviews with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, commission members said Tuesday.

The White House wants the interviews to be limited to one hour, with the questioners limited to the panel's chairman and vice chairman.

Detroit Free Press
March 3rd, 2004

Interesting side note. In the Bush quote above Dr. Marshall omits this curious line:

The terrorists declared war on us on that day, and I will continue to pursue this war.

Al Qaeda declared war in 2001? That's funny, because I sure have heard a lot of rightists blaming President Clinton for failing to go after the terrorists starting in 1993.

The message of this Chinese health campaign, if widely accepted, could help make a dent in that population growth problem.

Via Voluntarily in China.

This should teach all those Amish terrorists not to mess with the U.S.A.:

A young Amish man and his family cannot return to the United States, and the problem seems to be a conflict between homeland security and immigration policy versus the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

The man is a citizen of Canada, his wife and daughter are citizens of the United States. They are all Amish, and have a home among the Amish community in Licking Township.

The man went to Canada to visit his ailing father, and now U.S. immigration authorities will not allow him to return because he does not have a "green card," showing he is allowed to stay and work in the U.S.
. . .
A green card � officially called a lawful permanent residence card � must include a photograph, but being photographed would violate the man�s religious beliefs.

Old Order Amish do not believe in being photographed because of the Biblical prohibition of the making of graven images.
. . .
The man tried at one point to get a green card without a photograph, Black said, but his request was rejected. He was officially issued a visitor�s pass, but immigration authorities never sent it to him, Black said.

Other Amish have been issued green cards without a photograph, but this was apparently before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent tightening of security.

Black said the man was "treated rudely by border officials and warned he would be permanently deported if he tried to cross the border."

Black said the government�s refusal to issue a green card without a photo is a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion.
. . .
A background check on the Amish man should be able to solve the problem, Black said.

As things stand now, "it could take months or years to straighten out," Black said.

This is silly. An Amish man should be able make arrangements so that border guards can verify his identity without taking a case to the Supreme Court. Where's common sense here? If a terrorist in Canada is intent on coming into the U.S., he wouldn't bother with this hassle. There's hundreds of miles of open space where he can sneak across, just as the Mexicans do at the southern border.

Speaking of which, I thought it ironic to read of this Amish guy's plight just as I was hearing about how the U.S. is considering easing Mexico border security checks. Interesting, eh? It's almost as if Hispanics have more political clout than Amish or something.

Via The Seamus Press.

Yawn. Another uninspiring jobs report:

The economy added just 21,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported today, down sharply from January's gain and far below the type of increase that was common in the 1980's and 1990's. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent, the Labor Department said, mostly because many people have stopped looking for work since late last year, removing them from the government's official count of the unemployed.

This versus forecasts of +125,000 jobs. Missing projections on the down side is becoming routine:

In October, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow estimated that 200,000 new jobs a month would be created over the coming year; since then, the economy has added 59,000 jobs a month on average, and the administration has distanced itself from the forecasts.

Brad Delong graphically depicts actual payroll numbers against administration forecasts. Suffice it to say, we're way under the projections.

Combine this phenomenon with soaring health care costs and record gas prices, and the so-called recovery might not be feeling so great for a lot of voters.

Jesse at Pandagon brought to my attention this Tennessean story on a woman's crusade to have a "Tennessee for the Ten Commandments" license plate:

Griffin, of Dayton, Tenn., has been crisscrossing the state for the past six years, urging county commissions to support the Ten Commandments. She's now going to head up an effort to create a specialty license plate proclaiming ''Tennessee for the Ten Commandments.''

''I'd like to get it done immediately, if not sooner,'' Griffin said. ''The Lord has sent me to do it, and I don't want to make any money off it. I'm doing it for the pure love of God and country.''

I thought that maybe getting the legislature out of the license plate approval process might be a tolerable compromise to the license plate controversies, but apparently not. It will only be a matter of time before people are lining up for "God is love" and Trust Jesus" plates.

Putting aside the clear constitutional problems here, where's this woman coming from? Are the Ten Commandments up for re-election and need our state's support? I'm often amused when people claim God is telling them to do stuff. We've got hundreds of people being blown up in the world these days, and God is orchestrating license plate campaigns? His law has been out for thousands of years, is in millions of Bibles, and He's needing this shore up support?

Why doesn't this women simply post the commandments on her car? Or better yet spend her time talking to people about the meaning and the importance of the commandments. That's what will change people, not a license plate slogan or meaningless state symbolism:

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."
Jeremiah 31:33

God wants His law on our hearts, not our license plates.

President Bush is trying to portray his leadership as a "steady" force in a time of turmoil. That's not such a good trait when you continue to get things wrong.

A story in today's Washington Post offers insight into the intelligence behind claims that Iraq had a fleet of mobile bioweapons labs. According to the report, claims about this fleet were largely based on the testimony of an Iraqi defector who U.S. intelligence never even interviewed. In the buildup to war (i.e., the scare campaign), the administration simply broadcast hearsay they received from another country without any solid evidence to support his claims.

The blunders continued after the war commenced. You may recall that upon the May 11 NBC announcement that we had discovered some "suspicious" trailers, Bush proclaimed it proof Iraq had banned weapons ("We found them"). Within a month, David Kay learned that analysts doubted the trailers were part of a biological-agent production system. Yet as late as January Dick Cheney was still claiming the trailers "conclusive evidence, if you will, that he [Hussein] did in fact have programs of mass destruction."

I guess you can call that "steady."

Jeff-perado (stutz[at]unlv.nevada[dot]edu) has been assessing Bush's war-time campaign talk and observes:

It seems as though before the war, there was "no doubt" of "grave and gathering danger" to Americans living on American soil due to Hussein's weapons and Al Qaeda connections. It seems (according to Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld) that before the war, the liberation of Iraqis from Hussein would be greeted with enthusiasm and flowers thrown at the feet of soldiers. Now we, as Americans, today know the truth, these were only hyped up excuses for furthering the administration's clandestine and secretive goals. So as a result of reality creeping into the media, Bush and Co. has had to backpedal and suggest that they didn't say what they actually did say. Bush now says WMD's and the threat to our homeland was actually NOT the reason for the deaths of American sons and daughters, but the freedom of Iraqis from their own tyrannical government was the main goal. Bush in 2000 said explicitly that the U.S. was not in that business (nation building). Today Bush, the man clinging to his ill-gotten job, says; no, I was not clear in my intent (I am never wrong, so nation building then -- in 2000 -- is not the same as nation building today -- in 2004) in my year 2000 campaign claims. It is, in fact our responsibility to bomb and rebuild other nations in America's image."
. . .
A lot has been made on both sides about Bush labeling himself as a "war president." I think we all know this is a self-identification. America has been at war for decades against drugs. Tens of thousands of Americans have died at the hands of, and as a result of the wares of narco-terrorists from such countries as Columbia, Afghanistan, Mexico and many others. But only when four airplanes absconded by radical Mid-East religio-terrorists did this assault against America become a true war. It was at that point that the "war on drugs" was dropped in favor of a "war on terror." Only this war (on terror) involved the U.S. military on a full-out scale. (Since the 80's and the days of Reagan, we have sent "advisors" to Columbia, and that constituted the war (on drugs).) This makes this "war president" a total hypocrite, as the real danger to American citizens still goes unopposed, yet nearly 600 Americans, to date, have died because Saddam was a "madman," yet posed no real threat to Americans, but a huge threat to his fellow Iraqis. Again, I will say, the Chinese and Cuban dictatorships are as equally as guilty as Hussein of "being a madman." Since Bush now says WMD's was not his REAL reason for the invasion, then Bush is a hypocrite for not invading and "nation building" both China and Cuba.

But since Bush's logic is so screwed up as to be incomprehensible, then debating his philosophy becomes much like arguing with the weather. What needs to be done is to spread the truth among his followers, so that hopefully they begin to grasp the absurdities Bush spews forth. Why would Bush tell Americans we are all in "grave danger" if the truth is Bush wanted to depose Hussein for the sake of Iraqis -- NOT AMERICANS! Why not start with the truth? Americans prefer to truth to a lie... unless the truth suggests an error that was made on our part. Then a lie seems to be preferable. This is the only logical reason I can ascertain as to why ANYONE would want to vote for Bush, that the Big Lie is preferable to the ugly truth.

Hatamaran hosts the festivities.

Congratulations, you are the 10,000th visitor to this site!

You win nothing.

But I appreciate you (and everyone else) who has stopped by and helped make this weblog whatever it is today. Thanks for visiting.

There's been quite a brouhaha today on how the Bush campaign has "politicized" 9/11 in its new ad campaign.

I don't think that showing an image or two of the momentous event is, in and of itself, "heinous." [Though it is notable that Bush will show 9/11 body bags in his commericals, yet refuses to allow the media to show body bags coming back from Iraq.] The attacks have shaped the presidency for the past 2 1/2 years and commercials can reflect that.

The real outrage, which the media should be hammering, is Bush's continued stonewalling of the 9/11 commission. Here we have a candidate trying to portray himself as a "steady" leader who is attempting to weasel out of any accountability whatsoever for his actions. That's what people should really be talking about.

The NCAA is investigating alleged rules violations by former coach Jim Harrick and his son at the University of Georgia. In response, UGA has released 1,500 pages of evidence. Included in the document dump is this final 2001 exam for a course entitled "Coaching Principles and Strategies of Basketball," taught by Jim Harrick, Jr. It's a toughie. This is my favorite question:

How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in a basketball game?

And people say they're not student athletes.

Looks like they've upgraded their weaponry from almanacs:

The FBI is warning that terrorists could potentially use pens filled with cartridges of poison as weapons, according to an FBI bulletin obtained by Fox News.

A pen gun is a small-caliber, single shot weapon that resembles a fountain pen.

In its weekly bulletin to law enforcement agencies throughout the country, the FBI said that bullet cavities of pen guns could be filled with poisonous chemicals or biological toxins, including cyanide, mercury, arsenic and ricin.

But don't go into hiding in the bunker just yet:

"The FBI possesses no information indicating that chemical pen guns are currently being used or will be used in terrorist operations in the United States; however, law enforcement agencies should remain alert to the potential use of such devices," the FBI said in the notice.

By the way, are pen guns weapons of mass destruction? Better check the PATRIOT Act.

Executive branch rule making in action:

The administration yesterday announced a major change in federal sex-discrimination rules that would give communities more freedom to offer same-sex schools and classes.

In the first major change in the 30-year-old federal Title IX regulations banning sex discrimination, Education Secretary Rod Paige said states and schools would have "maximum flexibility to ... provide the best education possible for their students."

Instead of narrow exemptions allowing same-sex classes for physical education, sex education and choir, the new rules would "provide educators and parents with a wider range of diverse education options in public as well as private schools that receive federal aid."

Generally, same-sex schools and classes would be allowed in any situation "if they are part of an even-handed effort to provide a range of diverse educational options for male and female students, or if they are designed to meet particular, identified educational needs of students," said a department statement about the proposed changes.

I'm not up on the academic literature on how the impact a same-sex environment has on learning; intuitively, I could accept the argument that it may be somewhat helpful. But you have to balance this against obvious risks: (1) potential for waste with the duplication of resources for both sexes; (2) danger that "even-handed" might not be equal--girls, for instance, might be offered a more "domestic" curriculum while guys get trade-focused stuff; and (3) the socialization issues which may arise if youth don't have sufficient interaction with the opposite sex.

The latter factor resonates on a personal level for me. I attended a small private boarding high school. The school was co-educational, but it had severe restrictions on social interaction between genders. For instance, mixed seating was only allowed one meal per day in the cafeteria, males and females had designated areas on campus which were "off limits" to the opposite sex, and the limited social interaction which was allowed was strictly supervised.

It was quite strange. Suffice it to say I didn't view sexual segregation as a very healthy way to develop as a teenager. Hence I'm naturally suspect of this whole same-sex educational philosophy.

Sometimes we need reminded of this, but there are some people to the right of President Bush who don't have their way. For instance, some Texans are still fussing over then-Governor Bush's 2000 campaign decision to remove Confederate items from the Texas Supreme Court:

Still angry that Bush in 2000 ordered the removal of Civil War memorabilia from the Texas Supreme Court when he was governor � but also the presumed GOP presidential nominee � local members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans are suing the state. And, in a recent flurry of telephone calls and meetings, they are urging their counterparts throughout the South to use the presidential campaign to blame Bush for abandoning Dixie.
. . .
The plaques outside the Supreme Court chamber included images of the rebel flag and quoted Robert E. Lee praising the bravery of Texas soldiers. On June 9, 2000, Bush aides quietly replaced the plaques with a new sign containing no Confederate symbols and stating: "The courts of Texas are entrusted with providing equal justice under the law regardless of race, creed or color."

At the time, Bush was preparing the battlefield for the 2000 general election and seeking to counter his refusal earlier that year to take sides in a similar flap during the South Carolina Republican primary.

In that campaign, Bush refused to join his presidential rival Sen. John McCain in condemning the flying of the Confederate flag above the State Capitol in Columbia. Appealing to Confederate sympathizers helped Bush win South Carolina, overcoming McCain's earlier victory in the New Hampshire primary and serving as a turning point in the 2000 GOP nomination race.

After securing the nomination, Bush needed to reach beyond the conservative voters in Republican primaries. Removing the Confederate plaques in a Texas public building did the trick. The NAACP and other anti-Confederate groups around the country praised the move.

Funny that it took the governor five years to become troubled by the Confederate memorabilia. Anyway, the episode reveals Bush political expediency at work.

Eric Alterman was on C-SPAN the other morning and observed that Bush's conservative agenda was subject to being bent by the political winds with two exceptions: that which benefits (1) wealthy campaign donors and (2) the religious right. I think he's correct; it's hard to think of any examples where he's gone against either of those groups.

Even blind people can land a good shot every now and then. Dick Morris does so in this column. In a nutshell: "Edwards would have been a much stronger candidate in November than Kerry will be."

You can see this in Edwards' concession speech (below), which approaches Gore's 2000 speech as one of the most graceful in recent memory.

This is a weird case:

A woman charged with causing a fatal car crash in 1999 says that she couldn't have been behind the wheel because she was performing a sex act on the driver at the time.

Heather Specyalski, 33, was charged with second-degree manslaughter in the crash that killed businessman Neil Esposito. Prosecutors allege that she was driving Esposito's Mercedes-Benz convertible when it veered off the road and hit several trees.

But Specyalski claims that Esposito was driving, and she was performing oral sex on him at the time, said her attorney, Jeremiah Donovan. He noted that Esposito's pants were down when he was thrown from the car.
. . .
Assistant State's Attorney Maureen Platt said the defense is flawed.

"His pants could have been down because he was mooning a car he was drag racing," Platt said. "His pants could have been down because he was urinating out of a window. His pants could have been down because he wasn't feeling well."

Hmm. I'm not sure how you prove this either way. I presume the defendant will testify; it's not clear if she has any additional evidence. I wonder if there any sort of endangerment statute against interfering with a driver when the vehicle is in motion?

Do you have any questions regarding what's been happening in Haiti? This post probably offers all you want to know, and then some.

President Bush was on the phone yesterday:

President Bush called Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, to congratulate him on his victories. "I said, 'I hope we have a great debate about the issues before the country,'" Mr. Kerry said, recounting his conversation with the president.

Scott Stanzel, a Bush campaign spokesman, said Mr. Bush told Mr. Kerry that he had won the nomination against a tough field and that he was looking forward to a spirited race.

Bush might as well have called his campaign staff and gave them a thumbs up, for his re-election bid just got easier.

It's kind of mind-boggling: of all the Democrats in America, we end up picking a boring, non-telegenic, Massachusetts senator with one of the most "liberal" voting records in Congress to head the ticket. That's sure to wow the swing voters. Here we have an incompetent incumbent just begging to be thrown out of office, and this is the alternative we come up with? Alas.

Given the competition, Kerry can win in November. But that will depend to a large degree on whether the media decides to expose the candidates for what they are or if they're going to revert to their lazy, he said/she said, horse race-based coverage.

Kudos to Senator Edwards for running an inspiring campaign. It would have been nice to have seen how the race might have gone, had the media covered the candidates and the issues rather than sponsoring the Kerry coronation following New Hampshire.

I just hope we don't have to re-live that 1988 nightmare once again.

Compare and contrast:

The federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks has scheduled interviews with former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore this month but is struggling to get similar cooperation from President Bush and administration officials.

Members of the bipartisan commission said they were considering a subpoena to force the public testimony of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. She has declined to appear at the panel's two-day hearing later this month.
. . .
While Clinton and Gore have consented to private questioning without a time constraint, Bush and Cheney have agreed only to private, separate, one-hour meetings with the commission's chairman and vice chairman, instead of the full panel.

So what's the administration hiding, and why is it trying to invoke executive privilege arguments rather than doing the right thing? At least commissioner Timothy Roemer is talking tough, and some of the victims are calling out national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on her lies:

Rice met with the panel for four hours at the White House on Feb. 7. After the session, at least two commissioners, Roemer and Richard Ben-Venister, another Democrat, said it would be useful to have Rice testify in public.

Relatives of Sept. 11 victims say they are especially interested in Rice's testimony. They cited her May 2002 comments that the administration had no prior indication that terrorists were considering suicide hijackings. Reports later showed that intelligence officials had considered the possibility.

UPDATE: More evidence the commission isn't going to take it:

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is refusing to accept strict conditions from the White House for interviews with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and is renewing its request that Mr. Bush's national security adviser testify in public, commission members said Tuesday.

The panel members, interviewed after a private meeting on Tuesday, said the commission had decided for now to reject a White House request that the interview with Mr. Bush be limited to one hour and that the questioners be only the panel's chairman and vice chairman.

The members said the commission had also decided to continue to press the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to reconsider her refusal to testify at a public hearing. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are expected to be asked about how they had reacted to intelligence reports before Sept. 11, 2001, suggesting that Al Qaeda might be planning a large attack. Panel members want to ask Ms. Rice the same questions in public.

If Bush could find the time to take a month-long vacation before 9/11, he can find a few hours now to come clean on it.

Here we go again:

Republicans also plan a series of votes on judicial appointments and tax cuts this year that could put Kerry in tough political spots, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. Another possible wedge issue, aides in both parties say, is a long-standing proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw burning the American flag.

Andrew Sullivan finally seems to be waking up:

Flag-burning, fag-burning. Anything for a few votes. And what's really amazing is how cynically these alleged conservatives use the Constitution itself for their partisan ends. One word: sickening.

Former German Minister of Defense and Minister of Technology Andreas Von Buelow has written Die CIA und der 11. September (9/11 and the CIA), a book based on dubious sources, which claims the government was involved in the attacks. A sampling of Von Buelow's argument is available here.

The book is notable, if for no other reason, because it is one of three 9/11 conspiracy books that have been on the German bestseller list. According to one poll, 20% of Germans believe the Bush administration staged the attacks to advance his case for world domination. That's a sizable number and illustrates how strong the anti-Bush sentiment is in Europe.

This should take a little shine off the Schwarzenegger star at the Republican National Convention this summer:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, wading even deeper into the debate over gay and lesbian unions, said he would be "fine'' with same-sex marriage if California voters approved it and proclaimed he had "no use" for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Schwarzenegger made the comments Monday on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno," two days before President Bush is scheduled to arrive in California, putting the Republican governor in direct opposition to the Republican president on a divisive issue in an election year.

There's also been a little gay marriage flare up in New York. It's interesting how muted the opposition to gay marriage among state officials has been there, too. Apparently, the gay rights lobby pulls a lot of weight in both states.

According to this, the new $20 bills, in sufficient quantities, will set off electronic anti-theft monitors. They also explode if you microwave them.

The authors suggest there are "RFID" tracking devices in the currency, similar to that found in European Union notes.

Via Blah3.com.

Clearly not a good day in Iraq. Thus far we've dodged the biggest potential land mine there--ethnic turmoil. And there's no immediate indication that today's violence has changed that. But you have to wonder how much more of this a nation can take before things become unglued.

According to Space.com, NASA is scheduled to have a "major press event" today "to announce 'significant findings' about water on Mars."

I'm don't know what the evidence is; even if I did, I might not understand it. I wonder though: given the mission's $820 million price tag, isn't there quite an incentive to puff up the findings to justify the cost?

The Pew Internet & American Life Project conducted a survey which finds, among other things, that:

2% maintain Web diaries or Web blogs, according to respondents to this phone survey. In other phone surveys prior to this one, and one more recently fielded in early 2004, we have heard that between 2% and 7% of adult Internet users have created diaries or blogs. In this survey we found that 11% of Internet users have read the blogs or diaries of other Internet users. About a third of these blog visitors have posted material to the blog.

I've conducted independent research and find that slightly more than 0.00000% of Internet users regularly read Resonance.

Looks like Bill O'Reilly is angling for another "Peabody Award":

Now it becomes clear that O'Reilly is a thief as well, who stole an exclusive investigative story broken in the pages of the recently launched free daily amNewYork, and presented it as his own. The front page exclusive, which concerned a charity fund organized to reopen Lady Liberty, ran on February 2. It revealed that although the fund raised $40 million annually, officials were using the money for minor maintenance instead of the $7 million in repairs necessary to reopen the monument to the public.

Two weeks later O'Reilly's researcher, Susan Beachy, called amNewYork and asked for a copy of the article. Alex Storozynski, amNewYork editor, followed up with O'Reilly's producer Rich McCue, who told him, "We know you guys broke this story. We haven't seen it anywhere else."

To Storozynski's surprise, however, no mention was made of his newspaper when the story appeared on The O'Reilly Factor. Instead O'Reilly took credit for it himself. As Storozynski later wrote to O'Reilly, "Even the Daily News has given us credit when we break a story, and they are one of our competitors."

If his viewers don't yet know how dishonest O'Reilly is, his staff seems well aware of his ethically challenged behavior. Asked why O'Reilly didn't credit amNewYork, McCue said: "I can't tell him what to do. That's the way he operates."

Via pontificator.

Looks like someone has gotten Secretary of State Colin Powell's dander up.

Nicholas Kralev examines Powell's battle for turf and against criticism within the administration.

Apparently some have yet to be won over by our great progress in Iraq:

A former US national security adviser who served in the administration of the first president Bush, warned today that the war in Iraq threatens to grind on for years like the Vietnam conflict.

"It could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did," Brent Scowcroft said in an interview published in Portuguese weekly newspaper Expresso.

"Our exit from that country did not have grave consequences, while if we wanted to get out of Iraq today, the consequences would be very deep."

Scowcroft, who led a classified review of US intelligence in 2001 and heads the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board of the current President George W Bush, was an outspoken critic of the US-led invasion of Iraq, arguing it took the focus off the fight against the extremist al-Qaeda network.

He told the newspaper he believed the neoconservatives who strongly backed the invasion did not realise how difficult it would be to foster a democratic system in Iraq once the regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled.

"Their plans are fantastic but very difficult to apply because it is very difficult to implant deep political alterations in a society," he said.

"This is the problem we are facing in Iraq and we do not have a magic wand to create a democratic society, or create a group of people who aspire to democracy."

It's a good thing we have a professional press corps to flush out the really important issues in the presidential campaign debates:

Q. Really fast, last, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in these speeches that he feels God is on America's side. Really quick: Is God on America's side?

I suppose Pat Robertson and company are trying to make this an issue by portraying Bush as God's anointed president. But really, what's a candidate going to say to this? No? And exactly what is the other side which God might be siding with instead? Oh yeah, the "evildoers"--we don't want God jumping to their side. The candidates should be running campaigns geared to insure that God is on "America's side," right?

I think Senator Edwards offered the best possible response to this lame question:

MR. EDWARDS. Well, there's a wonderful story about Abraham Lincoln during the middle of the Civil War bringing in a group of leaders and at the end of the meeting one of the leaders said, Mr. President, can we pray, can we please join in prayer that God is on our side? And Abraham Lincoln's response was, I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side.

Exactly.

So what really prompted Jean-Bertrand Aristide to leave Haiti? According to this N.Y. Times story, once the Bush administration saw that Aristide might allow refugees free access to the seas, it applied pressure which lead him to "resign." But this report suggests he was taken out by force:

HAITIAN leader Jean Bertrand Aristide was taken away from his home by US soldiers, it was claimed today.

A man who said he was a caretaker for the now exiled president told France's RTL radio station the troops forced Aristide out.

"The American army came to take him away at two in the morning," the man said.

"The Americans forced him out with weapons.

"It was American soldiers. They came with a helicopter and they took the security guards.

The BBC adds that Aristide "resisted even while going up the stairs to the aircraft."

In a story which may or may not be related, Venezuelan President Hugo Ch�vez, who claims he has also been threatened by covert U.S. interference, called Bush an "asshole." A commenter at Daily Kos suggests there may be some linkage here, but so far there's not not much reporting which substantiates that.