Saturday, October 15, 2005
GLOBAL WARMING? WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?
Planet Sees Warmest September on Record
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - Worldwide, it was the warmest September on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Friday.
Averaging 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit (0.63 degree Celsius) above normal for the month, it was the warmest September since the beginning of reliable records in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
The second warmest September was in 2003 with an average temperature of 1.02 degrees Fahrenheit (0.57 Celsius) above the mean.
For the United States it was the fourth warmest September on record.
The average U.S. temperature for the month was 2.6 degrees (1.4 C) above average.
Only the West Coast and parts of the Rockies were near normal. Louisiana had its warmest September in 111 years of national records and an additional 27 states ranked much above average.
Some cities also set new records for warmest average September temperatures including: Houston-Galveston, Texas; London, Ky.; Shreveport, La.; and Raleigh-Durham, N.C.
For the month, rain and snowfall across the country were below average, with unusually dry conditions for much of the East Coast and parts of the Plains and Northwest. Georgia, South Carolina and Maryland had their driest September on record.
___
On the Net:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaa.govFriday, October 14, 2005
TIME FOR THE DEMS TO BECOME OLDSCHOOL REPUBS
Borrow-and-spend conservatism
By Scot Lehigh, Boston Globe
THE BILLS are piling up at home, and I have to admit, it's having an effect on my political philosophy.
I'm thinking of becoming a conservative.
If you're one of that vanishing breed of traditional conservatives, perhaps you think you can guess my motivation: If I could help bring about a leaner, more limited government, I might ultimately see less of my paycheck disappear in federal taxes.
Oh, you poor naif. Sorry, but that thinking is so pre-supply side as to be positively antediluvian. Why, it's as ancient and outmoded as the hoary notion of sober, Main Street, balanced-budget Republicanism.
Actually, my thinking is much more basic: These days, being a conservative means you don't have to pay your bills at all. You just pass them on to the next generation.
At least that's my conclusion from studying the complex combination of ironclad rules and unspoken assumptions that guides the modern right.
Let's start with a case study that shows the rules in action.
Hurricane Katrina recently devastated New Orleans and wreaked havoc on the Gulf Coast.
It took a while for the news to reach the Bush administration, but once the Pony Express finally arrived, the president sprang into action. He's now called for a huge rebuilding effort, one that's apparently going to cost at least $200 billion, and perhaps a good deal more.
Given that the federal government is already spending some $300 billion a year more than it takes in, the interesting question arises of just how the reconstruction will be paid for. Some have suggested a tax increase on the well-to-do.
But this is where Rule Number 4 of modern conservatism comes into play: You just don't raise taxes after a national disaster. US Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and chairman of the so-called conservative caucus, explained it this way to The New York Times: "Raising taxes in the wake of a national catastrophe would imperil the very economic growth we need to bring the Gulf Coast back."
I have to admit, that was a rule I wasn't familiar with. (Like Harriet Miers, I'm apparently going to have to do some cramming for my new role.)
But since George Bush took office, I've become very familiar with Rules 1 through 3, all of which pertain to cutting taxes.
Here's Rule Number 1: If you have a big surplus, there's an urgent need for a tax cut, both to remove the temptation for government to spend the largesse and to give taxpayers their money back. (As a moderate, I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument, though I've also thought it might make sense to consider the nation's long-term needs first.)
Then there's Rule Number 2: If the economy seems to be sliding into recession, there's a pressing need for a tax cut to stave off economic bad times. (I'm still not sure I understand why that tax relief has to be targeted disproportionately to upper earners, mind you, but then, I'm just trying to master the basics.)
Rule Number 3 dictates that you may need another round of tax cuts if you're stuck in a recession. Even liberals tend to agree with that proposition, of course.
Still, in the old days, if you went to war, thus adding huge new expenses, it meant you probably needed to raise taxes.
Not under modern conservatism, however. It turns out that even in times of war, Rules 2 and 3 hold sway — even if the taxes you're thinking of hiking would be on the well-to-do.
Well, surely you can increase taxes when your economy finally seems to have made its way back to firm ground?
Sorry. Not if Rule 4 — that is, a recent national disaster — applies. So how about at least letting some tax cuts whose main benefit goes to the well-to-do expire? Or perhaps canceling upper-earner tax breaks that have yet to take effect?
No, Rule 5 prevents any such action. Call it the Pence proviso. As he further told the Times: "To allow tax cuts to lapse is a tax increase and the economy would suffer."
I know all this is confusing, so let me simplify.
If you're a modern conservative, it's always a good time to cut taxes and it's never an acceptable time to raise them.
Well, then, what about cutting spending? Here's where important but unspoken assumptions come into play. Because these aren't publicly discussed, they can be hard to deuce out. But after long study, I think they can be reduced to two:
1) Slashing the budget to the level the Republican tax policy would actually sustain would mean sharp reductions in government programs, a voter backlash, and, in all likelihood, fewer Republicans in Congress after the next election.
2) A majority of the voting public isn't focused on, or isn't economically knowledgeable enough to fully understand, the long-term effects of the massive borrowing the federal budget now requires.
Still, isn't Republican borrow-and-spend economics a cynical policy?
Sure. But until more people recognize it for that, there's no political penalty to pay.
And in that light, you can certainly see why modern conservatism is such an appealing philosophy.
For its practitioners, that is.
Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.Friday, October 14, 2005
CHAAAAAAAAAAARGE IT!
Waste not, spend not or spend a lot
by Mark Terry, Bankrate.com
A walk through a suburban neighborhood on trash pickup day reveals an awful lot about American culture. We discard a lot of stuff -- TVs and radios, ironing boards, paintings, computers, doors, cell phones.
Has ours become a throwaway society? Maybe we should be conserving our resources. On the other hand, a big part of the U.S. economy is driven by consumer spending. Every new cell phone, plasma TV, car or upgraded computer means jobs for somebody ... somewhere.
Ranji S. Dighe, associate professor of economics at the State University of New York, says, "I know that consumer spending is 65 or 70 percent of the gross domestic product, so clearly spending is extremely important for the economy."
So have times changed? Have our attitudes, about spending versus saving and fixing old versus buying new, changed? During World War II, Americans were encouraged to conserve, save and economize. After the events of Sept. 11, President George W. Bush encouraged people to go out and spend money. Have our values turned 180 degrees? And how does that affect how we spend and save?
"In World War II," says Dighe, "it was a patriotic duty to save. During the Great Depression, spending definitely would have been welcomed. ... In World War II the emphasis on savings and thrift was necessary because the entire economy was geared toward the war effort, so we had to shift from consumer goods to war production. Whereas what happened with Sept. 11 -- yes, we have been at war. But it's not quite the same full-scale war as World War II. The war isn't consuming so much of our resources that we can't afford to go out and consume."
Technology saves money
Over the years, several forces have influenced Americans' attitudes about money. One is technology, which we have come to take for granted. For instance, it's downright unusual not to see someone talking on a cell phone today, no matter where you go.
Dorothy Holden, 81, of Nashua, N.H., says, "I think we had a very different view of spending when I was younger. One of the things I remember was, on the very rare occasions when anybody made a long-distance telephone call, which was quite expensive in those days, you had a three-minute egg timer that you turned up as soon as you started the call, and at the end of that three minutes you just said goodbye."
Long-distance calls have become a necessity, not a luxury, and technology has made it easier, more convenient and cheaper.
Mo' flow
Two-income households are the norm now. Whether that's by necessity or choice, the result is an overall increase in family income.
"I think there are more two-income families, and perhaps that generates more of a reserve," says Julie Burns, 44, of Harrisburg, Pa. "Perhaps it's just as the baby boomers age, there's a large group of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s who are beyond the family financial obligations and have money to spend."
Debt-level acceptance
One thing seems clear -- people are more willing to be in debt today than previously. Shannon Surly, 34, of Waterloo, Iowa, says, "I am baffled to see people in my age bracket who are able to go out and buy a new car every year, who go out and buy $250,000 houses. I think they're in debt up to their eyeballs."
They probably are. Paul Laviola, a certified financial planner with Financial Planning Solutions Inc., in Media, Pa., says, "A big problem is the easy access to credit and credit cards. With the previous generation, getting credit was difficult. Today it's a matter of filling out a credit card form or going on the Internet. People are in an unimaginable amount of debt. And not just low-income people but wealthy people, too. All along the spectrum. And I think it's the easy access to credit that's the driver. Before you didn't have that."
In fact, in the United States consumer debt is at an all-time high. Certified financial planner Stacy Francis of Francis Financial says, "The savings rate is actually negative. I know it sounds odd. How can a savings rate be negative? But it's actually because a lot of people are spending more than they're earning. And the real question is: Why are we doing this? Why are we buying things we can't necessarily afford?"
Francis thinks two major factors lead to overspending -- power and happiness. "I think there's a real problem with the misconception that having the power of spending equals your value. There's almost an equation that having money plus spending it equals power. What people can buy also really impacts their confidence."
Who, after all, hasn't gone shopping to celebrate a good day ... or a bad one?
Second, says Francis, people still think money can buy happiness. "The more money you have, the more you can spend, the happier you'll be. And that's something that is definitely not true."
Francis cites a study conducted by economist Richard Easterlin at the University of Southern California. He found that the amount of money people needed to make them happy was $40,000 a year. Once basic needs were met, increased money didn't really change how happy people actually were.
Needs change
At one time, needs -- versus wants -- were relatively simple: shelter, food and water.
As more and more goods were produced, "needs" became more complicated and included things like telephones, hot and cold running water, TVs and today, cell phones, iPods, high-speed Internet and two cars. Not just a chicken in every pot, but a high-definition, flat-panel TV with surround sound in every room. Society changed and so did our needs, or at least our perceived needs.
"When I grew up it was, 'What did you need?'" says Carol Noreen, 52, of Madison, Wis. "Now [young adults] need a computer and they need a cell phone and they need digital cable access. Where did this concept come from that these things aren't luxuries anymore, that they're things you need to exist in society?"
Of course, maybe our "needs" haven't changed. Maybe manufacturers and their advertising agencies have convinced us -- quite successfully -- that we need these products. Besides convincing us that we can't possibly be hip, cool, powerful or happy without these products, there is a peculiar sort of built-in obsolescence.
"It's a neat concept," Dighe says of built-in obsolescence, "but I doubt there's very much of it in American manufacturing, and here's why. So much of our manufactured goods come from China and Taiwan and other places in the world. Unless producers all around the world believe in planned obsolescence, it just isn't going to pay for American producers to make products that just break down and have to be replaced, because consumers will just stop buying them and start buying more-reliable things produced elsewhere.
"I think you probably do have considerable obsolescence, not in a literal sense, but in a marketing sense, replacing things that are new and trendy."
Financial attitudes and how they affect you
Ultimately, our attitudes about money affect the quality of our lives. How we spend, whether we perceive buying things as gauges of our self-worth and whether we're going to save enough money to retire may depend largely on how we were raised and how we react to how we were raised.
"Some things I think are generational," says Carl Brookins, 73, of Minneapolis. "I think a lot of it has to do with attitudes and how you grew up and what your parents are like and the people around you. There are a whole lot of influences. In general I think our society has become much more of a throwaway culture, and we tend to replace rather than repair. Of course, it's so expensive to repair a lot of things now that it makes more sense to go and buy a new one."
Francis says, "I see the problem with spending among all different ages, and that's definitely a bridge that bridges all different generations. A lot of it doesn't have to do with what generation you're from, it's more about how they were raised and what they were taught about money. Did their parents spend frivolously? Was there a competition with the Joneses next door? How were they taught about money? And how they formed their attitudes and beliefs and values about money is what stays with them the rest of their lives. It's much more about that than it is necessarily about age."
When working with clients to get their finances under control, Francis says she attempts to help them determine what's important to them.
"If it's security, we take that one step further and ask what will help them feel secure. Maybe it's purchasing a home. It may be having a certain dollar amount in their emergency fund. It may be putting a certain amount away for retirement. And we make sure we do that first, and then whatever's left over, you can have a ball with. Then there's less of this constant tug of war between their spending and their values."
"How did we do it before having a cell phone?" says Laviola. "I can't imagine it today. And it seems like we're going down that slippery slope of: We need to have a cell phone. I couldn't imagine watching TV on a black-and-white 19-inch. Can you?"Thursday, October 13, 2005
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions
President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in
Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.
"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."
Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.
As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit — the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.
A brief rehearsal ensued.
"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"
"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.
"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.
"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.
And so it went.
"If the question comes up about partnering — how often do we train with the Iraqi military — who does he go to?" Barber asked.
"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.
"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit — the hometown — and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.
Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.
"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.
The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.
"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.
Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.
"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.
The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.
The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.
"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."
On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."
On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."
Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.
"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."
Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.
"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."Thursday, October 13, 2005
ANYBODY? ANYBODY? BUELLER?
Fog Facts
by Larry Beinhart, Huffington Post - Fog Facts are things that have been made public, but have somehow disappeared into the mist.
Thereby becoming invisible.
Here are some examples: seven of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers have phoned in to say they were alive.
After the US took over Iraq, including the oil for food program, $19 billion of Iraq’s money disappeared. The Florida recount, completed in 2001, showed that Al Gore got more valid, countable votes than George Bush.
What keeps us oblivious to these things is the failure to frame them, the failure of somebody to push them, and sometimes the deliberate manufacture of fog.
In turn, ignorance of the facts, keeps us from seeing the real picture.
A lot what has happened in the last six years is baffling. Let’s focus on one area, our response to the 9/11 attacks.
The fog, in this case, is made of the things the administration has said. The facts are the things that they have actually done. If someone sells you a car and you notice that it eats grass and milk is coming out of the exhaust, it’s pretty good bet it’s a cow.
The War on Terror does not catch terrorists, especially the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, and the people in charge don’t really seem to care. That’s with the expenditure of $200 billion in supplementary spending, over and above the normal cost of maintaining our military and intelligence operations.
Let’s look at what they actually did, instead of what they spoke of.
That would suggest what the real goals are.
The big, obvious thing that the War on Terror permitted was for America to make its imperial lunge.
There were papers that made it clear that this was an administration goal, the most notable one posted at the Project for a New American Century, and there were statements too.
Something more subtle also took place. It is quite dangerous and it is largely unremarked. The War on Terror permitted the administration to put an end to the concept that everyone is equal before the law.
We suddenly have people who are beneath the laws. They are called terrorists and unlawful combatants.
All it takes to make someone beneath the law is to denounce them. They then have no rights, no phone call, no lawyers. They cannot argue about what they’ve been called. They can be whisked off to a prison and held incommunicado and tortured. Or at least seriously abused.
It appears unlikely that this could happen to you or I or your friends across the street. But with the end of equality before the law, there really is nothing to stop it. Except our belief that our leaders are all honorable men who would not abuse such power.
Along with the creation of a class that is below the law, there is also a new class that is above the law.
The presidential legal staff, including Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee and John Yoo, came up with the theory that when the presidents puts on his commander-in-chief outfit, and acts in that capacity, he is not constrained by any laws. Not international law, not the laws of the United States, not by treaties and not even by the constitution.
Furthermore, anyone that he commands to do things when he is wearing that costume, is also unconstrained by those limits, statutes and laws.
They are all above the law.
In addition, we have created a three tier international system in which there are entire nations below the law: terrorist states, states the harbor terrorists and failed states.
There is, of course, one nation that is above the law. That is the United States.
I would like to take this occasion, my first appearance on the Huffington Post, to offer the first official Fog Facts Challenge!
Give us $2,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars) and we will deliver to you Osama bin Laden, and any ten others to be named later, or double your money back!Tuesday, October 11, 2005
WEAPONS OF MASS SMURFSTRUCTION
UNICEF Snuffs Smurfs
Entertainment Online - It's just another smurfy day in Smurf Village. The perpertually perky blue beings frolic around the fire, holding hands and singing that "tra-la-la-la-la-la" tune as bluebirds flutter by and rabbits hop around.
A regular Smurftopia.
But then the bombs come.
Hundreds of them raining down from warplanes in the sky, wiping out the mushroom-shaped abodes. Amid the fiery explosions, Smurfette is killed. Papa Smurf disappears. As the smoke clears, only an orphaned Baby Smurf remains, sobbing among the corpses.
No, this is not some pipe dream of Gargamel. The Smurfocide was instead perpetuated by the
United Nations Children's Fund, or UNICEF.
UNICEF's Belgian office is using the Smurfs as the centerpiece of a new fundraising initiative to shock viewers into donating money to help children in war-torn regions. The agency also hopes to rehabilitate former child soldiers in Burundi.
"The idea of using familiar, reassuring childhood icons in a decidedly dangerous context was intended to bring home to the public the horrendous nature of this theft of children's rights," says UNICEF's Gaelle Buasson.
"We could have shown real-live images of children wounded in Iraq, Palestine or other places. But we refused this option because they would not respect the dignity and rights of the depicted children...So we decided to use 'fictive' cartoon images."
Dubbed the first adults-only version of The Smurfs, UNICEF's 30-second 'toon ends with the tagline: "Don't let war affect the lives of children."
After coming up with the idea for the Smurfogeddon, UNICEF obtained permission to create the short from IMPS, which took over control of the critters after the death of their creator, the Belgian cartoonist Peyo. The clip was previewed on Belgian TV last week during evening newscasts.
According to London's Daily Telegraph, the spot evoked mixed emotions from viewers--including shock from children who accidentally caught the spot.
But the clip received a thumbs up from the official Smurf fan club. "I think it will wake up some people. It is so un-Smurf-like, it might get people to think," a spokesman told the Telegraph.
Julie Lamoureux, account director for Publicis, the ad agency that created the campaign, says the original concept included even more graphic imagery of weapons of mass Smurfstruction.
"We wanted something that was real war--Smurfs losing arms, or a Smurf losing a head--but they said no," she told the Telegraph.
The clip will begin airing regularly next week in Belgium, but only after 9 p.m., and run through April. UNICEF says response has been so strong that the short could soon be seen in Europe, Latin America and Australia with the stipulations that it must air after 7 p.m. local time, it can only be aired with information explaining the clip, and it cannot be put on the Internet. There are no current plans to broadcast the clip in the U.S.
For Stateside fans, and those who prefer their Smurfs intact, a 3-D, CGI-animated Smurfs feature film will bow in theaters in 2008. The extravaganza from Paramount's Nickelodeon Movies will be the first in a planned trilogy.Tuesday, October 11, 2005
DON'T FORGET, PAT - LIES MAKE BABY JEEBUS CRY
Recent natural disasters point to return of Jesus Christ: US evangelist Robertson
Grinning asshole Pat Roberston is pretty sure the endays are upon us - no big surprise, as he's part and parcel of the maniacs determined to bring them about...
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Prominent US preacher Pat Robertson said that recent natural disasters around the world point to the end of the world and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
"These things are starting to hit with amazing regularity," Robertson told CNN, remarking on the coincidence of a major earthquake that killed thousands in Asia Saturday and recent killer hurricanes slamming the United States.
Those disasters come less than a year after a massive tsunami levels huge portions of South Asia, killing more than 31,000 people and leaving some a million left homeless.
Devout Christians believe that the "last days" will be marked by political and geological upheaval, and Roberts said recent events show that those days might have arrived.
Citing scripture from the Bible, the conservative Christian broadcaster said the latter days would be marked by "the birth pangs of a new order, and for anybody who knows what it's like to have a wife going in labor, you know how these labor pains begin to hit."
"What was called the Blessed Hope of the Bible is that one day Jesus Christ would come back again, start a whole new era, that this world order that we know would change into something that would be wonderful that we'd call the millennium," Robertson said.
"And before that good time comes there will be some difficult days and there will be likened to what a woman goes through in labor just before she brings forth a child."
Asked if the world was reaching this moment, Robertson said: "It's possible. I don't have any special revelation to say it is but the Bible does indicate such a time will happen in the end of time. And could this be it? It might be."
Hurricane Katrina has left more than 1,200 people dead in the United States, while nearly 20,000 people have died in the South Asian earthquake disaster this weekend.Tuesday, October 11, 2005
DEFENDING OUR GODLY HERITAGE THROUGH INCESTOUS PAEDOPHELIA
It was good enough for daddy, and his daddy, and his daddy's daddy...
Local Christian Coalition Official Did Molest, Family Members Tell 'The Oregonian'
NEW YORK, Editor & Publisher - After news broke that local law enforcement officials were investigating complaints that Louis Beres, longtime chairman of the Christian Coalition of Oregon, had molested three female family members when they were pre-teens, The Oregonian in Portland went out and interviewed Beres' family members.
Two told reporters that Beres, indeed, had molested them. All three said they have been interviewed for several hours by detectives.
"I was molested," said one of the women, now in her early 50s. "I was victimized, and I've suffered all my life for it. I'm still afraid to be in the same room with [Beres]."
The coalition led by Beres, 70, champions socially conservative candidates and causes. Its Web site describes the group as "Oregon's leading grassroots organization defending our Godly heritage." The group opposes abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research. It is affiliated with the national Christian Coalition, which was founded in 1989 by television evangelist Pat Robertson.
The group confirmed Beres is under investigation for alleged molestation. According to The Oregonian, Beres blamed "personal and political enemies" for the reports and said, "I never molested anybody."
Beres is also former chairman of the Multnomah County Republican Party.
In a statement on the coalition's Web site today, Beres denied any criminal conduct and said he wanted to "reconcile" with those making the accusations, if he can find out who they are. "I have asked The Oregonian to provide the information so I might proceed as the Bible tells each of us to proceed," he wrote.
Two of the alleged molestations occurred decades ago and likely would not result in criminal charges because state law limits prosecution of certain crimes. But one case may fall within statutory timelines. It involves a female family member who was allegedly molested by Beres when she was in elementary school, authorities said.
Beres' family members told The Oregonian that they called the child abuse hotline last month after several women in the family said they openly discussed for the first time what happened with Beres.
Rich Galat, 41, of Oakland, Calif., a Beres nephew, said he told detectives that Beres has molested several female family members over two generations. "My family has gone through hell," Galat told the newspaper. "Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been ostracized, verbally abused and the victims of character assassination . . . . It must stop."Tuesday, October 11, 2005
THE POLITICAL TIDE IS FINALLY TURNING, BUT IS THE OTHER SIDE ANY BETTER
For GOP, Election Anxiety Mounts
Candidates Need Convincing for '06
By Charles Babington and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 10, 2005; A01
Republican politicians in multiple states have recently decided not to run for Senate next year, stirring anxiety among Washington operatives about the effectiveness of the party's recruiting efforts and whether this signals a broader decline in GOP congressional prospects.
Prominent Republicans have passed up races in North Dakota and West Virginia, both GOP-leaning states with potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Earlier, Republican recruiters on Capitol Hill and at the White House failed to lure their first choices to run in Florida, Michigan and Vermont.
These setbacks have prompted grumbling. Some Republican operatives, including some who work closely with the White House, privately point to what they regard as a lackluster performance by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the group that heads fundraising and candidate recruitment for GOP senators.
But some strategists more sympathetic to Dole point the finger right back. With an unpopular war in Iraq, ethical controversies shadowing top Republicans in the House and Senate, and President Bush suffering the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, the waters look less inviting to politicians deciding whether to plunge into an election bid. Additionally, some Capitol Hill operatives complain that preoccupied senior White House officials have been less engaged in candidate recruitment than they were for the 2002 and 2004 elections. These sources would speak only on background because of the sensitivity of partisan strategies.
Historically, Senate and House races are often won or lost in the year before the election, as a party's prospects hinge critically on whether the most capable politicians decide to invest time, money and personal pride in a competitive race. Often, this commitment takes some coaxing.
That is why Dole met twice with Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and a third time with Capito and her father, former governor Arch A. Moore Jr., in an effort to persuade her to take on Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D). Bush won 56 percent of the vote in West Virginia last year, making many think Byrd, who will turn 88 next month, can be halted in his bid for a record ninth term. But last week, Capito said she has decided to stay put and seek election to a fourth House term.
Last month, White House political strategist Karl Rove flew to Bismarck to implore the North Dakota's popular Republican governor, John Hoeven, to challenge Sen. Kent Conrad (D). Rove could argue with some compelling numbers: Bush won 63 percent of the state's presidential votes last year, and Hoeven trounced his Democratic opponents in 2000 and 2004. But the governor said no thanks, and Republicans concede they have no strong second choice.
Perhaps no state has frustrated the GOP elite more than Florida, where Sen. Bill Nelson (D) is trying for a second term after winning his first with 51 percent of the vote. After failing to persuade Rep. Katherine Harris to stay out of the race, GOP leaders began a public search for an alternative candidate. State House Speaker Allan Bense was courted by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) before bowing out. Dole took a private plane to New York in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade conservative commentator and former Florida representative Joe Scarborough to make the race.
Many Democrats and some independents revile Harris for the role she played, as Florida secretary of state, in favoring George W. Bush in the 2000 recount process. But she has enough hard-core conservative fans to scare away other Republican Senate hopefuls, and Democrats are gleefully watching the dispute roil their rivals.
No Republican who has opted out of a 2006 candidacy has publicly cited the level of support from national Republicans or the general political environment as a reason. Potential candidates have a variety of factors figuring into whether to make a race. Still, to some analysts, the decisions suggest deeper currents at work.
"Is it poor recruiting or a bad environment? Probably both," said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the independent Cook Political Report.
A senior Republican familiar with the recruiting process agreed that the climate has shifted for the GOP because of a confluence of problems from Iraq to Hurricane Katrina and high gasoline prices: "Looking at polls from June or July and then looking at them now, the deterioration is really bad."
Another Republican, pollster Tony Fabrizio, said a recruiting chill was inevitable. Candidates "aren't stupid," he said. "They see the political landscape. You are asking them to make a huge personal sacrifice. It's a lot easier to make that sacrifice if you think there's a rainbow at the end."
Fabrizio accepts the general consensus among political prognosticators that Republicans are likely to keep their Senate and House majorities, in part because there are relatively few open seats, and Democrats must defend seats in many places that have been trending Republican. But he and others say the hope from earlier this year of fortifying these majorities is now considerably more remote.
The GOP holds 55 Senate seats, but unless the political climate brightens considerably in the next few months, some strategists and analysts believe the next Senate may resemble the one after the 2002 election, when Republicans held the narrowest of majorities.
In part this is because Democrats have seemingly found their stride as Republicans are stumbling in the recruiting race. Since Sept. 1, Democrats have lured their preferred candidate, Missouri state Auditor Claire McCaskill, to take on freshman Sen. James M. Talent (R), and have done the same in Arizona, where former Democratic Party chairman Jim Pederson, a wealthy developer, is poised to challenge two-term Sen. Jon Kyl.
Republicans will also struggle to hold on to Pennsylvania, where recent polls show state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. with a substantial lead over two-term Sen. Rick Santorum. In Rhode Island, liberal Republican Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee is being challenged by Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey in the party primary, prompting the NRSC to run TV ads attacking Laffey. Democrats hope the survivor will be too bloodied to win the general election in a state that Bush lost by 20 percentage points.
Dole can count some successes. She was hoping Mike McGavick, the former chairman of Safeco Corp., would take a fight to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) in Washington, and he is. In Minnesota, she scored her first choice, Rep. Mark Kennedy (R), to run for retiring Democrat Mark Dayton's seat, and cleared the GOP field for him.
But in Michigan, the White House and the NRSC moved quickly to persuade Rep. Candice S. Miller (R) to take on Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D). After Miller refused the entreaties, attention turned to David A. Brandon, Domino's Pizza Inc. chief executive, as the Republican candidate of choice. Brandon, too, told Republican recruiters no. After Vermont independent Sen. James M. Jeffords's retirement announcement earlier this year, Gov. Jim Douglas (R) came under considerable pressure to run for the Senate but resisted. Until 10 months ago, then-Gov. Mike Johanns of Republican-leaning Nebraska was the GOP's hands-down choice to challenge incumbent Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson, but then Bush appointed him secretary of agriculture.
It is the NRSC's fundraising that some GOP operatives find underwhelming. At the end of August, the NRSC had raised $25 million, just a little less than its counterpart, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. But the DSCC has twice as much cash on hand, $16.7 million to the NRSC's $8.2 million.
Brian Nick, NRSC spokesman, said this fall's gloomy forecasts will give way to brighter skies next year. "We feel very, very strongly that we're going to be able to protect the majority where it is right now," with no erosion, he said. After all, Nick noted, "the election is over a year away."
On the House side, where Republicans hold 231 of the 435 seats, the effect of the political climate on recruiting is less clear. Democrats and Republicans can point to successes in individual races, but no clear national pattern has emerged, analysts say.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) says 50 or more seats are in play and notes that his organization has recruited 40 candidates in competitive districts. His GOP counterpart, Rep. Tom Reynolds (N.Y.), says 27 to 37 seats could be close fights. "We will be a majority" after the 2006 elections, vowed the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
© 2005 The Washington Post CompanyTuesday, October 11, 2005
DUMBASS CRONY APPOINTEE BOLTON STOPS U.N. FROM HEARING ABOUT GENOCIDE IN SUDAN
Seriously. What the fuck is this dipshit thinking. How the fuck can any action be planned and carried out if no one is allowed to hear the facts and current status of a problem?
US blocks U.N. briefing on atrocities in Sudan
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton blocked a U.N. envoy on Monday from briefing the Security Council on grave human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region, saying the council had to act against atrocities and not just talk about them.
Bolton, joined by China, Algeria and Russia, prevented Juan Mendez, Secretary-General
Kofi Annan's special adviser for the prevention of genocide, from briefing the council on his recent visit to Darfur, despite pleas from Annan and 11 other council members that Mendez be heard.
"I strongly regret and deplore that Mr. Mendez ... was not authorized to brief the council today as Mr. Kofi Annan had asked," French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere told reporters outside the council chambers.
But Bolton said he had objected to the briefing to make the point the council should be "talking more about the steps it can take to do something about the deteriorating security situation" in Darfur. He gave no new proposals.
"How many officials from the secretariat does it take to give a briefing?" he said, noting the council had just concluded a briefing on Darfur from Hedi Annabi, the assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping operations.
Mendez, who visited Darfur for a week in late September, later briefed reporters on his findings. He said Sudanese officials were taking only cosmetic steps to prevent systematic human rights abuses there that might amount to genocide. crimes against humanity or war crimes.
He also accused Khartoum of refusing to cooperate with the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, a tribunal strongly opposed by the Bush administration on grounds it might pursue frivolous prosecutions of U.S. soldiers or officials working abroad.
INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE
"We cannot let the government of Sudan get away with that," Mendez told a news conference. "I haven't seen any indication of the international community telling Sudan, 'You don't have a choice, you have to cooperate with the ICC."'
Mendez said the Security Council had to put more pressure on the Sudanese to disarm nomad Arab gangs, known as Janjaweed, responsible for many of the atrocities now escalating in camps housing African tribesmen thrown off their land. So far Sudanese trials of any perpetrators were meaningless, he said.
Secondly, Mendez recommended that the international community make good on its pledges to give aid to the Africa Union, which has monitors and troops in Darfur.
Council diplomats who wanted to hear from Mendez said it was a council tradition to give the envoy a platform when Annan called for a briefing from his adviser on genocide.
They noted Bolton had lined up with the three council members -- Algeria, China and Russia -- which have watered down action against Khartoum.
"He's playing into the hands of people who don't want to do anything," said one council diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to irritate Washington.
The Security Council met for a briefing on the latest developments in Darfur after rebels in the western Sudanese region abducted a number of African Union peacekeeping troops and killed some of them.
The incident prompted Annan to warn in Geneva on Monday that a surge of violence in the region may force the world body to suspend some aid to Darfur.