Democrats Abroad New Zealand
1.31.2005
Torture Chicks Gone Wild (NYTimes.com)
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: January 30, 2005
WASHINGTON
By the time House Republicans were finished with him, Bill Clinton must have thought of a thong as a torture device.
For the Bush administration, it actually is.
A former American Army sergeant who worked as an Arabic interpreter at Gitmo has written a book pulling back the veil on the astounding ways female interrogators used a toxic combination of sex and religion to try to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba. It's not merely disgusting. It's beyond belief.
The Bush administration never worries about anything. But these missionaries and zealous protectors of values should be worried about the American soul. The president never mentions Osama, but he continues to use 9/11 as an excuse for American policies that bend the rules and play to our worst instincts.
"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the former sergeant, Erik R. Saar, 29, told The Associated Press. The A.P. got a manuscript of his book, deemed classified pending a Pentagon review.
What good is it for President Bush to speak respectfully of Islam and claim Iraq is not a religious war if the Pentagon denigrates Islamic law - allowing its female interrogators to try to make Muslim men talk in late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and thong underwear?
(More ... The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Torture Chicks Gone Wild) ¶ 19:58 0 comments
Published: January 30, 2005
WASHINGTON
By the time House Republicans were finished with him, Bill Clinton must have thought of a thong as a torture device.
For the Bush administration, it actually is.
A former American Army sergeant who worked as an Arabic interpreter at Gitmo has written a book pulling back the veil on the astounding ways female interrogators used a toxic combination of sex and religion to try to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba. It's not merely disgusting. It's beyond belief.
The Bush administration never worries about anything. But these missionaries and zealous protectors of values should be worried about the American soul. The president never mentions Osama, but he continues to use 9/11 as an excuse for American policies that bend the rules and play to our worst instincts.
"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the former sergeant, Erik R. Saar, 29, told The Associated Press. The A.P. got a manuscript of his book, deemed classified pending a Pentagon review.
What good is it for President Bush to speak respectfully of Islam and claim Iraq is not a religious war if the Pentagon denigrates Islamic law - allowing its female interrogators to try to make Muslim men talk in late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and thong underwear?
(More ... The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Torture Chicks Gone Wild) ¶ 19:58 0 comments
Senator Clinton's Values Lesson (NYTimes.com)
EDITORIAL
Published: January 30, 2005
People in the Democratic Party who have been focused on social issues like abortion and gay rights were devastated by the results of the November election, and they have been wondering how to pursue their concerns in the inhospitable environment of the new Bush administration. Last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped define a promising path.
Speaking on Monday to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters in Albany, Mrs. Clinton did two important things. First, at a moment when women's reproductive freedom is under severe assault, she firmly restated her support for Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. What made Mrs. Clinton's speech noteworthy, however, was her second, complementary tack. Without retreating on principle, she deftly shifted the focus of the abortion discussion to where there is the broadest agreement, and where President Bush's policy failure is most apparent - namely, abortion prevention. Echoing her husband's call to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," the senator said that abortion "represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," and that "the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."
This is sensitive political terrain, and Mrs. Clinton surprised, even offended some in her audience by voicing respect for those who oppose legalized abortion based on sincere religious or moral beliefs. Her critics argued that while the sentiment sounded fine, the reality is that most organized abortion opponents also oppose greater access to birth control, including backup emergency contraception. Even if that is true, it misses the point. The target of Mrs. Clinton's argument is not anti-abortion activists, but the broader public. Without giving ground on basic principles, she was appropriating the values issue for Democrats who support abortion rights - challenging "people of good faith" on both sides of the debate to find "common ground" in pursuing the shared goal of reducing the number of abortions.
(More ... The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: Senator Clinton's Values Lesson) ¶ 19:43 0 comments
Published: January 30, 2005
People in the Democratic Party who have been focused on social issues like abortion and gay rights were devastated by the results of the November election, and they have been wondering how to pursue their concerns in the inhospitable environment of the new Bush administration. Last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped define a promising path.
Speaking on Monday to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters in Albany, Mrs. Clinton did two important things. First, at a moment when women's reproductive freedom is under severe assault, she firmly restated her support for Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. What made Mrs. Clinton's speech noteworthy, however, was her second, complementary tack. Without retreating on principle, she deftly shifted the focus of the abortion discussion to where there is the broadest agreement, and where President Bush's policy failure is most apparent - namely, abortion prevention. Echoing her husband's call to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," the senator said that abortion "represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," and that "the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."
This is sensitive political terrain, and Mrs. Clinton surprised, even offended some in her audience by voicing respect for those who oppose legalized abortion based on sincere religious or moral beliefs. Her critics argued that while the sentiment sounded fine, the reality is that most organized abortion opponents also oppose greater access to birth control, including backup emergency contraception. Even if that is true, it misses the point. The target of Mrs. Clinton's argument is not anti-abortion activists, but the broader public. Without giving ground on basic principles, she was appropriating the values issue for Democrats who support abortion rights - challenging "people of good faith" on both sides of the debate to find "common ground" in pursuing the shared goal of reducing the number of abortions.
(More ... The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: Senator Clinton's Values Lesson) ¶ 19:43 0 comments
Democratic Group Backs Fowler Over Dean to Lead DNC (WashingtonPost.com)
By Dana Milbank
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A02
In a challenge to Howard Dean's bid to become the head of the Democratic National Committee, an influential group of state Democratic Party officials has voted to endorse former Al Gore aide Donnie Fowler to become national chairman.
In a conference call yesterday, the Association of State Democratic Chairs' executive committee voted to endorse Fowler, the son of former DNC chairman Don Fowler, over the former Vermont governor. The executive committee will recommend in another conference call today that the full ASDC endorse Fowler.
The endorsement of the ASDC has been seen as crucial for those hoping to challenge the front-runner Dean. Fowler narrowly edged Dean in the final vote by the ASDC's executive committee. According to a person familiar with the decision, former representative Martin Frost did not receive any votes, while former Clinton aide Simon B. Rosenberg trailed Dean and Fowler.
Fowler, 37, is a South Carolina native who worked as national field director for Gore's presidential campaign and Michigan director for John F. Kerry's presidential campaign. The 477 voting members of the DNC will select a new chairman on Feb. 12.
Democratic Group Backs Fowler Over Dean to Lead DNC (washingtonpost.com) ¶ 19:29 0 comments
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A02
In a challenge to Howard Dean's bid to become the head of the Democratic National Committee, an influential group of state Democratic Party officials has voted to endorse former Al Gore aide Donnie Fowler to become national chairman.
In a conference call yesterday, the Association of State Democratic Chairs' executive committee voted to endorse Fowler, the son of former DNC chairman Don Fowler, over the former Vermont governor. The executive committee will recommend in another conference call today that the full ASDC endorse Fowler.
The endorsement of the ASDC has been seen as crucial for those hoping to challenge the front-runner Dean. Fowler narrowly edged Dean in the final vote by the ASDC's executive committee. According to a person familiar with the decision, former representative Martin Frost did not receive any votes, while former Clinton aide Simon B. Rosenberg trailed Dean and Fowler.
Fowler, 37, is a South Carolina native who worked as national field director for Gore's presidential campaign and Michigan director for John F. Kerry's presidential campaign. The 477 voting members of the DNC will select a new chairman on Feb. 12.
Democratic Group Backs Fowler Over Dean to Lead DNC (washingtonpost.com) ¶ 19:29 0 comments
Amid Praise, Doubts About Nominee's Post-9/11 Role (WashingtonPost.com)
By Michael Powell and Michelle Garcia
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A01
On Nov. 28, 2001, then-Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff took a seat before a Senate committee and offered reassurance on two fronts: The Justice Department was unrelenting in pursuit of terrorists. And none of its tactics had trampled the Constitution or federal law.
Every detainee has been charged, Chertoff told the senators. Every detainee has a lawyer. No one is held incommunicado.
"Are we being aggressive and hard-nosed? You bet." Chertoff leaned into the microphone. "But let me emphasize that every step that we have taken satisfies the Constitution and federal law as it existed both before and after September 11th."
It was classic Chertoff, eloquent and unyielding and intense, his body coiled like a middleweight boxer's. He returned again and again to his bottom line: The World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon were in ruins; two letters had arrived at the Senate laden with billions of anthrax microbes. Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States -- what would you have us do?
Few questioned Chertoff's urgency, but his critics contend that he was not candid with the senators, and was perhaps misleading about the nature of the tactics he pursued. The Justice Department ordered the detention of more than 700 Arab and South Asian men for immigration violations, holding them without charges or access to lawyers for an average of three months. Many remained in prison much longer, according to a 2003 report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.
(More ... Amid Praise, Doubts About Nominee's Post-9/11 Role (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 19:27 0 comments
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A01
On Nov. 28, 2001, then-Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff took a seat before a Senate committee and offered reassurance on two fronts: The Justice Department was unrelenting in pursuit of terrorists. And none of its tactics had trampled the Constitution or federal law.
Every detainee has been charged, Chertoff told the senators. Every detainee has a lawyer. No one is held incommunicado.
"Are we being aggressive and hard-nosed? You bet." Chertoff leaned into the microphone. "But let me emphasize that every step that we have taken satisfies the Constitution and federal law as it existed both before and after September 11th."
It was classic Chertoff, eloquent and unyielding and intense, his body coiled like a middleweight boxer's. He returned again and again to his bottom line: The World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon were in ruins; two letters had arrived at the Senate laden with billions of anthrax microbes. Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States -- what would you have us do?
Few questioned Chertoff's urgency, but his critics contend that he was not candid with the senators, and was perhaps misleading about the nature of the tactics he pursued. The Justice Department ordered the detention of more than 700 Arab and South Asian men for immigration violations, holding them without charges or access to lawyers for an average of three months. Many remained in prison much longer, according to a 2003 report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.
(More ... Amid Praise, Doubts About Nominee's Post-9/11 Role (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 19:27 0 comments
Civil Service Reform (WashingtonPost.com)
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A20
LIKE MOTHERHOOD or apple pie, "performance-based pay" -- the concept that ostensibly lies at the heart of the civil service reform unveiled at the Department of Homeland Security last week -- is something everybody loves. That better employees should be paid more; that managers should be able to fire the incompetent; that the federal government should offer pay that at least competes with the private sector; that our civil service should be more flexible in the post-Sept. 11 world: None of that is controversial. What is controversial -- and what could be extremely damaging, if not carefully monitored -- are some of the reform's other effects, intended or otherwise.
We have three areas of doubt. The first concerns potential problems with the "performance-based" system itself. At the moment, the vast majority of federal employees are graded either on a five-point scale, from "unsatisfactory" to "outstanding," or on a "pass-fail" criterion that offers no precise definition of "good performance." The vast majority of government managers have no experience making more sophisticated evaluations. Training managers will take an enormous amount of time and money, both of which the government is notoriously stingy about committing. Although DHS's published regulatory schedule calls for some of its employees to be subject to the new system as soon as next fall, no criteria have been published, and no pilot program has been launched. Paul C. Light of the Brookings Institution, an advocate of civil service reform, calls the current timetable "wildly optimistic."
Without clear performance criteria and management training, civil service "reform" could slide into civil service politicization: To put it bluntly, if managers can get rid of people whom they perceive as politically unsound simply by handing out bad evaluations, it won't be long before civil servants cease to be politically neutral. DHS and the Office of Personnel Management argue vociferously that the new system contains all of the same protections against politicization as does the old. But the new regulations do reduce the power of some neutral arbitrators. They also appear to raise the standard for employee appeals, which will make it harder to get a disciplinary decision overturned.
(More ... Civil Service Reform (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 19:23 0 comments
LIKE MOTHERHOOD or apple pie, "performance-based pay" -- the concept that ostensibly lies at the heart of the civil service reform unveiled at the Department of Homeland Security last week -- is something everybody loves. That better employees should be paid more; that managers should be able to fire the incompetent; that the federal government should offer pay that at least competes with the private sector; that our civil service should be more flexible in the post-Sept. 11 world: None of that is controversial. What is controversial -- and what could be extremely damaging, if not carefully monitored -- are some of the reform's other effects, intended or otherwise.
We have three areas of doubt. The first concerns potential problems with the "performance-based" system itself. At the moment, the vast majority of federal employees are graded either on a five-point scale, from "unsatisfactory" to "outstanding," or on a "pass-fail" criterion that offers no precise definition of "good performance." The vast majority of government managers have no experience making more sophisticated evaluations. Training managers will take an enormous amount of time and money, both of which the government is notoriously stingy about committing. Although DHS's published regulatory schedule calls for some of its employees to be subject to the new system as soon as next fall, no criteria have been published, and no pilot program has been launched. Paul C. Light of the Brookings Institution, an advocate of civil service reform, calls the current timetable "wildly optimistic."
Without clear performance criteria and management training, civil service "reform" could slide into civil service politicization: To put it bluntly, if managers can get rid of people whom they perceive as politically unsound simply by handing out bad evaluations, it won't be long before civil servants cease to be politically neutral. DHS and the Office of Personnel Management argue vociferously that the new system contains all of the same protections against politicization as does the old. But the new regulations do reduce the power of some neutral arbitrators. They also appear to raise the standard for employee appeals, which will make it harder to get a disciplinary decision overturned.
(More ... Civil Service Reform (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 19:23 0 comments
Cutting Out the Poor (WashingtonPost.com)
By William Raspberry
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A21
I've lived long enough to understand that the differences among Americans are often greatly exaggerated -- that deep down we are a lot more alike than we are different.
This truth extends to politics no less than to matters of race and class and geography. If you think of American politics as a dial, even during our fiercest debates, the needle swings in relatively small arcs -- from a bit right of the midpoint to a bit left of it, and back again. No matter how alarmed we may get over some particular setback, it's usually true that the sky really isn't falling.
Well something is coming down.
I've been talking to Peter Edelman, a Georgetown University law professor who is thoughtful, liberal, incredibly decent -- and alarmed over the national budget President Bush will shortly propose.
"For virtually all of my adulthood," he said, "America has had a bipartisan agreement that we ought to provide some basic framework of programs and policies that provide a safety net, not just for the poor but for a large portion of the American people who need help to manage.
"There've been exceptions -- the first Reagan term with David Stockman, the brief ascendancy of Newt Gingrich -- but while we've argued about the specifics, the basic framework has been there.
"With this budget, the basic framework is being dismantled."
(More ... Cutting Out the Poor (washingtonpost.com))P ¶ 19:15 0 comments
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A21
I've lived long enough to understand that the differences among Americans are often greatly exaggerated -- that deep down we are a lot more alike than we are different.
This truth extends to politics no less than to matters of race and class and geography. If you think of American politics as a dial, even during our fiercest debates, the needle swings in relatively small arcs -- from a bit right of the midpoint to a bit left of it, and back again. No matter how alarmed we may get over some particular setback, it's usually true that the sky really isn't falling.
Well something is coming down.
I've been talking to Peter Edelman, a Georgetown University law professor who is thoughtful, liberal, incredibly decent -- and alarmed over the national budget President Bush will shortly propose.
"For virtually all of my adulthood," he said, "America has had a bipartisan agreement that we ought to provide some basic framework of programs and policies that provide a safety net, not just for the poor but for a large portion of the American people who need help to manage.
"There've been exceptions -- the first Reagan term with David Stockman, the brief ascendancy of Newt Gingrich -- but while we've argued about the specifics, the basic framework has been there.
"With this budget, the basic framework is being dismantled."
(More ... Cutting Out the Poor (washingtonpost.com))P ¶ 19:15 0 comments
U.S. Corporate Welfare (IHT.com)
The New York Times
January 31, 2005
Earlier this month, Johnson & Johnson became one of the first major American corporations to sign on for a one-year "tax holiday" - a government-sponsored opportunity for American multinationals to bring their foreign profits back to the United States at a puny tax rate of 5.25 percent, compared with the normal corporate rate of 35 percent. Johnson & Johnson intends to repatriate $11 billion. And that is just the beginning of what is shaping up to be an unprecedented government giveaway.
.
The drug giant Schering-Plough has announced a coming $9.4 billion repatriation, and Eli Lilly has announced one for $8 billion. Many other cash-rich companies are expected to follow suit.
Over the long run, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the holiday will allow companies to avoid $3.3 billion in taxes, an estimate that many tax experts think is low.
(More ... U.S. corporate welfare) ¶ 08:23 0 comments
January 31, 2005
Earlier this month, Johnson & Johnson became one of the first major American corporations to sign on for a one-year "tax holiday" - a government-sponsored opportunity for American multinationals to bring their foreign profits back to the United States at a puny tax rate of 5.25 percent, compared with the normal corporate rate of 35 percent. Johnson & Johnson intends to repatriate $11 billion. And that is just the beginning of what is shaping up to be an unprecedented government giveaway.
.
The drug giant Schering-Plough has announced a coming $9.4 billion repatriation, and Eli Lilly has announced one for $8 billion. Many other cash-rich companies are expected to follow suit.
Over the long run, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the holiday will allow companies to avoid $3.3 billion in taxes, an estimate that many tax experts think is low.
(More ... U.S. corporate welfare) ¶ 08:23 0 comments
1.30.2005
The Emergence of the Homeland Security State--Part I (TomDispatch.com)
Part I: The Military Half
By Nick Turse
If you're reading this on the Internet, the FBI may be spying on you at this very moment.
Under provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the Department of Justice has been collecting e-mail and IP (a computer's unique numeric identifier) addresses, without a warrant, using trap-and-trace surveillance devices ("pen-traps"). Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Justice's principle investigative arm, may be monitoring the web-surfacing habits of Internet users -- also without a search warrant -- that is, spying on you with no probable cause whatsoever.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, with the announcement of a potentially never-ending "war on terror" and in the name of "national security," the Bush administration embarked on a global campaign that left in its wake two war-ravaged states (with up to one hundred thousand civilian dead in just one of them); an offshore "archipelago of injustice" replete with "ghost jails" and a seemingly endless series of cases of torture, abuse, and the cold-blooded murder of prisoners. That was abroad. In the U.S.A., too, things have changed as America became "the Homeland" and an already powerful and bloated national security state developed a civilian corollary fed by fear-mongering, partisan politics, and an insatiable desire for governmental power, turf, and budget.
A host of disturbing and mutually-reinforcing patterns have emerged in the resulting new Homeland Security State -- among them: a virtually unopposed increase in the intrusion of military, intelligence, and "security" agencies into the civilian sector of American society; federal abridgment of basic rights; denials of civil liberties on flimsy or previously illegal premises; warrant-less sneak-and-peak searches; the wholesale undermining of privacy safeguards (including government access to library circulation records, bank records, and records of internet activity); the greater empowerment of secret intelligence courts (like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court) that threaten civil liberties; and heavy-handed federal and local law enforcement tactics designed to chill, squelch, or silence dissent.
While it's true that most Americans have yet to feel the brunt of such policies, select groups, including Muslims, Arab immigrants, Arab-Americans, and anti-war protesters, have served as test subjects for a potential Homeland Security juggernaut that, if not stopped, will only expand.
(More ... TomDispatch - Tomgram: Nick Turse on the Homeland Security State (Part I)) ¶ 23:06 0 comments
By Nick Turse
If you're reading this on the Internet, the FBI may be spying on you at this very moment.
Under provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the Department of Justice has been collecting e-mail and IP (a computer's unique numeric identifier) addresses, without a warrant, using trap-and-trace surveillance devices ("pen-traps"). Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Justice's principle investigative arm, may be monitoring the web-surfacing habits of Internet users -- also without a search warrant -- that is, spying on you with no probable cause whatsoever.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, with the announcement of a potentially never-ending "war on terror" and in the name of "national security," the Bush administration embarked on a global campaign that left in its wake two war-ravaged states (with up to one hundred thousand civilian dead in just one of them); an offshore "archipelago of injustice" replete with "ghost jails" and a seemingly endless series of cases of torture, abuse, and the cold-blooded murder of prisoners. That was abroad. In the U.S.A., too, things have changed as America became "the Homeland" and an already powerful and bloated national security state developed a civilian corollary fed by fear-mongering, partisan politics, and an insatiable desire for governmental power, turf, and budget.
A host of disturbing and mutually-reinforcing patterns have emerged in the resulting new Homeland Security State -- among them: a virtually unopposed increase in the intrusion of military, intelligence, and "security" agencies into the civilian sector of American society; federal abridgment of basic rights; denials of civil liberties on flimsy or previously illegal premises; warrant-less sneak-and-peak searches; the wholesale undermining of privacy safeguards (including government access to library circulation records, bank records, and records of internet activity); the greater empowerment of secret intelligence courts (like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court) that threaten civil liberties; and heavy-handed federal and local law enforcement tactics designed to chill, squelch, or silence dissent.
While it's true that most Americans have yet to feel the brunt of such policies, select groups, including Muslims, Arab immigrants, Arab-Americans, and anti-war protesters, have served as test subjects for a potential Homeland Security juggernaut that, if not stopped, will only expand.
(More ... TomDispatch - Tomgram: Nick Turse on the Homeland Security State (Part I)) ¶ 23:06 0 comments
Democrats in Denial (WashingtonPost.com)
By Steven Rattner
Sunday, January 30, 2005; Page B07
In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton waved his pen at the assembled Congress and declared that we must "save Social Security first." Democrats have since generally clung to that vision.
But now, in an ill-conceived effort to derail President Bush's privatization initiative, many prominent Democrats are suddenly dismissing the notion of a Social Security crisis or even a Social Security problem. Instead of offering sensible alternatives to the president's flawed proposals, Democrats are devoting their energies to attacking both the president's ideas and any notion of altering the Social Security construct.
We can debate endlessly what constitutes a "crisis" but not that Social Security faces a major financial challenge. According to actuarial estimates by the system's trustees, Social Security costs will begin to exceed revenue beginning in 2018 -- not so far off.
That would have been less daunting had we saved the very substantial Social Security surpluses of the past two decades. Instead, we mostly spent them, particularly in the past four years, leaving behind a much-touted Social Security trust fund that is, in reality, a myth.
All that resides in the trust fund is a $1.5 trillion pile of IOUs from the federal government, obligations likely to be honored by increasing the national debt. In addition, according to the trustees, we would have to deposit an additional $3.7 trillion into the trust fund today to ensure solvency until 2078. Is that a crisis or just a problem?
(More ... Democrats in Denial (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 22:36 0 comments
Sunday, January 30, 2005; Page B07
In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton waved his pen at the assembled Congress and declared that we must "save Social Security first." Democrats have since generally clung to that vision.
But now, in an ill-conceived effort to derail President Bush's privatization initiative, many prominent Democrats are suddenly dismissing the notion of a Social Security crisis or even a Social Security problem. Instead of offering sensible alternatives to the president's flawed proposals, Democrats are devoting their energies to attacking both the president's ideas and any notion of altering the Social Security construct.
We can debate endlessly what constitutes a "crisis" but not that Social Security faces a major financial challenge. According to actuarial estimates by the system's trustees, Social Security costs will begin to exceed revenue beginning in 2018 -- not so far off.
That would have been less daunting had we saved the very substantial Social Security surpluses of the past two decades. Instead, we mostly spent them, particularly in the past four years, leaving behind a much-touted Social Security trust fund that is, in reality, a myth.
All that resides in the trust fund is a $1.5 trillion pile of IOUs from the federal government, obligations likely to be honored by increasing the national debt. In addition, according to the trustees, we would have to deposit an additional $3.7 trillion into the trust fund today to ensure solvency until 2078. Is that a crisis or just a problem?
(More ... Democrats in Denial (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 22:36 0 comments
Former Clinton Aide Backs Dean for Party Chair (CNN.com)
Democrat Party leadership role especially important now
Friday, January 28, 2005 Posted: 5:08 PM EST (2208 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Harold Ickes, a leading Democratic activist and former aide to President Clinton, said Friday he is backing Howard Dean to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- giving a powerful boost to the front-runner.
"I think all the candidates who are running have strong attributes, but Dean has more of the attributes than the others," said Ickes, who considered running for chairman himself before dropping out in early January. "Many people say Howard Dean is a northeastern liberal, he is progressive, but his tenure as governor of Vermont was that of a real moderate."
Ickes, who heads the political action committee of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, said the endorsement was his alone and "does not reflect Sen. Clinton's opinion."
While Ickes would not comment on the Clintons' preferences, he is a close ally and would not be endorsing Dean against their strong objections. No one was immediately available in Sen. Clinton's office to comment.
Ickes said Dean "has a real ability to communicate with people in leadership, but also to grass-roots and average Americans. He understands the need for party building."
Ickes' endorsement comes at a critical time in the chairman's race and gives Dean almost 50 of the more than 215 votes he would need to win the post.
(More ... CNN.com - Former Clinton aide backs Dean for party chair - Jan 28, 2005) ¶ 22:31 0 comments
Friday, January 28, 2005 Posted: 5:08 PM EST (2208 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Harold Ickes, a leading Democratic activist and former aide to President Clinton, said Friday he is backing Howard Dean to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- giving a powerful boost to the front-runner.
"I think all the candidates who are running have strong attributes, but Dean has more of the attributes than the others," said Ickes, who considered running for chairman himself before dropping out in early January. "Many people say Howard Dean is a northeastern liberal, he is progressive, but his tenure as governor of Vermont was that of a real moderate."
Ickes, who heads the political action committee of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, said the endorsement was his alone and "does not reflect Sen. Clinton's opinion."
While Ickes would not comment on the Clintons' preferences, he is a close ally and would not be endorsing Dean against their strong objections. No one was immediately available in Sen. Clinton's office to comment.
Ickes said Dean "has a real ability to communicate with people in leadership, but also to grass-roots and average Americans. He understands the need for party building."
Ickes' endorsement comes at a critical time in the chairman's race and gives Dean almost 50 of the more than 215 votes he would need to win the post.
(More ... CNN.com - Former Clinton aide backs Dean for party chair - Jan 28, 2005) ¶ 22:31 0 comments
Dean's Past as Prologue to DNC Future (WashingtonPost.com)
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 30, 2005; Page A04
NEW YORK, Jan. 29 -- As Howard Dean campaigns here for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, his supporters feel an eerie echo of his campaign a year ago for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Once again, he is the prohibitive favorite to win with just two weeks to go before the voting. Once again, the other candidates in the field, trailing badly, are hoping to position themselves as the most viable alternative to Dean. Once again, Dean is making a red-meat appeal to the liberal base of the party.
Friday's Question:
Which president was the first to have a Cabinet nominee formally rejected by the Senate?
Andrew Jackson
James Buchanan
Theodore Roosevelt
Calvin Coolidge
_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____
• Daily Politics News & Analysis
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Campaign Report
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Federal Insider
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
"We cannot be Republican-light if you want to win elections," he says to cheers here at the DNC's Eastern Regional meeting Saturday, the last gathering before party members vote on Feb. 12 for a successor to Terence R. McAuliffe. While other candidates counsel a move to the right and a drastic change for an enfeebled party, a sanguine Dean says, Democrats "cannot change our convictions."
Last year, of course, Dean's front-running candidacy collapsed in the Iowa caucus and the former Vermont governor's subsequent outburst. But if Dean cannot win this race, in which he faces a group of six little-known party workers and former office holders, that would really be reason to scream.
(More ... Dean's Past as Prologue to DNC Future (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 21:46 0 comments
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 30, 2005; Page A04
NEW YORK, Jan. 29 -- As Howard Dean campaigns here for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, his supporters feel an eerie echo of his campaign a year ago for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Once again, he is the prohibitive favorite to win with just two weeks to go before the voting. Once again, the other candidates in the field, trailing badly, are hoping to position themselves as the most viable alternative to Dean. Once again, Dean is making a red-meat appeal to the liberal base of the party.
Friday's Question:
Which president was the first to have a Cabinet nominee formally rejected by the Senate?
Andrew Jackson
James Buchanan
Theodore Roosevelt
Calvin Coolidge
_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____
• Daily Politics News & Analysis
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Campaign Report
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Federal Insider
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
"We cannot be Republican-light if you want to win elections," he says to cheers here at the DNC's Eastern Regional meeting Saturday, the last gathering before party members vote on Feb. 12 for a successor to Terence R. McAuliffe. While other candidates counsel a move to the right and a drastic change for an enfeebled party, a sanguine Dean says, Democrats "cannot change our convictions."
Last year, of course, Dean's front-running candidacy collapsed in the Iowa caucus and the former Vermont governor's subsequent outburst. But if Dean cannot win this race, in which he faces a group of six little-known party workers and former office holders, that would really be reason to scream.
(More ... Dean's Past as Prologue to DNC Future (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 21:46 0 comments
Flashback to the 60's: A Sinking Sensation of Parallels Between Iraq and Vietnam (NYTimes.com)
NEWS ANALYSIS
By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: January 29, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 - Not quite 38 years ago, enmeshed in a drawn-out war whose ultimate outcome was deeply in doubt, Lyndon B. Johnson met on Guam with the fractious generals who were contending for leadership of South Vietnam and told them: "My birthday is in late August. The greatest birthday present you could give me is a national election."
George W. Bush's birthday is in early July, but his broad goals for the Iraqi elections on Sunday are much the same as the Johnson administration's in 1967: to confer political legitimacy and credibility on a government that Iraqis themselves will be willing and able to fight to defend, and that American and world public opinion will agree to help nurture.
"I think one lesson is that there be a clear objective that everybody understands," Mr. Bush said in an interview with The New York Times this week, reflecting on the relevance of Vietnam today. "A free, democratic Iraq, an ally in the war on terror, with an Iraqi army, all parts of it - Iraqi forces, army, national guard, border guard, police force - able to defend itself. Secondly, that people understand the connection between that goal and our future."
But the difficulties of achieving such objectives, then and now, have led a range of military experts, historians and politicians to consider the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq to warn of potential pitfalls ahead. Nearly two years after the American invasion of Iraq, such comparisons are no longer dismissed in mainstream political discourse as facile and flawed, but are instead bubbling to the top.
"We thought in those early days in Vietnam that we were winning," Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, one of this war's most vocal opponents, warned in a speech here on Thursday. "We thought the skill and courage of our troops was enough. We thought that victory on the battlefield would lead to victory in war and peace and democracy for the people of Vietnam. In the name of a misguided cause, we continued in a war too long. We failed to comprehend the events around us. We did not understand that our very presence was creating new enemies and defeating the very goals we set out to achieve."
Mr. Kennedy said that there would be "costs to staying and costs to leaving" Iraq, but that at least 12,000 American troops should leave immediately to signal the United States has a clear exit strategy. That is a version of the famous advice that Senator George Aiken, a Vermont Republican, gave Johnson: declare victory in Vietnam, then leave.
Prof. Jeffrey Record, a professor of strategy at the Air Force's Air War College in Alabama, said he seldom provoked controversy when he warned his audiences of military commanders about the potential parallels between Vietnam and Iraq.
(More ... The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Flashback to the 60's: A Sinking Sensation of Parallels Between Iraq and Vietnam) ¶ 11:09 0 comments
By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: January 29, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 - Not quite 38 years ago, enmeshed in a drawn-out war whose ultimate outcome was deeply in doubt, Lyndon B. Johnson met on Guam with the fractious generals who were contending for leadership of South Vietnam and told them: "My birthday is in late August. The greatest birthday present you could give me is a national election."
George W. Bush's birthday is in early July, but his broad goals for the Iraqi elections on Sunday are much the same as the Johnson administration's in 1967: to confer political legitimacy and credibility on a government that Iraqis themselves will be willing and able to fight to defend, and that American and world public opinion will agree to help nurture.
"I think one lesson is that there be a clear objective that everybody understands," Mr. Bush said in an interview with The New York Times this week, reflecting on the relevance of Vietnam today. "A free, democratic Iraq, an ally in the war on terror, with an Iraqi army, all parts of it - Iraqi forces, army, national guard, border guard, police force - able to defend itself. Secondly, that people understand the connection between that goal and our future."
But the difficulties of achieving such objectives, then and now, have led a range of military experts, historians and politicians to consider the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq to warn of potential pitfalls ahead. Nearly two years after the American invasion of Iraq, such comparisons are no longer dismissed in mainstream political discourse as facile and flawed, but are instead bubbling to the top.
"We thought in those early days in Vietnam that we were winning," Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, one of this war's most vocal opponents, warned in a speech here on Thursday. "We thought the skill and courage of our troops was enough. We thought that victory on the battlefield would lead to victory in war and peace and democracy for the people of Vietnam. In the name of a misguided cause, we continued in a war too long. We failed to comprehend the events around us. We did not understand that our very presence was creating new enemies and defeating the very goals we set out to achieve."
Mr. Kennedy said that there would be "costs to staying and costs to leaving" Iraq, but that at least 12,000 American troops should leave immediately to signal the United States has a clear exit strategy. That is a version of the famous advice that Senator George Aiken, a Vermont Republican, gave Johnson: declare victory in Vietnam, then leave.
Prof. Jeffrey Record, a professor of strategy at the Air Force's Air War College in Alabama, said he seldom provoked controversy when he warned his audiences of military commanders about the potential parallels between Vietnam and Iraq.
(More ... The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Flashback to the 60's: A Sinking Sensation of Parallels Between Iraq and Vietnam) ¶ 11:09 0 comments
Bush Signals a Revolution in Foreign Policy (IHT.com)
The Axis of Tyranny
By Ian Bremmer
TOKYO Taken together, George W. Bush's Inaugural Address and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's confirmation testimony form the most important - and revealing - expression of U.S. foreign policy since the president's post-9/11 State of the Union speech. Many believed the president would use the address to bring attention to a domestic agenda and to formulate a chastened foreign policy, reflecting the U.S. experience in Iraq. But Bush outlined the broad objectives, with Rice offering important details, of an even more assertive, internationalist and, in many ways, revolutionary U.S. role in world affairs.
The administration has now broadened the focus of the war on terror, moving beyond the "axis of evil" to what would most appropriately be called an "axis of tyranny." While the axis of evil was less the basis of a new foreign policy than an improvised gut reaction to the horror of 9/11, the president's new formulation represents a carefully considered strategy.
The new policy asserts that there are a handful of regimes whose very existence threatens the national security of the United States and, by extension, Western-style democracies generally. Rice listed a group of six such states - North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. The list surprised most analysts, in part because some of those states have never before been singled out by the Bush administration for sustained criticism.
Bush signals a revolution in foreign policy ¶ 10:53 0 comments
By Ian Bremmer
TOKYO Taken together, George W. Bush's Inaugural Address and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's confirmation testimony form the most important - and revealing - expression of U.S. foreign policy since the president's post-9/11 State of the Union speech. Many believed the president would use the address to bring attention to a domestic agenda and to formulate a chastened foreign policy, reflecting the U.S. experience in Iraq. But Bush outlined the broad objectives, with Rice offering important details, of an even more assertive, internationalist and, in many ways, revolutionary U.S. role in world affairs.
The administration has now broadened the focus of the war on terror, moving beyond the "axis of evil" to what would most appropriately be called an "axis of tyranny." While the axis of evil was less the basis of a new foreign policy than an improvised gut reaction to the horror of 9/11, the president's new formulation represents a carefully considered strategy.
The new policy asserts that there are a handful of regimes whose very existence threatens the national security of the United States and, by extension, Western-style democracies generally. Rice listed a group of six such states - North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. The list surprised most analysts, in part because some of those states have never before been singled out by the Bush administration for sustained criticism.
Bush signals a revolution in foreign policy ¶ 10:53 0 comments
The Real Trade Barriers That Hinder Poor Countries (IHT.com)
Reforming the WTO
LONDON There are few more pressing needs for development than making trade policy deliver increased and tangible benefits. While trade alone cannot bring lasting relief from poverty, without a coherent effort to integrate into the global economy poor nations have little chance of long-term advancement.
This was a major theme of the work of the Consultative Board on the Future of the World Trade Organization, established in 2003 by the director general of the WTO, Supachai Panitchpakdi, which has just reported. The group of eight economists,
lawyers and business people that I chaired sought to provide some new perspectives and practical proposals. None of them is revolutionary and all could be adopted if the political will exists.
For the present, the Doha round of trade negotiations must take precedent. A positive result on agriculture - eliminating export subsidies and taming other forms of support, as well as opening markets - would undoubtedly help development.
The real trade barriers that hinder poor countries ¶ 10:49 0 comments
LONDON There are few more pressing needs for development than making trade policy deliver increased and tangible benefits. While trade alone cannot bring lasting relief from poverty, without a coherent effort to integrate into the global economy poor nations have little chance of long-term advancement.
This was a major theme of the work of the Consultative Board on the Future of the World Trade Organization, established in 2003 by the director general of the WTO, Supachai Panitchpakdi, which has just reported. The group of eight economists,
lawyers and business people that I chaired sought to provide some new perspectives and practical proposals. None of them is revolutionary and all could be adopted if the political will exists.
For the present, the Doha round of trade negotiations must take precedent. A positive result on agriculture - eliminating export subsidies and taming other forms of support, as well as opening markets - would undoubtedly help development.
The real trade barriers that hinder poor countries ¶ 10:49 0 comments
Howard Opposes Push to Scrap Third World Debt (TheAge.com.au)
By Paul Mulvey, Annabel Crabb
Davos, Switzerland
January 30, 2005
Goodwill is gathering momentum at the World Economic Forum as major political leaders, a rock star and an Australian union boss call for the cancellation of Third World debt, while Prime Minister John Howard swims against the flow.
Mr Howard questioned the benefits of writing off debt after British Chancellor Gordon Brown yesterday called for total debt relief in a bid to eradicate poverty, the issue topping the agenda of the 2500 political and business leaders at the annual summit in Davos this week.
"We will propose to the G7 that there will be 100 per cent multilateral debt relief so that we can end, once and for all, the historic and unpayable debts of the poorest countries in the world," Mr Brown said, sitting alongside ACTU president Sharan Burrow and Irish rock star and activist Bono at a news conference on funding the war against poverty.
Mr Brown's pledge was backed by French Finance Minister Herve Gaymard and had German support, but Mr Howard tried to apply the brakes to the push for total relief.
"I think the biggest thing the developed world can do to alleviate poverty is to remove trade barriers," he said. "The benefits of that are infinitely better than direct aid. Direct aid works well in some cases.
"In many other cases, because of poor governance, it works very badly.
(More ... Howard opposes push to scrap Third World debt - National - www.theage.com.au) ¶ 10:41 0 comments
Davos, Switzerland
January 30, 2005
Goodwill is gathering momentum at the World Economic Forum as major political leaders, a rock star and an Australian union boss call for the cancellation of Third World debt, while Prime Minister John Howard swims against the flow.
Mr Howard questioned the benefits of writing off debt after British Chancellor Gordon Brown yesterday called for total debt relief in a bid to eradicate poverty, the issue topping the agenda of the 2500 political and business leaders at the annual summit in Davos this week.
"We will propose to the G7 that there will be 100 per cent multilateral debt relief so that we can end, once and for all, the historic and unpayable debts of the poorest countries in the world," Mr Brown said, sitting alongside ACTU president Sharan Burrow and Irish rock star and activist Bono at a news conference on funding the war against poverty.
Mr Brown's pledge was backed by French Finance Minister Herve Gaymard and had German support, but Mr Howard tried to apply the brakes to the push for total relief.
"I think the biggest thing the developed world can do to alleviate poverty is to remove trade barriers," he said. "The benefits of that are infinitely better than direct aid. Direct aid works well in some cases.
"In many other cases, because of poor governance, it works very badly.
(More ... Howard opposes push to scrap Third World debt - National - www.theage.com.au) ¶ 10:41 0 comments
1.29.2005
Nixon Son-In-Law May Challenge Clinton (ChicagoTribune.com)
By MARC HUMBERT
Associated Press Writer
Published January 28, 2005, 5:34 PM CST
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Edward Cox, a son-in-law of President Nixon, is considering a Senate run next year against Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime friend and adviser said Friday.
"To say he's running against Hillary Clinton is to way overstate it, but he's interested in it. He's testing the waters," said the adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We're meeting with people and sometime, probably in April or so, a decision will be made."
Cox, 58, married Tricia Nixon at a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden in 1971. He is a partner in a Manhattan law firm and a member of the State University of New York board of trustees, appointed by Gov. George Pataki.
The adviser said Cox, who has never run for public office, would not seek the Republican nomination if either Pataki or former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani decided to do so. Neither is expected to seek the Senate seat, and both are potential 2008 presidential candidates.
(More ... Chicago Tribune | Nixon Son-In-Law May Challenge Clinton) ¶ 20:21 0 comments
Associated Press Writer
Published January 28, 2005, 5:34 PM CST
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Edward Cox, a son-in-law of President Nixon, is considering a Senate run next year against Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime friend and adviser said Friday.
"To say he's running against Hillary Clinton is to way overstate it, but he's interested in it. He's testing the waters," said the adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We're meeting with people and sometime, probably in April or so, a decision will be made."
Cox, 58, married Tricia Nixon at a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden in 1971. He is a partner in a Manhattan law firm and a member of the State University of New York board of trustees, appointed by Gov. George Pataki.
The adviser said Cox, who has never run for public office, would not seek the Republican nomination if either Pataki or former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani decided to do so. Neither is expected to seek the Senate seat, and both are potential 2008 presidential candidates.
(More ... Chicago Tribune | Nixon Son-In-Law May Challenge Clinton) ¶ 20:21 0 comments
Drilling Expansion Plan to Put Haze Over Great Plains (LATimes.com)
By Miguel Bustillo, Times Staff Writer
GILLETTE, Wyo. — When he turned Mount Rushmore into his granite canvas, sculptor Gutzon Borglum wrote that the faces of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln would remain visible, Lord willing, "until the wind and the rain alone shall wear them away."
Borglum's vision endures in the Black Hills of South Dakota about 130 miles from here, but for nearly a month every year, it may soon become harder to see the famous faces through the man-made haze generated by the addition of 50,000 gas wells in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana.
It is just one of several ways in which the largest expansion of natural gas drilling approved by the federal government is expected to degrade air quality in the region that today has the clearest skies in the lower 48 states.
The federal Bureau of Land Management, under pressure from the White House to fast-track energy production, approved the drilling plan two years ago without incorporating any requirements to reduce the resulting air pollution.
(More ... Drilling Expansion Plan to Put Haze Over Great Plains) ¶ 20:02 0 comments
GILLETTE, Wyo. — When he turned Mount Rushmore into his granite canvas, sculptor Gutzon Borglum wrote that the faces of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln would remain visible, Lord willing, "until the wind and the rain alone shall wear them away."
Borglum's vision endures in the Black Hills of South Dakota about 130 miles from here, but for nearly a month every year, it may soon become harder to see the famous faces through the man-made haze generated by the addition of 50,000 gas wells in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana.
It is just one of several ways in which the largest expansion of natural gas drilling approved by the federal government is expected to degrade air quality in the region that today has the clearest skies in the lower 48 states.
The federal Bureau of Land Management, under pressure from the White House to fast-track energy production, approved the drilling plan two years ago without incorporating any requirements to reduce the resulting air pollution.
(More ... Drilling Expansion Plan to Put Haze Over Great Plains) ¶ 20:02 0 comments
Four Unions Sue Over New Rules for Homeland Security Workers (NYTimes.com)
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: January 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 - Four unions filed suit on Thursday to prevent the Bush administration from carrying out the first phase of a personnel system that would give officials sweeping power to reward, punish and reassign federal employees.
The suit was filed by career employees of the Homeland Security Department, challenging rules it issued on Wednesday.
White House officials said the new procedures, affecting 110,000 employees, were a model for changes throughout the federal government.
The unions asked the Federal District Court here to issue an injunction against the final rules, which will be published on Tuesday in The Federal Register and will take effect in a few months.
(More ... The New York Times > Washington > 4 Unions Sue Over New Rules for Homeland Security Workers) ¶ 19:56 0 comments
Published: January 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 - Four unions filed suit on Thursday to prevent the Bush administration from carrying out the first phase of a personnel system that would give officials sweeping power to reward, punish and reassign federal employees.
The suit was filed by career employees of the Homeland Security Department, challenging rules it issued on Wednesday.
White House officials said the new procedures, affecting 110,000 employees, were a model for changes throughout the federal government.
The unions asked the Federal District Court here to issue an injunction against the final rules, which will be published on Tuesday in The Federal Register and will take effect in a few months.
(More ... The New York Times > Washington > 4 Unions Sue Over New Rules for Homeland Security Workers) ¶ 19:56 0 comments
Lockheed Martin Wins Presidential Helicopter Contract (USATODAY.com)
Posted 1/28/2005 5:29 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Lockheed Martin will build the new presidential helicopter fleet, the Navy announced Friday, putting an end to a fierce competition that had both political and international overtones.
The White House had pushed for a new Marine One fleet. The president "needs a more survivable helicopter while the nation engages in the global war on terrorism," said John Young, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, in making the announcement.
The $6.1 billion contract to buy 23 high-tech, high-security aircraft, is relatively small in the military budget. But it is emblematic of two important issues: the outsourcing of American jobs and the question of how open the U.S. military market is to foreign contractors.
Maryland-based Lockheed and its European partners had waged a major public relations campaign, with the help of political leaders from England and Italy.
The decision was a blow to Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, which has built the presidential fleet since 1957, and saw the contract as a point of pride.
(More ... USATODAY.com - Lockheed Martin wins presidential helicopter contract) ¶ 19:47 0 comments
WASHINGTON (AP) — Lockheed Martin will build the new presidential helicopter fleet, the Navy announced Friday, putting an end to a fierce competition that had both political and international overtones.
The White House had pushed for a new Marine One fleet. The president "needs a more survivable helicopter while the nation engages in the global war on terrorism," said John Young, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, in making the announcement.
The $6.1 billion contract to buy 23 high-tech, high-security aircraft, is relatively small in the military budget. But it is emblematic of two important issues: the outsourcing of American jobs and the question of how open the U.S. military market is to foreign contractors.
Maryland-based Lockheed and its European partners had waged a major public relations campaign, with the help of political leaders from England and Italy.
The decision was a blow to Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, which has built the presidential fleet since 1957, and saw the contract as a point of pride.
(More ... USATODAY.com - Lockheed Martin wins presidential helicopter contract) ¶ 19:47 0 comments
Strom Thurmond's Biracial Daughter Sheds Life of Secrecy (Yahoo! News--USA Today)
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
The daughter grew up in a house without indoor plumbing, rode the back of the bus and attended a college for blacks only.
The father was raised in a stately home with black servants - one of them her mother - and later became South Carolina's governor and ran for president, espousing racial segregation.
One family, two Americas.
The story of Essie Mae Washington-Williams, the biracial daughter of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, reveals how two people, bound by blood and duty, lived separate, unequal lives. They developed a limited relationship that, despite the anguish it caused her, she kept secret his entire life.
"I did love my father. He was very good to us," Washington-Williams, 79, says in an interview to promote today's release of her autobiography, Dear Senator: A Memoir by the Daughter of Strom Thurmond.
She first disclosed that he was her father to The Washington Post in December 2003, six months after he died. The Thurmond family has since acknowledged her as his daughter, and her name was added last year to a Thurmond monument on the statehouse grounds in Columbia, S.C., alongside the names of his white children.
(More ... Yahoo! News - Strom Thurmond's biracial daughter sheds life of secrecy) ¶ 16:28 0 comments
The daughter grew up in a house without indoor plumbing, rode the back of the bus and attended a college for blacks only.
The father was raised in a stately home with black servants - one of them her mother - and later became South Carolina's governor and ran for president, espousing racial segregation.
One family, two Americas.
The story of Essie Mae Washington-Williams, the biracial daughter of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, reveals how two people, bound by blood and duty, lived separate, unequal lives. They developed a limited relationship that, despite the anguish it caused her, she kept secret his entire life.
"I did love my father. He was very good to us," Washington-Williams, 79, says in an interview to promote today's release of her autobiography, Dear Senator: A Memoir by the Daughter of Strom Thurmond.
She first disclosed that he was her father to The Washington Post in December 2003, six months after he died. The Thurmond family has since acknowledged her as his daughter, and her name was added last year to a Thurmond monument on the statehouse grounds in Columbia, S.C., alongside the names of his white children.
(More ... Yahoo! News - Strom Thurmond's biracial daughter sheds life of secrecy) ¶ 16:28 0 comments
A Warming Climate (WashingtonPost.com)
EDITORIAL
Friday, January 28, 2005; Page A26
FOR THE PAST four years members of the Bush administration have cast doubt on the scientific community's consensus on climate change. But even if they don't like the science, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of their closest allies in Iraq and elsewhere, has given the administration another, more realpolitik, reason to rejoin the climate change debate: "If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too," the prime minister said this week.
Mr. Blair's speech came at an interesting moment, both for the administration's energy and climate change policies and for the administration's diplomatic agenda. In the next few weeks, the House will almost certainly vote once again on last year's energy bill, a mishmash of subsidies and tax breaks that finally proved too expensive even for a Republican Senate to stomach. After a House vote, there may be an attempt to trim the cost of the bill and add measures to make it acceptable to more senators -- including the growing number of Republicans who have, sometimes behind the scenes, indicated an interest in climate change legislation. Indeed, any new discussion of energy policy could allow Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) to seek another vote on their climate change bill, which would establish a domestic "cap and trade" system for controlling the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
If domestic politics could prompt the president to look again at the subject, international politics certainly should. Administration officials assert that mending fences with Europe is a primary goal for this year; if so, the relaunching of a climate change policy -- almost any climate change policy -- would be widely interpreted as a sign of goodwill, as Mr. Blair made clear. Beyond the problematic Kyoto Protocol, there are ways for the United States to join the global discussion, not least by setting limits for domestic carbon emissions.
(More ... A Warming Climate (washingtonpost.com)
¶ 12:28 0 comments
Friday, January 28, 2005; Page A26
FOR THE PAST four years members of the Bush administration have cast doubt on the scientific community's consensus on climate change. But even if they don't like the science, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of their closest allies in Iraq and elsewhere, has given the administration another, more realpolitik, reason to rejoin the climate change debate: "If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too," the prime minister said this week.
Mr. Blair's speech came at an interesting moment, both for the administration's energy and climate change policies and for the administration's diplomatic agenda. In the next few weeks, the House will almost certainly vote once again on last year's energy bill, a mishmash of subsidies and tax breaks that finally proved too expensive even for a Republican Senate to stomach. After a House vote, there may be an attempt to trim the cost of the bill and add measures to make it acceptable to more senators -- including the growing number of Republicans who have, sometimes behind the scenes, indicated an interest in climate change legislation. Indeed, any new discussion of energy policy could allow Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) to seek another vote on their climate change bill, which would establish a domestic "cap and trade" system for controlling the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
If domestic politics could prompt the president to look again at the subject, international politics certainly should. Administration officials assert that mending fences with Europe is a primary goal for this year; if so, the relaunching of a climate change policy -- almost any climate change policy -- would be widely interpreted as a sign of goodwill, as Mr. Blair made clear. Beyond the problematic Kyoto Protocol, there are ways for the United States to join the global discussion, not least by setting limits for domestic carbon emissions.
(More ... A Warming Climate (washingtonpost.com)
