cartoon
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 9:49 AM
0 comments
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Friday, June 24, 2005
from M Shomon's About.com site
June 23, 2005
Thyroid Cancer Survivors Need More Frequent Blood Testing for RecurrenceA blood test for thyroid cancer can detect persistent or recurrent disease even before doctors can find any trace of a tumor, according to a new study. The findings suggest that people treated for the disease should be examined regularly for early signs of recurrence. The study, by researchers at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (OSU CCC – James), examined how well a test for thyroid cancer can predict whether the disease will recur.
The findings were published June 21 online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
The test measures a protein known as thyroglobulin (Tg), which is made by thyroid-cancer cells. The measurement is taken after a person is injected with a relatively new drug known as thyrotropin alfa, or Thyrogen. The drug allows Tg testing without the sometimes debilitating side effects of hypothyroidism that otherwise accompany the test when stimulation testing is done.
“We were surprised to find that even with relatively low thyroglobulin levels, and even when there is no sign of a tumor, about 80 percent of patients had a recurrence of their cancer within three to five years,” says first author Richard T. Kloos, associate professor of internal medicine and radiology.
“This indicates that we are detecting these tumors very early, and that time and diligence may be needed to find them.”
The study also found that even when Tg levels are very low or undetectable, about 2 to 5 percent of patients still have a recurrence after three to five years.
“Currently, some thyroid-cancer treatment guidelines say that these patients may never need further testing, but our data contradict that,” says Kloos, co-director of the Thyroid Cancer Unit at the OSU CCC – James.
Thyroid cancer is usually treated surgically by removing the thyroid gland, followed by drinking radioactive iodine to kill any remaining cancer cells. Patients must then take synthetic thyroid hormone for life.
With all thyroid cells eliminated, the Tg level should be zero, and its presence later signals a possible return of the disease. (Sometimes, however, low levels of Tg can be present following treatment, and slowly decline over time.)
In the past, Tg testing required that patients stop taking their synthetic thyroid hormone several weeks before the test.
“That worked fairly well, except that some people became miserable after they stopped taking their synthetic thyroid hormone and became hypothyroid,” Kloos says. “Some patients claimed that they'd rather die of their disease than go through that regularly.”
Withdrawing from thyroid hormone can cause fatigue, weight gain, constipation, mental dullness, lethargy, depression and other symptoms.
Thyrogen, approved for use in 1998, allowed people to have a stimulated Tg test and continue taking the synthetic hormone.
The present study sought to help interpret the results of the Thyrogen-assisted Tg test. It involved 107 patients (88 women and 19 men; average age 36 years) treated for papillary, follicular or Hurthle cell thyroid cancer. Following surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, the patients were injected with Thyrogen and tested for Tg levels between January 1999 and March 2001.
The patients were divided into three groups based on their Tg reading. Group 1 patients had Tg levels below 0.5, group 2 had Tg levels of 0.6 to 2.0, and Group 3 had Tg levels greater than 2.0. (The numbers represent nanograms of Tg per milliliter of blood serum.)
After three to five years, the researchers found recurrent tumors in about 80 percent of the patients with Tg levels above 2.0, and in about 2 percent of those with Tg levels below 0.5.
An estimated 25,690 new cases of thyroid cancer are expected in 2005, with 19,190 of those expected to occur in women; 1,490 people are expected to die of the disease. In addition, about 330,000 living Americans have been treated for thyroid cancer, about 20 percent of whom are likely to have a recurrence
Thyroid Cancer Survivors Need More Frequent Blood Testing for RecurrenceA blood test for thyroid cancer can detect persistent or recurrent disease even before doctors can find any trace of a tumor, according to a new study. The findings suggest that people treated for the disease should be examined regularly for early signs of recurrence. The study, by researchers at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (OSU CCC – James), examined how well a test for thyroid cancer can predict whether the disease will recur.
The findings were published June 21 online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
The test measures a protein known as thyroglobulin (Tg), which is made by thyroid-cancer cells. The measurement is taken after a person is injected with a relatively new drug known as thyrotropin alfa, or Thyrogen. The drug allows Tg testing without the sometimes debilitating side effects of hypothyroidism that otherwise accompany the test when stimulation testing is done.
“We were surprised to find that even with relatively low thyroglobulin levels, and even when there is no sign of a tumor, about 80 percent of patients had a recurrence of their cancer within three to five years,” says first author Richard T. Kloos, associate professor of internal medicine and radiology.
“This indicates that we are detecting these tumors very early, and that time and diligence may be needed to find them.”
The study also found that even when Tg levels are very low or undetectable, about 2 to 5 percent of patients still have a recurrence after three to five years.
“Currently, some thyroid-cancer treatment guidelines say that these patients may never need further testing, but our data contradict that,” says Kloos, co-director of the Thyroid Cancer Unit at the OSU CCC – James.
Thyroid cancer is usually treated surgically by removing the thyroid gland, followed by drinking radioactive iodine to kill any remaining cancer cells. Patients must then take synthetic thyroid hormone for life.
With all thyroid cells eliminated, the Tg level should be zero, and its presence later signals a possible return of the disease. (Sometimes, however, low levels of Tg can be present following treatment, and slowly decline over time.)
In the past, Tg testing required that patients stop taking their synthetic thyroid hormone several weeks before the test.
“That worked fairly well, except that some people became miserable after they stopped taking their synthetic thyroid hormone and became hypothyroid,” Kloos says. “Some patients claimed that they'd rather die of their disease than go through that regularly.”
Withdrawing from thyroid hormone can cause fatigue, weight gain, constipation, mental dullness, lethargy, depression and other symptoms.
Thyrogen, approved for use in 1998, allowed people to have a stimulated Tg test and continue taking the synthetic hormone.
The present study sought to help interpret the results of the Thyrogen-assisted Tg test. It involved 107 patients (88 women and 19 men; average age 36 years) treated for papillary, follicular or Hurthle cell thyroid cancer. Following surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, the patients were injected with Thyrogen and tested for Tg levels between January 1999 and March 2001.
The patients were divided into three groups based on their Tg reading. Group 1 patients had Tg levels below 0.5, group 2 had Tg levels of 0.6 to 2.0, and Group 3 had Tg levels greater than 2.0. (The numbers represent nanograms of Tg per milliliter of blood serum.)
After three to five years, the researchers found recurrent tumors in about 80 percent of the patients with Tg levels above 2.0, and in about 2 percent of those with Tg levels below 0.5.
An estimated 25,690 new cases of thyroid cancer are expected in 2005, with 19,190 of those expected to occur in women; 1,490 people are expected to die of the disease. In addition, about 330,000 living Americans have been treated for thyroid cancer, about 20 percent of whom are likely to have a recurrence
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 10:01 AM
0 comments
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Elmo Rocks!
On 23 June 2005 the House of Representatives decided, by a 284-140 vote, to rescind the House Appropriations Committee's proposed $100 million cut in federal funds from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Last updated: 23 June 2005
from snopes/urban legends page.
well- yes a made a call to thaddeus mccotter "our " R. Rep-
left a message *_* I think many called- how else would this have happened?
thanks to everyone- golly gee- it works!
now we need to keep calling and writing......
so..today the cable guy arrived- an hour late. Derrick (sp?) was so very friendly and cheerful- had it set up in about 15 minutes- then he helped me move 2 heavy pieces of furniture- Bless his heart. He did admit he was planning to switch- from the co. he works for! to WOWWAY - out of Colorado I believe- & we are looking into it. communications are becoming a little too expensive what with higher gas prices and airline tickets...I guess if you can't fly somewhere- you can at least see if there is anything of interest on the over 100 channels .....
from snopes/urban legends page.
well- yes a made a call to thaddeus mccotter "our " R. Rep-
left a message *_* I think many called- how else would this have happened?
thanks to everyone- golly gee- it works!
now we need to keep calling and writing......
so..today the cable guy arrived- an hour late. Derrick (sp?) was so very friendly and cheerful- had it set up in about 15 minutes- then he helped me move 2 heavy pieces of furniture- Bless his heart. He did admit he was planning to switch- from the co. he works for! to WOWWAY - out of Colorado I believe- & we are looking into it. communications are becoming a little too expensive what with higher gas prices and airline tickets...I guess if you can't fly somewhere- you can at least see if there is anything of interest on the over 100 channels .....
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 7:50 PM
1 comments
Saturday, June 18, 2005
6-18
ON THIS DAY
On June 18, 1948, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted its International Declaration of Human Rights.
( initiated and co-authored by Eleanor Roosevelt, btw)
On June 18, 1948, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted its International Declaration of Human Rights.
( initiated and co-authored by Eleanor Roosevelt, btw)
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 11:29 AM
0 comments
Friday, June 17, 2005
Here it is verbatim> from downing streetmemo.com
originally reported in the The Times of London, May 1, 2005
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNINGFrom: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
[emphasis added]
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNINGFrom: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
[emphasis added]
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 12:45 PM
0 comments
Thursday, June 16, 2005
a PERSONAL NOTE
OK- so now I know I have more readers than my original faithful 2-
JgW and JhL - thanks to you !!! for helping me to become a blageur....( I have not looked it up yet- it is french for what I don't know but I like the spelling )
I also know those readers are more interested in seeing their initials mentioned here rather than my 'soap box' offerings .....you know who you are! LOL
so for those who prefer a gossip column- here we go-
RmA , RN phoned the other day- busy entertaining nephews this week.
Off to costco with her 8 month old TWIN grandniece Evelyn and grandnephew Max.....you go girl - 3rd set of twins in R's family. (I think it's only 3.!)
Father's Day - Sunday: driving up to Lake Orion...promises to be a weather perfect day.
I bought a b/p monitor yesterday- but seems the cuff is too small- so back to the store for an exchange and off to print & frame photos for gifts ....
since April 20th we have been minus scanner printer and audio capabilities ...
it is annoying to have to pay for copying services.
Home Improvement update- we are really enjoying the new space. The kitchen changes are much more accomodating to the fibromyalgiac limitations. Dishwasher is raised, drawers pull out fully- lowered countertop for easy chopping, mixing, etc.
Freshly painted and empty of furniture ( ie TV ) - the family room is an oasis.
I could rave on, sufficient to say we are almost done and feeling good with our choices.
Need to get out to errands- and will con't later-
enjoy your day ~~
JgW and JhL - thanks to you !!! for helping me to become a blageur....( I have not looked it up yet- it is french for what I don't know but I like the spelling )
I also know those readers are more interested in seeing their initials mentioned here rather than my 'soap box' offerings .....you know who you are! LOL
so for those who prefer a gossip column- here we go-
RmA , RN phoned the other day- busy entertaining nephews this week.
Off to costco with her 8 month old TWIN grandniece Evelyn and grandnephew Max.....you go girl - 3rd set of twins in R's family. (I think it's only 3.!)
Father's Day - Sunday: driving up to Lake Orion...promises to be a weather perfect day.
I bought a b/p monitor yesterday- but seems the cuff is too small- so back to the store for an exchange and off to print & frame photos for gifts ....
since April 20th we have been minus scanner printer and audio capabilities ...
it is annoying to have to pay for copying services.
Home Improvement update- we are really enjoying the new space. The kitchen changes are much more accomodating to the fibromyalgiac limitations. Dishwasher is raised, drawers pull out fully- lowered countertop for easy chopping, mixing, etc.
Freshly painted and empty of furniture ( ie TV ) - the family room is an oasis.
I could rave on, sufficient to say we are almost done and feeling good with our choices.
Need to get out to errands- and will con't later-
enjoy your day ~~
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 9:21 AM
0 comments
show me the money
June 16, 2005
Raise the Price of Fame
By NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE
FEW people are aware that several years ago Congress, in its wisdom, limited to $1 million the amount of a chief executive's pay that a corporation could annually deduct as a business expense when calculating its income tax. The provision of the legislation, imaginatively titled by ebullient accountants as "Section 162(m)" of the Internal Revenue Code, did permit exceptions - for example, when the pay was "performance-based" and tied to objective goals.
The government deems the leadership of companies that do business with it to be even less worthy. In fiscal year 2005, companies that, say, provide equipment for the armed forces, are precluded from recovering in the total cost of those products annual compensation for a chief executive over $473,318. (One cannot help but be in awe over the government's ability to decree with such exactitude.)
Nonetheless, in this instance Washington may have been on to something. The occasional good chief executive aside, how could anyone defend the extravagant compensation of Bernard J. Ebbers (who pocketed more than $400 million in salary and company-secured loans before WorldCom crashed); Kenneth L. Lay (who received more than $100 million in compensation the year Enron went belly up); or Richard M. Scrushy of HealthSouth ($125 million over five years).
Assuming that having Congress seek to influence pay scales in the private sector is good public policy, we must ask ourselves - even recognizing that chief executives are now about as popular as Attorney General Eliot Spitzer at a Business Roundtable picnic - why focus only on chief executives?
Why not really increase tax receipts by applying a version of the existing law to superstar athletes, rock stars, movie directors and a few others one might, with a bit of extra effort, be able to conjure up? After all, wouldn't there be some rough justice to the public getting something back from the likes of Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds (both at the center of baseball's steroid storms) with contracts of $120 million for seven years and $90 million for five years, respectively? Or Latrell Sprewell (who choked his basketball coach) at $62 million for five years, or Kobe Bryant (who had rape charges against him dropped) with his new contract at $136 million for seven years? Or Howard Stern (fined by the Federal Communications Commission), who recently signed a $500 million, five-year radio contract?
The new legislation could be called the "Robin Hood Tax Act of 2005." How could anyone be against Robin Hood? The beauty of the Robin Hood Act is not what these funds could do for our country, but what our country could do with these funds. The added revenues would not be used to reduce the national debt, modify Social Security, or even pay for premium pork. Rather, they would underwrite just three initiatives: providing merit bonuses for public school teachers, supplementing the wages of nurses working in public hospitals, and increasing the pay and death benefits of America's soldiers serving in combat zones.
And best of all, the pain would hardly be noticeable to the big earners involved. As Randy Moss of the Minnesota Vikings put it after being fined $10,000 for pretending to moon Green Bay fans: "Ain't nothing but 10 grand. What's 10 grand to me?"
Norman R. Augustine is the retired chairman and chief executive of the Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Raise the Price of Fame
By NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE
FEW people are aware that several years ago Congress, in its wisdom, limited to $1 million the amount of a chief executive's pay that a corporation could annually deduct as a business expense when calculating its income tax. The provision of the legislation, imaginatively titled by ebullient accountants as "Section 162(m)" of the Internal Revenue Code, did permit exceptions - for example, when the pay was "performance-based" and tied to objective goals.
The government deems the leadership of companies that do business with it to be even less worthy. In fiscal year 2005, companies that, say, provide equipment for the armed forces, are precluded from recovering in the total cost of those products annual compensation for a chief executive over $473,318. (One cannot help but be in awe over the government's ability to decree with such exactitude.)
Nonetheless, in this instance Washington may have been on to something. The occasional good chief executive aside, how could anyone defend the extravagant compensation of Bernard J. Ebbers (who pocketed more than $400 million in salary and company-secured loans before WorldCom crashed); Kenneth L. Lay (who received more than $100 million in compensation the year Enron went belly up); or Richard M. Scrushy of HealthSouth ($125 million over five years).
Assuming that having Congress seek to influence pay scales in the private sector is good public policy, we must ask ourselves - even recognizing that chief executives are now about as popular as Attorney General Eliot Spitzer at a Business Roundtable picnic - why focus only on chief executives?
Why not really increase tax receipts by applying a version of the existing law to superstar athletes, rock stars, movie directors and a few others one might, with a bit of extra effort, be able to conjure up? After all, wouldn't there be some rough justice to the public getting something back from the likes of Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds (both at the center of baseball's steroid storms) with contracts of $120 million for seven years and $90 million for five years, respectively? Or Latrell Sprewell (who choked his basketball coach) at $62 million for five years, or Kobe Bryant (who had rape charges against him dropped) with his new contract at $136 million for seven years? Or Howard Stern (fined by the Federal Communications Commission), who recently signed a $500 million, five-year radio contract?
The new legislation could be called the "Robin Hood Tax Act of 2005." How could anyone be against Robin Hood? The beauty of the Robin Hood Act is not what these funds could do for our country, but what our country could do with these funds. The added revenues would not be used to reduce the national debt, modify Social Security, or even pay for premium pork. Rather, they would underwrite just three initiatives: providing merit bonuses for public school teachers, supplementing the wages of nurses working in public hospitals, and increasing the pay and death benefits of America's soldiers serving in combat zones.
And best of all, the pain would hardly be noticeable to the big earners involved. As Randy Moss of the Minnesota Vikings put it after being fined $10,000 for pretending to moon Green Bay fans: "Ain't nothing but 10 grand. What's 10 grand to me?"
Norman R. Augustine is the retired chairman and chief executive of the Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 8:09 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Happy Flag Day- June 14 2005
Something Rotten in Ohio
By Gore Vidal, The NationPosted on June 14, 2005, Printed on June 14, 2005http://www.alternet.org/story/22222/
Outside the oil and gas junta that controls two and a half branches of our government (the half soon to be whole is the judiciary), there was a good deal of envy at the late British election among those Americans who are serious about politics. Little money was spent by the three parties and none for TV advertising. Results were achieved swiftly and cheaply. Best of all, the three party leaders were quizzed sharply and intelligently by ordinary citizens known quaintly as subjects, thanks to the ubiquitous phantom crown so unlike our nuclear-taloned predatory eagle. Although news of foreign countries seldom appears in our tightly censored media (and good news, never), those of us who are addicted to C-SPAN and find it the one truly, if unconsciously, subversive media outlet in these United States are able to observe British politics in full cry.
I say "subversive" not only because C-SPAN is apt to take interesting books seriously but also because its live coverage of the Senate and the House of Representatives is the only look we are ever allowed at the mouthpieces of our masters up close and is, at times, most reflective of a government more and more remote from us, unaccountable and repressive. To watch the righteous old prophet Byrd of West Virginia, the sunny hypocrisy of Biden of Delaware -- as I write these hallowed names, I summon up their faces, hear their voices, and I am covered with C-SPAN goose bumps.
At any rate, wondrous C-SPAN has another string to its bow. While some executive was nodding, C-SPAN started showing us Britain's House of Commons during Question Time. This is the only glimpse that most Americans will ever get of how democracy is supposed to work.
These party leaders are pitted against one another in often savage debate on subjects of war and peace, health and education. Then some 600 Members of Parliament are allowed to ask questions of their great chieftains. Years ago the incomparable Dwight Macdonald wrote that any letter to the London Times (the Brits are inveterate letter writers on substantive issues) is better written than any editorial in the New York Times.
In addition to Question Time, which allows Americans to see how political democracy works, as opposed to our two chambers of lobbyists for corporate America, C-SPAN also showed the three party leaders being interrogated by a cross section of, for the most part, youthful subjects of the phantom crown and presided over by an experienced political journalist. Blair was roughly accused of lying about the legal advice he had received apropos Britain's right to go to war in Iraq for the US oil and gas junta. This BBC live audience asked far more informed and informative questions than the entire US press corps was allowed to ask Bush et al. in our recent election. But Americans are not used to challenging authority in what has been called wartime by a President who has ordered invasions of two countries that have done us no harm and is now planning future wars despite dwindling manpower and lack of money. Blair, for just going along, had to deal with savage, informed questions of a sort that Bush would never answer even if he were competent to do so.
So we have seen what democracy across the water can do. All in all a jarring experience for anyone foolish enough to believe that America is democratic in anything except furiously imprisoning the innocent and joyously electing the guilty. What to do? As a first step, I invite the radicals at C-SPAN who take seriously our Constitution and Bill of Rights to address their attention to the corruption of the presidential election of 2004, particularly in the state of Ohio.
One of the most useful members of the House -- currently the most useful -- is John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat who, in his capacity as ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, led the committee's Democratic Congressmen and their staffers into the heart of the American heartland, the Western Reserve; specifically, into the not-so-red state of Ohio, once known as "the mother of Presidents."
He had come to answer the question that the minority of Americans who care about the Republic have been asking since November 2004: "What went wrong in Ohio?" He is too modest to note the difficulties he must have undergone even to assemble this team in the face of the triumphalist Republican Congressional majority, not to mention the unlikely heir to himself, George W. Bush, whose original selection by the Supreme Court brought forth many reports on what went wrong in Florida in 2000.
These led to an apology from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens for the behavior of the 5-to-4 majority of the Court in the matter of Bush v. Gore. Loser Bush then brought on undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the greatest deficits in our history and the revelations that the policies of an Administration that -- much as Count Dracula fled cloves of garlic -- flees all accountability were responsible for the murder and torture of captive men, between 70 percent and 90 percent of whom, by the Pentagon's estimate, had been swept up at random, earning us the hatred of a billion Muslims and the disgust of what is called the civilized world.
Asked to predict who would win in '04, I said that, again, Bush would lose, but I was confident that in the four years between 2000 and 2004 creative propaganda and the fixing of election officials might very well be so perfected as to insure an official victory for Mr. Bush. As Representative Conyers's report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio (3.2 MB PDF link), shows in great detail, the swing state of Ohio was carefully set up to deliver an apparent victory for Bush even though Kerry appears to have been the popular winner as well as the valedictorian-that-never-was of the Electoral College.
I urge would-be reformers of our politics as well as of such anachronisms as the Electoral College to read Conyers's valuable guide on how to steal an election once you have in place the supervisor of the state's electoral process: In this case, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who orchestrated a famous victory for those who hate democracy (a permanent but passionate minority). The Conyers Report states categorically, "With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State Kenneth J. Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio." In other words, the Florida 2000 scenario redux, when the chair for Bush/Cheney was also the Secretary of State. Lesson? Always plan ahead for at least four more years.
It is well-known in the United States of Amnesia that not only did Ohio have a considerable number of first-time voters but that Blackwell and his gang, through "the misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters."
For the past few years many of us have been warning about the electronic voting machines, first publicized on the Internet by investigator Bev Harris, for which she was much reviled by the officers of such companies as Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Triad; this last voting computer company "has essentially admitted that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous counties to provide 'cheat sheets' to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election officials how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law."
Yet despite all this manpower and money power, exit polls showed that Kerry would win Ohio. So, what happened?
I have told more than enough of this mystery story so thoroughly investigated by Conyers and his Congressional colleagues and their staffers. Not only were the crimes against democracy investigated but the report on What Went Wrong in Ohio comes up with quite a number of ways to set things right.
Needless to say, this report was ignored when the Electoral College produced its unexamined tally of the votes state by state. Needless to say, no joint committee of the two houses of Congress was convened to consider the various crimes committed and to find ways and means to avoid their repetition in 2008, should we be allowed to hold an election once we have unilaterally, yet again, engaged in a war -- this time with Iran. Anyway, thanks to Conyers, the writing is now high up there on the wall for us all to see clearly: "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin." Students of the Good Book will know what these words of God meant to Belshazzar and his cronies in old Babylon.
Gore Vidal is a contributing editor to The Nation, and a novelist, playwright and essayist. His recent books include Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta and Imperial America, out in paperback this September (Thunder's Mouth/Nation Books).
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/22222/
By Gore Vidal, The NationPosted on June 14, 2005, Printed on June 14, 2005http://www.alternet.org/story/22222/
Outside the oil and gas junta that controls two and a half branches of our government (the half soon to be whole is the judiciary), there was a good deal of envy at the late British election among those Americans who are serious about politics. Little money was spent by the three parties and none for TV advertising. Results were achieved swiftly and cheaply. Best of all, the three party leaders were quizzed sharply and intelligently by ordinary citizens known quaintly as subjects, thanks to the ubiquitous phantom crown so unlike our nuclear-taloned predatory eagle. Although news of foreign countries seldom appears in our tightly censored media (and good news, never), those of us who are addicted to C-SPAN and find it the one truly, if unconsciously, subversive media outlet in these United States are able to observe British politics in full cry.
I say "subversive" not only because C-SPAN is apt to take interesting books seriously but also because its live coverage of the Senate and the House of Representatives is the only look we are ever allowed at the mouthpieces of our masters up close and is, at times, most reflective of a government more and more remote from us, unaccountable and repressive. To watch the righteous old prophet Byrd of West Virginia, the sunny hypocrisy of Biden of Delaware -- as I write these hallowed names, I summon up their faces, hear their voices, and I am covered with C-SPAN goose bumps.
At any rate, wondrous C-SPAN has another string to its bow. While some executive was nodding, C-SPAN started showing us Britain's House of Commons during Question Time. This is the only glimpse that most Americans will ever get of how democracy is supposed to work.
These party leaders are pitted against one another in often savage debate on subjects of war and peace, health and education. Then some 600 Members of Parliament are allowed to ask questions of their great chieftains. Years ago the incomparable Dwight Macdonald wrote that any letter to the London Times (the Brits are inveterate letter writers on substantive issues) is better written than any editorial in the New York Times.
In addition to Question Time, which allows Americans to see how political democracy works, as opposed to our two chambers of lobbyists for corporate America, C-SPAN also showed the three party leaders being interrogated by a cross section of, for the most part, youthful subjects of the phantom crown and presided over by an experienced political journalist. Blair was roughly accused of lying about the legal advice he had received apropos Britain's right to go to war in Iraq for the US oil and gas junta. This BBC live audience asked far more informed and informative questions than the entire US press corps was allowed to ask Bush et al. in our recent election. But Americans are not used to challenging authority in what has been called wartime by a President who has ordered invasions of two countries that have done us no harm and is now planning future wars despite dwindling manpower and lack of money. Blair, for just going along, had to deal with savage, informed questions of a sort that Bush would never answer even if he were competent to do so.
So we have seen what democracy across the water can do. All in all a jarring experience for anyone foolish enough to believe that America is democratic in anything except furiously imprisoning the innocent and joyously electing the guilty. What to do? As a first step, I invite the radicals at C-SPAN who take seriously our Constitution and Bill of Rights to address their attention to the corruption of the presidential election of 2004, particularly in the state of Ohio.
One of the most useful members of the House -- currently the most useful -- is John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat who, in his capacity as ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, led the committee's Democratic Congressmen and their staffers into the heart of the American heartland, the Western Reserve; specifically, into the not-so-red state of Ohio, once known as "the mother of Presidents."
He had come to answer the question that the minority of Americans who care about the Republic have been asking since November 2004: "What went wrong in Ohio?" He is too modest to note the difficulties he must have undergone even to assemble this team in the face of the triumphalist Republican Congressional majority, not to mention the unlikely heir to himself, George W. Bush, whose original selection by the Supreme Court brought forth many reports on what went wrong in Florida in 2000.
These led to an apology from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens for the behavior of the 5-to-4 majority of the Court in the matter of Bush v. Gore. Loser Bush then brought on undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the greatest deficits in our history and the revelations that the policies of an Administration that -- much as Count Dracula fled cloves of garlic -- flees all accountability were responsible for the murder and torture of captive men, between 70 percent and 90 percent of whom, by the Pentagon's estimate, had been swept up at random, earning us the hatred of a billion Muslims and the disgust of what is called the civilized world.
Asked to predict who would win in '04, I said that, again, Bush would lose, but I was confident that in the four years between 2000 and 2004 creative propaganda and the fixing of election officials might very well be so perfected as to insure an official victory for Mr. Bush. As Representative Conyers's report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio (3.2 MB PDF link), shows in great detail, the swing state of Ohio was carefully set up to deliver an apparent victory for Bush even though Kerry appears to have been the popular winner as well as the valedictorian-that-never-was of the Electoral College.
I urge would-be reformers of our politics as well as of such anachronisms as the Electoral College to read Conyers's valuable guide on how to steal an election once you have in place the supervisor of the state's electoral process: In this case, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who orchestrated a famous victory for those who hate democracy (a permanent but passionate minority). The Conyers Report states categorically, "With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State Kenneth J. Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio." In other words, the Florida 2000 scenario redux, when the chair for Bush/Cheney was also the Secretary of State. Lesson? Always plan ahead for at least four more years.
It is well-known in the United States of Amnesia that not only did Ohio have a considerable number of first-time voters but that Blackwell and his gang, through "the misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters."
For the past few years many of us have been warning about the electronic voting machines, first publicized on the Internet by investigator Bev Harris, for which she was much reviled by the officers of such companies as Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Triad; this last voting computer company "has essentially admitted that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous counties to provide 'cheat sheets' to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election officials how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law."
Yet despite all this manpower and money power, exit polls showed that Kerry would win Ohio. So, what happened?
I have told more than enough of this mystery story so thoroughly investigated by Conyers and his Congressional colleagues and their staffers. Not only were the crimes against democracy investigated but the report on What Went Wrong in Ohio comes up with quite a number of ways to set things right.
Needless to say, this report was ignored when the Electoral College produced its unexamined tally of the votes state by state. Needless to say, no joint committee of the two houses of Congress was convened to consider the various crimes committed and to find ways and means to avoid their repetition in 2008, should we be allowed to hold an election once we have unilaterally, yet again, engaged in a war -- this time with Iran. Anyway, thanks to Conyers, the writing is now high up there on the wall for us all to see clearly: "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin." Students of the Good Book will know what these words of God meant to Belshazzar and his cronies in old Babylon.
Gore Vidal is a contributing editor to The Nation, and a novelist, playwright and essayist. His recent books include Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta and Imperial America, out in paperback this September (Thunder's Mouth/Nation Books).
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/22222/
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 9:46 AM
0 comments
Monday, June 13, 2005
in case you have forgotten or didn't know.........
ON THIS DAY
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Miranda vs. Arizona decision, ruling that criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights prior to questioning by police.
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Miranda vs. Arizona decision, ruling that criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights prior to questioning by police.
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 8:07 AM
0 comments
Sunday, June 12, 2005
a Sunday morning in June
Bare lists of words are found suggestive to an imaginative and excited mind.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Happy Birthday to Adrienne OX
also Dave S in colo springs to & to Henrik in Danmark tomorrow........who will be working on his birthday and will celebrate next weekend in Nyborg with his family.
Many thanks to Jan M for the excellent cheeses and raspberry pie from Amish country in NE Ohio. Thank goodness the bakeries were open!
enjoy your day ~~
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Happy Birthday to Adrienne OX
also Dave S in colo springs to & to Henrik in Danmark tomorrow........who will be working on his birthday and will celebrate next weekend in Nyborg with his family.
Many thanks to Jan M for the excellent cheeses and raspberry pie from Amish country in NE Ohio. Thank goodness the bakeries were open!
enjoy your day ~~
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 7:31 AM
0 comments
Friday, June 10, 2005
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Monday, June 06, 2005
comments
Dear Patrick- may I have your permission to fwd this note to friends ?
" Patrick" > wrote:
Dear Mary Rose,
I wish I knew the answer to this. Levin and Stabenow must know about the Minutes and if they don't (a scary thought), they might listen to John Kerry, who's supposed to give a speech about it today or tomorrow. The Democratic leadership, except for John Conyers, has utterly failed to publicize these Minutes. I suppose it's because almost all of them were complicit in letting Bush get away with going to war based on lies while they hid under their desks and whimpered.
Anyway, I read about this over a month ago, when it appeared in the British press a few days before the election over there. The publicity about Blair's lying and mendacity as revealed in the Minutes was one of the main reasons his party lost 100 seats, because the British press did its job and made a big deal about what it considered the "smoking gun" about Blair's criminal behavior. I immediately sent copies of the Minutes to my two[Senators (who pay no attention to anyone to the left of Ann Coulter, and I'm sure automatically assign my correspondence to their "watch this subversive" file) and to my Representative, Sheila Jackson-Lee. Amazingly, within a couple of days Congressman John Conyers, ranking Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee (he represents the 14th District of Michigan -- isn't that close to you?) had put together a letter (signed by 88 other Members of Congress, including Sheila Jackson-Lee) asking Bush to answer some serious quesitons about the Minutes and the lies and criminality revealed in it. Bush has ignored the letter so far (Scotty McClellan just giggles whenever one of the lapdogs in the Press Corps gets up the nerve to mention it) as has much of the mainstream press. I don't think either the Washington Post or the New York Times has mentioned the letter, and it took two weeks before the Post acknowledged the Minutes, and then it did so under a misleading headline on page 17A. The Times has been even more worthless: If Paul Krugman hadn't mentioned it in his column, the Times would have gone merrily on its way pretending that it didn't exist, and it still is spending much more time on stuff like the Mi hael Jackson trial (or that cute white blonde teenager who got killed in Aruba; you know there wouldn't even have been a squib about her if she'd been black) than on what is clearly the "smoking gun" showing that Bush and Blair cooked the evidence and went to war based on lies and the knowledge that they were violating the law. What's it going to take to impeach these criminals? They're not only guilty of waging "aggressive war" (the crime for which we hanged the Nazis and Japanese leaders after World War Two) but they're running an illegal secret prison system with torture chambers set up around the world in which they are killing and torturing the "disappeared" (when they aren't urinating on the Koran) and when Amnesty International points out what they're up to, they scream "How dare you call our gulag a gulag?" and get all huffy about how the U.S. is a beacon for democracy and freedom and don't you forget it or you'll end up in Gitmo like the ! rest of the terrorists.
John Kerry is supposed to give a speech today about the Minutes, but I'm sure the Michael Jackson verdict will take precedence over what he says. Meanwhile, Joe Biden and John Edwards are busy giving the Republicans ammo to use against Howard Dean by attacking him for using "harsh language" to describe the Republicans' lack of actual work experience and for calling Tom Delay a "crook." I wrote my own harsh note to that idiot blowhard Biden telling him to forget ever getting my vote for President. Not that the Senator from MNBA cares about my vote, when he can get thousands of dollars in return for signing on to that bankruptcy bill. What is wrong with these people?
It's not much, but you can join your name to John Conyers' letter demanding that Bush answer a number of questions about the Minutes (not that President Cuckoo Bananas -- the memorable name given to him recently by Homer Simpson -- will do anything but stonewall, since the Crime Syndicate knows that honest answers will send the whole gang to hell). Below is the URL for signing the letter and having your name added to the list. As of June 4, Conyers had 130,000 signatures, and he's hoping to get 250,000 (I don't think Gitmo is big enough for them to lock us all up there). You can also access Conyers' original letter of May 5, 2005 (the one McClellan giggles at), with the signatures of the 88 Members of Congress attached (and which the Post and Times sent down the Memory Hole), here:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf
The petition is here:
http://johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={7E88A142-70E1-443D-9283-5279CA506563}
The surfacing of the Minutes has given me some faint hope that maybe this bunch can be brought down if only enough of us show our anger at what they've done to this country. I'm not very optimistic, since they control the voting machines and the press, but what else can we do, other than give money to Amnesty International and the ACLU? The non-co-opted courts (and how long will those last, what with extremists like Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown and their ilk being put on the bench?) and international law are the only weapons we've got left, especially since the mainstream press (with the honorable exception of the Knight-Ridder chain) is too cowed to tell the tru! th about these scoundrels.
Venceremos,
Patrick
" Patrick" > wrote:
Dear Mary Rose,
I wish I knew the answer to this. Levin and Stabenow must know about the Minutes and if they don't (a scary thought), they might listen to John Kerry, who's supposed to give a speech about it today or tomorrow. The Democratic leadership, except for John Conyers, has utterly failed to publicize these Minutes. I suppose it's because almost all of them were complicit in letting Bush get away with going to war based on lies while they hid under their desks and whimpered.
Anyway, I read about this over a month ago, when it appeared in the British press a few days before the election over there. The publicity about Blair's lying and mendacity as revealed in the Minutes was one of the main reasons his party lost 100 seats, because the British press did its job and made a big deal about what it considered the "smoking gun" about Blair's criminal behavior. I immediately sent copies of the Minutes to my two[Senators (who pay no attention to anyone to the left of Ann Coulter, and I'm sure automatically assign my correspondence to their "watch this subversive" file) and to my Representative, Sheila Jackson-Lee. Amazingly, within a couple of days Congressman John Conyers, ranking Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee (he represents the 14th District of Michigan -- isn't that close to you?) had put together a letter (signed by 88 other Members of Congress, including Sheila Jackson-Lee) asking Bush to answer some serious quesitons about the Minutes and the lies and criminality revealed in it. Bush has ignored the letter so far (Scotty McClellan just giggles whenever one of the lapdogs in the Press Corps gets up the nerve to mention it) as has much of the mainstream press. I don't think either the Washington Post or the New York Times has mentioned the letter, and it took two weeks before the Post acknowledged the Minutes, and then it did so under a misleading headline on page 17A. The Times has been even more worthless: If Paul Krugman hadn't mentioned it in his column, the Times would have gone merrily on its way pretending that it didn't exist, and it still is spending much more time on stuff like the Mi hael Jackson trial (or that cute white blonde teenager who got killed in Aruba; you know there wouldn't even have been a squib about her if she'd been black) than on what is clearly the "smoking gun" showing that Bush and Blair cooked the evidence and went to war based on lies and the knowledge that they were violating the law. What's it going to take to impeach these criminals? They're not only guilty of waging "aggressive war" (the crime for which we hanged the Nazis and Japanese leaders after World War Two) but they're running an illegal secret prison system with torture chambers set up around the world in which they are killing and torturing the "disappeared" (when they aren't urinating on the Koran) and when Amnesty International points out what they're up to, they scream "How dare you call our gulag a gulag?" and get all huffy about how the U.S. is a beacon for democracy and freedom and don't you forget it or you'll end up in Gitmo like the ! rest of the terrorists.
John Kerry is supposed to give a speech today about the Minutes, but I'm sure the Michael Jackson verdict will take precedence over what he says. Meanwhile, Joe Biden and John Edwards are busy giving the Republicans ammo to use against Howard Dean by attacking him for using "harsh language" to describe the Republicans' lack of actual work experience and for calling Tom Delay a "crook." I wrote my own harsh note to that idiot blowhard Biden telling him to forget ever getting my vote for President. Not that the Senator from MNBA cares about my vote, when he can get thousands of dollars in return for signing on to that bankruptcy bill. What is wrong with these people?
It's not much, but you can join your name to John Conyers' letter demanding that Bush answer a number of questions about the Minutes (not that President Cuckoo Bananas -- the memorable name given to him recently by Homer Simpson -- will do anything but stonewall, since the Crime Syndicate knows that honest answers will send the whole gang to hell). Below is the URL for signing the letter and having your name added to the list. As of June 4, Conyers had 130,000 signatures, and he's hoping to get 250,000 (I don't think Gitmo is big enough for them to lock us all up there). You can also access Conyers' original letter of May 5, 2005 (the one McClellan giggles at), with the signatures of the 88 Members of Congress attached (and which the Post and Times sent down the Memory Hole), here:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf
The petition is here:
http://johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={7E88A142-70E1-443D-9283-5279CA506563}
The surfacing of the Minutes has given me some faint hope that maybe this bunch can be brought down if only enough of us show our anger at what they've done to this country. I'm not very optimistic, since they control the voting machines and the press, but what else can we do, other than give money to Amnesty International and the ACLU? The non-co-opted courts (and how long will those last, what with extremists like Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown and their ilk being put on the bench?) and international law are the only weapons we've got left, especially since the mainstream press (with the honorable exception of the Knight-Ridder chain) is too cowed to tell the tru! th about these scoundrels.
Venceremos,
Patrick
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 7:32 PM
2 comments
06/06/'44
ON THIS DAY
On June 6, 1944, the D-Day invasion of Europe took place during World War II as Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France.
On June 6, 1944, the D-Day invasion of Europe took place during World War II as Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France.
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 5:10 PM
0 comments
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
quote
MAXIMUM EFFORT TO SECURE FULL CONSIDERATION OF IMPEACHMENT IS THE DUTY OF EVERYONE.
Impeachment is the means by which We The People of the United States and our elected representatives in Congress can prevent further crimes by the President and the human catastrophe they threaten and force accountability for crimes committed.
Congressional proceedings for impeachment can bring about open, fearless consideration of the most dangerous acts and threats ever committed by an American President. If courageously pursued, they can save our Constitution, the United Nations, the rule of law, the lives of countless people and leave open the possibility of peace on earth. Each of us must take a stand on impeachment now, or bear the burden of having failed to speak in this hour of maximum peril.
- - Ramsey ClarkJanuary 15, 2003
Impeachment is the means by which We The People of the United States and our elected representatives in Congress can prevent further crimes by the President and the human catastrophe they threaten and force accountability for crimes committed.
Congressional proceedings for impeachment can bring about open, fearless consideration of the most dangerous acts and threats ever committed by an American President. If courageously pursued, they can save our Constitution, the United Nations, the rule of law, the lives of countless people and leave open the possibility of peace on earth. Each of us must take a stand on impeachment now, or bear the burden of having failed to speak in this hour of maximum peril.
- - Ramsey ClarkJanuary 15, 2003
posted by ~~whileuwait @ 11:28 AM
0 comments
