One of the writers, who is also a CPA, an auditor, and I don't know what all else, read Greg Palast's article on the yuan, and had this to say:
Greg may be many things, but knowledgable about currency exchange and its effect on pricing he isn't -or maybe it's one of those cases of him being the only person in the army who's in step.
The reason China took this step is that G8 leaders and currency markets have been after China for some time to unpeg the yuan from the dollar and let it float to it's natural value, which is thought to be much higher than its peg, ie, it would take many more dollars to buy yuan, or put another way, you'd get a lot few yuan for a dollar. And it would indeed ultimately change the price of goods from China, making them less competitive.
How do I know all this? First, 5 years living in Germany, during which the Mark went from 2.50 per dollar to 1.66 per dollar, so that German goods cost a lot more in year 5 than in year 1, even without considering inflation. So I understand currency valuation/exchange etc. Second, I finished an on-line class in currency trading, during which the topic of the yuan was often discussed: how a change would affect other currencies, prices, etc.
How China controls and manages its production is its own business, but how its currency is valued very much affects the rest of the world. Greg may understand regulation, but I think he knows diddly-squat about the economics of currency exchange and valuation.
Wrap.....
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Sunset in San Diego...
...and the sky looks as though one of those painters who use pale pink and pale blue oils to represent a sunset just got himself one tall stepladder, climbed up there, and did his thing. One of the most pastel sunsets I've seen here. Of course my favorites are the ones when the sky is flat out a roaring scarlet-red wildfire that's reflecting and setting the harbor, bays, and ocean afire too, as well as the clouds. Man, is that a sight to see.
Last time she emailed, the area around Julian--an old goldmining town amidst the pines in the mountains, northeast of here, about 90 miles--had had 17 lightning strikes. Happily, only one started a fire, which was put out in a hurry.
Have just finished a bowl of Heavenly Hash ice cream. Was nice, since the day has been entirely too warm, but butter pecan remains my favorite. Might could be I shouldn't have broken up one of those little fat marshmallow, chocolate-covered cookies in the bottom of the bowl. A little much, that was.
Horrible thing...Juan, the breakfast cook at Marie's, went off on a month's vacation. Had to eat a Belgian waffle for breakfast instead of the very crisp bacon, hard-fried egg, one slice of cheese, a bit of mayo, on a toasted hamburger bun that Juan always makes for me. Ordered one last Sat and Juan's asst cook, Justino, made it. Two bites were all I could manage. Tasted like the wrath of God and didn't smell good either. Sent it back and had a toasted English muffin instead. Didn't go back for breakfast last Sunday. Went down to the hotel patio. And after today, not returning to Marie's until Juan does. Heading for Denny's tomorrow. And if that's not good, it's the hotel for me, seven days a week, till Juan returns to cook on weekends at Marie's.
Breakfast is my thing. Toxic amounts of coffee and an ashtray handy. And the LA Times and the SD Union-Trib, pitiful though it is. Have to keep an eye on the mayoral election and the pension board scandal. Both city council guys have resigned after being found guilty, and of course the Mayor resigned a week ago. So now a temp runs what's left of the council until they choose somebody to be Mayor. However, the city started voting today and the big day is Tues. Everybody hopes we don't have to have a run-off...in which case we won't have an elected Mayor until Nov 8th.
So we've survived Comic-Con!!! 100,000 people. And on the same day/night, the Padres played, the Summer Pops symphony was on South Embarcadero behind the Conv Ctr, and two more major events downtown. Harbor full of sail and other kinds of water boats, the Over The Line tournament going on Fiesta Island in Mission Bay. The trolleys were packed, hotels full up, the traffic on both streets and freeways horrendous, restaurants and nightclubs overflowed, beaches were maxed out...we all had one great time. SeaWorld and the Zoo going strong as well. Fireworks here and there...and the Marines up at Camp Pendleton firing off major artillary half the night. Hell, I'm surprised the SEALs contained themselves and didn't kick off Hell Week at the same time as well. What a weekend!
Wrap....
Last time she emailed, the area around Julian--an old goldmining town amidst the pines in the mountains, northeast of here, about 90 miles--had had 17 lightning strikes. Happily, only one started a fire, which was put out in a hurry.
Have just finished a bowl of Heavenly Hash ice cream. Was nice, since the day has been entirely too warm, but butter pecan remains my favorite. Might could be I shouldn't have broken up one of those little fat marshmallow, chocolate-covered cookies in the bottom of the bowl. A little much, that was.
Horrible thing...Juan, the breakfast cook at Marie's, went off on a month's vacation. Had to eat a Belgian waffle for breakfast instead of the very crisp bacon, hard-fried egg, one slice of cheese, a bit of mayo, on a toasted hamburger bun that Juan always makes for me. Ordered one last Sat and Juan's asst cook, Justino, made it. Two bites were all I could manage. Tasted like the wrath of God and didn't smell good either. Sent it back and had a toasted English muffin instead. Didn't go back for breakfast last Sunday. Went down to the hotel patio. And after today, not returning to Marie's until Juan does. Heading for Denny's tomorrow. And if that's not good, it's the hotel for me, seven days a week, till Juan returns to cook on weekends at Marie's.
Breakfast is my thing. Toxic amounts of coffee and an ashtray handy. And the LA Times and the SD Union-Trib, pitiful though it is. Have to keep an eye on the mayoral election and the pension board scandal. Both city council guys have resigned after being found guilty, and of course the Mayor resigned a week ago. So now a temp runs what's left of the council until they choose somebody to be Mayor. However, the city started voting today and the big day is Tues. Everybody hopes we don't have to have a run-off...in which case we won't have an elected Mayor until Nov 8th.
So we've survived Comic-Con!!! 100,000 people. And on the same day/night, the Padres played, the Summer Pops symphony was on South Embarcadero behind the Conv Ctr, and two more major events downtown. Harbor full of sail and other kinds of water boats, the Over The Line tournament going on Fiesta Island in Mission Bay. The trolleys were packed, hotels full up, the traffic on both streets and freeways horrendous, restaurants and nightclubs overflowed, beaches were maxed out...we all had one great time. SeaWorld and the Zoo going strong as well. Fireworks here and there...and the Marines up at Camp Pendleton firing off major artillary half the night. Hell, I'm surprised the SEALs contained themselves and didn't kick off Hell Week at the same time as well. What a weekend!
Wrap....
Telling it straight...
From blog: Damned Liberals.....
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Remember Who's In Control
I haven't blogged in a while because I'm just overwhelmed. The Bush administration and Republicans have so many ties to so many things going wrong that my head is spinning. Rove outting a CIA agent. Abu Gharib photos part II. The "look over here" appointment of Roberts. Bush's poll numbers continual race to the bottom. Downing Street Memos. Terrorism on the rise in London and Egypt. Iraq turning yet another corner on the way to a democracy that looks more like a civil war.
Yet in all of this the one consistent thread is Bush and his helpers ducking responsibility. Anyone involved in leaking information would be fired. Unless it was one of his administration, then they have to be found guilty of a crime. In the Bush ownership society, consequences are for those without power. They don't apply to any of Bush's friends or political allies.
And through all this, the Republicans continue to defend this administration. We have soldiers sodomizing children and raping women - and being photographed doing it - and Bush and his administration are suppressing the photographs to protect "national security." Bush is threatening to veto any defense spending bill that includes provisions to investigate such crimes. And even though the International Red Cross has documented these crimes as widespread, the Bush administration continues to claim they were not sanctioned, but just a few bad apples.
Once or twice this story would be believable, but the boy George and his keepers are crying wolf a wee bit too often.
Let's remember this: In an ownership society the consequences of actions taken by the government are the result of the majority party's policy. The majority party in control of the House, the Senate, the office of the President, and soon the the Courts, are all Republicans. Republicans control the legislative agenda. Republicans chair the committees that send laws and nominees to the floor for a vote. Republicans control what happens legislatively. They can call the Democrats "obstructionist" and without any agenda, but in the end of the day it is the Republicans with the ability to pass any law they want due to their significant majority in the House and Senate. And it is the Republican party that has veto power through President Bush.
There is nothing the Democrats can do but slow the Republican agenda down and force moral victories hard fought though losing battles.It is the Republicans who own this economy. It is the Republicans who own this war and the deaths of nearly 1,800 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
It is the Republicans and their war on terror who own the steep rise in terrorism world wide.
It is the Republicans who own the corruption in the House, the Senate and the office of the President.
It is the Republicans who have stretched our military to the breaking point, and attempted to cut benefits for veterans and service members at the same time.
It is the Republicans who own "enemy combatants" and the indefinite imprisonment without charge, lawyer or trial that goes with that legal creation.
It is the Republicans who own the highest number of bankruptcies, persons living in poverty, and foreclosures in our nation's history.
It is the Republicans who outed a CIA agent for political gain, then moved the goal posts on removing persons involved from their positions in the Bush administration.
Let's not forget the Republicans are the ones in control.
posted by michael in chicago at 9:05 AM
Wrap....
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Remember Who's In Control
I haven't blogged in a while because I'm just overwhelmed. The Bush administration and Republicans have so many ties to so many things going wrong that my head is spinning. Rove outting a CIA agent. Abu Gharib photos part II. The "look over here" appointment of Roberts. Bush's poll numbers continual race to the bottom. Downing Street Memos. Terrorism on the rise in London and Egypt. Iraq turning yet another corner on the way to a democracy that looks more like a civil war.
Yet in all of this the one consistent thread is Bush and his helpers ducking responsibility. Anyone involved in leaking information would be fired. Unless it was one of his administration, then they have to be found guilty of a crime. In the Bush ownership society, consequences are for those without power. They don't apply to any of Bush's friends or political allies.
And through all this, the Republicans continue to defend this administration. We have soldiers sodomizing children and raping women - and being photographed doing it - and Bush and his administration are suppressing the photographs to protect "national security." Bush is threatening to veto any defense spending bill that includes provisions to investigate such crimes. And even though the International Red Cross has documented these crimes as widespread, the Bush administration continues to claim they were not sanctioned, but just a few bad apples.
Once or twice this story would be believable, but the boy George and his keepers are crying wolf a wee bit too often.
Let's remember this: In an ownership society the consequences of actions taken by the government are the result of the majority party's policy. The majority party in control of the House, the Senate, the office of the President, and soon the the Courts, are all Republicans. Republicans control the legislative agenda. Republicans chair the committees that send laws and nominees to the floor for a vote. Republicans control what happens legislatively. They can call the Democrats "obstructionist" and without any agenda, but in the end of the day it is the Republicans with the ability to pass any law they want due to their significant majority in the House and Senate. And it is the Republican party that has veto power through President Bush.
There is nothing the Democrats can do but slow the Republican agenda down and force moral victories hard fought though losing battles.It is the Republicans who own this economy. It is the Republicans who own this war and the deaths of nearly 1,800 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
It is the Republicans and their war on terror who own the steep rise in terrorism world wide.
It is the Republicans who own the corruption in the House, the Senate and the office of the President.
It is the Republicans who have stretched our military to the breaking point, and attempted to cut benefits for veterans and service members at the same time.
It is the Republicans who own "enemy combatants" and the indefinite imprisonment without charge, lawyer or trial that goes with that legal creation.
It is the Republicans who own the highest number of bankruptcies, persons living in poverty, and foreclosures in our nation's history.
It is the Republicans who outed a CIA agent for political gain, then moved the goal posts on removing persons involved from their positions in the Bush administration.
Let's not forget the Republicans are the ones in control.
posted by michael in chicago at 9:05 AM
Wrap....
$100 drivers licenses?!!!
I don’t think anyone looks forward to going to the Department of Motor Vehicles, knowing full well that the trip will take at least a few hours out of their day.
But it will only get worse. The REAL ID Act, which slipped through Congress on the back of a military funding bill, pushes the buttons of a number of governors. The act requires states to design their drivers' licenses to meet federal anti-terrorist standards by 2008, including referencing all identification documents (like passports or Social Security cards) against federal databases. TomPaine.com has published about this act before, but it’s still an issue of concern.
The renewed discussion of the legislation was prompted by the National Governor’s Convention in Iowa this week. Governors are starting to squirm under the new requirements that the DMV will have to meet. The new law, which passed in June, goes beyond an earlier measure that sought to standardize state driver's licenses, requiring that states verify that license applicants are American citizens or legal residents.
And you thought the DMV lines were long now.
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., has spoken out, saying that the act unconstitutionally infringes upon state laws and that there is no doubt that it will be challenged. He points out that New Mexico’s roads are safer since state laws allowed immigrants to get drivers' licenses—and subsequently insurance.
Then there’s the cost factor. These new regulations do not come cheaply. Workers at DMVs will have to be trained on the new databases and procedures; everyone will have to visit the DMV to get the new scanable cards, overloading the already busy departments; and the individual will have to pay for it, in time and money. The estimated costs range to the hundreds of millions. Governors Rendell, D-Pa., and Warner, D-Va., both estimate it could cost $100 million just to enact all of the changes in each of their states. And there’s no indication from the federal government about where that money will come from (only $100 million total has been appropriated by Congress).
Think of it this way. The next time you have to get your driver’s license renewed, you will have to bring four different forms of proof of identification, a book to read while you wait and your checkbook. The new IDs could cost more than $100.
What about the security against terrorists? There's no evidence that the new drivers' licencses will be more tamper-proof than the current ones. Think of all the people you know who had fake IDs in high school and college. Under the new system, it's not going to be any different. The fakes will still be out there, and if an 18-year-old can get a hold of one, you can bet determined terrorists will have no trouble at all.
Oh, and then there's identity theft. A very large percentage of the American population will have all of their personal information stored in one easy-to-use database system. It's a hacker’s dream.
Putting all these complaints together, you get very unhappy states and an unsuspecting public. And no funding to ease the pain. We've got an act that basically winds up creating a national ID card. Maybe we would have been better off coming out and calling it that in the first place.--Lindsay Claiborn Thursday 5:54 PM
Wrap...
But it will only get worse. The REAL ID Act, which slipped through Congress on the back of a military funding bill, pushes the buttons of a number of governors. The act requires states to design their drivers' licenses to meet federal anti-terrorist standards by 2008, including referencing all identification documents (like passports or Social Security cards) against federal databases. TomPaine.com has published about this act before, but it’s still an issue of concern.
The renewed discussion of the legislation was prompted by the National Governor’s Convention in Iowa this week. Governors are starting to squirm under the new requirements that the DMV will have to meet. The new law, which passed in June, goes beyond an earlier measure that sought to standardize state driver's licenses, requiring that states verify that license applicants are American citizens or legal residents.
And you thought the DMV lines were long now.
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., has spoken out, saying that the act unconstitutionally infringes upon state laws and that there is no doubt that it will be challenged. He points out that New Mexico’s roads are safer since state laws allowed immigrants to get drivers' licenses—and subsequently insurance.
Then there’s the cost factor. These new regulations do not come cheaply. Workers at DMVs will have to be trained on the new databases and procedures; everyone will have to visit the DMV to get the new scanable cards, overloading the already busy departments; and the individual will have to pay for it, in time and money. The estimated costs range to the hundreds of millions. Governors Rendell, D-Pa., and Warner, D-Va., both estimate it could cost $100 million just to enact all of the changes in each of their states. And there’s no indication from the federal government about where that money will come from (only $100 million total has been appropriated by Congress).
Think of it this way. The next time you have to get your driver’s license renewed, you will have to bring four different forms of proof of identification, a book to read while you wait and your checkbook. The new IDs could cost more than $100.
What about the security against terrorists? There's no evidence that the new drivers' licencses will be more tamper-proof than the current ones. Think of all the people you know who had fake IDs in high school and college. Under the new system, it's not going to be any different. The fakes will still be out there, and if an 18-year-old can get a hold of one, you can bet determined terrorists will have no trouble at all.
Oh, and then there's identity theft. A very large percentage of the American population will have all of their personal information stored in one easy-to-use database system. It's a hacker’s dream.
Putting all these complaints together, you get very unhappy states and an unsuspecting public. And no funding to ease the pain. We've got an act that basically winds up creating a national ID card. Maybe we would have been better off coming out and calling it that in the first place.--Lindsay Claiborn Thursday 5:54 PM
Wrap...
Friday, July 22, 2005
Bush/Cheney out NOW!!!
What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11?
According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran:
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
Umm, could the Emm Ess Emm pick this up? Especially considering that several of the hardened suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites are in the middle of Tehran? So does this mean we are going to nuke the capital of Iran? And in this case would we parachute in exiles to run the place afterward, or attempt a colonial administration? What effect would the radioactive fallout have on our decision?
I mean, surely the NYT and WaPo can find a lede here: "US has plan to nuke Tehran if another 9/11." Can we get at least a bloody story out of this? Sorry to sound breathless, but the prospect of nuking Tehran is over my breathlessness threshold. As if we needed another reason to hope there's not a terrorist attack on the U.S...
The current issue of TAC also includes a sharp article by Christopher Layne, arguing that, while failure is pretty much a fait accompli in Iraq, there's failure and then there's failure. Getting out sooner, as Layne argues, would make failure less detrimental to America.
Say what you will about Pat Buchanan, TAC's a pretty interesting mag, particularly when compared to its intra-right-wing competition. I mean, honestly, how much do we really need another Sufi partisan article by Stephen Schwartz or another "Aha! NOW I've found The Connection!" article by Stephen Hayes?
Wrap....
According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran:
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
Umm, could the Emm Ess Emm pick this up? Especially considering that several of the hardened suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites are in the middle of Tehran? So does this mean we are going to nuke the capital of Iran? And in this case would we parachute in exiles to run the place afterward, or attempt a colonial administration? What effect would the radioactive fallout have on our decision?
I mean, surely the NYT and WaPo can find a lede here: "US has plan to nuke Tehran if another 9/11." Can we get at least a bloody story out of this? Sorry to sound breathless, but the prospect of nuking Tehran is over my breathlessness threshold. As if we needed another reason to hope there's not a terrorist attack on the U.S...
The current issue of TAC also includes a sharp article by Christopher Layne, arguing that, while failure is pretty much a fait accompli in Iraq, there's failure and then there's failure. Getting out sooner, as Layne argues, would make failure less detrimental to America.
Say what you will about Pat Buchanan, TAC's a pretty interesting mag, particularly when compared to its intra-right-wing competition. I mean, honestly, how much do we really need another Sufi partisan article by Stephen Schwartz or another "Aha! NOW I've found The Connection!" article by Stephen Hayes?
Wrap....
A damned good question...
William F. Buckley Jr.:
Is the Patriot Act patriotic?
By William F. Buckley Jr.
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, July 22, 2005
The Senate Judiciary Committee was up until 3 a.m. arguing over various aspects of the Patriot Act and ended the day with a compromise bill that still has to be debated by the full Senate. The House of Representatives meanwhile passed a bill extending permanently all but two of the provisions of the Act. These two will need to be reviewed -- 10 years from now; which is akin to making them permanent. The House and Senate versions differ on this and that point, but the principles being discussed are pretty much the same and have to do with what it is we are willing to forfeit in order to advance our security, or seek to advance it.
Libertarian-conservatives are vexed by the arguments being used, and the people using them. Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, complains that amendments are needed "that would protect our civil liberties and restore appropriate checks and balances." It is painful to conservatives to be thought less concerned than the ACLU to watch over the predations of government.
The House vote on the retention of the Patriot Act was 257 approval, 171 disapproval. Most of the disapproving were Democrats, but there were a few Republicans on that side, and the Congressional Record will tell us what were their lines of argument.
The model in these matters is in two parts. The first asks: Is the government seeking a reasonable extension of its powers to investigate, preclude and punish? The second asks: Is the new threat being addressed realistic?
Other questions are subsidiary. Whether a provision should be reasserted permanently or be subject to sunset provisions can divide legislators identically concerned for the public safety. But one will perhaps believe, with the sunset community -- to which this analyst enthusiastically belongs -- that it is always a good idea to look again at any repressive legislation after it has been in place for a while, its accomplishments weighed, its toll considered. Those who are asking for longevity for the Patriot Act are viewing the evolution of terrorism and assuming, not unreasonably, that terrorist resources aren't going to reduce: so that an increase in security measures should be thought permanent.
The argument unfortunately rests, in many cases, on unseen and unseeable factors. A thousand years ago the criminal reach was limited to the length of a spear. The reach of the modern criminal permits him to transmit a lethal communication to Mars in a trillionth of a second. The political challenge is to advance the art of self-protection pari passu with the art of aggression. The first, humbling lesson is that in order to do so, it is required to enlarge the range of suspects. They used to be the thief, the lover and the butler. On July 7 in London it was four young British Muslims, indistinguishable to the authorities until that day from a million other British Muslims. Their targets: 56 complete strangers, who did nothing more offensive or conspicuous than to ride in subways and on a bus.
Progress begins by pooling intelligence information, and that is the major contribution of the Patriot Act. Material that was the property (so to speak) of the FBI wasn't compared with material that was the CIA's.
That barrier is reasonably terminated, though many questions have been raised having to do with jurisdiction and with authority. If a security agent reasons that everyone who attended an ACLU rally should be looked into, we have massive instrumentation available for doing this. Eavesdropping is an enormous enterprise, and the government's ear is huge. For many years, extraordinary searches required the consenting collaboration of a judge. In Great Britain, the distinctions we have observed aren't relevant -- MI-5 has access to it all. However, if prosecution is considered, Scotland Yard has to be brought in, so that there is a second agent of the executive at work.
The Patriot Act gives government the power to demand business and library records and to conduct roving wiretaps. Obviously, it is still one step more to move on to prosecution. But those who are reluctant to permit the government to inform itself thus randomly are not necessarily engaged in trying to protect criminals. There is in the modern liberal order what goes by the term expectation of privacy. An easy example would have to do with your sex life. But what about your distribution of funds, the people you visit, the books you read, the television shows you watch, the e-mails you dispatch?
The Patriot Act is further bedeviled by the difficulty in amassing records that display its success. If you reduce the speed limit, in no time at all you can measure changes in the rate of accidents. How have the provisions of the Patriot Act affected the liberty of modern malefactors to work their odium upon us? The legislators have difficult responsibilities, and it is discouraging that there is so little hard evidence informing the public commentary.
Is the Patriot Act patriotic?
By William F. Buckley Jr.
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, July 22, 2005
The Senate Judiciary Committee was up until 3 a.m. arguing over various aspects of the Patriot Act and ended the day with a compromise bill that still has to be debated by the full Senate. The House of Representatives meanwhile passed a bill extending permanently all but two of the provisions of the Act. These two will need to be reviewed -- 10 years from now; which is akin to making them permanent. The House and Senate versions differ on this and that point, but the principles being discussed are pretty much the same and have to do with what it is we are willing to forfeit in order to advance our security, or seek to advance it.
Libertarian-conservatives are vexed by the arguments being used, and the people using them. Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, complains that amendments are needed "that would protect our civil liberties and restore appropriate checks and balances." It is painful to conservatives to be thought less concerned than the ACLU to watch over the predations of government.
The House vote on the retention of the Patriot Act was 257 approval, 171 disapproval. Most of the disapproving were Democrats, but there were a few Republicans on that side, and the Congressional Record will tell us what were their lines of argument.
The model in these matters is in two parts. The first asks: Is the government seeking a reasonable extension of its powers to investigate, preclude and punish? The second asks: Is the new threat being addressed realistic?
Other questions are subsidiary. Whether a provision should be reasserted permanently or be subject to sunset provisions can divide legislators identically concerned for the public safety. But one will perhaps believe, with the sunset community -- to which this analyst enthusiastically belongs -- that it is always a good idea to look again at any repressive legislation after it has been in place for a while, its accomplishments weighed, its toll considered. Those who are asking for longevity for the Patriot Act are viewing the evolution of terrorism and assuming, not unreasonably, that terrorist resources aren't going to reduce: so that an increase in security measures should be thought permanent.
The argument unfortunately rests, in many cases, on unseen and unseeable factors. A thousand years ago the criminal reach was limited to the length of a spear. The reach of the modern criminal permits him to transmit a lethal communication to Mars in a trillionth of a second. The political challenge is to advance the art of self-protection pari passu with the art of aggression. The first, humbling lesson is that in order to do so, it is required to enlarge the range of suspects. They used to be the thief, the lover and the butler. On July 7 in London it was four young British Muslims, indistinguishable to the authorities until that day from a million other British Muslims. Their targets: 56 complete strangers, who did nothing more offensive or conspicuous than to ride in subways and on a bus.
Progress begins by pooling intelligence information, and that is the major contribution of the Patriot Act. Material that was the property (so to speak) of the FBI wasn't compared with material that was the CIA's.
That barrier is reasonably terminated, though many questions have been raised having to do with jurisdiction and with authority. If a security agent reasons that everyone who attended an ACLU rally should be looked into, we have massive instrumentation available for doing this. Eavesdropping is an enormous enterprise, and the government's ear is huge. For many years, extraordinary searches required the consenting collaboration of a judge. In Great Britain, the distinctions we have observed aren't relevant -- MI-5 has access to it all. However, if prosecution is considered, Scotland Yard has to be brought in, so that there is a second agent of the executive at work.
The Patriot Act gives government the power to demand business and library records and to conduct roving wiretaps. Obviously, it is still one step more to move on to prosecution. But those who are reluctant to permit the government to inform itself thus randomly are not necessarily engaged in trying to protect criminals. There is in the modern liberal order what goes by the term expectation of privacy. An easy example would have to do with your sex life. But what about your distribution of funds, the people you visit, the books you read, the television shows you watch, the e-mails you dispatch?
The Patriot Act is further bedeviled by the difficulty in amassing records that display its success. If you reduce the speed limit, in no time at all you can measure changes in the rate of accidents. How have the provisions of the Patriot Act affected the liberty of modern malefactors to work their odium upon us? The legislators have difficult responsibilities, and it is discouraging that there is so little hard evidence informing the public commentary.
Disgusting..Bush's mouth....
Karen Hughes on track to confirmation
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Last Updated 12:54 pm PDT Friday, July 22, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - A scaled-back Senate Foreign Relations Committee showered praise Friday on Karen Hughes and put the former political adviser to President Bush on a fast track to confirmation as the State Department's top public relations official.
Only two senators attended the hearing. In the absence of votes in Congress on Fridays, most lawmakers leave early for the weekend.
The session barely delved into what Hughes will do about turning around anti-American sentiment in the world, part of her job if she is confirmed as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
Hughes said her challenge is "the urgent need to foster greater understanding, more respect and a sense of common ideals among Americans and people of different countries, cultures and faiths around the world."
"If I had the opportunity to say just one thing to people throughout the world, it would be, I am eager to listen," Hughes said. "I want to learn more about you and your lives, what you believe, what you fear, what you dream, what you value most."
There was no direct mention in her statement of the onslaught of Muslim fundamentalism that confronts the United States and other Western countries, although Hughes quoted the statement British Prime Minister Tony Blair's made condemning of barbaric acts and ideas after the London bombings.
Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said "virulent anti-American hatred in the Islamic world" is a security concern.
"In an era when allied cooperation is essential in the war against terrorism, negative public opinion overseas has enormous consequences," he said.
And Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, identified the enemy as Muslim extremists.
"Somehow we have got to change people's heads and their minds," he said.
Lugar read a statement of support from the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Joseph R. Biden of Delaware.
The committee plans to meet Tuesday and send the nomination to the Senate for expected easy approval of Hughes, who helped craft Bush's policies before leaving her high-profile White House job in 2002 to return to her family in Austin, Tex.
Hughes said she would travel extensively and create more public diplomacy posts in the State Department to tell "people around the world about what we are doing to try to improve their daily lives."
She also proposed an "interfaith dialogue" in the United States as well as abroad, saying views of Muslims in the country who are against violence should be given more attention.
Wrap...
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Last Updated 12:54 pm PDT Friday, July 22, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - A scaled-back Senate Foreign Relations Committee showered praise Friday on Karen Hughes and put the former political adviser to President Bush on a fast track to confirmation as the State Department's top public relations official.
Only two senators attended the hearing. In the absence of votes in Congress on Fridays, most lawmakers leave early for the weekend.
The session barely delved into what Hughes will do about turning around anti-American sentiment in the world, part of her job if she is confirmed as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
Hughes said her challenge is "the urgent need to foster greater understanding, more respect and a sense of common ideals among Americans and people of different countries, cultures and faiths around the world."
"If I had the opportunity to say just one thing to people throughout the world, it would be, I am eager to listen," Hughes said. "I want to learn more about you and your lives, what you believe, what you fear, what you dream, what you value most."
There was no direct mention in her statement of the onslaught of Muslim fundamentalism that confronts the United States and other Western countries, although Hughes quoted the statement British Prime Minister Tony Blair's made condemning of barbaric acts and ideas after the London bombings.
Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said "virulent anti-American hatred in the Islamic world" is a security concern.
"In an era when allied cooperation is essential in the war against terrorism, negative public opinion overseas has enormous consequences," he said.
And Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, identified the enemy as Muslim extremists.
"Somehow we have got to change people's heads and their minds," he said.
Lugar read a statement of support from the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Joseph R. Biden of Delaware.
The committee plans to meet Tuesday and send the nomination to the Senate for expected easy approval of Hughes, who helped craft Bush's policies before leaving her high-profile White House job in 2002 to return to her family in Austin, Tex.
Hughes said she would travel extensively and create more public diplomacy posts in the State Department to tell "people around the world about what we are doing to try to improve their daily lives."
She also proposed an "interfaith dialogue" in the United States as well as abroad, saying views of Muslims in the country who are against violence should be given more attention.
Wrap...
First them, then us....
Bush's Soviet State
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Friday 22 July 2005
It's funny in an awful sort of way. The defining events of the last fifty years all centered around the Cold War and the eventual demise of the Soviet system. Toward the end of the Soviet regime, their government was often forced to grossly overstate the size of grain harvests or the preparedness of their military in order to maintain an illusion of strength and order. In other words, intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy. In essence, fixing the facts became the policy.
Self-deception was piled upon self-deception. Rather than address the systemic problems within the nation, the Soviet regime chose instead to massage the illusions until the problems became too huge to overcome. Pretending everything was fine became the chosen course of action, and the state's ability to manufacture a pleasing reality became a perfect circle of inaction and delusion. By the time the tanks rolled and the Wall fell, the deal had already gone down.
Sound familiar?
There has been a lot of noise lately in the news media about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, and whether Bush advisor Karl Rove was the button-man who brought her down. Press coverage of this issue has been unexpectedly tenacious. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has been leaving his podium after press conferences lately with fresh bite marks all over his ankles and legs. The intensity of the pursuit on this issue has a lot to do with Times reporter Judy Miller. Like her, hate her, respect her or disdain her, but one thing is clear: The White House press corps is bird-dogging this story with alacrity because one of their own has wound up in the bucket because of it.
Yet even with all the coverage - The Time cover, the Newsweek cover, the growling at the press conferences, the intensity of media attention that has not even been deflected by a Supreme Court nomination - the press and far too many people seem to be letting the larger issue slide by. Reporters, columnists and talking heads chew over minute permutations of the story like whether Rove actually said Plame's name, or whether he used her maiden name, or whether he "knowingly" did any of this. The trees are certainly interesting, but the forest deserves a lot more attention.
In short, George W. Bush and his administration are pursuing a course of determined unreality that mirrors the delusional fantasies that ultimately consigned the Soviet Union to the dustbin of history. This Rove-Plame thing is but one small aspect of the main.
Valerie Plame's career as a covert CIA operative was spent keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. Her career was destroyed by the White House because her husband, Joseph Wilson, had the gall to publicly contradict Bush and his people regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was so important for the Bush administration to maintain the fiction that Iraq possessed these weapons that they were willing to torpedo a vital intelligence network set up to protect us all. That fiction was more important than the truth.
It seems clear that Rove was central to this action, regardless of all the arguments over the definition of "is." It is likewise becoming clear that Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was also in on this action. However, focusing only on which laws these two may have violated in wrecking Plame's ability to do her job does not encompass the totality of the issue. Valerie Plame is not a central character in all this, but only another casualty.
George W. Bush and his people spent months telling the American public that Iraq was a direct threat to our security. They invaded based upon false pretenses. They maintain the fiction that the war was necessary when it has become manifestly clear that it was not. They maintain the fiction that freedom has been brought to Iraq when it has become manifestly clear that it has not. Perhaps worst of all, they maintain the fiction that the United States and the world are safer because of the invasion. Recent events in London rip this fantasy to shreds, and never mind the reports from the French news media that the London explosives may have been made from materials stolen from the unsecured Al-Qaqaa facility in Iraq.
A recent article from the Associated Press titled "Experts Fear Endless Terror War" noted, "An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear. In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq."
The article continues, "Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out - through US foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the US leadership's 'willful blindness' to what needs to be done: withdraw the US military from the Mideast, end 'unqualified support' for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state 'tyrannies.'"
Willful blindness is an appropriate phrase. It captures not only the fact that we are manufacturing threats to our security every day we remain in Iraq, but the fact that virtually everything associated with Bush administration policy depends on self-delusion and the manipulation of data to fulfill political desires. Even the most fundamental underpinnings of conservative political philosophy have been ground up in the gears of this grand fantasy.
Truth no longer matters. Ethics no longer matter. Facts are there for the twisting. Decades-old conservative ideals regarding the budget and the size of the Federal government have been thrown under the bus because they are no longer convenient, and get in the way of the manufacture of reality. Soviet self-delusion led that nation into Afghanistan and disaster. The Bush administration’s self-delusion has led us into Iraq. Res ipsa loquitor.
The parallel between this Bush administration and the old, failed Soviet regime can be taken one step further. One of the main reasons the Soviet government was able to stagger on for years making up facts out of whole cloth was that the leaders of that regime were accountable to no one. The Politburo said it, and so it must be true, and if it wasn't true, there was no authority or check to their power that could blow a whistle, throw a flag or demand an investigation. The old Soviet government lived in a bubble, free from the fear that they might be called to the carpet for lying, getting a lot of people killed and putting the State in mortal danger.
Sound familiar? Bush and his people have managed to walk through the raindrops since 2001, managed to pull off more than a few impeachable crimes, for no other reason than that they are accountable to no one in government ... or, more properly, no one in government who has the power to call them to account has done so. Congress is run by Bush allies, the Justice Department is run by his longest-standing hatchet man, and all of them prefer to maintain the pleasant fictions over any attempt to fix what has gone so drastically and demonstrably wrong.
We watched the Soviets smash themselves to pieces because they refused to deal with what ailed them, because lies made life easier on the powerful, because actually attempting to address a problem might expose the powerful to censure or even removal, because no one had the power to stop them.
It is happening again, right before our eyes.
Wrap....
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Friday 22 July 2005
It's funny in an awful sort of way. The defining events of the last fifty years all centered around the Cold War and the eventual demise of the Soviet system. Toward the end of the Soviet regime, their government was often forced to grossly overstate the size of grain harvests or the preparedness of their military in order to maintain an illusion of strength and order. In other words, intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy. In essence, fixing the facts became the policy.
Self-deception was piled upon self-deception. Rather than address the systemic problems within the nation, the Soviet regime chose instead to massage the illusions until the problems became too huge to overcome. Pretending everything was fine became the chosen course of action, and the state's ability to manufacture a pleasing reality became a perfect circle of inaction and delusion. By the time the tanks rolled and the Wall fell, the deal had already gone down.
Sound familiar?
There has been a lot of noise lately in the news media about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, and whether Bush advisor Karl Rove was the button-man who brought her down. Press coverage of this issue has been unexpectedly tenacious. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has been leaving his podium after press conferences lately with fresh bite marks all over his ankles and legs. The intensity of the pursuit on this issue has a lot to do with Times reporter Judy Miller. Like her, hate her, respect her or disdain her, but one thing is clear: The White House press corps is bird-dogging this story with alacrity because one of their own has wound up in the bucket because of it.
Yet even with all the coverage - The Time cover, the Newsweek cover, the growling at the press conferences, the intensity of media attention that has not even been deflected by a Supreme Court nomination - the press and far too many people seem to be letting the larger issue slide by. Reporters, columnists and talking heads chew over minute permutations of the story like whether Rove actually said Plame's name, or whether he used her maiden name, or whether he "knowingly" did any of this. The trees are certainly interesting, but the forest deserves a lot more attention.
In short, George W. Bush and his administration are pursuing a course of determined unreality that mirrors the delusional fantasies that ultimately consigned the Soviet Union to the dustbin of history. This Rove-Plame thing is but one small aspect of the main.
Valerie Plame's career as a covert CIA operative was spent keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. Her career was destroyed by the White House because her husband, Joseph Wilson, had the gall to publicly contradict Bush and his people regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was so important for the Bush administration to maintain the fiction that Iraq possessed these weapons that they were willing to torpedo a vital intelligence network set up to protect us all. That fiction was more important than the truth.
It seems clear that Rove was central to this action, regardless of all the arguments over the definition of "is." It is likewise becoming clear that Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was also in on this action. However, focusing only on which laws these two may have violated in wrecking Plame's ability to do her job does not encompass the totality of the issue. Valerie Plame is not a central character in all this, but only another casualty.
George W. Bush and his people spent months telling the American public that Iraq was a direct threat to our security. They invaded based upon false pretenses. They maintain the fiction that the war was necessary when it has become manifestly clear that it was not. They maintain the fiction that freedom has been brought to Iraq when it has become manifestly clear that it has not. Perhaps worst of all, they maintain the fiction that the United States and the world are safer because of the invasion. Recent events in London rip this fantasy to shreds, and never mind the reports from the French news media that the London explosives may have been made from materials stolen from the unsecured Al-Qaqaa facility in Iraq.
A recent article from the Associated Press titled "Experts Fear Endless Terror War" noted, "An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear. In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq."
The article continues, "Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out - through US foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the US leadership's 'willful blindness' to what needs to be done: withdraw the US military from the Mideast, end 'unqualified support' for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state 'tyrannies.'"
Willful blindness is an appropriate phrase. It captures not only the fact that we are manufacturing threats to our security every day we remain in Iraq, but the fact that virtually everything associated with Bush administration policy depends on self-delusion and the manipulation of data to fulfill political desires. Even the most fundamental underpinnings of conservative political philosophy have been ground up in the gears of this grand fantasy.
Truth no longer matters. Ethics no longer matter. Facts are there for the twisting. Decades-old conservative ideals regarding the budget and the size of the Federal government have been thrown under the bus because they are no longer convenient, and get in the way of the manufacture of reality. Soviet self-delusion led that nation into Afghanistan and disaster. The Bush administration’s self-delusion has led us into Iraq. Res ipsa loquitor.
The parallel between this Bush administration and the old, failed Soviet regime can be taken one step further. One of the main reasons the Soviet government was able to stagger on for years making up facts out of whole cloth was that the leaders of that regime were accountable to no one. The Politburo said it, and so it must be true, and if it wasn't true, there was no authority or check to their power that could blow a whistle, throw a flag or demand an investigation. The old Soviet government lived in a bubble, free from the fear that they might be called to the carpet for lying, getting a lot of people killed and putting the State in mortal danger.
Sound familiar? Bush and his people have managed to walk through the raindrops since 2001, managed to pull off more than a few impeachable crimes, for no other reason than that they are accountable to no one in government ... or, more properly, no one in government who has the power to call them to account has done so. Congress is run by Bush allies, the Justice Department is run by his longest-standing hatchet man, and all of them prefer to maintain the pleasant fictions over any attempt to fix what has gone so drastically and demonstrably wrong.
We watched the Soviets smash themselves to pieces because they refused to deal with what ailed them, because lies made life easier on the powerful, because actually attempting to address a problem might expose the powerful to censure or even removal, because no one had the power to stop them.
It is happening again, right before our eyes.
Wrap....
BBC's Greg Palast explains:
CHINA FLOATS, AMERICA SINKS
YUAN KICKS DOLLAR BUTT BY REJECTING "FREE MARKET"
Friday Jul 22, 2005
by Greg Palast
In case you haven't the least idea what the heck it means for China to "float" its currency, let me put it in the language we economists use: China's float don't mean squat. Yet our President, a guy whose marks in Economics 101 are too embarrassing to publish here, ran out to hail the fact that buying Chinese money will now cost more dollars. The White House line to the media, swallowed whole, is that by making Chinese money (yuan) more expensive to buy with dollars, Americans will buy fewer computers and toys from China -- and US employment will rise.
This will happen when we find Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Economics Lesson #1: You can't change the value of goods by changing the value of the currency on the price tag. As my comrade Art Laffer wrote me, "If cheap currency makes your products more competitive, all automobiles would be made in Russia." Driven a Lada lately?
Economics Lesson #2: Don't take economics lessons from George Bush. Or Milton Friedman. Or Thomas Friedman. What that means, class, is don't believe the big, hot pile of hype that China's zooming economy is the result of that Red nation's adopting free market economic policies. If China is now a capitalist free-market state, then I'm Mariah Carey.
China's economy has soared because it stubbornly refused the Free - and Friedman-Market mumbo-jumbo that government should stop controlling, owning and regulating the industry. China's announcement that it would raise the cost of the yuan covered over a more important notice: China would bar foreign control of its steel sector. China's leaders have built a powerhouse steel industry larger than ours by directing the funding, output, location and ownership of all factories. And rather than "freeing" the industry through opening their borders to foreign competition, the Chinese, for steel and every other product, have shut their borders tight to foreigners except as it suits China's own industries.
China won't join NAFTA or CAFTA or any of those free-trade clubs. In China, Chinese industry comes first. And it's still, Mssrs. Friedman, the Peoples' republic. Those Wal-Mart fashion designs called, chillingly, "New Order," are made in factories owned by the PLA, the Chinese Peoples' Liberation Army.
In an interview just before he won the Nobel Prize in economics, Joe Stiglitz explained to me that China's huge financial surge -- a stunning 9.5% jump in GDP this year -- began with the government's funding and nurturing rural cooperatives, fledgling agricultural and industry protected behind high, high trade barriers. It is true that China's growth got a boost from ending the bloodsoaked self-flagellating madness of Mao's Cultural Revolution. And China, when it chooses, makes use of markets and market pricing to distribute resources. The truth is, Chinese markets are as free as my kids: they can do whatever they want unless I say they can't.
Yes, China is adopting elements of "capitalism." And that's the ugly part: real estate speculation in Shanghai making millionaires of Communist party boss relatives and bank shenanigans worthy of a Neil Bush. It is not the Guangdong skyscrapers and speculative bubble which allows China to sell us $162 billion more goods a year than we sell them. It is that China's government, by rejecting free-market fundamentalism, can easily conquer American markets where protection is now deemed passé. And that is why the yuan has kicked the dollar's butt.
America's only response is to have Alan Greenspan push up real interest rates so we can buy back our own dollars the Chinese won in the export game. The domestic result: US wages drifting down to Mexican maquiladora levels.
Am I praising China? Forget about it. This is one evil dictatorship which jails union organizers and beats, shackles and tortures those who don't kowtow to the wishes of Chairman Rob -- Wal-Mart chief Robson Walton. (Funny how Mr. Bush never mentions the D-word, Democracy, to our Chinese suppliers.) Class dismissed.
Greg Palast, winner of the Financial Times David Thomas Prize for his writings on regulation, is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Read and watch his interview with Nobelist Joseph Stiglitz for BBC Television at www.GregPalast.com.
Wrap....
YUAN KICKS DOLLAR BUTT BY REJECTING "FREE MARKET"
Friday Jul 22, 2005
by Greg Palast
In case you haven't the least idea what the heck it means for China to "float" its currency, let me put it in the language we economists use: China's float don't mean squat. Yet our President, a guy whose marks in Economics 101 are too embarrassing to publish here, ran out to hail the fact that buying Chinese money will now cost more dollars. The White House line to the media, swallowed whole, is that by making Chinese money (yuan) more expensive to buy with dollars, Americans will buy fewer computers and toys from China -- and US employment will rise.
This will happen when we find Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Economics Lesson #1: You can't change the value of goods by changing the value of the currency on the price tag. As my comrade Art Laffer wrote me, "If cheap currency makes your products more competitive, all automobiles would be made in Russia." Driven a Lada lately?
Economics Lesson #2: Don't take economics lessons from George Bush. Or Milton Friedman. Or Thomas Friedman. What that means, class, is don't believe the big, hot pile of hype that China's zooming economy is the result of that Red nation's adopting free market economic policies. If China is now a capitalist free-market state, then I'm Mariah Carey.
China's economy has soared because it stubbornly refused the Free - and Friedman-Market mumbo-jumbo that government should stop controlling, owning and regulating the industry. China's announcement that it would raise the cost of the yuan covered over a more important notice: China would bar foreign control of its steel sector. China's leaders have built a powerhouse steel industry larger than ours by directing the funding, output, location and ownership of all factories. And rather than "freeing" the industry through opening their borders to foreign competition, the Chinese, for steel and every other product, have shut their borders tight to foreigners except as it suits China's own industries.
China won't join NAFTA or CAFTA or any of those free-trade clubs. In China, Chinese industry comes first. And it's still, Mssrs. Friedman, the Peoples' republic. Those Wal-Mart fashion designs called, chillingly, "New Order," are made in factories owned by the PLA, the Chinese Peoples' Liberation Army.
In an interview just before he won the Nobel Prize in economics, Joe Stiglitz explained to me that China's huge financial surge -- a stunning 9.5% jump in GDP this year -- began with the government's funding and nurturing rural cooperatives, fledgling agricultural and industry protected behind high, high trade barriers. It is true that China's growth got a boost from ending the bloodsoaked self-flagellating madness of Mao's Cultural Revolution. And China, when it chooses, makes use of markets and market pricing to distribute resources. The truth is, Chinese markets are as free as my kids: they can do whatever they want unless I say they can't.
Yes, China is adopting elements of "capitalism." And that's the ugly part: real estate speculation in Shanghai making millionaires of Communist party boss relatives and bank shenanigans worthy of a Neil Bush. It is not the Guangdong skyscrapers and speculative bubble which allows China to sell us $162 billion more goods a year than we sell them. It is that China's government, by rejecting free-market fundamentalism, can easily conquer American markets where protection is now deemed passé. And that is why the yuan has kicked the dollar's butt.
America's only response is to have Alan Greenspan push up real interest rates so we can buy back our own dollars the Chinese won in the export game. The domestic result: US wages drifting down to Mexican maquiladora levels.
Am I praising China? Forget about it. This is one evil dictatorship which jails union organizers and beats, shackles and tortures those who don't kowtow to the wishes of Chairman Rob -- Wal-Mart chief Robson Walton. (Funny how Mr. Bush never mentions the D-word, Democracy, to our Chinese suppliers.) Class dismissed.
Greg Palast, winner of the Financial Times David Thomas Prize for his writings on regulation, is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Read and watch his interview with Nobelist Joseph Stiglitz for BBC Television at www.GregPalast.com.
Wrap....
Thursday, July 21, 2005
BushCo running scared....
July 21, 2005
White House Threatens Veto on Detainee Policies
By REUTERS
Filed at 7:45 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.
The Bush administration, under fire for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and questions over whether its policies led to horrendous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, put lawmakers on notice it did not want them legislating on the matter.
In a statement, the White House said such amendments would ``interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war.''
``If legislation is presented that would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice,'' the bill could be vetoed, the statement said.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who endured torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said after meeting at the Capitol with Vice President Dick Cheney that he still intended to offer amendments next week ``on the standard of treatment of prisoners.''
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was working on legislation defining the legal status of enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo, also said he would offer an amendment.
They were working with Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia on amendments intended to prevent further abuses in the wake of the scandal over sexual abuse and mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and harsh, degrading interrogations at Guantanamo.
Possible measures included barring the holding of ``ghost'' detainees whose names are not disclosed, codifying a ban against cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and using the Army manual as a basis for all interrogations.
Democrats on Thursday said they would push an amendment to establish an independent national commission to investigate policies that led to abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee's top Democrat, said the commission on detainee abuses was needed because ``the most serious scandal in recent military history needs an objective investigation.''
Levin said the commission should be modeled on the bipartisan commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said the Pentagon's own investigations into detainee abuses left ``huge gaps. ... The military reviewing itself, that's not good enough.''
Pentagon ``talking points'' against the special detainee commission circulating around the Capitol said the issue had been ``thoroughly investigated'' and ``a new open-ended investigation'' would add ``nothing but political theater.''
The talking points said reforms were under way, and the Pentagon ``has the matter well in hand. The department and the services are doing everything possible to address this challenge.''
********************************
And just who do they think they're kidding?
Wrap...
White House Threatens Veto on Detainee Policies
By REUTERS
Filed at 7:45 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.
The Bush administration, under fire for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and questions over whether its policies led to horrendous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, put lawmakers on notice it did not want them legislating on the matter.
In a statement, the White House said such amendments would ``interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war.''
``If legislation is presented that would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice,'' the bill could be vetoed, the statement said.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who endured torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said after meeting at the Capitol with Vice President Dick Cheney that he still intended to offer amendments next week ``on the standard of treatment of prisoners.''
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was working on legislation defining the legal status of enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo, also said he would offer an amendment.
They were working with Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia on amendments intended to prevent further abuses in the wake of the scandal over sexual abuse and mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and harsh, degrading interrogations at Guantanamo.
Possible measures included barring the holding of ``ghost'' detainees whose names are not disclosed, codifying a ban against cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and using the Army manual as a basis for all interrogations.
Democrats on Thursday said they would push an amendment to establish an independent national commission to investigate policies that led to abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee's top Democrat, said the commission on detainee abuses was needed because ``the most serious scandal in recent military history needs an objective investigation.''
Levin said the commission should be modeled on the bipartisan commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said the Pentagon's own investigations into detainee abuses left ``huge gaps. ... The military reviewing itself, that's not good enough.''
Pentagon ``talking points'' against the special detainee commission circulating around the Capitol said the issue had been ``thoroughly investigated'' and ``a new open-ended investigation'' would add ``nothing but political theater.''
The talking points said reforms were under way, and the Pentagon ``has the matter well in hand. The department and the services are doing everything possible to address this challenge.''
********************************
And just who do they think they're kidding?
Wrap...
Obama gets the woman...
From Chicago Tribune:
Senator hires genocide expert
Jill Zuckman,
Washington Bureau
Published July 20, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama has snared a high-profile human-rights activist, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and lecturer from Harvard to join his Senate staff, advising him on issues of genocide and the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Samantha Power, winner of the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," is expected to become a foreign policy adviser to the Illinois Democrat, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"She has terrific expertise, like Darfur," Obama said. "It's a mutual interest on her part and my part."
Obama said that he and Power are still discussing when she would join his staff but that they had struck an agreement in principle. Power is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government and the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. From 1993 to 1996, she covered the wars in the former Yugoslavia for U.S. News & World Report, the Economist and the Boston Globe.
Wrap....
Senator hires genocide expert
Jill Zuckman,
Washington Bureau
Published July 20, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama has snared a high-profile human-rights activist, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and lecturer from Harvard to join his Senate staff, advising him on issues of genocide and the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Samantha Power, winner of the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," is expected to become a foreign policy adviser to the Illinois Democrat, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"She has terrific expertise, like Darfur," Obama said. "It's a mutual interest on her part and my part."
Obama said that he and Power are still discussing when she would join his staff but that they had struck an agreement in principle. Power is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government and the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. From 1993 to 1996, she covered the wars in the former Yugoslavia for U.S. News & World Report, the Economist and the Boston Globe.
Wrap....
Somebody else needs a rope necktie...
From Independent Clearing House:
So Joe Wilson, former ambassador to Iraq, the guy who dared Saddam to hang him in 1991 by conducting a press briefing wearing a noose instead of a tie, is now a liar. Karl Rove didn't do anything wrong, and even if he did, according to pompadour-topped Fox News idiot John Gibson, he should be "given a medal" for it.
http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=10309
Wrap...
So Joe Wilson, former ambassador to Iraq, the guy who dared Saddam to hang him in 1991 by conducting a press briefing wearing a noose instead of a tie, is now a liar. Karl Rove didn't do anything wrong, and even if he did, according to pompadour-topped Fox News idiot John Gibson, he should be "given a medal" for it.
http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=10309
Wrap...
What the hell is THIS?!!!
From Independent Clearing House:
Treaty gives CIA powers over Irish citizens
By Dan Buckley
07/21/05
"Irish Examiner" - - US INVESTIGATORS, including CIA agents, will be allowed interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy, under an agreement signed between Ireland and the US last week. Suspects will also have to give testimony and allow property to be searched and seized even if what the suspect is accused of is not a crime in Ireland.
Under 'instruments of agreement' signed last week by Justice Minister Michael McDowell, Ireland and the US pledged mutual co-operation in the investigation of criminal activity. It is primarily designed to assist America's so-called 'war on terror' in the wake of the September 11 atrocities.
The deal was condemned yesterday by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) as "an appalling signal of how the rights of Irish citizens are considered by the minister when engaging in international relations". The ICCL said it appeared to go far beyond even what has been agreed between EU countries.
On signing the agreement, the minister said that "the international community must do everything it can to combat terrorism with every means at its disposal."Ireland will not be found wanting," he added. The treaty will give effect to agreements on Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition signed by the EU and the US in June 2003. These are aimed at building on mutual assistance and extradition arrangements.
Although the Department of Justice insists that the arrangement merely updates existing agreements, it goes much further. The US may ask Irish authorities:
To track down people in Ireland.
Transfer prisoners in Irish custody to the US. Carry out searches and seize evidence on behalf of the US Government.
It also allows US authorities access to an Irish suspect's confidential bank information.
The Irish authorities must keep all these activities secret if asked to do so by the US.
The person who will request co-operation is US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the man who, as White House counsel, instigated the notorious 'torture memo' to US President George W Bush which advised how far CIA agents could go in torturing prisoners. The person to whom the request is sent is the Minister for Justice.
About 20,000 immigrants, who have not been charged with any crime, are currently in prison in the US. In two recent US Supreme Court cases, the US Government argued that US citizens could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge if the president designated them as "enemy combatants".
ICCL director Aisling Reidy said: "An extraordinary aspect to this treaty is, despite its scope and its potential to violate basic constitutional and human rights, that all this happened without debate or transparency. "
To agree to give such powers to a government which has allowed detention of its own citizens without access to a lawyer for over a year, which has legitimised Guantanamo Bay and the interrogation techniques there, without public debate, is an appalling signal of how highly or not the rights of Irish citizens are considered by the minister when engaging in international relations."
The Department of Justice said it was wrong to say the treaty happened without debate, as the agreements update and supplement existing arrangements, and the EU-US agreement has been scrutinised by the Oireachtas four times since December 2002. A spokesperson also rejected that the measures go beyond what was agreed between EU countries.
Legislation will be required to give effect to some elements of the Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument. The necessary provisions will be contained in the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Bill which Mr McDowell expects to publish shortly.
:© Irish Examiner, 2005, Thomas Crosbie Media, TCH
Wrap....
Treaty gives CIA powers over Irish citizens
By Dan Buckley
07/21/05
"Irish Examiner" - - US INVESTIGATORS, including CIA agents, will be allowed interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy, under an agreement signed between Ireland and the US last week. Suspects will also have to give testimony and allow property to be searched and seized even if what the suspect is accused of is not a crime in Ireland.
Under 'instruments of agreement' signed last week by Justice Minister Michael McDowell, Ireland and the US pledged mutual co-operation in the investigation of criminal activity. It is primarily designed to assist America's so-called 'war on terror' in the wake of the September 11 atrocities.
The deal was condemned yesterday by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) as "an appalling signal of how the rights of Irish citizens are considered by the minister when engaging in international relations". The ICCL said it appeared to go far beyond even what has been agreed between EU countries.
On signing the agreement, the minister said that "the international community must do everything it can to combat terrorism with every means at its disposal."Ireland will not be found wanting," he added. The treaty will give effect to agreements on Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition signed by the EU and the US in June 2003. These are aimed at building on mutual assistance and extradition arrangements.
Although the Department of Justice insists that the arrangement merely updates existing agreements, it goes much further. The US may ask Irish authorities:
To track down people in Ireland.
Transfer prisoners in Irish custody to the US. Carry out searches and seize evidence on behalf of the US Government.
It also allows US authorities access to an Irish suspect's confidential bank information.
The Irish authorities must keep all these activities secret if asked to do so by the US.
The person who will request co-operation is US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the man who, as White House counsel, instigated the notorious 'torture memo' to US President George W Bush which advised how far CIA agents could go in torturing prisoners. The person to whom the request is sent is the Minister for Justice.
About 20,000 immigrants, who have not been charged with any crime, are currently in prison in the US. In two recent US Supreme Court cases, the US Government argued that US citizens could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge if the president designated them as "enemy combatants".
ICCL director Aisling Reidy said: "An extraordinary aspect to this treaty is, despite its scope and its potential to violate basic constitutional and human rights, that all this happened without debate or transparency. "
To agree to give such powers to a government which has allowed detention of its own citizens without access to a lawyer for over a year, which has legitimised Guantanamo Bay and the interrogation techniques there, without public debate, is an appalling signal of how highly or not the rights of Irish citizens are considered by the minister when engaging in international relations."
The Department of Justice said it was wrong to say the treaty happened without debate, as the agreements update and supplement existing arrangements, and the EU-US agreement has been scrutinised by the Oireachtas four times since December 2002. A spokesperson also rejected that the measures go beyond what was agreed between EU countries.
Legislation will be required to give effect to some elements of the Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument. The necessary provisions will be contained in the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Bill which Mr McDowell expects to publish shortly.
:© Irish Examiner, 2005, Thomas Crosbie Media, TCH
Wrap....
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
San Diego's troubles...
Lights up on next act of San Diego's drama
By Peter Hecht -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, July 20, 2005
SAN DIEGO - A gusty bay wind whips her hair with a fury worthy of the financial and political storm engulfing California's second-largest city. "So much for the new mayor-do," quips Donna Frye, a leathery-skinned surf shop owner, environmentalist and populist candidate vowing to restore "ethics, honesty and accountability" to City Hall.
Frye, 53, is leading in the polls over former San Diego Police Chief Jerry Sanders in a crowded field for Tuesday's special election to select a new mayor to rescue a scandal-plagued city government.
As she strides in the swirling gusts, shaking hands with supporters at Civic Center plaza, she is just one protagonist in a tortuous, multi-act epic: San Diego's version of "On the Waterfront."
Act One is the story of a shimmering city that blossomed on San Diego Bay in an urban renaissance of castlelike hotels and apartment towers, a new baseball stadium and hip downtown villages brimming with restaurants, boutiques and street life.
Act Two is a tale of backroom deals and alleged corruption as San Diego officials underfunded employee pension plans by $1.4 billion while sweetening retirement perks for 11,000 municipal workers, paying $206 million toward the ballpark and investing hundreds of millions more in the downtown redevelopment. Five former pension board members and one current member face criminal felony conflict-of-interest charges.
Act Three is the story of Frye's quixotic write-in campaign for mayor in 2004 that stirred an election furor akin to the hanging chad of the 2000 presidential race. Frye, who entered the mayoral contest five weeks before the November runoff, outpolled incumbent Dick Murphy by 2,205 votes. But she lost when 5,547 ballots of people who wrote in her name were disallowed because they failed to mark a required bubble on their ballots.
"She is the favorite now because she has a rock-solid base of support from liberals in the city who believe she was robbed," said John Nienstedt, president of Competitive Edge Research, a San Diego polling firm. "They see her as the anointed one: the savior who is going to bring a breath of fresh air to City Hall."
Frye has a second chance because of what happened in Act Four of San Diego's civic drama. With the city government teetering on economic collapse and facing FBI and Securities and Exchange Commission investigations for alleged financial malfeasance, Murphy abruptly announced his retirement early in his second term and left office Friday.
And Monday, City Council members Ralph Inzunza and Michael Zucchet, the acting mayor, were convicted on unrelated charges of taking illegal payoffs from a strip club owner who wanted a law allowing closer contact between patrons and nude dancers. Councilwoman Toni Atkins was named temporary mayor pro tem. Zucchet resigned his council seat Tuesday. Inzunza says he intends to do the same.
"I think it's very unfortunate that San Diego is now seen as a political disgrace," Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, said before the verdicts. "We have indicted City Council members. We have a mayor - who is a former judge - resigning under the cloud of a political scandal. And the city is in financial lockdown."
Voters, intensely following the unfolding events, now can only hope that Act Five - the special mayoral election - will provide a conclusion to lead San Diego out of unrelenting scandals and a fiscal morass.
Frye, a City Council member who became active in local politics after her husband, surfing legend Skip Frye, got sick from seawater polluted with urban drainage, is bidding to become San Diego's first Democratic mayor since 1992.
She is criticized by some business leaders as a no-growth obstructionist to the city's urban renewal. But she was the only member to vote "no" in a closed session in 2002 when Murphy and the City Council increased employee retirement benefits as a concession to municipal workers for continuing to underfund their pension plans.
That decision is now widely blamed for creating a massive pension shortfall that plunged the city into a financial mess, threatening sweeping cuts in services.
"Her 'no' vote is her get-out-of-jail-free card for responsibility for the pension scandal," said University of California, San Diego, political science professor Thad Kousser.
Frye's top challenger is former Police Chief Sanders, who is campaigning on a résumé of turning around troubled organizations. He boasts of restoring confidence in a police department once beset with corruption, rising crime and low morale and of resolving financial problems of the local United Way and American Red Cross while serving as chief executive officer and chairman, respectively.
Sanders was recruited by some Republican Party and business officials as an "Anyone but Donna" candidate to counter Frye, whom opponents derided as a liberal surfer unfit to lead the city.
"I decided it was too important to allow the city to fail," said Sanders, whose supporters hail a recent poll showing he would beat Frye in a two-candidate race should he force her into a November runoff.
In hot pursuit is Steve Francis, a former Nevada Assembly speaker and health care executive who has raised $1.8 million - $1.25 million from his own money - and outspent both Frye and Sanders by 6-to-1. Francis, who vows to cut the city labor force and give the work to private companies, is wagering his personal fortune in a siren call to reform a city "controlled by labor unions."
Meanwhile, candidate Pat Shea, a lawyer who helped guide Orange County through the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, says San Diego is in such dire financial shape that the city should file for bankruptcy protection as well. "I don't have a message that people want to hear, but it is the way out," he said at a recent mayoral debate.
Nearly 60 percent of local residents believe that people around the country have a worsening impression of San Diego, according to a recent poll. That is worrisome news to business leaders, including architects of a three-decade redevelopment that has lured $5.6 billion in private investment - plus $871.5 million in taxpayer money - to remake the center city.
It wasn't long ago that county jail inmates accounted for most of downtown San Diego's population and the blighted district was known for nude bars and roughneck taverns catering to sailors from Navy ships docked in the bay.
In the last two years alone, private investors have bankrolled $3 billion in development - including a housing boom around Petco Park, the San Diego Padres' gleaming new stadium - expected to lure 90,000 new residents to downtown.
"There is such a contrast between what is going on politically with the city and the redevelopment that is running on all cylinders," said Peter Hall, president of Centre City Development, a nonprofit corporation contracted by the city to spearhead the downtown resurgence. "I liken it to the 'Tale of Two Cities' - it was the best of times; it was the worst of times."
Judy Italiano, president of the 6,000-member of Municipal Employees Association, one of four city worker groups, said San Diego's elected officials made disastrous financial decisions because they were mesmerized by the downtown renewal.
"Like many politicians, they looked at that fat pension system and said, 'We'll pay it down the road. What's the harm?' " said Italiano, whose employee group also faces criticism for the financial meltdown. "They were blinded by the growth."
Every major mayoral candidate is now preaching austerity - from cutting services to laying off administrators and workers or rolling back the city's investment in redevelopment.
For Frye, there is another matter: a sense she's entitled to be mayor after losing to Murphy in last November's write-in fracas and ensuing court battles that made San Diego the Palm Beach of the West.
"This time, they'll let me serve," Frye said determinedly as she mingled with citizens outside City Hall.
"People voted for me - and then their votes didn't count. They were disenfranchised," she said. "The mayor fought and fought to discount their names. And after all that, he just quit - and walked away from it all."
Wrap...
By Peter Hecht -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, July 20, 2005
SAN DIEGO - A gusty bay wind whips her hair with a fury worthy of the financial and political storm engulfing California's second-largest city. "So much for the new mayor-do," quips Donna Frye, a leathery-skinned surf shop owner, environmentalist and populist candidate vowing to restore "ethics, honesty and accountability" to City Hall.
Frye, 53, is leading in the polls over former San Diego Police Chief Jerry Sanders in a crowded field for Tuesday's special election to select a new mayor to rescue a scandal-plagued city government.
As she strides in the swirling gusts, shaking hands with supporters at Civic Center plaza, she is just one protagonist in a tortuous, multi-act epic: San Diego's version of "On the Waterfront."
Act One is the story of a shimmering city that blossomed on San Diego Bay in an urban renaissance of castlelike hotels and apartment towers, a new baseball stadium and hip downtown villages brimming with restaurants, boutiques and street life.
Act Two is a tale of backroom deals and alleged corruption as San Diego officials underfunded employee pension plans by $1.4 billion while sweetening retirement perks for 11,000 municipal workers, paying $206 million toward the ballpark and investing hundreds of millions more in the downtown redevelopment. Five former pension board members and one current member face criminal felony conflict-of-interest charges.
Act Three is the story of Frye's quixotic write-in campaign for mayor in 2004 that stirred an election furor akin to the hanging chad of the 2000 presidential race. Frye, who entered the mayoral contest five weeks before the November runoff, outpolled incumbent Dick Murphy by 2,205 votes. But she lost when 5,547 ballots of people who wrote in her name were disallowed because they failed to mark a required bubble on their ballots.
"She is the favorite now because she has a rock-solid base of support from liberals in the city who believe she was robbed," said John Nienstedt, president of Competitive Edge Research, a San Diego polling firm. "They see her as the anointed one: the savior who is going to bring a breath of fresh air to City Hall."
Frye has a second chance because of what happened in Act Four of San Diego's civic drama. With the city government teetering on economic collapse and facing FBI and Securities and Exchange Commission investigations for alleged financial malfeasance, Murphy abruptly announced his retirement early in his second term and left office Friday.
And Monday, City Council members Ralph Inzunza and Michael Zucchet, the acting mayor, were convicted on unrelated charges of taking illegal payoffs from a strip club owner who wanted a law allowing closer contact between patrons and nude dancers. Councilwoman Toni Atkins was named temporary mayor pro tem. Zucchet resigned his council seat Tuesday. Inzunza says he intends to do the same.
"I think it's very unfortunate that San Diego is now seen as a political disgrace," Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, said before the verdicts. "We have indicted City Council members. We have a mayor - who is a former judge - resigning under the cloud of a political scandal. And the city is in financial lockdown."
Voters, intensely following the unfolding events, now can only hope that Act Five - the special mayoral election - will provide a conclusion to lead San Diego out of unrelenting scandals and a fiscal morass.
Frye, a City Council member who became active in local politics after her husband, surfing legend Skip Frye, got sick from seawater polluted with urban drainage, is bidding to become San Diego's first Democratic mayor since 1992.
She is criticized by some business leaders as a no-growth obstructionist to the city's urban renewal. But she was the only member to vote "no" in a closed session in 2002 when Murphy and the City Council increased employee retirement benefits as a concession to municipal workers for continuing to underfund their pension plans.
That decision is now widely blamed for creating a massive pension shortfall that plunged the city into a financial mess, threatening sweeping cuts in services.
"Her 'no' vote is her get-out-of-jail-free card for responsibility for the pension scandal," said University of California, San Diego, political science professor Thad Kousser.
Frye's top challenger is former Police Chief Sanders, who is campaigning on a résumé of turning around troubled organizations. He boasts of restoring confidence in a police department once beset with corruption, rising crime and low morale and of resolving financial problems of the local United Way and American Red Cross while serving as chief executive officer and chairman, respectively.
Sanders was recruited by some Republican Party and business officials as an "Anyone but Donna" candidate to counter Frye, whom opponents derided as a liberal surfer unfit to lead the city.
"I decided it was too important to allow the city to fail," said Sanders, whose supporters hail a recent poll showing he would beat Frye in a two-candidate race should he force her into a November runoff.
In hot pursuit is Steve Francis, a former Nevada Assembly speaker and health care executive who has raised $1.8 million - $1.25 million from his own money - and outspent both Frye and Sanders by 6-to-1. Francis, who vows to cut the city labor force and give the work to private companies, is wagering his personal fortune in a siren call to reform a city "controlled by labor unions."
Meanwhile, candidate Pat Shea, a lawyer who helped guide Orange County through the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, says San Diego is in such dire financial shape that the city should file for bankruptcy protection as well. "I don't have a message that people want to hear, but it is the way out," he said at a recent mayoral debate.
Nearly 60 percent of local residents believe that people around the country have a worsening impression of San Diego, according to a recent poll. That is worrisome news to business leaders, including architects of a three-decade redevelopment that has lured $5.6 billion in private investment - plus $871.5 million in taxpayer money - to remake the center city.
It wasn't long ago that county jail inmates accounted for most of downtown San Diego's population and the blighted district was known for nude bars and roughneck taverns catering to sailors from Navy ships docked in the bay.
In the last two years alone, private investors have bankrolled $3 billion in development - including a housing boom around Petco Park, the San Diego Padres' gleaming new stadium - expected to lure 90,000 new residents to downtown.
"There is such a contrast between what is going on politically with the city and the redevelopment that is running on all cylinders," said Peter Hall, president of Centre City Development, a nonprofit corporation contracted by the city to spearhead the downtown resurgence. "I liken it to the 'Tale of Two Cities' - it was the best of times; it was the worst of times."
Judy Italiano, president of the 6,000-member of Municipal Employees Association, one of four city worker groups, said San Diego's elected officials made disastrous financial decisions because they were mesmerized by the downtown renewal.
"Like many politicians, they looked at that fat pension system and said, 'We'll pay it down the road. What's the harm?' " said Italiano, whose employee group also faces criticism for the financial meltdown. "They were blinded by the growth."
Every major mayoral candidate is now preaching austerity - from cutting services to laying off administrators and workers or rolling back the city's investment in redevelopment.
For Frye, there is another matter: a sense she's entitled to be mayor after losing to Murphy in last November's write-in fracas and ensuing court battles that made San Diego the Palm Beach of the West.
"This time, they'll let me serve," Frye said determinedly as she mingled with citizens outside City Hall.
"People voted for me - and then their votes didn't count. They were disenfranchised," she said. "The mayor fought and fought to discount their names. And after all that, he just quit - and walked away from it all."
Wrap...
Pot for pain?
From www.voiceofsandiego.org
A Martyr to a Cause, a Trouble Maker, or a Misguided Fool
By KEITH TAYLOR
Voice Guest Columnist
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Some folks gathered for a sad ceremony at San Diego's City Concourse as well as at venues in at least 15 other cities Tuesday. They came to commemorate and to say goodbye to a man many thought was a hero in one of America's longest running wars. Only this war wasn't against another country or even against terrorists, and the person being honored wasn't on the winning side. Steve McWilliams earned his hero status in September 2002 when he was arrested while trying to help others. Steve was giving marijuana to folks whose pain from illnesses could be alleviated by the stuff -- an act he insisted was legal under Proposition 215. That was the proposition overwhelmingly passed by California voters in 1996. Unfortunately, by 2002, the U.S. Attorney General -- himself insisting that federal law trumped state law -- was prosecuting those who grew the plant. And don't look for a big change in the picture. In the Raich decision last month, the Supreme Court justices agreed that growing marijuana even for medicinal use was illegal no matter what the states decided. I haven't seen any objections from the party claiming to be for states' rights.
So, Steve McWilliams was on the losing end of his quest to grow the stuff, but what sort of guy would take on such a challenge anyhow? His partner, Barbara MacKenzie, told me McWilliams lived in constant pain caused by a motorcycle accident. Proposition 215 was practically a godsend for him. He not only used marijuana to alleviate his own pain, he cultivated fewer than 26 plants in a small plot behind his house. In addition, he shared it, charging others only for the cost of growing it. One neighbor described him as a kind and gentle man.
Talk show host Stacy Taylor, no stranger to crackpots, said McWilliams clearly was not a crackpot, but one who made a great effort to operate within the law. McWilliams once ran for city council in the third district getting about 7 percent of the votes while losing to Councilwoman Toni Atkins. Despite losing, he gained a friend and a supporter of his cause. After she was elected, Atkins pushed through one of his pet projects.
Atkins sent me a statement: ". . . He was a tireless and dedicated advocate for sick people and their access to medicinal marijuana. Steve was the driving force that pushed the city into action on this issue when the county refused to act. My heart goes out to Steve's parents, his close friend Barbara MacKenzie, and his many, many friends. This is truly a loss for the community."
So, Steve was a nice guy who operated within the system and was respected by so many, how about the killer weed he promoted? Were his efforts diminished by the harm it did to society? You'd think so. It has a negative history that includes egregious movies like Reefer Madness. It also has complete bipartisan support for banning it forever from pristine America. For example, Clinton spent far more on drug suppression than his predecessor, George H. W. Bush. Furthermore, his "drug czar" Barry McCaffrey even used federal money to support movies and magazine articles that made Reefer Madness look reasonable. Still, the trouble with defining marijuana as a killer weed is that it doesn't kill anybody. Unlike, say, tobacco and booze, not one single death has been directly attributed to the stuff young folks call pot. At least, I suppose they still call it that. I, a wheezing septuagenarian, have smoked less of it than Clinton claimed to have smoked.
But how about the notion that it isn't effective in alleviating pain? Surely our scientists can come up with something that works far better than ingesting or inhaling the fumes from a mere plant. Not so far, they haven't.
I checked with my own guru of scientific and clinical topics, Dr. Elie Shneour, head of San Diego Biosystems Research Institute. Elie also has enough degrees and accolades to fill a quarter-page in Who's Who. With no ax to grind, I put a lot more stock in what he says than in what's told to me by any politician who is trying to harness the hysteria of defending against a killer weed that doesn't kill. Elie told me, "For some people, marijuana is the only effective palliative for extreme pain. ... It is 'bioavailable' to alleviate the pain, i.e. it goes to the source of the pain. It is much more effective than tetrahydrocanabinol (THC), which is derived from marijuana and, with difficultly, available from official sources. Other drugs or medicines simply will not do that."
Steve McWilliams took his own life about an hour after he turned 51. Barbara MacKenzie said she had no doubt whatsoever that he was unable to stand the pain, which he wasn't allowed to alleviate by the best palliative available.
Keith Taylor is a retired Navy officer living in Chula Vista, Calif.
Wrap....
A Martyr to a Cause, a Trouble Maker, or a Misguided Fool
By KEITH TAYLOR
Voice Guest Columnist
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Some folks gathered for a sad ceremony at San Diego's City Concourse as well as at venues in at least 15 other cities Tuesday. They came to commemorate and to say goodbye to a man many thought was a hero in one of America's longest running wars. Only this war wasn't against another country or even against terrorists, and the person being honored wasn't on the winning side. Steve McWilliams earned his hero status in September 2002 when he was arrested while trying to help others. Steve was giving marijuana to folks whose pain from illnesses could be alleviated by the stuff -- an act he insisted was legal under Proposition 215. That was the proposition overwhelmingly passed by California voters in 1996. Unfortunately, by 2002, the U.S. Attorney General -- himself insisting that federal law trumped state law -- was prosecuting those who grew the plant. And don't look for a big change in the picture. In the Raich decision last month, the Supreme Court justices agreed that growing marijuana even for medicinal use was illegal no matter what the states decided. I haven't seen any objections from the party claiming to be for states' rights.
So, Steve McWilliams was on the losing end of his quest to grow the stuff, but what sort of guy would take on such a challenge anyhow? His partner, Barbara MacKenzie, told me McWilliams lived in constant pain caused by a motorcycle accident. Proposition 215 was practically a godsend for him. He not only used marijuana to alleviate his own pain, he cultivated fewer than 26 plants in a small plot behind his house. In addition, he shared it, charging others only for the cost of growing it. One neighbor described him as a kind and gentle man.
Talk show host Stacy Taylor, no stranger to crackpots, said McWilliams clearly was not a crackpot, but one who made a great effort to operate within the law. McWilliams once ran for city council in the third district getting about 7 percent of the votes while losing to Councilwoman Toni Atkins. Despite losing, he gained a friend and a supporter of his cause. After she was elected, Atkins pushed through one of his pet projects.
Atkins sent me a statement: ". . . He was a tireless and dedicated advocate for sick people and their access to medicinal marijuana. Steve was the driving force that pushed the city into action on this issue when the county refused to act. My heart goes out to Steve's parents, his close friend Barbara MacKenzie, and his many, many friends. This is truly a loss for the community."
So, Steve was a nice guy who operated within the system and was respected by so many, how about the killer weed he promoted? Were his efforts diminished by the harm it did to society? You'd think so. It has a negative history that includes egregious movies like Reefer Madness. It also has complete bipartisan support for banning it forever from pristine America. For example, Clinton spent far more on drug suppression than his predecessor, George H. W. Bush. Furthermore, his "drug czar" Barry McCaffrey even used federal money to support movies and magazine articles that made Reefer Madness look reasonable. Still, the trouble with defining marijuana as a killer weed is that it doesn't kill anybody. Unlike, say, tobacco and booze, not one single death has been directly attributed to the stuff young folks call pot. At least, I suppose they still call it that. I, a wheezing septuagenarian, have smoked less of it than Clinton claimed to have smoked.
But how about the notion that it isn't effective in alleviating pain? Surely our scientists can come up with something that works far better than ingesting or inhaling the fumes from a mere plant. Not so far, they haven't.
I checked with my own guru of scientific and clinical topics, Dr. Elie Shneour, head of San Diego Biosystems Research Institute. Elie also has enough degrees and accolades to fill a quarter-page in Who's Who. With no ax to grind, I put a lot more stock in what he says than in what's told to me by any politician who is trying to harness the hysteria of defending against a killer weed that doesn't kill. Elie told me, "For some people, marijuana is the only effective palliative for extreme pain. ... It is 'bioavailable' to alleviate the pain, i.e. it goes to the source of the pain. It is much more effective than tetrahydrocanabinol (THC), which is derived from marijuana and, with difficultly, available from official sources. Other drugs or medicines simply will not do that."
Steve McWilliams took his own life about an hour after he turned 51. Barbara MacKenzie said she had no doubt whatsoever that he was unable to stand the pain, which he wasn't allowed to alleviate by the best palliative available.
Keith Taylor is a retired Navy officer living in Chula Vista, Calif.
Wrap....
Is there no end to this?
Now America accuses Iran of complicity in World Trade Center attack:
Iran gave free passage to up to 10 of the September 11 hijackers just months before the 2001 attacks and offered to co-operate with al-Qa'eda against the US, an American report will say this week.
http://snipurl.com/gdvm
Wrap....
Iran gave free passage to up to 10 of the September 11 hijackers just months before the 2001 attacks and offered to co-operate with al-Qa'eda against the US, an American report will say this week.
http://snipurl.com/gdvm
Wrap....
Running very short....
Uncle Sam wants you - even if you're 42 years old :
The Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-983408.php
Wrap....
The Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-983408.php
Wrap....
Got a story?
From www.booktrade.info:
Random Land Richard & Judy Coup
Posted at 9:18AM
Wednesday 20th July 2005
by b2b newsdesk
Random House is to publish tie-in books for a new true-stories strand on Richard & Judy. Called "True", the strand will run from October 2005 with the prize being "the chance to work with a world class writer and win a publishing contract with Random House, with a guaranteed advance of £25,000 plus royalties." The winning story will be published by Century/Arrow in May 2006.
Viewers are invited to call a hotline number to give a two-minute pitch for their personal stories - "whether they be of love, adventure, loss or overcoming tremendous odds". Programme makers Cactus will then select eight stories to be filmed for the programme and members of the public will vote for their favourite. The winner will be announced in December 2005.
Wrap....
Random Land Richard & Judy Coup
Posted at 9:18AM
Wednesday 20th July 2005
by b2b newsdesk
Random House is to publish tie-in books for a new true-stories strand on Richard & Judy. Called "True", the strand will run from October 2005 with the prize being "the chance to work with a world class writer and win a publishing contract with Random House, with a guaranteed advance of £25,000 plus royalties." The winning story will be published by Century/Arrow in May 2006.
Viewers are invited to call a hotline number to give a two-minute pitch for their personal stories - "whether they be of love, adventure, loss or overcoming tremendous odds". Programme makers Cactus will then select eight stories to be filmed for the programme and members of the public will vote for their favourite. The winner will be announced in December 2005.
Wrap....
From Publishers Lunch....
Gen. Wesley Clark has signed on to serve as series editor for Palgrave Macmillan's Great Generals biography series. The line launches in February 2006 with Alan Axelrod's PATTON.
-----------------------------
FICTION
General/OtherTwo more novels by bestselling author Michael Crichton, for planned publication beginning in fall 2006, to Brian Murray at Harper, with Marjorie Braman editing, by Lynn Nesbit at Janklow & Nesbit (world English).
The Royal Shakespeare Company's new complete edition of the works of William Shakespeare, edited by scholar Jonathan Bate, with textual editing by Eric Rasmussen, presenting a modernized and editorially corrected version of the First Folio (without drawing on the Quarto texts), "modernized because actors, directors and students habitually work with modernized spelling and punctuation," and correcting "manifest printers' errors" from the Folio, to Jane von Mehren for the Modern Library, for pubication in fall 2006, by Andrew Wylie of The Wylie Agency (NA). Palgrave Macmillan will publish inEnglish everywhere except North America.
Recent Columbia MFA grad Elisa Albert's WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE A JEW, a short story collection that details with black humor the modern-day dilemmas of disaffected Jewish women, for publication in summer 2006, and an untitled novel, for publication in 2007, to Maris Kreizman at Free Press, in a pre-empt, by Jennifer Lyons at Writers House (NA).
Women's/Romance
Lora Leigh's sexy Navy SEAL trilogy, to Monique Patterson at St. Martin's, by Roberta Brown of the Brown Literary Agency.broagent@aol.com
Young AdultYA
suspense writer Gail Giles' WHAT HAPPENED TO CASS MCBRIDE?, a psychological thriller about a young man who exacts terrifying revenge on the school's most popular girl, whom he believes is at fault for the suicide of his younger brother, to Andrea Spooner at Little, Brown Children's, at auction, for two books, by Scott Treimel at Scott Treimel NY (US; UK).
Canadian rights to Harper Canada, by Scott Treimel.Elizabeth.Eulberg@twbg.com
Film
Film rights to Maureen Johnson's THE KEY TO THE GOLDEN FIREBIRD, a YA novel about three sisters, baseball, an old Pontiac Firebird, and the memory of their father, to Fox 2000, by Leslie Morgenstein and Bob Levy, producing on behalf of Alloy Entertainment.lrounds@alloyentertainment.com
NON-FICTION
Brothers Tim Burke and Michael Burke's CHECK IT OFF: Everything Every Guy Must Do While He Still Can, by a personable and useful lifestyle guide about the places guys should visit (swimming with sharks in Belize); the jobs they must try (being a DJ); parties to throw, women to date, and much more -- all before settling down, to Ben Sevier at St. Martin's, in a pre-empt, by Daniel Lazar at Writers House (world).dlazar@writershouse.com
History/Politics/Current Affairs
Former Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security Clark Kent Ervin's untitled expose on homeland security, framing American and international vulnerability in a new way and measuring the success of our defensive efforts, in a behind-the-scenes look at the struggles, shortcomings, and future of DHS, to Airie Stuart at Palgrave, for publication in spring 2006, by Eric Lupfer at the William Morris Agency.
Reference
Writing teacher for several Academy Award winners, writers and producers (including people behind such movies as Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, Scream, Star Wars, Sleepless in Seattle and Beetlejuice) John Truby's ANATOMY OF A STORY: 22 Steps to Becoming a Master Storyteller, sharing his secrets for writing a great screenplay, drawing on a broad range of philosophy and mythology to present techniques, approaches, examples and anecdotes, to Denise Oswald at Faber & Faber/Farrar, Straus, Noah Lukeman at Lukeman Literary Management (world English).noah@lukeman.com
Wrap....
-----------------------------
FICTION
General/OtherTwo more novels by bestselling author Michael Crichton, for planned publication beginning in fall 2006, to Brian Murray at Harper, with Marjorie Braman editing, by Lynn Nesbit at Janklow & Nesbit (world English).
The Royal Shakespeare Company's new complete edition of the works of William Shakespeare, edited by scholar Jonathan Bate, with textual editing by Eric Rasmussen, presenting a modernized and editorially corrected version of the First Folio (without drawing on the Quarto texts), "modernized because actors, directors and students habitually work with modernized spelling and punctuation," and correcting "manifest printers' errors" from the Folio, to Jane von Mehren for the Modern Library, for pubication in fall 2006, by Andrew Wylie of The Wylie Agency (NA). Palgrave Macmillan will publish inEnglish everywhere except North America.
Recent Columbia MFA grad Elisa Albert's WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE A JEW, a short story collection that details with black humor the modern-day dilemmas of disaffected Jewish women, for publication in summer 2006, and an untitled novel, for publication in 2007, to Maris Kreizman at Free Press, in a pre-empt, by Jennifer Lyons at Writers House (NA).
Women's/Romance
Lora Leigh's sexy Navy SEAL trilogy, to Monique Patterson at St. Martin's, by Roberta Brown of the Brown Literary Agency.broagent@aol.com
Young AdultYA
suspense writer Gail Giles' WHAT HAPPENED TO CASS MCBRIDE?, a psychological thriller about a young man who exacts terrifying revenge on the school's most popular girl, whom he believes is at fault for the suicide of his younger brother, to Andrea Spooner at Little, Brown Children's, at auction, for two books, by Scott Treimel at Scott Treimel NY (US; UK).
Canadian rights to Harper Canada, by Scott Treimel.Elizabeth.Eulberg@twbg.com
Film
Film rights to Maureen Johnson's THE KEY TO THE GOLDEN FIREBIRD, a YA novel about three sisters, baseball, an old Pontiac Firebird, and the memory of their father, to Fox 2000, by Leslie Morgenstein and Bob Levy, producing on behalf of Alloy Entertainment.lrounds@alloyentertainment.com
NON-FICTION
Brothers Tim Burke and Michael Burke's CHECK IT OFF: Everything Every Guy Must Do While He Still Can, by a personable and useful lifestyle guide about the places guys should visit (swimming with sharks in Belize); the jobs they must try (being a DJ); parties to throw, women to date, and much more -- all before settling down, to Ben Sevier at St. Martin's, in a pre-empt, by Daniel Lazar at Writers House (world).dlazar@writershouse.com
History/Politics/Current Affairs
Former Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security Clark Kent Ervin's untitled expose on homeland security, framing American and international vulnerability in a new way and measuring the success of our defensive efforts, in a behind-the-scenes look at the struggles, shortcomings, and future of DHS, to Airie Stuart at Palgrave, for publication in spring 2006, by Eric Lupfer at the William Morris Agency.
Reference
Writing teacher for several Academy Award winners, writers and producers (including people behind such movies as Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, Scream, Star Wars, Sleepless in Seattle and Beetlejuice) John Truby's ANATOMY OF A STORY: 22 Steps to Becoming a Master Storyteller, sharing his secrets for writing a great screenplay, drawing on a broad range of philosophy and mythology to present techniques, approaches, examples and anecdotes, to Denise Oswald at Faber & Faber/Farrar, Straus, Noah Lukeman at Lukeman Literary Management (world English).noah@lukeman.com
Wrap....
1st fix INS!!!
US Republicans Introduce Tough Immigration Bill
Reuters
Tuesday 19 July 2005
Washignton - All of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States would have to leave the country under an immigration bill introduced on Tuesday by two conservative Republican senators.
The bill by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and Texas Sen. John Cornyn is a tougher alternative to a rival bipartisan bill introduced two month ago that would allow some illegals to get jobs legally and eventually gain citizenship without leaving the country.
The Kyl-Cornyn bill calls for the creation of a machine-readable, tamper-proof Social Security card that would be issued to every American in the workforce to prevent illegals from getting jobs.
It would also fund the hiring of 10,000 new Department of Homeland Security personnel dedicated to weeding illegal immigrants out of the workforce and an additional 1,000 for detecting immigration fraud.
Companies that hired illegal immigrants would face tough fines.
Additionally, the bill would authorize the recruitment of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents over five years and a $2.5 billion investment in unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, barriers and sensors along the Mexican border.
The senators did not give a total cost for the bill but a fact sheet distributed with their proposal contained partial costs of well over $12 billion.
"We start with the proposition that we have to enforce the law at the border and in the interior of the country and at the workplace," Kyl told a news conference.
Cornyn said the bill contained an orderly and dignified way for illegal immigrants in the country to return home.
They would have five years in which to do so. Illegals who refuse would face fines of $2,000 a year for each year they stayed beyond the deadline if they subsequently left and then tried to apply to immigrate legally.
"Those who are here today illegally will have to return, every one of them, to their country of origin," Cornyn said.
The 2000 Census estimated the number of people who are in the country illegally at 8.7 million and said it was growing by half a million a year. Others put the number much higher.
'Mass Deportation'
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, an author of the rival bipartisan bill, said: "The mass deportation of illegal immigrant persons as contemplated by the Cornyn-Kyl bill is not a realistic solution, and won't solve the security and economic problems we face."
Pro-immigration groups blasted the proposal. Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum said it was completely unworkable as well as massively expensive.
"There is no reason for the millions of illegal immigrants to come forward. We don't think this bill takes us in the direction of fixing our broken immigration system," she said.
Michele Waslin of the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic organization, said illegal immigrants would not sign up for voluntary deportation.
"There's no viable path for them in this bill to gain citizenship and that's problematic," she said.
The bill does envisage the creation of a guest worker program. But foreign workers would only be allowed to stay in the country for two years at a time for a maximum of six years, and would not be allowed to bring their families with them.
At the end of two years, the workers would have to return home for at least a year before being allowed to return for a further two years.
Wrap...
Reuters
Tuesday 19 July 2005
Washignton - All of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States would have to leave the country under an immigration bill introduced on Tuesday by two conservative Republican senators.
The bill by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and Texas Sen. John Cornyn is a tougher alternative to a rival bipartisan bill introduced two month ago that would allow some illegals to get jobs legally and eventually gain citizenship without leaving the country.
The Kyl-Cornyn bill calls for the creation of a machine-readable, tamper-proof Social Security card that would be issued to every American in the workforce to prevent illegals from getting jobs.
It would also fund the hiring of 10,000 new Department of Homeland Security personnel dedicated to weeding illegal immigrants out of the workforce and an additional 1,000 for detecting immigration fraud.
Companies that hired illegal immigrants would face tough fines.
Additionally, the bill would authorize the recruitment of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents over five years and a $2.5 billion investment in unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, barriers and sensors along the Mexican border.
The senators did not give a total cost for the bill but a fact sheet distributed with their proposal contained partial costs of well over $12 billion.
"We start with the proposition that we have to enforce the law at the border and in the interior of the country and at the workplace," Kyl told a news conference.
Cornyn said the bill contained an orderly and dignified way for illegal immigrants in the country to return home.
They would have five years in which to do so. Illegals who refuse would face fines of $2,000 a year for each year they stayed beyond the deadline if they subsequently left and then tried to apply to immigrate legally.
"Those who are here today illegally will have to return, every one of them, to their country of origin," Cornyn said.
The 2000 Census estimated the number of people who are in the country illegally at 8.7 million and said it was growing by half a million a year. Others put the number much higher.
'Mass Deportation'
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, an author of the rival bipartisan bill, said: "The mass deportation of illegal immigrant persons as contemplated by the Cornyn-Kyl bill is not a realistic solution, and won't solve the security and economic problems we face."
Pro-immigration groups blasted the proposal. Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum said it was completely unworkable as well as massively expensive.
"There is no reason for the millions of illegal immigrants to come forward. We don't think this bill takes us in the direction of fixing our broken immigration system," she said.
Michele Waslin of the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic organization, said illegal immigrants would not sign up for voluntary deportation.
"There's no viable path for them in this bill to gain citizenship and that's problematic," she said.
The bill does envisage the creation of a guest worker program. But foreign workers would only be allowed to stay in the country for two years at a time for a maximum of six years, and would not be allowed to bring their families with them.
At the end of two years, the workers would have to return home for at least a year before being allowed to return for a further two years.
Wrap...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)