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)

Religious Bigotry????

Absolutely ridiculous! - "It's unfortunate that these attacks of religious bigotry were taking place, ....There is just no place for these types of attacks in America today." --- really??? Stop and think, cousins! Religious bigotry is not the same as racial bigotry. The biological color of one's skin is not the same as the rational orientation of a candidate's mind! In fact, it is the latter which is what IT is all about! Do you think a Muslim or Atheist (like me) could ever be elected president? So what is so sacrosanct about being a Mormon, Catholic or Southern Baptist? Isn't a candidate's thinking and beliefs the paramount consideration we must make in determining who we wish to have lead us? We certainly don't need a religious zealot such as our present leader to continue to destroy our nation because of the demands of a religious minority - that would be to perpetuate a lesson we have already learned....? So why shouldn't we delve into the nooks and crannies of those who wish to lead us - including their religions? After all, we may have a constitutional right to the religion of our choice, but that doesn't in any way indicate or guarantee that any particular religion is good and right for all of us - or even good for its own membership - consider Jonestown for example. What one believes and to the extent that he/she will implement her own beliefs is of paramount importance for any voter to understand before they render their vote for a candidate. I am very much interested in whether Romney is a Mormon in spirit or deed, or Obama is a member of an evangelical version of Presbyterianism, or Hillery is a Methodist - what George Bush used to be, or why Brownback changed from being a Methodist to being a socially conservative evangelical Catholic!... or Rudy Giuliani being a socially liberal Catholic but fiscal conservative... With this in mind, read on.... Brownback aide chided on anti-Mormon bid By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Sun Jun 17 WASHINGTON - An aide to GOP presidential candidate Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) has been reprimanded for sending e-mail to Iowa Republican leaders in an apparent attempt to draw unfavorable scrutiny to rival Mitt Romney's Mormonism. Emma Nemecek, the southeastern Iowa field director for Brownback's presidential campaign and a former state representative candidate, violated campaign policy when she forwarded the June 6 e-mail from an interest group raising the questions, the Brownback campaign said Sunday. The e-mail requested help in fact-checking a series of statements about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Among the statements: "Theologically, the only thing Christianity and the LDS church has in common is the name of Jesus Christ, and the LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith" and "The LDS church has never been accepted by the Christian Council of Churches." "Sen. Brownback completely disavows himself of this and any personal attacks on religion," said Brian Hart, a spokesman for the Kansas senator. Hart said the campaign apologized to Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, once they learned of the e-mail. "It was not originated by Ms. Nemecek and the purpose was to fact-check. But it was in violation of campaign policy and it won't happen again," he said. The controversy comes as Brownback and Romney are scrambling to attract socially conservative voters in advance of Iowa's Jan. 14, 2008, caucuses. Both candidates say they are ardently anti-abortion, although Brownback — a former Methodist who has become an evangelical Roman Catholic — has criticized Romney for supporting abortion rights as recently as two and a half years ago. A spokesman for Romney's Iowa campaign, Tim Albrecht, said the campaign accepted Brownback's apology but called the incident "unfortunate." "It's unfortunate that these attacks of religious bigotry were taking place," Albrecht said. "Sen. Brownback has apologized and we are glad he has worked to minimize these repugnant attacks in his campaign. There is just no place for these types of attacks in America today."

A Brief History of Disbelief

I realize that I'm writing to cousins who are Christians and truly believe there is a supreme being. In this country you are all part of the vast majority of citizens who actually find it hard to understand how anyone like me could believe otherwise. Every community has a plethora of churches which spread the word of the gospel, of Jesus or Mohamad or even Buddha - although the latter two have never been thought to be supernatural. There are many channels on TV which also give say to religious leaders from the Pope to the 700 Club to even Dr. Schuler, to say nothing of the international crusades of Billy Graham. And most certainly, I'm not attempting to change anyone's beliefs, but to share with you the personal wonderment of having a belief of mine which has at last been acknowledged by the mass media - not the mass-mass media, of course, but rather some select PBS stations across the country. Last night I was privileged to watch on our local (Flagstaff) PBS the show, "A Brief History of Disbelief" by Jonathan Miller. http://tinyurl.com/yq8rtn (when there, be sure and download the "press release" of the show to get a good perspective of how the topic is treated. The show itself was interesting, but to me it was much more important in that it was the first time in my 76 years that any form of the mass media ever presented my own religious beliefs to the public in a documentary/historical or any other form. It provided an authenticity to concepts I have which has been expressed only in books and written publications - or on the Internet. My own skepticism of God 'came to me' one beautiful summer Sunday after church while playing alone in the dirt with my toy cars and trucks. It was 1937, I was six. My paternal grandfather had died the year before in Wisconsin and we went from Montana by train to his funeral. That was my first view of human death. It was also the year my father decided after nine years, he didn't want to be married to my mother anymore and told her so after the funeral on the station platform as we were boarding to return to Montana - in my presence. My mother was blindsided and devastated! Our Presbyterian minister had sermonized against 'fallen' divorced women a few Sundays before my 'revelation'. His tirade not only angered me, but caused me to realize that neither he, my parents, nor anyone else I knew, except perhaps Grandpa, were to ever be believed without question - not because they were malicious, they weren't - they were simply ignorant! It was up to me to learn my own 'truths'. Perhaps I was too young to have been indoctrinated into having faith in a Faith, yet I was certainly old enough to learn through experience not to have faith in any human - sometimes, even myself... There has always been a large part of me wherein I have been an ‘island' in that I have always been on the outside looking in - not socially, but intellectually. But with the current contest between the separation of church and state - and now, with the PBS show, I feel the door opening to Dunne's view that: "No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." http://tinyurl.com/39cfgr

Mexican immigration - the bottom line....

Living in Arizona and before that, California, I'm well aware that we live in highly populated Indian lands which were either stolen from the indigenous Indians or bought from the Mexican government a century or so ago. (Texas was stolen, remember the Alamo?)

Our concern is not and should not be concerned with the indigenous peoples but what to do with their southern cousins who live impoverished lives in Mexico and wish to join their more affluent cousins to the north.

Mexico, with a Christian ‘go forth and multiply' culture without the European work ethic has become one of the most populous nations in the world unable to support its own citizens. Obviously even with sympathy and empathy, we can't permit that culture to over-ride our own where we actually have a negative native population growth except for immigration. And we all know that capitalism requires some population growth of constructive citizens.

Thus we do need tough new border security to prevent being overwhelmed with the Mexican poor and downtrodden.

Let me say at this time that I think the nonsense concerning terrorists which has been injected into this problem is simply a tactic our national ‘fear-mongers' are using to attract those few ‘chicken littles' who really are fearful of terrorist attacks. But terrorism is a different subject for another day.

Personally, I think a ‘super fence' for up to 2000 miles is excessive, infeasible, and frankly, politically stupid - and it will never be built! We can do better than that by making it virtually impossible for an ‘illegal' to get a job in the US at any level, with ultra severe penalties for anyone who violates such laws by hiring such ‘illegal's. It seems that we are already doing that to a limited extent.

My reasoning is that the only motive for Mexicans to cross the border is economic and thus the best solution is also economic through enforced legislation.

Many, mostly Republicans are upset that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants may be allowed to become US citizens. They call it "amnesty" which rewards illegal immigrants who broke U.S. laws. Well, yes, but who are they, how long have they been here, what status have they achieved since they arrived?

Let me suggest that as we become aware of them for one reason or another, rather than deport them, we evaluate them individually in a good old capitalistic profit-loss manner. If they are solid citizens and have contributed to our nation's well-being without undue expense to the system - we keep ‘em and provide them with citizenship! Lets call it "amnesty with a touch of good old capitalistic greed".

The statement has been made that "Each low-skilled immigrant household that gets amnesty costs the American taxpayers nearly $20,000 each year...." I certainly don't have the ability to refute that statement and agree that those ‘illegal's who can't benefit our economy or cause severe loss through health or crime should certainly be returned - not accepted into our nation.

After all, we, as a people have never embraced welfare nor even shown much compassion - despite what you and I were taught in grade school about our history. The truth is that even before we were a nation we used the English system of "warning-out" described as follows:

Between 1750 and 1800, towns warned out thousands of unwelcome transients. The warning out system, used throughout New England, provided the means whereby town officials ensured that transients did not become eligible for poor relief in whatever community they were passing through. The settlement laws determined who had the legal right of residence in a particular town and hence who would be supported by that town if they fell on hard times. This was a system the colonists had brought with them from England, and for the most part, it ensured that everyone, pauper and property-holder alike, had some place where he or she "belonged." But in the increasingly mobile society of the late eighteenth century, the system became overburdened with large numbers of transients moving around New England in search of work, family, or opportunity.

Town officials spent a considerable amount of time keeping track of transients, warning them out, and sending them back to their supposed hometowns should they appear likely to require poor relief.
[Unwelcome Americans: Living on the Margin in Early New England. By RUTH WALLIS HERNDON. Early American Studies. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.)]

So let us admit that nothing is new in this respect.

It is for these reasons that the present bill in congress places limits on family-based immigration. It is certainly because of the increased concern that the immigrant family can't be self-supporting and would be a drain on the tax-paying economy.

Of a totally different nature is the dire need by primarily farmers to have a labor force to bring in the crops! Gringos, quite frankly are not only unwilling, but physically unable to do the stoop labor required in the hot fields to harvest our food - regardless of pay! Thus we desperately need a temporary worker program referred to as "the guest worker program" so that Mexicans who live in Mexico can come across the border to work in our fields, send their earnings back home to their families and return home at the end of the season. Some Mexican-Americans think that is de-humanizing, but I don't agree at all. How does that differ from some Americans going to Saudi Arabia to work in the oil fields at outrageous wages?

The problem with the old Braseros program was that there were labor camps run for the American farmers to house the migrant Mexicans. The problem with that program was that neither the farmers nor the labor camps were monitored by any level of government and capitalism was at its ugliest!

Certainly protections for guest workers in any new program should be guaranteed - perhaps with at least input if not oversight by the United Farm Workers union (UFW)!

It has been suggested that even these workers who wish should be offered some sort of path to citizenship. Those opposed to the program have chosen to severely limit the numbers of temporary workers - but in my opinion, that program should be need based.

As you can see, Mexican immigration is neither simple nor brown and white. We Americans have many faces ranging from those who feel sorry for anyone who lives a miserable existence to those who hate anyone who doesn't look just like they do, or work harder, or are richer or poorer or....

The bottom line is that we need some Mexicans, but certainly not all of them and we'd like to have the ones we get to become either productive American citizens or to go home to help raise the standards and welfare of their families and homes in Mexico.

Mexican immigration off track

All along I have assumed that, aside from the "big fence" fruitcakes, the thrust of the immigration problem with Mexico should and would be aimed toward seasonal, temporary workers who would live in Mexico and work in the US.

However, as stated by AP news: "Many in Mexico — and U.S. employers who say they need workers for low-skilled jobs — had hoped Congress would expand the guestworker program and allow more to cross legally, work a few months and then return home with their savings to build homes and businesses."

It seems that most Americans including politicians think of Mexican immigration with the idea that Mexicans are no different than the Jews, Poles, Italians, Irish, etc. who preceded them and immigrated in the last century from the horrors of their European ghettos to live here permanently. I think that is the wrong mindset.

Sure, there may be many Mexicans who want to live the US rat race permanently, just as there are a large number of ‘white' Americans who find they can retire almost lavishly in Mexico on little more than their American Social Security. That kind of immigration reform along with the stupid 2,000 mile wall can and should take its time in congress. It certainly doesn't deserve the urgency of the guest worker program which it seems, is being ignored by everyone except George Bush.

The main thrust of the immigration bill should be aimed toward the seasonal, primarily agricultural, Mexican laborer. The ability to speak English is certainly not necessary and very few if any ‘taxpayer services' would be required. Of course their medical costs and temporary housing would have to be mandated by law (with enforced standards) and covered by their American employers.

Near the shores of Tripoli......

One wonders why under the circumstances of the international posturing between the U.S. and Iran that any American would ‘visit' that country or even be allowed to go there by our government. If you can't go to Cuba, then why can you still go to Iran, since they tend to enjoy detaining Americans.

It would seem to me that a simple naval blockade of any and all oil shipments out of Iran to anywhere in the world would cause them to change their attitudes quite quickly. It would certainly not result in war and would impress on a lot of people that there is a world-wide economic interest in solving these otherwise religious Christian/Muslim problems.

I suspect that the Europeans, Asians and American car-buffs enjoy Iranian oil and I'm equally certain that the Iranians don't want to have to become bedouins again without a pot to pee in!

Academic from U.S. center arrested in Iran

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Washington-based academic with dual Iranian and U.S. citizenship has been arrested in Tehran after meeting with officials at the Ministry of Intelligence, her U.S. institution said on Wednesday.

Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the U.S. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Middle East program, was arrested on Tuesday and taken to Tehran's Evin prison, according to a statement issued by the center and her family.

The statement also said she needed medical attention but did not say why. She was allowed one phone call from the prison, it said. Iranian officials were not immediately available for comment.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack condemned the arrest and said Esfandiari was among a number U.S.-Iranians being detained by Tehran.

Iran has also confiscated the passport of Parnaz Azima, a reporter based in Prague for U.S. funded Radio, Farda, which broadcasts programs about Iran. Azima went to visit her ailing mother in Iran in January and has been prevented from leaving.

"We want to see them returned back to their families," said McCormack. "These two women are an academic on the one hand, a journalist on the other. They are both grandmothers and so I am not sure what it is the Iranian government has to fear from these ladies," he added.

"It is an insight into the nature of this regime," McCormack said of the case of the two women.

Esfandiari flew to Tehran in December to visit her mother. As she drove to the airport to catch a flight back to Washington she was robbed of her belongings, including her U.S. and Iranian passports, the statement said.

INTERROGATION
She applied for replacement Iranian travel documents and was interviewed by a representative of Iran's intelligence ministry, which was then followed by weeks of interrogations focusing on her work for the center, it said.

The center's president, former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, sent a letter in February to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explaining the work of the organization and seeking his help in securing Esfandiari's return to the United States.

"The president has yet to acknowledge or reply to it," the center said in the statement. "Attempts to resolve this issue through various channels and without publicity were also not successful."

Hamilton was the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group which last year issued recommendations for ending the violence in Iraq, including engaging with long time U.S. foe Iran.

The center's Middle East program focuses on the political, social and economic developments in the Middle East and examines American interests in the region and the threat of terrorism.

U.S. officials believe Tehran may also be holding former FBI official Robert Levinson who went missing early in March while on a visit to the Iranian island of Kish.

Levinson's wife was due to meet State Department officials in Washington on Wednesday to seek more information about her husband, McCormack said.

He said the United States still had no details on Levinson's whereabouts but believed the Florida resident was still alive. Iran has denied it is holding him.

Economics and Power

[Not sure who is reading my tirades any more, but what the heck.

I had always thought that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were altruistic functions of the wealthy nations of the world to make life better in the lesser successful peoples of the world.

However, I really started to wonder about that when Bush appointed Wolfowitz of all people, to head up the World Bank partly because I didn't know that the administration controlled the World Bank and partly because I didn't believe that even they'd install a person of such questionable character as its CEO!

(Latest news indicates: "World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz attempted to fight his way out of trouble last night – but hinted that he may be prepared to resign if the charges ...)

But now, I see below, that our southern neighbors are alive and prospering and don't need our questionable charity! It seems that for most people, socialism* actually works! Our nation was originally based upon socialism as opposed to royal tyranny but we quickly forgot as we succumbed to the lure of capitalistic greed - screw the other guy before he screws you....

*I should add that our first colony, Jamestown, started out communistic but slavery (and cotton) very quickly changed that! And after the market crash in 1929 when people lost everything, there were many communes established for people to work, contribute and survive. My conclusion here is that communism works when you're hungry. ...AG]

Venezuela pulling out of IMF, World Bank
By JORGE RUEDA, Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez announced Monday he would pull Venezuela out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, a largely symbolic move because the nation has already paid off its debts to the lending institutions.

"We will no longer have to go to Washington nor to the IMF nor to the World Bank, not to anyone," said the leftist leader, who has long railed against the Washington-based lending institutions.

Venezuela, one of the world's top oil exporters, recently repaid its debts to the World Bank five years ahead of schedule, saving $8 million. It paid off all its debts to the IMF shortly after Chavez first took office in 1999. The IMF closed its offices in Venezuela late last year.

Chavez, who says he wants to steer Venezuela toward socialism, made the announcement a day after telling a meeting of allied leaders that Latin America would be better off without the U.S.-backed World Bank or IMF. He has often blamed their lending policies for perpetuating poverty.

Chavez wants to set up a new lender run by Latin American nations and has pledged to support it with Venezuela's booming oil revenues. The regional lender, which he has called "Bank of the South," would dole out financing for state projects across Latin America.

Chavez has criticized past Venezuelan governments for signing agreements with the IMF to restructure the economy — plans blamed for contributing to racing inflation.

Under former President Carlos Andres Perez in 1989, violent protests broke out in Caracas in response to IMF austerity measures that brought a hike in subsidized gasoline prices and public transport fares.

Enraged people took the streets in violence that killed at least 300 people — and possibly many more. The riots came to be known as the "Caracazo," and Chavez often refers to it as a rebellion against the status quo.

During Sunday's talks with leaders from Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti, Chavez predicted that "sooner or later, those institutions will fall due to their own weight."

"They will wear away — the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and all those institutions," Chavez said.

Bolivian President Evo Morales raised complaints about a World Bank body that mediates disputes between governments and foreign investors. He said governments never seem to win their disputes against transnational companies at the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

Chavez suggested that Latin countries could instead create their own arbitration body for disputes with big companies.

Venezuela is not the only country in the region distancing itself from international lenders.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said Sunday that he hopes to "get out of that prison" of IMF debt and that "we are negotiating with the Fund to leave the Fund."

Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa, recently asked the World Bank's representative there to leave and said the country paid off its debt to the IMF. Argentina also has paid back billions of dollars to the IMF.