Saturday, June 18, 2005
"IT SOUNDS LIKE A GRUDGE BETWEEN BUSH AND SADDAM"
Oh, they SO bullshitted us into a grudgematch!
---
Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans
By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press
LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in
Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.
Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.
"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."
Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.
The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.
Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.
On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea "an axis of evil." U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.
On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration's case about Iraq's weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.
Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.
Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos' contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.
It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.
"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush's secretary of state.
"It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair's) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."
Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.
Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."
A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."
"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."
The British worried that, "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."
In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: "We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."
Blair's government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.
On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.
"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."
He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."
___
On the Net:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/fcolegal020308.pdf
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/meyer020318.pdf
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ods020308.pdf
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ricketts020322.pdf
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/straw020325.pdf
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.htmlSaturday, June 18, 2005
USA, INC. - A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF...
US debt deepens as current account deficit surges to record
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US debt to foreigners pushed into uncharted territory as the current account deficit widened in the first quarter to a record 195.1 billion dollars, the Commerce Department reported.
The report, representing the broadest measure of trade and capital flows, was bigger than the 190 billion dollars expected on Wall Street and represented 6.4 percent of US gross domestic product.
It also was wider than the 188.4 billion dollars in the fourth quarter of 2004, a figure revised upward from an earlier estimate of 187.9 billion.
The growth in the current account highlights fears of economists that Americans are spending more than they are producing, and pressures the dollar.
Along with the US budget deficit, which hit 413 billion dollars in the past fiscal year, the "twin deficits" require foreigners to pump money into the United States at an unprecedented rate.
Some experts fear these imbalances are unsustainable and that at some point foreigners may reduce their dollar holdings, forcing US interest rates higher and roiling the global financial system.
"This is not the direction markets were hoping to see for the mammoth current account deficit," said economist Allan Seychuk at RBC Capital Markets.
"The US dollar has lost a great deal of ground because markets are uncomfortable with a deficit that has now reached record levels."
Drew Matus, economist at Lehman Brothers, said the latest report was exaggerated by US foreign aid payments but was nonetheless worrisome.
"Overall, the data clearly points towards continued problems related to US appetite for imported goods and suggest that US still has very large financing need in order to pay for consumption," Matus said.
Some analysts said they see no quick turnaround in the current account deficit with global growth slowing.
"If the US economy continues to grow on forecast and suck in imports as it traditionally does, at pace twice the US growth rate, exports will have to perform well to pace with imports," said Robert Brusca at FAO Economics.
"But US exports are trying to make progress in a much weaker world environment."
"We expect further deterioration in the trade deficit in the quarters ahead," said Marie-Pierre Ripert at IXIS Corporate and Investment Bank, who projected a 2005 gap of 760 billion dollars rising to 830 billion in 2006.
Federal Reserve officials have said the wider deficit is most likely the byproduct of strong US productivity and economic growth. They have said that some adjustment is inevitable but have said eventual narrowing of the deficit need not be disruptive.
Economists see no sign that the trend in the deficit will reverse, as the US economy continues to expand while Europe and Japan lag behind.
Earlier this week, US Treasury Secretary John Snow said the gap is the result of differences in economic strength and that correcting the imbalances is a "shared responsibility" among the world's leading economies.
He said the United States needed to boost its savings rate, but also cited a need for greater flexibility in currencies that currently do not reflect supply and demand forces, particularly in Asia.
The report for the January-March period showed a deficit in goods and services of 171.8 billion dollars, up from 169.2 billion in the prior quarter.
But the deficit was led by goods -- 186.3 billion dollars, up from 182.2 billion -- while the United States increased its trade surplus for services to 14.6 billion dollars form 13 billion in the prior quarter.
Unilateral transfers were net outflows of 27.1 billion dollars in the January to March period, up from 22.4 billion in the fourth quarter.
US-owned assets abroad rose 60.7 billion dollars in the first quarter after increasing by 289 billion in the fourth quarter.Friday, June 17, 2005
TODAY'S SHOW IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTERS G, O, P, AND THE NUMBER ZERO
Ummm, how much does BushCo's vanity war in Iraq cost per day again?
House panel cuts funding for public television
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill on Thursday that would cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by $100 million, or 25 percent, starting in October.
The funding cut was included in a massive, $142.5 billion spending bill for health, education and labor programs that still must be passed by the full House and Senate.
Rep. Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican who crafted the legislation, said 49 federal programs were being eliminated and other funding reduced because of tight spending limits.
Regula's original bill would have eliminated funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 2008, but a Democratic amendment earmarked $400 million so that public broadcasting could use the money in the future.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides federal funds to the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, a nonprofit organization operated by 348 public television stations in the United States.
Lee Sloan, a spokeswoman for PBS, said smaller public television stations that rely heavily on federal funds would be hardest hit by the cuts, if they become law. She noted that in past funding fights, the Senate has restored funds.
Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would try to add funding for public broadcasting on the House floor.
PBS, which made its mark with children's television programs like "Sesame Street" and popular documentaries, has been targeted by congressional Republicans in the past for steep funding reductions. In 1995, House Speaker Newt Gingrich tried to eliminate funding for public television, hoping to turn it into a privately funded operation.
This year, PBS's news shows came under attack for allegedly having a liberal bias -- a charge the group's president denied. Conservatives also complained about a recent children's show in which some of the characters visited a farm in Vermont that was run by a family headed by two women.
Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said the 25 percent reduction in funding for the coming year would be "disastrous" for public broadcasting, which he said "is the most valuable resource we have for getting quality programming for children."Wednesday, June 15, 2005
PORN BIMBO SHAKES TA-TA'S FOR DUBYA AT GOP PARTY
And this is why they got into politics in the first place, right boys? Free buffalo wings and bodacious booty!
Porn star and former California gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey shows off the outfit and Republican party lapel pin that she wore to the National Republican Senatorial Committee dinner for President Bush on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
GWB eager to press the flesh at gatherings of the faithful
U.S. President George W. Bush speaks at the 2005 President's Dinner, a Republican Party fundraiser, in Washington D.C. June 14, 2005. REUTERS/Chris Kleponis
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
STORM TROOPER OPENLY REJOINS THE DARK SIDE
Let's see now... this assclown worked for decades as an oil industry executive, until Dubya took him away from all that and put him in charge of disseminating info on the impact of the oil industry's practices on the environment. The shill gets publicly busted 'fine tuning' the climate change reports to make the industry look good, and so in an amazing coincidence, immediately resigns and goes right back to work for the oil industry. And BushCo insists this is all perfectly normal, nothing to see here, move along now.
*gasp*wheeze* Luke, I'm your father...
Ex-White House Official to Join Fuel Co.
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 14, 7:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A former White House official and one-time oil industry lobbyist whose editing of government reports on climate change prompted criticism from environmentalists will join Exxon Mobil Corp., the oil company said Tuesday.
The White House announced over the weekend that Philip Cooney, chief of staff of its Council on Environmental Quality, had resigned, calling it a long-planned departure. He had been head of the climate program at the American Petroleum Institute, the trade group for large oil companies.
Cooney will join Exxon Mobile in the fall, company spokesman Russ Roberts told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from its Dallas headquarters. He declined to described Cooney's job.
Cooney could not be reached through the White House for comment.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cooney's departure was "completely unrelated" to the disclosure two days earlier that he had made changes in several government climate change reports that were issued in 2002 and 2003.
"Mr. Cooney has long been considering his options following four years of service to the administration," Perino said. "He'd accumulated many weeks of leave and decided to resign and take the summer off to spend time with his family."
The White House made no mention of Cooney's plans to join Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company. Its executives have been among the most skeptical in the oil industry about the prospects of climate change because of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The leading greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
Like the Bush administration, Exxon Mobil Chairman Lee Raymond has argued strongly against the Kyoto climate accord and has raised questions about the certainty of climate science as it relates to possible global warming. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have singled out Raymond and Exxon Mobil for protests because of its position on climate change.
Last week, the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that helps whistleblowers, made available documents showing that Cooney was closely involved in final editing of two administration climate reports. He made changes that critics said consistently played down the certainty of the science surrounding climate change.
After Cooney's involvement in editing the climate reports was first reported by The New York Times, the White House defended the changes, saying they were part of the normal, wide-ranging review process and did not violate an administration pledge to rely on sound science.
A whistleblower, Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the government office that coordinates federal climate change programs, made the documents — showing handwritten edits by Cooney — available to the Project on Government Accountability and, in turn, to news media.Wednesday, June 15, 2005
SENATOR RICHPIGGE TO GRANDMA: YEAH, I WANT FRIES WITH THAT!
We spent your retirement, granny, so get back behind the counter and fire up that grill.
Senators Consider Boosting Retirement Age
By DAVID ESPO, AP
WASHINGTON - Work till you're 69 before getting full Social Security benefits? That's one possibility — for Americans who retire two decades or more into the future — as Republicans on a key Senate committee review suggestions for improving the program's solvency.
Richpigge explains how there is not enough money to feed grandma, so it's off to work she goes.
No decisions have been made yet, and it could be fall before the politically volatile Social Security issue reaches the floor of either the House or Senate, if then.
At the same time, an increase in the retirement age is one of the suggestions that Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, outlined last week for fellow Republicans on the panel, according to several officials. Officials said Grassley's suggestion for raising the retirement age would be phased in, possibly over two decades or more, depending on future demographic trends.
The Iowa Republican has also suggested steps to hold down benefits for future upper-income retirees. The officials who described his presentation did so on condition of anonymity, saying the discussions were confidential.
Under current law, the age for retiring with full Social Security benefits is 65 years and six months. It is rising gradually until it reaches 67 for individuals born in 1960 or later.
The GOP lawmakers on the committee are scheduled to meet again on Thursday to continue their work, hoping to agree on a plan that can unify Republicans and allow them to advance one of
President Bush's key second-term priorities.
The issue has become intensely contentious in Congress, with public polls indicating tepid support for Bush's call to allow younger workers to create voluntary personal accounts funded out of their Social Security payroll taxes. Democrats accuse the White House of seeking to privatize the depression-era program, while supporters of the accounts argue they are needed to modernize it.
"The easy path is to do nothing. That's the easy political path," Bush said Tuesday in State College, Pa., where he appeared before a young audience drawn from rural families.
"The tough path is to come together and get something done. But let me tell you something. By doing nothing, you're about to hear that we will have done a disservice to a younger group of Americans coming up," he told a convention of the Pennsylvania FFA, formerly known as the Future Farmers of America.
For their part, Democrats criticized Bush anew, saying his proposal would privatize Social Security while cutting benefits.
"Rural Americans tend to be older and more likely to depend on Social Security," Reps. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., and Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., said in a joint statement. They head the Democratic House Rural Working Group.
The president has called for a bill to create permanent solvency for the program, and he also wants the bill to give younger workers the option of establishing a personal retirement account financed from a portion of their payroll taxes.
Under current predictions, Social Security will begin to pay out more in benefits than it receives in tax receipts in 2017, and the trust funds will be depleted in 2041. At that point, benefits would be cut to adjust for the reduction in available funds.
Along with curbs in benefits or increases in taxes, raising the retirement age is one of three general approaches that lawmakers can consider as they try to improve the solvency of Social Security.Tuesday, June 14, 2005
EAT THE RICH
Rich-poor gap gaining attention
By Peter Grier, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself.
Is that a liberal's talking point? Sure. But it's also a line from the recent public testimony of a champion of the free market: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
America's powerful central banker hasn't suddenly lurched to the left of Democratic National Committee chief Howard Dean. His solution is better education today to create a flexible workforce for tomorrow - not confiscation of plutocrats' yachts.
But the fact that Mr. Greenspan speaks about this topic at all may show how much the growing concentration of national wealth at the top, combined with the uncertainties of increased globalization, worries economic policymakers as they peer into the future.
"He is the conventional wisdom," says Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. "When I'm arguing with people, I say, 'Even Alan Greenspan....' "
Greenspan's comments at a Joint Economic Committee hearing last week were typical, for him. Asked a leading question by Sen. Jack Reed (news, bio, voting record) (D) of Rhode Island, he agreed that over the past two quarters hourly wages have shown few signs of accelerating. Overall employee compensation has gone up - but mostly due to a surge in bonuses and stock-option exercises.
The Fed chief than added that the 80 percent of the workforce represented by nonsupervisory workers has recently seen little, if any, income growth at all. The top 20 percent of supervisory, salaried, and other workers has.
The result of this, said Greenspan, is that the US now has a significant divergence in the fortunes of different groups in its labor market. "As I've often said, this is not the type of thing which a democratic society - a capitalist democratic society - can really accept without addressing," Greenspan told the congressional hearing.
The cause of this problem? Education, according to Greenspan. Specifically, high school education. US children test above world average levels at the 4th grade level, he noted. By the 12th grade, they do not. "We have to do something to prevent that from happening," said Greenspan.
So are liberals overjoyed by these words from a man who is the high priest of capitalism? Not really, or at least not entirely.
For one thing, some liberal analysts prefer to focus on the very tip of the income scale, not the top 20 percent. Recent Congressional Budget Office data show that the top 1 percent of the population received 11.4 percent of national after-tax income in 2002, points out Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a new study. That's up from a 7.5 percent share in 1979.
By contrast, the middle fifth of the population saw its share of national after-tax income fall over that same period of time, from 16.5 to 15.8. "Income is now more concentrated at the very top of the income spectrum than in all but six years since the mid-1930s," asserts Mr. Shapiro in his report.
For another, some Democratic analysts believe that Greenspan's emphasis on education as a cure ignores other causal factors of inequity. Data show an income gap widening among college graduates, says Mr. Bernstein. The quality of US high schools has nothing to do with that, he says. Instead it's partly a function of overall monetary and fiscal policies. "Greenspan takes a very long term view of the situation," says Bernstein.
On the other hand, some conservatives label the whole inequality debate a myth. The media's recent focus on the subject stems from its liberal bias and clever press management by Democrats, they say.
Inequality studies often ignore the wealth created by rising house prices, for instance - and homes represent the most substantial investment by many, if not most, Americans.
Nor do US workers necessarily perceive themselves on the losing end of a rigged capitalist game. A recent New York Times survey found that while 44 percent of respondents said they had a working-class childhood, only 35 percent said they were working class today, points out Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Eighteen percent said they grew up lower class, while only 7 percent said they remained in that societal segment.
When Democrats today raise the inequality flag, they are simply trying to attack President Bush's tax cuts, albeit indirectly, says Mr. Bartlett. "A lot of this is driven by the estate-tax debate," he says.
And as Greenspan himself points out, by many measures the economy is doing well. Unemployment is down, GDP is up. Inflation still slumbers. Current standards of living are unmatched.
"So you can look at the system and say it's got a lot of problems to it, and sure it does. It always has," Greenspan told the JEC last week. "But you can't get around the fact that this is the most extraordinarily successful economy in history."Monday, June 13, 2005
MAINSTREAM MIDDLE AMERICA MEDIA FINALLY ACCEPTS TRUTH
USA Today is about as soundbite-y, don't-make-waves bland as modern western 'journalism' gets. In other words, if it finally makes it into the pages of USA Today, it's non-controversial, mainstream, and has a "DUH!" factor of bazillions. So here are the brainiacs at USA-T, bringing you today's DUH! moment:
The debate's over: Globe is warming
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Don't look now, but the ground has shifted on global warming. After decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare to deal with a problem they say people can no longer avoid.
General Electric is the latest big corporate convert; politicians at the state and national level are looking for solutions; and religious groups are taking philosophical and financial stands to slow the progression of climate change.
They agree that the problem is real. A recent study led by James Hansen of the
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that, because of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, Earth is trapping more energy from the sun than it is releasing back into space.
The U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global temperatures will rise 2 to 10 degrees by 2100. A "middle of the road" projection is for an average 5-degree increase by the end of the century, says Caspar Amman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
What the various factions don't necessarily agree on is what to do about it. The heart of the discussion is "really about how to deal with climate change, not whether it's happening," says energy technology expert James Dooley of the Battelle Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md. "What are my company's options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Are there new business opportunities associated with addressing climate change? Those are the questions many businesses are asking today."
The players
GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt recently announced that his company, which reports $135 billion in annual revenue, will spend $1.5 billion a year to research conservation, pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases. Joining him for the announcement were executives from such mainline corporations as American Electric Power, Boeing and Cinergy.
Religious groups, such as the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches, have joined with scientists to call for action on climate change under the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. "
Global warming is a universal moral challenge," the partnership's statement says.
And high-profile politicians from both parties are getting into the act. For example, California Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a reduction of more than 80% over the next five decades in his state's emission of greenhouse gases that heat in the atmosphere.
To be sure, many companies - most notably oil industry leader ExxonMobil - still express skepticism about the effects of global warming. And the Bush administration has supported research and voluntary initiatives but has pulled back from a multi-nation pact on environmental constraints.
The administration was on the defensive last week when The New York Times reported that a staff lawyer has been softening scientific assessments of global warming. White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended such action as a routine part of a multi-agency review process.
Nonetheless, the tides of change appear to be moving on.
"As big companies fall off the 'I don't believe in climate change' bandwagon, people will start to take this more seriously," says environmental scientist Don Kennedy, editor in chief of the journal Science. Companies aren't changing because of a sudden love for the environment, Kennedy says, but because they see change as an opportunity to protect their investments.
"On the business side, it just looks like climate change is not going away," says Kevin Leahy of Cinergy, a Cincinnati-based utility that reports $4.7 billion in annual revenue and provides electricity, mostly generated from coal, to 1.5 million customers. Most firms see global warming as a problem whose risks have to be managed, he says.
Power companies want to know what sort of carbon constraints they face - carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas - so they can plan long term and avoid being hit with dramatic emission limits or penalties in the future, he says.
Science and solutions
Climate scientists say this acceptance comes none too soon. "All the time we should have been moving forward ... has been wasted by arguing if the problem even exists," says Michael Mann of the University of Virginia.
The IPCC estimates that rainfall will increase up to 20% in wet regions, causing floods, while decreasing 20% in arid areas, causing droughts. The
Environmental Protection Agency says melting glaciers and warmer ocean waters will likely cause an average 2-foot rise in sea level on all U.S. coasts by 2100.
Carbon dioxide is the byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or oil. There are now about 1 trillion tons of carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By the end of the century, atmos-pheric carbon projections range from 1.2 trillion tons if stringent corrective steps are taken to 2.8 trillion tons if little is done.
Moving ahead with solutions looks like the hardest part of the equation for the United States. The Bush administration's stance has frustrated advocates of a more aggressive response.
Bush explained in a 2001 speech why he opposed joining the
Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement to curb greenhouse gases: "The (Kyoto) targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases."
Instead, the administration "harnesses the power of markets and technological innovation, maintains economic growth, and encourages global participation," former Energy Department head
Spencer Abraham wrote last year in Science. He pointed to tax incentive programs, climate research and technologies such as "FutureGen," the Energy Department's 10-year,$1 billion attempt at creating a coal-fired power plant that emits no greenhouse gases.
Other administration efforts:
• The $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel-cell car initiative announced two years ago in Bush's State of the Union address.
• A $49 million carbon "sequestration" initiative with 65 projects to see whether carbon dioxide can be stripped from emissions.
• Participation in the international ITER program to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source.
The administration has encouraged voluntary efforts. Fourteen trade groups representing industrial, energy, transportation and forest companies have signed up for a program aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 18% by 2012.
So why isn't this enough to assuage critics?
Rick Piltz, a science policy expert who resigned in protest from the administration's Climate Change Science Program in March, says the reliance on voluntary measures and long-term technology breakthroughs is a roadblock against simple conservation steps that could curb emissions now. Piltz provided the edited documents that were the subject of last week's story in The New York Times.
Commonly cited examples of the conservation steps Piltz mentions:
• Incentives for emission controls on the oldest and least efficient power plants.
• More stringent mileage and tailpipe requirements on vehicles.
• Expanded tax credits for more efficient air conditioners, hybrid cars and appliances.
Political leaders will support such measures only if the benefits come at a low cost to the economy, says William Reilly, co-chair of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy and former head of the EPA under President George H.W. Bush. "But there is a lot going on, and I think we will be seeing some movement on this."
Away from the political arena, other irons are in the fire:
• More people are advocating nuclear power. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a congressional panel in April that "nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand."
• Immelt called for the United States to adopt an emissions-trading plan for greenhouse gases. Taking a cue from the EPA's policy of having companies buy and sell permits to release sulfur dioxide, which is responsible for acid rain, economists suggest that such a scheme would limit carbon dioxide by making emissions economically less feasible. In Congress, the Climate Stewardship Act proposed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., would commit the country to such a plan.
No 'silver bullet' solution
Pressure for reforms may come most strongly from "socially responsible" investors. "We make bottom-line arguments to companies to make decisions in the interests of their shareholders," says John Wilson of Christian Brothers Investment Services, which manages $3.5 billion in investor funds. The firm advises 1,000 Catholic institutions, such as churches, schools and hospitals.
A Christian Brothers resolution in May asked ExxonMobil "to explain the scientific basis for its ongoing denial of the broad scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global climate change." The resolution garnered 10.3% of shareholders' votes, representing 665 million shares worth more than $36 billion, despite the opposition of management.
"The future of energy is plainly moving away from fossil fuels and we want the companies (that) we invest in to explain how they plan to adjust," Wilson says.
Dooley, of the Battelle Institute, says: "We need a whole series of 'home runs' and maybe even a couple of 'grand slams' to successfully address this problem. More efficient refrigerators, better and cheaper solar cells, hybrid automobiles, fuel cells, power plants that capture and store their (carbon dioxide) deep below the surface and nuclear power. They all have important roles to play."
"No one seriously talks about trying to address climate change with one technology," Dooley says. "Everyone understands that there isn't a 'silver bullet' out there waiting to be discovered."Sunday, June 12, 2005
10 THINGS YOU ARE NOT TOO OLD TO DO
1. Have a Kid
Though fertility seriously declines by the time a woman reaches her 30s, technology is allowing women to give birth much later in life. As for the biological clock of men, many fertility experts think there's no age limit.
2. Get Skinny
Even if you've been overweight for your entire life, it's never too late to slim down.
3. Get a Degree
Want academic letters at the end of your name? You might try enrolling in an online institution.
4. Become a Buff
Whether you're a physician who wants to be a magician or a builder who dreams of boating, it's never too late to cultivate a spare time passion.
5. Rock On
Experts say the key to picking up a musical instrument later in life is patience. Don't expect to be concert-ready after just a few lessons.
6. Learn a Foreign Language
The best way to learn a new language quickly is to hire a tutor who teaches not only vocabulary and grammar but also the cultural nuances of the dialect.
7. Go AWOL
You may be able to negotiate up to a year off from your job--be it for travel, family or simply as a breather.
8. Switch Careers
Experts say that when considering a midlife career change, expect to take a pay cut and start at the bottom, or at least not at the top.
9. Mend a Fence -- or Burn a Bridge
The best way to heal a broken relationship, even one with longstanding problems, is to listen to the other person's point of view and make an honest effort to understand it.
10. Sample Haggis
Expanding your culinary horizons doesn't mean chasing down the hottest chefs and most expensive restaurants. You can always try new things.Sunday, June 12, 2005
WAY PAST TIME FOR A TRIP BEHIND THE WOODSHED
In any other country, this asshole would have been deposed long ago. In some places, his sorry ass would have been dragged out and shot. Oh wait, I can't say that - this is America, home of the Patriot Act, and the Secret Service is gonna come kick MY door down and take me away for saying Dubya should be shot. It's illegal, I think, to actually use the words. I could use euphemisms and maybe get away with it, I'm not sure - like "the pResident should be permanently removed from office", since 'permanently' is contextual in this case, and thus subjective.
Anyways, kick the ratbastard out before he blows up the world. As it stands, he's damaged it severely already. And check out these two cutting-edge brainiacs noting how having his head firmly lodged in his rectum might, just might, be counterproductive in a world leader:
.
Bush's stubbornness may be hindering him
By Judy Keen and Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
President Bush is a stubborn man.
He said so himself in March, when he vowed to continue pressing for changes to Social Security despite the qualms of Congress and the public. "I'm going to be stubborn on this issue," he said in Iowa.
Dubya and his Goon Squad
He demonstrated his persistence again Wednesday, when he gave another speech promoting changes he wants to make in Social Security. "My strategy is pretty simple: Explain the problem to the American people, and keep explaining it and explaining it," he told the Association of Builders and Contractors.
Bush's stubbornness has served him well in the past. Charlie Black, a Republican strategist, notes that Bush's biggest legislative successes, such as tax cuts, education policy and creation of a Medicare prescription-drug benefit, were the result of Bush "sticking to his guns." But there are signs his determination to do things his way is beginning to be counterproductive, and the stakes are high. Without progress on his agenda, he risks being viewed as a lame duck when he needs an aura of invincibility: He'll almost certainly face a battle with Congress this year over a Supreme Court nominee.
Bush doesn't have a lot to show for the 18 weeks in which he's been making regular speeches to promote his Social Security proposals. Congress isn't racing to enact his plan to allow younger workers to invest part of their taxes in stocks and bonds. Polls show support has dropped since he's been promoting the plan. Bush has said he's open to all ideas, but insists that investment accounts be a part of the changes. He's not getting his way lately on other issues, either:
• Despite his adamant objections, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted May 25 to overturn his ban on federal funding of stem cell research. Bush's stance puts him on the other side of the issue from former first lady Nancy Reagan, and the vote was a rebuke from his own party that could undercut his clout.
• There was near-meltdown on Capitol Hill when he insisted on renominating 10 judicial candidates Democrats blocked last year. In the effort to push them through, Bush's handpicked Senate leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, threatened to end the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees - a move that even some Senate Republicans opposed.
Bush did win confirmation of some judges; the latest, California judge Janice Rogers Brown, was confirmed Wednesday to the federal appeals court. But a bipartisan deal preserved the filibuster, incensed conservatives and empowered moderates.
• His support for John Bolton, his nominee for
United Nations ambassador, continues despite concerns even among Republicans such as Ohio Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record) that Bolton is ill-suited for the job. Bolton is likely to be confirmed, but Voinovich showed that even Bush loyalists can buck the president.
An ABC News/Washington Post Poll taken Thursday through Sunday found that Bush is paying a price for his stances: 62% disapproved of the way he's handling Social Security, and 55% disapproved of his handling of the stem cell issue. Asked about his handling of federal judges, 46% approved, and 44% disapproved. Six in 10 said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems.
"If you paint yourself in a corner, then stubbornness has been countereffective and counterproductive," says Fred Greenstein, a Princeton University presidential scholar whose book The Presidential Difference examines presidents' leadership styles.
Unwavering agenda
Bush is a disciplined man who promised action on a handful of issues in his campaigns for Texas governor and president and never wavered. Is his refusal to yield in the face of opposition an obstacle to getting his agenda enacted?
Hardly, says John Bridgeland, who served as director of the domestic policy council in Bush's first term. "He's not a person who will make a judgment one day and then weeks later, because of the political winds, decides to turn another way," he says. "He's actually very open-minded, but once he gets advice and considers all the facts, he's extraordinarily decisive."
Some of Bush's current and former allies wonder whether his inflexibility is hurting him.
Tim Penny, a former Democratic congressman from Minnesota who supports some of Bush's Social Security ideas, said this week that the president should be conferring with Democrats "to at least find where common ground exists."
Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., worked with Bush in 2001 on big changes in public schools but hasn't collaborated with Bush since. He says Bush has become more unyielding. He suggests 9/11 changed Bush, whose "go-it-alone" foreign policy affected the way he deals with domestic affairs. Bush interpreted his re-election as "a reaffirmation that he can do his own thing," Kennedy says.
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., encountered Bush's stubborn nature at a White House meeting in April. As they discussed Social Security, Rangel recalls, the president told him, "If Congress doesn't respond, they're going to pay." Rangel told Bush Democrats would be more cooperative if he withdrew his plan for individual investment accounts. "I'm the president, and private accounts are going to stay on the table 'til my last day in office," Bush said, according to the congressman.
"This is a shrill interpretation of the president's comments," White House spokesman Trent Duffy says.
Asked whether Bush has become more inflexible, Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., says, "This is his style."
'No doubt in my mind'
Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., says he thinks Bush's decision to campaign hard for Republican candidates in 2002 and 2004 hardened Democrats against the president.
Bush's supporters say his determination helped him win a second term. A Los Angeles Times Poll taken a year ago found that 56% of voters said Bush was "too ideological and stubborn."
But on Election Day, surveys of voters found that of the 17% who said they voted for the candidate they thought was a strong leader, 87% voted for Bush.
"Bush's biggest asset when he ran for president and won twice was that he knows what he believes in," says Scott Reed, a Republican strategist.
Bush shows no signs of rethinking his approach. "There's no doubt in my mind that I'm doing the right thing on this issue," he said in his Social Security speech Wednesday.
In a debate with Democratic presidential candidateJohn Kerry last October, Bush compared his decision to go to war with Iraq to President Reagan's decision to challenge the Soviet Union. "He stood on principle," Bush said of Reagan. "Some might have called that stubborn."
-----
The rest of us just call it insane, self-serving, and a lie from beginning to end.Sunday, June 12, 2005
IS THAT A GENOME IN YOUR POCKET, OR DID WE JUST GET LUCA?
Scientists zero in on suspected common ancestor of all living things
By Robert S. Boyd, Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Thanks to the tools of modern genetics, scientists are working to identify a little bug that they believe was the ancestor of every creature alive today.
They call it LUCA - shorthand for the "last universal common ancestor" - and they think it inhabited the Earth 3 billion to 4 billion years ago.
LUCA consisted of only a single cell, like a bacterium, scientists say, but its descendants comprise modern humans, animals, plants, fungi and invisible microbes.
"Amazingly, every living thing we see around us, and many more that we can only see with the aid of a microscope, is related," said Anthony Poole, a molecular biologist at Stockholm University in Sweden.
In effect, LUCA's genealogy makes us distant cousins of everything from whales to bumblebees and pond scum.
"All contemporary life is descended from a single last common ancestor that had a biochemistry closely related to contemporary biochemistry," said Max Bernstein, a biochemist at
NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif.
"If we go sufficiently far back, everybody's ancestors are shared," evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in his latest book, "The Ancestor's Tale." "Go backward and no matter where you start, you end up celebrating the unity of life."
Researchers say the effort to understand LUCA can shed light on evolution and genetics, help medical science, and even improve the chances of finding primitive life on other planets.
Despite its great age, LUCA was "a sophisticated, essentially modern organism," said James Lake, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Lake calls it "the lucky bug" because its descendants survived while other ancient microbial lines died out. "It wasn't the first life," he pointed out. "Life had already been going on for a long time."
LUCA "set the stage for 4 billion years of evolution," said Blair Hedges, a biologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Understanding the evolution of genes and their functions "is like having a blueprint for modern medicine," he added.
The quest for a universal common ancestor is made possible by the fact that all organisms from LUCA on down share a few hundred or thousand basic genes that enable them to eat, grow and reproduce. Those universally inherited genes provide the clues that evolutionary scientists are using to figure out what LUCA must have been like.
The nature of the last common ancestor is "one of the big questions" in evolution, David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand, said in an e-mail message.
Defining LUCA would be "a major step in determining what life was like on Earth and how life arose," Lake said. "If we get close to the right answer, then we can follow the history, geography, environment, everything about early life."
"We are now entering a very exciting period in uncovering the history of the LUCA," said Poole, who presented the results of his latest research at a conference last week in Hamilton, Ontario.
Nevertheless, the field is filled with uncertainty and doubt. Researchers disagree on many points.
"Ask any two researchers to give an overview of what they think the LUCA was like, and you will no doubt get different answers," Poole wrote in a paper published in 2002. "With such a tricky scientific endeavour as this - working out what an organism that lived billions of years ago was like - this is hardly surprising."
Some researchers, for example, think LUCA stored its genes in strings of DNA, like modern organisms. Others think it used a more primitive storage medium called RNA.
Some even doubt that there was a LUCA.
"I think the story is more complex," said Mitchell Sogin, an evolutionary biologist at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass. "Rather than a single last common ancestor as implied by the concept of LUCA, there were probably populations of organisms that readily exchanged or assimilated genetic information from neighboring genomes.
"Currently there is no consensus and I don't think we should expect one in our lifetime."
---
For more information online, go to www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html.Sunday, June 12, 2005
GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT
We've raised a generation of sociopaths...
Two More Teens Arrested in Fla. Slaying
HOLLY HILLS, Fla. - Investigators arrested two 15-year-olds in the beating death of a homeless man, bringing the number of teenagers facing charges to five. The two teens were scheduled to make their first court appearances Saturday, but the state Department of Juvenile Justice would not comment on their status. One is charged with second-degree murder and the other faces an aggravated battery charge.
Authorities said the two teenagers, along with a 14-year-old and 18-year-olds Justin Stearns and Jeffery Spurgeon were involved in the fatal beating May 25.
Stearns, Spurgeon and the 14-year-old were indicted Thursday by a grand jury on charges of first-degree murder and murder conspiracy.
Michael Eugene Roberts, 53, was kicked and crushed when teens jumped on a log on his chest in woods where the group was known to hang out behind a car wash. His body remained in the woods until Spurgeon's mother called authorities three days later to report she had overheard something about a beating.
No more arrests were expected, but the investigation is continuing, sheriff's spokesman Gary Davidson said.
Gregory Despres is shown in this image from television. On April 25, 2005, Despres arrived at the U.S.-Canadian border crossing at Calais, Maine, carrying chain saw stained with what appeared to be blood, a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, and brass knuckles. U.S. customs agents confiscated the weapons, fingerprinted Despres, and then let him into the United States. Despres, the suspect in a grisly double murder in New Brunswick, Canada, was arrested in Mattapoisett, Mass., on April 27, 2005 and is being held in a jail there, charged with two counts of first-degree murder. (CP PHOTO/HO/WHDH-TV)