R.I.P: Tom Snyder
Seventy-one is a pretty good clip, especially for a chain-smoker. Although these days, it may seem young: ["Broadcaster Tom Snyder Dies at 71"].

Huckabee wins Warren County straw poll
According to the Gov. Mike Huckabee campaign, the candidate won a recent straw poll in Iowa. I couldn't find any news about it under Google News, but here is some of text sent out by the campaign:

To be eligible to vote at the Warren County Straw Poll the voter had to be a registered Warren County Republican, or register as one at the Straw Poll.

The Warren County Auditorʼs office provided the Straw Poll workers with an up-to-date list of registered Warren County Republicans. Poll workers matched the voters nameʼs to the list provided by the auditors office and then checked the name off the list to eliminate double votes.

The voting machine used was a Diebold, which uses no computer software and is 100 percent accurate. Over 100 people participated.

The campaign has also acknowledged that it will participate in the Republican version of the CNN/YouTube debate, scheduled for next month. The other candidates participating include Sen. John McCain, Rep. Pon Paul, and former Gov. Tommy Thompson.
Thompson responded this way: "We'll answer questions from any American who wants to ask one and that includes one dressed up like a snowman."
It is kinda hilarious that the other candidates want to lead the free world and yet they can't face off in a debate which features real questions from real Americans, via video clips. Don't they look like a bunch of chickensh*ts? Here's former Gov. Willard Mitt Romney's response: "The presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman." Balk, baulk baulk, balkah ... McCain said this: "I just don’t think that questions from snowmen are appropriate in presidential campaigns ... But I think that this is serious: We’re in a war." But later, he agreed to participate.
There is now a Web site to galvanize support for participation in the debate: ["Save the Debate"].

Gravel's numbers
Speaking of the YouTube debate, according to this blog entry posted this afternoon by the USA Today [don'tcha just love blogs!], former Sen. Mike Gravel's video clip from the debate about campaign finance reform has been viewed more than 271,000 times: ["By the numbers, Gravel is ahead in post-debate views"]. Compare that to the other candidate numbers. Wow.

Short cuts
This is really cool: ["Plant Sugars Seen As Energy Substitute"].
This is cool, if you hate Hillary: ["No Hillary Clinton"].
An old friend complains about crime in his former local newspaper: ["Is the Journal spiking crime reports"].

Making Economic Growth Work Ecologically
Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison

Our hearts tell us what we should do. Prices tell us what we will do. The principle is clear if we want to make economic growth mean ecological improvement, not ecological destruction. More pollution must mean a decrease in the rate of profit. Less pollution must mean increasing profits.
It’s not hard. We need to tax consumption, not income. Pay taxes on whatever we buy or use. More pollution, more tax. Lower pollution, less tax. Ecological consumption taxes can enlist the invisible hand of Adam Smith in the cause of ecological sustainability.
An average 18 percent ecological value added tax, or E-VAT, can replace all U.S. government taxes on income, fund the federal budget, and get the prices right by raising taxes on more polluting goods and services. The more polluting, the higher the E-VAT tax rate, and the lower the rate of profit.
Helping save the planet and our kids’ futures is to phase out income taxes and the IRS. How painful is that? Just make the E-VAT rate on all goods and services increase with the amount of pollution, depletion, or ecological damage.
That’s the path to ecological sustainability and peace, instead of climate change and resource wars for oil, water, and fertile high ground.
We can phase in the E-VAT over ten years as we phase out income taxes. The E-VAT is simple for consumers. You pay a sales tax at the point of purchase.
You file no tax forms. You avoid taxes by buying less polluting goods or services with lower tax rates indicated by color codes.
And the E-VAT is simple and largely self-enforcing for businesses. Businesses file only a simple form reporting the tax you collected from your sales and taking credit for the tax you paid your suppliers. You send the difference between what you collected and what you paid to the government. This credit for invoices system means that the value sellers add to their product is only taxed once. The E-VAT could be based, first, on average amounts of pollution, depletion, and ecological damage by S.I.C. code (Standard Industrial Classification) with less polluting items applying for reductions.
The E-VAT is consistent with WTO rules that permit taxes on imports with exemptions for exports. If the U.S. adopted an E-VAT, it would make exporters from China to Germany change their practices.
The E-Vat tax base is final sales to domestic purchasers, more than $13 trillion a year. An 18 percent average E-VAT, with allowances for collection and non-compliance, could replace all personal, corporate, and payroll taxes.
The E-VAT as a tax on all consumption, not simply on pollution, is positively reinforcing. As the market responds to E-VAT rates, highest polluting items would lose market share. To maintain revenues, the tax on moderate polluting items would rise. Over time, this would mean the E-VAT would tend toward a flat tax on most items that were sustainable in impact with high taxes indeed on the few polluting outliers.
The regressive nature of the E-VAT can easily be remedied by a targeted negative income tax. An additional $64.5 billion for a negative income tax would keep federal tax rates flat for the 40 percent of U.S, households with the lowest income. My forthcoming book, "Markets, Democracy & Survival," discusses the E-VAT in detail.
The simple relationship between less pollution and higher profit will lead in short order to a fundamental transformation in the way we do business and make investment and consumption decisions. If polluting goods and services cost more, we just need to be price conscious shoppers and businesspeople. Our ethics and our pocketbooks will be once more aligned.
Roy Morrison is Director of the Office of Sustainability at Southern New Hampshire University. His Web site is RMAenergy.net.

A Reason Why
Guest Perspective: Roy Morrison

My son Sam's Kearsarge Middle School basketball team is full of all stars. OK. They don't pass well. It just must be bad luck that they don't win often.

The U.S. Iraq misadventure must be under a similar unlucky star. But still, we must do something to help the Iraqi people. Blockading their country, bombing their country, invading their country, imposing U.S. designs upon their country leading to the death of many tens of thousands of innocents wasn't enough. We must do more. More war. It's our moral responsibility.

Is George W. Bush simply a moron tilting at windmills? Is Richard Cheney just a bumbling Rasputin? Or is U.S. policy toward Iraq, and now Iran, a logical and hardheaded expression of U.S. interest and purpose?

Central to an understanding of U.S. policy is not terrorism, not weapons of mass destruction, but the control of cheap oil. At stake is the combined oil reserves of Kuwait, remember Gulf War I, Iraq, third largest proven reserves, Iran, second largest - and by implication neighboring Saudi Arabia, the biggest prize of all.

Together, if kept under U.S. influence, these oil fields represent the maintenance of U.S. influence and control not only of Europe, but also of China and India, the emerging industrial challengers to the U.S.

If the United States was concerned about terrorism, why invade a country that had no role in 9/11? If terror was the game, why ignore the involvement of Saudis in 9/11 as participants, organizers and financiers? Why ignore the Pakistani madrassas that are spawning grounds for the Taliban, and the use of western Pakistani tribal territories as jihadist redoubt? If the United States was concerned about weapons of mass destruction in Islamic hands, why did the United States ignore the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and the behavior of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan as leader of a nuclear proliferation gang? Why?

United Stares policy implemented by Bush and Cheney makes perfect sense if the goal is control of oil. The Iraq war has proven to be a spectacular failure. But the game is not over. The response by the gamblers, playing with the lives of millions, is to double down and to press on with urban war in Baghdad and to move against Iran.

The reason why? A productive Iraq and Iran under U.S. influence, vouchsafed by U.S. military bases, will keep not only China and India in line, but also undermine OPEC. Victory will prolong the suzerainty of the U.S. and the dollar. America in the saddle with the whip hand can open the production spigots, drop prices, potentiate economic boom and revitalize Republican rule. These are not the only reasons. But they are central to understanding what seems to be foolish U.S. behavior.

An alternative to oil madness, is U.S. global leadership in development of renewable energy resources and renewable fuels. The sun rising will lead both to a collapse of oil prices and a chance to escape catastrophic climatic change. We can pursue a foreign policy based on peace and justice, sustainability and prosperity, enterprise and full employment, not resource wars without end.

Denuclearization and disarmament must begin at home. We don't need to kiss our love ones good bye as they fly off to fight to keep control of cheap oil in a Bush's hands. Our military's mission should be to defend the Unites States and not the empire of oil.

Energy policy is not an esoteric subject. It is central in the 21st century to questions of war and peace, ecological survival and sustainability. It's time to pay attention.

Roy Morrison's latest book is "Markets, Democracy & Survival," forthcoming from the Writers Publishing cooperative. He is an energy consultant living in Warner, N.H.

Fact check:

1. Oil reserves by country. Source: Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 103, No. 47 (Dec. 19, 2005). From: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html

Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4
12. China 18.3
13. Qatar 15.2
14. Mexico 12.9
15. Algeria 11.4
16. Brazil 11.2
17. Kazakhstan 9.0
18. Norway 7.7
19. Azerbaijan 7.0
20. India 5.8

World total: 1,292.5

NOTE: Proved reserves are estimated with reasonable certainty to be recoverable with present technology and prices.

2. Madrassas, Issue Brief No. 11, Madrassas in Pakistan, Suba Chandran Assistant Director, IPCS

http://www.ipcs.org/newIpcsPublications.jsp?status=publications&status1=issue&mod=d&check=15&try=true

"There are an approximate 28,000 madrassas in Pakistan with only 8000 of them registered. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) 2002 report, by March 2002, there were around 600,000 students in 6,000 registered madrassas with more than 250,000 students in Punjab alone. The proliferation of madrassas began in the 1980s and continued in the 1990s. Compared to their number in 1979, when there were less than 2000 madrassas, their growth has been tremendous. They are now seen and portrayed as fundamentalist institutions and breeding grounds for militants to wage a jihad all over the world. From being established centers of learning in the middle-ages, they have traveled a long way. How did this change come about and what can Pakistan do about it?"

3. Jihadists in Pakistan's western Tribal areas http://www.fes.org.af/AlQaeda'swestern.pdf

4. Pakistan Nuclear Weapons, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

Pakistan Nuclear Weapons: A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Program

Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.

India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan's program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan's Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.

In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.

* Pakistan Nuclear Weapons - A Chronology
Nuclear Tests
On May 28, 1998 Pakistan announced that it had successfully conducted five nuclear tests. The Pakistani Atomic Energy Commission reported that the five nuclear tests conducted on May 28 generated a seismic signal of 5.0 on the Richter scale, with a total yield of up to 40 KT (equivalent TNT). Dr. A.Q. Khan claimed that one device was a boosted fission device and that the other four were sub-kiloton nuclear devices.

On May 30, 1998 Pakistan tested one more nuclear warhead with a reported yield of 12 kilotons. The tests were conducted at Balochistan, bringing the total number of claimed tests to six. It has also been claimed by Pakistani sources that at least one additional device, initially planned for detonation on 30 May 1998, remained emplaced underground ready for detonation.

Pakistani claims concerning the number and yields of their underground tests cannot be independently confirmed by seismic means, and several sources, such as the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory have reported lower yields than those claimed by Pakistan. Indian sources have also suggested that as few as two weapons were actually detonated, each with yields considerably lower than claimed by Pakistan. However, seismic data showed at least two and possibly a third, much smaller, test in the initial round of tests at the Ras Koh range. The single test on 30 May provided a clear seismic signal.

DEVICE DATE YIELD
[announced] YIELD
[estimated]
[boosted device?] 28 May 1998 25-36 kiloton total
9-12 kiloton
Fission device 28 May 1998 12 kiloton
Low-yield device 28 May 1998 sub-kiloton --
Low-yield device 28 May 1998 sub-kiloton --
Low-yield device 28 May 1998 sub-kiloton --
Fission device 30 May 1998 12 kiloton 4-6 kiloton
Fission device not detonated 12 kiloton --
This table lists the nuclear tests that Pakistan claims to have carried out in May 1998 as well as the announced yields. Other sources have reported lower yields than those claimed by Pakistan. The Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory reports that the total seismic yield for the May 28th tests was 9-12 kilotons and that the yield for the May 30th tests was 4-6 kilotons.

According to a preliminary analysis conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory, material released into the atmosphere during an underground nuclear test by Pakistan in May 1998 contained low levels of weapons-grade plutonium. The significance of the Los Alamos finding was that Pakistan had either imported or produced plutonium undetected by the US intelligence community. But Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other agencies later contested the accuracy of this finding.

These tests came slightly more than two weeks after India carried out five nuclear tests of its own on May 11 and 13 and after many warnings by Pakistani officials that they would respond to India.

Pakistan's nuclear tests were followed by the February 1999 Lahore Agreements between Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Sharif. The agreements included confidence building measures such as advance notice of ballistic missile testing and a continuation of their unilateral moratoria on nuclear testing. But diplomatic advances made that year were undermined by Pakistan's incursion into Kargil. Under US diplomatic pressure, Prime Minister Sharif withdrew his troops, but lost power in October 1999 due to a military coup in which Gen. Pervez Musharraf took over.

* Satellite Imagery of Pakistan's May 28 and May 30 nuclear testing sites

Nuclear Infrastructure

Pakistan's nuclear program is based primarily on highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is produced at the A. Q. Khan research laboratory at Kahuta, a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility. The Kahuta facility has been in operation since the early 1980s. By the early 1990s, Kahuta had an estimated 3,000 centrifuges in operation, and Pakistan continued its pursuit of expanded uranium enrichment capabilities.

In the 1990s Pakistan began to pursue plutonium production capabilities. With Chinese assistance, Pakistan built the 40 MWt (megawatt thermal) Khusab research reactor at Joharabad, and in April 1998, Pakistan announced that the reactor was operational. According to public statements made by US officials, this unsafeguarded heavy water reactor generates an estimated 8-10 kilotons of weapons grade plutonium per year, which is enough for one to two nuclear weapons. The reactor could also produce tritium if it were loaded with lithium-6. According to J. Cirincione of Carnegie, Khusab's plutonium production capacity could allow Pakistan to develop lighter nuclear warheads that would be easier to deliver with a ballistic missile.

Plutonium separation reportedly takes place at the New Labs reprocessing plant next to Pakistan's Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (Pinstech) in Rawalpindi and at the larger Chasma nuclear power plant, neither of which are subject to IAEA inspection.

Nuclear Arsenal

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads, and Carnegie reports that they have produced 585-800 kg of HEU, enough for 30-55 weapons. Pakistan's nuclear warheads are based on an implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched uranium and requires an estimated 15-20 kg of material per warhead. According to Carnegie, Pakistan has also produced a small but unknown quantity of weapons grade plutonium, which is sufficient for an estimated 3-5 nuclear weapons.

Pakistani authorities claim that their nuclear weapons are not assembled. They maintain that the fissile cores are stored separately from the non-nuclear explosives packages, and that the warheads are stored separately from the delivery systems. In a 2001 report, the Defense Department contends that "Islamabad's nuclear weapons are probably stored in component form" and that "Pakistan probably could assemble the weapons fairly quickly." However, no one has been able to ascertain the validity of Pakistan's assurances about their nuclear weapons security.

Pakistan's reliance primarily on HEU makes its fissile materials particularly vulnerable to diversion. HEU can be used in a relatively simple gun-barrel-type design, which could be within the means of non-state actors that intend to assemble a crude nuclear weapon.

The terrorist attacks on September 11th raised concerns about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. According to press reports, within two days of the attacks, Pakistan's military began relocating nuclear weapons components to six new secret locations. Shortly thereafter, Gen. Pervez Musharraf fired his intelligence chief and other officers and detained several suspected retired nuclear weapons scientists, in an attempt to root out extremist elements that posed a potential threat to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Concerns have also been raised about Pakistan as a proliferant of nuclear materials and expertise. In November, 2002, shortly after North Korea admitted to pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the press reported allegations that Pakistan had provided assistance in the development of its uranium enrichment program in exchange for North Korean missile technologies.

Foreign Assistance

In the past, China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere. According to a 2001 Department of Defense report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities.

In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.

According to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than U.S. and Soviet designed first generation warheads.

China also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chasma nuclear power reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid 1990s. The project had been initiated as a cooperative program with France, but Pakistan's failure to sign the NPT and unwillingness to accept IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear program caused France to terminate assistance.

According to the Defense Department report cited above, Pakistan has also acquired nuclear related and dual-use and equipment and materials from the Former Soviet Union and Western Europe.

Intermittent US Sanctions

On several occasions, under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Pakistan, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. suspended sanctions each time developments in Afghanistan made Pakistan a strategically important "frontline state," such as the 1981 Soviet occupation and in the war on terrorism.

Pakistan's Nuclear Doctrine

Several sources, such as Jane's Intelligence Review and Defense Department reports maintain that Pakistan's motive for pursuing a nuclear weapons program is to counter the threat posed by its principal rival, India, which has superior conventional forces and nuclear weapons.

Pakistan has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

According to the Defense Department report cited above, "Pakistan remains steadfast in its refusal to sign the NPT, stating that it would do so only after India joined the Treaty. Consequently, not all of Pakistan's nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards. Pakistani officials have stated that signature of the CTBT is in Pakistan's best interest, but that Pakistan will do so only after developing a domestic consensus on the issue, and have disavowed any connection with India's decision."

Pakistan does not abide by a no-first-use doctrine, as evidenced by President Pervez Musharraf's statements in May, 2002. Musharraf said that Pakistan did not want a conflict with India but that if it came to war between the nuclear-armed rivals, he would "respond with full might." These statements were interpreted to mean that if pressed by an overwhelming conventional attack from India, which has superior conventional forces, Pakistan might use its nuclear weapons.

Sources and Resources
* UN Nuclear Chief Warns of Global Black Market, Mohammed ElBaradei commenting on questions raised by the Khan confession, February 6, 2004.
* Abdul Qadeer Khan "Apologizes" for Transferring Nuclear Secrets Abroad, broadcast on Pakistani television, February 4, 2004.

* Documents Indicate A.Q. Khan Offered Nuclear, Weapon Designs to Iraq in 1990: Did He Approach Other Countries? By David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, February 4, 2004

* Deadly Arsenals, chapter on Paksitan - by Joseph Cirincione, John B.Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar (Carnegie, June 2002). The chapter discusses Pakistan's WMD, missile and aircraft capabilities. It also presents the strategic context of the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan and the history of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, touching on foreign assistance from China and on-and-off US economic assistance.

* Proliferation: Threat and Response, Jan. 2001 - A Defense Department report on the status of nuclear proliferation in South Asia. It includes a brief historical background on the conflict between India and Pakistan as well as an assessment of their nuclear capabilities, chem/bio programs, ballistic missile programs and other means of delivery.

* ENHANCING NUCLEAR SECURITY IN THE COUNTER-TERRORISM STRUGGLE: India and Pakistan as a New Region for Cooperation - by Rose Gottemoeller, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 2002. This working paper explores possible cooperative programs that could enhance the security of Pakistan and India's nuclear arsenals, in order to prevent the diversion of dangerous materials into the hands of terrorists or rogue state leaders.

* "Pakistan's Nuclear Forces, 2001" from NRDC Nuclear Notebook, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Jan/Feb 2002. A Two-page update on the state of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It makes rough estimates of the number of nuclear weapons and the amount of fissile material in Pakistan's possession and touches on fissile material production capabilities. Also included is a brief discussion of delivery mechanisms such as aircraft and missiles.

* Monterey Institute Resource Page on India and Pakistan - last updated July 7, 2000. This page has many useful links to relevant maps, news articles and analytical pieces on India and Pakistan's nuclear programs.

* Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Pakistan resources

* Pakistan Nuclear Weapons - A Chronology - a timeline of the Pakistan's Nuclear Development program since 1965.

* "The Threat of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons" - a CSIS report by Anthony H. Cordesman (Last updated Nov.
2001). - This report tells the history of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program and discusses China role in its development. It also lists recent US intelligence reports on Pakistan's activities.

* From Testing to Deploying Nuclear Forces: The Hard Choices Facing India and Pakistan - Gregory S. Jones.
(Rand, 2000). "This issue paper describes the requirements for a nuclear deterrent force in general terms, discusses how the Indian-Pakistani nuclear relationship is affected by China, and then considers the specific decisions that still must be made in India and Pakistan."

* Pakistan Nuclear Update, 2001 - Wisconsin Project. This three-page document provides a brief summary of Pakistan's main nuclear sites and an update on developments in Pakistan's nuclear program.

* Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal: Principles for Assistance - by David Albright, Kevin O'Neill and Corey Hinderstein, Oct. 4, 2001. An ISIS issue brief on the potential threats to the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

* The May 1998 India and Pakistan Nuclear Tests - by Terry C. Wallace, Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory (SASO), 1998. This technical paper provides a seismic analysis of India and Pakistan's 1998 nuclear tests. It concludes that Pakistan's May 28 tests had a seismic yield of 9-12 kt, and the May 30 test had a yield of 4-6 kt. An updated web page on this report can be found here

* Satellite Imagery of Pakistan's May 28 and May 30 nuclear testing sites, hosted on the Center for Monitoring Research Commercial Satellite Imagery Page

* "Pakistan's Nuclear Dilemma" - September 23 2001, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Transcripts from a Carnegie panel on developments in Pakistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The panel included three speakers -- Shirin Tahir-Kheli, George Perkovich and Rose Gottemoeller-- and was moderated by Joseph Cirincione.

* Chapter on Pakistan, from Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: A Guide in Maps and Charts, 1998 by Rodney W. Jones, Mark G. McDonough, with Toby F. Dalton and Gregory D. Koblentz (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment, July 1998). This chapter documents the history of Pakistan's nuclear program and tracks the development of its nuclear infrastructure. It also covers in detail the sanctions the US imposed on Pakistan in light of these developments, as well Pakistan's missile program.

* "U.S. Appears to be Losing Track of Pakistan's Nuclear Program" and "U.S. Now Believes Pakistan to use Khushab Plutonium in Bomb Program" By Mark Hibbs July, 1998. Two brief articles written in the aftermath of Paksistan's 1998 nuclear tests -- they discuss Pakistan's weapons grade uranium and plutonium production capacities and the implications for its nuclear arsenal.

* "U.S. Labs at Odds on Whether Pakistani Blast Used Plutonium," by Dana Priest Washington Post Sunday, January 17, 1999; Page A02. This article discusses the controversy over the preliminary analysis carried out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, which found that plutonium traces had been released into the atomosphere during Pakistan's May 30th underground nuclear test. Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Labs contested the accuracy of this finding and alleged that Los Alamos had contaminated and then lost the air sample. At the time, Los Alamos' findings were highly controversial because they implied that Pakistan had obtained plutonium either though imports or indigenous production, and there was uncertainty about Pakistan's plutonium production capabilities. It is now public knowledge that Pakistan can produce and isolate plutonium at its Khusbab reactor and at the New Labs and Chasma separation facilities.

* NUCLEARISATION OF SOUTH ASIA AND ITS REGIONAL AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS Munir Ahmed Khan REGIONAL STUDIES Autumn 1998.

A Sustainable Energy Strategy: It's Time
Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison

The earth is getting hotter. Arctic ice and permafrost are melting. In New Hampshire, my neighbors are still harvesting tomatoes in October. It's time to act.
But there's good news. We can slash greenhouse gas emissions while eliminating dependence on oil imports and building sustainable prosperity.
This isn't pie in the sky. It's the law in California mandating greenhouse gas cuts of 25 percent by 2020. It's detailed nationally by the Sustainable Energy Network in a blueprint for efficiency and renewables.
We don't need new inventions. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory draft report finds that renewables could meet 99 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2020. We don't need to break the bank. And we can't depend on a deal with the nuclear power devil to save us.
Electricity is 19 percent of world energy use. Nukes contribute just 3 percent. Even doubling or tripling the number of nukes, at great expense per pound carbon saved, will only be of modest help.
Today, a nuclear plant's fuel cycle (mining, milling, enrichment, et. al.) produces about a third of the net carbon dioxide of a natural gas plant. But the world is rapidly running short of high-grade uranium ore. Low grade ore processing can release more net carbon than it saves. The available alternative for a high grade uranium shortage is reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to launch a global trade in plutonium.

Choices

We need to cut rampant energy waste and take advantage of efficiency measures and plentiful renewable resources.
It's not heavy lifting to double auto mileage per gallon over the next decade, or to reduce oil and coal consumption 1 percent a year.
Conventional electric plants waste two-thirds of their energy. Instead, home based cogeneration systems (to be sold by Keyspan) are 90 percent efficient, producing electricity and space heat. Existing power plants, like the Bow N.H. coal plant, should pipe heat to Concord for district heating instead of dumping it into the Merrimack River.
Oil, coal, and nukes remain "cheap" because they do not have to charge their true costs. We have pollution belching coal plants because the producers can shift costs to people downwind or to future generations. We pay for Middle East resource wars in blood and in treasure, but not at the gas pump. We endlessly subsidize nuclear plants and their waste.

The Path toward Sustainability

Our hearts tell us what we should do. Market prices tell us what we will do.
The challenge of the 21st century is to make prices reflect what we know is right.
The single most important step to help assure sustainable prosperity is to use ecological consumption taxes to make polluters and green house gas emitters charge their true costs.
By replacing income taxes with ecological consumption taxes, the market will send clear price signals. What's unsustainable will cost more. What's sustainable will cost less. Entrepreneurs and customers responding to price will quickly move emissions toward the sustainable.
Al Gore has proposed a carbon tax to replace payroll taxes.
My preferred alternative is stronger medicine. An ecological value added tax, or E-VAT, could replace all income taxes with consumption tax paid at the point of sale for all goods and services.
The E-VAT is a smart sales tax that avoids double taxation for businesses.
The more polluting, the higher the E-VAT tax rate. Phased in over 10 years, the E-VAT would replace all income taxes.
An average 18 percent E-VAT could finance the federal budget. There'd be no IRS and just a one page E-VAT tax form for businesses.
Get rid of greenhouse gases and the IRS. Ecological taxation is a good deal for America.
Roy Morrison's Democracy, Markets and Survival on ecological taxes will be published in 2006. He is a energy consultant working on wind hedges and smart metering.

Christy Mihos' TV ad

I just saw Christy Mihos' 30-second spot on Channel 7 ... and it is totally hilarious: It starts with a cartoon of Mihos standing outside the State House with "The Big Dig, Explained" above the character in big letters. Mihos then asks a Bechtel contractor, "How did the Big Dig get $12 billion over-budget?" The contractor - another cartoon character - said, "Well, you see ..." and then sticks his head up his ass and starts walking around!
At this point, I took my headphones off and said, "What the hell is this?"
Mihos, then turns to some men and women, including one blonde woman who looks like "Muffy" Healey and asks the same question. "Massachusetts Politicians," as they are labeled, stick their heads up their asses and start walking around mumbling!
Then, about 10 minutes later, it played again: A double dose in the news. Nice job.

Why Mihos needs the ads: Take a look at this poll: ["Mass. Gov."]. First, I seriously doubt this poll. Patrick at 64 percent? No way. Healey could probably be that low. The same with Mihos and Ross. But who are the Other who are getting 3 percent? There are no other candidates. Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck? The margin of error is 4 percent.

Calling Roy Morrison: Roy Morrison, a Warner poet, environmentalist and columnist who sends me stuff sometimes, gave Al Gore his recent book called "Taxing Pollution, Not Income," and it seems as though Gore likes the idea: ["Gore says tax pollution, not payrolls"]. Wow. I will be interviewing Roy about this and other things when his new book comes out in October.

Post-NAB roundup: Because the NAB Education Foundation was able to line up a table at a Job Fair for me, I ended up missing the last two Friday events at NAB, including the one with Ariana Huffington. But, I don't think I was alone in missing the events.
After setting up for the Job Fair, I went looking for a cup of coffee and took one more pass through the NAB Bookstore to order the entire NAB event on CDR. Shockingly, the exhibit hall was closed and exhibitors were breaking down all their gear. This was surprisingly because last year in Philadelphia, the booths were still up on Friday morning and there was some last minute trading going on between customers and vendors. But not here: The Hilton was barren.
I grabbed a cup of coffee from the SESAC refreshment area and headed back to the Job Fair, almost running into Sean Hannity, blurry-eyed, heading towards the NAB area.
At the Job Fair, I met a bunch of interesting candidates and, as I have said before, I continue to be surprised by all the interesting people, with their diverse backgrounds, looking to get into the radio business. During one of the side conversations between a woman visiting with me and the guy in the booth next to me, she mentioned that attendance was down almost 20 percent from last year, allegedly, even though there were 3,100 people in attendance. This doesn't surprise me at all since it seemed empty. But what do I know?

Another Inconvenient Truth
Guest perspective/Roy Morrison
As Al Gore's global warming call to action flickers on the screens of America's multiplexes, we must face another inconvenient truth.
We need to confront the really bad climate change news behind China's economic boom built on dirty coal.
And we also need to grasp the available market based solution to the global warming and sustainability crisis, one that can curb China's and our own poisonous habits.
In the last two years, China has put on line a phenomenal 90,000 megawatts of carbon dioxide belching coal fired electric plants. That's equal to the total British installed electric capacity.
China now burns more coal than the U.S. (2.73 to 2.10 billion tons/year), and by 2025, if the breaks aren't applied, Chinese coal consumption will be 40 percent of the world's total.
The U.S. position as global carbon dioxide king will soon be threatened by Chinese dirty coal powered industrialization. The U.S. will nevertheless remain safely in the lead as oil consumer and carbon emitter to power our ever-expanding motor vehicle fleet - unless we change.
While the West talks about clean coal technologies to make low carbon gaseous and liquid fuels, the Chinese plants are smoke and sulfur belchers using second hand equipment and obsolete technology.
The Kyoto treaty thoughtfully exempted China and the rest of the developing world from greenhouse gas reductions in the name of pollution equity.
Unless the Chinese (and Americans) conduct is fundamentally changed, we likely have no chance of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 500 parts per million (ppm) or less by mid century (370 ppm today and rising ). And, of course, 500 ppm may already be way too high an amount of carbon for our liking.
So, what's a concerned movie goer and citizen to do?
Technologically, we have the means, if not the will or the proper price signals, to vastly improve energy efficiency, cover the plains and the coasts with wind turbines, the deserts and our roofs with solar cells, drive ultra light hybrids fueled with ethanol and biodiesel, use clean coal technologies, bubble power plant carbon dioxide through enormous biodiesel algae ponds. The solution to global warming is not simply to appeal to Chinese (or our own) long term best interests to stop pollution before it's too late. As long as pollution is "free," the price for sustainability remains too expensive.
The key is to make what's polluting, depleting, and ecologically damaging more expensive than sustainable alternatives. The means replacing income taxes with ecological consumption taxes and enlisting the market price mechanism and business acumen in service to sustainability.
We can swiftly help domesticate the Chinese dragon by getting our own house in order through ecological consumption taxes, in particular, an ecological value add tax, or VAT, a kind of smart sales tax on all goods and services.
The more polluting, the higher the ecological VAT rates.
What's more polluting will cost more. What's sustainable will cost less. Buy cheap, save the planet can be the new watchword.
And, most importantly, these ecological consumption taxes are consistent with World Trades Organization (WTO) rules. They can be levied on all imports--Chinese imports for instance --to level the economic playing field.
If the industrial world led by the U.S., the biggest consumer, adopts ecological taxes, the Chinese and the other exporting Asian Tigers will be forced to follow and substantially clean up their act or be forced from our markets.
The market and ecological taxation is an available and potent means to transform our own, and Chinese conduct, from the path of ecological self-destruction to that of sustainability and prosperity. It's time.
Roy Morrison is an energy consultant (http://www.rmaenergy.net) and writer. His latest book is "Eco Civilization 2140."

Spring's Political Flowers Bloom
Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison
It's early Saturday morning in April and Sen. John McCain is on stage before a full house at Keene State College answering questions from anyone who comes to the mic. While the nation is just starting to focus on this fall's congressional elections, in New Hampshire, the 2008 presidential campaign is underway.
McCain is an engaging speaker, tolerant of hostile questioners. He takes heat for his pro-immigration leadership. Anti-illegal immigrant bashers in the audience mutter about "parasites," their eyes burning with the passion of having a target to unreservedly hate.
It's my turn at the mic. I suggest the biggest challenges facing the next president will be global warming and sustainability. We need to make economic growth mean ecological improvement, not ecological destruction.
Ending taxes on income and instead taxing all goods and services based on their level of pollution, depletion, and ecological damage is key, I tell the Senator.
McCain's concerned about global warming.
"We don't know where the tipping point is," he says.
Meanwhile, as we spiral toward ecological catastrophe and the Bush administration continues to delay, stonewall, and politically back fill, McCain is ready to standup for ecological survival. He declares, "Climate change is real. It's here. It's dangerous. And it's worse than we thought ... It's terrible that we haven't taken more action to prevent it."
I don't share McCain's embrace of nuclear power as part of the solution. The Bush Administration, for example, wants to build nuclear reactors in India while bombing them in Iran. Nevertheless, McCain appears quite willing to craft innovative solutions to major questions whether immigration or global warming.
A consumption tax system would be based on a smart sales tax, an ecological value added tax or VAT [value added tax], on all goods and services in the economy, currently worth about $10 trillion a year. Ecological VAT rates would vary. The more polluting, depleting, or ecologically damaging a good or service, the higher the tax.
What's sustainable will be cheaper, what's more polluting will be more costly. The market, not regulation will lead the way toward sustainability.
The market price will reflect true costs. A 25 percent VAT would raise about $2.5 trillion a year for the federal budget. The VAT could be phased in over ten years, replacing income based taxes dollar for dollar.
And since consumption taxes are regressive, the poor spend all their income while the rich don't, the ecological VAT system need be accompanied by a negative income tax (NIT). The NIT, proposed by Richard Nixon, would end welfare and poverty by lifting the poorest above the poverty line, and the working poor toward a liveable wage.
The market and democracy, what we know best and what we do best, is the road to sustainability. After Katrina when gasoline prices soared 50 percent, the sales of the gas guzzling Ford Explorer SUV, declined 50 percent in the following quarter.
Remember, since World War II global carbon dioxide emissions have declined only in the years 1974, and 1980-1983 following OPEC oil embargoes that sent prices soaring.
In April, it's nice to sense that not only can we be free from income tax hell, but find deliverance as part of a basic reform that will lead the way toward ecological sustainability and prosperity.
Certainly it remains to be seen if McCain will take my advise on phasing out income taxes and instituting an ecological consumption tax. But he's willing to listen and willing to take action.
Maybe a presidential candidate's political instincts will converge with our nation's long term interests in 2008. That's what democracy and the New Hampshire primary is all about.

Roy Morrison is a writer and energy consultant. His latest book, "Eco Civilization 2140," is available on Amazon.com and local bookstores everywhere.

'08 is lookin' like a lot of fun ...

While the date of the New Hampshire primary and what the DNC plans on doing with it is on every political junkie's mind up here, things seem to be heating up out in the blogosphere. The hilarious Molly Ivins posted this column earlier this week: ["Not. backing. Hillary."]:

"Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges."

Boy, doesn't that say it all? Over at DailyKos, this column was a hot topic, with a slew of posters agreeing with Ivins, a few stating that Ivins voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 so why should anyone listen to her, and a whole bunch more drinking the "I'll vote for any Democrat" Kool-Aid Jim Jones style. Oh, they'll never learn. While she isn't a very powerful pundit, her column is a good wake up call for the Dems. If the Republicans nominate a moderate in 2008 and the Dems some war-monger pain-in-the-ass like Hillary, it could be 2000 all over again.

Down in Massachusetts, there is a bit of trouble for Gov. Mitt "Guy Smiley" Romney ... he's losing his consultant: ["Romney political strategist quits"]. He's breaking ties with Mike Murphy - the star consultant for Sen. John McCain in 2000 and numerous other campaigns. Murphy claims he is going to stay neutral if both Romney and McCain are in the primary:

"The deal is there's no reelect committee to work for, and I've made it clear all along that if there is a presidential primary campaign Mitt Romney and (Senator) John McCain, I'd have to be neutral in it."

Eh, yeah, right. I'll believe that when I see it. It is difficult for these guys to stay out of the fray when they don't have to. He would just have to pick one or the other. Of course, this is assuming that McCain is running and there is no guarantee of that.
As an aside, Murphy will make an interesting chapter in a book I may eventually finish writing some day. I can talk about how he sneaked into the 2002 Democratic convention on a press pass and how I tipped off a press aide for a treasurer's candidate to his presence. He was quickly booted from the auditorium - but not before I got some good information from him. Sorry Mike. I can also talk about his role in getting Romney to run for governor in 2002 after Guy Smiley promised he wouldn't run for governor. And how the town of Belmont used public funds for a Welcome Home i.e. political, rally. Trust me, it will be worth the read when the book gets done. I'm also waiting on a guy I know to do a document dump on Romney. We'll see if he actually ever gets around to doing it.

Then, there is Al Gore, who has truly become his own man: ["'We the People' Must Save Our Constitution"].

"Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.
But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government."

Americans who were polled after the speech believe Bush should be impeached: ["Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping"]. The problem here is that this is the same Al Gore who was a member of the Clinton Adminstration during the passage of the domestic anti-terrorism bill, the precursor to the Patriot Act. This is the same Gore who stood by Bubba when he bombed the Sudan to get Monica and her stained dress off the front page of the papers. The same Gore who didn't speak up when Sandy Berger, Bill Cohen, and Madeline "Not So" Bright were advocating regime change in Iraq on a pathetic college tour where they were summarily blasted and booed by the crowd. Creek, creek, creek ... that was Gore. No outrage at that time - when he was the vice president and had the power to influence policy. Still, I'm intrigued by Gore and what his motives are beyond getting time on C-Span. Maybe he has changed.

Will there be a Nader "factor" in '08? Probably not. Nader was shellacked in 2004 for no other reason than existing. He is aging; half his face is paralyzed; he still owes money from the 2004 race. But Nader may have a last hurrah, especially if this film, "An Unreasonable Man," picks up steam: ["indieWIRE"] and ["Ralph Nader to Attend Sundance Film Festival"]:

"I was so sick of people (mostly whiny Democrats) yelling at me about Ralph without having all the information. When discussing him, I too was conflicted. But most of all I wanted to tell the story of Ralph Nader's entire life and career so at least when people judged him, they would understand more about this American icon."

It is a wonder what would have happened in 2004 had the Democrats spent the millions of dollars they spent keeping Nader off ballots on their own general election campaign. Sure, Kerry probably would have lost anyway because he was - and is - a soulless yuppie. But Kerry didn't lose by that much when you look at the numbers. Sure, he gained New Hampshire; but he lost Iowa and New Mexico, states Gore won. There was also [silly] speculation that Kerry might win Arizona, Nevada, Virginia, and West Virginia, states where he probably was never going to win. But what if Kerry had spent that last $15 million in his bank account in those states? What if the Democrats had spent the $6 million they spent keeping Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania in neighboring Iowa?

In a sort of political related note, check out this car: ["A 330 mpg car for everyone"]. The only problem with this is that I doubt it will be safe enough to take on the highway. Can you imagine getting front-ended by a Mac truck in that thing? They'll be lucky to find anything left of you!

Thought for the day
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

411: An old pal from Winchester forwarded this information to me today:
"Cell phone companies are charging us $1.00 or more for 411 informationcalls when they don't have to. (They are plainly and simply greedy.)Here's how to beat them. If you need to use the 411 information option:Dial 1-800-FREE 411 (1-800-373-3411) without incurring a charge at all, except for whatever minutes are required to make the call.It works on home "land line" phone too.This is information people don't mind receiving. Pass it on."

I will have to check it out and see if it works.

Speaking of phones: Did you know that your phone records were for sale? ["Your phone records are for sale"].

New Orleans, Post Katrina: Well, it looks like the powers that be are finally letting folks know how New Orleans will be rebuilt. And, as many suspected, it looks like a land grab - with the working class folks of New Orleans being left out of the big plans: ["N.O. residents angry about rebuilding ideas"]. So, who is this Joseph Canizaro guy anyway? Well, do a Google: ["Mother Jones 400"]:

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development chided Canizaro for heading a local housing authority that ignored lower bids and awarded a contract to a board member of First Bank and Trust, where Canizaro happens to be chairman.

Hmm. OK. What else can we find? A lot of stuff about donations to Bush and then, this: ["The city's future may depend on a mogul with Bush's ear"]. Why is it that these folks are always put in charge of "the rebuilding" or "the rezoning" or "the restructuring." How come it is never any regular folks who just want their homes back. Let's see if the Sean Hannitys of the world expose this fraud like they go after Democratic mayors in small towns who are taking property for small economic revitalization projects. And yeah, don't get me wrong, that's bad too.

Oh Ana Marie: Wonkette! has a book out. And another book coming ... with a six figure advance! I'm in the wrong business. But then again, I don't really like to blog by making sexual references and sodomy jokes all the time. And, I don't live in D.C. ... I live in New Hampshire. But now, she has decided not to blog and, in fact, her blog is getting a sex change: ["Wonkette's Sex Change"].
I think I will wait until it ends up in the cut-out bin.

I think I may try this: ["TerraPass"].

Tax, Don't Trade Pollution
Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison

The Pittsburgh Steelers in the NFL playoffs against the Cinncinati Bengals called their trick play Fake 38 Direct Throwback. My son Sam and I call ours Chicago Lateral 2 Yellow. There's a pitch to the end who throws a lateral across the field to the quarterback who fires to the streaking end. TD.
Sometimes there's a correspondence between your backyard and the bigs, pro football or sandlot, an e-mail across town or to a friend's son serving in Iraq.
Then there are things that just aren't quite right.
A brand new pickup from Public Service Company pulls up to read the meter. If I can send e-mail and data around the world, why can't my electric meter be another smart control node of a 21st century network?
And I drive into Concord on I-89 while a huge plume of sulfurous smoke pours from the Public Service Company coal fired power plant in Bow and a brown mist heads south toward Manchester along the Merrimack River. Why are we told that the coal burned in Bow meets all environmental regulations and is a money-saving bargain as if its toxic mercury and particulate emissions and climate changing carbon dioxide are without costs?
For us to be both prosperous and healthy in the 21st century, we must get the prices right. It's time to let our market system work. It's time for poison power to charge its true costs and not have the rest of us be forced to pay its way.
By taxing polluters from the first gram of toxins and harmful emissions, we would decisively help put sustainable power on a fair and even footing with poison power. The market, not regulators, if we get the prices right, can take care of much of the pollution problem not just at Bow's Merrimack Station, but with sustainability in general.
The current regulatory system that allows a set amount of pollution without charge is fundamentally flawed. To permit "free" pollution is to pollute not only the air and water, but also the marketplace.
Poison is regulated only on the margin. Polluters only pay for exceeding their free poison allowance.
This is the basic problem behind the admirable Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative pollution cap and trade system adopted by Northeast Governors attempting to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that drive global climatic change. The governors are to be applauded for their initiative in the face of Bush administration intransigence.
Slashing carbon dioxide emissions is essential. But the modest RGGI plan, which will most strongly impact coal plants such as Merrimack Station, is already running into trouble. Massachusetts and Rhode Island have pulled out.
Some businesses worry about further increases in electric rates in a year where electric prices have soared after Hurricane Katrina. Public Service Company and other powerful polluters who want to keep operating coal plants as a "bargain" for ratepayers are less than enthusiastic.
Pollution taxes, not the sale of artificial pollution allowances ultimately are the way to solve our problems. Environmentally, if we had State sales taxes on emissions from electricity from the first gram, we would help the market send signals for sustainability. The more polluting the power, the higher the price. Buy cheap. Save the planet.
Economically, the income from the pollution taxes should all be recycled as rebates or efficiency retrofit grants to businesses and to low income people. The tax would help our businesses be competitive, protect the health of our kids, help low-income people to pay their bills, and advance prosperity and sustainability.
Pollution taxes are the way forward.
This is the concept. Next, I'll provide details.

Roy Morrison is an energy consultant and writer. His next book, forthcoming, is Eco-Civilization 2140. His Web site is www.rmaenergy.net.

Media Madness ... Part 1

Imagine, you create an advertisement to run on television and then the television companies refuse your money. Such is the situation with Arianna Huffington’s new ad promoting hybrid automobiles which links SUV drivers to terrorists.
What, you say, terrorists? Yup, terrorists: ["Stations Reject TV Ads That Connect SUVs to Terrorism"].
However, if the Ad Council – the non-profit organization that creates public service announcements – can constantly bombard us with FREE ads telling kids that the joint they smoked at a party Friday night bankrolled terrorists, surely Arianna can take her greens and pay for ads linking gas-guzzling SUV’s to the bankrolling of most of the princes of OPEC, right? Remember, while we may not be at war with some of these nations, like Saudi Arabia, the Saudis still teach their children that Jews are "pigs" and most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudis. A prince was even recently accused of siphoning money to al Quaida.

Media Madness ... Part 2 or 'God Bless Russ Feingold and John McCain!'
Let's be honest: Sen. John McCain from Arizona is becoming a conservative Democrat. It really has become clear. First, it was campaign finance reform with Sen. Feingold. Then, it was a pseudo-populist presidential campaign. Then, he voted against Bush's $1.3 trillion transfer of wealth to the Top 10 percent of wage earners. Then, he threatens to vote against Bush's new tax plan. And still further McCain goes after radio consolidation: ["Radio: Where's the Diversity"]. So the guy is still pro-life and pro-free trade. But he is turning out to be more liberal than Sen. Joe Lieberman!