He Speaks

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) delivers his speech at the Democratic National Convention:

A very energetic speech about what has been accomplished in the past 8 years.

Dear American Issues Project: Your Ad Is So Powerful...

...I had to get up an leave the room until it aired out.

I just saw your ad, and I have to say: Hyperbole Much?

Honestly, you create a connection between Obama and Ayers that supposes that Ayers is some sort of social outcast, save for the close personal friendship of Obama. In fact, Ayers, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern. A law professor himself, it is very unlikely that the two would not have to work together. Seriously, the current president can be tied in such loose terms to Osama bin Laden even. Additionally, you've also neglected to consider that Ayers has a long history in the Hyde Park neighborhood, including many political connections in the Chicago scene (again, a place where the two of them are unlikely to spend much time without cooperating sometimes).

Additionally, you've connected them both as working together on the Woods fund board of Directors. What you fail to say is that they were appointed to that non-profit fund by the Mayor of Chicago, nor do you plan on ever informing your viewers what the fund is (judging from your site you probably think it is "evil Communism").

For an organization that seems intent on further informing public opinion and changing minds, you are severely closed minded about how much Mr. Ayers can change his own mind over the course of 40 years.

I also browsed the rest of your site, and I can find really nothing of substance save for the "extensive research of the Obama-Ayers connection". Much of this "over 100 pages" is highly redundant reporting, back story about the Weather Underground, and even a 7 page discussion of 9/11 and United 93, carefully planted to evoke sympathy and/or anger from the reader.

Your energy security "idea" is pretty sparse to say the least. You drop in some shout-outs to numerous renewable energy sources, but your prime focus is on non-renewable resources. In fact, all of the photography is photos of offshore oil wells. You make a big pitch for coal and shale-based energies as well. I can't help but feel that your priority is to preserve the current resource hoarding, depletion, and control markets. Really, you have nothing new to share, and even the regurgitated party lines aren't even discussed in detail.

Your "strong economy" says nothing about how your proposals will help to strengthen the economy. Your bullet points "Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts", "Opposing any attempt to raise taxes in any form", "Supporting free trade", "Opposing over-regulation of American business and industry" all promote an approach to public policy that HAS NEVER HELPED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, PERIOD. We tried this over the past 7 years: nothing. Remember the 80's? Yeah. The "roaring" 80's! Fat chance. I don't know anybody who wants a return to the 80's. What about the 20's? The "Roaring 20's"? Well, they culminated with the dawn of Great Depression (a market correction event of similar size to the unregulated growth during the 20's). Harding + Coolidge + Hoover = Great Depression. Say it all together.

Additionally, your proposals in "Safe & Secure Homeland" seem to be in conflict with yours from "Strong Economy". How would you propose we pay for the fencing, the monitoring, the supervision, and the enforcement of such a strong border policy. I think that it is impressive that there isn't more illegal immigration with the system that we have currently, and it is a testament to how strongly the border patrol and support people manage to work with what they have. As you try to narrow that group of illegal immigrants down to zero you reach a point of diminishing returns. Surely you are familiar with these, as you purport to know so much about strengthening the economy.

As for your "Protecting American Families" agenda, you speak nothing of actually protecting families. You speak worlds about how you will enforce creating more families, ones without planning. What do you plan to do to protect them? I can't see a single mention of any family services or assistance that you will support. Surely if you care so much about precious children, you also care that they live in supportive and nurturing homes. By the way, no "Activist Judge" in Massachusetts "thwarted the will of the people". The issue of gay marriage was actually a vote in the statehouse. Seems that you see no problem "thwarting the will of the people", however, when it suits your own agenda. You must be thinking of New Hampshire. I know, it is hard, they are some of 'dem smallish states up the the nor'east. Okay, give your brain a rest for a minute...

Better? Good. Judicial "Activism" has not given us a single thing that you report on your site. Can you explain to me what threat to you or your agency is posed by gay marriage, abortion, or removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.

Hey! You know what, I can't believe that activists in the Executive branch inserted "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's. What was his name? Eisenhower? Yeah, he built that big public works project: the Interstate System. Remember that? I am surprised that you don't think of the large, federally subsidized and regulated network of highways to be "Socialism". It definitely fits the description. Ah, that's right, the guy in charge of it is your hero. Well, I guess that just changes everything now doesn't it.

Oh yeah. And the "In God We Trust" on our money? That was added during the civil war by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury Secretary. Another "activist" from the executive branch.

Neither of these were performed by popular vote, or even by popular legislative process. Instead, they were "activists" in high places pulling strings to get their messages across.

Well, seems that you *do* like "activists" after all, just only when they are suiting your agenda. Otherwise, they must be evil and must be stopped and represent everything "Un-American".

In closing, from the poorly researched bullet points on your site, the vague position statements, lack of documentation and references, and blatant contradictions and hypocrisy I can only conclude one thing: You are merely a front group that was created (on or around 05-August-2008) for the purpose of publishing misleading ads to drag public discourse into the putrid, feces-laden pig-sty that you have set up shop within. You provide nothing here to inform newcomers of why your positions and proposals are "American" or even beneficial. Rather, you merely seem to be blowing your cash on misleading your viewership. I suppose that it must be so lonely and pathetic in your world that you can only find company by lashing out to the rest of us up here in a sad attempt to drag us down to your level.

When you have real discourse, research, and well-thought out ideas (rather than rehashed Reagan talking points), you can participate in this debate. Until then, you will remain mired in the loneliness that is your own ignorance, intolerance, and refusal to adapt to the real world.

---

This article is my rebuttal to The American Issues Project, and it's latest attack ad (linked on the site).

How Do You Win An Occupation?

McCain and others have talked about the need to win in Iraq, to let the troops come home with a victory. I suppose this kind of language makes sense if we are talking about a football game, but I'm really not sure how "winning" applies to Iraq.

The war ended when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished." From then on, this has been an occupation.

So, how exactly do you win an occupation? Is it won when the U.S. has secured control over the natural resources that belong to the Iraqi people? When U.S. corporations have made a certain amount of profit from the curious economic activity of blowing up infrastructure and homes and forcing the victims to pay them to rebuild it? When ethnic and religious differences have been used to divide a once united country? When the Iraqi people have been so demoralized and have so completely lost hope that they stop resisting?

Americans should not want to "win" in this situation. Leaving Iraq (all troops, all contractors, and all bases) isn't about winning or losing. It's about finally doing the right thing--by international law, by American law, and by basic human decency.

Information Hiding and the Olympics

So, you may have all heard of the controversy surrounding He Kexin (the gold medal winning gymnast from China). If you haven't, you can get the scoop on her wikipedia entry.

Yesterday, another blogger used search engines to find information on the age of the gymnast. You might be pretty surprised at what they were able to turn up:

• http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2008/08/hack-olympics.html

"Go back, these are not the gymnasts you are looking for."

Things That Will Reduce Gas Prices By As Much As Offshore Drilling

1. Clubbing baby seals...recreationally

2. Littering

3. Mass-producing those plastic things that hold six-packs together and throwing them into the ocean

4. Removing breakwalls and anything else meant to prevent erosion.

5. Cutting down trees...in parks...again, recreationally

6. Introducing invasive species into ecologically fragile areas

7. Dumping hazardous waste into rivers

8. Targeting dolphins when fishing

All of these things will reduce gas prices by the same amount as offshore drilling. That is, they will have NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. In the words of the Energy Information Agency (part of the U.S. Department of Energy), "oil prices are determined on the international market...any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

But if you're going to propose a completely useless energy policy solely to paint the other candidate as an environmentalist elitist, go all out. I hear clubbing baby seals can reduce gas prices by 87% (it's a psychological effect).

What good are Pundits, anyways?

Steven Stark. I want you to look at yourself in the mirror.

Take a good, long, hard look. I want you to ask yourself this question, and really think about it-- What good does your column do for voters? And let's be intellectually honest about it.

The horse race style "coverage" is handled well enough my the corporate media. Do you really think that your stats and pontifications-- which seem to be nothing more than a redux of 24 hour news network coverage-- adds anything of any value to the mix?

Does it benefit the voters, most of whom don't even understand what Single Payer Healthcare is, and have never even heard of HR 676, yet know the very real pain and frustration of being denied vital life-saving coverage by their health insurance corporation?

Does your column help us to understand the platforms of the candidates? Does it help us to understand the root causes of the issues that we face in our daily lives?

Does your column help us to stop the killing by allowing the voting populace to know the details of the exit strategies of all candidates? (Obama and McCain both want to leave troops in Iraq permanently, for instance.)

Telling us which demographics the Big Two politicians are polling well with-- does this give us the tools we need to make an informed decision about which candidate matches our own personal platforms?

Rehashing polls done by corporate-owned news media, with margins of error large enough that they are statistically insignificant, does not aid the average voter who is struggling to pay the bills and is looking for real solutions to the problems they face in their life. Most Americans really don't care that you've decided who is going to win.

So, I'll ask again, and I hope you do as well: What PURPOSE does your column serve?

It's nothing more than an empty hall of mirrors. You, telling us, what we are supposedly telling you, that we're thinking. Why not give us something to think ABOUT?

The inane fluff you publish as a pundit distracts from the fact that there's a WAR going on-- with over a million innocent Iraqi's and over 4,000 US soldiers dead, that the US Gov't is trillions of dollars in debt, that we have a growing trade deficit with just about everybody, that the Federal Reserve is destroying the power of the US dollar, and that in America NINE TIMES the number of people who died on 9-11 die EVERY YEAR simply because they lack access to adequate health care, or were denied coverage by their insurance provider.

What are the candidates going to do about any of this? Regarding health care, both McCain and Obama both want to put your tax dollars directly in the pocket of health insurance corporations-- who play a middle man between you and your doctor, telling you what treatments your doctor can give you, not for your own health, but for the health of their shareholder's stock returns. But of course, you're not going to let us know about that. You're just going to tell us what we think about gaffes, petty branding disputes (Change? Hope? Puppies? Apple Pie?) and other such drama more appropriate to high school lunchrooms. Actually, I take that back. Your average high school student probably cares more about the platforms of the candidates than your average pundit.

You pundits chase after us, wondering what we are thinking and who we
are going to vote for so that you can make accurate predictions about
how we're going to vote, and you have nothing to offer but intellectual
cotton candy-- light, fluffy, no substance, no nutritious value, and
likely to cause tooth decay.

Only it's our society that is decaying.

Thank you Steven Stark for your contribution to the downfall of Democracy.
Or inversely, your total lack of any contribution whatsoever to a well informed voting population.

Asher Platts
Gorham, Maine
punk_patriot411@yahoo.com
207-776-5448

You can write Steven Stark yourself at sds@starkwriting.com

Pelosi Book Tour becomes, "WHY HAVEN'T YOU IMPEACHED?!" tour

New York Times

Vote this up on Current.com

WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.

As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.

In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.

Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.

Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”

That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.

“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!

Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.

While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.

At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.

And they do not.

Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.

And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”

Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.

Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.

The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.

The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.

While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.

These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.

Russia close to war

Russia and Georgia Clash Over Separatist Region

By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ, ANNE BARNARD and C. J. CHIVERS
Published: August 8, 2008

GORI, Georgia — Russia conducted airstrikes on Georgian targets on Friday evening, escalating the conflict in a separatist area of Georgia that is shaping into a test of the power and military reach of an emboldened Kremlin. Earlier in the day, Russian troops and armored vehicles had rolled into South Ossetia, supporting the breakaway region in its bitter conflict with Georgia.

The United States and other Western nations, joined by NATO, condemned the violence and demanded a cease-fire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went a step further, calling on Russia to withdraw its forces. But the Russian soldiers remained, and Georgian officials reported at least one airstrike, on the Black Sea port of Poti, late on Friday night.

Russian military units — including tank, artillery and reconnaissance — arrived in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on Saturday to help Russian peacekeepers there, in response to overnight shelling by Georgian forces, state television in Russia reported, citing the Ministry of Defense. Ground assault aircraft were also mobilized, the Ministry said.

Also on Saturday a senior Georgian official said by telephone that Russian bombers were flying over Georgia and that the presidential offices and residence in Tbilisi had been evacuated. The official added that Georgian forces still had control of Tskhinvali.

Neither side showed any indication of backing down. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia declared that “war has started,” and President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia accused Russia of a “well-planned invasion” and mobilized Georgia’s military reserves. There were signs as well of a cyberwarfare campaign, as Georgian government Web sites were crashing intermittently during the day.

The escalation risked igniting a renewed and sustained conflict in the Caucasus region, an important conduit for the flow of oil from the Caspian Sea to world markets and an area where conflict has flared for years along Russia’s borders, most recently in Chechnya.

The military incursion into Georgia marked a fresh sign of Kremlin confidence and resolve, and also provided a test of the capacities of the Russian military, which Mr. Putin had tried to modernize and re-equip during his two presidential terms.

Frictions between Georgia and South Ossetia, which has declared de facto independence, have simmered for years, but intensified when Mr. Saakashvili came to power in Georgia and made national unification a centerpiece of his agenda. Mr. Saakashvili, a close American ally who has sought NATO membership for Georgia, is loathed at the Kremlin in part because he had positioned himself as a spokesman for democracy movements and alignment with the West.

Earlier this year Russia announced that it was expanding support for the separatist regions. Georgia labeled the new support an act of annexation.

The conflict in Georgia also appeared to suggest the limits of the power of President Dmitri A. Medvedev, Mr. Putin’s hand-picked successor. During the day, it was Mr. Putin’s stern statements from China, where he was visiting the opening of the Olympic Games, that appeared to define Russia’s position.

But Mr. Medvedev made a public statement as well, making it unclear who was directing Russia’s military operations. Officially, that authority rests with Mr. Medvedev, and foreign policy is outside Mr. Putin’s portfolio.

“The war in Ossetia instantly showed the idiocy of our state management,” said a commentator on the liberal radio station, Ekho Moskvy. “Who is in charge — Putin or Medvedev?”

The war between Georgia and South Ossetia, until recently labeled a “frozen conflict,” stretches back to the early 1990s, when South Ossetia and another separatist region, Abkhazia, gained de facto independence from Georgia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The region settled into a tenuous peace monitored by Russian peacekeepers, but frictions with Georgia increased sharply in 2004, when Mr. Saakashvili was elected.

Reports conflicted throughout Friday about whether Georgian or Russian forces had won control of Tskhinvali, the capital of the mountainous rebel province. It was unclear late on Friday whether ground combat had taken place between Russian and Georgian soldiers, or had been limited to fighting between separatists and Georgian forces.

Marat Kulakhmetov, commander of Russian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali, said early on Saturday that South Ossetian separatists still held most of the city and that Georgian forces were only present on its southern edge.

That report aligned with a statement by Georgia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Irakli Alasania, who said that Georgian military units held eight villages at the capital’s edge. Georgian officials asserted that Russian warplanes had attacked Georgian forces and civilians in Tskhinvali, and that airports in four Georgian cities had been hit. Shota Utiashvili, an official at the Georgian Interior Ministry, said they included the Vaziany military base outside of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, a military base in Marneuli, and airports in the cities of Delisi and Kutaisi.

Late in the night, George Arveladze, an adviser to Mr. Saakashvili, said that Russian planes had bombed the commercial seaport of Poti, where one worker was missing and several others were wounded. Poti is an export point for oil from the Caspian Sea; Mr. Arveladze said the initial reports indicated that the oil terminal had not been struck.

Eduard Kokoity, the president of South Ossetia, said in a statement on a government Web site that hundreds of civilians had been killed in fighting in the capital. Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia said that 12 peacekeeping soldiers were killed Friday and that 50 were wounded. The claims of casualties by all sides could not be independently verified.

Analysts said that either Georgia or Russia could be trying to seize an opportune moment — with world leaders focused on the start of the 2008 Olympics this week — to reclaim the territory, and to settle the dispute before a new American presidential administration comes to office.

Richard C. Holbrooke, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, said that Russia’s aims were clear. “They have two goals,” he said. “To do a creeping annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and, secondly, to overthrow Saakashvili, who is a tremendous thorn in their side.”

A spokesman for Mr. Medvedev declined to comment.

The United States State Department issued a press release late Friday saying that John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, had summoned the Russian chargé d’affairs to press for a de-escalation of force. “We deplore today’s Russian attacks by strategic bombers and missiles, which are threatening civilian lives,” the statement said.

The United States also said Friday that it would send an envoy to the region to try to broker an end to the fighting.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany issued a statement calling on both sides “to halt the use of force immediately.” Germany has taken a leading role in trying to ease the tensions over Abkhazia.

The trigger for the fresh escalation began last weekend, when South Ossetia accused Georgia of firing mortars into the enclave after six Georgian policemen were killed in the border area by a roadside bomb. As tensions grew, South Ossetia began sending women and children out of the enclave. The refugee crisis intensified Friday as relief groups said thousands of refugees, mostly women and children, were streaming across the border into the North Caucasus city of Vladikavkaz in Russia.

Early on Friday, Russia’s Channel One television showed Russian tanks entering South Ossetia and reported that two battalions reinforced by tanks and armored personnel carriers were approaching its capital.

There were unconfirmed reports that Georgian forces had shot down two Russian planes and that its aircraft had bombed a convoy of Russian tanks. Russian state television showed what it said was a destroyed Georgian tank in Tskhinvali, its turret smoldering.

Women and children in Tskhinvali were hiding in basements while men had fled to the woods, said a woman reached by telephone in the neighboring Russian region of North Ossetia, who said she had been in phone contact with relatives there. She declined to give her name.

In Gori, a city outside South Ossetia and about 12 miles from Tskhinvali, residents said there had been sporadic bombing all day. The city was shaken by numerous vibrations from the impact of bombs on Friday evening. One Russian bomb exploded in Gori near a textile factory and a cellphone tower, leaving a crater.

At the United Nations on Friday, diplomats continued to wrangle over the text of a statement after attempts to agree to compromise language collapsed Friday afternoon, after nearly three hours of consultations.

The Russians, who had called the emergency session, proposed a short, three-paragraph statement that expressed concern about the escalating violence, and singled out Georgia and South Ossetia as needing to cease hostilities and return to the negotiating table.

But one phrase calling on all parties to “renounce the use of force” met with opposition, particularly from the United States, France and Britain. The three countries argued that the statement was unbalanced, one European diplomat said, because that language would have undermined Georgia’s ability to defend itself. Belgium, which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month, circulated a revised draft calling for an immediate cessation of hostility and for “all parties” to return to the negotiating table. By dropping the specific reference to Georgia and South Ossetia, the compromise statement would also encompass Russia.

The Security Council was scheduled to meet Saturday to resume deliberations. China, in its statement during the early morning debate, had asked for a traditional cease-fire out of respect for the opening of the Olympics.

President Bush discussed the conflict by telephone with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, for about an hour after attending the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino said. Mr. Bush held another conference with Mr. Hadley and his deputy, James Jeffery, on Saturday morning before attending beach volleyball practice.

There are over 2,000 American citizens in Georgia, Pentagon officials said. Among them are about 130 trainers — mostly American military personnel but with about 30 Defense Department civilians —assisting the Georgian military with preparations for deployments to Iraq.

The American military was taking no actions regarding the outbreak of violence, according to Pentagon and military officials. While there has been some contact with the Georgian authorities, the Defense Department had received no requests for assistance, the officials said.

Cheney Provoking war with Iran

Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.

There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

Right to Privacy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25978344

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9892897-38.html

Customs officials have been stepping up electronic searches of laptops at the border, where travelers enjoy little privacy and have no legal grounds to object. Laptops and other electronic devices can be seized without reason, their contents copied, and the hardware returned hours or even weeks later.

Executives have been told that they must hand over their laptop to be analyzed by border police--or be barred from boarding their flight. A report from a U.S.-based marijuana activist says U.S. border guards browsed through her laptop's contents; British customs agents scan laptops for sexual material; so do their U.S. counterparts.

These procedures are entirely legal, according to court precedents so far. A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that an in-depth analysis of a laptop's hard drive using the EnCase forensics software "was permissible without probable cause or a warrant under the border search doctrine." One lawsuit is seeking to force the government to disclose what policies it follows.

The information security implications are worrisome. Sensitive business documents can be stored in computers; lawyers may have notes protected by the attorney-client privilege; and journalists may save notes about confidential sources. Regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley may apply. A 2006 survey of business travelers showed that almost 90 percent of them didn't know that customs officials can peruse the contents of laptops and confiscate them without giving a reason.

Antrax

This bullshit is propaganda in it's worst form.


Officials: Anthrax suspect obsessed with sorority

By LARA JAKES JORDAN and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The top suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks was obsessed with a sorority that sat less than 100 yards away from a New Jersey mailbox where the toxin-laced letters were sent, authorities said Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Multiple U.S. officials told The Associated Press that former Army scientist Bruce Ivins was long obsessed with the sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma, going back as far as his own college days at the University of Cincinnati.

The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

The bizarre link to the sorority may indirectly explain one of the biggest mysteries in the case: why the anthrax was mailed from Princeton, N.J., 195 miles from the Army biological weapons lab the anthrax is believed to have been smuggled out of.

An adviser to the Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter at Princeton University confirmed she was interviewed by the FBI in connection with the case.

U.S. officials said e-mails or other documents detail Ivins' long-standing fixation on the sorority. His former therapist has said Ivins plotted revenge against those who have slighted him, particularly women. There is nothing to indicate, however, he was focused on any one sorority member or other Princeton student, the officials said.

Despite the connection between Ivins and the sorority, authorities acknowledge they cannot place the scientist in Princeton the day the anthrax was mailed. That remains a hole in the government's case. Had Ivins not killed himself last week, authorities would have argued he could have made the seven-hour round trip to Princeton after work.

Ivins' attorney, Paul F. Kemp, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Monday but has asserted his client's innocence and said he would have been vindicated in court.

Katherine Breckinridge Graham, a Kappa alumna who serves as an adviser to the sorority's Princeton chapter, said Monday she was interviewed by FBI agents "over the last couple of years" about the case. She said she could not provide any details about the interview because she signed an FBI nondisclosure form.

However, Graham said there was nothing to indicate that any of the sorority members had anything to do with Ivins.

"Nothing odd went on," said Graham, an attorney.

Kappa Kappa Gamma executive director Lauren Paitson, reached at the sorority's headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, initially told an AP reporter Monday afternoon she would provide a comment shortly. She did not answer subsequent phone messages or e-mails seeking a response.

Some of the scientist's friends and former co-workers have reacted with skepticism as details about the investigation surfaced. They questioned whether Ivins had the motive to unleash such an attack and whether he could have secretly created the powder form of the deadly toxin without co-workers noticing.

Princeton University referred questions about Ivins to the FBI. The university does not formally recognize sororities and fraternities but chapters operate off campus.

Local police in both Princeton Borough and Princeton Township said Ivins' name did not turn up on any incident reports or restraining orders.

Kappa Kappa Gamma also has chapters at nearby colleges in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Washington. One official said investigators were working off the theory that Ivins chose to mail the letters from the Princeton chapter to confuse investigators if he ever were to emerge as a suspect in the case.

Five people died and 17 others sickened by the anthrax plot, which was launched on the heels of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The following August, investigators announced they'd found anthrax spores inside the mailbox on Nassau Street, the town's main thoroughfare. FBI agents immediately began canvassing the town, showing residents a photograph of Army scientist Steven J. Hatfill, who at the time was a key "person of interest" in the case.

That theory fell flat and this June, the Justice Department exonerated Hatfill and agreed to a $5.8 million settlement with him.

In the past year, the FBI has turned a close eye on Ivins, whom a therapist said had a history of homicidal and sociopathic behavior. Prosecutors had planned to indict Ivins and seek the death penalty but, knowing investigators were closing in, he killed himself with an overdose of acetaminophen, the key ingredient in Tylenol.

With its top suspect now dead, the Justice Department is considering closing the "Amerithrax" investigations. It has been among the FBI's most publicized unsolved cases and, if it is closed, authorities are expected to unseal court documents that outline much of their case against Ivins.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is it an elephant in the room?

Confirmed: Our government were the Purps of the Anthrax mailing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25978240