The Truth of the Matter....

It seems that President Clinton while campaigning for Hillary in Iowa has stated that he has always been against the Iraq War.

I don't understand why he would say such a thing because the truth is certainly not secret and it will most certainly affect the credibility of the Clinton's in this political contest.

I have always supported the Clinton's despite the fact that I haven't always agreed with them in such things as NAFTA and the Iraq War. However, I now think that Obama would be a breath of fresh air and -- as he says, "a change".

It was an easy Google search to find the CNN post regarding what Bill Clinton's position was in 2004 regarding Bush and the Iraq situation:

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.
Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

Shame on Democrats?

The other night I heard a very good question. The questioner stated that we all know that the Democrats keep talking against the Iraq war but claim that even though they have the majority they don't 'quite' have the numbers and power to 'change course'.

The question was essentially, how come they simply sit on their hands and do nothing? The House certainly has the power to impeach the President and Vice President even if they can't put them out of office. They have the power to cut off funds for the war and other anti-war legislation. So what if the President has a veto!

It is only the Senate who doesn't have the numbers to pass legislation but they certainly could tie up the Congress until the Republicans cave -- they could at least be obstructionists, rant and rail, and put the whole bag on the backs of those few Republicans who still support Bush.

If the Democrats showed a little backbone, with the backing of the people, the Republicans in Congress would most certainly put their tails between their legs if they want to be re-elected!

I suspect they are playing cat and mouse waiting game -- letting the Republicans hang on the ends of their strings simply twisting in the wind. That is good politics but it is evil because continuing this war is costing the lives of Americans - even if they are considered mercenaries.

Sin and Scandals Galore!

I don't quite understand why the Democratic politicians feel they have to give the campaign moneys donated by Hsu away to charities, etc. He obviously was not trying to buy their favor since he didn't represent anything other than perhaps to acquire business contacts based upon his notoriety for future scams - ? Anyway, this is an interesting story...

In similar fashion, I wonder why Republican senator Craig sort of resigned his seat because he may or may not be gay. Seems to me that it is only a problem for his family and the people he represents in Idaho - certainly not the rest of the country and especially the Senate ethics committee! Ethics for what?

As a Democrat, it certainly doesn't bother me that the Republicans have a hard time keeping their holier-than-thou behaviors in line but so what? I suspect that his skin-head constituents back home know him much better than we do. After all, if he does resign he'll only be replaced by someone just as reprehensible!

Democratic donor a no show at hearing
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu was a wanted man again after he failed to show up for a court date Wednesday and a judge issued a new warrant for his arrest.

Hsu, whose criminal past has roiled the campaigns of top presidential candidates, was scheduled to ask a judge to cut in half the $2 million bail he posted last week when he turned himself in after spending 15 years on the lam from a felony theft conviction.

Instead, San Mateo Superior Court Judge Robert Foiles ordered Hsu's bail forfeited to the county and issued a new arrest warrant. If Hsu is arrested again, he will be jailed without bail this time.

Hsu, a Hong Kong native, was also supposed to turn over his passport Wednesday. Hsu's prominent Silicon Valley criminal defense attorney Jim Brosnahan said Hsu failed to give the passport to the legal team on Monday.

"Mr. Hsu is not here and we do not know where Mr. Hsu is," Brosnahan said outside court. Brosnahan said that "there was some contact" with Hsu a few hours before the scheduled 9 a.m. court appearance, but he declined to say how and who talked to Hsu.

Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, admitting he'd defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell Latex gloves. He was facing up to three years in prison when he skipped town before his 1992 sentencing date.

Prosecutors said they suspected Hsu fled the country then. But a few years ago, Hsu re-emerged in New York as an apparel executive and a wealthy benefactor of Democratic causes and candidates. They included presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign designated Hsu a "HillRaiser" — a title given to top donors.

Brosnahan said he didn't know if Hsu returned to his Manhattan condominium or stayed in California after his five-hour jail stint Friday when Hsu turned himself in. He was released from jail after posting $2 million bail, which a judge refused then to reduce to $1 million.

Prosecutors with the California Attorney General's office had agreed to the bail reduction because it would be used to reimburse the victims Hsu admitted swindling out of $1 million in the early 1990s.

"We did think that was enough," Deputy Attorney General Ralph Sivilla said outside court. Sivilla also said he was troubled that Hsu didn't turn in his passport.

Federal Election Commission records show Hsu donated $260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates since 2004. Though a top fundraiser for Clinton, he also donated to Obama's Senate campaign in 2004 and to his political action committee. He also contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to state and municipal candidates.

After reports surfaced of his fugitive status, politicians at all levels scrambled to distance themselves. On Wednesday, Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who initially said he would keep the $6,200 from Hsu, announced that he would give the money to charity.

Kennedy had originally counted $6,600 in donations, but a review of federal campaign records showed it was actually $6,200.

Obama's campaign said it would give to charity the $2,000 Hsu contributed to his 2004 Senate campaign and the $5,000 Hsu gave to his political action committee, Hopefund.

Hsu's $43,700 in donations to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $2,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also will go to charity, both groups said.

Clinton joined the other candidates, returning $23,000 in contributions that Hsu made to her presidential and senatorial campaigns and to her political action committee, HillPac. But his close association with her campaign put Clinton on the defensive.

Last week, Hsu said he thought the criminal charges had been taken care of when he completed his bankruptcy proceedings in the early 1990s.

"I have not sought to evade any of my obligations and certainly not the law," Hsu said in a prepared statement.

God's Warriors.... CNN

Did anyone watch CNN's documentary "God's Warriors" hosted by Christiane Amanpour?

It consisted of three two-hour presentations starting Tuesday night on the radical Jews and Israel. On Wednesday evening it considered Islam and fundamentalist Muslims. Tonight it ended with two hours on American evangelical Christians.

I found it not only very interesting, but very disturbing! What I learned was that we ‘normal?' humans on this Earth are all faced with the peril of religious fundamentalism regardless of the denomination, Jew, Muslim or Christian. Each shares the intent of subjugating all peoples to their own beliefs throughout the world - not just from the synagogues, mosques, or churches, but through the political control of governments and terrorism! Pretty scary stuff with no indication of ‘turn the other cheek' or ‘love thine enemy'. .....and the show didn't indicate how any of these mass movements could be stopped or even controlled!

Of course basically, the fundamentalist movements with no remorse regarding bloodshed, revolve around the decadence of our secular freedoms which include rampant sex and pornography amongst other ‘liberal' permissions. I might agree with them on those points except that they also invoke almost prehistoric prohibitions against the rights of women or political and religious dissent, etc. Only someone who could be happy as cannon fodder in the military could tolerate such a life style!

I've been impressed by Christine Amanpour's journalism for several years now and after this documentary, I decided to look her up. She has not only a rather unique genealogy but has also led an interesting life as described at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiane_Amanpour – well worth reading.

Dick & Jane....

Hmmmm.... Seems to me that there are both qualitative and quantitative differences between reading Mary Higgins Clark mysteries, ‘HTML for Dummies', ‘The Unemotional Investor', ‘The Physics of Consiousness', ‘Genome', ‘The Crisis of Islam' or perhaps reading both the 'New Testament' and 'The Jefferson Bible' to discover the philosophical dichotomy between the two - and then, there is Omar's 'Rubaiyat'!

The article below doesn't address quality or subject matter in making its political statement other than a reference to the Republican mantra, "No new taxes", which is of course true, but not reflective of what Republicans might do in the privacy of their own homes – with the shades drawn!

Book chief: Conservatives want slogans
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 21

WASHINGTON - Liberals read more books than conservatives. The head of the book publishing industry's trade group says she knows why — and there's little flattering about conservative readers in her explanation.

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress' most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

The book publishing industry is predominantly liberal, though conservative books by authors like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and pundit Ann Coulter have been best sellers in recent years. Overall, book sales have been flat as publishers seek to woo readers lured away by the Internet, movies and television.

Rove, President Bush's departing political adviser, is known as a prodigious reader. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Schroeder was "confusing volume with quality" with her remarks.

"Obfuscation usually requires a lot more words than if you simply focus on fundamental principles, so I'm not at all surprised by the loquaciousness of liberals," he said.

"As head of a book publishing association, she probably shouldn't malign any readers," said Mary Matalin, a GOP strategist who oversees a line of books by conservative authors, Threshold, at Simon & Schuster. Matalin said conservatives and others aren't necessarily reading less, but are getting more information online and from magazines.

The AP-Ipsos poll found 22 percent of liberals and moderates said they had not read a book within the past year, compared with 34 percent of conservatives.

Among those who had read at least one book, liberals typically read nine books in the year, with half reading more than that and half less. Conservatives typically read eight, moderates five.

By slightly wider margins, Democrats tended to read more books than Republicans and independents. There were no differences by political party in the percentage of those who said they had not read at least one book.

The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,003 adults and was conducted August 6 to 8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

More Bloodshed to come....

Wow! This article, below, reads like a real life spy thriller! And I'd guess that it doesn't bode well for our American and other forces in occupied Iraq.

With a Shiite government in power in Iraq they obviously have two goals - one to punish the Sunni's for Saddam's past crimes and to rid themselves of the American invaders who are, after all, Jew loving Christians and are hindering their progress toward a religiously ‘clean' Shiite ruled nation!

The writing has been on the wall for quite sometime, now. But our administration only sees the chance for our oil companies to glom onto Iraqi oil. In that respect, we had better be nice to Venezuela's Chavez and perhaps Russia because my guess is that because of our overbearing "Christian morality" we're going to lose the friendship of those Muslims who control middle east oil everywhere - including the Saudi's who have been amazingly patient with us - after all, the Chinese will buy all they can produce with profits from selling junk to us and or cashing in their American holdings. In the meantime we had better work toward that difficult goal of "energy independence."

If we're not scared, we should be.

Italy probe unearths huge Iraq arms deal

By CHARLES J. HANLEY and ARIEL DAVID
Associated Press Writers Sun Aug 12

PERUGIA, Italy - In a hidden corner of Rome's busy Fiumicino Airport, police dug quietly through a traveler's checked baggage, looking for smuggled drugs. What they found instead was a catalog of weapons, a clue to something bigger.

Their discovery led anti-Mafia investigators down a monthslong trail of telephone and e-mail intercepts, into the midst of a huge black-market transaction, as Iraqi and Italian partners haggled over shipping more than 100,000 Russian-made automatic weapons into the bloodbath of Iraq.

As the secretive, $40 million deal neared completion, Italian authorities moved in, making arrests and breaking it up. But key questions remain unanswered.

For one thing, The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command — a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases.

Why these officials resorted to "black" channels and where the weapons were headed is unclear.

The purchase would merely have been the most spectacular example of how Iraq has become a magnet for arms traffickers and a place of vanishing weapons stockpiles and uncontrolled gun markets since the 2003 U.S. invasion and the onset of civil war.

Some guns the U.S. bought for Iraq's police and army are unaccounted for, possibly fallen into the hands of insurgents or sectarian militias. Meanwhile, the planned replacement of the army's AK-47s with U.S.-made M-16s may throw more assault rifles onto the black market. And the weapons free-for-all apparently is spilling over borders: Turkey and Iran complain U.S.-supplied guns are flowing from Iraq to anti-government militants on their soil.

Iraqi middlemen in the Italian deal, in intercepted e-mails, claimed the arrangement had official American approval. A U.S. spokesman in Baghdad denied that.

"Iraqi officials did not make MNSTC-I aware that they were making purchases," Lt. Col. Daniel Williams of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I), which oversees arming and training of the Iraqi police and army, told the AP.

Operation Parabellum, the investigation led by Dario Razzi, anti-Mafia prosecutor in this central Italian city, began in 2005 as a routine investigation into drug trafficking by organized-crime figures, branched out into an inquiry into arms dealing with Libya, and then widened to Iraq.

Court documents obtained by the AP show that Razzi's break came early last year when police monitoring one of the drug suspects covertly opened his luggage as he left on a flight to Libya. Instead of the expected drugs, they found helmets, bulletproof vests and the weapons catalog.

Tapping telephones, monitoring e-mails, Razzi's investigators followed the trail to a group of Italian businessmen, otherwise unrelated to the drug probe, who were working to sell arms to Libya and, by late 2006, to Iraq as well, through offshore companies they set up in Malta and Cyprus.

Four Italians have been arrested and are awaiting court indictment for allegedly creating a criminal association and alleged arms trafficking — trading in weapons without a government license. A fifth Italian is being sought in Africa. In addition, 13 other Italians were arrested on drug charges.

In the documents, Razzi describes it as "strange" that the U.S.-supported Iraqi government would seek such weapons via the black market.

Investigators say the prospect of an Iraq deal was raised last November, when an Iraqi-owned trading firm e-mailed Massimo Bettinotti, 39, owner of the Malta-based MIR Ltd., about whether MIR could supply 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 10,000 machine guns "to the Iraqi Interior Ministry," adding that "this deal is approved by America and Iraq."

The go-between — the Al-Handal General Trading Co. in Dubai — apparently had communicated with Bettinotti earlier about buying night visors and had been told MIR could also procure weapons.

Al-Handal has figured in questionable dealings before, having been identified by U.S. investigators three years ago as a "front company" in Iraq's Oil-for-Food scandal.

The Interior Ministry's need at that point for such a massive weapons shipment is unclear. The U.S. training command had already reported it would arm all Interior Ministry police by the end of 2006 through its own three-year-old program, which as of July 26 has bought 701,000 weapons for the Iraqi army and police with $237 million in U.S. government funds.

Negotiations on the deal progressed quickly in e-mail exchanges between the Italians and Iraqi middlemen of the al-Handal company and its parent al-Thuraya Group. But at times the discussion turned murky and nervous.

The Iraqis alternately indicated the Interior Ministry or "security ministries" would be the end users. At one point, a worried Bettinotti e-mailed, "We prefer to speak about this deal face to face and not by e-mail."

The Italians sent several offers of various types and quantities of rifles, with photos included. The negotiating focused on the source of the weapons: The Iraqi middlemen said their buyer insisted they be Russian-made, but the Italians wanted to sell AK-47s made in China, where they had better contacts.

"We are in a hurry with this deal," an impatient Waleed Noori al-Handal, Jordan-based general manager of the Iraqi firm, wrote the Italians on Nov. 13 in one of the e-mails seen by AP.

He added, in apparent allusion to the shipment's clandestine nature, "You mustn't worry if it's a problem to import these goods directly into Iraq. We can bring the product to another country and then transfer it to Iraq."

By December, the Italians, having found a Bulgarian broker, were offering Russian-made goods: 50,000 AKM rifles, an improved version of the AK-47; 50,000 AKMS rifles, the same gun with folding stock; and 5,000 PKM machine guns.

The Iraqis quibbled over the asking price, $39.7 million, but seemed satisfied. The Italians were set for a $6.6 million profit, the court documents show, and were already discussing air transport for the weapons. At this point prosecutor Razzi acted, seeking an arrest warrant from a Perugia court.

"The negotiation with Iraq is developing very quickly," he wrote the judge.

On Feb. 12, in seven locations across Italy, police arrested the 17 men, including the four alleged arms traffickers: Bettinotti; Gianluca Squarzolo, 39, the man whose luggage had yielded the original clue; Ermete Moretti, 55, and Serafino Rossi, 64. If convicted, they could be sentenced to up to 12 years in prison.

The at-large fifth man, Vittorio Dordi, 42, was believed to be in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where he apparently is involved in the diamond trade. Italian authorities were seeking information on him from the African country.

In the parallel Libya case, the Italians allegedly paid two Libyan Defense Ministry officials about $500,000 in kickbacks to speed that transaction for Chinese-made assault rifles. It isn't known whether such bribes were a factor in the Iraq deal. No Libyans or Iraqis are known to have been detained in connection with the cases.

Al-Handal's operations have caught investigators' notice before. In 1996-2003, the company was involved as a broker in the kickback scandal known as Oil for Food, the CIA says.

In that program, Iraq under U.N. economic sanctions bought food and other necessities with U.N.-supervised oil revenues. Foreign companies, often through intermediaries, surreptitiously kicked back payments to officials of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government in exchange for such supply contracts.

Those Iraqi middlemen also engaged in "misrepresenting the origin or final destination of goods," said the 2004 report of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which investigated both Iraq's defunct advanced weapons programs and Oil for Food.

That report also alleged that during this period Al-Handal General Trading, from its bases in Dubai and Jordan, secretly moved unspecified "equipment" into Iraq that was forbidden by the U.N. sanctions.

Reached at his office in Amman, Jordan, Waleed Noori al-Handal denied the family firm had done anything wrong in the Italian arms case.

"We don't have anything to hide," he told the AP.

Citing the names of "friends" in top U.S. military ranks in Iraq, al-Handal said his company has fulfilled scores of supply and service contracts for the U.S. occupation. Asked why he claimed U.S. approval for the abortive Italian weapons purchase, he said he had a document from the U.S. Army "that says, 'We allow al-Thuraya Group to do all kinds of business.'"

In Baghdad, the Interior Ministry wouldn't discuss the AK-47 transaction on the record. But a senior ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity, acknowledged it had sought the weapons through al-Handal.

Asked about the irregular channels used, he said the ministry "doesn't ask the supplier how these weapons are obtained."

Although this official refused to discuss details, he said "most" of the 105,000 weapons were meant for police in Iraq's western province of Anbar. That statement raised questions, however, since Pentagon reports list only 161,000 trained police across all 18 of Iraq's provinces, and say the ministry has been issued 169,280 AK-47s, 167,789 pistols and 16,398 machine guns for them and 28,000 border police.

A July 26 Pentagon report said 20,847 other AK-47s purchased for the Interior Ministry have not yet been delivered. Iraqi officials complain that the U.S. supply of equipment, from bullets to uniforms, has been slow.

A Pentagon report in June may have touched on another possible destination for weapons obtained via secretive channels, noting that "militia infiltration of local police remains a significant problem." Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq's civil war have long been known to find cover and weapons within the Interior Ministry.

In fact, in a further sign of poor controls on the flow of arms into Iraq, a July 31 audit report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said the U.S. command's books don't contain records on 190,000 AK-47s and other weapons, more than half those issued in 2004-2005 to Iraqi forces. This makes it difficult to trace weapons that may be passed on to militias or insurgents.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has described the Interior Ministry's accounting of police equipment as unreliable.

Here in Italy, Razzi expressed puzzlement at the Iraqi officials' circumvention of U.S. supply routes.

"It seems strange that a pro-Western government, supported by the U.S. Army and other NATO countries on its own territory, would seek Russian or Chinese weapons through questionable channels," the anti-Mafia prosecutor wrote in seeking the arrest warrant that short-circuited the complex deal.

Healthcare reform....

California, the most socially advanced country in the nation is doing what it does best - leading the way in social reform.

I miss California but having been priced out and crowded out of the state of over 36 million people I can only hope that someday enough Californians will over-flow into Arizona to make it equally advanced as opposed to the old and decadent East Coast and the rabidly conservative desert states to say nothing of the mid-westerners most of whom live their lives out in quiet desperation.

Rule of thumb is that California has traditionally led the nation by five years in social structure and reform - here in Arizona it may take a bit longer....

Calif. lawmakers promise health reform this year
By Lisa Baertlein Sat Aug 11

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California lawmakers on Saturday promised to send a health care reform bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this year, even as the $145 billion state budget has stalled and the legislative session winds down.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Assembly Republican Leader Michael Villines made their vows to hundreds of people attending an eight-city, satellite-linked meeting focused on covering the state's 6.5 million uninsured.

Schwarzenegger, a former action film star, has made health care for all Californians a priority and has been publicly battering fellow Republicans in the state Senate, whom he also blames for the six-week budget delay.

Speaking at the same forum, Schwarzenegger told the Los Angeles audience that Senate Republicans "are holding up the budget so they don't have to deal with health care."

Nunez, who like Perata and others have proposed their own fixes for the state's burdened health care system, said lawmakers will get the job done.

"In the absence of real action on the part of the federal government and Congress ... we in California are going to deliver," he said.

But time is running out. California lawmakers do not expect movement on a spending plan until the state Assembly returns from vacation on August 20. They have until September 14 to pass a health reform bill this calendar year.

Rebuttal: A Gale is Blowing

I wrote this in a letter to the editor of the Kingman Daily Miner of Kingman, AZ in response to an editorial which indicated that young people are not satisfied with politics and politicians.... Duh!

I read reporter Gail Adams' fluff piece (Aug. 9th), rehashing the perpetual disjunction between the young and the old especially involving politics - where the young, driven primarily by hormones, complain about how lousy the world is, but expect their elders to do all of the work to fix it!

They probably were looking out the window in civics class when they were informed that one has to be over 35 to be elected president for the simple reason that until a person is about 25, she doesn't have the mental maturity (read: common sense) to drive a car, say nothing of run a nation!

Yes, we have a primitive two party system for the simple reason that a third party never has and never will win an election. We aren't set up Constitutionally for coalition (parliamentary) governments like most of the rest of the world. And yes, when running for office the two parties can get vicious - however, I don't see a "youth party" being all that different - and perhaps they'd be even more violent.

I suspect that if you drop in on either a local Republican or Democratic party meeting - which should be published regularly on page two here in the Miner, an adult (read: ‘volunteer') of any age would be welcome with open arms! However, I'm sure you'll find that the only ones who take the civic trouble to hobble in are well over fifty! They're all tired and hurt most of the time - but someone's gotta do it.

Yes, our government's a mess - we all know it! Supposedly in a Democracy (which we aren't) the majority rules! Right? Not so! Neither party can pass significant legislation in the Senate without the Aye vote of 60 Senators! Conversely, it only takes 41 Senators to block the measure. So the fact that the Democrats after many years finally have a majority of the members, they can't seem to scrape up enough Republicans to help them pass even so called "bi-partisan" bills co-written by senators from both parties!

And then, there is the war and the administration. A good 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the American people of all parties are opposed to the Iraq war, the lack of military aggressiveness toward Al Caida and the Taliban, and, in general, the fact that the Bush administration simply doesn't care what the people think from either party ("We don't watch the polls!"). There have been plenty of Republicans from Congress who have tried to get the President to heed their counsel, but he seems to think he knows best. And he holds the trump cards.

So what can we do? Well, not much. We could impeach the president and vice-president in the House of Representatives which would bring all legislative business to a halt - just as it did when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, and nothing would get done until about 2008. Or we can just wait it out and elect a new president in 2008. I'm not sure, but if we were to impeach the President he would still be in office until the Senate held a trial and, if found guilty, would throw him out of office. Problem is that there are probably enough of the president's men in the Senate to prevent finding him guilty. So besides besmirching the president's ‘legacy' which is already besmirched, where is the gain?

So, Ms Adams, did any of your young friends come up with any answers to the above problems? It is awfully easy to be a critic!

Mortgage market pandering....?

Hate to say this, but I think that in this case, Hillery is pandering the ‘po folk' vote by advocating setting up programs to help pay their mortgages.

The problem is, of course, that there was an irrational housing bubble coupled with a lot of criminal activity on the part of realtors, lenders and appraisers who scammed the system and sold homes to people who were not at all qualified either through credit history or income. Coupled with speculators who leveraged into houses with the idea of ‘flipping' and we had a disaster in the making when they simply walked away when the market topped.

Aside from putting a lot of those people in jail for fraud, conspiracy, etc. I agree that there should never be pre-payment penalties, ever, and variable rate mortgages should be outlawed simply because the low early rates are intended to lure buyers who then get in big trouble if and when the rates go up.

Perhaps legislation which would make an original lender still responsible for a loan after he spins it off to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in the secondary mortgage market would have a good moderating influence! Some legislation of home builders making them somewhat responsible for the properties they build after they sell them and liability for local governments who issue building permits simply for revenue without zoning concerns, etc.

In other words, the problem is regulation and responsibility, not billion dollar bailouts which is required to prevent future abuses! ... It really is that simple!

Clinton proposes crackdown in mortgage market
By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the U.S. mortgage market in turmoil, Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday proposed clamping down on lending abuses and providing more aid to families who face losing their homes.

Her proposals were a sign that America's brewing housing crisis has become an issue facing candidates in the November 2008 election, with thousands facing the prospect of losing their homes because they accepted mortgages that are now too expensive.

The New York senator, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, also proposed a $1 billion fund to supplement state programs that help homeowners catch up on mortgage payments, renegotiate loan terms or provide financial counseling.

She pressed for eliminating penalties for early repayment of mortgages, which are often associated with less traditional home loans to individuals who fall short of qualifying for prime loans and turn to more expensive subprime mortgages.

The proposals come as world markets have been see-sawing in reaction to problems in the U.S. subprime mortgage markets and rising defaults among less credit-worthy borrowers. Lenders in recent months have tightened their loan standards as a result.

"We can look at the statistics, wring our hands, and continue to do nothing, or we can do what America has always done in times of difficulty: acknowledge that we face a real challenge, and confront it head-on with real solutions," Clinton said.

She has a 22-point lead over her closest rival, Sen. Barack Obama, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll. Almost half, 48 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, backed her, versus 26 percent for Obama.

Two major residential lenders who specialized in subprime loans have filed for bankruptcy protection this year, American Home Mortgage Investment Corp and New Century Financial Corp and dozens of lenders have closed.

The Bush administration has argued that the recent subprime mortgage market turmoil appeared to be contained and is not hurting the broader economy, but it is closely monitoring the situation.

"We need to help those facing the pain of foreclosure," Clinton said in a statement. "We need to secure the marketplace and put reforms in place right now."

Her proposal also includes requirements that mortgage brokers fully disclose their compensation to borrowers when they apply for a mortgage and require federal registration for mortgage brokers.

Additionally, Clinton said another $1 billion should be set aside to help state and local trust funds that help subsidize low-income housing. The New York lawmaker did not offer details on how she would pay for the programs if enacted.

Some lawmakers in Congress, including Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Chris Dodd, have been looking into overhauling regulations governing the subprime mortgage market, but no concrete proposals have advanced in the House of Representatives or Senate.

Rudy G.

Poor Rudy! Obviously he's not a good family man - even though he's tried several times. The following is in my mind not relevant to his running for President or his ability to perform the job. My reason for not voting for him is, of course, because he doesn't espouse the philosophies, policies nor have international expertise (especially what to do with Iraq) I think he should hold and have. However, there are a lot of very superficial voters out there who "focus on the man" rather than his qualifications.

In the long run, if he really wants to be a politician, I think he's in the wrong party! His daughter is a Democrat, obviously and he has backed many Democratic policies such as women's choice and gay rights. I also doubt that he is a ‘born-again Christian' - and actually, he may not be a Christian at all! After all, how many practicing Catholics have been married three times?

Anyway, this is sort of a fun read.

Giuliani's daughter backing Obama
AP

WASHINGTON - The daughter of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani has signaled she's backing Democrat Barack Obama for president.

According to her Facebook profile, Giuliani's 17-year-old daughter, Caroline, belonged to Democrat Barack Obama's Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." She left the group Monday morning after the online magazine Slate sent an inquiry.

Her profile can be viewed by Facebook users who have access to New York City's Trinity School or Harvard University networks. Caroline, who is Giuliani's daughter with his second wife, Donna Hanover, recently graduated from Trinity and will attend Harvard in the fall.

Slate posted a screen shot of her profile, which uses a slightly different last name. She lists herself as having liberal political views.

Giuliani, a leading Republican candidate, has asked for privacy to deal with strained relationships in his family. Son Andrew, 21, has said their relationship became distant after Giuliani's messy divorce from the children's mother and his marriage to third wife Judith Nathan.

"There's obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife," Andrew Giuliani told The New York Times earlier this year.

In May, Giuliani attended his daughter's high school graduation but kept a low profile, sitting in a last row balcony seat with his wife and leaving without speaking to his daughter, the New York Daily News reported.

Neither the Giuliani nor Obama campaigns had any comment on Caroline's political preference.

Media Matters & Commentary

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

Granted, this is a progressive organization who watches the neocon writer's lies and inaccuracies but not those on the liberal side. However, my interest primarily involves slurs against the candidates I'm most likely to vote for. (I wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if for some demented reason he'd come back to Earth as a Republican!)

On the other hand, I just pointed out gross innaccuracies in a posted left-wing article written by a David Swanson about GWB's grandfather's involvement in a plot to overthrow the US government in 1933 and aligning with Hitler in a post on Care2!

And so now I'm accused of being an "employee of Bushco" implanted in the thickets of Care2.. Prescott Bush was not a good honest patriot but he simply didn't go that far. By all accounts, he was simply a greedy 2nd tier American businessman! ....AG

August 3, 2007
The weekly update from Media Matters for America

Daily Howler writer Bob Somerby (among others) describes the media's relentless fascination with (Democrats') haircuts and (Democrats') earth tones and (Democrats') necklines as a focus on "trivia." As in, the cost of one of John Edwards' haircuts is perhaps interesting to some, but quite insignificant -- it is the answer to a trivia question, not something that should be considered the defining element of the man.

But over and over and over again, media treat these trivial matters -- what songs are on Hillary Clinton's iPod? What color shirt is Al Gore wearing? How much was John Edwards' haircut? What is Barack Obama's middle name? -- as deeply significant revelations about the candidates' character. We've tried -- over and over and over again -- to explain the problems with this form of campaign journalism. And we'll likely do so -- over and over and over again -- in the future.

But this week, we're struck by something else: How frequently reporters are wrong not only about the importance of these trivial matters, but about the trivia itself. They aren't Ken Jennings, racking up win after win on Jeopardy. They're more like Cliff Clavin, spouting off in the bar about a "little known fact" that is completely false.

For example: A July 22 New York Times article about candidates' clothing warned that candidates "risk becoming Al Gore in earth tones, in other words, to cite a famously lampooned misstep the former presidential candidate undertook on the advice of Naomi Wolf, then his image consultant." That was probably an inevitable line; media just love to snark about Wolf picking Gore's clothes out for him. This is classic trivia -- it couldn't possibly matter less that Al Gore wore a brown pair of pants, or that he did so on the advice of an image consultant. Indeed, since the media constantly tell us that candidates' appearances matter -- the July 22 Times article is but one of many examples -- they arguably should have considered Gore a savvy pol for seeking professional sartorial advice.

Oh, I almost forgot one little detail: Naomi Wolf didn't tell Al Gore to wear earth tones, and she wasn't an "image consultant," as the Times acknowledged in a correction on July 29.

Why it took the Times a full week to correct a claim that anybody who cares has known is false for the better part of a decade is anybody's guess. But perhaps we should just be grateful the correction eventually came. When Times columnist Maureen Dowd made the same bogus claims during the 2000 presidential campaign, her falsehoods went uncorrected. Take, for example, her November 3, 1999, column that declared "Time magazine revealed that Al Gore hired Ms. Wolf, who has written extensively on women and sexual power, as a $15,000-a-month consultant to help him with everything from his shift to earth tones to his efforts to break with Bill Clinton." Wrong and wrong again -- Wolf didn't have anything to do with "earth tones," as the Times now acknowledges, and Time magazine didn't reveal that she did. Dowd was playing trivial pursuit -- but she kept getting the answers wrong.

Now, another presidential campaign brings still more media insistence that trivial observations about candidates' clothing are somehow deeply revealing matters of great importance. After The Washington Post ran an article about Hillary Clinton purportedly showing some cleavage during a statement on the floor of the Senate, journalists rushed to defend the paper from predictable (and well-deserved) derision.

CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood, for example, defended the article by suggesting that Clinton's cleavage was the result of "the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does." Shortly thereafter, he decided he needed to defend himself, and explained his comments by invoking -- you guessed it -- Al Gore's earth tones.

Washington Post reporter Amy Argetsinger took to MSNBC to defend her paper's article. In doing so, she claimed the article was "very complimentary" toward Clinton and that it was "not critical of the cleavage display." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, the article described Clinton's appearance as "unnerving," adding "it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!"

Argetsinger went on to make a more telling false statement. Describing the article's genesis, Argetsinger said that the writer, Robin Givhan, "took note of the fact that Hillary Clinton was showing a bit of cleavage because she had been watching Hillary Clinton over the years and had noticed that she had never shown cleavage." Givhan's piece also indicated the cleavage display was a new development -- it was headlined "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory," and made much of how "surprising" it was to see "coming from Clinton."

The notion that this -- utterly trivial -- display of a little cleavage is a new and out-of-character development for Clinton is presumably the basis for the obsession many journalists have with the topic -- and for Harwood's insistence that it is the result of political calculation. It is also false. More than a year ago, for example, the National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez noted, "Senator Clinton's blazer is a bit lowcut today" and predicted a Washington Post Style section article about the topic. She even posted a screen-capture of Clinton on the Senate floor, showing just as much (which is to say, very little) cleavage as that which inspired the current media obsession with Clinton's "calculated" neckline.

More Clinton trivia appeared in The Washington Post's coverage of the most recent Democratic presidential debate, during which Clinton said that she and her husband sent their daughter Chelsea to private school upon arriving in Washington because the Clintons had been advised that if Chelsea went to public school, "the press would never leave her alone."

The Post's Peter Baker wrote up Clinton's comments under the headline "CHELSEA'S SCHOOLING Blame the Media? Once It Wasn't So." Baker's three-paragraph report was full of snarky observations: Beginning "Ah, it was the media's fault," the report went on "Funny thing -- that's not what the Clintons said in January 1993 when they announced the decision. ... Nothing about reporters -- who, by the way, aren't exactly allowed to waltz into public schools any more than they are private schools. And who over eight years pretty much left Chelsea alone, regardless of school."

Now, the Clintons' reasons for sending Chelsea to private school are basically trivia. Neither the Clintons nor any other progressive I know of thinks private schools should be banned, so there isn't any hypocrisy at play here (though, of course, you can't expect reporters to understand that.) But whatever substantive merit there may be to exploring the Clinton's reasons, the question of what the Clintons said in January 1993 is purely trivia. Regardless of what they said when, it's hard to imagine that anybody really doubts that concern for Chelsea's privacy was a factor in the decision. That was perfectly clear to observers at the time - a January 1993 Newsweek report, for example, noted "Chelsea's privacy could be one factor" in the decision.

But Baker focused on the trivia of what the Clintons announced in January, 1993 -- according to Baker, a White House spokesman said "They chose Sidwell Friends because it's a good school." His Post colleague John Solomon declared it an "insightful catch of Sen. Clinton changing her story. ... Hillary Clinton may have had privacy in mind back in 1993 when she and her husband made the choice for Chelsea, but they didn't tell us that then, so noting it now is useful."

Well, no, it isn't particularly useful, or insightful. And it's also false to say that the Clinton's "didn't tell us" about privacy concerns "back in 1993." It's trivia, and it's wrong. In May 1993, the Associated Press reported:

Sending his daughter to a pricey private school gave her a chance to "be a normal kid," President Clinton said today. He insisted that the decision was not a rejection of public schools.

"My daughter is not a public figure. She does not want to be a public figure. She does not like getting a lot of publicity, and frankly she has more privacy and more control over her destiny where she is than she would if she were at public school," Clinton said in a two-hour "Town Meeting" broadcast on CBS.

"Back in 1993," President Clinton told a national television audience that concern for Chelsea Clinton's privacy -- her dislike of "publicity" -- was a factor in the decision to send her to Sidwell Friends. This is little more than trivia -- but it is trivia Baker and Solomon get wrong.

The defining characteristics of the 2000 presidential campaign were the media's focus on trivia over weighty matters -- Al Gore's purported fib about dog medicine received far more scrutiny than George W. Bush's lies about taxes and Social Security -- and its tendency to get even the trivia wrong. Al Gore didn't claim to have invented the Internet, he didn't claim to have discovered Love Canal, he didn't wear earth tones at Naomi Wolf's insistence.

If we're going have another presidential campaign dominated by media focus on this kind of trivia -- and, for the love of all that is good, let's not -- reporters should at least make an effort to get the answers right.

Then again, if they had the facts right about these things, there wouldn't be any reason to talk about them.

© 2006 Media Matters for America
1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036

Political disaster in the making....

I've written before in favor of the idea of proportional representation. However, it really has to be a universal national mandate, not simply through selective states.

For example, Maine and Nebraska have proportional representation and their votes are essentially nullified because all of the other states have "winner take all" and thus overwhelm the proportional delegations.

Essentially, the proposal below would take California out of the presidential elections. Since California's majority is Democrat (all of the major urban areas outside of Orange county) this would be a huge plus for the Republicans and guarantee that the Iraq war among other things would continue on for the next fifty years - perhaps much as the Korean peace action still persists with thousands of American troops there keeping the peace.

Extending the consequences of a Republican win in 2008 even further, I could see a Republican purge of all of their moderate members similar to the purge which took place in the sixties or seventies and on down the slippery slope to Christian fascism!

The secret to all of this is that it is OK for Republicans to have a mean and lean Republican minority as long as the votes of the majority party are rendered ineffective!

I certainly hope that the California Democrats are smart enough to see this and rally enough votes to scuttle the proposition. To their credit, they've stopped Republican millionaire candidates from ‘buying' their election through the ballot box (Huffington, Arianna's ex-husband).

California proposal could sway 2008 race
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections — the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.

The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change — if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters — would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

That's a number equal to winning Ohio.

The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and has worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did not return phone messages left Monday at his office.

A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said the governor is not involved with the proposed initiative, and party officials said they have no connection to it.

Democratic consultant Chris Lehane called the plan "an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election."

"If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008," Lehane said in an e-mail.

Nineteen of the state's 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.

Only Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by congressional district.

A draft of the proposed initiative says nixing the winner-take-all system would give presidential candidates "an incentive to campaign in California. ... Many of the geographic areas of the state would be as important to a candidate's chance for victory as many of the smaller states."

"We'll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot," state Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring said.

If it does qualify, Democrats probably would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up GOP turnout.

The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics.

In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.

Cover-ups don't work....

I'm generally not into this war hero stuff, but this is very interesting - and having served in the military - very plausible! I suspect that Tillman, who in civilian life was a BMOC, was probably big enough and arrogant enough not to be liked by many of his fellow soldiers. I venture that no one likes a hero when one's life is at stake. I recall during the Korean ‘peace action' that there was a call for Air Force enlisted men to voluntarily transfer to the Army and automatically be given 2nd Lt. bars if they would lead infantry platoons! Lieutenants were the rank most likely not to survive in battle. My guess is that Tillman was murdered just as many 2nd Lt's were murdered in Korea because they were leading men where they didn't want to go. I suspect that he was not liked because people don't like prima donna's. ... and the military couldn't do anything about it except cover it up as much as possible and hope for the best. ...so now the military has to answer to law and order - we do not justify murder. Of course, we'll never really know - and Tillman's death will be avenged to sports fans everywhere ! AP: New details on Tillman's death By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer SAN FRANCISCO - Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. "The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators. The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away. Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident. The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Among other information contained in the documents: • In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling." • Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments. • The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions. • No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck. The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers. With questions lingering about how high in the Bush administration the deception reached, Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week. The Pentagon is separately preparing a new round of punishments, including a stinging demotion of retired Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., 60, according to military officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the punishments under consideration have not been made public. In more than four hours of questioning by the Pentagon inspector general's office in December 2006, Kensinger repeatedly contradicted other officers' testimony, and sometimes his own. He said on some 70 occasions that he did not recall something. At one point, he said: "You've got me really scared about my brain right now. I'm really having a problem." Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, who has long suggested that her son was deliberately killed by his comrades, said she is still looking for answers and looks forward to the congressional hearings next week. "Nothing is going to bring Pat back. It's about justice for Pat and justice for other soldiers. The nation has been deceived," she said. The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case. "He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified. Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along. "Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott. Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental. Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked. The documents also shed new light on Tillman's last moments. It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who was at Tillman's side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again. But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed. The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..." ___ Associated Press reporters Scott Lindlaw in Las Vegas and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this story. << class="Main">Next >>

About Us | Help/FAQ | Support/Feedback | PRIVACY POLICY | Tell A Friend | Affiliate Program | Terms and Conditions | Advertising

Copyright © 1998-2007 MyFamily.com, Inc. and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved.

Women's Stuff....

I find the following article very interesting because here in the USA, men are being routinely excluded from the problems of fatherhood by many modern women who choose to live alone with their immaculate conceptions acquired by various means.

As a man I get the strong impression that those dominant females of our culture with certain economic advantages would rather live with as little male association as possible. This, I've long suspected because I suspect there are at least ten lesbians to every gay male and that women tend to herd, while men typically hunt and kill. Let me add that this is not unnatural in the animal world from ducks to bears!

However, it seems in Africa there is a push in the opposite direction - to get men more involved in the family process. This, of course, is an economic effort because African women (and men) are not only primitive but simply poor and underprivileged by most standards and those of us who are concerned with mortality and socially good things desire to save as many babies as we can - regardless of the social situation.

There is good reason for this because women, although they don't have litters, the time for their offspring to be self-supporting is the longest in the animal kingdom - many years! This presents a huge economic burdon on all sympathetic societies.

Perhaps the concerns for Africa is that these poor souls are the descendants of the people who chose to stay in Africa after we all left and prospered elsewhere.

More power to the effort I say, because as a humanist I know that life is a one time experience for any creature and deplore that everyone born doesn't have the chance for a modicum of "happiness" before they return to dust.

As a pragmatist, I'm skeptical that the effort will produce the desired results - but, what the hell! It is worth the effort and it may help.

WORLD POPULATION DAY:
Enlightened Men Prescribed for Maternal Health
Moyiga Nduru, Inter Press Service (IPS) Wed Jul 11

JOHANNESBURG, Jul 11 (IPS) - What is a common factor in ensuring that women do not marry too young, do not have more children than they can cope with, do not die giving birth -- and contract HIV in smaller numbers? Men

That is the message for World Population Day 2007, which is being marked Wednesday under the theme 'Men as Partners in Maternal Health'.

"Experience shows that men's involvement and participation can make all the difference," notes Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), in a statement for World Population Day.

"By discouraging early marriage, promoting girls' education, fostering equitable relationships, and supporting women's reproductive health and rights, progress is made."

The difficulties of breaking down gender stereotypes to free men to play a more positive role in the lives of their partners are well known.

But, to what extent are institutions being reformed to assist men?

According to Bafana Khumalo, co-founder of the Sonke Gender Justice Network, a non-governmental organisation based in Johannesburg, there is some way to go.

"When you talk about sexual reproductive health, for example, and you go to the hospital, you find that the system targets women. The environment is not friendly to men. The majority of the nurses are women," he told IPS.

"Some of the men come back complaining that they have been chased away by nurses. The nurses tell them that it's not a man's place."

In a bid to improve gender relations, the network holds regular workshops around South Africa.

"We encourage men to accompany their women to antenatal clinics. We tell them to continue with the process until their partners give birth," Khumalo said.

"We need to change the system and the mindset."

Women on the front lines of changing mindsets may face obstacles, however, says Lisa Vetten: a researcher at the Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre to End Violence Against Women, also based in the economic hub of Johannesburg.

"It's difficult talking to men, especially when you are female," she told IPS. "But of course, men are not all the same. One can sometimes have success with older men. This is because older men fear losing their partners, children and property."

That progress is being made is shown by the Sonke Gender Justice Network's initiative in a rural farming community in the northern Limpopo province.

"They (male farm workers) are now helping with dishes. They clean the house -- and more men want to join their group. As a result, women from that community have been calling us and asking what we have done to their men," Khumalo said, laughing.

The network is also trying to include traditional leaders in its work through invoking the concept of "ubuntu" -- a term used in a number of South African languages that can be loosely translated as "humanity". More broadly, it refers to a traditional belief that a person's humanity is determined by the extent to which the humanity of others is upheld.

But, the NGO has found that approaching the leaders requires considerable tact.

"You don't start by criticising their way of life as being backward. They will close ranks and refuse to talk to you. It's safe to talk to the elders, for example, about the problems of women who have been kicked out of their matrimonial homes. Kicking out women goes against the spirit of ubuntu," Khumalo said.

The theme of this year's World Population Day echoes that of the UNFPA's annual 'State of World Population' report for 2005, titled 'The Promise of Equality: Gender Equity, Reproductive Health and the Millennium Development Goals'.

"Partnering with men is an important strategy for advancing reproductive health and rights, which are so closely linked to the MDGs," notes the document.

"Husbands often make decisions about family planning, their wives' economic activities and the use of household resources, including for doctors' and school fees. These decisions influence the well-being and prospects of the whole family," it adds.

"The care and support of an informed husband also improves pregnancy and childbirth outcomes and can mean the difference between life and death in cases of complications, when women need immediate medical care."

According to the 2006 Human Development Report, produced by the United Nations Development Programme, 84 percent of deliveries in South Africa occur in the presence of skilled health workers -- the personnel who can ensure that complications do not result in maternal death.

This figure rises to 98 percent for deliveries in the richest 20 percent of the population -- and sinks to 68 percent for the poorest fifth of society.

The fact that many women give birth under dangerous conditions is reflected in maternal mortality statistics. The Human Development Report notes that 150 female deaths are reported annually for every 100,000 live births in South Africa -- compared to six for Norway, the state that ranks top of the report's Human Development Index (HDI).

The HDI lists countries around the world according to how they succeed in providing their citizens with a long, healthy life; knowledge -- and respectable living standards.

Contraceptive prevalence for South African married women aged 15 to 49 is 56 percent, while in Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United States -- countries that rank in the top 10 of the HDI -- it is 82 percent, 79 percent and 76 percent, respectively.

South Africa was placed at position 121 of the 177 countries evaluated for HDI 2006.

However, in the report's Gender-related Development Index, where HDI rankings are adjusted to reflect inequalities between women and men, South Africa ranks at 92.

This does not appear to compare positively with figures released just five years previously.

In the 2001 HDI, which listed 162 nations, South Africa came in at 94 -- and 85 on the Gender-related Development Index.

Of the 5.3 million adults living with HIV/AIDS in the country, more than half -- 3.1 million -- are women, according to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS.

It is past time to leave....

We never should have invaded Iraq in the first place but we did. Having done so, we found ourselves with a moral responsibility to establish an independent Iraqi government, army and police force and help rebuild what we tore down. To a large extent we did that even though imperfectly.

Now, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the titular leader of the government elected by the Iraqi people, has diplomatically asked us to leave and let his nation take care of its own problems..

One of his aids has stated, that the U.S. military, "...was committing human rights violations, embarrassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq."

So why are we still there subjecting our military to even more casualties and costing the taxpayer about ten billion dollars per month in Iraq while 50% of Afghanistan is under the control of the Taliban?

So why are we rattling our swords over Iran and her supposed nuclear activities when Europe, Russia and even China are more vulnerable yet less concerned? I'm sure to the extent the rest of the world is threatened, it can take care of itself and, if necessary, put teeth into the United Nations where such problems should be handled.

We are indeed a "Rogue nation" since we seem to want to rule the world and/or create it in our image.

Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.
By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarrassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.

Thursday's White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government's collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want."

But he added that Iraqi forces are "still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation" to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi battalions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks — "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

"These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges," he said.

In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the government and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation — a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.

Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday's report "objective," but added, "this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a "purely American vision."

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.

"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said al-Suneid.

He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki' government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of air strikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

"This embarrasses the government in front of its people," he said, calling the civilian deaths a "human rights violation."

Iran rations gasoline!

It seems to me that Iran can't be much of a problem for the US - it doesn't have and can't get enough gasoline in order to fight a war or even supply its people!

The Iranian people have been miserably spoiled with virtually free gasoline at a mere 42 cents per gallon and less. Now, because the nation lacks refining capabilities and therefore can't afford to continue importing gasoline at world market prices, they've resorted to rationing - like 26 gallons per month for the average driver.

With a 17% inflation rate and these huge fuel subsidies, I can see where the average Iranian is unhappy with his government and on the verge of revolution. Thus the Iranian government has its own problems without having to take on the rest of the world or mess with Israel, its pet peeve.

Seems to me that if the U.S. could somehow revive its sense of diplomacy and re-establish a modicum of the international esteem lost by our present regressive administration, it could negotiate reasonable solutions to Iran's need for nuclear energy (they are running out of oil) and avoid that nation's need (and probable international right) to get into the nuclear weapons business along with France, China and Russia - which is certainly not a good idea.

I can see down the road that Iran has serious problems how the nation is going to support its population when it does run out of oil. After all, Tehran alone has 12 million citizens - they can't all revert to driving camels and selling rugs!

Reuter's article below.....

Iran fuel rations spark anger, pump stations burn
By Fredrik Dahl

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Angry Iranians torched pump stations and hurled abuse at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government after the world's fourth-largest oil exporter said it was imposing fuel rationing on Wednesday.

One Iranian news agency, ISNA, quoted an official as saying 19 gasoline stations were set ablaze overnight in Tehran after the government's announcement late on Tuesday that rationing would start from midnight.

Police detained 80 people in the capital over the unrest, the Fars News Agency quoted a judge as saying. "We are swimming in oil and all they do is just put pressure on people," said taxi driver Hasan Mohammadi, 44. "I'm using my last drop of gasoline."

Despite its huge energy reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity and must import about 40 percent of its gasoline, a sensitive issue when world powers have threatened new U.N. sanctions in a row with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Concerns Iranian imports would decline pushed down European gasoline paper prices on Wednesday, international traders said.

Some drivers scuffled while waiting to fill up their tanks before rationing began. Others chanted anti-government slogans and openly criticized Ahmadinejad, who came to power two years ago vowing to share out Iran's oil wealth more fairly.

"Last night, in addition to setting fire to and stealing property of 19 fuel stations in Tehran, people threw stones and damaged others," Bijan Haj Mohammadreza, head of an association representing gasoline stations, told ISNA.

Seeking to rein in soaring consumption and costly imports, the government on May 22 raised the liter price by 25 percent to 1,000 rials (11 U.S. cents) [42 cents/gal] - the cheapest in the world - but rationing was delayed. Drivers rushed to pump stations after the Oil Ministry said the scheme would finally go ahead after weeks of confusion.

Private cars will get 100 liters [26 gal] of gasoline a month but less if they also burn compressed natural gas, state TV said. All drivers need electronic "smart" cards to buy fuel.

One fuel station in Pounak, a poorer area of the capital, was set alight while another in eastern Tehran was partially burnt, two of its pumps destroyed by fire, witnesses said. Windows at the one in Pounak were smashed, six pumps wrecked and walls blackened. State radio blamed "opportunistic elements." Police could not be reached for comment.

Judge Ali Namazi said 80 people were detained in Tehran and transferred to jail. "These people have destroyed public property," he told Fars News Agency.

INFLATION FEARS
Motorists still faced long lines on Wednesday in a country where many see abundant and cheap fuel as a national right. Short of public transport, people rely on cars or taxis to get around in the capital of 12 million. Some taxi drivers raised their fares by 20-80 percent on Wednesday, media said.

"Last night's riots were an expression of the anger of people with lower incomes," said government employee Saeed Sameti, although he said he in principle backed rationing.

Parliament had argued for offering fuel above the rationed amount at market prices, a step opposed by the government which fears this would stoke inflation, already at 17 percent. No announcement was made about whether drivers could buy extra fuel, but analysts said inflation would rise anyway.

"Either they are going to offer (extra fuel) at a high price or there is going to be black market at a high price," said Hatef Haeri, head of business consultancy ICG. Hojjatollah Ghanimifard, National Iranian Oil Company international affairs director, in New Delhi said Iran might review the amount allocated to drivers in two months. Haeri said Iran had no choice but to curb consumption because of the burden on state coffers. All fuel is sold at heavily subsidized prices, encouraging waste and smuggling.

The United States, which is leading efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear plans, has said Iran's gasoline imports are a point of "leverage." Washington accuses Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

(Additional reporting by Edmund Blair in Tehran and by Nidhi Verma in New Delhi)