Bush Promotes Fuel Cells on Earth Day
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Sat Apr 22, 11:10 AM ET
[But first ---
This is the way to go and I'll have to praise Bush for getting on the horse from the Left side rather than from the Right (those of you who know horses will understand).
The cost of gasoline is not Bush's fault, it is world demand - especially China and India. On top of that, of course, will be the seasonal fluctuations so this summer it should go sky high - maybe to four or five bucks a gallon. It certainly should help bicycle sales!
I don't think we should rely on coal either until we are able to ‘gasify' it to burn in ‘clean' furnaces. Most of it, especially the bulk which is high sulfur, is simply much too dirty to use.
As far as I'm concerned, the additive of ethanol to gasoline is merely a quick fix - something like ‘hamburger helper' during meat shortages or high prices. True, countries like Brazil which have more modest fuel needs and a high production of sugar can benefit by converting entirely to ethanol which will be price competitive with gasoline and environmentally cleaner except for CO2. (Not certain about the relative production of CO between the two - but I'd guess that etOH would produce less of the poison, CO.
I think - partly because a plethora of organizations thirty or forty years ago, called loosely, Mothers Against Nuclear Energy, etc. - the nuclear energy industry here in the US has lost a lot of time in its development of efficiency, safety and disposal problems. Fortunately, the rest of the world has developed the technology so perhaps we could buy reactors from France or perhaps in the near future, Iran.
I think that Iran has seen the writing on the wall that, indeed, its oil reserves will be depleted in the near future and it doesn't want to revert to being a dusty, impoverished desert characterized by camel caravans and oases which is what it was when I was a small kid. I think that is the reason it is striving to install nuclear generators while it can still afford to build them.
I'm a bit disappointed in the Democratic response mentioned below that they didn't also push fuel cells, but rather the quick fix measures of coal and ethanol. There are certainly times to be divisive but there are also times to climb on board or even jump to the forefront!
Since Iceland will be completely ‘hydrogenated' by 2030 you might be interested in reading about their development and also see diagrams of how fuel cells work:
(copy/paste) http://tinyurl.com/b5au2
The device is very much like batteries, simple. It is the necessary infrastructure which is the problem. Of course, it will always be the problem unless we start building it! ....AG]
ST. HELENA, Calif. - Unable to drive down high oil prices, President Bush is spending Earth Day promoting futuristic hydrogen fuel technology as a way to wean Americans from gas-guzzling vehicles.
After a bike ride near his Napa Valley resort Saturday morning, Bush planned to visit the California Fuel Cell Partnership in West Sacramento for a tour and speech on his energy plan.
The plan does not include any measures that would reduce gas prices in the short term, the White House acknowledges. But with Republicans worried that the increasing cost to drive could hurt them in the voting booth this year, Bush said he understands Americans are hurting.
"I know the folks here are suffering at the gas pump," Bush told an audience Friday in San Jose. "Rising gasoline prices is like taking a — is like a tax, particularly on the working people and the small business people."
But to address the immediate problem, Bush offered only a pledge that "if we find any price gouging it will be dealt with firmly."
The White House hopes the high gas prices will pressure Congress to act on the energy proposals the president outlined in his State of the Union address, such as increased federal research into alternative fuels and batteries for hybrid and electric cars.
Democrats, meanwhile, contend that the Bush administration places too much emphasis on drilling reserves and not enough on alternative fuels.
The promise of hydrogen fuel cell technology in vehicles is a favorite of automakers, environmentalists and politicians because it accomplishes two important goals — automobiles that run on fuel cells would not require gasoline and emit only water.
The problem with the technology is that it's many years away from widespread use. And it would require a new system of distributing hydrogen fuel to replace today's network of gasoline pumping stations.
Bush used his weekly radio address Saturday to promote the idea. "These fuel cells have the potential to revolutionize the way we power our cars by giving us vehicles that will emit no pollution and will be more efficient than gas-powered cars," he said.
In the Democratic response to Bush's radio address, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said that the Bush administration must stop being influenced by the powerful oil industry and start promoting production of synthetic fuel from coal and the use of alternative sources such as ethanol.
"We cannot drill our way out of this problem," Nelson said. [Since I don't listen to the radio, I didn't hear either address. I hope that Nelson was supportive and did mention fuel cells in a positive light and not just critical. ....AG]
Prices at the gas pump have been rising, with the average price of a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline at $2.855. That's 3 cents higher than a day earlier and more than 60 cents higher than a year ago, according to AAA's daily fuel gauge report.
Crude oil prices broke through $75 a barrel Friday amid concerns about the standoff over
Iran's nuclear ambitions, rebel disruptions of oil production in Nigeria, and tight U.S. gasoline supplies. Analysts say they are likely to climb even higher.
Bush's bike ride Saturday was no Earth Day stunt. The president rides on most weekend mornings, but made the special detour to overnight in St. Helena just to get in a picturesque ride through wine country. He had no official events there.
"I can't wait," Bush told his San Jose audience. "I'll be plugged into an iPod." [Can you listen to ‘Afternoon of a Fawn' on an iPod? (anyone catch the play?)...AG]
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Democratic Primaries
[I find the following article very interesting and an important decision for the Democratic party.
When you think about it, Iowa and New Hampshire are two very "American" states but are certainly not at all representative of the majority of Americans. Thus for them to be the ones to select who is to run for the presidency for any party is actually rather silly!
Mention has been made of South Carolina which to my mind is a state which if attainable by a Democrat would be earth shaking - so indeed, it would be a great hurdle for a primary - or so it would seem. However, on second thought, wouldn't the Democrats of South Carolina be those who are so polarized against the ruling class of bigots and wannabe plantation owners that they would not be a good measure of how the average American feels about just about anything?
Mention has also been made about involvement of the west which has always been left out of the equation - even California. None of the ‘left hand side of the country has had a choice about who to vote for - that has always been decided by the "Eastern establishment" like Iowa and New Hampshire.
In the case of California, only the coast of the state is progressive. The central valley and the Sierra mountains have always been very conservative. In fact, as we genealogists know, the migration of people to California, except for the gold rush in 1849, were from Virginia, down through Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and into the promised land!
Californis has had it share of Democratic and Republican governors and office holders - it is not by far as Democratic as New York, for example. Its present governor is often not claimed by either party! It might be a good candidate.
I lived with those people in the Sierra after I retired for almost ten years. When I was driven out by old age and snow to northern Arizona I really didn't experience the culture shock I certainly would have gotten had I retired directly from the San Francisco Bay Area - aside from the fact that no one in the Sierra walks around with a six gun strapped on his hip - but...
But Arizona is interesting and could, perhaps should be a testing site for the Democratic primaries. The state is rabidly Republican if you consider its state government and its junior senator (Kyle). On the other hand, its other Republican senator, McCain, is much more centrist, although a bit unpredictable - many Democrats like him but some of us don't like his bed-fellows.
But, despite the overwhelming Republican vote, we have a Democrat Governess and a Democrat Attorney General (everyone else in the government is Republican)! The government in Phoenix is in a constant state of war, but Governor Janet vetoes half of the mean-spirited crap the Republicans pass on ‘party-line' votes and appears to be loved by the people for doing so! She is running for re-election in November and I would be in a state of shock if she is not rel-elected - she's one smart babe, usually right - and they know it!
She just vetoed two more bills passed by them today! (I've suspected that they really don't want their bills passed and rely on her to veto them - that way they look good to their miserable constituents and she looks good to the country.) She is regarded as one of the best governors in the nation.
At any rate, I think that there should be other more representative proving grounds for candidates than two rather backward and unrepresentative states.
Personally, I'd opt for national voting via the Internet after watching the candidate's best shot in a series of nationally televised debates - and forget the primaries altogether! Yeah, I know, not in my lifetime!... AG]
US states look to move up in 2008 White House race
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Thu Apr 20
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Ten states asked the Democratic National Committee on Thursday to let them hold early presidential nominating contests in 2008, promising to bring more racial and geographic diversity to the process of choosing a candidate.
They made their case to a DNC panel that will choose at least two states to join the traditional presidential kingmakers, Iowa and New Hampshire, in holding early nominating contests in the next White House race.
The panel, responding to complaints that the white, rural residents of Iowa and New Hampshire were not representative of the country's diversity, approved a plan last month to add new state contests early in the calendar.
All of the states stressed their racial, ethnic and economic diversity and said they would offer Democratic presidential candidates an opportunity to craft and test-drive a message that would help them appeal to the entire country.
They all said they would be well suited for the face-to-face, grass-roots politics that distinguish campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"South Carolina is a perfect laboratory for Democratic politics," Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina told the panel. "If you prove your mettle in South Carolina, you will be successful in the United States of America."
Under the plan, Democrats would add one or two caucuses between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and one or two primaries right after New Hampshire but before the nominating calendar is thrown open to all states.
The proposal, which has drawn opposition in Iowa and New Hampshire, was designed to let those two states retain much of their prominence in the nominating process while giving a bigger voice to states in the South and West -- areas where Democrats have suffered in recent presidential races.
SOUTH, WEST WANT IN
"We cannot win the White House without winning electoral votes in the deep South," said Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham.
He said any presidential candidate who can win in Alabama will be "battle-hardened and ready to go to the heartland of America and ask for those electoral votes in November."
Also making presentations to the panel were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, West Virginia and Hawaii, along with the District of Columbia.
"Arizona really represents in many ways the future of the Democratic Party," said Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who spoke to the panel by telephone and highlighted the state's growing Hispanic population. "The West is someplace where the national Democratic Party can make serious inroads," she said.
The panel plans at least one more meeting this summer before announcing its decision on specific states and timing later this year.
The presentations came on the opening day of the DNC's spring meeting, which was being held in New Orleans in part to highlight the Bush administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina. DNC members have a busy schedule of community work, including house building and clean-up, while in New Orleans.
Iowa and New Hampshire have long enjoyed enormous influence in the race for presidential nominations. Iowa has held the first caucuses of the campaign since 1972, and New Hampshire traditionally holds the first primary shortly afterward.
Critics say their influence in presidential politics is distorted given their small populations, while supporters argue they serve the process well by forcing candidates to engage in one-on-one campaigning.
New Hampshire has promised to fight any change, and state officials say they will move up the state's primary if necessary to make it comply with a state law requiring it be held a week before any other primaries. [I can see that ultimately the decision for president will be held on New Year's Day!... AG]
When you think about it, Iowa and New Hampshire are two very "American" states but are certainly not at all representative of the majority of Americans. Thus for them to be the ones to select who is to run for the presidency for any party is actually rather silly!
Mention has been made of South Carolina which to my mind is a state which if attainable by a Democrat would be earth shaking - so indeed, it would be a great hurdle for a primary - or so it would seem. However, on second thought, wouldn't the Democrats of South Carolina be those who are so polarized against the ruling class of bigots and wannabe plantation owners that they would not be a good measure of how the average American feels about just about anything?
Mention has also been made about involvement of the west which has always been left out of the equation - even California. None of the ‘left hand side of the country has had a choice about who to vote for - that has always been decided by the "Eastern establishment" like Iowa and New Hampshire.
In the case of California, only the coast of the state is progressive. The central valley and the Sierra mountains have always been very conservative. In fact, as we genealogists know, the migration of people to California, except for the gold rush in 1849, were from Virginia, down through Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and into the promised land!
Californis has had it share of Democratic and Republican governors and office holders - it is not by far as Democratic as New York, for example. Its present governor is often not claimed by either party! It might be a good candidate.
I lived with those people in the Sierra after I retired for almost ten years. When I was driven out by old age and snow to northern Arizona I really didn't experience the culture shock I certainly would have gotten had I retired directly from the San Francisco Bay Area - aside from the fact that no one in the Sierra walks around with a six gun strapped on his hip - but...
But Arizona is interesting and could, perhaps should be a testing site for the Democratic primaries. The state is rabidly Republican if you consider its state government and its junior senator (Kyle). On the other hand, its other Republican senator, McCain, is much more centrist, although a bit unpredictable - many Democrats like him but some of us don't like his bed-fellows.
But, despite the overwhelming Republican vote, we have a Democrat Governess and a Democrat Attorney General (everyone else in the government is Republican)! The government in Phoenix is in a constant state of war, but Governor Janet vetoes half of the mean-spirited crap the Republicans pass on ‘party-line' votes and appears to be loved by the people for doing so! She is running for re-election in November and I would be in a state of shock if she is not rel-elected - she's one smart babe, usually right - and they know it!
She just vetoed two more bills passed by them today! (I've suspected that they really don't want their bills passed and rely on her to veto them - that way they look good to their miserable constituents and she looks good to the country.) She is regarded as one of the best governors in the nation.
At any rate, I think that there should be other more representative proving grounds for candidates than two rather backward and unrepresentative states.
Personally, I'd opt for national voting via the Internet after watching the candidate's best shot in a series of nationally televised debates - and forget the primaries altogether! Yeah, I know, not in my lifetime!... AG]
US states look to move up in 2008 White House race
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Thu Apr 20
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Ten states asked the Democratic National Committee on Thursday to let them hold early presidential nominating contests in 2008, promising to bring more racial and geographic diversity to the process of choosing a candidate.
They made their case to a DNC panel that will choose at least two states to join the traditional presidential kingmakers, Iowa and New Hampshire, in holding early nominating contests in the next White House race.
The panel, responding to complaints that the white, rural residents of Iowa and New Hampshire were not representative of the country's diversity, approved a plan last month to add new state contests early in the calendar.
All of the states stressed their racial, ethnic and economic diversity and said they would offer Democratic presidential candidates an opportunity to craft and test-drive a message that would help them appeal to the entire country.
They all said they would be well suited for the face-to-face, grass-roots politics that distinguish campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"South Carolina is a perfect laboratory for Democratic politics," Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina told the panel. "If you prove your mettle in South Carolina, you will be successful in the United States of America."
Under the plan, Democrats would add one or two caucuses between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and one or two primaries right after New Hampshire but before the nominating calendar is thrown open to all states.
The proposal, which has drawn opposition in Iowa and New Hampshire, was designed to let those two states retain much of their prominence in the nominating process while giving a bigger voice to states in the South and West -- areas where Democrats have suffered in recent presidential races.
SOUTH, WEST WANT IN
"We cannot win the White House without winning electoral votes in the deep South," said Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham.
He said any presidential candidate who can win in Alabama will be "battle-hardened and ready to go to the heartland of America and ask for those electoral votes in November."
Also making presentations to the panel were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, West Virginia and Hawaii, along with the District of Columbia.
"Arizona really represents in many ways the future of the Democratic Party," said Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who spoke to the panel by telephone and highlighted the state's growing Hispanic population. "The West is someplace where the national Democratic Party can make serious inroads," she said.
The panel plans at least one more meeting this summer before announcing its decision on specific states and timing later this year.
The presentations came on the opening day of the DNC's spring meeting, which was being held in New Orleans in part to highlight the Bush administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina. DNC members have a busy schedule of community work, including house building and clean-up, while in New Orleans.
Iowa and New Hampshire have long enjoyed enormous influence in the race for presidential nominations. Iowa has held the first caucuses of the campaign since 1972, and New Hampshire traditionally holds the first primary shortly afterward.
Critics say their influence in presidential politics is distorted given their small populations, while supporters argue they serve the process well by forcing candidates to engage in one-on-one campaigning.
New Hampshire has promised to fight any change, and state officials say they will move up the state's primary if necessary to make it comply with a state law requiring it be held a week before any other primaries. [I can see that ultimately the decision for president will be held on New Year's Day!... AG]
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Gingrich not stupid
Gingrich is not, nor ever was a stupid man - and I think he is right in his assessment of American politics today.
Personally, I hope the Republicans don't wake up to reality because merely re-electing the same mentality which might profess change would perpetuate the same problems we now face. People can change, but I don't think they can change fast nor well enough.
We need change in government and the present government is pathetically incapable of making that change. We need new people ...AG
Gingrich warns Republicans Americans want change
Sun Apr 16
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican Party is in serious danger of losing political ground in November elections if it does not enact reforms that eliminate waste and hold the federal bureaucracy to higher standards, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday.
I think they're in very serious danger of having a very bad election this fall," Gingrich said on Fox News Sunday. "You have to respect the right of the American people to say they want change," he said, criticizing the federal government's bungled efforts to cope with Hurricane Katrina and the Republican-led Congress' failure to enact immigration reforms. "Are they going to learn some lessons and get their act together?" Gingrich asked.
Republicans currently outnumber Democrats 231-201 in the House and have a 55-44 advantage in the Senate.
The former representative from Georgia said the "debacle" over measures to strengthen U.S. borders and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants "was one more piece of the puzzle" for many voters who have lost faith in Republican leadership.
"The country absolutely wants control of the borders," Gingrich said. "The country absolutely wants us to insist that becoming an American citizen requires that you passed a test in English." A well-designed guest worker program would have the support of 75 percent to 80 percent of the American people, he said.
With the federal budget deficit at record levels, Gingrich said Americans are losing patience with "pork," the discretionary spending earmarked to benefit local political constituencies. "We were sent here to reform Washington, not to be co-opted by Washington," he said.
Personally, I hope the Republicans don't wake up to reality because merely re-electing the same mentality which might profess change would perpetuate the same problems we now face. People can change, but I don't think they can change fast nor well enough.
We need change in government and the present government is pathetically incapable of making that change. We need new people ...AG
Gingrich warns Republicans Americans want change
Sun Apr 16
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican Party is in serious danger of losing political ground in November elections if it does not enact reforms that eliminate waste and hold the federal bureaucracy to higher standards, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday.
I think they're in very serious danger of having a very bad election this fall," Gingrich said on Fox News Sunday. "You have to respect the right of the American people to say they want change," he said, criticizing the federal government's bungled efforts to cope with Hurricane Katrina and the Republican-led Congress' failure to enact immigration reforms. "Are they going to learn some lessons and get their act together?" Gingrich asked.
Republicans currently outnumber Democrats 231-201 in the House and have a 55-44 advantage in the Senate.
The former representative from Georgia said the "debacle" over measures to strengthen U.S. borders and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants "was one more piece of the puzzle" for many voters who have lost faith in Republican leadership.
"The country absolutely wants control of the borders," Gingrich said. "The country absolutely wants us to insist that becoming an American citizen requires that you passed a test in English." A well-designed guest worker program would have the support of 75 percent to 80 percent of the American people, he said.
With the federal budget deficit at record levels, Gingrich said Americans are losing patience with "pork," the discretionary spending earmarked to benefit local political constituencies. "We were sent here to reform Washington, not to be co-opted by Washington," he said.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Lincoln's assassination....
My comments below are in response to an article I read which attempts to equate Abraham Lincoln to Jesus - something whch was stated often just after his assassination. After all, both were killed for their beliefs.
Appropriate, I guess, to commemorate Lincoln on the anniversary of his assassination. And I think he was a great president and appropriate for the occasion.
The small comparison made with Washington, I certainly agree with. True, Washington was our first president and managed somehow to win the war against the British, but he certainly was not a brilliant man nor was he a true sacrificing patriot - but he was a normal American, somewhat charismatic, with some military experience -- and awfully damned lucky - perhaps through stubbornness and even some greed. He wouldn't be remembered if he hadn't somehow won! But what he achieved was admirable.
Lincoln was, I think very intelligent, thoughtful and introspective. He took his job very seriously despite the world about him - one can personally identify with Lincoln. I'm sure, he didn't invite assassination nor martyrdom, as Jesus did. So I would say that Lincoln was not anymore Jesus-like than I am! I admire the actual teachings of Jesus - and I also admire the mind of Lincoln. However, I disagree with Lincoln's goal to hold the Union together - just a slight difference of opinion and mine has the advantage of hindsight - I might have felt differently during his time!
Yes, he referred to God often in his orations, but so did everyone else - it was expected!. That is not to signify whether he actually believed in God or even his definition of a god - it is always politic to refer to God because as a politician you gain the support of those who actually believe in His existence. ...and that is not bad if what you want to do is what the people's God would want you to do whether you believe or not! Today, we have those who refer to God and Jesus constantly and do not ‘do God's will'.
I think that the emphasis on Jesus is a very recent invention - actually within my lifetime - have I lived too long already? When I grew up I went to several different churches quite regularly over the years and as I remember it, God was the boss and who everyone revered. Jesus was merely the son of God - sort of a messenger - and, of course, part of the Holy Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost! "Jesus Saves" was merely graffiti scrawled in paint on rocks along the roadway - not true gospel! Now it seems, that "Jesus Saves" is the total of modern Christianity sans teachings, sans song!
My occasional interactions with the Catholic church suggested to me that the Roman Church was very much invested with the Holy Mother, Mary. "Mary, mother of God...". and that Jesus was merely what may be described [my words] a semi-mortal who presented the word of God to the world at the time. It seems to me that Mary is actually viewed as the portal by which God introduced Himself to the world through her ‘only begotten son,' Jesus.
Of course, Jesus has long gone along with Washington and Lincoln to the actual ultimate state of nothingness we all face. But we living may reinvent them to our heart's desire and they, quite frankly, won't care! But for us, maybe we could continue to make them positively constructive toward our future survival on this planet in our memories of their achievements and philosophies.
Appropriate, I guess, to commemorate Lincoln on the anniversary of his assassination. And I think he was a great president and appropriate for the occasion.
The small comparison made with Washington, I certainly agree with. True, Washington was our first president and managed somehow to win the war against the British, but he certainly was not a brilliant man nor was he a true sacrificing patriot - but he was a normal American, somewhat charismatic, with some military experience -- and awfully damned lucky - perhaps through stubbornness and even some greed. He wouldn't be remembered if he hadn't somehow won! But what he achieved was admirable.
Lincoln was, I think very intelligent, thoughtful and introspective. He took his job very seriously despite the world about him - one can personally identify with Lincoln. I'm sure, he didn't invite assassination nor martyrdom, as Jesus did. So I would say that Lincoln was not anymore Jesus-like than I am! I admire the actual teachings of Jesus - and I also admire the mind of Lincoln. However, I disagree with Lincoln's goal to hold the Union together - just a slight difference of opinion and mine has the advantage of hindsight - I might have felt differently during his time!
Yes, he referred to God often in his orations, but so did everyone else - it was expected!. That is not to signify whether he actually believed in God or even his definition of a god - it is always politic to refer to God because as a politician you gain the support of those who actually believe in His existence. ...and that is not bad if what you want to do is what the people's God would want you to do whether you believe or not! Today, we have those who refer to God and Jesus constantly and do not ‘do God's will'.
I think that the emphasis on Jesus is a very recent invention - actually within my lifetime - have I lived too long already? When I grew up I went to several different churches quite regularly over the years and as I remember it, God was the boss and who everyone revered. Jesus was merely the son of God - sort of a messenger - and, of course, part of the Holy Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost! "Jesus Saves" was merely graffiti scrawled in paint on rocks along the roadway - not true gospel! Now it seems, that "Jesus Saves" is the total of modern Christianity sans teachings, sans song!
My occasional interactions with the Catholic church suggested to me that the Roman Church was very much invested with the Holy Mother, Mary. "Mary, mother of God...". and that Jesus was merely what may be described [my words] a semi-mortal who presented the word of God to the world at the time. It seems to me that Mary is actually viewed as the portal by which God introduced Himself to the world through her ‘only begotten son,' Jesus.
Of course, Jesus has long gone along with Washington and Lincoln to the actual ultimate state of nothingness we all face. But we living may reinvent them to our heart's desire and they, quite frankly, won't care! But for us, maybe we could continue to make them positively constructive toward our future survival on this planet in our memories of their achievements and philosophies.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Survival, Dead Mothers Don't Talk
I find the following article "Dead Mothers Don't Talk" very depressing. And as I sit here in good creature comfort contemplating my own demise not far away, I see sadness and tragedy extending out long after I'm gone in many directions including but not exclusively the mortality of birthing mothers.
I started out considering the present population of the Earth, found the land area of the planet and then I found that someone else had done all of my work for me as follows:
http://tinyurl.com/o3b33
This terribly small piece of land which must provide our own total sustenance is scary enough but it can only get worse! Population control people have preached this for years and the people have not listened. I do have to caution that somewhere there is a ½ acre of land supporting me, it most certainly is not the relatively useless acre where I live! Perhaps it is in Iowa or Central California - someplace, but not here - unless one considers jack rabbits sustenance.
I present this because the following depressing article with its very narrow scope involving the mortality of birthing mothers is a small part of the growing poverty and desperation of the living peoples on this planet and most of their problems are due to an exploding population.
Yes, we can deplore the greed and waste of our wealthy societies who don't seem to be empathetic enough toward the world's down-trodden - perhaps even people like me can be blamed. And yes, we can deplore any war or military action which destroys vast resources which could be used to help the world's down-trodden. But to what end I wonder?
In the animal kingdom we find that there are creatures such as sea turtles which can live for hundreds of years! Yes, they have sex and lay their eggs in the warm beach sand by the hundreds. When the babies hatch they scramble for their lives into the sea. However, in that mad scramble they are attacked by birds and even once in the water there are ‘monsters of the deep' waiting to gobble up their little bodies. The population of adult sea turtles is quite low. It is a similar result with rabbits where the balance of their population is maintained by their natural predators - and the balance of the predators themselves, including mountain lions and deer are interdependent.
I'm sure the same was true for us until we decided to become humans. With our brains we managed to overpower our predators, guarantee our sustenance through agriculture, medicine for our ills and injuries, and on and on and on. We have had the ability to solve every problem which might shorten our lives - and we have even improved our abilities to reproduce!
We have created religions and governments which promote our fecundity - we have, indeed, created an existence which will ultimately destroy us because of our success!
So as our world order presents yet a new crisis to be solved by our superior brains and ever decreasing square foot of land and environment and potential source for our sustenance, where does it end? When do we learn what we have to do collectively, not individually to survive? Frankly, I don't think we are quite that smart... So read on and weep.
WORLD HEALTH DAY: Dead Mothers Don't Talk
Mithre J. Sandrasagra, Inter Press Service (IPS) Fri Apr 7
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 7 (IPS) - The current crisis of skilled healthcare workers could deal a fatal blow to the global anti-poverty campaign agreed to by world leaders six years ago, U.N. experts warned on World Health Day.
"The global population is growing, but the number of health workers in many of the poorest countries is falling," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted Friday.
"Access to services is limited by inequity and poverty," Arletty Pinel, chief of the Reproductive Health Branch of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS.
According to U.N. estimates, Africa alone will require a million new health workers to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a global plan of action aimed at reducing poverty by half and radically improving the lives of at least one billion people by the year 2015.
Currently, there are no countries in Africa, Asia, or Latin America and the Caribbean that are on pace to meet the target of reducing maternal mortality by three-quarters by 2015, according to the Statistics Division of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
"Addressing the shortage of midwives through education, training and deployment to underserved areas would bring us much closer to achieving the MDG of improving maternal health," said Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of UNFPA.
"Concerted efforts are urgently needed to solve the shortage of midwives and other health workers -- a shortage that is severe in the poorest countries, putting the lives of millions of people at risk," said Obaid.
Midwives play a central role in saving the lives and improving the health of mothers and infants around the world. "Yet despite their importance, they often face poor working conditions, inadequate supplies and support and, as a female health workforce, are subject to gender discrimination," she continued.
Addressing the shortage of midwives could also bring countries closer to achieving another MDG, which is to reduce child mortality by two-thirds by 2015.
Some 700,000 more midwives are needed to provide universal access to skilled care at birth, according to UNFPA.
"Contrary to child survival that has shown dramatic increases over the years, maternal deaths continue to maintain themselves at about the same level and in some countries have increased," Pinel said.
The chance that a woman will die due to pregnancy-related causes is one in 17 in least developed countries, one in 61 in developing countries, and one in 4,000 in industrialised countries, according to Family Care International (FCI), a New York-based NGO endorsed by the U.N.
The single most critical intervention for safe motherhood is to ensure that a health worker with midwifery skills is present at every birth, and transportation is available to a more comprehensive level of obstetric care in case of an emergency, according to UNFPA.
In the developing world today, only 58 percent of all deliveries take place with the assistance of a trained attendant.
Professional accredited midwives have successfully passed a relevant midwifery programme that is approved in the country where they practice. In some countries this may entail up to five years of university-level training, Pinel said.
In 76 countries, UNFPA supports training of health personnel in various aspects of maternal care, including life-saving skills for emergency cases.
Many expectant mothers, especially in Africa, deliver with the help of traditional birth attendants (TBAs). This practice has proved dangerous, according to FCI, because up to 15 percent of all births are complicated by a potentially fatal condition that TBAs are unqualified to handle.
Women attended by trained attendants are more likely to receive treatment early, when the situation can still be controlled.
In the majority of cases, maternal mortality reductions have been achieved where countries have introduced professional midwives, while at the same time phasing out TBAs without criminalising them, according to Pinel.
For example, Malaysia used media campaigns to persuade women to use midwives, but they also offered mechanisms where TBAs would partner with midwives.
Making TBAs partners with professional midwives has been applied in a number of countries including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria and Uganda, according to Pinel.
In Yemen, there are eight maternal deaths daily -- one of the highest rates in the world. Seventy-five percent of Yemenis reside in villages in mostly isolated regions, whether in the mountains or the desert. Home deliveries in Yemen are estimated at 84 percent.
"We found that the main reasons for maternal mortality are the difficult circumstances women live under in these regions," said Asia Makwi, the project's programme officer.
Last year, UNFPA began a project in collaboration with the Yemeni Social Affairs and Labour Ministry to provide midwives with the tools they require to deliver babies safely, and distribute "safe childbirth kits". The kits consist of sterilised masks and gloves, soap for washing hands, pieces of plastic cloth and sterilised cotton, sterilised thread and razors, and a brochure from which midwives in any region can learn delivery procedures.
Countries that invest in high-quality training, placement and retention of midwives, while at the same time investing in facilities to provide emergency obstetric care, will show dramatic improvement of maternal mortality, according to Pinel.
"The time for action is now," said Kathlyn Ababio, the International Confereration of Midwives (ICM) representative here during the World Summit at the end of 2005, when world leaders reaffirmed their commitments to the MDGs.
"In Africa and Asia, only between a quarter and a third of women deliver with a skilled attendant, and even fewer have access to emergency obstetric and neonatal care. This must change, and soon," stressed Ababio.
ICM is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that unites 85 national midwives' associations from over 75 countries.
In sub-Saharan Africa, there are an estimated 750,000 health workers in a region that is home to 682 million people. By comparison, the ratio is 10 to 15 times higher in wealthy countries, according to Dr. Tim Evans, assistant director-general of Evidence and Information for Policy at the World Health Organisation (WHO).
"Without a dramatic increase in capacity, paediatric immunisations will not be administered; infectious outbreaks will not be contained; curable diseases will remain untreated; and women will keep dying needlessly in childbirth," Annan said.
"Dead mothers don't talk, and those that surround them sometimes see this as a 'normal' process of life. But most maternal deaths could have been avoided if the system hadn't failed those women," according to Pinel.
"The persistence of maternal mortality and morbidity, when the interventions to prevent them are well understood, represents a human rights violation and social injustice," she emphasised.
I started out considering the present population of the Earth, found the land area of the planet and then I found that someone else had done all of my work for me as follows:
http://tinyurl.com/o3b33
Earth has a surface area of 196,940,400 square miles, slightly less than a perfect ball with a diameter of 7913.5 miles (which is the mean diameter of the Earth - see "Prove it" under 103).
The surface area of the seven continents and all the islands of the world is about 57 million miles, while the total area of the six habitable continents (Antarctica excluded) is around 52 million square miles.
Including Antarctica , over one fifth of the globe's land mass is under water (oceans, lakes, rivers, etc.) or ice. This leaves about 45 million square miles of exposed land.
The human population on earth has crossed six billion. [Actually as of the 8th of this month, 6,508,408,138 people]. If we distribute all the exposed land evenly among all mankind, 133 people would have to share one square mile. What that means is that every single person on Earth, man woman and child would have close to five acres of land for his or her use. More precisely, each person would get 209,000 square feet of land, or a square plot of land 457 feet on each side.
Not all this land can be used beneficially however. A significant portion of the Earth's exposed land is unhabitable or cannot be used for any agricultural purpose. Large portions lie in the far north. Large portions are extremely arid. Large portions are very mountainous. In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable.
Today, over half of the arable land in the world is in fact not under cultivation. Bringing the unused land into service in many cases would require huge investments of money and effort, and would do considerable damage to the environment. For example, only about 28% of the arable land on the African continent is used for growing crops. Immense tracts of forests or jungles would have to be cleared to bring the rest of the arable land on that continent to productive use.
Thus, only about one eighth of each imaginary plot of land distributed to each person is land which is under cultivation. In effect, each person has a piece of land about 26,000 square feet (a square 161 feet on each side or just a bit more than ½ an acre) at his or her disposal on which to grow all that he or she needs.
The surface area of the seven continents and all the islands of the world is about 57 million miles, while the total area of the six habitable continents (Antarctica excluded) is around 52 million square miles.
Including Antarctica , over one fifth of the globe's land mass is under water (oceans, lakes, rivers, etc.) or ice. This leaves about 45 million square miles of exposed land.
The human population on earth has crossed six billion. [Actually as of the 8th of this month, 6,508,408,138 people]. If we distribute all the exposed land evenly among all mankind, 133 people would have to share one square mile. What that means is that every single person on Earth, man woman and child would have close to five acres of land for his or her use. More precisely, each person would get 209,000 square feet of land, or a square plot of land 457 feet on each side.
Not all this land can be used beneficially however. A significant portion of the Earth's exposed land is unhabitable or cannot be used for any agricultural purpose. Large portions lie in the far north. Large portions are extremely arid. Large portions are very mountainous. In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable.
Today, over half of the arable land in the world is in fact not under cultivation. Bringing the unused land into service in many cases would require huge investments of money and effort, and would do considerable damage to the environment. For example, only about 28% of the arable land on the African continent is used for growing crops. Immense tracts of forests or jungles would have to be cleared to bring the rest of the arable land on that continent to productive use.
Thus, only about one eighth of each imaginary plot of land distributed to each person is land which is under cultivation. In effect, each person has a piece of land about 26,000 square feet (a square 161 feet on each side or just a bit more than ½ an acre) at his or her disposal on which to grow all that he or she needs.
This terribly small piece of land which must provide our own total sustenance is scary enough but it can only get worse! Population control people have preached this for years and the people have not listened. I do have to caution that somewhere there is a ½ acre of land supporting me, it most certainly is not the relatively useless acre where I live! Perhaps it is in Iowa or Central California - someplace, but not here - unless one considers jack rabbits sustenance.
I present this because the following depressing article with its very narrow scope involving the mortality of birthing mothers is a small part of the growing poverty and desperation of the living peoples on this planet and most of their problems are due to an exploding population.
Yes, we can deplore the greed and waste of our wealthy societies who don't seem to be empathetic enough toward the world's down-trodden - perhaps even people like me can be blamed. And yes, we can deplore any war or military action which destroys vast resources which could be used to help the world's down-trodden. But to what end I wonder?
In the animal kingdom we find that there are creatures such as sea turtles which can live for hundreds of years! Yes, they have sex and lay their eggs in the warm beach sand by the hundreds. When the babies hatch they scramble for their lives into the sea. However, in that mad scramble they are attacked by birds and even once in the water there are ‘monsters of the deep' waiting to gobble up their little bodies. The population of adult sea turtles is quite low. It is a similar result with rabbits where the balance of their population is maintained by their natural predators - and the balance of the predators themselves, including mountain lions and deer are interdependent.
I'm sure the same was true for us until we decided to become humans. With our brains we managed to overpower our predators, guarantee our sustenance through agriculture, medicine for our ills and injuries, and on and on and on. We have had the ability to solve every problem which might shorten our lives - and we have even improved our abilities to reproduce!
We have created religions and governments which promote our fecundity - we have, indeed, created an existence which will ultimately destroy us because of our success!
So as our world order presents yet a new crisis to be solved by our superior brains and ever decreasing square foot of land and environment and potential source for our sustenance, where does it end? When do we learn what we have to do collectively, not individually to survive? Frankly, I don't think we are quite that smart... So read on and weep.
WORLD HEALTH DAY: Dead Mothers Don't Talk
Mithre J. Sandrasagra, Inter Press Service (IPS) Fri Apr 7
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 7 (IPS) - The current crisis of skilled healthcare workers could deal a fatal blow to the global anti-poverty campaign agreed to by world leaders six years ago, U.N. experts warned on World Health Day.
"The global population is growing, but the number of health workers in many of the poorest countries is falling," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted Friday.
"Access to services is limited by inequity and poverty," Arletty Pinel, chief of the Reproductive Health Branch of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS.
According to U.N. estimates, Africa alone will require a million new health workers to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a global plan of action aimed at reducing poverty by half and radically improving the lives of at least one billion people by the year 2015.
Currently, there are no countries in Africa, Asia, or Latin America and the Caribbean that are on pace to meet the target of reducing maternal mortality by three-quarters by 2015, according to the Statistics Division of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
"Addressing the shortage of midwives through education, training and deployment to underserved areas would bring us much closer to achieving the MDG of improving maternal health," said Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of UNFPA.
"Concerted efforts are urgently needed to solve the shortage of midwives and other health workers -- a shortage that is severe in the poorest countries, putting the lives of millions of people at risk," said Obaid.
Midwives play a central role in saving the lives and improving the health of mothers and infants around the world. "Yet despite their importance, they often face poor working conditions, inadequate supplies and support and, as a female health workforce, are subject to gender discrimination," she continued.
Addressing the shortage of midwives could also bring countries closer to achieving another MDG, which is to reduce child mortality by two-thirds by 2015.
Some 700,000 more midwives are needed to provide universal access to skilled care at birth, according to UNFPA.
"Contrary to child survival that has shown dramatic increases over the years, maternal deaths continue to maintain themselves at about the same level and in some countries have increased," Pinel said.
The chance that a woman will die due to pregnancy-related causes is one in 17 in least developed countries, one in 61 in developing countries, and one in 4,000 in industrialised countries, according to Family Care International (FCI), a New York-based NGO endorsed by the U.N.
The single most critical intervention for safe motherhood is to ensure that a health worker with midwifery skills is present at every birth, and transportation is available to a more comprehensive level of obstetric care in case of an emergency, according to UNFPA.
In the developing world today, only 58 percent of all deliveries take place with the assistance of a trained attendant.
Professional accredited midwives have successfully passed a relevant midwifery programme that is approved in the country where they practice. In some countries this may entail up to five years of university-level training, Pinel said.
In 76 countries, UNFPA supports training of health personnel in various aspects of maternal care, including life-saving skills for emergency cases.
Many expectant mothers, especially in Africa, deliver with the help of traditional birth attendants (TBAs). This practice has proved dangerous, according to FCI, because up to 15 percent of all births are complicated by a potentially fatal condition that TBAs are unqualified to handle.
Women attended by trained attendants are more likely to receive treatment early, when the situation can still be controlled.
In the majority of cases, maternal mortality reductions have been achieved where countries have introduced professional midwives, while at the same time phasing out TBAs without criminalising them, according to Pinel.
For example, Malaysia used media campaigns to persuade women to use midwives, but they also offered mechanisms where TBAs would partner with midwives.
Making TBAs partners with professional midwives has been applied in a number of countries including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria and Uganda, according to Pinel.
In Yemen, there are eight maternal deaths daily -- one of the highest rates in the world. Seventy-five percent of Yemenis reside in villages in mostly isolated regions, whether in the mountains or the desert. Home deliveries in Yemen are estimated at 84 percent.
"We found that the main reasons for maternal mortality are the difficult circumstances women live under in these regions," said Asia Makwi, the project's programme officer.
Last year, UNFPA began a project in collaboration with the Yemeni Social Affairs and Labour Ministry to provide midwives with the tools they require to deliver babies safely, and distribute "safe childbirth kits". The kits consist of sterilised masks and gloves, soap for washing hands, pieces of plastic cloth and sterilised cotton, sterilised thread and razors, and a brochure from which midwives in any region can learn delivery procedures.
Countries that invest in high-quality training, placement and retention of midwives, while at the same time investing in facilities to provide emergency obstetric care, will show dramatic improvement of maternal mortality, according to Pinel.
"The time for action is now," said Kathlyn Ababio, the International Confereration of Midwives (ICM) representative here during the World Summit at the end of 2005, when world leaders reaffirmed their commitments to the MDGs.
"In Africa and Asia, only between a quarter and a third of women deliver with a skilled attendant, and even fewer have access to emergency obstetric and neonatal care. This must change, and soon," stressed Ababio.
ICM is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that unites 85 national midwives' associations from over 75 countries.
In sub-Saharan Africa, there are an estimated 750,000 health workers in a region that is home to 682 million people. By comparison, the ratio is 10 to 15 times higher in wealthy countries, according to Dr. Tim Evans, assistant director-general of Evidence and Information for Policy at the World Health Organisation (WHO).
"Without a dramatic increase in capacity, paediatric immunisations will not be administered; infectious outbreaks will not be contained; curable diseases will remain untreated; and women will keep dying needlessly in childbirth," Annan said.
"Dead mothers don't talk, and those that surround them sometimes see this as a 'normal' process of life. But most maternal deaths could have been avoided if the system hadn't failed those women," according to Pinel.
"The persistence of maternal mortality and morbidity, when the interventions to prevent them are well understood, represents a human rights violation and social injustice," she emphasised.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Wait until next year for immigration reform
I think it is obvious that a good immigration bill can't be passed by our Congress this year because there is such a wide difference of opinion both in Congress and in the country. Any compromise that could come out of the Senate would have to be further compromised by a very hard-nosed House which could in effect be worse than no bill at all!
I think that the people will have to vote on this one in November by more carefully selecting their Representatives and some Senators. We have a large number of mean-spirited citizens out there, but I really wonder whether they constitute a majority. We should wait and find out.
Below is an AP version of the current status of the proposed legislation:
Senate Vote Shelves Immigration Bill
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday amid partisan recriminations, leaving in doubt prospects for passage of a measure that offered the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.
The bill gained only 38 votes on a key procedural test, far short of the 60 needed to advance.
The vote marked a turnabout from Thursday, when the Senate's two leaders had both hailed a last-minute compromise as a breakthrough in the campaign to enact the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in two decades.
But Republicans soon accused Democrats of trying to squelch their amendments, while Democrats accused the GOP of trying to kill their own bill by filibuster.
"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid countered, "The amendments were being offered by people who didn't want the bill."
The vote fell nearly along party lines, with Democrats in favor of advancing the bill and Republicans opposed.
Specter told reporters his committee would resume work on the measure as soon as Congress returns from a two-week break. He said the panel would have a measure ready for renewed debate within 10 days after that.
But Frist stopped short of a commitment to bring the issue back to the floor during the balance of the election-year session. "I intend to," he said, but added it would depend on the schedule of other bills.
The Senate voted after President Bush prodded lawmakers to keep trying to reach an agreement, but both sides said the odds were that a breakthrough won't occur until Congress returns from a two-week recess.
"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I'm confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."
Republicans said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.
Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.
"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.
The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.
It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.
Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.
The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.
Demonstrations in support of the compromise were planned for Monday across the nation, including one in Washington that organizers claimed would draw 100,000 people.
The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.
Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."
The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.
But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.
I think that the people will have to vote on this one in November by more carefully selecting their Representatives and some Senators. We have a large number of mean-spirited citizens out there, but I really wonder whether they constitute a majority. We should wait and find out.
Below is an AP version of the current status of the proposed legislation:
Senate Vote Shelves Immigration Bill
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday amid partisan recriminations, leaving in doubt prospects for passage of a measure that offered the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.
The bill gained only 38 votes on a key procedural test, far short of the 60 needed to advance.
The vote marked a turnabout from Thursday, when the Senate's two leaders had both hailed a last-minute compromise as a breakthrough in the campaign to enact the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in two decades.
But Republicans soon accused Democrats of trying to squelch their amendments, while Democrats accused the GOP of trying to kill their own bill by filibuster.
"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid countered, "The amendments were being offered by people who didn't want the bill."
The vote fell nearly along party lines, with Democrats in favor of advancing the bill and Republicans opposed.
Specter told reporters his committee would resume work on the measure as soon as Congress returns from a two-week break. He said the panel would have a measure ready for renewed debate within 10 days after that.
But Frist stopped short of a commitment to bring the issue back to the floor during the balance of the election-year session. "I intend to," he said, but added it would depend on the schedule of other bills.
The Senate voted after President Bush prodded lawmakers to keep trying to reach an agreement, but both sides said the odds were that a breakthrough won't occur until Congress returns from a two-week recess.
"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I'm confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."
Republicans said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.
Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.
"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.
The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.
It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.
Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.
The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.
Demonstrations in support of the compromise were planned for Monday across the nation, including one in Washington that organizers claimed would draw 100,000 people.
The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.
Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."
The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.
But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Gotcha Mr. President!
In 2003, when the public furor erupted over the disclosure of a CIA operative's status, Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the affair. "I want to know the truth," he said at the time. "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said then.
"The president and the vice president must be held accountable," Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said from the Senate floor [today]. "Accountable for misleading the American people, accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes. It is as serious as it gets in this democracy."
So, at last the truth, which we've suspected for a very long time is finally out. Our President has committed a crime, he and his co-conspirator, Cheney are criminals - and we all know it for a fact! But the Republican Congress is the only court which can try this case.
Bush's crime is very much worse than the peccadillo which got Clinton impeached by the Republican Congress or even Nixon's cover-up which forced his resignation!
Bush's crime ultimately has cost this country thousands of lives in Iraq and trillions of dollars which could have been used by the American people for much better purposes than to isolate our country in world opinion and put the nation on the verge of bankruptcy or worse, in the hands of the Chinese who hold most of our paper.
He has consistently lied to the American people. Isn't the punishment for being a traitor death by firing squad? I was taught that as a child in school. As an old man, perhaps I and our society have softened too much, but at the very least, certainly he should resign from office or be impeached and spend the rest of his miserable life in public disgrace!
Well, we have a Republican congress. They now know, not simply suspect, the truth, so what are they going to do about it?
What Democrat do they think they can dredge up to smear which will divert attention from our President's crime? And, oh, please don't bring up old warn-out and irrelevant "Chapaquitic Ted" as justification! Perhaps they could find something dirty on the new Democratic star, Barack Obama - US Senator for Illinois! Maybe he masturbated when he was twelve years old. That is how they pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid masses! And, I'm sure the "Christians" could make something of that - the wanton murder of millions of potential humans!
What are the so called "Christians" going to do now after backing this guy to the hilt when they knew full well that he was a loose cannon - even worse than their perpetual embarrassment, Pat Buchanan - but he was all they had. I'm sure like in the Garden of Eden they won't simply slither away!
What sort of puffery is fat-so Rush going to generate for his constituency of rednecks to keep his ratings? I'm sure he'll think of something - he always has.
So, what am I ranting and raving about? I'm going to post articles from both the Associated Press and Reuters which will explain what has just happened:
Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Cheney's top aide to launch a counterattack of leaks against administration critics on Iraq by feeding intelligence information to reporters, according to court papers citing the aide's testimony in the CIA leak case.
In a court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stopped short of accusing Cheney of authorizing his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the CIA identity of Valerie Plame.
But the prosecutor, detailing the evidence he has gathered, raised the possibility that the vice president was trying to use Plame's CIA employment to discredit her husband, administration critic Joseph Wilson. Cheney, according to an indictment against Libby, knew that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as early as June 12, 2003, more than a month before that fact turned up in a column by Robert Novak.
Fitzgerald quoted Libby as saying he was authorized to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Fitzgerald said Libby told him it "was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the president's authorization that it be disclosed."
The process was so secretive that other Cabinet-level officials did not know about it, according to the court papers, which point to Bush and Cheney as setting in motion a leak campaign to the press that ended in Plame's blown cover.
In 2003, when the public furor erupted over the disclosure of a CIA operative's status, Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the affair. "I want to know the truth," he said at the time.
Libby's testimony puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks. Both men have long said they abhor such practices, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations at their behest to hunt down leakers.
The most recent instance is the administration's probe into who disclosed to the Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program.
On Thursday, Democrats criticized the roles of Bush and Cheney.
"President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. "The American people must know the truth."
"The president and the vice president must be held accountable," Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said from the Senate floor. "Accountable for misleading the American people, accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes. It is as serious as it gets in this democracy."
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House would have no comment on the investigation. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information."
Libby faces trial next January on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of the CIA identity of Wilson's wife and what he told reporters about it. The indictment says Cheney told Libby in June 2003 that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
The authorization by Bush and Cheney in July 2003 for disclosing sensitive prewar intelligence assessments came amid a growing public realization that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The failure to find such weapons undermined the primary rationale Bush and Cheney had used for taking the country to war.
According to Fitzgerald's court filing, Cheney, in a conversation with Libby, expressed concerns on whether a CIA-sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger by Wilson "was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."
After Wilson's 2002 trip, the former ambassador said he had concluded that Iraq did not have an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. The subsequent embrace of information that Iraq and Niger did have a deal for uranium was evidence that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat, Wilson said.
Wilson's public criticism on July 6, 2003, "was viewed in the office of vice president as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president, and the president, on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq," Fitzgerald stated.
In the court filing, drawn in part from Libby's own grand jury testimony before his indictment, Fitzgerald indicated that:
• A July 8, 2003, Libby conversation with the Times' Miller occurred "only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information" from a then-classified intelligence estimate on Iraq. Libby is alleged to have mentioned the CIA status of Wilson's wife in the conversation.
• Cheney's chief of staff at first told the vice president that he could not have the July 8, 2003, conversation with Miller because of the classified nature of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
• Libby "testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions" of the NIE.
• The White House aide testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then counsel to the vice president, "whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document."
• Cheney's then-chief of staff "understood that the vice president specifically selected him to talk to the press about the NIE and Mr. Wilson on July 12, 2003." In conversations that day with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and again with Miller, Libby referred to the CIA status of Wilson's wife.
Fitzgerald's court papers are an effort to limit Libby's demand that he be given voluminous amounts of classified information to defend himself in his criminal case.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Bush said to have cleared Iraq leak
By James Vicini Thu Apr 6
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top White House aide testified that President George W. Bush authorized leaking classified intelligence in 2003 in the face of criticism of his Iraq policy from a former ambassador, according to court papers made public on Thursday.
Democrats seized on the news, accusing Bush of hypocrisy. The president has often denounced leaks from his administration and vowed to punish the leakers. This was the first time Bush was directly linked to this incident.
"If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief," said Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record) of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
The papers cited Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, as testifying to a federal grand jury that Cheney had told him that Bush authorized him to disclose information from a secret National Intelligence Estimate to a New York Times reporter in July 2003.
The disclosure arose out of a long-running investigation into the leak of CIA's operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby testified that he was specifically directed by the vice president to reveal the intelligence information to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Libby also said he was cleared to brief the reporter about Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had criticized Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The White House declined to discuss the disclosure. "Our policy is not to discuss ongoing legal proceedings and that policy is unchanged," said spokesman, Ken Lisaius.
Libby resigned from the administration last October when he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leaking of Plame's name.
The information about Bush came to light in a 39-page document filed by Fitzgerald in which he argued against Libby's demand for more government documents, which his lawyers say he needs to defend himself.
Libby testified he had been authorized to disclose the information because it rebutted Wilson and Cheney thought it "very important" for it to come out.
Wilson has said White House officials deliberately leaked his wife's identity to pay him back for attacking the grounds used by Bush to justify the Iraq invasion.
'UNIQUE AUTHORIZATION' Bush had the authority to declassify the material. But the court papers quoted Libby as saying that "it was unique in his recollection" to get approval from the president, via the vice president, for such an action.
The leak occurred at a time when opponents were stepping up their criticism of the March 2003 invasion after U.S. forces had failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Libby said he brought a brief summary of the key findings when he met with Miller on July 8, 2003 at a hotel.
In Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said, "President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), a Vermont Democrat, said, "It's time for the White House to ... just step forward and honestly state what they knew, when they knew it and what they did about it."
New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer demanded an explanation from Bush and Cheney.
"The president has said he'd fire anyone who leaked this kind of information. But it now seems that he authorized leaks just like this in the first place. The American people deserve the truth," he told reporters.
Bush has often complained about leaks in Washington and vowed to take action against those who released unauthorized information to the public.
"There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
"There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said then.
"The president and the vice president must be held accountable," Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said from the Senate floor [today]. "Accountable for misleading the American people, accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes. It is as serious as it gets in this democracy."
So, at last the truth, which we've suspected for a very long time is finally out. Our President has committed a crime, he and his co-conspirator, Cheney are criminals - and we all know it for a fact! But the Republican Congress is the only court which can try this case.
Bush's crime is very much worse than the peccadillo which got Clinton impeached by the Republican Congress or even Nixon's cover-up which forced his resignation!
Bush's crime ultimately has cost this country thousands of lives in Iraq and trillions of dollars which could have been used by the American people for much better purposes than to isolate our country in world opinion and put the nation on the verge of bankruptcy or worse, in the hands of the Chinese who hold most of our paper.
He has consistently lied to the American people. Isn't the punishment for being a traitor death by firing squad? I was taught that as a child in school. As an old man, perhaps I and our society have softened too much, but at the very least, certainly he should resign from office or be impeached and spend the rest of his miserable life in public disgrace!
Well, we have a Republican congress. They now know, not simply suspect, the truth, so what are they going to do about it?
What Democrat do they think they can dredge up to smear which will divert attention from our President's crime? And, oh, please don't bring up old warn-out and irrelevant "Chapaquitic Ted" as justification! Perhaps they could find something dirty on the new Democratic star, Barack Obama - US Senator for Illinois! Maybe he masturbated when he was twelve years old. That is how they pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid masses! And, I'm sure the "Christians" could make something of that - the wanton murder of millions of potential humans!
What are the so called "Christians" going to do now after backing this guy to the hilt when they knew full well that he was a loose cannon - even worse than their perpetual embarrassment, Pat Buchanan - but he was all they had. I'm sure like in the Garden of Eden they won't simply slither away!
What sort of puffery is fat-so Rush going to generate for his constituency of rednecks to keep his ratings? I'm sure he'll think of something - he always has.
So, what am I ranting and raving about? I'm going to post articles from both the Associated Press and Reuters which will explain what has just happened:
Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Cheney's top aide to launch a counterattack of leaks against administration critics on Iraq by feeding intelligence information to reporters, according to court papers citing the aide's testimony in the CIA leak case.
In a court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stopped short of accusing Cheney of authorizing his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the CIA identity of Valerie Plame.
But the prosecutor, detailing the evidence he has gathered, raised the possibility that the vice president was trying to use Plame's CIA employment to discredit her husband, administration critic Joseph Wilson. Cheney, according to an indictment against Libby, knew that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as early as June 12, 2003, more than a month before that fact turned up in a column by Robert Novak.
Fitzgerald quoted Libby as saying he was authorized to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Fitzgerald said Libby told him it "was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the president's authorization that it be disclosed."
The process was so secretive that other Cabinet-level officials did not know about it, according to the court papers, which point to Bush and Cheney as setting in motion a leak campaign to the press that ended in Plame's blown cover.
In 2003, when the public furor erupted over the disclosure of a CIA operative's status, Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the affair. "I want to know the truth," he said at the time.
Libby's testimony puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks. Both men have long said they abhor such practices, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations at their behest to hunt down leakers.
The most recent instance is the administration's probe into who disclosed to the Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program.
On Thursday, Democrats criticized the roles of Bush and Cheney.
"President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. "The American people must know the truth."
"The president and the vice president must be held accountable," Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said from the Senate floor. "Accountable for misleading the American people, accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes. It is as serious as it gets in this democracy."
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House would have no comment on the investigation. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information."
Libby faces trial next January on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of the CIA identity of Wilson's wife and what he told reporters about it. The indictment says Cheney told Libby in June 2003 that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
The authorization by Bush and Cheney in July 2003 for disclosing sensitive prewar intelligence assessments came amid a growing public realization that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The failure to find such weapons undermined the primary rationale Bush and Cheney had used for taking the country to war.
According to Fitzgerald's court filing, Cheney, in a conversation with Libby, expressed concerns on whether a CIA-sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger by Wilson "was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."
After Wilson's 2002 trip, the former ambassador said he had concluded that Iraq did not have an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. The subsequent embrace of information that Iraq and Niger did have a deal for uranium was evidence that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat, Wilson said.
Wilson's public criticism on July 6, 2003, "was viewed in the office of vice president as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president, and the president, on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq," Fitzgerald stated.
In the court filing, drawn in part from Libby's own grand jury testimony before his indictment, Fitzgerald indicated that:
• A July 8, 2003, Libby conversation with the Times' Miller occurred "only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information" from a then-classified intelligence estimate on Iraq. Libby is alleged to have mentioned the CIA status of Wilson's wife in the conversation.
• Cheney's chief of staff at first told the vice president that he could not have the July 8, 2003, conversation with Miller because of the classified nature of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
• Libby "testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions" of the NIE.
• The White House aide testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then counsel to the vice president, "whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document."
• Cheney's then-chief of staff "understood that the vice president specifically selected him to talk to the press about the NIE and Mr. Wilson on July 12, 2003." In conversations that day with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and again with Miller, Libby referred to the CIA status of Wilson's wife.
Fitzgerald's court papers are an effort to limit Libby's demand that he be given voluminous amounts of classified information to defend himself in his criminal case.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Bush said to have cleared Iraq leak
By James Vicini Thu Apr 6
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top White House aide testified that President George W. Bush authorized leaking classified intelligence in 2003 in the face of criticism of his Iraq policy from a former ambassador, according to court papers made public on Thursday.
Democrats seized on the news, accusing Bush of hypocrisy. The president has often denounced leaks from his administration and vowed to punish the leakers. This was the first time Bush was directly linked to this incident.
"If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief," said Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record) of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
The papers cited Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, as testifying to a federal grand jury that Cheney had told him that Bush authorized him to disclose information from a secret National Intelligence Estimate to a New York Times reporter in July 2003.
The disclosure arose out of a long-running investigation into the leak of CIA's operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby testified that he was specifically directed by the vice president to reveal the intelligence information to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Libby also said he was cleared to brief the reporter about Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had criticized Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The White House declined to discuss the disclosure. "Our policy is not to discuss ongoing legal proceedings and that policy is unchanged," said spokesman, Ken Lisaius.
Libby resigned from the administration last October when he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leaking of Plame's name.
The information about Bush came to light in a 39-page document filed by Fitzgerald in which he argued against Libby's demand for more government documents, which his lawyers say he needs to defend himself.
Libby testified he had been authorized to disclose the information because it rebutted Wilson and Cheney thought it "very important" for it to come out.
Wilson has said White House officials deliberately leaked his wife's identity to pay him back for attacking the grounds used by Bush to justify the Iraq invasion.
'UNIQUE AUTHORIZATION' Bush had the authority to declassify the material. But the court papers quoted Libby as saying that "it was unique in his recollection" to get approval from the president, via the vice president, for such an action.
The leak occurred at a time when opponents were stepping up their criticism of the March 2003 invasion after U.S. forces had failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Libby said he brought a brief summary of the key findings when he met with Miller on July 8, 2003 at a hotel.
In Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said, "President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), a Vermont Democrat, said, "It's time for the White House to ... just step forward and honestly state what they knew, when they knew it and what they did about it."
New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer demanded an explanation from Bush and Cheney.
"The president has said he'd fire anyone who leaked this kind of information. But it now seems that he authorized leaks just like this in the first place. The American people deserve the truth," he told reporters.
Bush has often complained about leaks in Washington and vowed to take action against those who released unauthorized information to the public.
"There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
"There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)