Quick links: The Rush Limbaugh hates the troops edition

Here are some things I've saved over the past couple of weeks which are worth looking at:
First, here is that idiot Rush Limbaugh going off on the troops again: ["Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are 'phony soldiers'"]. I guess the only "real" soldiers are the ones who take joy in killing, right Rush? Some Christian you are. And more evidence and reasoning for why we need a fairness doctrine for all licensed media organizations.
Here is the response from a veteran's group:

Here is another vet responding, with photos, of him, as a "phony "soldier": ["The Real Deal"].
Here is an AP story about vets coming home to face financial problems: ["Wounded vets also suffer financial woes"].
I don't like the fact that this article kinda laughs at people who are worried about meteorites: ["Meteorite Crash Breeds Mass Hysteria"]
The Boston Herald has an update on the status of Howie Carr's contract dilemma: ["Stalled Carr urges judge to rethink radio ruling"].
Boston news hottie Bianca de la Garza has landed at Channel 5: ["Bianca de la Garza"]. I was wondering where she went to because there were rumors she was leaving FOX25. And then, poof, she was back on TV, co-anchoring the 11 p.m. WCVB-TV newscast. While Googling for some news about Bianca, I came across this site, which is pretty amusing: ["Ogle Boston's Hottest News Woman, Feel Creepy"].
For all you Halo 3 junkies out there, here are some tips: ["Halo 3: First Tips"].
I was wondering when this was going to happen: ["FCC proposes 'fake news' fine"].
They're at it again!: ["Clinton campaign kills negative story"].

Priorities

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

A society reveals its values, priorities and distribution of power in the way its rulers punish deviant behavior. Here are some examples for you to ponder:

Members of Congress were in an uproar recently over a MoveOn.Org political advertisement in the New York Times titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” The following copy alerted readers to their belief that he may likely testify before Congress as a political General reflecting the rosy views on the Iraq war-quagmire by his commander-in-chief, George W. Bush.

How dare MoveOn.Org criticize a General in the midst of' Bush’s war of choice, growled Republicans and some Democrats as the Senators rushed to overwhelmingly vote for a resolution condemning the ad?

How dare those many Americans who criticized Civil War Generals, World War Two Generals, Korean War Generals (remember General Douglas MacArthur) and Vietnam War Generals (remember General William Westmoreland)?

This kind of criticism inside Army, inside the Congress and among the citizenry has been as American as apple pie.

How come a similar uproar has not come forth about the many female U.S. soldiers in Iraq raped or sexually harassed by male soldiers who are often their superiors? Where are the generals to crack down on these outrages? This story was documented in a long cover story in the New York Times Magazine some months ago, citing numerous sources, including the Pentagon.

Senators demanded the resignation of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) caught in a toilet sting operation at Minneapolis airport. Senator Craig – he now says foolishly so – pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. For doing what? As Frank Rich described the situation in the New York Times: “He didn't have sex in a public place. He didn’t expose himself. His toe tapping, hand signals and ‘wide stance’ were at most a form of flirtation.”

Conservative columnist, George Will expressed similar views.

The penalty for Senator Craig is likely termination of his Senate career but not one required by law. Just by pressure from his “pure” Senate colleagues.

Now contrast what should be required of George W. Bush by our Constitution, laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory nation.

Plunging our nation into an unconstitutional war of massive carnage and cost, and committing numerous, repeated crimes along the way, from widespread torture in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva conventions to spying on Americans without court approval (a felony), does not agitate the Senators as did the airport toilet tapping.

Added to the Bush presidency's serial and continuing crimes are his bungling and incompetence. He has enriched crooked corporations, burned tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and most seriously, deprived soldiers of sufficient body and humvee armor year after year, which has cost the lives and limbs of thousands of American GIs.

In a US court of law, such behavior would be judged criminal negligence.

Yet, there has been no demand from Congress for his impeachment, or his resignation, or even any support for Senator Russ Feingold's modest resolution of censure (S.Res. 302 and 303).

Bush's Justice Department has thrown the book at several plaintiff lawyers for paying people to be lead plaintiffs in securities fraud cases while not pursuing well over 90% of the corporate crooks who actually stole big money from investors and shareholders while paying themselves compensation beyond their dreams of avarice.

If the Department needed a bigger budget to go after this corporate crime wave, they should have requested it from Congress. The resulting fines and restitutions alone would have paid for such an enlarged law and order drive.

I am sure you can cite many examples of public hypocrisy, double standards and inverted priorities from your knowledge and experience. There are many explanations about why and how these powerbrokers and powerholders get away with such behavior.

But let us remember Abraham Lincoln’s observation about the power of “public sentiments.” We need to inform, focus and deliver a different quality and quantity of “public sentiments” directly to our allegedly public servants.

So that they start to sweat the big stuff.

Ralph Nader is a long-term consumer advocate. He ran for president as a write-in candidate in 1992, the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent/Reform/and other party candidate in 2004.

Reported bin Ladin transcript released

Here it is: ["New OBL Tape: Iraq, Democratic Control"]. I don't know how to take this. I'm really confused. Is he just hunkered down in a bunker somewhere, spewing out Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talking points about the Democrats for the hell of it? Does he even really exist at this point? Can any of this be trusted? Why is he blathering about taxes?
Maybe this is a super-double-secret-distraction tactic on his part. He must be thinking, 'Hey, I will agree with the neo-cons' enemies on some things and this will create a reverse opinion shift in the minds of the American people to keep their war going so I can keep jihad going. This way, I can continue to perform chaotic hell on the unbelievers ... [add evil laugh here].'
Or, maybe he is putting out this tape after seeing the Saturday Night Live skit with Horatio Sanz playing Saddam and Jimmy Fallon playing Osama, where Saddam keeps saying, 'Shut up, Osama,' Because he doesn't want to be bombed into oblivion and Osama keeps talking about all the things they did together. Hilarious. Maybe bin Ladin saw that skit and thought, 'Hmm, this is a good idea, I will keep blathering about the economic collapse of the United States and then they have to accept Islam. Yeah, yeah, then I will prevail!! [add evil laugh here].'
Does anyone else have an explanation? I can't think of anything else. Can you? All I can say is that this whole thing is ridiculous.

Lightning
Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison
Sam's on the mound. I'm catching. He's 14 now. Taller than me. Torquing his body, showing me his back as he winds up. His four-seamer hits the catcher's mitt with a resonant baseball snap. The way it's supposed to be.
In Babe Ruth League, we try to do things with class—as best we can. During late afternoon games this year, there was almost always thunderstorms gathering, or threatening, or exploding over the field.
Umpiring, or sitting in the stands, at the first flash of lightning—hopefully still miles away and we haven't waited too long— I'd jump up and yell lightning and stop the game. A dad protecting my son and everybody's kid. Our job is to say the truth. Not sit on our hands.
Isn't it time that dads stand up and demand the insane Iraq war stops now? The lightning flashes and the dangers to our kids are all too clear.
Any parent can do this. But now I'm saying it's time for the dads.
My son-in-law Ryan is a captain in the Air Force. He's served one tour in Iraq. If George Bush and his Congressional collaborators aren't stopped he'll be back there. And then, before you know it, it'll be Sam's turn.
It's time for fathers to shout lightning and stop this madness. It's time for us to demand this war stop before another one of our kids gets maimed or killed.
Lightning. It's not in the distance. It's all around us.
Roy Morrison is Director of the Office of Sustainability at Southern New Hampshire University.His latest book, "Markets, Democracy & Survival," is forthcoming in 2007. "Markets, Democracy & Survival" available now for download in PDF from: www.RMAenergy.net.

The GOP: 'Grand Obstructionist Party'
Republicans Continue to Block Will of the People on Just About Everything

Guest Perspective/Ray Buckley

It is sad and shameful times as Republicans are dragging their feet, holding up the legislative process, and standing in the way of progress on the issues most important to the people of New Hampshire and across this great nation. Sens. Judd Gregg and John E. Sununu continue to put their loyalty to the President and their political party ahead of the interests of the Granite State and our brave men and women in uniform. It is not surprising that in the latest polls, 66 percent of independent voters say they will vote in the Democratic primary. This dramatic shift is because Independents in New Hampshire strongly oppose the Iraq War and are pleased at how Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes are fighting to bring our troops home. The landslide re-election by Gov. John Lynch and historic victories by Democrats strongly indicates that Independents are realizing more and more which Party is fighting for them and which Party is more interested in standing in the way of progress. The UNH poll is a striking reminder of how the largest bloc of New Hampshire voters - Independents - continue to sway toward the Democrats during this decade. If Republicans stick to their obstructionist ways in Concord and Washington, we look forward to welcoming them into the Democratic Party, permanently.
In their first six months in office, Reps. Shea-Porter and Hodes have been keeping their promise to New Hampshire’s voters by working to change course in Iraq. Every step of the way, Republicans like Sununu, have shown that they lack the leadership and backbone to stand up to the President. Just one day after a new National Intelligence Estimate provided additional evidence that Republicans have failed to make our homeland safe and allowed Al Qaeda to rebuild, Sununu chose to protect George W. Bush and his disastrous Iraq policy by voting against an amendment that would have begun a rollback of U.S. forces within four months and redefined the U.S. mission in Iraq.
Earlier this week Gregg attacked New Hampshire’s Congressmen for being partisan and standing with the Democratic majority in their effort to win this war. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Bush has fed the American public one war rationale after another and passive Republicans, like Sununu, have stood by and watched while one lousy policy failure after another has been recommended. It isn't good enough anymore to say, '’Well, I supported some other amendment that didn't have a timetable, that didn't bring the troops home.”
Sununu not only tows the Party line by supporting failed policies in Iraq, he is in lock-step with Republicans down in Washington on just about everything. Recently, Sununu voted against expanding stem cell research and the Employee Free Choice Act, which would protect workers' right to organize without fear of harassment or intimidation. Sununu has made it clear that he stands with the president, and not the people of New Hampshire.
I’m not the only one questioning Gregg and Sununu’s continued participation in the GOP “Grand Obstructionist Party.” The Portsmouth Herald ["Troop deadline is bit of sanity for Iraq war," July 19] called into question the logic behind their continued support for the current war policy - “‘logic, as best as we can reckon, that says if you think things are bad now, the Democrats' plan for major troop withdrawals will make things even worse. Instead of political posturing, Congress should focus on getting the policy right.’ Striving to get ‘the policy right’ is a remarkable admission well into the fifth year of war and occupation. Political posturing is a matter of perspective, but it's legitimate to ask what Sununu and Gregg - or Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - have been doing all this time to get the policy right.”
Republicans in Washington will be held accountable for their obstructionism when they face the voters in 2008. Sununu will be forced to make a decision whether he is going to answer New Hampshire’s call to end this war or if he will continue to protect Bush and blindly follow these failed Iraq policies. Every obstructionist step of the way John E. will continue to alienate Independents and prove to voters that the only way to responsibly bring this war to an end and begin to repair America’s reputation here and abroad is to elect Democrats in 2008.
Ray Buckley is the chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

Almost missed ...
Here are some articles worth looking at from the WSJ
I'm catching up on my reading this weekend ... and a pile of WSJs that has been sitting in my dining room. There is about a month's worth, starting in early May and running through mid-June. And I got through them all, finally. I've been able to read it most mornings of late, which is nice because old news is, well, old. However, here are some articles that are worthy of posting even at this late date:

["A Musical Family Affair Revisited"] I noticed that the Sly & the Family Stone CDs had been remastered and re-released at Newbury Comics about two months ago. I didn't buy any, because they weren't on sale and I'm trying to save money. Plus, the "Greatest Hits" record is the best out of all of them because it has all the hot songs on it.
However, as I found out quite by accident with Isaac Hayes, there are some choice tracks hidden on albums. Most of what would be considered the throwaway stuff by Hayes is better than the singles. So, maybe there are some here from Sly, too. Here is the band's site: ["Sly Stone Music"].

One of the things I like about reading the actual print edition of the Wall Street Journal [or other newspapers] versus online editions is that you actually see the display ads in the newspaper. They just aren't the same on the Web.
For example, Nucor Steel had this great full page ad campaign in the May 3 edition. "It just makes sense to use something again. Instead of throwing it away," the ad states in big, bold letters on one of the first two pages. The ad then goes on to talk about how the company is the country's largest recycler, at 22 million tons, including 9 million cars last year alone. They joke, at the end, "Who knows, maybe we'll even use this ad again." So they do - on the next two full pages - repeating the exact same text! Hilarious.
Looking at its Web site, they reveal a bunch of stuff about the company, including that the steel industry has reportedly reduced emissions by 240 percent and is six years ahead of the Kyoto protocols. The stock is trading at about $60 per share, which is not too bad considering the steel industry.
Lastly, Nucor is also a leading example of not laying off workers, according to economic theorist Phil Hyde: ["Timesizing Working Models"].

["How to sink a newspaper"]. This guy, the publisher of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, makes some good suggestions about what to do with newspaper Web sites ... and that maybe the free online news model is not the way to go. Or, some modifications need to be made so that we make sure that newspapers are properly staffed. This is the only way the news will be delivered properly.

Here is one article that makes me just a tad uncomfortable: ["To Create Buzz, TV Networks Try A Little 'Blogola'"]. I mean, OK, if some org. wanted to fly me out to wherever to check something out, I might take them up on it. But, to be a shill for them all the time? I don't know. I guess if you have a disclaimer on your site saying that you are not an unbiased, credible journalist, it would be OK to do this. But, if you are, you really should not be doing this. The flip of this is that if Hollywood reporters are doing this, why can't ordinary folks get some of the largess?

["Lawnmower-engine maker Once Had Lead in Hybrids"]. This is an interesting article about what could have been. Imagine, if a company kept working on this instead of, oh, I don't know, building Hummers. We'd have that sports car for $20k which does 100 miles to the gallon already by now! I can tell you from shopping for cars recently that it is pretty sucky that even the sub-compacts are not getting 50 or 60 miles to the gallon. Most are lucky to break 35! It is very, very sad.

["Iraq War memorial sparks fight over property values"]. Here is another important article focusing on the war issue from a different angle. The WSJ is really good at coming up with interesting ways of looking at stories.

["A Fight Over What You Can Do on a Cellphone"]. The issue of cellphone service and what you pay for has become a personal issue for me of late. For almost two years, I have been a happy Earthlink wireless customer. I got a great price on my late model Treo back in 2005 and really liked the service. But of late, I have been trying to downsize my bills in order to save money and pay for other things I need. Since Earthlink is analog wireless and not broadband, the Internet speeds were extremely slow and almost not even worth it. Since I bring my laptop almost everywhere, I can get email to it anytime I want, either at free hot spots or the free wireless near where I work. So, I realized I didn't really need the data package. As well, canceling it would save me $40 per month plus taxes, or more than $500 per year [about 25 percent of a new car purchase over five years]. Not a bad chunk of change.

So, I called them and told them I wanted to keep my phone service but not the data service. They said, No. I was a bit taken aback. Paraphrasing, the phone attendant said: Since you have a PDA, you have to keep the data service on.
I said: No, I don't. I just won't use it.
He said: Sorry sir, we can't do that.
Me: Well, can you switch me to a per KB charge plan and I just won't use it? This would be the same as not having it.
Him: No.
Me: Do you realize you are going to lose my business if you don't do this because I will go out and get service from another company? Why can't you just shut off the data plan and let me keep my phone service with your company?
Him: I'm sorry, we can't do that. Plus, you can't use another service with your Treo. You'll have to buy another Treo.
Me: Hmm. OK, but I could go and get broadband service for the same price I'm paying you and at least the service I would be paying for would be faster.

Needless to say, my interaction with Earthlink proved that the old adage, The customer is always right, just isn't true any longer. It was very disappointing since I like them and I like their corporate mentality.
But, it all worked out. Since my wife needed a new phone - her 2001 analog phone was no longer going to be operable by the middle of the month, according to Cingular - it was a good opportunity to look at a new service provider. In the end, we chose a family plan from Sprint-Nextel. And, we received the same minutes, got snazzy new phones [one for free and an inexpensive PDA for me], and we saved money, too.
As we move along in this technological world, I have a feeling that this WSJ article just nips the tip of the iceberg. If anything, phone and data plans are going to probably go down in price, not up, as the companies will want to nickel and dime everyone to death for every little thing. The cost of the phone service will probably drop to virtually nothing, not unlike long distance has done. Along with it, the data plans will probably also drop.

["'Super Duper' Tuesday May Be Too Big to Matter"]. Last, but not least, something the WSJ is really good for: Charts, graphs, and all kinds of data. Data that is even better when it is political.

DON'T March on Washington, They're Home! Camp out on Congressmen's Front Lawns
A Memorial Day Prayer
Guest Perspective/Ralph Lopez

I'm writing this, like many of us, harboring disgust; disgust at the Democratic leadership of course, disgust at the MoveOn people for backing the initial compromise that led to this cave-in, disgust at our own helplessness in forcing our congressmen to act like a real opposition to end, in Studs Terkel's words, this "incredibly obscene war." Which every day is earning us more hatred and taking resources from the task at hand in Afghanistan, and northern Pakistan.

A part of me is even mad at the guys who, after March 2003, signed up for getting themselves killed. Naive enough to believe a filthy liar like George W. Bush when he said Iraq was somehow related to 9/11, and we had to take the fight to the enemy. Bush, who let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora when he could have killed him, so bin Laden could kill another day. Whose Vice President Dick Cheney, did business with Saddam president as recently as 1998, through Halliburton.

I'm tired of getting teary when I read about another of their funerals, their mothers screaming or collapsing as my mother would have, had she had to bury me before my life ever really began. How evil this all is. Then I think: What if I had been held, as a matter of life or death, to all the decisions I made when I was 20 or 21? I'd be in real trouble. The fact remains: These are my American brothers, and I love them and don't want any more of them to die in Iraq.

The Democrats' excuse is they don't have a veto-proof majority. But it doesn't take a veto-proof majority to start the investigation of the 360 tons of lost high explosives in Iraq back in 2004 that are still killing the troops today.

An investigation that would weaken Bush's political position so much he would have to be the one to compromise. It's disgusting to see the Democrats weak and cowed by threats that they could be accused of "not supporting the troops." It makes you wonder what the NSA has found on these guys. That they resist kicking and screaming from going into the battle. I'm dead serious. Bush must have the mistress and male prostitute tapes on these congressmen all wrapped up, for them to let him sneer and preen and strut like a man who holds all the cards.

The press keeps saying there was "a bruising struggle" over the Iraq veto fight. Are you kidding me? They didn't even break a sweat.

Congress is home for the week beginning now until June 4. It's important to not give them a moment's peace, and at the same time to give them a clear idea of what we expect. Once again, a page from the Republican playbook.

When they came after Clinton from minority standing they hammered and hammered at many variations of thong underwear, until his position was so weak he couldn't proceed with his admittedly modest, centrist agenda. That's how you play, when you play to win. Three hundred and sixty tons of HMX high explosives, one pound of which can turn over a tank, is considerably more serious than thong underwear.

This constant reminder of incompetence or worse would cut the Republicans off at the knees when they try accusations of not supporting the troops. Not securing the HMX, which the administration knew of, and generals were begging him to secure, was like "invading the US for [weapons of mass destruction] and not securing Los Alamos Laboratory" in the words of Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project.

Someone has to camp out on each of these congressmen's front lawns. If they throw you off, the sidewalk is public property. But remember, print out "The Democratic Offensive That Wasn't") and hand it to everyone you see, even the cops. Ralph Nader said we must perfect the art of "buttonholing" them, must another page from the Right Wing. Whether they are in church, at a picnic, trying to have a cup of coffee, anywhere, hand them the print-out, so they can't play dumb, and tell them THIS is what you expect. We did their work for them.

All they have to do is follow the plan. If not, start a search committee for who's going to run against them in the primary, even if it's years away. Start watching who they show up with in restaurants in D.C. Maybe that's the mistress.

Why bother? Because you are paying them. If your cellphone company sold you a lemon and you were stuck, wouldn't you go and scream at whomever sold it to you? Just because it was the right thing to do and they deserved it? Do you like the tax bite that comes out of your pay every week? Because that's the money that pays these guys to represent you.

Freedom isn't free. If we think it's time-consuming to give these guys a week of hell, next week, as we are all barely making ends meet, remember that Fort Ticonderoga was held in freezing winters by Americans whom, for footwear, had their feet wrapped up in rags. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Who is the first to start "Camp Casey, MyTown, USA"?

In last week's Annapolis speech Bush again beat the horse to death that there are 'still people who want to attack us, who want to harm us.' Um, we know that, George. But you DAMNED well ain't protecting us. You're making it worse.

If, by the more than 3,400 American deaths in Iraq, we have been shaken to the core from the post-9/11 fear paralysis which caused us to blindly follow anyone who promised safety, in the process overturning the Constitution, and if, through this, the politics of pure fear are uprooted, the Constitution saved, and the constitutional republic restored, then those deaths were not in vain, and the gift, in life's strange way, is that which they were fighting for in the first place.

Ralph Lopez is a former state Rep. and state Senate candidate from Cambridge, Mass. and author of "American Dream." He also writes his own blog, Ralph Lopez World.

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.

Even before escalation ...
This democracyfornewhampshire.com post was sent to me yesterday. Instead of linking the post, I'm going to publish the entire thing:

Even before escalation, NH will pay $1.5 billion for Iraq this year

As President Bush proposes to send an additional 20,000 troops to fight in Iraq, it is worth noting what the war is currently costing New Hampshire taxpayers.

Via various federal taxes, New Hampshire citizens and businesses will pay approximately $1.5 billion for Iraq operations during this fiscal year.

For the same amount of money, New Hampshire could provide:

• 349,783 people with health care or
• 27,624 elementary school teachers or
• 188,936 children with slots in Head Start or
• 381,397 children with health care or
• 8,071 affordable housing units or
• 116 new elementary schools or
• 158,065 scholarships for university students or
• 27,264 music and arts teachers or
• 35,196 public safety officers or
• 2,156,510 homes with renewable electricity.

“It’s amazing what we could accomplish in America if the President, Congress and the Pentagon stopped throwing money at dead-end military exercises like Iraq and obsolete Cold War weapons systems,” PrioritiesNH director Steve Varnum said today.

PrioritiesNH is working to change America's budget priorities to reflect a national commitment to education, healthcare, energy independence, job training and deficit reduction -- at no additional taxpayer expense -- by shifting funding from obsolete Cold War and nuclear weapons. A panel of military experts says the Pentagon wastes $60 billion each year on obsolete Cold War weapons and excessive nuclear weapons. The Common Sense Budget Act would redistribute that $60 billion to domestic and international human needs.

Tradeoff facts from National Priorities Project: http://database.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoff

Facts on $60 billion Pentagon waste: http://www.prioritiesnh.org/documents/Korb_revised_06.pdf

Quiet days

Sorry it has been so quiet out here. I've been busy. However, I did want to post some round ups and some other quick things and then get back to life.
The last week has been a quiet few days for political news, in the wake of John Edwards' announcement and the death of President Gerald Ford. But that probably won't last long. The 2008 presidential race is becoming very interesting to watch with all kinds of candidates sticking their toes in, wondering, What about me?
On the WSJ redesign, I must say that it is really great. While it lopped off an entire column, the color is crisp and the reporting is in-depth and worth reading. It is almost like reading the Sunday New York Times every day. It is that good. I've always been impressed with the articles - that's the reason I started a subscription - but now it is better than ever. Here is what Yahoo! Finance says about it: ["Wall Street Journal Unveils New Design"].

The Internet
A few days ago, Janice - and I believe this is Janice from Area603 but I'm not sure - asked me the following:

What role do you think the internet (especially blogging) will make in the upcoming presidential elections, if anything. Will it be a greater/lesser/same factor as the last election and why?

Good questions. Thank you for them and thank you for reading.
First, the Internet has become a major force in everything we do in our lives, not just elections. From personal communication, to advertising, to how we get news and entertainment, almost everyone and everything is affected by the Internet. The Web will probably continue to be a force to be dealt with on many different levels.
Campaigns need Web sites to communicate with voters. Voters need Web sites to actually find out stuff about candidates since much of the broadcast media doesn't really cover campaigns in-depth anymore. The newspapers continue to do a pretty good job and there are some pretty good political television reporters, like Andy Hiller of WHDH, Jon Keller of WBZ, Joe Battenfeld, a print reporter who I think still works for Fox25, all in Boston, and Scott Spradling of WMUR here in New Hampshire. But everything else is spotty at best. Radio talk shows tend to only have hosts blathering on and on. There are even fewer doing real news in most markets. So the voters have become more reliant on the Web for information.
Whether the Internet will have a greater role than usual, I don't honestly know. There is a burnout factor which I don't think we are all taking into consideration. The Internet could eventually reach a point where it maxes out. In some ways, it already has. Like television, there are too many choices. Our lives are getting busier and busier which means that there is less time for surfing the Web or doing anything else. I think people could get so bombarded by it that they will turn away from it, similar to the way they have turned away from network television. Why watch when you can do? I know that personally, I have turned back to physical newspapers and away from the Web. I like smelling the ink and looking at the way in which ads are laid out on pages and things like that. Reading the new WSJ in hand, for example, and then going to the Web site to link a story I've seen are two different experiences entirely. One is clinical and mechanical, the other is fun, for lack of a better way of saying it.
Second, I think blogging will be influential as elections continue but not because of the reasons which some people might think. Blogging, which is considered a new medium, isn't much different from the leafleting and print sheets posted during the days of Thomas Paine. The only difference is the technology. Instead of a printing press, I have a laptop. Instead of posting my prints on the marquee outside the local tavern, I use the Web. It has become easier to share thoughts and ideas. It is think, point, click, and you're done. Since the beginning of time, humankind has wanted - and needed - to be heard and blogging provides this outlet for people. Take it from someone who was a notorious letter to the editor writer who almost never writes anything to the papers anymore. The recent UL piece is the first thing I've had in the paper for almost a year. But, I don't need to write to the paper. I can write here and other places, like Area603. A letter writer may not get as much traffic or readership but who cares. That isn't really the idea of the process.
My roundabout point is that blogging will have influence over politics and elections because it is a broad way of communicating thoughts and ideas with others. Voters will be able to find more information than they ever were able to find before and campaigns will be able to communicate with voters better than they were able to do before. Some people will be left behind - especially those folks on the bottom end who can't afford a computer or Internet. But you can get Internet at the library for free in most cities and towns. In addition, the more people put ideas and thoughts out there, the more they share with others. It isn't much different than the old days of communicating political information at Elk's Lodges and Bingo Halls ... it is just more widespread than it ever was before.
I do worry about the civility of debate and discourse in the process of blogging and the use of the Internet. You can get into some pretty rabid arguments out here in cyberspace. The art of the argument is part of the fun. The key is to remember that we are all Americans and we need to respect the opinions of everyone because of that. It can be hard to do but it is the only way.

Saddam
Of course, as we've all seen, Saddam was executed. I'm not a death penalty advocate at all but I must admit that if anyone should have been executed, it was probably Saddam. But, all the other people who have blood on their hands because they helped Saddam kill thousands, should also face some sort of punishment. Don'tcha think? Here are a couple of columns which make some good points. Andrew Cockburn has this piece: ["So Long to 'Our' Tyrant"]. And some pretty good media commentary here, about the spotty coverage: ["The Low Profile: CNN and the New York Times Execute a Denial of History"].

2008 Roundup
Here are some of the articles over the last few days:

This Gannett columnist has a look at 2007: ["In politics, '07 could be fast, furious, transformational"]. The six questions are good ones to ask.

This article looks at going after the MySpace crowd: ["Campaigns head to MySpace"].

Over at the Statesman, this columnist is looking at a field of firsts: ["Diverse presidential campaign could produce some historic 'firsts'"].

While this column looks at conservatives: ["Breaking Down the 2008 Presidential Race"].

And this article outlines organizing in Florida: ["2008 race heating up here"].

John Cox gets a light crowd in Nashua: ["Five people show up for presidential candidate's fundraiser"]. Hey, at least he got five! Cox was also in Concord, being interviewed by Karen Testerman for her show on WDER and also made the news on WKXL 1450.

Giuliani, lost: ["Revealed: Rudy's '08 battle plans"]. Well, his play book, at least. He also hosted some New Hampshire bigwigs recently: ["N.H. bigs see Rudy Prez run"].

The AP looks at Sen. Chris Dodd's ability to raise money here: ["Dodd well-positioned to raise money for 2008 presidential bid"].

Sen. Sam Brownback will announce in two weeks: ["Brownback to move on presidential bid"]. With Tommy Thompson also sniffing around: ["Thompson Says Core Supporters Pledge $1 Million to His Campaign"]. News from both of these guys is kind of a no-brainer. With Sen. George Allen and Sen. Rick Santorum out of the race, there is a conservative vacuum which can't be filled by Newt, The Adulterer, or "Guy Smiley" Romney. And there are people who don't really like Sen. John McCain. There is room for a dark horse. Keep an eye out for the press to start looking into some of Thompson's cushy corporate welfare deals he lined up for friends when he was governor. It is bound to get more tread if he runs.

Lastly, who is Lanakila Washington? Well, you can find out here: ["An Official Presidential Announcement"].

Doesn't this say it all?

This is John DeRosier's latest cartoon from the Albany Times-Union.

Lamont Shows Majority Still Has a Voice
I'm too busy thinking right now to write so I will post this guest perspective by my old bud Ralph Lopez who has a pretty good take on things right now:

Now that the train to restore America's long-abused middle-class has resoundingly left the station, the test of how Democrats have matured politically will be how well they attack Republican hypocrisy while staying on-message with the Six for '06 Agenda, which was stolen from this website by the Democratic leadership, thank you very much.
Make no mistake, the Hillary-Billary-Rahmmanuel-Reid Axis didn't suddenly decide to do the right thing. It was FORCED on them, not least by the writing on the wall represented by the Lamont tidal wave that peaked last Tuesday.
Almost a year ago we and other Americans called for primary challengers to the "Lame Democrats," and our prayers were answered. Lamont in CT, Tasini against Billary Inc. And now we have the greatest bunch of straight-talking, ass-kicking candidates poised to take over congress that this country has seen in a long time, patriot-FBI-whistleblower Colleen Rowley, Bob Bowen, Eric Massa, Tammy Duckworth, and the rest of the blunt, war veteran, take-no-shit-from-these-NeoCon-bastards crew, the Band of Brothers (bandofbrothers2006.org).
The Loser "Centrists," and the lawyer-DLC-consultant-strategists who deep down don't care who wins as long as their millions are safe, talk as if a winning campaign isn't supposed to talk and chew gum at the same time. You don't attack because - oooo! - they call us angry and negative, no ideas! You don't get specific on issues because - oooo! - they say we are going to raise taxes! Until now, the Democratic party has been one masterly exercise in how to lose elections without looking like you are trying to. Who cares? It's not their kids bleeding in the sand. And the corporate money contributions keep rolling in to both sides just the same. The most important constituent to these fat, amoral slugs is their Beamer mechanic.
To Ned and Jon Tasini and the Band of Brothers. You guys have made me proud to be an American again. You can't even know what that means.
The Joe Lieberman-Hillary Axis isn't the "center," because WE are. That's a fiction whose lifespan is about up. Bill Clinton took over the party by jerking the wheel hard to the right while fishtailing left on social issues, making the NARAL SUV surburban soccer moms the center of gravity. With a deft move from the podium Bill kicked half the country over the ledge so he'd only have to worry about the other half. The half with money. Some more, some less. But some. And since reporters love to bandy about labels like "centrist,"
"moderate," and "left-wing" because it saves them from doing real work so they can get to the bars and start the serious drinking that much sooner, the only way to counter the spin will be to repeat the positions, exactly as Lamont has been doing.
Stop waste and fraud in healthcare so more people can be insured? That's "left-wing?" Make top colleges affordable for everyone? That's the radical fringe?
Well, I reckon you better mark me down as one, what a kick in the head.
"The Six for '06 agenda is a carbon copy of my New Contract for America, which I have been emailing to Democratic honchos for years. Ask Tom Vallely, Kerry's Dog Soldier campaign buddy over at the Kennedy School.
And a real nice guy. The high point for any activist is to get his ideas stolen. That's what you work for; that's the measure of success. And you, my small but influential audience, have done it again, whatever you are doing.
Ever since John Kerry decided to go with calling Iraq a "distraction" from the real war on terror in the first presidential debate, splitting Iraq off from the "central front" status the Republicans badly need it to have in peoples' minds, you have been shaping the debate.
It's too bad Kerry waited until two months before the election to take a position on the war. Like I said in my book, while George Bush spent a year honing his attack to a razor's edge, Kerry spent a year coming up with one.
The Six for '06 puts national security where it belongs: First. During '04 Bill Clinton advised Kerry to focus on the party's "strengths" on domestic issues. Knowing full well, as anything but a dumb politician, that nothing matters until you are out front on national security. Wiley Old Bill helped set Kerry up, I think, because he drools at the chance for all that Washington nightlife all over again, likker and wimmin, and this time Hillary too busy to care. YEEHAW!
The Republican-"Centrist" Fear Machine lost no time tarring Lamont's democratic victory as a danger to the nation, with a good old fashioned August, pre-election terror alert thrown in. Dick Cheney, (Joe Lieberman's new best buddy! Take note, ad-makers!) said Lamont's win reflects a "pre-9/11 mindset." He said Al Qaeda "clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task." In other words, the same old shit.
George Bush is right. We DO live in a dangerous world, contrary to "those" naive enough to believe there aren't people out to hurt us. I don't know anyone who says that, but they must be out there, because George keeps saying they are.
What he doesn't say is the danger is a direct result of his policies. Before the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan was well on the way toward stabilization, with all of NATO onboard. Al Qaeda was on the run, even if Bush did let top leadership escape at Tora Bora. Then came the invasion that proved to Muslims that we were not out to avenge 9/11, but to steal oil, build permanent bases, and humiliate Muslim men.
If I read in the paper that foreigners were occupying my country, and killing and raping American women, I guarantee you I'd be planting IEDs in the middle of the night too.
The blunder of Iraq is on the magnitude, militarily, of Hitler opening the second front in the East against the Russians. We'd all be speaking German right now if Hitler had contented himself with half the world instead of all of it at once [Ed. note: In the 1700s, the United States voted English the nation language over German by just one vote].
Even if you agree with the disgusting, un-American proposition of unprovoked, "pre-emptive" war, just as Hitler's war was lost the minute he took on the Russian winter, our war on terror is lost as long as we stay in Iraq, which prevents redeploying to the Afghan-Paki border to hunt down the people who, um, actually attacked us.
Democrats give aid and comfort to the enemy? Uh, Dick? Joe? George? Betraying (not "outing", this is not about gender) Intelligence Officer Valerie Plame and her covert networks tracking WMD is what gave aid and comfort to the enemy, as did losing 300 tons of HMX explosives in Iraq (remember that one?) As did fighting against the establishment of a 9/11 Commission, as does fighting its recommendations now.
The Bushies do everything they can to keep us safe, except for one thing: the work. (SEE THE LOPEZ 12 STEPS FOR WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR.)
There will always be conventional war. It will start and it will stop. What George Bush's Amazing Invisible Enemy can do to my Constitution is my main concern.
Once you give up a right, you never get it back, except by force. I'm still hoping this country can avoid that kind of trouble. The best start is for us to agree that if there is another wave of terror attacks, it will be George Bush's fault. No one opened up that second front but him. He did it against the advice of absolutely everyone, including his own father and James Baker III. SIGN THE THE IMPEACH BUSH IN THE EVENT OF ANOTHER ATTACK PETITION
And now, here is my original New Contract for America.
Compare it to the Six for '06 Agenda. The key is to get away from the endless litany of politicians promising everyone everything welfare workfare car-care affordable housing ad naseum that is the usual Democratic spiel. Folks can't remember all that.
And accomplishing even a few of the Six for '06 would put the country way ahead of where it is now.
Ralph's New Contract for America (abridged, full post from last year here)
-Distinguish Iraq from Real War on Terror - We are properly at war in Afghanistan and in the mountainous border regions of Pakistan, and Iraq is exactly the quagmire bin Laden wanted. It draws resources away from the hunt for Al Qaeda and from the critical stablization of Afghanistan. Redeploy to Afghanistan and the Paki border. Then we mop up, make peace with the Muslim world (an apology for the Shah of Iran might go over well,) and put the genie back in the bottle. Get back to the good old days when armies fought each other and left civilians mostly out of it. Hell, some guys just LIKE to fight.
-Save American Retirement Security - Time Magazine says more and more people who worked 20 or 30 years for the same company are losing their pensions. Recently-passed laws allow corporations to renege on their pension promises.
-Restore college opportunity, by enabling students to go to any college they an get into on a need-blind basis. Yes, I'll take credit for this idea, which I've been pushing since my first days as a candidate in the early 90s.
-Environment - A "Marshall Plan" within the first 100 days of a non-Republican majority to start down the path of clean, sustainable energy independence.
-Be the Pro-Constitution Party. Again, if Bush can't give us safety without shredding the Constitution, we'll find someone who can.
-Worker training and re-training to smooth job transitions after layoffs. We are the only Western industrialized nation without it. Why?
-Don't Get Bogged Down on Health Insurance. Sure, progressives are for it, and the Bush Faction is against it, but the details should be kept to, if you are working full-time, you get health insurance, and you start paying for it by recovering the $10-$20 billion wasted on Medicare and Medicaid by over-billing. Then you start rewarding doctors for preventing as well as curing. You'll see a lot of docs getting their patients into olive oil and alfalfa sprouts.
-IMPORTANT: All of the Above Means NOTHING without a paper voting trail in every American precinct. - a no brainer.
Ralph Lopez is the author of numerous books including his latest, "The Elephant in the Room." His blog is http://ralphlopezworld.com/.

Catching up on headlines
Here are some things you may have missed which are worth another looksie.

* Why biometrics may not be all it is cracked up to be: ["Computer hackers get lesson on cloning passport, cash card tags"]. And why some cops can't be trusted: ["Pulido's club offered sex, drugs, prosecutors say"].

* Novak on Murtha, Romney, and Guliani: ["Bolton's new backers"]. Here is Adam Reilly on Mitt's gaffes: ["Romney's greatest gaffes - 'tar baby' update"].

* Eh, why is this not surprising?: ["Book: Sept. 11 Panel Doubted Officials"]. It's interesting that they didn't say this before the 2004 election. I wonder if the results would have been slightly different had they said these things beforehand. And then there is this too: ["Pentagon's Version of 9/11 Far from Truth, Panel Found"]. And now, it looks like, after this new Vanity Fair blockbuster which will hit newstands any day, we may see those investigations.

* It was only a matter of time before we saw this headline: ["OSAMA'S EVIL SPAWN IN LEB"]. Ditto this: ["Hagel calls Iraq 'replay of Vietnam"].