Saturday Reading

There is a good NYT article about why the tax cuts whould be on the table when talking about the debt reduction.

Bush's Class-War Budget

New Definition for 52 Pick Up

If this doesn't say, "asleep at the wheel," I don't what does. Did Osama need to call George up directly and give him the names of the hijackers and the dates involved in order for anyone in the government to have taken action? I don't believe the fumble by the FAA was directly attributable to the White House, but I do attribute the White House blocking the information release for five months was purely political and further shows the lack of accountability by this administration.

Report: FAA Had 52 Pre-9/11 Warnings

WASHINGTON - The Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001, about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks.

The report by the 9/11 commission that investigated the suicide airliner attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites) detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA (news - web sites) leaders from April to Sept. 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).

The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned al-Qaida's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. However, none of the warnings pinpointed what would happen on Sept. 11.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports.

But, she said, "We had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

Brown also said the FAA was in the process of tightening security at the time of the attacks.

"We were spending $100 million a year to deploy explosive detection equipment at the airports," she said. The agency was also close to issuing a regulation that would have set higher standards for screeners and, for the first time, give it direct control over the screening work force.

Al Felzenberg, former spokesman for the 9/11 commission, which went out of business last summer, said the government had not completed a review of the 120-page report for declassification purposes until recently.

The unclassified version, first reported by The New York Times, was made available by the National Archives Thursday.

The Bush Cowboyism Backfire

After 2 years of confrontation, the North Korean's have declared that they have a nuclear weapon. The rationale behind the building of the bomb was growing fear of a hostile Bush administration.

"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. 1

What further complicates the picture (and a shadow on the Bush policy) is that we cannot even be sure if the North Koreans were even actually working on a nuclear weapon program prior to the Nov, 2002 claim by the Bush administration and the subsequent withdraw from the 1994 treaty. With the revelations that the CIA had it completely wrong in Iraq, there is new doubt that North Korea was violating the treaty, as claimed by the Bush administration.

The claim could not be independently verified. North Korea expelled the last U.N. nuclear monitors in late 2002 and has never tested a nuclear bomb, although international officials have long suspected it has one or two nuclear bombs and enough fuel for several more.

After confronting N.K. in 2002, N.K. forced out IAEA inspectors, thus ending any chance of actually monitoring what was happening within the country, and N.K. restarted their nuclear program in earnest. When Bush proposed 6 party talks, one of the conditions of dealing with N.K. was requiring that N.K. admit to a secret nuclear program prior to 2002. To me, this is reminiscent of the Salem witch trials where the accused were forced to admit guilt while the kindling ignited around them.

Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks in Beijing aimed at persuading the North to abandon nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards. No significant progress has been made.


A fourth round scheduled for last September was canceled when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy.

On Thursday, North Korea said it decided not to rejoin such talks any time soon after studying Bush's inaugural and State of the Union speeches and after Rice labeled North Korea one of the "outposts of tyranny." 1

But the Bush administration's effort to keep N.K. isolated predated the Nov. 2002 breakdown of the 1994 treaty. In response to plans by South Korea and Japan (which Bush strongly disapproved of), the White House started ringing the uranium issue alarm with the two nations (sounds reminiscent of Iraq's supposed importation of yellow cake). A CIA report that was presented to Congress in 2002 was anything but a slam dunk for Bush's claims.

CIA report submitted to Congress in November 2002, Pollack wrote that "the imprecision in the CIA analysis underscored the difficulties of estimating the extant capabilities and ultimate purposes of the North's enrichment program" and left it unclear "how complete and compelling the intelligence data may have been." According to Pollack, the CIA report indicated that North Korea had no operational enrichment facility to declare. ... The intelligence community believed that North Korea still [would have] confronted daunting obstacles had it decided to build an enriched uranium weapon, or even to acquire the production capabilities that might ultimately permit such an option. Most officials recognized that the path to a meaningful enrichment capability remained a distant and very uncertain possibility.

Despite its limited knowledge about the uranium program, the U.S. government "opted to exploit the intelligence for political purposes." The uranium issue "furnished powerful ammunition to render the Agreed Framework a dead letter"--something enormously appealing to hawks in the administration, who had opposed Clinton-era diplomacy toward North Korea as much too soft. As Pollack described it to a New York Times columnist, the Bush administration used "whatever [intelligence] was there on North Korea to step away from a set of obligations, to shine a shaming light on North Korea and perhaps to get others to put the heat on North Korea."2

Once again, the path here is very similar to what happened in Iraq. Bush broke off any negotiations with Iraq and then forced the inspectors out. Without anyway to verify the existence of WMDs, Bush was able to push through the Neo-con agenda. The same CIA evidence that Bush used in Iraq, he was also using for N.K. Replacing "North Korea" with "Iraq" and I think we can all agree that this is the same "evidence" that Dr. Rice presented to Congress.

An examination of the November 2002 CIA report that set forth the basis for Kelly's confrontation confirms these charges of imprecision. Although the document alludes to "clear evidence" that North Korea had "recently" begun constructing a centrifuge facility (centrifuges are machines used to enrich uranium), the CIA did not explain the nature of this evidence beyond mentioning, in general terms, that Pyongyang had acquired "centrifuge-related materials in large quantities." No specific evidence was presented to support the report's conclusion that North Korea was "constructing a plant that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two or more weapons per year when fully operational, which could be as soon as mid-decade." 2

I have no doubt that N.K. had nuclear aspirations. The question is whether or not they were actually acting on them or if they even could, subject to international embargos on the bomb making equipment. Either way, the Bush cowboy attitude of shoot now and ask questions later that he applied in Iraq has hastened the N.K. development of nuclear weapons. Just like the old west, every one needed a gun to protect themselves. The only viable option for N.K., given the Bush unilateral enforcement action doctrine, the break down of the 1994 treaty, and Bush's statements labeling N.K. as a tyrant, is to develop nuclear weapons for self preservation. Once again, Bush has blundered diplomatic policy and made the world a less safe place. His swagger has, for the second time, made a bad situation, worse.

1- N. Korea Announces It Has Nuclear Weapons - AP

2- Did North Korea Cheat - Foreign Affairs Magazine

GOP Jail Bird

It is about time that this scum gets to spend some time behind bars. Anyone who messes with the democratic process (republican or democrat) deserves to be punished. I just hope that the other two get what they deserve also.

Former GOP Consultant Sentenced to Prison

Va. Man Pleaded Guilty to Making Harassing Phone Calls to N.H. Democrats

By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 9, 2005; Page A12

BOSTON, Feb. 8 -- A federal judge in New Hampshire sentenced the former president of an Alexandria political consulting firm on Tuesday to five months in prison, the first jail term handed out in connection with the jamming of state Democratic Party phone lines on Election Day in 2002.

Allen Raymond, who headed the now-defunct company GOP Marketplace, which was hired by New Hampshire Republicans for election-related telemarketing services, pleaded guilty last summer to one count of conspiring to make harassing phone calls.

He apologized before U.S. District Judge Joseph DiClerico, who imposed the sentence. It included a $15,600 fine.

"Your honor, I did a bad thing," he said, according to the Associated Press. "While what I did was outside my character, I take full responsibility for my actions."

Raymond was the first to be sentenced of three men charged after the revelation that Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in Manchester, Nashua, Rochester and Claremont were peppered with more than 800 computer-generated calls over a period of 90 minutes on the morning of Nov. 5, 2002.

Firefighters in Manchester, who were offering rides to the polls independently of the two parties, were also targeted, prosecutors said. Police later determined that an Idaho-based firm called Milo Enterprises had been engaged by GOP Marketplace to make automated hang-up calls.

State Democratic Party Chairman Kathy Sullivan said the incident -- which occurred as voters were choosing a senator, two House members, a governor and many state officials -- was designed to boost GOP prospects by suppressing turnout. Republicans swept most major races that day.

"They were trying to make it difficult for seniors and people who were economically depressed to get to vote," Sullivan said. "This was way more than a dirty trick. This was a serious crime, and the judge clearly took it seriously."

Republican State Committee Chairman Warren Henderson said in a written statement that he was "personally offended at this illegal and unethical assault on the integrity of our democratic process."

"The Republican Party of New Hampshire does not condone this kind of behavior, and is repulsed by the actions of Mr. Raymond," he added.

Chuck McGee, who resigned as executive director of the state GOP after the incident, has also pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges. He has not been sentenced.

Jim Tobin of Bangor, Maine, who resigned in October as New England regional chairman of President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, has been charged with two counts each of conspiracy to commit telephone harassment and aiding and abetting telephone harassment. He pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

Raymond's attorney, John Durkin, did not return a telephone call seeking comment. He said in court that his client had been manipulated by senior Republican officials, provoking a heated exchange with the judge.

"This was not Allen Raymond's idea," he said, according to AP. "Tobin called on Raymond to do this."

"What about common sense?" DiClerico responded. "What about a personal moral compass?"

Danger on the High Skies

Read this scary report from Slate Magazine about loopholes in the airport security system

A Dangerous Loophole in Airport Security

H/T Devil's Advocate

Misled Once Again

Looks like the Bush Administration misled the American public again when it said the prescription drug benefit would cost $534 billion over the next 10 years. Now they are "re-assessing" the costs and see that it will cost twice the original amount. I think Bush was moving in the right direction by ensuring older Americans can receive the medication that they need, but he should have vetoed the bill in the form it came across his desk. The law, as it was signed, makes it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies. This alone would have cut costs up to half of the current budget. Instead of being fiscally responsible, the Republican Congress and Bush have needlessly given billions of our tax dollars to the pharmaceutical industry. The architect of the provision that forbids the government from negotiating with the drug companies, a former Republican Representative from Louisiana, is now being paid $2 million per year to lobby congress on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

It is time for congress to go back and change the law so we can both provide our seniors with their medication and be more fiscally responsible. Bush budget calls for reductions in social services to millions of americans. Instead, maybe we should be cutting welfare to the drug companies.

Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion

Estimate Dwarfs Bush's Original Price Tag

By Ceci Connolly and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 9, 2005; Page A01

The White House released budget figures yesterday indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade, a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003.

The projections represent the most complete picture to date of how much the program will cost after it begins next year. The expense of the new drug benefit has been a source of much controversy since the day Congress approved it, with Democrats and some Republicans complaining that the White House has consistently low-balled the expected cost to the government.

As recently as September, Medicare chief Mark B. McClellan said the new drug package would cost $534 billion over 10 years. Last night, he acknowledged that the cumulative cost of the program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion, but he cited several major savings and offsets that he said will reduce the federal government's bottom-line cost to $720 billion.

The disclosure prompted new criticism by Democrats about the administration's long-term budget estimates. It also showed that Medicare, the national medical insurance program for seniors, may pose a far more serious budgetary problem in the com- ing decade than concerns about the solvency of Social Security.
(Full Story)

Farm Aide

I agree with the president on something. The loopholes that allow big corporate farms to receive millions of dollars in subsidies needs to be corrected. But, it also needs to be done in a way to ensure the small farmers (the intended recipients) are not hurt by the cuts in subsidy payments. Small family farms are economically less viable and it is anti-capitalistic to subsidize them, but the
American family farmer has made up the back bone of this country for 2 centuries and should not be left out in the cold.

Bush Faces Fight on Farm Payment Limits

WASHINGTON - The idea behind President Bush's proposal to limit crop subsidies is to stop big corporate farming operations from gobbling up most of the government payments, but smaller farmers say they'd be hurt too.

"If you want to do away with family farms, do away with subsidies," said Daryl Burney, a cotton farmer with a 1,000-acre operation in Coffeeville, Miss. "We're dependent on subsidies to survive. The profit margin on the farm is so narrow right now, you can't afford any mistakes."

Bush wants to lower the maximum amount that farmers may collect, which Burney said would cut into his income. Burney's subsidy checks don't always reach the current limit, but, he said, they come close enough that "we would blow the cap slap off" under the president's new budget.

As part of his budget for the next fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, Bush on Monday proposed dropping payment ceilings from $360,000 to $250,000 and closing loopholes that have allowed some to claim millions of dollars in payments. He also called for an across-the-board cut of 5 percent for all farm payments...

Southerners like Burney would feel new limits more keenly because their crops of rice and cotton cost more to grow and get higher subsidies. They're not alone. Growers of other commodities — wheat, corn, soybeans — say they can't withstand cuts of any kind now that prices for many of their crops are falling.

The president already has a fight on his hands. Southern growers have friends in high places, among them Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga...

Hot Water For Bloomberg

Bloomer is sitting on the hot seat right now when it comes to gay marriage (Full Story). A New York State Court has ruled that it is improper to allow straight couples to marry and not homosexual couples to marry. Bloomberg has come out in support of gay marriage, but is finding that he needs to appeal the State Court decision in order to appease his conservative supporters. He is currently in a no win situation. There are many things I disagree with Bloomberg about, but overall, I think he has done a decent job as mayor. He is going to find a tough road to re-election though with this issue. He risks alienating the gay community and many other straight-but-sympathetic New Yorkers in the general election, but if he does not challenge it, he could face stiff competition in a primary run by other more conservative Republicans.

Either way, gay marriage is coming. It is only a matter of time.

Typical from a Yalie Prof

This is one of the dumbest ideas I have read about in a long time

IT MAY BE PERNICIOUS, BUT IS IT A CRIME?
Professors Make a Case for Criminalizing Reckless Sexual Conduct

Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant has steadfastly denied allegations that he raped a 19-year-old woman in 2003 at the Colorado resort where she worked.

Bryant has acknowledged having unprotected sex with the woman, but has maintained all along that the sex was consensual.

Whether it was or not, two law professors say that what Bryant admits to doing in his hotel room that night—having unprotected sex with a woman he had known for less than two hours—was both reckless and dangerous.

So they wrote an article for The University of Chicago Law Review proposing a new law designed to curb such conduct by criminalizing first-time sexual encounters between unmarried people who do not use a condom.

This is going off the deep end of trying to legislate what goes on in the bedroom.

The proposed new crime, which the two professors call reckless sexual conduct, would be punishable by a fine and up to three months in jail.

To convict, prosecutors would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a first-time sexual encounter occurred between the accused and the alleged victim, that the couple were not married to one another and that no condom was used. The accused would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the alleged victim consented to having unprotected sex.

The two professors—Ian Ayres of Yale Law School and Katharine Baker of Chicago-Kent College of Law—argue that such a law would promote public health and help reduce the tragedy of sexual coercion.

"Simply put, our goal is to promote condoms and communication for first-time sexual encounters," Ayres says.

Studies show that the lion’s share of sexually transmitted diseases is the result of first-time sexual encounters. And almost all of these diseases could be prevented, Ayres and Baker say, if condoms were used.

Well duh... of course they are from first time encounters. And if you wear a condom the first time encounter and don't for the second time, then the lion's share will come at second time encounters...

The reason there is few second time encounters when an STD is passed is because who is going to have sex a second time with someone who just gave them the clap? An extreme burning sensation when you pee would be a good reason not to go out on a second date... But maybe I'm just silly that way.

And what about those second or third time encounters. What if you haven't seen the person in 10 years? Is it a first time encounter again, or 43? What about homosexuals? Wouldn't it just be easier to make it illegal to give someone an STD at any encounter? And why do married people get off the hook? What if the first time a man and woman have sex with each other is on their wedding night?

Unprotected first-time sexual encounters also are correlated with coercion, the two professors contend. Few men careful enough to use a condom, they say, are reckless enough to rape. And the same recklessness that causes men to overlook the risk of disease and pregnancy can lead them to overlook whether the woman has truly consented to having sex, they say.

This is dangerous because by inference, if a man does use a condom, he did not coerce a woman into having sex. "Your honor, I could not have raped her... I used a condom."

Giving men a new incentive for wearing a condom in a first-time sexual encounter should significantly reduce both the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and the tragic lack of communication that often gives rise to the illusion of consent, the two professors argue.

This makes the woman the eternal victim in society and puts the entire legal burden on the man. Why is it only the mans responsibility to use protection. And as for the intent of the law, reducing STDs and unwanted pregnancies, it doesn't have equal protection. If a man gives a woman and STD, he can go to jail for having unprotected sex. If a woman gives a man an STD, there is no ramifications for her actions. In fact, the man could still go to jail, even if he is the recipient of the unwelcome surprise.

In addition, the professors say, the crime of reckless sex also would be a powerful prosecutorial tool for the thousands of acquaintance rape cases that are simply not winnable under current law.

The proposed new crime would not replace current rape laws nor immunize men who commit rape with condoms from prosecution under existing law, the professors insist. Like DUI laws, however, the proposed new crime’s very existence would send a clear message that society considers reckless sex both physically and emotionally damaging.

"A crime of reckless sex, by encouraging people to protect themselves and their sexual partners, can encourage deliberation and communication in ways that promote public health and greatly reduce unnecessary and damaging sexual violence," Ayres and Baker write.

Maybe public awareness and education is a better tool. Condom use is much higher now than it was 30 years ago...

But the article goes on to reiterate some of the same issues, so read on.

Their proposal, which was first floated last September on a legal affairs Web site, drew dozens of comments, most of them negative.

"You’re joking … right?" one person wrote.

"This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read," wrote another. "How about a law against shaking hands without gloves?"

Criminal defense lawyers aren’t much kinder.

Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett, a past chair of the ABA’s Criminal Justice Section, says he thinks the proposal would create bad constitutional law and bad social policy.

"Notwithstanding the good intentions of these two professors, this is not something that ought to be regulated by criminal statute," he says. "If the concern is acquaintance rape, we already have statutes on the books to deal with that."

Some academics express mixed feelings about the proposal.

Georgetown University law professor Paul Rothstein says he sympathizes with what Ayres and Baker are trying to do. Rape cases are inherently difficult to prove. And unpunished rapes are a big social problem, he says.

Rothstein says such a law would be difficult to enforce. And it might also be unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, which struck down a Texas anti-sodomy statute on the grounds that it represented an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of the bedroom, he says.

Rothstein says the proposed statute presents other potential problems. It does not seem to treat men and women equally and appears to represent a return to paternalism toward women. "It presumes women are more sensible than men, and always insist on a condom," he says.

Such a statute also could be abused by an overzealous prosecutor with a political agenda, Rothstein says. "I can see the whole machinery of searches and seizures, subpoenas, taking witness statements, searches of computers and letters, electronic eavesdropping, grand jury inquiries, in order to gather evidence of first-time encounters and unprotected sex," he says. "Talk about a state intrusion into the privacy of the bedchamber. Should public money be expended this way?"

But Ayres says a crime of reckless sexual conduct would be a lot easier to prove than rape. He also says the proposed statute is a minimally intrusive means of guarding against the documented dangers of unprotected sex. And the risk of potential abuse would be limited by the fact that a prosecutor would need a complaining accuser to bring a case and by the fact that a defendant could protect himself simply by using a condom.

Yet even some prosecutors express reservations about the wisdom of such a law.

"I think it’s a laudable social goal," says Clatsop County, Ore., District Attorney Joshua Marquis, who serves on the board of directors of the National District Attorneys Association, "but making it a crime may be a little bit of a reach."

Rape charges against Bryant were dropped last September after his accuser told prosecutors she was unwilling to testify against him. However, the alleged victim’s civil suit against Bryant is still pending

A Man With No Soul

Rehnquist is battling cancer and Scalia is already trying to move into the Chief Justice seat before it is even vacated. This man has no tact to be joking about the future of one of his colleagues health. When a colleague is ill, you don't start using his title, even as a joke. A man with class would say, "the issue of who will succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist will be dealt with when and if he steps down. Until then, I, and the rest of the Supreme court give him our prays and complete support in a full recovery."

A slimy man, like Scalia, starts elbowing for the job while his colleague is in chemo.

Scalia Won't Discourage Chief Justice Talk

Vacation Report

Well... I am back. I'm not too happy about it, but whatcha gonna do. By popular demand, here is my "what I did on my summer (winter) vacation" report.

Where I went
I was in Cocoa Beach Florida to visit my Mother and Step Father. It is great to have your family live in an area where you can visit and vacation at the same time. It was really great seeing them again even tough they took every opportunity to try to embarrass me in front of my girlfriend.

What I did
As any good left wing elitist would do, I spent most of my time windsurfing and surfing at the Banana River Windsurfing Resort. If you like to windsurf and surf, there is no better place to do both in the same place. The owner is also one of the best instructors in the nation, so if you ever wanted to learn, this is the place to do it. The wind was great for windsurfing, but the waves were fairly brutal (which I am still paying for).

What I read
God's Politics by Jim Wallis. If you are left or right, this is a must read for anyone who is interested in politics and how religion ties in. I give it two thumbs up.

Most exciting moment
We went up to the Kennedy Space Center for the tour and exhibits. I don't care how old you are, I think everyone reverts to a 10 year old dreamer when taking the tour and seeing a Titan V rocket up close.

Second most exciting moment
I was really glad that the elections when as smoothly as they did. The results so far look fairly discouraging, but I will give kudos to the elections as a whole.

Most obnoxious moment
Watching the State of the Union (which was pretty blasé if you ask me) when the doofus Congressmen held up their purple fingers. I'm sorry, but it was completely obnoxious and out of place. It reminded me of the idiot sports fan who paints their body the team colors and then runs around screaming, "woohoo!! we won!! we kicked their asses!! woohoo!!" No... you didn't do jack. The players out on the field took the hits. You just watched from the stands. An Iraqi who risked their lives to vote... they can hold their fingers up in pride. The Congressmen who did it need a good slap up side the head. It wasn't solidarity, it was just obnoxious and quite embarassing.

Saddest moment
Coming home :(

Osama appears in a chesse sandwhich. 

If you missed out on buying the Virgin Mary, now is your chance to get Osama on a platter. E-bay bidding is currently at $10.41

H/T Wonkette