By John Loftus
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, November 16, 2007
Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com, along with translations of the captured Iraqi documents, courtesy of Mr. Ryan Mauro and his friends.
This Iraqi document research has been supplemented with satellite photographs and dozens of interviews, among them David Gaubatz who risked radiation exposure to locate Saddam’s underwater WMD warehouses , and John Shaw, whose brilliant detective work solved the puzzle of where the WMD went. Both have contributed substantially to solving one of the most difficult mysteries of our decade.
The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.
The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's.
The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003.
His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses.
The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.
Without pointing fingers at the Americans, the Israeli government now believes that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear stockpiles have ended up in weapons dumps in Syria.
Debkafile, a somewhat reliable private Israeli intelligence service, has recently published a report claiming that the Syrians were importing North Korean plutonium to be mixed with Saddam’s enriched uranium.
Allegedly, the Syrians were close to completing a warhead factory next to Saddam’s WMD dump in Deir al Zour, Syria to produce hundreds, if not thousands, of super toxic “dirty bombs” that would pollute wherever they landed in Israel for the next several thousands of years.
Debka alleged that it was this combination factory/WMD dump site which was the target of the recent Israeli air strike in Deir al Zour province..
Senior sources in the Israeli government have privately confirmed to me that the recent New York Times articles and satellite photographs about the Israeli raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear target in Al Tabitha, Syria were of the completely wrong location.
Armed with this knowledge, I searched Google Earth satellite photos for the rest of the province of Deir al Zour for a site that would match the unofficial Israeli descriptions: camouflaged black factory building, next to a military ammunition dump, between an airport and an orchard.
There is a clear match in only one location, Longitude 35 degrees, 16 minutes 49.31 seconds North, Latitude 40 degrees, 3 minutes, 29.97 seconds East. Analysts and members of the public are invited to determine for themselves whether this was indeed the weapons dump for Saddam’s WMD.
Photos of this complex taken after the Israel raid appear to show that all of the buildings, earthern blast berms, bunkers, roads, even the acres of blackened topsoil, have all been dug up and removed. All that remains are what appear to be smoothed over bomb craters. Of course, that is not of itself definitive proof, but it is extremely suspicious.
It should be noted that the American interrogators had accurate information about a possible Deir al Zour location shortly after the war, but ignored it:
"An Iraqi dissident going by the name of "Abu Abdallah" claims that on March 10, 2003, 50 trucks arrived in Deir Al-Zour, Syria after being loaded in Baghdad. …Abdallah approached his friend who was hesitant to confirm the WMD shipment, but did after Abdallah explained what his sources informed him of. The friend told him not to tell anyone about the shipment."
These interrogation reports should be re-evaluated in light of the recently opened Iraqi secret archives, which we submit are the best evidence. But the captured document evidence should not be overstated. It must be emphasized that there is no one captured Saddam document which mentions both the possession of WMD and the movement to Syria.
Moreover, many of Saddam's own tapes and documents concerning chemical and biological weapons are ambiguous. When read together as a mosaic whole, Saddam's secret files certainly make a persuasive case of massive WMD acquisition right up to a few months before the war.
Not only was he buying banned precursors for nerve gas, he was ordering the chemicals to make Zyklon B, the Nazis favorite gas at Auschwitz. However odious and well documented his purchases in 2002, there is no direct evidence of any CW or BW actually remaining inside Iraq on the day the war started in 2003.
As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW and BW stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria.
We know from Saddam’s documents that huge quantities of CW and BW were in fact produced, and there is no record of their destruction. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, at least as to chemical and biological weapons, the evidence is compelling, but not conclusive. There is no one individual document or audiotape that contains a smoking gun.
There is no ambiguity, however, about captured tape ISGQ-2003-M0007379, in which Saddam is briefed on his secret nuclear weapons project. This meeting clearly took place in 2002 or afterwards: almost a decade after the State Department claimed that Saddam had abandoned his nuclear weapons research.
Moreover the tape describes a laser enrichment process for uranium that had never been known by the UN inspectors to even exist in Iraq, and Saddam's nuclear briefers on the tape were Iraqi scientists who had never been on any weapons inspector’s list. The tape explicitly discusses how civilian plasma research could be used as a cover for military plasma research necessary to build a hydrogen bomb.
When this tape came to the attention of the International Intelligence Summit, a non-profit, non-partisan educational forum focusing on global intelligence affairs, the organization asked the NSA to verify the voiceprints of Saddam and his cronies, invited a certified translator to present Saddam’s nuclear tapes to the public, and then invited leading intelligence analysts to comment.
At the direct request of the Summit, President Bush promptly overruled his national intelligence adviser, John Negroponte, a career State Department man, and ordered that the rest of the captured Saddam tapes and documents be reviewed as rapidly as possible. The Intelligence Summit asked that Saddam's tapes and documents be posted on a public website so that Arabic-speaking volunteers could help with the translation and analysis.
At first, the public website seemed like a good idea. Another document was quickly discovered, dated November 2002, describing an expensive plan to remove radioactive contamination from an isotope production building. The document cites the return of UNMOVIC inspectors as the reason for cleaning up the evidence of radioactivity. This is not far from a smoking gun: there were not supposed to be any nuclear production plants in Iraq in 2002.
Then a barrage of near-smoking guns opened up. Document after document from Saddam's files was posted unread on the public website, each one describing how to make a nuclear bomb in more detail than the last.
These documents, dated just before the war, show that Saddam had accumulated just about every secret there was for the construction of nuclear weapons.
The Iraqi intelligence files contain so much accurate information on the atom bomb that the translators’ public website had to be closed for reasons of national security.
If Saddam had nuclear weapons facilities, where was he hiding them? Iraqi informants showed US investigators where Saddam had constructed huge underwater storage facilities beneath the Euphrates River. The tunnel entrances were still sealed with tons of concrete. The US investigators who approached the sealed entrances were later determined to have been exposed to radiation. Incredibly, their reports were lost in the postwar confusion, and Saddam’s underground nuclear storage sites were left unguarded for the next three years. Still, the eyewitness testimony about the sealed underwater warehouses matched with radiation exposure is strong circumstantial evidence that some amount of radioactive material was still present in Iraq on the day the war began.
Our volunteer researchers discovered the actual movement order from the Iraqi high command ordering all the remaining special equipment to be moved into the underground sites only a few weeks before the onset of the war. The date of the movement order suggests that President Bush, who clearly knew nothing of the specifics of the underground nuclear sites, or even that a nuclear weapons program still existed in Iraq, may have been accidentally correct about the main point of the war: the discovery of Saddam’s secret nuclear program, even in hindsight, arguably provides sufficient legal justification for the previous use of force.
Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces.
Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files have never been read, let alone translated. It is time to utterly reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look to the best evidence: Saddam’s own files on WMD. The truth is what it is, the documents speak for themselves.
John Loftus is President of IntelligenceSummit.org, which is entirely free of government funding, and depends solely upon private contributions for its support. The full research paper on Iraqi WMD, along with the supporting documents and photographs can be found at www.LoftusReport.com
Search
Earthweek - A Diary of the PlanetExtreme Temperatures
Friday, November 30, 2007
Intelligence Summit to Air 'Saddam's WMD Tapes'
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 15, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which according to the New York Sun has already authenticated the Saddam tapes, has reopened its investigation into the possible existence and location of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But some long-time liberal skeptics are showing no inclination to change their minds.
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, the Bush administration argued that the war was necessary as a preemptive strike because the Iraqi president had WMD and there was a danger that he would use them against the United States.
On Oct. 6, 2004, Charles Duelfer, advisor to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi weapons, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the invasion and that the weapons were likely destroyed following the first Persian Gulf War in 1991. On Jan. 12, 2005, the U.S. announced that is was stopping its search for the weapons in Iraq.
But a four-day Intelligence Summit, to be held Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va., is re-igniting the debate over the Iraqi WMD. The featured discussion, on Saturday, Feb. 18, is titled: "Saddam's WMD Tapes: 'The Smoking Gun' Evidence." The agenda for the event indicates that the person who will speak about the tapes is at this point "anonymous."
The New York Sun on Feb. 7 reported that Rep. Peter Hoekstra's (R-Mich.) committee had obtained the audio tapes from former federal prosecutor John Loftus. According to the report, Loftus received the tapes "from a former American military intelligence analyst." Loftus is president of the Intelligence Summit, which is a yearly gathering of experts in the fields of counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering.
Jodie Evans of the anti-war group Code Pink, however, told Cybercast News Service that she does not think the Saddam recordings will lead to any new information. The government, according to Evans, has "said a lot of things for a long time."
"There's a difference between what they've been saying and what's real, and when they find something real, I'll comment."
Danny Schechter, author and producer of the film version of "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception," said he is "weary of these intercepts."
"Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein did have a WMD program. The United States knows that, we have the receipts, we supplied some of the initial technology," Schechter said.
But the weapons were destroyed in 1991, after the first Gulf War, he asserted.
"The question is not, did he have a program, but did that program represent a threat to the United States, to England, or to anywhere else," Schechter said. "I would be hesitant about raw intelligence that has not been analyzed, but that is being used in a partisan way by members of Congress," he told Cybercast News Service.
"Saddam Hussein is probably one of the most demonized world leaders, with Dick Cheney a close second," Schechter added.
Saddam is currently on trial in Iraq for ordering the killings of more than 140 Shiite Muslims in 1982. One of his former military advisors and top generals, Georges Sada, has written a book titled: "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein."
Sada, who is a national security adviser in Iraq's new government, alleges that in June 2002 Saddam transported weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and into Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims.
A Feb. 2 Cybercast News Service article quoted Jamal Ware, the communications director for Rep. Hoekstra as saying that "the chairman has read General Sada's book ... He will meet with General Sada to hear first-hand him laying out the case that this transferal may have happened." The New York Sun article from Feb. 7 indicated that Sada has since met with Hoekstra to talk about the issue.
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 15, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which according to the New York Sun has already authenticated the Saddam tapes, has reopened its investigation into the possible existence and location of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But some long-time liberal skeptics are showing no inclination to change their minds.
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, the Bush administration argued that the war was necessary as a preemptive strike because the Iraqi president had WMD and there was a danger that he would use them against the United States.
On Oct. 6, 2004, Charles Duelfer, advisor to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi weapons, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the invasion and that the weapons were likely destroyed following the first Persian Gulf War in 1991. On Jan. 12, 2005, the U.S. announced that is was stopping its search for the weapons in Iraq.
But a four-day Intelligence Summit, to be held Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va., is re-igniting the debate over the Iraqi WMD. The featured discussion, on Saturday, Feb. 18, is titled: "Saddam's WMD Tapes: 'The Smoking Gun' Evidence." The agenda for the event indicates that the person who will speak about the tapes is at this point "anonymous."
The New York Sun on Feb. 7 reported that Rep. Peter Hoekstra's (R-Mich.) committee had obtained the audio tapes from former federal prosecutor John Loftus. According to the report, Loftus received the tapes "from a former American military intelligence analyst." Loftus is president of the Intelligence Summit, which is a yearly gathering of experts in the fields of counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering.
Jodie Evans of the anti-war group Code Pink, however, told Cybercast News Service that she does not think the Saddam recordings will lead to any new information. The government, according to Evans, has "said a lot of things for a long time."
"There's a difference between what they've been saying and what's real, and when they find something real, I'll comment."
Danny Schechter, author and producer of the film version of "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception," said he is "weary of these intercepts."
"Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein did have a WMD program. The United States knows that, we have the receipts, we supplied some of the initial technology," Schechter said.
But the weapons were destroyed in 1991, after the first Gulf War, he asserted.
"The question is not, did he have a program, but did that program represent a threat to the United States, to England, or to anywhere else," Schechter said. "I would be hesitant about raw intelligence that has not been analyzed, but that is being used in a partisan way by members of Congress," he told Cybercast News Service.
"Saddam Hussein is probably one of the most demonized world leaders, with Dick Cheney a close second," Schechter added.
Saddam is currently on trial in Iraq for ordering the killings of more than 140 Shiite Muslims in 1982. One of his former military advisors and top generals, Georges Sada, has written a book titled: "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein."
Sada, who is a national security adviser in Iraq's new government, alleges that in June 2002 Saddam transported weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and into Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims.
A Feb. 2 Cybercast News Service article quoted Jamal Ware, the communications director for Rep. Hoekstra as saying that "the chairman has read General Sada's book ... He will meet with General Sada to hear first-hand him laying out the case that this transferal may have happened." The New York Sun article from Feb. 7 indicated that Sada has since met with Hoekstra to talk about the issue.
All Magic Guide
This site contains a lot of resources for magicians or magicians in training.
find the missing rabbit here>>>
find the missing rabbit here>>>
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Bad News Bear
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Islamofascism: While sanctioning genocide, starvation and slavery, the government of Sudan wanted to give 40 lashes to a teacher who named the class teddy bear "Muhammed." What's the Arabic word for intolerance?
If you think naming a teddy bear "Muhammed" incites religious hatred, honk your horn. The government of Sudan, the same government that has sat on the U.N.'s civil rights panel, thinks so and has arrested and so charged British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons for defaming the Religion of Peace.
Gibbons, 54, was arrested Sunday at her residence at Khartoum's Unity High School, where she taught 7-year-olds about animals and their habitats. This year's animal was the bear. In September, she asked a girl to bring a teddy bear as sort of a visual aid and asked the class to vote on a name. Twenty out of the 23 students in the class chose Muhammed.
Gibbons: Lesson in intolerance.
Sudanese government and religious authorities, not understanding either democracy or the innocence of children, demanded the invocation of Sudan's Shariah laws. The Sudanese attorney general's office opened proceedings against Gibbons under Article 125 of the criminal law, which covers insulting faith and religions.
On Thursday, Gibbons was convicted and sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation.
"What has happened was not haphazard or carried out (out) of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," concluded the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas, a self-proclaimed "moderate" group of Islamic clergy.
Since not much has been heard of this since September, it can be assumed the British government wanted to play it low-key and handle it under the radar. This is part and parcel of Europe's general cowering in the face of Muslims' taking offense at nearly everything, with the possible exception of London subway and Madrid train bombings.
The Muslim riots in Paris and the violence in the wake of Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed are the best-known examples of Muslim umbrage and intimidation. The Church of England last year seriously considered replacing St. George, the country's patron saint for seven centuries, on the grounds that he was a crusader icon offensive to the large British Muslim population.
We are also reminded of the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the great-great-grandson of the famous artist, who was shot and his throat slit on an Amsterdam street after making the film "Submission," which criticized the Islamic world for its harsh treatment of women.
In the U.S., the silence has been deafening. Neither the National Organization for Women nor the Council on American-Islamic Relations has taken offense. Does CAIR care? Where is the feminist outrage? "We have a duty to make a difference for women around the world," radio personality Tammy Bruce, former president of the L.A. chapter of NOW, told Fox News.
"The supposed feminist establishment is refusing to take a position in this regard because they have no sensibility of what is right anymore. They're afraid of offending people. They are bound by political correctness."
So too is the American left. Where is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton? As Bruce notes, the greatest force for women's rights worldwide has been the U.S. military. "The American feminist movement has not taken one stand to support the women of Iraq, the women of Afghanistan, the women of Iran," she says. "It is the United States Marines who have been doing the feminist work by liberating women and children around the world."
Meanwhile, a British schoolteacher gives the world a lesson on Western cowardice and Muslim intolerance and how Islamic fundamentalists who commit atrocities are afraid of teddy bears.
Islamofascism: While sanctioning genocide, starvation and slavery, the government of Sudan wanted to give 40 lashes to a teacher who named the class teddy bear "Muhammed." What's the Arabic word for intolerance?
If you think naming a teddy bear "Muhammed" incites religious hatred, honk your horn. The government of Sudan, the same government that has sat on the U.N.'s civil rights panel, thinks so and has arrested and so charged British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons for defaming the Religion of Peace.
Gibbons, 54, was arrested Sunday at her residence at Khartoum's Unity High School, where she taught 7-year-olds about animals and their habitats. This year's animal was the bear. In September, she asked a girl to bring a teddy bear as sort of a visual aid and asked the class to vote on a name. Twenty out of the 23 students in the class chose Muhammed.
Gibbons: Lesson in intolerance.
Sudanese government and religious authorities, not understanding either democracy or the innocence of children, demanded the invocation of Sudan's Shariah laws. The Sudanese attorney general's office opened proceedings against Gibbons under Article 125 of the criminal law, which covers insulting faith and religions.
On Thursday, Gibbons was convicted and sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation.
"What has happened was not haphazard or carried out (out) of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," concluded the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas, a self-proclaimed "moderate" group of Islamic clergy.
Since not much has been heard of this since September, it can be assumed the British government wanted to play it low-key and handle it under the radar. This is part and parcel of Europe's general cowering in the face of Muslims' taking offense at nearly everything, with the possible exception of London subway and Madrid train bombings.
The Muslim riots in Paris and the violence in the wake of Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed are the best-known examples of Muslim umbrage and intimidation. The Church of England last year seriously considered replacing St. George, the country's patron saint for seven centuries, on the grounds that he was a crusader icon offensive to the large British Muslim population.
We are also reminded of the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the great-great-grandson of the famous artist, who was shot and his throat slit on an Amsterdam street after making the film "Submission," which criticized the Islamic world for its harsh treatment of women.
In the U.S., the silence has been deafening. Neither the National Organization for Women nor the Council on American-Islamic Relations has taken offense. Does CAIR care? Where is the feminist outrage? "We have a duty to make a difference for women around the world," radio personality Tammy Bruce, former president of the L.A. chapter of NOW, told Fox News.
"The supposed feminist establishment is refusing to take a position in this regard because they have no sensibility of what is right anymore. They're afraid of offending people. They are bound by political correctness."
So too is the American left. Where is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton? As Bruce notes, the greatest force for women's rights worldwide has been the U.S. military. "The American feminist movement has not taken one stand to support the women of Iraq, the women of Afghanistan, the women of Iran," she says. "It is the United States Marines who have been doing the feminist work by liberating women and children around the world."
Meanwhile, a British schoolteacher gives the world a lesson on Western cowardice and Muslim intolerance and how Islamic fundamentalists who commit atrocities are afraid of teddy bears.
Wave Of Illegals Turns Into Tsunami
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Immigration: A new study suggests that the wave of illegal aliens is having a more serious impact — particularly on welfare spending — than commonly believed. Is anyone in Washington listening?
The study by the Center for Immigration Studies notes that the estimated 10.3 million people who've come here since 2000 represent the greatest-ever migration to the U.S. over a seven-year period. Over the next decade, at current rates, another 15 million will arrive — the largest immigrant wave in our history.
Not bad for a country that supposedly is one of the most unpopular on Earth. That said, the study also notes that more than half the newcomers so far this decade — 5.6 million — have come illegally.
Of America's 39 million immigrants, representing 12.6% of our total population, at least 12 million are illegal. Most, but not all, come from Mexico and Central America.
What exactly do the numbers mean? Well, for one thing, they mean we're importing a lot of poverty — and it's skewing the debate over key public policy issues.
How often, for example, have we been hit over the head with the scary statistic that "48 million Americans don't have health insurance." But the statement is only partly true.
According to CIS, 34% of all immigrant households — or 13.3 million — don't have health insurance. And of those, 8.3 million are here illegally. They make up 18% of the nation's uninsured, if you count their American-born children.
The crisis of the uninsured, in other words, is in significant part an imported one — one that is costing untold billions.
That flies in the face of at least one widely reported recent study that claimed the U.S. spends only $1 billion on the uninsured. Even assuming that illegals use only half the health-care resources per person as the rest of the country, the total is more like $30 billion.
CIS also reckons that immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71% of the increase in the uninsured since 1989 — a fact that usually goes unremarked upon in the debate over health-care reform.
In addition, 59% of the illegal population and their children are at or near poverty. That comes to 8.7 million people, and compares with 19% of native households.
This translates into higher use of welfare. Nationwide, 40% of all households headed by illegal aliens use one or more major welfare programs. The share in cash programs is actually quite small — less than 1%. But 33% of all illegal households get food aid, and another 27% are on Medicaid.
Again, this means billions spent each year — and that doesn't include the growing costs associated with jailing and policing illegals who have turned to crime or gangs.
We're not immigrant-bashing here. We agree America is a nation of immigrants, and uniquely so. Nor do we wish to end immigration.
But uncontrolled illegal immigration is a big problem, especially for states such as California, Texas, Arizona and Florida.
Together, they have 54% of all the illegals and bear the brunt of the problem. States together spend $20 billion a year on illegals' welfare costs alone.
That spending has become a kind of subsidy, luring ever more illegals to the U.S. Those that come have fewer skills and less education than the rest of the population. Anyone who thinks waving a magic wand over the illegal population and making them legal will solve the problem is dreaming.
"Legalized illegals will still be overwhelmingly uneducated," the CIS report points out, "and this fact has enormous implications for their income, welfare use, health-insurance coverage and the effect on American taxpayers."
In short, they've becoming a semi-permanent, welfare-dependent underclass.
Unfortunately, when anyone brings this up, charges of "xenophobe" and "racist" get thrown around. But that only keeps us from an honest discussion — and accounting — of both the benefits and costs of our burgeoning illegal population.
Immigration: A new study suggests that the wave of illegal aliens is having a more serious impact — particularly on welfare spending — than commonly believed. Is anyone in Washington listening?
The study by the Center for Immigration Studies notes that the estimated 10.3 million people who've come here since 2000 represent the greatest-ever migration to the U.S. over a seven-year period. Over the next decade, at current rates, another 15 million will arrive — the largest immigrant wave in our history.
Not bad for a country that supposedly is one of the most unpopular on Earth. That said, the study also notes that more than half the newcomers so far this decade — 5.6 million — have come illegally.
Of America's 39 million immigrants, representing 12.6% of our total population, at least 12 million are illegal. Most, but not all, come from Mexico and Central America.
What exactly do the numbers mean? Well, for one thing, they mean we're importing a lot of poverty — and it's skewing the debate over key public policy issues.
How often, for example, have we been hit over the head with the scary statistic that "48 million Americans don't have health insurance." But the statement is only partly true.
According to CIS, 34% of all immigrant households — or 13.3 million — don't have health insurance. And of those, 8.3 million are here illegally. They make up 18% of the nation's uninsured, if you count their American-born children.
The crisis of the uninsured, in other words, is in significant part an imported one — one that is costing untold billions.
That flies in the face of at least one widely reported recent study that claimed the U.S. spends only $1 billion on the uninsured. Even assuming that illegals use only half the health-care resources per person as the rest of the country, the total is more like $30 billion.
CIS also reckons that immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71% of the increase in the uninsured since 1989 — a fact that usually goes unremarked upon in the debate over health-care reform.
In addition, 59% of the illegal population and their children are at or near poverty. That comes to 8.7 million people, and compares with 19% of native households.
This translates into higher use of welfare. Nationwide, 40% of all households headed by illegal aliens use one or more major welfare programs. The share in cash programs is actually quite small — less than 1%. But 33% of all illegal households get food aid, and another 27% are on Medicaid.
Again, this means billions spent each year — and that doesn't include the growing costs associated with jailing and policing illegals who have turned to crime or gangs.
We're not immigrant-bashing here. We agree America is a nation of immigrants, and uniquely so. Nor do we wish to end immigration.
But uncontrolled illegal immigration is a big problem, especially for states such as California, Texas, Arizona and Florida.
Together, they have 54% of all the illegals and bear the brunt of the problem. States together spend $20 billion a year on illegals' welfare costs alone.
That spending has become a kind of subsidy, luring ever more illegals to the U.S. Those that come have fewer skills and less education than the rest of the population. Anyone who thinks waving a magic wand over the illegal population and making them legal will solve the problem is dreaming.
"Legalized illegals will still be overwhelmingly uneducated," the CIS report points out, "and this fact has enormous implications for their income, welfare use, health-insurance coverage and the effect on American taxpayers."
In short, they've becoming a semi-permanent, welfare-dependent underclass.
Unfortunately, when anyone brings this up, charges of "xenophobe" and "racist" get thrown around. But that only keeps us from an honest discussion — and accounting — of both the benefits and costs of our burgeoning illegal population.
Atheists Given Another Shot At The Pledge
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:30 PM PT
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 4 will again hear a challenge by Michael Newdow to the Pledge of Allegiance and its phrase "under God." Newdow won his prior lawsuit against the pledge until the Supreme Court, perhaps to avoid public outrage in the 2004 presidential election year, tossed out his case on a procedural technicality.
Newdow's first case caused a national uproar when he initially prevailed, but Congress failed to seize the day by withdrawing jurisdiction from the courts over this issue. Instead, Congress took away jurisdiction from courts over lawsuits against gun manufacturers and, at the urging of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., over lawsuits by environmentalists against clearing brush in South Dakota.
The 9th Circuit is notoriously hostile to religion, so it could give us another anti-pledge decision. Atheism has spread in influence to where it controls many federal courts, many public schools and now even Hollywood, with the atheistic movie "The Golden Compass" promoted for Christmastime entertainment.
Classical music with religious names was banned at graduation by Everett School District No. 2 in Washington state. The school ordered that only "secular" music would be allowed even though there were no lyrics or words spoken, and a federal court held against the students.
Judge Robert S. Lasnik, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1998, wrote the decision. Lasnik was the same judge who struck down a Washington state law banning video games that demonstrated how to kill policemen and wrote in his decision that violent video games are "as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature."
The intolerance of atheists and their allies has now placed the "best of" music off limits to public school performers. Goodbye to many of the great works of Bach, Haydn, Handel, Beethoven and Mozart.
It is not only courts on the West Coast that are promoting atheism. In New Jersey, an award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered in 2005 by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue.
This case illustrates how atheism in schools is often censorship in disguise. First the school district censored Borden from prayer with his players, and then censored even his silent gestures. He sued and the trial judge ruled in his favor. But school officials and their allies were relentless and have appealed.
These are not isolated cases: In Nevada, censors pulled the plug of the microphone in the middle of the high school valedictorian's speech when she mentioned her Christian faith; in Virginia, a high school removed from a bulletin board materials posted by a teacher, because they included reference to a day of prayer; in Chicago, a federal judge enjoined the state superintendent from enforcing a new law requiring a moment of silence in Illinois schools.
Atheism has been growing ever since the Supreme Court censored school prayer in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. That decision failed to cite a single precedent as authority.
The high court held decades ago that free speech includes prayer, yet lower courts continue to drive it from public places. In Faith Center v. Glover, the 9th Circuit affirmed the exclusion of a Christian group from using a public library because some aspects of the group's speech might be described as worship.
Panel member Lawrence Karlton, who was appointed judge by President Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago, ridiculed the Supreme Court by claiming there is a "sorry state of the law" in not censoring more religious speech (like "under God") and that he will "pray for the court's enlightenment" to rule further against religion.
That decision, including the ridicule, seemed perfect for the Supreme Court to overturn with a strong message to deter disrespectful lower courts, but it declined. A Supreme Court that hears only 75 cases a year and ducks the big ones cannot end the havoc wrought by more than 100 lower courts rendering perhaps 1,000 times as many decisions.
Luckily, a rare Supreme Court decision last term written by Justice Samuel Alito was used by an appellate court to dismiss a lawsuit against prayer in the Indiana legislature. Four months after Alito's decision dismissing on standing grounds a challenge to President Bush's faith-based programs, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied on it to dismiss a challenge to prayer in Indiana in Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Earlier, the 7th Circuit also dismissed on standing grounds an ACLU lawsuit attempting to stop the Boy Scouts of America from holding their jamboree on military property. Results in these cases point the way for Congress to save the Pledge of Allegiance: withdraw jurisdiction from the courts over acknowledgment-of-God cases by passing the We the People Act (H.R. 300.)
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 4 will again hear a challenge by Michael Newdow to the Pledge of Allegiance and its phrase "under God." Newdow won his prior lawsuit against the pledge until the Supreme Court, perhaps to avoid public outrage in the 2004 presidential election year, tossed out his case on a procedural technicality.
Newdow's first case caused a national uproar when he initially prevailed, but Congress failed to seize the day by withdrawing jurisdiction from the courts over this issue. Instead, Congress took away jurisdiction from courts over lawsuits against gun manufacturers and, at the urging of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., over lawsuits by environmentalists against clearing brush in South Dakota.
The 9th Circuit is notoriously hostile to religion, so it could give us another anti-pledge decision. Atheism has spread in influence to where it controls many federal courts, many public schools and now even Hollywood, with the atheistic movie "The Golden Compass" promoted for Christmastime entertainment.
Classical music with religious names was banned at graduation by Everett School District No. 2 in Washington state. The school ordered that only "secular" music would be allowed even though there were no lyrics or words spoken, and a federal court held against the students.
Judge Robert S. Lasnik, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1998, wrote the decision. Lasnik was the same judge who struck down a Washington state law banning video games that demonstrated how to kill policemen and wrote in his decision that violent video games are "as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature."
The intolerance of atheists and their allies has now placed the "best of" music off limits to public school performers. Goodbye to many of the great works of Bach, Haydn, Handel, Beethoven and Mozart.
It is not only courts on the West Coast that are promoting atheism. In New Jersey, an award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered in 2005 by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue.
This case illustrates how atheism in schools is often censorship in disguise. First the school district censored Borden from prayer with his players, and then censored even his silent gestures. He sued and the trial judge ruled in his favor. But school officials and their allies were relentless and have appealed.
These are not isolated cases: In Nevada, censors pulled the plug of the microphone in the middle of the high school valedictorian's speech when she mentioned her Christian faith; in Virginia, a high school removed from a bulletin board materials posted by a teacher, because they included reference to a day of prayer; in Chicago, a federal judge enjoined the state superintendent from enforcing a new law requiring a moment of silence in Illinois schools.
Atheism has been growing ever since the Supreme Court censored school prayer in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. That decision failed to cite a single precedent as authority.
The high court held decades ago that free speech includes prayer, yet lower courts continue to drive it from public places. In Faith Center v. Glover, the 9th Circuit affirmed the exclusion of a Christian group from using a public library because some aspects of the group's speech might be described as worship.
Panel member Lawrence Karlton, who was appointed judge by President Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago, ridiculed the Supreme Court by claiming there is a "sorry state of the law" in not censoring more religious speech (like "under God") and that he will "pray for the court's enlightenment" to rule further against religion.
That decision, including the ridicule, seemed perfect for the Supreme Court to overturn with a strong message to deter disrespectful lower courts, but it declined. A Supreme Court that hears only 75 cases a year and ducks the big ones cannot end the havoc wrought by more than 100 lower courts rendering perhaps 1,000 times as many decisions.
Luckily, a rare Supreme Court decision last term written by Justice Samuel Alito was used by an appellate court to dismiss a lawsuit against prayer in the Indiana legislature. Four months after Alito's decision dismissing on standing grounds a challenge to President Bush's faith-based programs, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied on it to dismiss a challenge to prayer in Indiana in Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Earlier, the 7th Circuit also dismissed on standing grounds an ACLU lawsuit attempting to stop the Boy Scouts of America from holding their jamboree on military property. Results in these cases point the way for Congress to save the Pledge of Allegiance: withdraw jurisdiction from the courts over acknowledgment-of-God cases by passing the We the People Act (H.R. 300.)
Clear Thinking Endangered
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Environment: A political appointee had the brass to question recommendations made on protected species habitats and gets the business from a Democratic congressman and the eco-left. How much room does a toad need anyway?
Rep. Nick Rahall II, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, complained Tuesday in a statement that Julie MacDonald, former deputy assistant interior secretary, "should never have been allowed near the endangered species program."
After all, as the Los Angeles Times said, MacDonald is nothing more than "a civil engineer from California with no formal training in natural sciences." Who is she to question the wisdom of scientists? Surely her role as Sacramento-area ranch owner disqualifies her.
What MacDonald did, according to Jamie Rappaport Clark, head of the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Clinton, was outside the boundaries of accepted behavior. Clark told the Times that in Washington it is not customary for political appointees to pressure career scientists working beneath them to change their findings.
MacDonald made a habit of questioning Interior Department scientists, a brazen act that has brought the wrath of Rahall and the environmental zealots.
Even Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists got involved. She said there are at least 30 cases "where we have evidence of interference" by MacDonald over the last seven years.
Grifo might be embellishing. The Fish and Wildlife Service is revising only seven of MacDonald's more than 200 decisions, including those made on the white-tailed prairie dog, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Hawaiian picture-wing flies and the Canada lynx.
It would be healthy to drop the pretense that government policy dealing with protected species and wildlife habitats has nothing to do with politics. It is as political as the tax code, driven by radical environmentalists and anti-capitalism groups that have found friends in the Democratic Party.
While science might have some grasp of what the future of a species might be, it is politics that ascribe the value to wildlife. And there is no question that the eco-left has been successful in government often valuing wildlife over man.
That's certainly the case with the arroyo toad and California's red-legged frog. Before MacDonald cut the toad's protected habitat to 12,000 acres, it was 478,000. Under MacDonald, the frog's protected area shrank to 450,000 acres from a whopping 4.1 million.
For a little perspective, the toad, called "hapless" in a ruling by John Roberts before he was chief justice of the Supreme Court, is two to three inches long. The frog, made famous by Mark Twain as "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County," is one and a half to five inches long.
Both are almost small enough to be trampled underfoot without the trampler's knowledge. Yet they've been favored over human activity on several occasions as developers have been sidelined by regulators.
While government protection of wildlife has done a good job of blocking human progress, it hasn't done much for the animals.
Of the 1,300 species that have been listed as endangered or threatened since the Endangered Species Act's birth in 1973, fewer than 30 have been delisted. Many of those are extinct despite the law; only a few have actually recovered.
But the law can't be changed. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell wrote a few years ago, "The ESA is the most sacred of the environmental movement's sacred cows."
Ebell noted that during the Clinton years, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt was in the habit of giving speeches and interviews "in which he said that the ESA was the translation into public policy of God's commandment in the Book of Genesis to Noah to save two of every species in the Ark. Anyone who wanted to reform the ESA, said Babbitt, was refusing to hear 'the command of our Creator.' "
Until the public gets fully educated about the ESA and environmental matters in general, it's going to be siding with the emotional hysterics of the Babbits rather than the cool rationality of the MacDonalds.
The Endangered Species Act will be saved, but endangered species won't. That should provide some important insight into just what the environmental movement has become.
Environment: A political appointee had the brass to question recommendations made on protected species habitats and gets the business from a Democratic congressman and the eco-left. How much room does a toad need anyway?
Rep. Nick Rahall II, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, complained Tuesday in a statement that Julie MacDonald, former deputy assistant interior secretary, "should never have been allowed near the endangered species program."
After all, as the Los Angeles Times said, MacDonald is nothing more than "a civil engineer from California with no formal training in natural sciences." Who is she to question the wisdom of scientists? Surely her role as Sacramento-area ranch owner disqualifies her.
What MacDonald did, according to Jamie Rappaport Clark, head of the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Clinton, was outside the boundaries of accepted behavior. Clark told the Times that in Washington it is not customary for political appointees to pressure career scientists working beneath them to change their findings.
MacDonald made a habit of questioning Interior Department scientists, a brazen act that has brought the wrath of Rahall and the environmental zealots.
Even Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists got involved. She said there are at least 30 cases "where we have evidence of interference" by MacDonald over the last seven years.
Grifo might be embellishing. The Fish and Wildlife Service is revising only seven of MacDonald's more than 200 decisions, including those made on the white-tailed prairie dog, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Hawaiian picture-wing flies and the Canada lynx.
It would be healthy to drop the pretense that government policy dealing with protected species and wildlife habitats has nothing to do with politics. It is as political as the tax code, driven by radical environmentalists and anti-capitalism groups that have found friends in the Democratic Party.
While science might have some grasp of what the future of a species might be, it is politics that ascribe the value to wildlife. And there is no question that the eco-left has been successful in government often valuing wildlife over man.
That's certainly the case with the arroyo toad and California's red-legged frog. Before MacDonald cut the toad's protected habitat to 12,000 acres, it was 478,000. Under MacDonald, the frog's protected area shrank to 450,000 acres from a whopping 4.1 million.
For a little perspective, the toad, called "hapless" in a ruling by John Roberts before he was chief justice of the Supreme Court, is two to three inches long. The frog, made famous by Mark Twain as "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County," is one and a half to five inches long.
Both are almost small enough to be trampled underfoot without the trampler's knowledge. Yet they've been favored over human activity on several occasions as developers have been sidelined by regulators.
While government protection of wildlife has done a good job of blocking human progress, it hasn't done much for the animals.
Of the 1,300 species that have been listed as endangered or threatened since the Endangered Species Act's birth in 1973, fewer than 30 have been delisted. Many of those are extinct despite the law; only a few have actually recovered.
But the law can't be changed. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell wrote a few years ago, "The ESA is the most sacred of the environmental movement's sacred cows."
Ebell noted that during the Clinton years, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt was in the habit of giving speeches and interviews "in which he said that the ESA was the translation into public policy of God's commandment in the Book of Genesis to Noah to save two of every species in the Ark. Anyone who wanted to reform the ESA, said Babbitt, was refusing to hear 'the command of our Creator.' "
Until the public gets fully educated about the ESA and environmental matters in general, it's going to be siding with the emotional hysterics of the Babbits rather than the cool rationality of the MacDonalds.
The Endangered Species Act will be saved, but endangered species won't. That should provide some important insight into just what the environmental movement has become.
Fly Fishing Forum
Everything you need to know and would like to discuss about fly fishing.
This is a massive forum for fans of the sport.
fish here for more information>>>
This is a massive forum for fans of the sport.
fish here for more information>>>
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Iraq's Other Bombs
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Hollywood: Are falling box-office receipts from anti-war offerings enough of a message for Hollywood's liberal filmmakers? Or is the industry so stuck in an anti-U.S. rut that not even money talks anymore?
Why doesn't Hollywood cut to the chase the next time it wants to insult the public with a new war-on-terror film and just call it "Bombs Away"? As movies depicting U.S. troops as bad guys and terrorists as sensitive, misunderstood souls continue to crank out, the industry needs to take its puny box office returns as a wake-up call from the public.
Despite top star billings, big-foot directors, the best publicity money can buy and critical acclaim, the public just isn't biting. The problem is the content.
"Redacted," gave us the Christmasy theme of Iraqi rape starring U.S. troops as rapists. It drew just $10,039 over the Thanksgiving weekend, according to BoxOfficeMojo, and $34,000 at its open.
Meanwhile "Rendition," which showed terrorists as pensive souls, bombed too. "A Mighty Heart," depicting terrorists' war on the West as "understandable," was a dud. "Syriana," portraying U.S. intelligence officers as crooks in bed with Big Oil, also fared poorly. "Lions For Lambs," a long anti-war monologue, bored people out of the Cineplex.
Critics say the lousy returns show the public is fatigued with the war. But name one film supportive of the U.S. war in Iraq, making heroes of the war's real heroes, such as our troops or even Iraq's democrats. Name one that portrays al-Qaida terrorists as the cold-blooded Islamofascist killers they really are.
The public isn't sated on good Iraq films; in reality, it's famished.
What's offered is an insult. Hollywood imagines it can educate the rubes in the heartland with its propaganda.
But the U.S. war effort is a vast enterprise that touches the lives of millions of moviegoers who know what's going on in Iraq. They're actually the experts. The public is not fooled by leftist propaganda.
What's more, good movies still make money. Disney's fun kid flick, "Enchanted," packed them in this weekend with $34.4 million in box office receipts. Not one anti-U.S. note in it.
Then there's the argument that Hollywood has gone global and anti-U.S. movies are just catering to world tastes. Really? Foreign box office sales account for only 15% of Hollywood's returns.
What's at stake is whether Hollywood really respects its audience. Unless it can shake its left-wing preachings, it's going to keep getting empty Christmas stockings from a disgusted public. Hollywood better start getting that straight.
Hollywood: Are falling box-office receipts from anti-war offerings enough of a message for Hollywood's liberal filmmakers? Or is the industry so stuck in an anti-U.S. rut that not even money talks anymore?
Why doesn't Hollywood cut to the chase the next time it wants to insult the public with a new war-on-terror film and just call it "Bombs Away"? As movies depicting U.S. troops as bad guys and terrorists as sensitive, misunderstood souls continue to crank out, the industry needs to take its puny box office returns as a wake-up call from the public.
Despite top star billings, big-foot directors, the best publicity money can buy and critical acclaim, the public just isn't biting. The problem is the content.
"Redacted," gave us the Christmasy theme of Iraqi rape starring U.S. troops as rapists. It drew just $10,039 over the Thanksgiving weekend, according to BoxOfficeMojo, and $34,000 at its open.
Meanwhile "Rendition," which showed terrorists as pensive souls, bombed too. "A Mighty Heart," depicting terrorists' war on the West as "understandable," was a dud. "Syriana," portraying U.S. intelligence officers as crooks in bed with Big Oil, also fared poorly. "Lions For Lambs," a long anti-war monologue, bored people out of the Cineplex.
Critics say the lousy returns show the public is fatigued with the war. But name one film supportive of the U.S. war in Iraq, making heroes of the war's real heroes, such as our troops or even Iraq's democrats. Name one that portrays al-Qaida terrorists as the cold-blooded Islamofascist killers they really are.
The public isn't sated on good Iraq films; in reality, it's famished.
What's offered is an insult. Hollywood imagines it can educate the rubes in the heartland with its propaganda.
But the U.S. war effort is a vast enterprise that touches the lives of millions of moviegoers who know what's going on in Iraq. They're actually the experts. The public is not fooled by leftist propaganda.
What's more, good movies still make money. Disney's fun kid flick, "Enchanted," packed them in this weekend with $34.4 million in box office receipts. Not one anti-U.S. note in it.
Then there's the argument that Hollywood has gone global and anti-U.S. movies are just catering to world tastes. Really? Foreign box office sales account for only 15% of Hollywood's returns.
What's at stake is whether Hollywood really respects its audience. Unless it can shake its left-wing preachings, it's going to keep getting empty Christmas stockings from a disgusted public. Hollywood better start getting that straight.
Global Warming Shakedown Begins
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Al Gore was smiling like the proverbial cat that ate the canary following his 45-minute talk Monday with President Bush. Does he know something about U.S. global warming policy we don't?
We hope that's not the case. The two men refused to talk about details of their conversation. But Bush is preparing for a global conference next week in Bali, Indonesia, and we'd like to think he isn't still swallowing Gore's line about taking drastic action to curb greenhouse gases.
"It was a private conversation," Gore said after the meeting. "Of course we talked about global warming . . . the whole time."
As news accounts note, Gore was instrumental as vice president in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord. But President Clinton never submitted the treaty to Congress, and Bush has steadfastly opposed costly green mandates in favor of voluntary caps on CO2 emissions.
So was Bush just being polite to his one-time political rival? Again, we hope so. But who can be sure in an atmosphere where the nonstop propaganda on global warming has become almost intolerable.
Just listen to the United Nations, which released a green-themed Human Development Report just one week before the Bali meeting. "Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation," the report says (according to Reuters), "climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible catastrophes."
If that sounds terrifying, it's meant to. But there isn't a shred of science to back it up — only spurious "models" based on an incomplete picture of how nature and the climate work.
If you don't believe us, just ask any of the politically hand-picked U.N. scientists who concocted these models if they can tell you, within one degree, what the temperature in your town will be one week from today — or one month. The answer will be no.
Yet we're expected to believe they can predict a rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — or higher — over the next century, unless we take immediate and dramatic action to halt it. By the way, over the last century, the world's climate warmed just 1.3 degrees.
Undeterred by the crumbling of the much-touted "scientific consensus," the U.N. is charging ahead, claiming the world has just 10 years to "fix" the climate — or face doomsday.
The claims are getting extreme, and bizarrely specific. The headline on one story about the report — "Poor In Need of Help From Global Warming" — sounds like the old joke about the New York Times: "World to End Friday: Women, Children Affected Most."
But it's no joke. And why would the U.N. say all this, if it isn't true?
In a word, money. The U.N. has bungled virtually every job it's been given — from peacekeeping in Africa to monitoring sanctions on Iraq. As an organization, it's rife with corruption and overpaid bureaucratic time-servers. They need a new mission, which always means American taxpayers will have to reach for their wallets.
Which explains why the "Development Report" can claim that floods, droughts and other climate-related disasters "could stall and then reverse human development," robbing millions of food, schools and even shelter — unless, that is, rich nations pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming.
Oh, and by the way, the U.N. says $40 billion of that will have to come from the U.S. Of course, the U.N. will oversee that money.
The U.N.'s shrill warnings have reached a hysteric pitch — the equivalent of shrieking "fire" in a packed theater on the theory there might be one in the future.
But what's really taking place is a massive shakedown in which our sympathies for the poor are being played while our pockets are being picked. The United Nations should be ashamed of itself.
Climate Change: Al Gore was smiling like the proverbial cat that ate the canary following his 45-minute talk Monday with President Bush. Does he know something about U.S. global warming policy we don't?
We hope that's not the case. The two men refused to talk about details of their conversation. But Bush is preparing for a global conference next week in Bali, Indonesia, and we'd like to think he isn't still swallowing Gore's line about taking drastic action to curb greenhouse gases.
"It was a private conversation," Gore said after the meeting. "Of course we talked about global warming . . . the whole time."
As news accounts note, Gore was instrumental as vice president in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord. But President Clinton never submitted the treaty to Congress, and Bush has steadfastly opposed costly green mandates in favor of voluntary caps on CO2 emissions.
So was Bush just being polite to his one-time political rival? Again, we hope so. But who can be sure in an atmosphere where the nonstop propaganda on global warming has become almost intolerable.
Just listen to the United Nations, which released a green-themed Human Development Report just one week before the Bali meeting. "Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation," the report says (according to Reuters), "climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible catastrophes."
If that sounds terrifying, it's meant to. But there isn't a shred of science to back it up — only spurious "models" based on an incomplete picture of how nature and the climate work.
If you don't believe us, just ask any of the politically hand-picked U.N. scientists who concocted these models if they can tell you, within one degree, what the temperature in your town will be one week from today — or one month. The answer will be no.
Yet we're expected to believe they can predict a rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — or higher — over the next century, unless we take immediate and dramatic action to halt it. By the way, over the last century, the world's climate warmed just 1.3 degrees.
Undeterred by the crumbling of the much-touted "scientific consensus," the U.N. is charging ahead, claiming the world has just 10 years to "fix" the climate — or face doomsday.
The claims are getting extreme, and bizarrely specific. The headline on one story about the report — "Poor In Need of Help From Global Warming" — sounds like the old joke about the New York Times: "World to End Friday: Women, Children Affected Most."
But it's no joke. And why would the U.N. say all this, if it isn't true?
In a word, money. The U.N. has bungled virtually every job it's been given — from peacekeeping in Africa to monitoring sanctions on Iraq. As an organization, it's rife with corruption and overpaid bureaucratic time-servers. They need a new mission, which always means American taxpayers will have to reach for their wallets.
Which explains why the "Development Report" can claim that floods, droughts and other climate-related disasters "could stall and then reverse human development," robbing millions of food, schools and even shelter — unless, that is, rich nations pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming.
Oh, and by the way, the U.N. says $40 billion of that will have to come from the U.S. Of course, the U.N. will oversee that money.
The U.N.'s shrill warnings have reached a hysteric pitch — the equivalent of shrieking "fire" in a packed theater on the theory there might be one in the future.
But what's really taking place is a massive shakedown in which our sympathies for the poor are being played while our pockets are being picked. The United Nations should be ashamed of itself.
The Other Surge
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Winning The War: The best measure of our success in Iraq is the results of the latest election — Iraqis voting with their feet. Some 4 million Iraqis who fled their homeland are returning in droves.
The improved safety and security in Baghdad, as well as in outlying provinces such as the former al-Qaida strongholds of Anbar and Diyala, may not have been acknowledged by Democrats in Congress. But Iraqis who fled their homes have taken note and are returning in numbers that are hard to keep track of.
Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the U.S.-Iraqi efforts to pacify Baghdad, said border crossings by returning refugees numbered 46,030 in October alone. He attributed the large numbers to the "improving security situation" resulting from the successful military surge orchestrated by Gen. David Petraeus.
"We are receiving tremendous numbers of displaced families at the borders of Syria and Jordan," says Maj. Gen. Mohsen Abdul Hassan, head of Iraq's department of border enforcement. "We have difficulties dealing with the large numbers. There are long lines of vehicles."
Convoys of Iraqis wanting to return and willing to drive themselves from Damascus to Baghdad are being organized by the Iraqi embassy in Damascus.
Syria has absorbed the lion's share of Iraqi refugees during the war. But the Times of London reports that as a result of the Iraqi return, "Saida Zaynab, the Damascus neighborhoods once dominated by many of the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees, is almost deserted. Apartment prices are plummeting and once-crowded shops and buses are half empty."
Hussein Ali Saleh, director of the National Theatre in Baghdad, stages plays for refugees in Damascus. He reports that the al-Najum theatre was filled with 400 Iraqis on an average night. Lately, barely 50 show up.
"In the last month, 60% of the Iraqis I know have returned," he told the Times. "The situation has changed completely. They all want to go back. Even my own family back in Baghdad is telling me the situation is much better."
"There is a large movement of people going back to Iraq. We are doing rapid research on this," added a spokesman for the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.
But no research is needed to confirm that the surge has worked. The Iraqi people feel safer than ever as al-Qaida is pushed out of Baghdad and outlying provinces, and the number of car bombings and civilian casualties has dropped sharply.
Even the New York Times, which like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had editorially proclaimed the war to be lost, reported Tuesday that people in Baghdad now move freely without fear, even at night. People feel free to move between Shiite and Sunni areas for everyday routines such as work, shopping and school.
Just six short months ago, the mostly Sunni neighborhood of Amariyah in western Baghdad was one of the centers of al-Qaida in Iraq operations. Some days there were as many as a dozen car bombings and shootings. Few walked the streets.
Today, as the Associated Press reports: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops." Women shop in its reopened stores, and men drink tea in sidewalk cafes.
Because we refused to leave, the Iraqi people are choosing to come home.
Winning The War: The best measure of our success in Iraq is the results of the latest election — Iraqis voting with their feet. Some 4 million Iraqis who fled their homeland are returning in droves.
The improved safety and security in Baghdad, as well as in outlying provinces such as the former al-Qaida strongholds of Anbar and Diyala, may not have been acknowledged by Democrats in Congress. But Iraqis who fled their homes have taken note and are returning in numbers that are hard to keep track of.
Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the U.S.-Iraqi efforts to pacify Baghdad, said border crossings by returning refugees numbered 46,030 in October alone. He attributed the large numbers to the "improving security situation" resulting from the successful military surge orchestrated by Gen. David Petraeus.
"We are receiving tremendous numbers of displaced families at the borders of Syria and Jordan," says Maj. Gen. Mohsen Abdul Hassan, head of Iraq's department of border enforcement. "We have difficulties dealing with the large numbers. There are long lines of vehicles."
Convoys of Iraqis wanting to return and willing to drive themselves from Damascus to Baghdad are being organized by the Iraqi embassy in Damascus.
Syria has absorbed the lion's share of Iraqi refugees during the war. But the Times of London reports that as a result of the Iraqi return, "Saida Zaynab, the Damascus neighborhoods once dominated by many of the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees, is almost deserted. Apartment prices are plummeting and once-crowded shops and buses are half empty."
Hussein Ali Saleh, director of the National Theatre in Baghdad, stages plays for refugees in Damascus. He reports that the al-Najum theatre was filled with 400 Iraqis on an average night. Lately, barely 50 show up.
"In the last month, 60% of the Iraqis I know have returned," he told the Times. "The situation has changed completely. They all want to go back. Even my own family back in Baghdad is telling me the situation is much better."
"There is a large movement of people going back to Iraq. We are doing rapid research on this," added a spokesman for the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.
But no research is needed to confirm that the surge has worked. The Iraqi people feel safer than ever as al-Qaida is pushed out of Baghdad and outlying provinces, and the number of car bombings and civilian casualties has dropped sharply.
Even the New York Times, which like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had editorially proclaimed the war to be lost, reported Tuesday that people in Baghdad now move freely without fear, even at night. People feel free to move between Shiite and Sunni areas for everyday routines such as work, shopping and school.
Just six short months ago, the mostly Sunni neighborhood of Amariyah in western Baghdad was one of the centers of al-Qaida in Iraq operations. Some days there were as many as a dozen car bombings and shootings. Few walked the streets.
Today, as the Associated Press reports: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops." Women shop in its reopened stores, and men drink tea in sidewalk cafes.
Because we refused to leave, the Iraqi people are choosing to come home.
Al-Qaida's Emerging Defeat
A youth raises his arms as he cycles with others during a bicycle race in Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad November 27, 2007. More than 100 youths participated during Tuesday's bicycle race, the first in Falluja, organized by the local police with the winner receiving $1000. REUTERS/Mohanned Faisal (IRAQ) By Austin Bay
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The evidence that al-Qaida has suffered a major strategic information defeat in Iraq continues to mount. StrategyPage.com noted on Oct. 27, 2005, that "the Moslem media is less and less willing to be an apologist for al-Qaida, at least when it comes to killing Moslem civilians" and that the Iraqi media in particular "really has it in for al-Qaida."
On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that "dead Iraqis were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes."
Within the last three months, the "trend" (made of incremental successes) has become "fact."
Is this victory in Iraq? No. But it suggests we've won a major battle with potentially global significance. What the Pentagon calls "the governmental (political participation and structure building), information (intel, media and political perception) and economic (economic development, infrastructure creation) lines of operation" will ultimately secure victory in Iraq, and these operations will take another six to eight years of effort.
As for the "security line of operation" (military), the U.S.-Iraqi "postwar relationships" discussion indicates both are preparing for "strategic overwatch," where U.S. "quick reaction" forces are positioned to help Iraq deter external (e.g., Iranian) threats. Strategic overwatch may be a couple of years away, say mid-to-late 2009. Achieving that would constitute a limited victory.
Could these positive trends reverse? Yes. Al-Qaida and Saddamist enemies will continue to test the will of Free Iraq and the United States. Harry Reid and his faction could quit and declare defeat. But I doubt that they will -- I very much doubt they will. ***
In responding to my column of Nov. 13, Tom Ricks at The Washington Post asked me to note his Oct. 15, 2007, article on al-Qaida's information warfare defeat. And a fine report it is.
Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The evidence that al-Qaida has suffered a major strategic information defeat in Iraq continues to mount. StrategyPage.com noted on Oct. 27, 2005, that "the Moslem media is less and less willing to be an apologist for al-Qaida, at least when it comes to killing Moslem civilians" and that the Iraqi media in particular "really has it in for al-Qaida."
On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that "dead Iraqis were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes."
Within the last three months, the "trend" (made of incremental successes) has become "fact."
Is this victory in Iraq? No. But it suggests we've won a major battle with potentially global significance. What the Pentagon calls "the governmental (political participation and structure building), information (intel, media and political perception) and economic (economic development, infrastructure creation) lines of operation" will ultimately secure victory in Iraq, and these operations will take another six to eight years of effort.
As for the "security line of operation" (military), the U.S.-Iraqi "postwar relationships" discussion indicates both are preparing for "strategic overwatch," where U.S. "quick reaction" forces are positioned to help Iraq deter external (e.g., Iranian) threats. Strategic overwatch may be a couple of years away, say mid-to-late 2009. Achieving that would constitute a limited victory.
Could these positive trends reverse? Yes. Al-Qaida and Saddamist enemies will continue to test the will of Free Iraq and the United States. Harry Reid and his faction could quit and declare defeat. But I doubt that they will -- I very much doubt they will. ***
In responding to my column of Nov. 13, Tom Ricks at The Washington Post asked me to note his Oct. 15, 2007, article on al-Qaida's information warfare defeat. And a fine report it is.
Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
Scribblers Practice Paper
Here at Scribblers (based in the UK) we stock a wide range of calligraphy supplies to meet all your calligraphy needs. We sell many types of calligraphy nibs, calligraphy pens and calligraphy sets. Our ranges of calligraphy inks include iron gall Ink, and a wide range of coloured inks and fountain pen inks. Our gilding supplies include gilding materials such as gold leaf and gold size as well as a range gilding equipment. We also stock Chinese calligraphy materials from rice paper to ink sticks and brushes.
The Calligraphy Gallery enables calligraphers to sell their work by creating and maintaining their own online calligraphy gallery.
We offer calligraphy courses which are written and marked by a professional scribe.
learn more>>>
The Calligraphy Gallery enables calligraphers to sell their work by creating and maintaining their own online calligraphy gallery.
We offer calligraphy courses which are written and marked by a professional scribe.
learn more>>>
Learn Calligraphy
Calligraphy - Learn the art of Calligraphy. How to letter alphabets such as blackletter, italic, round hand and uncial.
How to hold and use the calligraphy pen and how to decorate and plan your work.
Discover the History of Writing and how lettering developed, from cave paintings and Egyptian hieroglyphs to the present day Roman alphabet.
Shop for Calligraphy books, pens, inks, paper and accessories.Calligraphy - from ‘Kallos Graphe’ (Greek) meaning Beautiful Writing.
Why not start exploring your family history? Your calligraphy skills will be an ideal way to present your family tree.
Abebooks
Abebooks is the world's largest online marketplace for used, rare, and out-of-print books.
"Abebooks connects those who buy books with those who sell them, providing abundant selection at affordable prices.
Every day, thousands of people find books they want on Abebooks."
and click here to find your book>>>
"Abebooks connects those who buy books with those who sell them, providing abundant selection at affordable prices.
Every day, thousands of people find books they want on Abebooks."
and click here to find your book>>>
Church Bulletin Bloopers
They're Back! Those wonderful Church Bulletins! Thank God for church ladies with typewriters. These sentences ( with all the BLOOPERS ) actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services:
--------------------------
The Fasting & Prayer Conference includes meals.
--------------------------
The sermon this morning: "Jesus Walks on the Water." The sermon tonight: "Searching for Jesus."
--------------------------
Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale. It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Bring your husbands.
--------------------------
Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say "Hell" to someone who doesn't care much about you.
--------------------------
Don't let worry kill you off - let the Church help.
--------------------------
Miss Charlene Mason sang "I will not pass this way again," giving obvious pleasure to the congregation.
--------------------------
For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.
--------------------------
Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they can get.
--------------------------
Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the church.
So ends a friendship that began in their school days.
--------------------------
A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow.
--------------------------
At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be "What Is Hell?"
Come early and listen to our choir practice.
--------------------------
Eight new choir robes are currently needed due to the addition of several new members and to the deterioration of some older ones.
--------------------------
Scouts are saving aluminum cans, bottles and other items to be recycled. Proceeds will be used to cripple children.
--------------------------
Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased person you want remembered.
--------------------------
The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment and gracious hostility.
--------------------------
Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.
--------------------------
The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.
--------------------------
This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.
--------------------------
Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 AM. All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B. S. is done.
--------------------------
The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the Congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday.
--------------------------
Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM. Please use the back door.
------------------------
The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the Church basement Friday at 7 PM. The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.
--------------------------
Weight Watchers will meet at 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church.
Please use large double door at the side entrance.
--------------------------
The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new campaign slogan last
Sunday: "I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours "
--------------------------
The Fasting & Prayer Conference includes meals.
--------------------------
The sermon this morning: "Jesus Walks on the Water." The sermon tonight: "Searching for Jesus."
--------------------------
Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale. It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Bring your husbands.
--------------------------
Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say "Hell" to someone who doesn't care much about you.
--------------------------
Don't let worry kill you off - let the Church help.
--------------------------
Miss Charlene Mason sang "I will not pass this way again," giving obvious pleasure to the congregation.
--------------------------
For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.
--------------------------
Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they can get.
--------------------------
Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the church.
So ends a friendship that began in their school days.
--------------------------
A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow.
--------------------------
At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be "What Is Hell?"
Come early and listen to our choir practice.
--------------------------
Eight new choir robes are currently needed due to the addition of several new members and to the deterioration of some older ones.
--------------------------
Scouts are saving aluminum cans, bottles and other items to be recycled. Proceeds will be used to cripple children.
--------------------------
Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased person you want remembered.
--------------------------
The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment and gracious hostility.
--------------------------
Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.
--------------------------
The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.
--------------------------
This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.
--------------------------
Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 AM. All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B. S. is done.
--------------------------
The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the Congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday.
--------------------------
Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM. Please use the back door.
------------------------
The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the Church basement Friday at 7 PM. The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.
--------------------------
Weight Watchers will meet at 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church.
Please use large double door at the side entrance.
--------------------------
The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new campaign slogan last
Sunday: "I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours "
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Saudi Insurgency
This is a very important article--be sure to read and share. mc
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: New U.S. military data show, conclusively, that Saudi Arabia more than any other foreign state (Iran included) has fed the insurgency in Iraq. The double cross goes on.
Over the past 12 months, Saudi Arabia accounted for the largest number of foreign fighters joining al-Qaida in Iraq. The kingdom supplied 305 jihadists and suicide bombers in that period, according to a trove of documents U.S. forces recovered in a recent border raid.
Only 11 Iranian nationals, in contrast, are in U.S. custody. This fits with earlier reporting that 61% of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi nationals.
The confiscated documents list the hometowns of the jihadists. The lion's share hail from Riyadh, where the Saudi government insists sending fighters next door to join the insurgency is not official kingdom policy.
Yet Saudi clerics have freely exhorted the faithful to go to Iraq to kill the "infidels" and resist the "American occupation." The most famous fatwah was signed by 26 senior Saudi clerics in November 2004.
Perhaps all this is being done behind the king's back. More likely it was with a wink and a nod from him, for it was King Abdullah who earlier this year in a speech to fellow Arabs hit on the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq.
Saudi also has trucked in millions in cash to Iraq to fund the insurgency, a role confirmed by the Iraq Study Group in a throw-away line buried deep inside its report. "Funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia," the report said.
Meanwhile, Riyadh just released some 1,500 jailed terrorist suspects after they "repented." That's on top of the dozens of al-Qaida detainees the Saudi government freed after we agreed to return them to Saudi custody from Gitmo. Some of them have rejoined the jihad against the West. No doubt the 1,500 supposed repenters will soon see action in Iraq, as well.
Again, besides the Baathists and other Iraqi nationalists, the No. 1 killer of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are Saudi nationals.
More than Iran, more than Syria, more than any other outside enemy, our supposed "ally" Saudi Arabia is responsible for destabilizing Iraq.
So why hasn't the administration held a press conference to denounce Saudi?
Why aren't we threatening sanctions, or at least canceling the additional 20,000 student visas we promised Riyadh for allegedly helping us "crack down" on terrorism. Forget about Iraq, those thousands of young Saudi men could just as easily infiltrate the U.S. homeland as jihadi fighters.
Why in the world are we rewarding the Saudis with a $20 bil arms package? Or training Saudis in counterterrorism tactics at the defense labs in New Mexico, when they can go right back home and use them against our soldiers in Iraq?
The administration must do more to protect our troops in Iraq. They aren't just threatened by Iran, but also our supposed ally, Saudi Arabia. It can no longer turn a blind eye to the kingdom's underhanded role there.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: New U.S. military data show, conclusively, that Saudi Arabia more than any other foreign state (Iran included) has fed the insurgency in Iraq. The double cross goes on.
Over the past 12 months, Saudi Arabia accounted for the largest number of foreign fighters joining al-Qaida in Iraq. The kingdom supplied 305 jihadists and suicide bombers in that period, according to a trove of documents U.S. forces recovered in a recent border raid.
Only 11 Iranian nationals, in contrast, are in U.S. custody. This fits with earlier reporting that 61% of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi nationals.
The confiscated documents list the hometowns of the jihadists. The lion's share hail from Riyadh, where the Saudi government insists sending fighters next door to join the insurgency is not official kingdom policy.
Yet Saudi clerics have freely exhorted the faithful to go to Iraq to kill the "infidels" and resist the "American occupation." The most famous fatwah was signed by 26 senior Saudi clerics in November 2004.
Perhaps all this is being done behind the king's back. More likely it was with a wink and a nod from him, for it was King Abdullah who earlier this year in a speech to fellow Arabs hit on the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq.
Saudi also has trucked in millions in cash to Iraq to fund the insurgency, a role confirmed by the Iraq Study Group in a throw-away line buried deep inside its report. "Funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia," the report said.
Meanwhile, Riyadh just released some 1,500 jailed terrorist suspects after they "repented." That's on top of the dozens of al-Qaida detainees the Saudi government freed after we agreed to return them to Saudi custody from Gitmo. Some of them have rejoined the jihad against the West. No doubt the 1,500 supposed repenters will soon see action in Iraq, as well.
Again, besides the Baathists and other Iraqi nationalists, the No. 1 killer of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are Saudi nationals.
More than Iran, more than Syria, more than any other outside enemy, our supposed "ally" Saudi Arabia is responsible for destabilizing Iraq.
So why hasn't the administration held a press conference to denounce Saudi?
Why aren't we threatening sanctions, or at least canceling the additional 20,000 student visas we promised Riyadh for allegedly helping us "crack down" on terrorism. Forget about Iraq, those thousands of young Saudi men could just as easily infiltrate the U.S. homeland as jihadi fighters.
Why in the world are we rewarding the Saudis with a $20 bil arms package? Or training Saudis in counterterrorism tactics at the defense labs in New Mexico, when they can go right back home and use them against our soldiers in Iraq?
The administration must do more to protect our troops in Iraq. They aren't just threatened by Iran, but also our supposed ally, Saudi Arabia. It can no longer turn a blind eye to the kingdom's underhanded role there.
21st-Century Reaganism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Presidential Race: The war for the soul of the Republican Party was won in 1980 by Ronald Reagan. Presidential candidates who want to re-wage the conflict in 2008 will only weaken the GOP against the Democrats' nominee.
In the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate and a Jimmy Carter presidency that rendered America an economic and foreign policy basket case, Republicans discovered a tried-and-true recipe for electoral success.
They would stand for three sets of principles:
• Lowering high taxes and stemming the growth of government in order to revive the private economy, lower inflation and interest rates, and generate jobs.
• Rebuilding U.S. defenses and unashamedly confronting Soviet expansionism with the goal of winning the Cold War rather than learning to live with communism.
• Reasserting traditional values in the aftermath of the 1960s social revolution, including opposing abortion and smut, especially through the appointment of federal judges holding strict-constructionist views.
Overnight, the GOP was transformed. Losing the 1976 election with Gerald Ford as its standard bearer, it was a scandal-plagued "dime store Democrat" party, backing detente with an ever-more-aggressive Russia, imposing wage and price controls, and appointing to the Supreme Court liberals such as Roe v. Wade author Harry Blackmun and the high court's current most left-leaning member, John Paul Stevens.
Under candidate Reagan in 1980, it suddenly represented a vast cross-section of the country:
• Beleaguered businesses, big and small alike (and those they employ).
• Voters who feared the geopolitical consequences if America didn't soon take the "kick me" sign off its back, as the late Jeane Kirkpatrick so eloquently put it.
•The legions of Catholics, evangelicals and others who deplored America's sinking into a Hollywood-inspired moral sewer.
More than a quarter-century later, sustaining the Reagan coalition remains the recipe for Republican victory in a national election.
The candidate most likely to energize all the segments of the Republican grass roots against a Democratic opponent next year is one committed to making the Bush tax cuts permanent and fixing the entitlement spending crisis with free-market solutions, who insists on winning in Iraq and clearly sees Iran for the nuclear threat it is, and who would reverse the radical ACLU mentality on the federal bench.
Yet most of the GOP presidential hopefuls have refused to act as across-the-board Reaganites. There would be nothing, for instance, to stop a one-time Southern Baptist minister from claiming the mantle of Reaganism. But erstwhile man of the cloth and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose appeal among evangelicals has raised him to within striking distance in Iowa, has continually attacked the Club for Growth, a major champion of conservative economic policies, as the "Club for Greed."
Calling capitalists Scrooges is straight out of the liberal Democratic playbook. A more helpful retort from Huckabee would be to address the Club's concerns about his approving an income-tax surcharge in Little Rock.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has managed to gain the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee (a key stamp of approval from social conservatives) while at the same time espousing the boldest of economic solutions on both Social Security and tax reform.
Thompson would solve Social Security's insolvency by giving Americans voluntary control of their own personal retirement accounts. He'd keep the Bush tax cuts, and he announced last weekend that he'd let taxpayers choose between the present, complex tax code and a simplified system with only two rates: 10% and 25%.
The movie star politician also proposes a Reaganesque rebuilding of our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
The Republicans running for the 2008 presidential nomination are often accused of being unconvincing actors in repeatedly invoking the name of Ronald Reagan. Funny how the one real actor among them seems to understand what Reaganism is.
Presidential Race: The war for the soul of the Republican Party was won in 1980 by Ronald Reagan. Presidential candidates who want to re-wage the conflict in 2008 will only weaken the GOP against the Democrats' nominee.
In the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate and a Jimmy Carter presidency that rendered America an economic and foreign policy basket case, Republicans discovered a tried-and-true recipe for electoral success.
They would stand for three sets of principles:
• Lowering high taxes and stemming the growth of government in order to revive the private economy, lower inflation and interest rates, and generate jobs.
• Rebuilding U.S. defenses and unashamedly confronting Soviet expansionism with the goal of winning the Cold War rather than learning to live with communism.
• Reasserting traditional values in the aftermath of the 1960s social revolution, including opposing abortion and smut, especially through the appointment of federal judges holding strict-constructionist views.
Overnight, the GOP was transformed. Losing the 1976 election with Gerald Ford as its standard bearer, it was a scandal-plagued "dime store Democrat" party, backing detente with an ever-more-aggressive Russia, imposing wage and price controls, and appointing to the Supreme Court liberals such as Roe v. Wade author Harry Blackmun and the high court's current most left-leaning member, John Paul Stevens.
Under candidate Reagan in 1980, it suddenly represented a vast cross-section of the country:
• Beleaguered businesses, big and small alike (and those they employ).
• Voters who feared the geopolitical consequences if America didn't soon take the "kick me" sign off its back, as the late Jeane Kirkpatrick so eloquently put it.
•The legions of Catholics, evangelicals and others who deplored America's sinking into a Hollywood-inspired moral sewer.
More than a quarter-century later, sustaining the Reagan coalition remains the recipe for Republican victory in a national election.
The candidate most likely to energize all the segments of the Republican grass roots against a Democratic opponent next year is one committed to making the Bush tax cuts permanent and fixing the entitlement spending crisis with free-market solutions, who insists on winning in Iraq and clearly sees Iran for the nuclear threat it is, and who would reverse the radical ACLU mentality on the federal bench.
Yet most of the GOP presidential hopefuls have refused to act as across-the-board Reaganites. There would be nothing, for instance, to stop a one-time Southern Baptist minister from claiming the mantle of Reaganism. But erstwhile man of the cloth and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose appeal among evangelicals has raised him to within striking distance in Iowa, has continually attacked the Club for Growth, a major champion of conservative economic policies, as the "Club for Greed."
Calling capitalists Scrooges is straight out of the liberal Democratic playbook. A more helpful retort from Huckabee would be to address the Club's concerns about his approving an income-tax surcharge in Little Rock.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has managed to gain the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee (a key stamp of approval from social conservatives) while at the same time espousing the boldest of economic solutions on both Social Security and tax reform.
Thompson would solve Social Security's insolvency by giving Americans voluntary control of their own personal retirement accounts. He'd keep the Bush tax cuts, and he announced last weekend that he'd let taxpayers choose between the present, complex tax code and a simplified system with only two rates: 10% and 25%.
The movie star politician also proposes a Reaganesque rebuilding of our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
The Republicans running for the 2008 presidential nomination are often accused of being unconvincing actors in repeatedly invoking the name of Ronald Reagan. Funny how the one real actor among them seems to understand what Reaganism is.
See America from H.H.H. #26 Iowa 80 Truck Stop
This is the 5th part of our forth video of our first taped trip and is # 26 Overall. It was the first trip of the summer, and we left Ontario California headed for Chicago and then on to Garden City NY (NYC). After a few days off, we are now heading back west, but up to the Northwest. We are hauling a load of hanging garments to Tukwila WA. In this segment we visit Iowa 80 Truck Stop in Walcott Iowa. Our favorite Truck Stop and now the biggest in the World. There was so much to film from this summer Adventure that there will be several more segments
http://www.truckreststops.com/
http://www.truckreststops.com/
Car Domain
"Its a car site that shows cars, and how they have been modified, and are a very helpful item for when you are working on your car.
It is a very popular site.
Its a site that people from the age of 16-60 would like!"
like more here>>>
It is a very popular site.
Its a site that people from the age of 16-60 would like!"
like more here>>>
Monday, November 26, 2007
All About Chocolate
Chicago's Field Museum presents this overview of Chocolate from the ground up.
This is a companion to their Chocolate exhibit.
taste more here>>>
This is a companion to their Chocolate exhibit.
taste more here>>>
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Board Games Sites
1. http://jergames.blogspot.com/
2 http://ekted.blogspot.com/
3. http://boredgamegeeks.blogspot.com/
I trust you will enjoy these sites, I did. mc
2 http://ekted.blogspot.com/
3. http://boredgamegeeks.blogspot.com/
I trust you will enjoy these sites, I did. mc
Men Seeking Women
Marry an Ugly Millionaire Dating Agency
Men seeking women.
Profile of the millionaire
Name Saddman Hussinsane
Men seeking women.
Profile of the millionaire
Name Saddman Hussinsane
Age Unknown
Location Iraq
Occupation Builder of a new free world. (Temporarily Unemployed)
Wealth 8.5 trillion iraqi dinar
Source of wealth I single-handedly liberated my beloved country from the hands of the pig imbeciles of America, United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Virgin Islands, Cuba, Russia and several hundred other counties. In their humble gratefulness my beloved people (may ALLAH protect them) gave me all their money, all their women, all their children all their possessions and all the things they did not possess.
Interests
I am a natural leader of men (and women provided the completely cover themselves in black garments). At present I am unable to lead my beloved Country (may ALLAH protect it) as I am otherwise detained with personal business - but I will rise to power again and rule the entire world - even that cute little country Tuvalu (may ALLAH protect it).
Likes Weapons of Mass Destruction and ball point pens.
Dislikes All Americans
Profile of the ideal partner
Age Must be 18 -30.
Looks Fabulously sexy when completely covered in black robes.
Personality Freedom fighter
Must Be able to plan escapes from high security prisons.
Must not Be American, English, Scottish, French, Welsh, Belgian, Norwegian, Bulgarian, Swahili, Swedish . . .
Intentions
I wish to marry as soon as possible and have dozens of children who will help me in my impending rise to world leader.
Andrew Jackson's Winning Battle For His Country
Michael Mink
Wed Nov 21, 5:33 PM ET
Andrew Jackson was never one to cut and run.
He displayed that steadfastness to his country as its seventh president and to his men as their general during the War of 1812.
Jackson (1767-1845) was the first self-made man to reach the presidency and, when he left office in 1837, the most popular one since George Washington. Part of his populist appeal was his patriotism.
"(Jackson) was the most American of Americans -- an embodied Declaration of Independence -- the Fourth of July incarnate," historian James Parton said in "Andrew Jackson," by Herman Viola.
Jackson's dedication to the nation showed early. As a 13-year-old, he and his brother volunteered to fight in the Revolutionary War. They were given jobs as messengers and taken as prisoners by the British before the boys' mother secured their release. He would proudly recall his role in the war the rest of his life.
While America won its independence during the Revolution, it would take the War of 1812 to win the respect of the British and serve notice that the U.S. wasn't a temporary condition. The war started, among other reasons, because Great Britain pirated American ships, hijacked American sailors into conscription to the king and encouraged Indians to attack American settlers. Also, Britain was allied with Spain, which controlled large parts of southeastern America.
Jackson, a successful lawyer, judge and businessman who was elected a U.S. congressman and senator, became a major general in the Tennessee militia in 1802. When the War of 1812 began, he was eager to fight for his country.
His first assignment was to take 2,500 volunteer militiamen to Natchez, Miss. On March 15, 1813, the war secretary ordered Jackson to disband his hungry, cold and poorly supplied men. Jackson refused to abandon them. "These brave men deserve a better fate and return from their government," he wrote. "At the call of their country they voluntarily rallied round its insulted standard. They followed me to the field. I shall carefully march them back to their homes."
Jackson paid for the needed supplies himself and marched his men home. His toughness earned him his nickname, Old Hickory, after the strongest of woods.
As the war continued, Jackson put down Indian attacks encouraged by Spain. He understood the value of quick action. When he learned of a British plan to invade through the Gulf of Mexico, he urged President Madison to let him counter. Madison hesitated, worried about the implication of invading Spanish territory. Jackson figured something had to be done, and fast. So he led troops to invade Pensacola, Fla., in November 1814. He secured the surrender of the city and several forts, which kept out the British, Creek and Seminole who were planning to fight.
Jackson had followed his own mantra: "One man with courage makes a majority."
In December 1814, Jackson and his troops marched into New Orleans. He imposed martial law on the city and readied for a fight against 3,500 British troops. Jackson's troops were untrained farmers, riflemen and Indians. Aware that they'd be outnumbered, he went to the pirate Jean Lafitte and bargained for supplies and soldiers as backup.
Figuring the element of surprise would aid his troops, Jackson fought a guerrilla-style war in the swamps around New Orleans. By January 1815, the British army was retreating. In February, word came that the Treaty of Ghent was signed and the War of 1812 was over.
"Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms," Jackson said of his philosophy on war.
Jackson's boldness made him a national hero. His populism helped him win the presidency in 1828.
"The people expect reform. ... They shall not be disappointed," Jackson said at the beginning of his presidency, according to Jackson expert Robert Remini in "The Life of Andrew Jackson."
Jackson had a method for decision-making: He'd listen, consider what was said, then act. "I have accustomed myself to receive with respect the opinions of others, but always take the responsibility for deciding for myself," he said.
Jackson changed the nature of the presidency. Rather than wait for Congress to send him legislation, he initiated bills. He popularized the veto. Jackson also headed off a potential civil war over a tariff issue that pitted North vs. South.
"Without Union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved; without Union they can never be maintained," he said.
"I regard Jackson's unquenchable love of the Union and his unshakable trust in democracy as the most admirable things about him and his great legacy," Remini wrote.
Jackson entered the White House without his beloved wife, Rachel, who had died a few months before. Yet his family dedication continued.
Jackson and his wife had adopted two boys and cared for other people's children at his plantation, the Hermitage, in Tennessee. One of his sons, Lyncoya, was adopted as a 10-month-old. He'd been found clutching his dead Creek Indian mother on a Florida battlefield. After the baby was rejected by women of his tribe, Jackson brought him up as his own.
This story originally ran Dec. 3, 2004, on Leaders & Success.
Wed Nov 21, 5:33 PM ET
Andrew Jackson was never one to cut and run.
He displayed that steadfastness to his country as its seventh president and to his men as their general during the War of 1812.
Jackson (1767-1845) was the first self-made man to reach the presidency and, when he left office in 1837, the most popular one since George Washington. Part of his populist appeal was his patriotism.
"(Jackson) was the most American of Americans -- an embodied Declaration of Independence -- the Fourth of July incarnate," historian James Parton said in "Andrew Jackson," by Herman Viola.
Jackson's dedication to the nation showed early. As a 13-year-old, he and his brother volunteered to fight in the Revolutionary War. They were given jobs as messengers and taken as prisoners by the British before the boys' mother secured their release. He would proudly recall his role in the war the rest of his life.
While America won its independence during the Revolution, it would take the War of 1812 to win the respect of the British and serve notice that the U.S. wasn't a temporary condition. The war started, among other reasons, because Great Britain pirated American ships, hijacked American sailors into conscription to the king and encouraged Indians to attack American settlers. Also, Britain was allied with Spain, which controlled large parts of southeastern America.
Jackson, a successful lawyer, judge and businessman who was elected a U.S. congressman and senator, became a major general in the Tennessee militia in 1802. When the War of 1812 began, he was eager to fight for his country.
His first assignment was to take 2,500 volunteer militiamen to Natchez, Miss. On March 15, 1813, the war secretary ordered Jackson to disband his hungry, cold and poorly supplied men. Jackson refused to abandon them. "These brave men deserve a better fate and return from their government," he wrote. "At the call of their country they voluntarily rallied round its insulted standard. They followed me to the field. I shall carefully march them back to their homes."
Jackson paid for the needed supplies himself and marched his men home. His toughness earned him his nickname, Old Hickory, after the strongest of woods.
As the war continued, Jackson put down Indian attacks encouraged by Spain. He understood the value of quick action. When he learned of a British plan to invade through the Gulf of Mexico, he urged President Madison to let him counter. Madison hesitated, worried about the implication of invading Spanish territory. Jackson figured something had to be done, and fast. So he led troops to invade Pensacola, Fla., in November 1814. He secured the surrender of the city and several forts, which kept out the British, Creek and Seminole who were planning to fight.
Jackson had followed his own mantra: "One man with courage makes a majority."
In December 1814, Jackson and his troops marched into New Orleans. He imposed martial law on the city and readied for a fight against 3,500 British troops. Jackson's troops were untrained farmers, riflemen and Indians. Aware that they'd be outnumbered, he went to the pirate Jean Lafitte and bargained for supplies and soldiers as backup.
Figuring the element of surprise would aid his troops, Jackson fought a guerrilla-style war in the swamps around New Orleans. By January 1815, the British army was retreating. In February, word came that the Treaty of Ghent was signed and the War of 1812 was over.
"Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms," Jackson said of his philosophy on war.
Jackson's boldness made him a national hero. His populism helped him win the presidency in 1828.
"The people expect reform. ... They shall not be disappointed," Jackson said at the beginning of his presidency, according to Jackson expert Robert Remini in "The Life of Andrew Jackson."
Jackson had a method for decision-making: He'd listen, consider what was said, then act. "I have accustomed myself to receive with respect the opinions of others, but always take the responsibility for deciding for myself," he said.
Jackson changed the nature of the presidency. Rather than wait for Congress to send him legislation, he initiated bills. He popularized the veto. Jackson also headed off a potential civil war over a tariff issue that pitted North vs. South.
"Without Union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved; without Union they can never be maintained," he said.
"I regard Jackson's unquenchable love of the Union and his unshakable trust in democracy as the most admirable things about him and his great legacy," Remini wrote.
Jackson entered the White House without his beloved wife, Rachel, who had died a few months before. Yet his family dedication continued.
Jackson and his wife had adopted two boys and cared for other people's children at his plantation, the Hermitage, in Tennessee. One of his sons, Lyncoya, was adopted as a 10-month-old. He'd been found clutching his dead Creek Indian mother on a Florida battlefield. After the baby was rejected by women of his tribe, Jackson brought him up as his own.
This story originally ran Dec. 3, 2004, on Leaders & Success.
Trouble at Sea: Free-Agent Doctors
By STEPHANIE CHEN
October 24, 2007; Page D1
See Corrections & Amplifications item below.
In October 2005, during her 37th wedding anniversary cruise aboard Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s Legend of the Seas, Janice Sullivan slipped and hit her head on a buffet table, briefly knocking her unconscious.
The ship doctor gave the 60-year-old Cape Coral, Fla., retiree an over-the-counter pain reliever, but didn't scan or X-ray her head despite continuing pain over the next several days, according to Mrs. Sullivan. After she got home, Mrs. Sullivan went to an emergency room, where a neurologist found a blood clot. Concerned it could cause a stroke, he performed invasive brain surgery.
But Mrs. Sullivan had a surprise in store when she sued the cruise line and the ship doctor: Most ship doctors, despite typically wearing a crew uniform, are classified as independent contractors. And cruise companies contend they are no more liable for the doctors' competence than a landlord who rents office space to a physician on land.
That's also a likely surprise to many of the millions of cruise passengers who will board ships during the coming peak cool-weather season in the Caribbean. In the eyes of many, the ship doctor is an integral part of the crew, like actor Bernie Kopell's amorous Dr. Adam "Doc" Bricker on the long-running television show "The Love Boat."
In her suit, Mrs. Sullivan contended she was injured as a result of negligence on the part of the cruise line and the physician who treated her. The company declined to comment on the case. Royal Caribbean -- like most cruise lines -- says it can't be held liable in court since the doctor is not its employee. The Wall Street Journal was unable to locate the doctor, who Mrs. Sullivan's lawyer says is Swedish-born. Royal Caribbean wouldn't provide contact information for the physician or attorneys representing him.
Mrs. Sullivan's suit was one of at least 40 medical-malpractice cases filed over the past decade against Florida cruise companies by passengers alleging that they were hurt as a result of poor medical care at sea, or that ship doctors made other injuries suffered on the ship worse, according to maritime lawyers in South Florida.
Nearly all of those lawsuits have been dismissed or floundered in the courts because of a little-understood aspect of U.S. law. Under legal rulings going back to a landmark case in 1823, the owners of ships are considered responsible for the health care provided to members of their crew, but not for medical services provided to passengers.
Sometimes the quality of services has been questioned. In the 1990s, the American Medical Association raised concerns about onboard medical treatment and two Florida doctors issued a study of ship physicians. The study found that half of doctors surveyed weren't certified in trauma life support and that ships lacked crucial equipment, such as X-ray machines and external pacemakers -- machines that help restore the heart's natural rhythm. Cruise companies say they have improved the quality of care since then.
Cruise companies say it would be unfair to hold them responsible for treatment provided by the medical professionals because they don't oversee a doctor or nurse's medical training and certification. Some of the companies say they include a warning clause to that effect on passengers' tickets.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court bolstered that position further, declining to hear an appeal in a medical injury lawsuit that had been winding through Florida and federal courts for nearly a decade. In that case, a then 14-year-old girl's abdominal pains were misdiagnosed as the flu during a trip on Carnival Corp.'s Carnival Cruise Lines' Ecstasy in 1997. Doctors at an emergency room later found that Elizabeth Carlisle's appendix ruptured. The injury rendered her sterile.
In a lawsuit, the Carlisle family argued that the physician was part of the ship's staff, making the cruise line responsible. In court, Carnival said the physician wasn't an employee and it bore no responsibility. The Italian doctor was initially named as a defendant but later dropped because attorneys said they couldn't locate him. He also couldn't be reached for comment by the Journal, or a private investigator hired by the family. Carnival declined to comment.
In 2003, a Florida court of appeals sided with the family, saying Carnival owed passengers "reasonable care." In February, the Florida Supreme Court reversed that ruling, affirming that doctors are independent contractors and that cruise lines are not "vicariously liable ... for the negligence of the shipboard physician." The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal upheld the ruling in favor of Carnival. The Carlisles say they intend to continue pursuing other aspects of the case.
Yesterday, lawyers for Mrs. Sullivan said they were dropping the physician from her case based on the U.S. Supreme Court results in the Carlisle case. The case against Royal Caribbean is still pending.
Locating ship physicians in the aftermath of an incident is a common problem for passengers who believe they've been injured onboard. Foreign doctors often return to their home countries, and malpractice cases involving treatment outside the boundaries of the U.S. generally must be filed in the courts of the physician's country of origin -- which is complex and expensive.
"It leaves the passenger who goes on a cruise and gets bad medical care with virtually no remedy," says Jason R. Margulies, one of the Carlisles' lawyers. He says his firm has dropped the doctors in more than a dozen malpractice cases when they couldn't locate them.
Cruise-industry officials say concerns about onboard health care are overblown and that doctors provide excellent care to hundreds of thousands of passengers each season. Instances in which patients are unhappy are extremely rare, the companies say. "All Royal Caribbean Cruises physicians and nurses are committed to providing exceptional diagnostic and urgent medical care to guests and crew on its vessels," says Raul Duany, a spokesman for the company.
A Carnival Cruise Lines spokeswoman said that among 26 million passengers on its ships over the past 10 years, "the incidences of medical malpractice have been so limited as to be statistically insignificant."
International regulations don't spell out specific guidelines on ship medical care, according to the International Maritime Organization. CLIA says about 80% of cruise companies -- including all of the major U.S.-based lines -- have adopted tougher voluntary guidelines endorsed by the industry. Those recommendations say doctors should be U.S. board-certified or have at least three years of experience. Most are trained in emergency medicine, according to the companies.
Most ships have at least one doctor and one nurse aboard. Vessels with more than 2,000 passengers usually have more, CLIA says. Upgraded telecommunications also now make it easy for onboard doctors to reach specialists on land in an emergency. The Queen Mary 2, part of Carnival's Cunard Line, has 14 hospital beds, four of which have cardiac monitoring abilities, and a large laboratory for blood work. Royal Caribbean has 15 ships with helicopter landing pads for emergency evacuations.
Still, pay for ship doctors is low -- $10,000 a month, compared with nearly $170,000 annually for a starting U.S.-based internist, according to Vanter Cruise Health Services, who works with Walt Disney Co.'s Disney Cruise Lines.
Gary Goodwillie, a retired railroad sales manager from Detroit, wished he'd never boarded Navigator, a Carlson Cos.' Radisson Seven Seas Cruises ship, in 2003. During three weeks at sea, the cruise doctor repeatedly told him persistent pain in his chest and left arm was bad indigestion, according to documents filed in a suit by Mr. Goodwillie.
Two days before the upscale cruise ended, Mr. Goodwillie suffered a heart attack. After attempting to resuscitate him, the doctor pronounced the 76-year-old dead, according to Mr. Goodwillie's domestic partner, George Palmer. Three vacationing cardiologists rushed to the scene after the ship's captain made an emergency announcement and helped the doctor revive Mr. Goodwillie with a defibrillator.
Mr. Goodwillie's malpractice lawsuit against the cruise company, now known as Regent Seven Seas, was dismissed in August, and he was ordered to pay $50,000 to cover the company's legal fees. A company spokesman said the Goodwillie case "had no merit" and declined to comment further. Regent also wouldn't provide contact information for the physician or his attorneys. The Journal was unable to locate him in his home country of Poland.
"I've been on a dozen cruises in my lifetime, but I haven't gotten on any since the heart attack," says Mr. Goodwillie.
Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier version of this article contained an incorrect name for one of the ships owned by Carlson Cos.' Radisson Seven Seas Cruises. The correct ship name is "Navigator," not "Navigator of the Seas."
Write to Stephanie Chen at stephanie.chen@wsj.com
October 24, 2007; Page D1
See Corrections & Amplifications item below.
In October 2005, during her 37th wedding anniversary cruise aboard Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s Legend of the Seas, Janice Sullivan slipped and hit her head on a buffet table, briefly knocking her unconscious.
The ship doctor gave the 60-year-old Cape Coral, Fla., retiree an over-the-counter pain reliever, but didn't scan or X-ray her head despite continuing pain over the next several days, according to Mrs. Sullivan. After she got home, Mrs. Sullivan went to an emergency room, where a neurologist found a blood clot. Concerned it could cause a stroke, he performed invasive brain surgery.
But Mrs. Sullivan had a surprise in store when she sued the cruise line and the ship doctor: Most ship doctors, despite typically wearing a crew uniform, are classified as independent contractors. And cruise companies contend they are no more liable for the doctors' competence than a landlord who rents office space to a physician on land.
That's also a likely surprise to many of the millions of cruise passengers who will board ships during the coming peak cool-weather season in the Caribbean. In the eyes of many, the ship doctor is an integral part of the crew, like actor Bernie Kopell's amorous Dr. Adam "Doc" Bricker on the long-running television show "The Love Boat."
In her suit, Mrs. Sullivan contended she was injured as a result of negligence on the part of the cruise line and the physician who treated her. The company declined to comment on the case. Royal Caribbean -- like most cruise lines -- says it can't be held liable in court since the doctor is not its employee. The Wall Street Journal was unable to locate the doctor, who Mrs. Sullivan's lawyer says is Swedish-born. Royal Caribbean wouldn't provide contact information for the physician or attorneys representing him.
Mrs. Sullivan's suit was one of at least 40 medical-malpractice cases filed over the past decade against Florida cruise companies by passengers alleging that they were hurt as a result of poor medical care at sea, or that ship doctors made other injuries suffered on the ship worse, according to maritime lawyers in South Florida.
Nearly all of those lawsuits have been dismissed or floundered in the courts because of a little-understood aspect of U.S. law. Under legal rulings going back to a landmark case in 1823, the owners of ships are considered responsible for the health care provided to members of their crew, but not for medical services provided to passengers.
Sometimes the quality of services has been questioned. In the 1990s, the American Medical Association raised concerns about onboard medical treatment and two Florida doctors issued a study of ship physicians. The study found that half of doctors surveyed weren't certified in trauma life support and that ships lacked crucial equipment, such as X-ray machines and external pacemakers -- machines that help restore the heart's natural rhythm. Cruise companies say they have improved the quality of care since then.
Cruise companies say it would be unfair to hold them responsible for treatment provided by the medical professionals because they don't oversee a doctor or nurse's medical training and certification. Some of the companies say they include a warning clause to that effect on passengers' tickets.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court bolstered that position further, declining to hear an appeal in a medical injury lawsuit that had been winding through Florida and federal courts for nearly a decade. In that case, a then 14-year-old girl's abdominal pains were misdiagnosed as the flu during a trip on Carnival Corp.'s Carnival Cruise Lines' Ecstasy in 1997. Doctors at an emergency room later found that Elizabeth Carlisle's appendix ruptured. The injury rendered her sterile.
In a lawsuit, the Carlisle family argued that the physician was part of the ship's staff, making the cruise line responsible. In court, Carnival said the physician wasn't an employee and it bore no responsibility. The Italian doctor was initially named as a defendant but later dropped because attorneys said they couldn't locate him. He also couldn't be reached for comment by the Journal, or a private investigator hired by the family. Carnival declined to comment.
In 2003, a Florida court of appeals sided with the family, saying Carnival owed passengers "reasonable care." In February, the Florida Supreme Court reversed that ruling, affirming that doctors are independent contractors and that cruise lines are not "vicariously liable ... for the negligence of the shipboard physician." The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal upheld the ruling in favor of Carnival. The Carlisles say they intend to continue pursuing other aspects of the case.
Yesterday, lawyers for Mrs. Sullivan said they were dropping the physician from her case based on the U.S. Supreme Court results in the Carlisle case. The case against Royal Caribbean is still pending.
Locating ship physicians in the aftermath of an incident is a common problem for passengers who believe they've been injured onboard. Foreign doctors often return to their home countries, and malpractice cases involving treatment outside the boundaries of the U.S. generally must be filed in the courts of the physician's country of origin -- which is complex and expensive.
"It leaves the passenger who goes on a cruise and gets bad medical care with virtually no remedy," says Jason R. Margulies, one of the Carlisles' lawyers. He says his firm has dropped the doctors in more than a dozen malpractice cases when they couldn't locate them.
Cruise-industry officials say concerns about onboard health care are overblown and that doctors provide excellent care to hundreds of thousands of passengers each season. Instances in which patients are unhappy are extremely rare, the companies say. "All Royal Caribbean Cruises physicians and nurses are committed to providing exceptional diagnostic and urgent medical care to guests and crew on its vessels," says Raul Duany, a spokesman for the company.
A Carnival Cruise Lines spokeswoman said that among 26 million passengers on its ships over the past 10 years, "the incidences of medical malpractice have been so limited as to be statistically insignificant."
International regulations don't spell out specific guidelines on ship medical care, according to the International Maritime Organization. CLIA says about 80% of cruise companies -- including all of the major U.S.-based lines -- have adopted tougher voluntary guidelines endorsed by the industry. Those recommendations say doctors should be U.S. board-certified or have at least three years of experience. Most are trained in emergency medicine, according to the companies.
Most ships have at least one doctor and one nurse aboard. Vessels with more than 2,000 passengers usually have more, CLIA says. Upgraded telecommunications also now make it easy for onboard doctors to reach specialists on land in an emergency. The Queen Mary 2, part of Carnival's Cunard Line, has 14 hospital beds, four of which have cardiac monitoring abilities, and a large laboratory for blood work. Royal Caribbean has 15 ships with helicopter landing pads for emergency evacuations.
Still, pay for ship doctors is low -- $10,000 a month, compared with nearly $170,000 annually for a starting U.S.-based internist, according to Vanter Cruise Health Services, who works with Walt Disney Co.'s Disney Cruise Lines.
Gary Goodwillie, a retired railroad sales manager from Detroit, wished he'd never boarded Navigator, a Carlson Cos.' Radisson Seven Seas Cruises ship, in 2003. During three weeks at sea, the cruise doctor repeatedly told him persistent pain in his chest and left arm was bad indigestion, according to documents filed in a suit by Mr. Goodwillie.
Two days before the upscale cruise ended, Mr. Goodwillie suffered a heart attack. After attempting to resuscitate him, the doctor pronounced the 76-year-old dead, according to Mr. Goodwillie's domestic partner, George Palmer. Three vacationing cardiologists rushed to the scene after the ship's captain made an emergency announcement and helped the doctor revive Mr. Goodwillie with a defibrillator.
Mr. Goodwillie's malpractice lawsuit against the cruise company, now known as Regent Seven Seas, was dismissed in August, and he was ordered to pay $50,000 to cover the company's legal fees. A company spokesman said the Goodwillie case "had no merit" and declined to comment further. Regent also wouldn't provide contact information for the physician or his attorneys. The Journal was unable to locate him in his home country of Poland.
"I've been on a dozen cruises in my lifetime, but I haven't gotten on any since the heart attack," says Mr. Goodwillie.
Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier version of this article contained an incorrect name for one of the ships owned by Carlson Cos.' Radisson Seven Seas Cruises. The correct ship name is "Navigator," not "Navigator of the Seas."
Write to Stephanie Chen at stephanie.chen@wsj.com
A College Championship
Justin Rackley and Trevor Knight of Texas A&M get the championship trophy from BoatU.S.'s Mike Pellerin.By ANN ZIMMERMAN
October 25, 2007; Page B1
LAKE LEWISVILLE, Texas -- Like a lot of college athletes, Justin Rackley dreams of turning his sports passion into a lucrative professional career. So when he picks up his pole and goes fishing, he's not taking a day off -- he's in training.
Bass fishing joined the ranks of collegiate championship sports two years ago, and -- although there are no scholarships for wetting a line -- it's winning converts from a surprising array of students. Last year, Mr. Rackley walked away from the baseball team at his local junior college to join the fishing team at Texas A&M University.
"Between sponsorships and prize money, he assured us he could make more money fishing than from baseball," says his mom, Wendy Rackley. "We'll see."
Recently, Mr. Rackley and his Texas Aggie teammate, Trevor Knight, attempted to fish their way to a $14,000 prize and the national collegiate bass fishing title. They were among 83 two-person teams, drawn from college fishing clubs from across the country, in the second annual National Collegiate Bass Fishing Championship on Lake Lewisville, a huge reservoir just north of Dallas.
No need for helmets and shin guards, just ultra-light graphite spinning rods and a pocketful of wiggly plastic "wacky worms." The goal: to end each day with five living fish that weigh, in total, more than other team's.
Fishing might not involve the spine-crushing perils of football, but it comes with its own risks. "There are three occupational hazards: skin cancer, high cholesterol and hemorrhoids," says Katrina DeHaven, a pro angler and fishing coach of Arizona State University's team. Coaches face their own challenges. During the three-day tournament, Ms. DeHaven stayed up all night to guard the three boats her team lugged from Phoenix and parked in the lot at their budget motel.
Mr. Rackley, now a 22-year-old college junior, admits that fishing never figured in his childhood dreams of athletic glory. But with the growth of two professional angling tours in recent years, tournament purses have mushroomed to as much as $1 million to a single winner. The country's top five anglers each pocketed at least $250,000 in winnings last year, not including lucrative sponsorships from boat, motor, rod, reel and lure makers that can be worth even more.
The sport of fishing knows it has to attract young people or die. The average age of an angler rose to 54 years old in 2005. And the number of fishing licenses issued fell 15% over the last decade. The Collegiate Bass Anglers Association was founded two years ago by two former college baseball coaches hoping to reaffirm fishing as a sport for the young.
"If we don't do something to get these kids to stay in fishing, 100% of them will come back from college with golf clubs," says Charles Goodloe, president of Careco Multimedia, a video-production company specializing in outdoor sports that helped produce a version of the national competition that will edit out the boring parts of waiting for a bite and be shown on the Fox College Sports network in January. (The network's parent, News Corp., is in the process of buying Dow Jones & Co., the parent of The Wall Street Journal.)
The National Collegiate Athletic Association bans college athletes from accepting sponsorship swag or prize money. The collegiate bass-fishing circuit is considering applying for NCAA recognition, which would allow for travel, equipment and tuition to be subsidized, but for now the sponsorship money flows freely.
The national championship in Lake Lewisville had over a dozen sponsors, including sporting-goods retailer Cabela's Inc. and BoatU.S., an association of boat owners. "This is more wholesome than the NFL or baseball. There are no scandals," says Irwin Jacobs, the well-known financier and deal maker who owns boat maker Genmar Holdings Inc., a sponsor.
From boat companies to lure manufacturers and makers of beef jerky, sponsors heap free goodies on the college fishermen and fisherwomen throughout the year, helping to defray the high cost of angling as well as to keep them hooked on the sport.
A decent bass boat costs $40,000 and it costs another $40,000 for the trailer to haul the boat to and from tournaments. Most teams brought an average of two dozen rods between them, all rigged differently for different conditions.
It was easy to spot the newest fishing teams at the tournament. Their anglers wore plain T-shirts instead of colorful jerseys plastered with names of bait companies and sunglass makers. "We haven't got money from any anyone," gripes Casey Crumpton, a finance major at University of Montevallo in Alabama and a member of the school's three-week-old fishing team. "It cost me $200 just to run the boat around the lake today."
The college anglers took a whole off week from school to compete in the championship at Lake Lewisville. Each night, they spent two hours preparing a dozen or so rods, checking knots, sharpening and baiting hooks for the next day. The first three days they practiced, called "pre-fishing." Competitors got the lay of the lake and picked out their special spots.
The competition began at sunrise Thursday and ended at 3 p.m. for a weigh-in. (After the fish were weighed, they were put in a tank and released later back into the lake.) By the end of day one, the Montevallo team in its unadorned gray T-shirts was in first place, with five large-mouth bass weighing a total of 13.24 pounds. Mr. Crumpton refused to say where he and his teammate caught them or how, fearing a competitor would move in on their territory.
"A couple of guys tried to get in on us today," says Mr. Crumpton. "I'm locking up the GPS tonight. I don't want anyone looking at it."
It was a different story the next day. Mr. Crumpton and his Montevallo teammate had little luck at the old spot and had trouble finding another "honey hole," or spot with lots of fish. They returned with no bass, knocking them out of the running.
On Saturday, five teams -- Louisiana Tech, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Western Kentucky, Texas A&M and the University of Alabama -- competed in the finals. While most of the anglers fished in the brush near the shoreline -- "flippin' the brush" in fishing parlance -- the Texas A&M team used a different strategy. Mr. Rackley and his teammate, Mr. Knight, hung out in the marina, nabbing fish that were noshing on the algae growing on the wood pilings. They caught four fish weighing 7.6 pounds and won the competition.
The $14,000 prize will go to A&M's fishing club, whose 35 members will decide how it will be spent, says Mr. Rackley. The duo also won rods and the opportunity to fish with the pros in an event on the FLW Tour, named for legendary bass-boat maker Forrest L. Wood.
To date, 180 schools have contacted the collegiate bass angler's association asking for help in starting a college fishing team. No doubt, many of the angler-wannabes dream like Mr. Rackley of becoming a pro.
Ms. DeHaven, the Arizona State coach, makes sure they know what they're up against. "Yes, there is money to be made and sponsors help you," says Ms. DeHaven, sporting a gold spoon lure around her neck. "But remember, in the end, nature always wins."
Write to Ann Zimmerman at ann.zimmerman@wsj.com
October 25, 2007; Page B1
LAKE LEWISVILLE, Texas -- Like a lot of college athletes, Justin Rackley dreams of turning his sports passion into a lucrative professional career. So when he picks up his pole and goes fishing, he's not taking a day off -- he's in training.
Bass fishing joined the ranks of collegiate championship sports two years ago, and -- although there are no scholarships for wetting a line -- it's winning converts from a surprising array of students. Last year, Mr. Rackley walked away from the baseball team at his local junior college to join the fishing team at Texas A&M University.
"Between sponsorships and prize money, he assured us he could make more money fishing than from baseball," says his mom, Wendy Rackley. "We'll see."
Recently, Mr. Rackley and his Texas Aggie teammate, Trevor Knight, attempted to fish their way to a $14,000 prize and the national collegiate bass fishing title. They were among 83 two-person teams, drawn from college fishing clubs from across the country, in the second annual National Collegiate Bass Fishing Championship on Lake Lewisville, a huge reservoir just north of Dallas.
No need for helmets and shin guards, just ultra-light graphite spinning rods and a pocketful of wiggly plastic "wacky worms." The goal: to end each day with five living fish that weigh, in total, more than other team's.
Fishing might not involve the spine-crushing perils of football, but it comes with its own risks. "There are three occupational hazards: skin cancer, high cholesterol and hemorrhoids," says Katrina DeHaven, a pro angler and fishing coach of Arizona State University's team. Coaches face their own challenges. During the three-day tournament, Ms. DeHaven stayed up all night to guard the three boats her team lugged from Phoenix and parked in the lot at their budget motel.
Mr. Rackley, now a 22-year-old college junior, admits that fishing never figured in his childhood dreams of athletic glory. But with the growth of two professional angling tours in recent years, tournament purses have mushroomed to as much as $1 million to a single winner. The country's top five anglers each pocketed at least $250,000 in winnings last year, not including lucrative sponsorships from boat, motor, rod, reel and lure makers that can be worth even more.
The sport of fishing knows it has to attract young people or die. The average age of an angler rose to 54 years old in 2005. And the number of fishing licenses issued fell 15% over the last decade. The Collegiate Bass Anglers Association was founded two years ago by two former college baseball coaches hoping to reaffirm fishing as a sport for the young.
"If we don't do something to get these kids to stay in fishing, 100% of them will come back from college with golf clubs," says Charles Goodloe, president of Careco Multimedia, a video-production company specializing in outdoor sports that helped produce a version of the national competition that will edit out the boring parts of waiting for a bite and be shown on the Fox College Sports network in January. (The network's parent, News Corp., is in the process of buying Dow Jones & Co., the parent of The Wall Street Journal.)
The National Collegiate Athletic Association bans college athletes from accepting sponsorship swag or prize money. The collegiate bass-fishing circuit is considering applying for NCAA recognition, which would allow for travel, equipment and tuition to be subsidized, but for now the sponsorship money flows freely.
The national championship in Lake Lewisville had over a dozen sponsors, including sporting-goods retailer Cabela's Inc. and BoatU.S., an association of boat owners. "This is more wholesome than the NFL or baseball. There are no scandals," says Irwin Jacobs, the well-known financier and deal maker who owns boat maker Genmar Holdings Inc., a sponsor.
From boat companies to lure manufacturers and makers of beef jerky, sponsors heap free goodies on the college fishermen and fisherwomen throughout the year, helping to defray the high cost of angling as well as to keep them hooked on the sport.
A decent bass boat costs $40,000 and it costs another $40,000 for the trailer to haul the boat to and from tournaments. Most teams brought an average of two dozen rods between them, all rigged differently for different conditions.
It was easy to spot the newest fishing teams at the tournament. Their anglers wore plain T-shirts instead of colorful jerseys plastered with names of bait companies and sunglass makers. "We haven't got money from any anyone," gripes Casey Crumpton, a finance major at University of Montevallo in Alabama and a member of the school's three-week-old fishing team. "It cost me $200 just to run the boat around the lake today."
The college anglers took a whole off week from school to compete in the championship at Lake Lewisville. Each night, they spent two hours preparing a dozen or so rods, checking knots, sharpening and baiting hooks for the next day. The first three days they practiced, called "pre-fishing." Competitors got the lay of the lake and picked out their special spots.
The competition began at sunrise Thursday and ended at 3 p.m. for a weigh-in. (After the fish were weighed, they were put in a tank and released later back into the lake.) By the end of day one, the Montevallo team in its unadorned gray T-shirts was in first place, with five large-mouth bass weighing a total of 13.24 pounds. Mr. Crumpton refused to say where he and his teammate caught them or how, fearing a competitor would move in on their territory.
"A couple of guys tried to get in on us today," says Mr. Crumpton. "I'm locking up the GPS tonight. I don't want anyone looking at it."
It was a different story the next day. Mr. Crumpton and his Montevallo teammate had little luck at the old spot and had trouble finding another "honey hole," or spot with lots of fish. They returned with no bass, knocking them out of the running.
On Saturday, five teams -- Louisiana Tech, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Western Kentucky, Texas A&M and the University of Alabama -- competed in the finals. While most of the anglers fished in the brush near the shoreline -- "flippin' the brush" in fishing parlance -- the Texas A&M team used a different strategy. Mr. Rackley and his teammate, Mr. Knight, hung out in the marina, nabbing fish that were noshing on the algae growing on the wood pilings. They caught four fish weighing 7.6 pounds and won the competition.
The $14,000 prize will go to A&M's fishing club, whose 35 members will decide how it will be spent, says Mr. Rackley. The duo also won rods and the opportunity to fish with the pros in an event on the FLW Tour, named for legendary bass-boat maker Forrest L. Wood.
To date, 180 schools have contacted the collegiate bass angler's association asking for help in starting a college fishing team. No doubt, many of the angler-wannabes dream like Mr. Rackley of becoming a pro.
Ms. DeHaven, the Arizona State coach, makes sure they know what they're up against. "Yes, there is money to be made and sponsors help you," says Ms. DeHaven, sporting a gold spoon lure around her neck. "But remember, in the end, nature always wins."
Write to Ann Zimmerman at ann.zimmerman@wsj.com
The Big Thirst
Ethanol producers face a huge challenge: ensuring they don't deplete water supplies in the Corn Belt
By JESSICA RESNICK-AULT
November 12, 2007; Page R12
Ethanol plants sprouting up across the Corn Belt have brought with them some of the best financial opportunities seen in those areas in a generation.
Producers of ethanol have pumped nearly $14 billion into a wide array of businesses, and the resulting economic boost has created more than 40,000 jobs since the corn-based gasoline additive gained popularity two years ago
At first glance, ethanol may seem like a panacea for a weak economy in the Midwest.
But critics point to hidden costs associated with the new ethanol plants: rising corn prices for consumers, gasoline that gets fewer miles per gallon, and, perhaps most ominous, potential water shortages.
"We, and lots of environmentalists, are in a tough spot," says Timothy Male, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. "Biofuels have a lot of promise, but there's an issue with waste and water," Mr. Male says. "Any time you're putting a high-water-use industry in the middle of the desert, it's a concern." Ethanol plants are going up in places "where there were already too many straws in the ground," he says.
Aquifer at Risk?
The amount of water needed to grow the corn, process the fuel and dispose of the waste at a small ethanol plant is about equal to the water needs of a town of about 10,000, according to an Environmental Defense Fund report. And although the next five to 10 years may not see major changes to the Plains region's water levels, long-term implications could be severe, says a study from the National Research Council, a Washington, D.C.-based public-policy research institute.
The council and other scientific groups are worried about the declining Ogallala aquifer, an underground body of water that stretches from Texas to Wyoming. Water levels in the aquifer have fallen more than 100 feet in the past 60 years, and may drop further as ethanol plants multiply in the region. Diminution of the Ogallala beyond a certain point could begin to harm human, animal and plant life in the region.
Yet, even staunch opponents of ethanol's rising profile say that the fuel may be able to avoid seriously sapping regional water supplies if producers and policy makers focus on addressing the fuel's thirst for drinkable water.
"As biofuels production expands and technology advances, there is a real opportunity to shape policies to also meet objectives related to water use and quality impacts," the Research Council's report says. The report made recommendations on tighter restrictions for plant locations and where corn for the plants can be grown.
The Environmental Defense Fund, too, agrees that plant placement can have an impact, and suggests that the viability of the Ogallala aquifer could be sustained if fewer ethanol plants are concentrated in vulnerable areas.
Technical Solutions
Ethanol producers say they are prepared for the challenges as the business expands and are ready to adapt quickly. Producers, plant designers and water engineers are all teaming up to try to reduce water consumption, says Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a Washington, D.C.-based group that represents ethanol producers.
Producers as small as newcomer US BioEnergy of St. Paul, Minn., and as big as Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. of Decatur, Ill., have discussed measures to reduce their impact.
"Historically, ethanol-plant constructors have tried to standardize the design, and just bang them out like cookies," says Paul Greene, global director, food, beverage and biofuels industries, for Siemens Water Technologies, a division of Germany's Siemens AG. "We've seen that you can't do that."
Ethanol plants currently require about four gallons of water to produce a single gallon of ethanol, Mr. Greene says. As the size of plants increase from producing about 100 million gallons of ethanol a year to 200 million or 300 million gallons a year, a single plant will consume as much water as a city of 30,000, Mr. Greene says.
As plants are built outside the Midwest, increasingly encroaching on drought-plagued states like Florida and California, the impact could be more severe, Mr. Greene says.
Significant technical innovations are required to reduce the amounts of water that ethanol plants consume. One ethanol plant designer, Delta T Corp., based in Williamsburg, Va., says it has created a system that will reduce consumption to just one-and-a-half gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, down from four gallons of water.
To further reduce the plants' impact on drinkable water, engineers also can route more low-quality water -- even waste water -- to functions where high purity is unnecessary. In the past two years, demand for engineers experienced in this kind of work has skyrocketed in the ethanol industry, Mr. Greene says.
Cutting the water needed to grow corn is a taller order. Still, companies can do a better job of controlling run-off from irrigation, and reducing amounts of water contaminated by fertilizer. Developing more advanced ethanol, made from crops other than corn, may also lessen the burden on the water table. Still, these fuels have yet to be produced in commercial volumes, and may have unknown environmental impacts of their own.
Despite concerns, growing more corn and building more plants may be needed to keep up with U.S. mandates for renewable fuel, according to Ron Oster, a St. Louis-based analyst with Broadpoint Capital Inc.
The U.S. can currently produce about seven billion gallons of ethanol a year, a little more than the amount required federally. New production to come online by the end of this year, and additions in the years that follow, should increase capacity by about 5.5 billion gallons by 2009.
But if the energy bill pending in Congress passes, more than 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel production will be mandated. And with ethanol as the most easily available renewable fuel, there could be a dramatic upswing in new cornfields and ethanol-production facilities.
Concerns over the ramifications of the bill have led to some unlikely bedfellows. The National Petrochemical and Refiner's Association, for example, doesn't want to see legislation taking the place of market demand when it comes to determining how much ethanol should be produced.
The energy bill's ethanol mandate could impact the bottom line of members of the Washington, D.C.-based trade organization. To help block such a mandate, the group has joined the environmentalists and others expressing concerns about water.
"There's an impact in terms of both water quantity and quality," says Bill Holbrook, a spokesman for the group. Mandated production also could drive ethanol supplies beyond the volume that the market is able to readily absorb, he adds.
The ethanol industry, for its part, is quick to point out that failing to accept the mandate might still result in a drain on water. Canadian oil reserves, seen as a possible source of conventional fuel for the U.S., produce a thick grade of oil that requires just as much -- if not more -- water for refining than ethanol does, says Mr. Hartwig.
"The water from that [refining] process is so toxic that it has to be put into holding ponds so large they can be seen from space -- and it takes 200 years to separate," he says.
--Ms. Resnick-Ault is a reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in Houston.
Write to Jessica Resnick-Ault at jessica.resnick-ault@dowjones.com
By JESSICA RESNICK-AULT
November 12, 2007; Page R12
Ethanol plants sprouting up across the Corn Belt have brought with them some of the best financial opportunities seen in those areas in a generation.
Producers of ethanol have pumped nearly $14 billion into a wide array of businesses, and the resulting economic boost has created more than 40,000 jobs since the corn-based gasoline additive gained popularity two years ago
At first glance, ethanol may seem like a panacea for a weak economy in the Midwest.
But critics point to hidden costs associated with the new ethanol plants: rising corn prices for consumers, gasoline that gets fewer miles per gallon, and, perhaps most ominous, potential water shortages.
"We, and lots of environmentalists, are in a tough spot," says Timothy Male, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. "Biofuels have a lot of promise, but there's an issue with waste and water," Mr. Male says. "Any time you're putting a high-water-use industry in the middle of the desert, it's a concern." Ethanol plants are going up in places "where there were already too many straws in the ground," he says.
Aquifer at Risk?
The amount of water needed to grow the corn, process the fuel and dispose of the waste at a small ethanol plant is about equal to the water needs of a town of about 10,000, according to an Environmental Defense Fund report. And although the next five to 10 years may not see major changes to the Plains region's water levels, long-term implications could be severe, says a study from the National Research Council, a Washington, D.C.-based public-policy research institute.
The council and other scientific groups are worried about the declining Ogallala aquifer, an underground body of water that stretches from Texas to Wyoming. Water levels in the aquifer have fallen more than 100 feet in the past 60 years, and may drop further as ethanol plants multiply in the region. Diminution of the Ogallala beyond a certain point could begin to harm human, animal and plant life in the region.
Yet, even staunch opponents of ethanol's rising profile say that the fuel may be able to avoid seriously sapping regional water supplies if producers and policy makers focus on addressing the fuel's thirst for drinkable water.
"As biofuels production expands and technology advances, there is a real opportunity to shape policies to also meet objectives related to water use and quality impacts," the Research Council's report says. The report made recommendations on tighter restrictions for plant locations and where corn for the plants can be grown.
The Environmental Defense Fund, too, agrees that plant placement can have an impact, and suggests that the viability of the Ogallala aquifer could be sustained if fewer ethanol plants are concentrated in vulnerable areas.
Technical Solutions
Ethanol producers say they are prepared for the challenges as the business expands and are ready to adapt quickly. Producers, plant designers and water engineers are all teaming up to try to reduce water consumption, says Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a Washington, D.C.-based group that represents ethanol producers.
Producers as small as newcomer US BioEnergy of St. Paul, Minn., and as big as Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. of Decatur, Ill., have discussed measures to reduce their impact.
"Historically, ethanol-plant constructors have tried to standardize the design, and just bang them out like cookies," says Paul Greene, global director, food, beverage and biofuels industries, for Siemens Water Technologies, a division of Germany's Siemens AG. "We've seen that you can't do that."
Ethanol plants currently require about four gallons of water to produce a single gallon of ethanol, Mr. Greene says. As the size of plants increase from producing about 100 million gallons of ethanol a year to 200 million or 300 million gallons a year, a single plant will consume as much water as a city of 30,000, Mr. Greene says.
As plants are built outside the Midwest, increasingly encroaching on drought-plagued states like Florida and California, the impact could be more severe, Mr. Greene says.
Significant technical innovations are required to reduce the amounts of water that ethanol plants consume. One ethanol plant designer, Delta T Corp., based in Williamsburg, Va., says it has created a system that will reduce consumption to just one-and-a-half gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, down from four gallons of water.
To further reduce the plants' impact on drinkable water, engineers also can route more low-quality water -- even waste water -- to functions where high purity is unnecessary. In the past two years, demand for engineers experienced in this kind of work has skyrocketed in the ethanol industry, Mr. Greene says.
Cutting the water needed to grow corn is a taller order. Still, companies can do a better job of controlling run-off from irrigation, and reducing amounts of water contaminated by fertilizer. Developing more advanced ethanol, made from crops other than corn, may also lessen the burden on the water table. Still, these fuels have yet to be produced in commercial volumes, and may have unknown environmental impacts of their own.
Despite concerns, growing more corn and building more plants may be needed to keep up with U.S. mandates for renewable fuel, according to Ron Oster, a St. Louis-based analyst with Broadpoint Capital Inc.
The U.S. can currently produce about seven billion gallons of ethanol a year, a little more than the amount required federally. New production to come online by the end of this year, and additions in the years that follow, should increase capacity by about 5.5 billion gallons by 2009.
But if the energy bill pending in Congress passes, more than 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel production will be mandated. And with ethanol as the most easily available renewable fuel, there could be a dramatic upswing in new cornfields and ethanol-production facilities.
Concerns over the ramifications of the bill have led to some unlikely bedfellows. The National Petrochemical and Refiner's Association, for example, doesn't want to see legislation taking the place of market demand when it comes to determining how much ethanol should be produced.
The energy bill's ethanol mandate could impact the bottom line of members of the Washington, D.C.-based trade organization. To help block such a mandate, the group has joined the environmentalists and others expressing concerns about water.
"There's an impact in terms of both water quantity and quality," says Bill Holbrook, a spokesman for the group. Mandated production also could drive ethanol supplies beyond the volume that the market is able to readily absorb, he adds.
The ethanol industry, for its part, is quick to point out that failing to accept the mandate might still result in a drain on water. Canadian oil reserves, seen as a possible source of conventional fuel for the U.S., produce a thick grade of oil that requires just as much -- if not more -- water for refining than ethanol does, says Mr. Hartwig.
"The water from that [refining] process is so toxic that it has to be put into holding ponds so large they can be seen from space -- and it takes 200 years to separate," he says.
--Ms. Resnick-Ault is a reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in Houston.
Write to Jessica Resnick-Ault at jessica.resnick-ault@dowjones.com
Ethanol's Bottom Line
By ROBERT HAHN
November 24, 2007; Page A10
To hear the candidates tell it -- especially those on the stump in Iowa -- ethanol is the answer to America's energy-security woes. And back in Washington, politicians since 1978 have been putting your money where their mouths are: Ethanol is currently subsidized to the tune of 51 cents per gallon when blended with gasoline.
To make sure foreigners don't share the ride on the ethanol gravy train, moreover, Congress has imposed a 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol. President Bush, for his part, has targeted a 20% reduction in gasoline use, mostly by substituting the renewable fuel.
Farmers and refiners remain bullish on ethanol, even though market prices have dipped in recent months -- and domestic production capacity will nearly double once refineries now under construction come on line. Yet in all the decades ethanol has been subsidized, Washington has never rigorously applied cost-benefit analysis to ethanol's myriad preferences.
A study I authored with Caroline Cecot, just released by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center, attempts to fill that gap. The results, based on a recent Environmental Protection Agency report on the economics of mandating the production of alternative fuels, strongly suggest that that the case for ethanol is lacking.
We used EPA numbers to calculate the environmental benefits of ethanol, along with the security benefits linked to its potential to reduce oil imports. We then compared these benefits with the direct costs of producing and distributing ethanol, the environmental costs associated with its manufacture and combustion, and the cost of the slew of incentives offered to refiners and corn farmers.
If annual production increases by three billion gallons in 2012 -- a plausibly modest number when the EPA made its own calculations -- we estimate that the costs will exceed the benefits by about $1 billion a year. If domestic production reaches the more "optimistic" Energy Department projection for that year, net economic costs would likely top $2 billion annually.
Our analysis is deliberately weighted to give ethanol the benefit of a doubt. For example, we assume that, on balance, ethanol from corn reduces greenhouse emissions, even though recent science suggests that substituting ethanol for gasoline might actually have a negative impact (it increases emissions of nitrous oxide, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). Ethanol distilled from grasses and waste materials has a better environmental payoff, but has much higher direct production costs.
Even if ways are found to make alcohol cost-effectively from otherwise worthless sources of carbon, the process would undermine local air quality as it slowed global warming. Though ethanol is likely to reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and toxic hydrocarbons including benzene and formaldehyde, the extra nitrogen oxides react in sunlight to form smog.
The picture on the energy side is a little brighter. For each barrel of oil displaced by ethanol, there are benefits in the form of slightly lower oil prices and reduced potential for economic dislocation from oil-price spikes. We estimate these to be in the neighborhood of $500 million annually in 2012.
But the emphasis here should be on the word "little." In 2005, the ethanol program used about 15% of U.S. corn supplies but displaced less than 2% of gasoline use. Even if all corn produced in the U.S. were devoted to distilling ethanol, the renewable fuel would amount to about 12% of the gasoline demand in 2005. And the more corn used to make alcohol, the greater the potential for collateral damage. Beef producers, not to mention Mexico's tortilla makers, are already upset with high corn prices. Environmentalists, too, seem to be waking up to the fact that ethanol from corn is no panacea.
This growing opposition could open the door to a midcourse correction in Congress's commitment to preferences for corn-based alcohol. The first order of business: ax the tax credit and the tariff on imported ethanol. Instead, direct funds to research that might make a real difference in energy security and/or climate change, such as geoengineering the atmosphere to block solar radiation, or converting biomass to electricity on a large scale.
Congress should also begin using emissions taxes or market-based incentives to drive private innovation. If the tax route is taken, the revenue should enable equivalent reductions of efficiency draining taxes, such as the payroll tax.
Congress might never have bet so much of the taxpayers' money on corn-based ethanol if an unbiased accounting of the consequences had been available early on. We could use a separate agency, shielded in part from political considerations, whose sole mission would be to analyze the costs and benefits of regulations and government programs. Without such an agency, interest-group logrolling will continue to trump science and economics in major policy choices.
Mr. Hahn is executive director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center and was co-chair of the U.S. Alternative Fuels Council under President George H.W. Bush.
November 24, 2007; Page A10
To hear the candidates tell it -- especially those on the stump in Iowa -- ethanol is the answer to America's energy-security woes. And back in Washington, politicians since 1978 have been putting your money where their mouths are: Ethanol is currently subsidized to the tune of 51 cents per gallon when blended with gasoline.
To make sure foreigners don't share the ride on the ethanol gravy train, moreover, Congress has imposed a 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol. President Bush, for his part, has targeted a 20% reduction in gasoline use, mostly by substituting the renewable fuel.
Farmers and refiners remain bullish on ethanol, even though market prices have dipped in recent months -- and domestic production capacity will nearly double once refineries now under construction come on line. Yet in all the decades ethanol has been subsidized, Washington has never rigorously applied cost-benefit analysis to ethanol's myriad preferences.
A study I authored with Caroline Cecot, just released by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center, attempts to fill that gap. The results, based on a recent Environmental Protection Agency report on the economics of mandating the production of alternative fuels, strongly suggest that that the case for ethanol is lacking.
We used EPA numbers to calculate the environmental benefits of ethanol, along with the security benefits linked to its potential to reduce oil imports. We then compared these benefits with the direct costs of producing and distributing ethanol, the environmental costs associated with its manufacture and combustion, and the cost of the slew of incentives offered to refiners and corn farmers.
If annual production increases by three billion gallons in 2012 -- a plausibly modest number when the EPA made its own calculations -- we estimate that the costs will exceed the benefits by about $1 billion a year. If domestic production reaches the more "optimistic" Energy Department projection for that year, net economic costs would likely top $2 billion annually.
Our analysis is deliberately weighted to give ethanol the benefit of a doubt. For example, we assume that, on balance, ethanol from corn reduces greenhouse emissions, even though recent science suggests that substituting ethanol for gasoline might actually have a negative impact (it increases emissions of nitrous oxide, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). Ethanol distilled from grasses and waste materials has a better environmental payoff, but has much higher direct production costs.
Even if ways are found to make alcohol cost-effectively from otherwise worthless sources of carbon, the process would undermine local air quality as it slowed global warming. Though ethanol is likely to reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and toxic hydrocarbons including benzene and formaldehyde, the extra nitrogen oxides react in sunlight to form smog.
The picture on the energy side is a little brighter. For each barrel of oil displaced by ethanol, there are benefits in the form of slightly lower oil prices and reduced potential for economic dislocation from oil-price spikes. We estimate these to be in the neighborhood of $500 million annually in 2012.
But the emphasis here should be on the word "little." In 2005, the ethanol program used about 15% of U.S. corn supplies but displaced less than 2% of gasoline use. Even if all corn produced in the U.S. were devoted to distilling ethanol, the renewable fuel would amount to about 12% of the gasoline demand in 2005. And the more corn used to make alcohol, the greater the potential for collateral damage. Beef producers, not to mention Mexico's tortilla makers, are already upset with high corn prices. Environmentalists, too, seem to be waking up to the fact that ethanol from corn is no panacea.
This growing opposition could open the door to a midcourse correction in Congress's commitment to preferences for corn-based alcohol. The first order of business: ax the tax credit and the tariff on imported ethanol. Instead, direct funds to research that might make a real difference in energy security and/or climate change, such as geoengineering the atmosphere to block solar radiation, or converting biomass to electricity on a large scale.
Congress should also begin using emissions taxes or market-based incentives to drive private innovation. If the tax route is taken, the revenue should enable equivalent reductions of efficiency draining taxes, such as the payroll tax.
Congress might never have bet so much of the taxpayers' money on corn-based ethanol if an unbiased accounting of the consequences had been available early on. We could use a separate agency, shielded in part from political considerations, whose sole mission would be to analyze the costs and benefits of regulations and government programs. Without such an agency, interest-group logrolling will continue to trump science and economics in major policy choices.
Mr. Hahn is executive director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center and was co-chair of the U.S. Alternative Fuels Council under President George H.W. Bush.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Environmentalism's Outer Limits
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, November 23, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Man And Nature: Enviro-fanatics are sterilizing themselves to reduce their "carbon footprint." We dread where their nihilistic ideology — that mankind is an evil planetary force — will lead next.
The U.K.'s Daily Mail newspaper last week featured the beaming face of one Toni Vernelli, a British environmental activist who had sterilization surgery at the age of 27 because she considers children "a sinister threat to the future."
It was no Monty Pythonesque spoof. Two years earlier, despite being on birth-control pills, Vernelli got pregnant and had an abortion because "it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world."
"Having children is selfish," the now-35-year-old says.
A vegetarian by age 15, Vernelli met her husband at an animal rights demo; on the morning of her sterilization, he gave her a "Congratulations" card.
Each new child, she says, "uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
What a depressing take on the value of human life. But it was echoed by another eco-crazed couple profiled by the Mail.
Sarah Irving, a 31-year-old green magazine editor, and Mark Hudson, a 37-year-old health care worker, reminisced about how, "after a year of dating, we started talking about sterilization."
According to Hudson, they "live as green a life as possible" — no car, low-energy light bulbs and only locally grown organic foods. They "cycle everywhere" and "never fly."
"In short," he says, "we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth. . . . What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."
But are these people really paragons of unselfishness? Or just green with hypocrisy and averse to changing diapers?
Vernelli and her husband say they "have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children." They've just returned from a trip to South Africa, for example. "We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating overpopulation."
The same double standard is practiced by Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore, who travels the world warning about greenhouse gases via greenhouse gas-emitting aircraft and gas-guzzling cars.
But beyond the comical absurdity of frequent-flying foes of fossil fuels is a vastly more important point: Man is more than a consumer of food and a producer of waste.
The late economist Julian Simon, that prophetic debunker of Malthusian overpopulation theory, proved that people are no drain on our precious planet's natural resources. Rather, they are the solution to scarcities, thanks to the increasing ingenuity of successive generations.
Simon pointed out, for example, that long-term declines in the real prices of natural resources demonstrate that, while physically finite, they are economically unlimited because man discovers new technologies — methods of extracting oil, for instance, from deposits that were once unreachable.
Simon showed that "the ultimate resource is people — skilled, spirited and hopeful people who will exert their wills and imaginations for their own benefit, and inevitably they will benefit not only themselves but the rest of us as well."
If not for their fanatical parents, who are replacing the supposedly dusty old codes of conduct associated with traditional religion with a warped new morality, the children of the two British couples might have been such people.
Man And Nature: Enviro-fanatics are sterilizing themselves to reduce their "carbon footprint." We dread where their nihilistic ideology — that mankind is an evil planetary force — will lead next.
The U.K.'s Daily Mail newspaper last week featured the beaming face of one Toni Vernelli, a British environmental activist who had sterilization surgery at the age of 27 because she considers children "a sinister threat to the future."
It was no Monty Pythonesque spoof. Two years earlier, despite being on birth-control pills, Vernelli got pregnant and had an abortion because "it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world."
"Having children is selfish," the now-35-year-old says.
A vegetarian by age 15, Vernelli met her husband at an animal rights demo; on the morning of her sterilization, he gave her a "Congratulations" card.
Each new child, she says, "uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
What a depressing take on the value of human life. But it was echoed by another eco-crazed couple profiled by the Mail.
Sarah Irving, a 31-year-old green magazine editor, and Mark Hudson, a 37-year-old health care worker, reminisced about how, "after a year of dating, we started talking about sterilization."
According to Hudson, they "live as green a life as possible" — no car, low-energy light bulbs and only locally grown organic foods. They "cycle everywhere" and "never fly."
"In short," he says, "we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth. . . . What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."
But are these people really paragons of unselfishness? Or just green with hypocrisy and averse to changing diapers?
Vernelli and her husband say they "have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children." They've just returned from a trip to South Africa, for example. "We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating overpopulation."
The same double standard is practiced by Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore, who travels the world warning about greenhouse gases via greenhouse gas-emitting aircraft and gas-guzzling cars.
But beyond the comical absurdity of frequent-flying foes of fossil fuels is a vastly more important point: Man is more than a consumer of food and a producer of waste.
The late economist Julian Simon, that prophetic debunker of Malthusian overpopulation theory, proved that people are no drain on our precious planet's natural resources. Rather, they are the solution to scarcities, thanks to the increasing ingenuity of successive generations.
Simon pointed out, for example, that long-term declines in the real prices of natural resources demonstrate that, while physically finite, they are economically unlimited because man discovers new technologies — methods of extracting oil, for instance, from deposits that were once unreachable.
Simon showed that "the ultimate resource is people — skilled, spirited and hopeful people who will exert their wills and imaginations for their own benefit, and inevitably they will benefit not only themselves but the rest of us as well."
If not for their fanatical parents, who are replacing the supposedly dusty old codes of conduct associated with traditional religion with a warped new morality, the children of the two British couples might have been such people.
Sarko's Stare-Down
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, November 23, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Leaders: Time was, a French leader who dared to defy that nation's all-powerful unions could end up without a political future. Well, Nicolas Sarkozy stared down the mighty transport workers — and the union blinked.
In France, a country with a tradition of violent mob eruptions dating back at least to its revolution, the street is the ultimate ballot box.
So when its transportation and energy workers struck, costing the French economy $4 billion-plus a week, some thought it might be the end of Sarko's ability to govern. Surely, they thought, he'd have to bend to the unions' will, wouldn't he?
Pointing the way to a turnaround.
But they underestimated Sarko's resolve. Nine days into the strike, Monsieur le President forced the unions to back down. And in so doing, he has earned what American hip-hop artists call "street cred."
On Friday, Sarkozy vowed to go ahead with economic reforms that may help end France's long economic slide into irrelevance. "I have no intention to stop the reform movement, no intention to slow it down, no intention to forget my promises," he said. "I made commitments. They will be kept."
Those phrases echo those made by both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when they faced similar union-made problems — in Reagan's case, with air traffic controllers; in Thatcher's, with the Marxist-led coal miners. Both stuck to their guns and won. Now Sarko's done the same.
No longer, he told the transport and energy unions, could their members expect to retire on full pensions at age 55 — and in some cases as early as 53. Instead, they must put in a full 40 years.
Contrast that with Sarkozy's predecessor, Jacques Chirac. During his presidency, the unions routinely got their way — especially in 1995, when they virtually shut down the economy with strikes over basically the same pension issues.
Much more is involved here than macho posturing, by the way. France's economy is deeply troubled, largely because of excessive government and union influence on the private sector, but also because so many people are on the dole.
France's population, like those of other European nations, is rapidly aging. Yet its workers are retiring at younger and younger ages. If this trend is allowed to continue, the country's pay-as-you-go pension system will require fiscal measures it can ill afford.
Since 2000, France's GDP has grown just 1.7% a year after inflation. That compares with 2.1% for the rest of the EU and 2.4% in the U.S.
Today, as France falls further behind, just over 40% of the adult population works. That share will soar to 70% by 2040 if nothing is done. Already youth unemployment is nearing 22%.
So who will pay for it all? No one knows. That's the scary thing. But a surge of retirees, a dearth of workers and laggard economic growth add up to only one thing: massive tax hikes.
That's why Sarkozy deserves kudos for stepping in and using his political capital to make a difference. That difference will also be felt elsewhere in Europe where similar pension crises loom.
Leadership was badly needed on this issue, and Sarko has stepped up to provide it. His brave stance against the unions and for fiscal sanity may be a first salvo in a fight to preserve the Continent's economy.
Leaders: Time was, a French leader who dared to defy that nation's all-powerful unions could end up without a political future. Well, Nicolas Sarkozy stared down the mighty transport workers — and the union blinked.
In France, a country with a tradition of violent mob eruptions dating back at least to its revolution, the street is the ultimate ballot box.
So when its transportation and energy workers struck, costing the French economy $4 billion-plus a week, some thought it might be the end of Sarko's ability to govern. Surely, they thought, he'd have to bend to the unions' will, wouldn't he?
Pointing the way to a turnaround.
But they underestimated Sarko's resolve. Nine days into the strike, Monsieur le President forced the unions to back down. And in so doing, he has earned what American hip-hop artists call "street cred."
On Friday, Sarkozy vowed to go ahead with economic reforms that may help end France's long economic slide into irrelevance. "I have no intention to stop the reform movement, no intention to slow it down, no intention to forget my promises," he said. "I made commitments. They will be kept."
Those phrases echo those made by both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when they faced similar union-made problems — in Reagan's case, with air traffic controllers; in Thatcher's, with the Marxist-led coal miners. Both stuck to their guns and won. Now Sarko's done the same.
No longer, he told the transport and energy unions, could their members expect to retire on full pensions at age 55 — and in some cases as early as 53. Instead, they must put in a full 40 years.
Contrast that with Sarkozy's predecessor, Jacques Chirac. During his presidency, the unions routinely got their way — especially in 1995, when they virtually shut down the economy with strikes over basically the same pension issues.
Much more is involved here than macho posturing, by the way. France's economy is deeply troubled, largely because of excessive government and union influence on the private sector, but also because so many people are on the dole.
France's population, like those of other European nations, is rapidly aging. Yet its workers are retiring at younger and younger ages. If this trend is allowed to continue, the country's pay-as-you-go pension system will require fiscal measures it can ill afford.
Since 2000, France's GDP has grown just 1.7% a year after inflation. That compares with 2.1% for the rest of the EU and 2.4% in the U.S.
Today, as France falls further behind, just over 40% of the adult population works. That share will soar to 70% by 2040 if nothing is done. Already youth unemployment is nearing 22%.
So who will pay for it all? No one knows. That's the scary thing. But a surge of retirees, a dearth of workers and laggard economic growth add up to only one thing: massive tax hikes.
That's why Sarkozy deserves kudos for stepping in and using his political capital to make a difference. That difference will also be felt elsewhere in Europe where similar pension crises loom.
Leadership was badly needed on this issue, and Sarko has stepped up to provide it. His brave stance against the unions and for fiscal sanity may be a first salvo in a fight to preserve the Continent's economy.
Disney Reaches to the Crib To Extend Princess Magic
By MERISSA MARR
November 19, 2007; Page B1
At the recently opened Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique at Cinderella's castle in Walt Disney World, hordes of young girls in ball gowns jostle every day to get their hair coiffed, their nails painted and their faces plastered with make-up to imitate their favorite princess.
It's an image that's become classic of the Walt Disney Co. Princess revolution. What started out in 2001 as a few princess outfits became an overnight sensation as Disney enchanted 3- to 6-year-old girls throughout America with everything from princess comforters and princess backpacks to princess-emblazoned sneakers. Smartly-packaged releases of classic princess movies have helped bring girls back for more each year.
Princess makeovers at the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique at Disney World.
But while Disney appears to have exploited every corner of princess mania, it is also under pressure to keep its $4 billion princess franchise growing. So Disney's princess minders are hoping to hook even younger girls and their moms on the craze with a new range of princess products aimed at newborns. The princess clan will feature on cribs, diaper-changing mats and other infant products next year.
Also on tap: adding new princesses to the core lineup that includes Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle and Jasmine (more-recent characters, Mulan and Pocahontas, are largely on the sidelines). Disney plans to introduce a new African-American princess called Tiana in an animated film, "The Princess and the Frog," a response to demands for more diversity among princesses. Two other animated princess-based movies -- one starring Rapunzel and another starring a Scottish princess in a new Pixar production -- will be rolled out after that.
Meanwhile, ...
for more shallow information, click here>>>
November 19, 2007; Page B1
At the recently opened Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique at Cinderella's castle in Walt Disney World, hordes of young girls in ball gowns jostle every day to get their hair coiffed, their nails painted and their faces plastered with make-up to imitate their favorite princess.
It's an image that's become classic of the Walt Disney Co. Princess revolution. What started out in 2001 as a few princess outfits became an overnight sensation as Disney enchanted 3- to 6-year-old girls throughout America with everything from princess comforters and princess backpacks to princess-emblazoned sneakers. Smartly-packaged releases of classic princess movies have helped bring girls back for more each year.
Princess makeovers at the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique at Disney World.
But while Disney appears to have exploited every corner of princess mania, it is also under pressure to keep its $4 billion princess franchise growing. So Disney's princess minders are hoping to hook even younger girls and their moms on the craze with a new range of princess products aimed at newborns. The princess clan will feature on cribs, diaper-changing mats and other infant products next year.
Also on tap: adding new princesses to the core lineup that includes Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle and Jasmine (more-recent characters, Mulan and Pocahontas, are largely on the sidelines). Disney plans to introduce a new African-American princess called Tiana in an animated film, "The Princess and the Frog," a response to demands for more diversity among princesses. Two other animated princess-based movies -- one starring Rapunzel and another starring a Scottish princess in a new Pixar production -- will be rolled out after that.
Meanwhile, ...
for more shallow information, click here>>>
Freaked Out: Teens' Dance Moves Split a Texas Town
School Leaders in Argyle
Banned Hip-Hop Grinding;
Parents Back 'Good Kids'
By SUSAN WARREN
November 19, 2007; Page A1
ARGYLE, Texas -- Karen Miller, 53 years old, saw her first "freak dance" four years ago when she was chaperoning a high-school dance attended by her freshman daughter.
One boy was up close to a girl's back, bumping and grinding to the pounding beat of the music.
"I thought, 'That's just dadgum nasty,'" Ms. Miller recalls. "It really had me sick to my stomach."
Ms. Miller took the initiative and broke it up. School employees at the dance seemed oblivious, she says.
Freak dancing has become a hot-button issue in Argyle, Texas, where a school superintendent banned the popular teen dance from a homecoming dance. WSJ's Susan Warren reports.
They're oblivious no longer. A new resolve by school officials in this booming Dallas suburb to crack down on sexually suggestive dancing -- and skimpy clothing -- has sparked a rancorous debate over what boundaries should be set for teenagers' self-expression. Argyle joins a long list of other schools around the country that have banned the hip-hop inspired dancing known as "grinding" or "freak dancing."
But in Argyle, a once-sleepy farming community strained by explosive growth from an influx of well-to-do suburbanites, the controversy has gotten vicious. Some parents blame the newly installed school superintendent, Jason Ceyanes, 35, for ruining their children's October homecoming dance by enforcing a strict dress code and making provocative dancing off-limits. Disgusted, a lot of kids left, and the dance ended early.
Mr. Ceyanes says he fears current cleavage-baring dress styles combined with sexually charged dancing could lead to an unsafe environment for students.
"This is not just shaking your booty," he said. "This is pelvis-to-pelvis physical contact in the private areas...and then moving around."
To make his point, Mr. Ceyanes held a community meeting and played a video pulled from YouTube demonstrating freak dancing. "I cannot imagine that there is a father in this room who could watch this video and be all right with a young man dancing with his daughter in that fashion," he told the gathering.
Deep Rift
Many parents support Mr. Ceyanes's actions. But another vocal faction has been harshly critical of the new superintendent, creating a deep rift in the community. These parents defend the children of Argyle as "good kids," and say they should be trusted to dance and dress the way they want.
Angry, Internet-empowered parents have searched public records to dig up personal details of Mr. Ceyanes's past, blogging spitefully about his divorce and his earlier marriage and fatherhood at the age of 17. In community chat rooms, some people were calling him a hypocrite and a power-crazed autocrat showing too much interest in teenage girls.
Supporters fought back on their own blogs, where one posted pictures of Argyle students in skin-baring clothing culled from MySpace and Facebook pages. "Check your kids profiles," the blogger wrote. "These are some of the pictures your little angels have posted on the World Wide Web." The post was later removed, and the anonymous blogger refused to discuss the matter or give his or her name in an email exchange, citing fears of retaliation. "We had several comments that were extremely threatening," the blogger wrote.
Mr. Ceyanes, meanwhile, has tried to stay above the fray, concentrating his energies on meeting parents, school staff and student advisers to find common ground. He has acknowledged that the dress code he inherited, which calls for three-inch-wide shoulder straps and no exposed back, is too strict for formal dances. Proposed new rules still bar cleavage but would allow strapless dresses.
The dancing dispute is proving tougher to resolve. "Our community needs to show these students how much we value them by not allowing them to devalue themselves," says Spencer Jefferies, father of a sophomore girl, who supports Mr. Ceyanes's efforts. Others disagree. "We never had a problem before," said one of the more outspoken parents, Barbara Roberts. She says she spent $400 for her 17-year-old daughter's dress only to have her leave the dance after a few minutes because it was such a dud.
Students defend their style of dancing, blaming the disagreement on the same sort of generation gap that turned Elvis Presley's swiveling hips into a public controversy in 1956. Some Argyle teens say they realize grinding might look erotic, but they insist it's just dancing, not sex. "We don't think of it that way," says Ferrin Bavousett, 17. "When we dance, we don't mean, 'Hey, after the dance you want to go to La Quinta?'" referring to a nearby motor hotel.
Taking Up the Challenge
At one of the school meetings on the issue, Phillip Canizares, 17, said he told the superintendent that teens are dancing the only way they know how. "If it's all we know how to do, then what else are we supposed to do?"
Mr. Ceyanes has taken up the challenge. He has appointed an assistant high-school principal to recruit dance instructors from local studios and universities to demonstrate what's appropriate and what's not for a school dance.
It's going to be an uphill battle, according to dance experts. In the age of round-the-clock music videos on television, iPods and computers, teenagers are just copying what they see. Grinding has been around for a long time, but it has been getting raunchier as videos keep pushing the envelope. "If you're dancing to a song that says 'shake that, shake that, shake that,' it's kind of hard not to shake that," says Gino Johnson, a Dallas area choreographer and producer specializing in hip hop.
Feeling the Heat
The problem is so widespread at school dances that deejays are feeling the heat, too. School officials sometimes blame the deejay for playing too much of the hip-hop-style music that can lead to grinding. So deejays have developed strategies, such as switching to disco or rock 'n' roll, when they see the kids getting too worked up. Some change the pace with a dose of a line dance called cotton-eye joe or a limbo contest.
But "there's only so much a deejay can do," says Richard Roberti, who owns Pyramid Sounds in Woonsocket, R.I. Mix up the music too much, and you risk driving the kids away.
That's what happened in Argyle. Tension was already high because students arriving at the dance were being asked to don jackets and T-shirts to cover up shoulder-baring dresses. When the grinding started inside, the disc jockey switched the music to rock 'n' roll classics, and at one point even played the Six Flags Theme Song from the commercials. It was the musical equivalent of a bucket of cold water.
Instead of canceling dances as some schools have done, Mr. Ceyanes wants to try again, and has scheduled another "Winter Dance" in December to see whether his dancing demos have helped the kids find a less freaky way to move.
But Mr. Roberti, the deejay, has some advice for Argyle: "The more they make a big deal over it, the more the kids are gonna wanna do it."
Write to Susan Warren at susan.warren@wsj.com
Banned Hip-Hop Grinding;
Parents Back 'Good Kids'
By SUSAN WARREN
November 19, 2007; Page A1
ARGYLE, Texas -- Karen Miller, 53 years old, saw her first "freak dance" four years ago when she was chaperoning a high-school dance attended by her freshman daughter.
One boy was up close to a girl's back, bumping and grinding to the pounding beat of the music.
"I thought, 'That's just dadgum nasty,'" Ms. Miller recalls. "It really had me sick to my stomach."
Ms. Miller took the initiative and broke it up. School employees at the dance seemed oblivious, she says.
Freak dancing has become a hot-button issue in Argyle, Texas, where a school superintendent banned the popular teen dance from a homecoming dance. WSJ's Susan Warren reports.
They're oblivious no longer. A new resolve by school officials in this booming Dallas suburb to crack down on sexually suggestive dancing -- and skimpy clothing -- has sparked a rancorous debate over what boundaries should be set for teenagers' self-expression. Argyle joins a long list of other schools around the country that have banned the hip-hop inspired dancing known as "grinding" or "freak dancing."
But in Argyle, a once-sleepy farming community strained by explosive growth from an influx of well-to-do suburbanites, the controversy has gotten vicious. Some parents blame the newly installed school superintendent, Jason Ceyanes, 35, for ruining their children's October homecoming dance by enforcing a strict dress code and making provocative dancing off-limits. Disgusted, a lot of kids left, and the dance ended early.
Mr. Ceyanes says he fears current cleavage-baring dress styles combined with sexually charged dancing could lead to an unsafe environment for students.
"This is not just shaking your booty," he said. "This is pelvis-to-pelvis physical contact in the private areas...and then moving around."
To make his point, Mr. Ceyanes held a community meeting and played a video pulled from YouTube demonstrating freak dancing. "I cannot imagine that there is a father in this room who could watch this video and be all right with a young man dancing with his daughter in that fashion," he told the gathering.
Deep Rift
Many parents support Mr. Ceyanes's actions. But another vocal faction has been harshly critical of the new superintendent, creating a deep rift in the community. These parents defend the children of Argyle as "good kids," and say they should be trusted to dance and dress the way they want.
Angry, Internet-empowered parents have searched public records to dig up personal details of Mr. Ceyanes's past, blogging spitefully about his divorce and his earlier marriage and fatherhood at the age of 17. In community chat rooms, some people were calling him a hypocrite and a power-crazed autocrat showing too much interest in teenage girls.
Supporters fought back on their own blogs, where one posted pictures of Argyle students in skin-baring clothing culled from MySpace and Facebook pages. "Check your kids profiles," the blogger wrote. "These are some of the pictures your little angels have posted on the World Wide Web." The post was later removed, and the anonymous blogger refused to discuss the matter or give his or her name in an email exchange, citing fears of retaliation. "We had several comments that were extremely threatening," the blogger wrote.
Mr. Ceyanes, meanwhile, has tried to stay above the fray, concentrating his energies on meeting parents, school staff and student advisers to find common ground. He has acknowledged that the dress code he inherited, which calls for three-inch-wide shoulder straps and no exposed back, is too strict for formal dances. Proposed new rules still bar cleavage but would allow strapless dresses.
The dancing dispute is proving tougher to resolve. "Our community needs to show these students how much we value them by not allowing them to devalue themselves," says Spencer Jefferies, father of a sophomore girl, who supports Mr. Ceyanes's efforts. Others disagree. "We never had a problem before," said one of the more outspoken parents, Barbara Roberts. She says she spent $400 for her 17-year-old daughter's dress only to have her leave the dance after a few minutes because it was such a dud.
Students defend their style of dancing, blaming the disagreement on the same sort of generation gap that turned Elvis Presley's swiveling hips into a public controversy in 1956. Some Argyle teens say they realize grinding might look erotic, but they insist it's just dancing, not sex. "We don't think of it that way," says Ferrin Bavousett, 17. "When we dance, we don't mean, 'Hey, after the dance you want to go to La Quinta?'" referring to a nearby motor hotel.
Taking Up the Challenge
At one of the school meetings on the issue, Phillip Canizares, 17, said he told the superintendent that teens are dancing the only way they know how. "If it's all we know how to do, then what else are we supposed to do?"
Mr. Ceyanes has taken up the challenge. He has appointed an assistant high-school principal to recruit dance instructors from local studios and universities to demonstrate what's appropriate and what's not for a school dance.
It's going to be an uphill battle, according to dance experts. In the age of round-the-clock music videos on television, iPods and computers, teenagers are just copying what they see. Grinding has been around for a long time, but it has been getting raunchier as videos keep pushing the envelope. "If you're dancing to a song that says 'shake that, shake that, shake that,' it's kind of hard not to shake that," says Gino Johnson, a Dallas area choreographer and producer specializing in hip hop.
Feeling the Heat
The problem is so widespread at school dances that deejays are feeling the heat, too. School officials sometimes blame the deejay for playing too much of the hip-hop-style music that can lead to grinding. So deejays have developed strategies, such as switching to disco or rock 'n' roll, when they see the kids getting too worked up. Some change the pace with a dose of a line dance called cotton-eye joe or a limbo contest.
But "there's only so much a deejay can do," says Richard Roberti, who owns Pyramid Sounds in Woonsocket, R.I. Mix up the music too much, and you risk driving the kids away.
That's what happened in Argyle. Tension was already high because students arriving at the dance were being asked to don jackets and T-shirts to cover up shoulder-baring dresses. When the grinding started inside, the disc jockey switched the music to rock 'n' roll classics, and at one point even played the Six Flags Theme Song from the commercials. It was the musical equivalent of a bucket of cold water.
Instead of canceling dances as some schools have done, Mr. Ceyanes wants to try again, and has scheduled another "Winter Dance" in December to see whether his dancing demos have helped the kids find a less freaky way to move.
But Mr. Roberti, the deejay, has some advice for Argyle: "The more they make a big deal over it, the more the kids are gonna wanna do it."
Write to Susan Warren at susan.warren@wsj.com
Cranberry crunch? Bounty of the bog gets pricier
Cranberry harvester Mike Wainio, of Carver, Mass., uses a rake to settle cranberries in the back of a delivery truck as the fruit tumbles off a cleaning rack at a cranberry bog, Thursday, Oct. 11, 2007.Published: 11.21.2007 The Wall Street Journal
Thinking of cooking with fresh cranberries this holiday season? You may need a backup recipe.
A combination of poor weather conditions and rising demand for the tart red fruit from health-conscious consumers may lead to shortages by Christmas, industry and retail officials say.
Thinking of cooking with fresh cranberries this holiday season? You may need a backup recipe.
A combination of poor weather conditions and rising demand for the tart red fruit from health-conscious consumers may lead to shortages by Christmas, industry and retail officials say.
Canned sauce, bottled juice and dried cranberry snacks will be available, but prices are expected to rise in coming weeks and months. As for fresh cranberries, "we won't have any left for Christmas," predicts Robert Keane, a spokesman for the Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., a 389-store supermarket chain based in Quincy, Mass. and owned by Royal Ahold in the Netherlands. He calls the projected scarcity "an industry-wide problem."
Consumers already are seeing slight price increases. The average retail price of a 12-ounce package of fresh cranberries rose eight cents this year to $2.20 from $2.12 in 2006, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation, an organization representing farm and ranch families.
Thanks to new product innovations and efforts to promote the health benefits of the fruit by industry leader Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. and others, cranberries no longer are relegated to a Thanksgiving side dish. They can now be found in more than 2,000 products from muffin mix to soap. U.S. unit sales of dried cranberries, used to make snacks and as ingredients in other foods, rose nearly 20 percent in 2006, according to Information Resources Inc., a Chicago-based retail-tracking firm.
Cranberries prefer cold winters and plenty of rain. So last year's unusually warm winter and a summer drought in many parts of the U.S. and Canada hurt the crop now being harvested. Peter Beaton, who grows cranberries in Wareham, Mass., says his overall crop is down about 30 percent this year from a year ago because of the weather. But he expects higher prices to help offset the shortfall, resulting in a profit decline of only 10 percent to 15 percent.
Cranberry industry officials estimate this year's smaller yield is expected to bring growers $45 to $50 for a 100-pound barrel, up from $37 last year, and more than triple the $16 a barrel about seven years ago. Farmers generally need between $18 to $24 a barrel to break even. Overall, officials are predicting growers will produce about seven millon barrels in the U.S. and Canada — about one million less than a year ago. As recently as August, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture was forecasting a slight increase in cranberry production in the U.S. this year, but officials say they expect to revise the numbers in January.
The wholesale price of cranberry-juice concentrate charged by processors to juicemakers and other distributors shot up to $65 a gallon this month from $45 in August, according to the Cranberry Marketing Committee, an industry advisory group to the USDA.
Some of that price increase will be passed on to consumers in the coming months, says David Farrimond, the committee's executive director. Gordon Crane, founder and president of Port Washington, N.Y.-based juice maker Apple & Eve LLC, which markets the Apple & Eve and Northland cranberry juice and juice-blend brands, says he expects retail cranberry juice prices in general to rise "at least 10 percent" in the next several months. He said his company will make its pricing plans known shortly.
Chris Phillips, a spokesman for the Lakeville, Mass.-based Ocean Spray, says the 800-member farming cooperative also plans to increase its prices on its cranberry products in 2008. He called the increases "modest" and declined to elaborate. With annual sales of $1.68 billion and a 70 percent market share, Ocean Spray is far and away the cranberry market leader, selling its products in many parts of Europe and in Asia. "We could be selling cranberries right now in countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, but we can't enter those markets just yet because of supply constraints," says Ocean Spray Chief Executive Randy C. Papadellis.
On the health front, the first big boost for cranberry marketers came from an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1994. A team of Harvard Medical School researchers showed in a large clinical trial involving 153 elderly women that regularly drinking cranberry juice cocktail — a mix of cranberry juice, corn syrup and water — reduced the presence of certain e.coli bacteria in the urinary tract.
Then, in 1998, a research letter in the New England Journal of Medicine identified the agent preventing bacteria from adhering to urinary tract walls as proanthocyanidins, which are condensed tannins in the cranberry's skin and other parts. The 1994 study was funded by Ocean Spray; the 1998 research was funded by Rutgers University in New Jersey and Ocean Spray.
Researchers are further probing how the cranberry helps prevent urinary-tract infections, whether cranberries can deter dental plaque and tooth decay, and whether they can help blood move more effectively through the blood vessels. "It's a miracle food," says Amy Howell, a researcher at Rutgers.
The academic research piqued the interest of the food industry, which began paying farmers up to $80 a barrel for cranberries. That attracted a host of outside investors, who expanded cranberry production. The result: a cranberry glut around 2000.
Competition from new products in the expanding beverage market led to declining cranberry drink sales. To turn the sales around, Ocean Spray began promoting the health benefits that cranberry studies were uncovering. In addition to its effect on urinary-tract infections, several studies also found the cranberry to have very high levels of anti-oxidants — a buzzword in health circles referring to natural chemicals that are believed to fight disease and slow the aging process.
Ocean Spray decided to call its fruit the "wonderberry" and focus on its ability to "cleanse and purify." An ad campaign that launched in the fall of 2005 featured growers standing in a cranberry bog delivering various health messages in an awkward but folksy manner.
Unit sales of Ocean Spray's cranberry-juice cocktail rose 3.1 percent in 2006, compared with a 5.3 percent decline in shelf-stable juice and juice-drink sales over the same period, according to IRI.
To further drive up demand, Ocean Spray and other growers have also unleashed a steady flow of new products, including new low-calorie drinks such as Diet Ocean Spray, a juice drink introduced in 2006. In one recent television ad, two growers promote the juice drink as "better for you than diet soda." In April, the company launched a line of "Grower's Reserve" 100 percent natural juices, including a "Super Antioxidant" variety with blueberry, pomegranate and cranberry juices.
Following Ocean Spray's lead, Decas Cranberry Products Inc., a smaller competitor based nearby in Carver, Mass., also has introduced a variety of health-oriented offshoots. Under its patented "Fruitaceuticals" brand, it recently launched two new products. One, called "PomaCrans," is labeled as "Antioxidant-rich Cranberries plus pure Pomegranate." Another offering, "OmegaCrans," are dried cranberries fortified with omega fats — considered by some to improve cardiovascular health — from cranberry seeds.
"We used to throw the seeds away, but the funny thing is, we recently discovered there's omega oil in them," says Decas Chairman John Decas.
YouTube Video Shows Man Tasered After Refusing to Sign Ticket
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
An internal police investigation is under way after a formal complaint was filed against a Utah state trooper who was videotaped Tasering a man who refused to sign a speeding ticket.
The officer's conduct has been called into question after a videotape of the incident was posted on YouTube.
The video, taken from a Utah Highway Patrol dashboard camera, shows Trooper John Gardner using a Taser on Jared Massey during a traffic stop on State Road 40 in Uintah County on Sept. 14.
Click here to see the video.
"We do have an open internal review, or investigation, of the case," Sgt. Jeff Nigbur, a spokesman for the Utah Department of Public Safety, told FOXNews.com. "We're trying to expedite that to get that done as quickly as possible. If the trooper acted inappropriately we will definitely, absolutely, take the appropriate measures to resolve that."
In the nearly 10-minute video, Gardner is seen pulling Massey over for speeding. When Massey refuses to sign the citation, Gardner asks him to exit the vehicle, and things quickly escalate as the motorist points toward the speed limit sign.
"Turn around. Put your hands behind your back," the officer says. Then he pulls out his Taser.
"Turn around, put your hands behind your back now."
"What the hell is wrong with you?" Massey asks.
"Turn around," the officer says again. "Turn around."
"What the heck is wrong with you?" the motorist asks again, then turns and starts walking back to his car.
The officer then Tasers the driver in the back as the man's pregnant wife screams from their vehicle. She later jumps out and is ordered to get back in the car.
Massey repeatedly tells the officer, "I don't know why you're doing this," and later says, "read me my rights," before he is put into the patrol car.
When another officer arrives, Gardner tells him "he took a ride with the Taser."
After Massey's wife leaves the scene, Gardner explains the situation to the other cop.
"He was completely in charge," Gardner said. "He said 'No I'm not signing the ticket.' I told him well 'OK, that's fine, hop out. Turn around, put your hands behind your back.' Wouldn't do it.
"'Turn around put your hands behind your back," the officer continued. "And uh, he was jumping around, making me nervous as hell, he was back here over to here. I'm like 'Nah, we're not playing this game.' Pull out the Taser. Turn around right now, or I Taser you."
"Good for you," the other officer responds.
Massey obtained the video from the Utah Highway Patrol and posted it on YouTube, MyFOXUtah.com reports. He filed a formal complaint and is considering a lawsuit.
Click here to read the MyFOXUtah.com report.
"There was some emotion and ego involved on both sides, not just the Highway Patrol side," Nigbur said. "Obviously, the best place to fight these types of things — and this is once again for both sides — is in court."
The Utah Highway Patrol has a nine-page policy on Taser use, including in instances where "a subject is threatening himself, an officer or another person with physical force, and when other means of controlling the subject are unreasonable or could cause injury to the officer, the subject or others," Nigbur said.
Medical teams are always dispatched to the scene after a Taser has been used, he said.
If Gardner's actions are found to be inappropriate, he could face verbal reprimand, days off with pay or without pay, or termination, Nigbur said.
But currently, he's still on active highway patrol.
"He's not on paid administrative leave," Nigbur said. "He still does work the roads out there."
An internal police investigation is under way after a formal complaint was filed against a Utah state trooper who was videotaped Tasering a man who refused to sign a speeding ticket.
The officer's conduct has been called into question after a videotape of the incident was posted on YouTube.
The video, taken from a Utah Highway Patrol dashboard camera, shows Trooper John Gardner using a Taser on Jared Massey during a traffic stop on State Road 40 in Uintah County on Sept. 14.
Click here to see the video.
"We do have an open internal review, or investigation, of the case," Sgt. Jeff Nigbur, a spokesman for the Utah Department of Public Safety, told FOXNews.com. "We're trying to expedite that to get that done as quickly as possible. If the trooper acted inappropriately we will definitely, absolutely, take the appropriate measures to resolve that."
In the nearly 10-minute video, Gardner is seen pulling Massey over for speeding. When Massey refuses to sign the citation, Gardner asks him to exit the vehicle, and things quickly escalate as the motorist points toward the speed limit sign.
"Turn around. Put your hands behind your back," the officer says. Then he pulls out his Taser.
"Turn around, put your hands behind your back now."
"What the hell is wrong with you?" Massey asks.
"Turn around," the officer says again. "Turn around."
"What the heck is wrong with you?" the motorist asks again, then turns and starts walking back to his car.
The officer then Tasers the driver in the back as the man's pregnant wife screams from their vehicle. She later jumps out and is ordered to get back in the car.
Massey repeatedly tells the officer, "I don't know why you're doing this," and later says, "read me my rights," before he is put into the patrol car.
When another officer arrives, Gardner tells him "he took a ride with the Taser."
After Massey's wife leaves the scene, Gardner explains the situation to the other cop.
"He was completely in charge," Gardner said. "He said 'No I'm not signing the ticket.' I told him well 'OK, that's fine, hop out. Turn around, put your hands behind your back.' Wouldn't do it.
"'Turn around put your hands behind your back," the officer continued. "And uh, he was jumping around, making me nervous as hell, he was back here over to here. I'm like 'Nah, we're not playing this game.' Pull out the Taser. Turn around right now, or I Taser you."
"Good for you," the other officer responds.
Massey obtained the video from the Utah Highway Patrol and posted it on YouTube, MyFOXUtah.com reports. He filed a formal complaint and is considering a lawsuit.
Click here to read the MyFOXUtah.com report.
"There was some emotion and ego involved on both sides, not just the Highway Patrol side," Nigbur said. "Obviously, the best place to fight these types of things — and this is once again for both sides — is in court."
The Utah Highway Patrol has a nine-page policy on Taser use, including in instances where "a subject is threatening himself, an officer or another person with physical force, and when other means of controlling the subject are unreasonable or could cause injury to the officer, the subject or others," Nigbur said.
Medical teams are always dispatched to the scene after a Taser has been used, he said.
If Gardner's actions are found to be inappropriate, he could face verbal reprimand, days off with pay or without pay, or termination, Nigbur said.
But currently, he's still on active highway patrol.
"He's not on paid administrative leave," Nigbur said. "He still does work the roads out there."
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Solar paint yields cheaper power
Investor's Business Daily
Mon Nov 19, 7:12 PM ET
Solar panels may soon get cheaper and thinner due to PowerSheets, a Calif.-based solar company.
Researchers developed a process that prints solar cells on layers as thin as aluminum foil, potentially reducing panel costs by 90%.
The company is funded by Google's founders and the Energy Dept. Current solar production costs about $3 a watt, or about 3 times the cost of coal.
PowerSheets says its thin film method will cost 30 cents a watt.
Mon Nov 19, 7:12 PM ET
Solar panels may soon get cheaper and thinner due to PowerSheets, a Calif.-based solar company.
Researchers developed a process that prints solar cells on layers as thin as aluminum foil, potentially reducing panel costs by 90%.
The company is funded by Google's founders and the Energy Dept. Current solar production costs about $3 a watt, or about 3 times the cost of coal.
PowerSheets says its thin film method will cost 30 cents a watt.
Jackie Chan Gives Movies A Kick
BY VINCENT MAO
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 11/19/2007
In the early 1970s, Chan Kong-sang was on the verge of giving up.
The stuntman turned actor had made a string of movies, but they all bombed.
So his dad gave him an ultimatum: become a star in two years or move in with the family in Australia.
The son took the first course.
He didn't give up. He kicked it into high gear. Now the man known as Jackie Chan is to most people a global film icon — the King of Kung Fu — with an entertainment empire.
Chan is the veteran of more than 100 films spanning three decades. He even has his own production and distribution company — Jackie Chan Emperor Movies.
Chan is simply all over the moviemaking process: casting, directing, producing, screenwriting, choreographing and — natch — stunt coordinating.
"He totally reinvented Hong Kong cinema," Renee Witterstaetter, author of "Dying For Action: The Life and Films of Jackie Chan," told IBD. "And he influenced filmmakers around the world even before he was famous in the U.S."
Chan's birth name means born in Hong Kong, and certainly he remembers his roots. Despite his superstar status, he's not above doing things like pushing a broom and cleaning up on the set. He even makes breakfast for cast members.
This from a star whose summer hit "Rush Hour 3" grossed $220 million worldwide and whose singing has made him a pop idol in Asia.
Chan reached his perch through hard work, persistence and passion.
His stock soared when he broke out of a mold that others set for him. After Bruce Lee's death in 1973, directors scrambled for a replacement for the silver screen's main martial artist. Chan was drafted, but he wasn't in the mold of his fellow Hong Kong product.
He saw himself as more. Now audiences pay to see Chan's suicidal, death-defying stunts. No mats, no nets, no insurance, no problem.
"People have called me crazy and maybe they're right, because you need to be a little crazy to do the things I do," Chan said in his autobiography, "I Am Jackie Chan."
In the 1983 movie "Project A", he plunged 50 feet from a clock tower to the ground, and his fall was slowed only by a couple of canopies. Chan always aims to please, so he did the stunt three times to get all of the angles right for the film.
In 1988's "Police Story," he suffered second-degree burns to his hands and palms after sliding down a hundred-foot pole wrapped in Christmas lights.
With stunts such as those, Chan obviously goes all out for his fans. He was even struck by a helicopter in 1992's "Supercop." And he's had tomahawks thrown at this head.
His closest brush with death came during the 1986 filming of "Armor of God." That's where he leapt 40 feet from a wall onto a tree branch, which snapped. He plunged to the ground and smacked his head against a rock. Blood spewed from his ears, leading to brain surgery.
He recovered six weeks later, took the leap of faith again and succeeded. Today he has a permanent hole in his head.
"There's a formula to my films," Chan wrote. "People expect certain things from a Jackie Chan film, but within those expectations I want to give them a shock."
Chan was born in Hong Kong's affluent Victoria Peak area in 1954, yet his family was not rich. His mom and dad couldn't even afford to pay the doctor who delivered him. They considered putting him up for adoption, but changed their minds.
The Chan family lived at the French Embassy, where his father, Charles, worked as a cook, and mother, Lee-lee, as a housekeeper. Both were refugees who fled from mainland China.
Growing up, Chan wasn't the best student. He hated the classroom, never did his homework and got into fights. The only school things he enjoyed were gym class and lunch. After only a year, his parents pulled him out.
When Chan was 7, his father took a higher-paying job in Australia, leaving Jackie and his mom in Hong Kong. Before the elder Chan left, he enrolled Jackie in the China Drama Academy. This was no ordinary school. Students lived there, learning acting, acrobatics, miming, martial arts, singing and dancing.
Life was anything but easy. The students' days started at 5 a.m. and ended at midnight. They didn't even have beds; they slept on the floor.
Then there was discipline. It was harsh. If students behaved badly or had performance mishaps, they faced a cane. Later, when Chan's mother joined his father in Australia, he became schoolmaster Yu Jim-yuen's godson. That won him perks, but also got him a double dose of the cane whenever he acted up.
After 10 years at the academy, Chan was ready to display his skills.
He started out slowly, but built a foundation for success in 1976 when he signed on to work with Lo Wei, director of two of Bruce Lee's hit movies. The relationship didn't click; Chan wrote that Wei was a control freak and wanted the young man to play characters that didn't fit Chan's lighthearted personality.
After several flops, Wei loaned Chan to another film company. With more creative freedom, Chan got his first taste of box office success in 1978 with "Snake in the Eagle's Shadow."
His next movie, "Drunken Master," made him a superstar in Asia. He was suddenly one of the highest-paid actors in the industry.
"He created a new film art form, mixing humor with martial arts," Witterstaetter said. "It was so different and unique."
Now Chan looked to the West. He tried to click with American audiences and eventually did so with "Rush Hour." His teaming with comedian Chris Tucker created a smash hit in 1998. "He's broadened his audience through his partnering with . . . Tucker, and that's powerful," author Paul F. Davis told IBD.
Chan sparked more massive theater traffic with two "Rush Hour" sequels and two "Shanghai" comedies with Owen Wilson. The Asian tiger was roaring in Hollywood.
Despite his busy schedule, Chan finds time for charity. He helps run the Jackie Chan Charitable Foundation for youth and the Dragon's Heart Foundation for the elderly.
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 11/19/2007
In the early 1970s, Chan Kong-sang was on the verge of giving up.
The stuntman turned actor had made a string of movies, but they all bombed.
So his dad gave him an ultimatum: become a star in two years or move in with the family in Australia.
The son took the first course.
He didn't give up. He kicked it into high gear. Now the man known as Jackie Chan is to most people a global film icon — the King of Kung Fu — with an entertainment empire.
Chan is the veteran of more than 100 films spanning three decades. He even has his own production and distribution company — Jackie Chan Emperor Movies.
Chan is simply all over the moviemaking process: casting, directing, producing, screenwriting, choreographing and — natch — stunt coordinating.
"He totally reinvented Hong Kong cinema," Renee Witterstaetter, author of "Dying For Action: The Life and Films of Jackie Chan," told IBD. "And he influenced filmmakers around the world even before he was famous in the U.S."
Chan's birth name means born in Hong Kong, and certainly he remembers his roots. Despite his superstar status, he's not above doing things like pushing a broom and cleaning up on the set. He even makes breakfast for cast members.
This from a star whose summer hit "Rush Hour 3" grossed $220 million worldwide and whose singing has made him a pop idol in Asia.
Chan reached his perch through hard work, persistence and passion.
His stock soared when he broke out of a mold that others set for him. After Bruce Lee's death in 1973, directors scrambled for a replacement for the silver screen's main martial artist. Chan was drafted, but he wasn't in the mold of his fellow Hong Kong product.
He saw himself as more. Now audiences pay to see Chan's suicidal, death-defying stunts. No mats, no nets, no insurance, no problem.
"People have called me crazy and maybe they're right, because you need to be a little crazy to do the things I do," Chan said in his autobiography, "I Am Jackie Chan."
In the 1983 movie "Project A", he plunged 50 feet from a clock tower to the ground, and his fall was slowed only by a couple of canopies. Chan always aims to please, so he did the stunt three times to get all of the angles right for the film.
In 1988's "Police Story," he suffered second-degree burns to his hands and palms after sliding down a hundred-foot pole wrapped in Christmas lights.
With stunts such as those, Chan obviously goes all out for his fans. He was even struck by a helicopter in 1992's "Supercop." And he's had tomahawks thrown at this head.
His closest brush with death came during the 1986 filming of "Armor of God." That's where he leapt 40 feet from a wall onto a tree branch, which snapped. He plunged to the ground and smacked his head against a rock. Blood spewed from his ears, leading to brain surgery.
He recovered six weeks later, took the leap of faith again and succeeded. Today he has a permanent hole in his head.
"There's a formula to my films," Chan wrote. "People expect certain things from a Jackie Chan film, but within those expectations I want to give them a shock."
Chan was born in Hong Kong's affluent Victoria Peak area in 1954, yet his family was not rich. His mom and dad couldn't even afford to pay the doctor who delivered him. They considered putting him up for adoption, but changed their minds.
The Chan family lived at the French Embassy, where his father, Charles, worked as a cook, and mother, Lee-lee, as a housekeeper. Both were refugees who fled from mainland China.
Growing up, Chan wasn't the best student. He hated the classroom, never did his homework and got into fights. The only school things he enjoyed were gym class and lunch. After only a year, his parents pulled him out.
When Chan was 7, his father took a higher-paying job in Australia, leaving Jackie and his mom in Hong Kong. Before the elder Chan left, he enrolled Jackie in the China Drama Academy. This was no ordinary school. Students lived there, learning acting, acrobatics, miming, martial arts, singing and dancing.
Life was anything but easy. The students' days started at 5 a.m. and ended at midnight. They didn't even have beds; they slept on the floor.
Then there was discipline. It was harsh. If students behaved badly or had performance mishaps, they faced a cane. Later, when Chan's mother joined his father in Australia, he became schoolmaster Yu Jim-yuen's godson. That won him perks, but also got him a double dose of the cane whenever he acted up.
After 10 years at the academy, Chan was ready to display his skills.
He started out slowly, but built a foundation for success in 1976 when he signed on to work with Lo Wei, director of two of Bruce Lee's hit movies. The relationship didn't click; Chan wrote that Wei was a control freak and wanted the young man to play characters that didn't fit Chan's lighthearted personality.
After several flops, Wei loaned Chan to another film company. With more creative freedom, Chan got his first taste of box office success in 1978 with "Snake in the Eagle's Shadow."
His next movie, "Drunken Master," made him a superstar in Asia. He was suddenly one of the highest-paid actors in the industry.
"He created a new film art form, mixing humor with martial arts," Witterstaetter said. "It was so different and unique."
Now Chan looked to the West. He tried to click with American audiences and eventually did so with "Rush Hour." His teaming with comedian Chris Tucker created a smash hit in 1998. "He's broadened his audience through his partnering with . . . Tucker, and that's powerful," author Paul F. Davis told IBD.
Chan sparked more massive theater traffic with two "Rush Hour" sequels and two "Shanghai" comedies with Owen Wilson. The Asian tiger was roaring in Hollywood.
Despite his busy schedule, Chan finds time for charity. He helps run the Jackie Chan Charitable Foundation for youth and the Dragon's Heart Foundation for the elderly.
Congressional Paul Revere Warns Nation About Islamofascist Threat
By PAUL SPERRY Posted Monday, November 19, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Maintaining a high level of vigilance against a patient, stateless and often invisible enemy hiding behind a religion isn't easy, especially in politically correct Washington. One tireless watchdog is Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., who has founded the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus to educate fellow lawmakers and Americans about militant Islam's long-term threat.
The diminutive yet feisty Myrick, a former Charlotte mayor and now deputy Republican whip, sat down with IBD to discuss the zeitgeist inside official Washington concerning the war on Islamic terror.
IBD: What persuaded you to start the Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus, and what do you hope to accomplish?
Rep. Sue Myrick: Uniting the parties to educate Americans about our terrorist enemy.
Myrick: I decided to start the caucus out of a deep frustration, because President Bush does not talk to the American people about the long-term threat of radical Islamofascism infiltration in America. Since 9/11, I've tried to get the president and several members of his administration to talk to the American people about the dangerous enemy that we're facing. I took them all the materials I could find about what we did during World War II that were used to unite the American people. Everyone I spoke to said, "We do not want to frighten the American people."
I waited for someone else to start to educate the people, however, it did not seem to be happening. At that point, I sought to become educated on the matter. What I have learned is quite disturbing. I decided that if members of Congress were informed, they would have an opportunity to educate people in their districts. So I started the caucus and brought in three other co-chairs — Bud Cramer (D-Ala.), Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
We hope to start a dialogue with America. Until, and unless, we understand what we are fighting, we have no chance. We must inform the people, since it is evident they will have to protect their national sovereignty, because the government is not doing it.
IBD: How many members are in the caucus?
Myrick: We have 118 members — both Democrats and Republicans. The threat we face from radical Islamofascists is not a partisan issue. This is a matter that affects all Americans, regardless of political, social, economic or any other affiliations.
IBD: Should Americans be concerned about recently declassified documents detailing a secret plot by Islamist groups in this country, tied to the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood, to take over America from within, to Islamize our society?
Myrick: Americans must be concerned — alarmed. That is what I am referring to when I say that the administration has not explained who we are fighting and (where we are fighting them). "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is not the whole story. It is amazing that we actually have the enemy's playbook, yet for some reason we don't want to seriously confront the threat we are facing.
The radical Islamofascists have told us how they intend to infiltrate all areas of our society and use the freedoms that are guaranteed under our Constitution to eventually Islamize our country, eliminate our Constitution and enact Shariah law. I know that it sounds a bit fanatical, but it's true.
In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. What did we do? Nothing. Then he attacked again and again around the world before finally striking inside the U.S. Yet, rather than confront the threat head on and declare war on radical Islamofascists, we seek to placate the threat at home by saying radicals have hijacked Islam.
IBD: Are there any Muslim groups with which federal or other government officials — as well as businesses and nonprofits — should think twice about doing outreach or interfaith activities?
Myrick: I know of some Muslim nongovernmental organizations that are doing good things, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America, the American Islamic Congress and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
However, groups such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the U.S. Just to name a few: Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR, is serving 80 months in prison; Randall "Ismail" Royer, the communications director for CAIR, is serving 20 years in prison; and Bassam Khafagi, the director of CAIR's community relations, has been arrested and deported.
There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, which exposed CAIR, ISNA and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood.
IBD: What about Congress — does it have a formal vetting process for screening radical Muslims? Those invited to pray or speak at the Capitol, or who may try to otherwise visit or use Capitol facilities?
Myrick: To my knowledge, there is not a formal vetting process. Members of Congress invite religious leaders to pray. Back in the 1990s, Siraj Wahhaj became the first Muslim chaplain to give the opening prayer to Congress. Siraj Wahhaj was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
There is a policy that members of Congress can reserve rooms for speakers, events, etc., within the Capitol complex, and there is not much oversight as to who can be present at such events. Remember, these are public buildings, paid for by American taxpayers. It is the people's house.
IBD: During WWII, Uncle Sam plastered public places with propaganda posters of the enemy, commissioning artists to paint frightening impressions. The campaign rallied the American people against a common enemy. Yet in this war, the U.S. government hasn't even issued a wanted poster of Osama bin Laden. Why do you think that is?
Myrick: For one, we are too politically correct today. "We don't want to frighten the American people."
IBD: We often hear that Islam is a "religion of peace" and "tolerance," and that jihadists have "hijacked" or "perverted" a "great religion." Is this accurate, that nothing in Islam promotes or condones violent jihad against infidels? Or does such rhetoric simply play into the Islamists' hands in their attempts to sugarcoat the threat, and confuse Americans?
Myrick: There are definitely passages in the Quran that promote or condone violent jihad. However, you can also find passages in the Bible which promote violence. I think that the president is failing the American people by sugarcoating the problem we are facing and only making things worse for the future.
We should explore every means of encouraging moderate Muslims to speak out against the radicals. There are many who want to, and do — such as Sheikh (Muhammad Hisham) Kabbani (of the Islamic Supreme Council of America) and Zainab al-Suwaij (of the American Islamic Congress) and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser (of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy). But they do not get the media attention.
IBD: Many Islamists are well-spoken, and seem skilled at manipulating not only our media but our laws. If they can use our constitutional freedoms against us to block due scrutiny, what chance do we have of marginalizing them?
Myrick: Over the last 25 years, there has been a concerted effort on the part of radical Islamists to infiltrate our major institutions in America. They have done that by funding professors' projects in our colleges and universities. Then, they influence what is taught by making the program dependent on their yearly donations. Several classes have graduated and are now in the media, the judicial system, teaching in our schools and colleges, various branches of our government, even in our military. They are masterful at manipulating minds to fit their purposes.
IBD: How can they be exposed?
Myrick: We need to shed the veil of political correctness that shields government officials from speaking out against them. Until we do that, we do not have a chance of marginalizing them. As soon as someone broaches the idea that the Quran has violent passages, they get shot down as Islamophobes and racists.
Rather than debate these points, groups like CAIR seek to silence the debate. The American people deserve to see and hear the debate, but most people in positions of influence are afraid to say anything.
IBD: Jihad watchers have warned about "Shariah creep" in schools and local governments. We see Shariah being practiced in some parts of Europe; could it happen here?
Myrick: I believe Shariah could easily be practiced here. If a local community becomes infiltrated by extremists who run the town or village operations, then it could easily be implemented in this country. Unchallenged, it will happen.
IBD: The FBI director says the bureau can find no evidence of sleeper cells inside the U.S. How confident are you that the 9/11 cells were the last?
Myrick: From the information that I have heard reported publicly, there are sleeper cells inside the U.S. . . . Hezbollah sleeper cells, al-Qaida sleeper cells, maybe others.
IBD: How worried are you about "virtual jihad" — the use of al Qaida-inspired Web sites to motivate homegrown terrorists?
Myrick: I'm very worried about it, but again, we have certain freedoms in this country. We have a lot of freedom to express ourselves, more than in any other country in the world. People go pretty far in the statements they use to criticize the U.S. That's legal, as well it should be.
But the risk of motivating Americans to engage in jihad through the Web is a very serious problem that our Congress and administration should address immediately. We face an ironic dilemma in that our freedom could very well cost us our freedoms.
IBD: Christian prison chaplains warn that Muslim chaplains are converting inmates to Islam by the cellblock. Are the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Prisons doing enough to monitor this situation?
Myrick: They are aware of it and are supposedly monitoring it. Also, I have read that Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder of the American Muslim Council, placed Muslim chaplains throughout our military. He is now in jail on charges of terrorism. The chaplains, to my knowledge, are still in their current positions. Go figure.
Maintaining a high level of vigilance against a patient, stateless and often invisible enemy hiding behind a religion isn't easy, especially in politically correct Washington. One tireless watchdog is Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., who has founded the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus to educate fellow lawmakers and Americans about militant Islam's long-term threat.
The diminutive yet feisty Myrick, a former Charlotte mayor and now deputy Republican whip, sat down with IBD to discuss the zeitgeist inside official Washington concerning the war on Islamic terror.
IBD: What persuaded you to start the Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus, and what do you hope to accomplish?
Rep. Sue Myrick: Uniting the parties to educate Americans about our terrorist enemy.
Myrick: I decided to start the caucus out of a deep frustration, because President Bush does not talk to the American people about the long-term threat of radical Islamofascism infiltration in America. Since 9/11, I've tried to get the president and several members of his administration to talk to the American people about the dangerous enemy that we're facing. I took them all the materials I could find about what we did during World War II that were used to unite the American people. Everyone I spoke to said, "We do not want to frighten the American people."
I waited for someone else to start to educate the people, however, it did not seem to be happening. At that point, I sought to become educated on the matter. What I have learned is quite disturbing. I decided that if members of Congress were informed, they would have an opportunity to educate people in their districts. So I started the caucus and brought in three other co-chairs — Bud Cramer (D-Ala.), Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
We hope to start a dialogue with America. Until, and unless, we understand what we are fighting, we have no chance. We must inform the people, since it is evident they will have to protect their national sovereignty, because the government is not doing it.
IBD: How many members are in the caucus?
Myrick: We have 118 members — both Democrats and Republicans. The threat we face from radical Islamofascists is not a partisan issue. This is a matter that affects all Americans, regardless of political, social, economic or any other affiliations.
IBD: Should Americans be concerned about recently declassified documents detailing a secret plot by Islamist groups in this country, tied to the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood, to take over America from within, to Islamize our society?
Myrick: Americans must be concerned — alarmed. That is what I am referring to when I say that the administration has not explained who we are fighting and (where we are fighting them). "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is not the whole story. It is amazing that we actually have the enemy's playbook, yet for some reason we don't want to seriously confront the threat we are facing.
The radical Islamofascists have told us how they intend to infiltrate all areas of our society and use the freedoms that are guaranteed under our Constitution to eventually Islamize our country, eliminate our Constitution and enact Shariah law. I know that it sounds a bit fanatical, but it's true.
In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. What did we do? Nothing. Then he attacked again and again around the world before finally striking inside the U.S. Yet, rather than confront the threat head on and declare war on radical Islamofascists, we seek to placate the threat at home by saying radicals have hijacked Islam.
IBD: Are there any Muslim groups with which federal or other government officials — as well as businesses and nonprofits — should think twice about doing outreach or interfaith activities?
Myrick: I know of some Muslim nongovernmental organizations that are doing good things, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America, the American Islamic Congress and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
However, groups such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the U.S. Just to name a few: Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR, is serving 80 months in prison; Randall "Ismail" Royer, the communications director for CAIR, is serving 20 years in prison; and Bassam Khafagi, the director of CAIR's community relations, has been arrested and deported.
There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, which exposed CAIR, ISNA and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood.
IBD: What about Congress — does it have a formal vetting process for screening radical Muslims? Those invited to pray or speak at the Capitol, or who may try to otherwise visit or use Capitol facilities?
Myrick: To my knowledge, there is not a formal vetting process. Members of Congress invite religious leaders to pray. Back in the 1990s, Siraj Wahhaj became the first Muslim chaplain to give the opening prayer to Congress. Siraj Wahhaj was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
There is a policy that members of Congress can reserve rooms for speakers, events, etc., within the Capitol complex, and there is not much oversight as to who can be present at such events. Remember, these are public buildings, paid for by American taxpayers. It is the people's house.
IBD: During WWII, Uncle Sam plastered public places with propaganda posters of the enemy, commissioning artists to paint frightening impressions. The campaign rallied the American people against a common enemy. Yet in this war, the U.S. government hasn't even issued a wanted poster of Osama bin Laden. Why do you think that is?
Myrick: For one, we are too politically correct today. "We don't want to frighten the American people."
IBD: We often hear that Islam is a "religion of peace" and "tolerance," and that jihadists have "hijacked" or "perverted" a "great religion." Is this accurate, that nothing in Islam promotes or condones violent jihad against infidels? Or does such rhetoric simply play into the Islamists' hands in their attempts to sugarcoat the threat, and confuse Americans?
Myrick: There are definitely passages in the Quran that promote or condone violent jihad. However, you can also find passages in the Bible which promote violence. I think that the president is failing the American people by sugarcoating the problem we are facing and only making things worse for the future.
We should explore every means of encouraging moderate Muslims to speak out against the radicals. There are many who want to, and do — such as Sheikh (Muhammad Hisham) Kabbani (of the Islamic Supreme Council of America) and Zainab al-Suwaij (of the American Islamic Congress) and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser (of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy). But they do not get the media attention.
IBD: Many Islamists are well-spoken, and seem skilled at manipulating not only our media but our laws. If they can use our constitutional freedoms against us to block due scrutiny, what chance do we have of marginalizing them?
Myrick: Over the last 25 years, there has been a concerted effort on the part of radical Islamists to infiltrate our major institutions in America. They have done that by funding professors' projects in our colleges and universities. Then, they influence what is taught by making the program dependent on their yearly donations. Several classes have graduated and are now in the media, the judicial system, teaching in our schools and colleges, various branches of our government, even in our military. They are masterful at manipulating minds to fit their purposes.
IBD: How can they be exposed?
Myrick: We need to shed the veil of political correctness that shields government officials from speaking out against them. Until we do that, we do not have a chance of marginalizing them. As soon as someone broaches the idea that the Quran has violent passages, they get shot down as Islamophobes and racists.
Rather than debate these points, groups like CAIR seek to silence the debate. The American people deserve to see and hear the debate, but most people in positions of influence are afraid to say anything.
IBD: Jihad watchers have warned about "Shariah creep" in schools and local governments. We see Shariah being practiced in some parts of Europe; could it happen here?
Myrick: I believe Shariah could easily be practiced here. If a local community becomes infiltrated by extremists who run the town or village operations, then it could easily be implemented in this country. Unchallenged, it will happen.
IBD: The FBI director says the bureau can find no evidence of sleeper cells inside the U.S. How confident are you that the 9/11 cells were the last?
Myrick: From the information that I have heard reported publicly, there are sleeper cells inside the U.S. . . . Hezbollah sleeper cells, al-Qaida sleeper cells, maybe others.
IBD: How worried are you about "virtual jihad" — the use of al Qaida-inspired Web sites to motivate homegrown terrorists?
Myrick: I'm very worried about it, but again, we have certain freedoms in this country. We have a lot of freedom to express ourselves, more than in any other country in the world. People go pretty far in the statements they use to criticize the U.S. That's legal, as well it should be.
But the risk of motivating Americans to engage in jihad through the Web is a very serious problem that our Congress and administration should address immediately. We face an ironic dilemma in that our freedom could very well cost us our freedoms.
IBD: Christian prison chaplains warn that Muslim chaplains are converting inmates to Islam by the cellblock. Are the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Prisons doing enough to monitor this situation?
Myrick: They are aware of it and are supposedly monitoring it. Also, I have read that Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder of the American Muslim Council, placed Muslim chaplains throughout our military. He is now in jail on charges of terrorism. The chaplains, to my knowledge, are still in their current positions. Go figure.
Global Warming, Or Global Con?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, November 19, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: A U.N. that can't save the world from war, famine, disease and pestilence now releases a report saying global warming will cause all of the above — and it's your SUV that's doing it.
The fourth and final assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reads like the Bible, but gospel it is not.
It is a "consensus" in that it started with a foregone conclusion — that man-made pollution is dooming the planet — and gathered in any and all opinions that supported it.
The report incredibly warns that the 630,000 cubic miles of the Greenland ice sheet will virtually disappear in the near future, raising sea levels by almost 30 feet, and the Amazon rain forest will become a dry savannah.
There will be widespread species extinction, as up to three-fifths of wildlife will die out. The Great Barrier Reef will die.
And, oh yeah, winter sports in the Alps will be a thing of the past.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who attended the report's release Saturday in Valencia, Spain, told the Independent, a British newspaper, that he found the "quickening pace" of global warming "very frightening."
He did not say if he found the "quickening pace" of Iran's nuclear bomb program "very frightening," or explain exactly what he's doing about it right now.
From genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan to wars and rumors of wars in the Middle East and the Balkans, the U.N. has done little to protect the human species as millions die at the hands of despots that sit on its human rights panel.
If Ban wants to prevent famine and disease, let him get busy in Darfur, which he also has blamed on global warming.
Indoor spraying of DDT in Africa could save millions from malaria. Bio-engineered foods could save millions from hunger. The billions wasted on climate change research could provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet.
The Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobel Prize winners), figured that money spent on things like micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification produces 50 to 200 times the benefit for the human species than spending money to effect imperceptible declines in the Earth's temperature.
Wealthier societies are healthier societies, and the key to ending poverty, hunger and disease is economic growth.
It is wealthy societies that can develop and afford the technologies to use energy more efficiently and clean the air and water and feed the hungry.
The U.N. report equates the devastation unleashed by the Industrial Revolution it seeks to repeal with the global impact of a comet striking Mexico's Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago.
But that just shows the power of natural events, not the threat posed by man. We have repeatedly noted the repeated warming and cooling of the earth without intervention by man.
Our growing world needs more energy, not less. To even keep per capita emissions the same, much less reduce them, would mean freezing everybody's living standards and condemning the world's poor to permanent poverty.
And for what?
Accepting something like Kyoto, which would dismantle our thriving free-market economy while reducing global temperatures by an estimated 0.04 degree Celsius over the next century, an amount too small to measure.
It would achieve this trifling result only at the cost of literally trillions of dollars over that time — money that will not come from some imaginary place or "global resources," but out of your pocket.
After all, when the U.N. grandly says "we must work together," what it's really saying is, "Americans must foot the bill."
The U.N. would do better to support things like the indoor spraying of DDT in the Third World to fight the rampant malaria that kills millions or bio-engineered crops that promote health while fighting hunger and famine, and oppose things that suppress the economic growth the world needs.
Climate Change: A U.N. that can't save the world from war, famine, disease and pestilence now releases a report saying global warming will cause all of the above — and it's your SUV that's doing it.
The fourth and final assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reads like the Bible, but gospel it is not.
It is a "consensus" in that it started with a foregone conclusion — that man-made pollution is dooming the planet — and gathered in any and all opinions that supported it.
The report incredibly warns that the 630,000 cubic miles of the Greenland ice sheet will virtually disappear in the near future, raising sea levels by almost 30 feet, and the Amazon rain forest will become a dry savannah.
There will be widespread species extinction, as up to three-fifths of wildlife will die out. The Great Barrier Reef will die.
And, oh yeah, winter sports in the Alps will be a thing of the past.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who attended the report's release Saturday in Valencia, Spain, told the Independent, a British newspaper, that he found the "quickening pace" of global warming "very frightening."
He did not say if he found the "quickening pace" of Iran's nuclear bomb program "very frightening," or explain exactly what he's doing about it right now.
From genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan to wars and rumors of wars in the Middle East and the Balkans, the U.N. has done little to protect the human species as millions die at the hands of despots that sit on its human rights panel.
If Ban wants to prevent famine and disease, let him get busy in Darfur, which he also has blamed on global warming.
Indoor spraying of DDT in Africa could save millions from malaria. Bio-engineered foods could save millions from hunger. The billions wasted on climate change research could provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet.
The Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobel Prize winners), figured that money spent on things like micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification produces 50 to 200 times the benefit for the human species than spending money to effect imperceptible declines in the Earth's temperature.
Wealthier societies are healthier societies, and the key to ending poverty, hunger and disease is economic growth.
It is wealthy societies that can develop and afford the technologies to use energy more efficiently and clean the air and water and feed the hungry.
The U.N. report equates the devastation unleashed by the Industrial Revolution it seeks to repeal with the global impact of a comet striking Mexico's Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago.
But that just shows the power of natural events, not the threat posed by man. We have repeatedly noted the repeated warming and cooling of the earth without intervention by man.
Our growing world needs more energy, not less. To even keep per capita emissions the same, much less reduce them, would mean freezing everybody's living standards and condemning the world's poor to permanent poverty.
And for what?
Accepting something like Kyoto, which would dismantle our thriving free-market economy while reducing global temperatures by an estimated 0.04 degree Celsius over the next century, an amount too small to measure.
It would achieve this trifling result only at the cost of literally trillions of dollars over that time — money that will not come from some imaginary place or "global resources," but out of your pocket.
After all, when the U.N. grandly says "we must work together," what it's really saying is, "Americans must foot the bill."
The U.N. would do better to support things like the indoor spraying of DDT in the Third World to fight the rampant malaria that kills millions or bio-engineered crops that promote health while fighting hunger and famine, and oppose things that suppress the economic growth the world needs.
Body Language Secrets - How To Tell If Someone Lies To You
By Markella M. and Mary Markella
Do you think its impossible to tell if someone lies to you? Then reconsider, because there are several body language techniques that can help you identify lies and expose the liar. The methods described in this article are often used by the police, private investigators or security professionals, but you can use them too in order to avoid being a victim of scams or other deceptions.
Important: Sometimes, not knowing the truth is better, especially if you are too sensitive to handle the truth. Knowing that someone lied to you might hurt you, so be aware.
And here are some body language secrets that can identify liars:
* These people feel uncomfortable and they often turn their heads or bodies away.
* They usually touch their nose or their ears when they lie. It is highly unlikely for them to touch their chest.
* Liars usually make only a few hand, arm or leg movements when they lie. Their movements are towards their own body.
* They will avoid looking you in the eyes when they lie.
* A liar's expression will usually not match their statements. For example they might have a frowning face when they say "I like this" etc. Also, their expressions will almost always be limited to mouth movements instead of the whole face.
* There's absence of timing in a liar's emotions and gestures. For example when liars receive a gift they don't like, they will say that they loved the gift and smile a few seconds later. The normal would be to smile naturally at the same time a statement is made.
* Liars usually feel guilty, thus they will get defensive. A sign of a defensive behavior would be for example to start placing objects like books or coffee cups between themselves and you.
* They usually don't emphasize words when they talk. You will also notice syntax or grammar errors in their statements.
* Liars will usually repeat your words to answer questions. For example if you ask them "Did you steal my iPod?" they will answer "No, I didn't steal your iPod". Also, liars will imply answers instead of directly denying something.
* They expose a sarcastic behavior when they try to avoid a subject.
* They usually add unnecessary details when they talk in order to convince you. They will also feel and look uncomfortable if you suddenly pause a conversation.
* Liars will feel relaxed if you suddenly change the subject of the conversation. Normally, an innocent person will get confused by a sudden topic change.
Important: If you find a person with some or all of the above characteristics, that doesn't necessarily make him/her a liar. These are just signs or indicators of an untruthful behavior.
You should value these indicators comparing them with the general behavior of a person. For example a person might always touch his nose when he speaks. That doesn't make him a liar.
But if a person never touches his nose when he speaks and you suddenly notice him doing it, then this could be a sign of a lie.
Are you tired of other people's lies? Would you like to have the knowledge to transform yourself into a human lie detector?
Try this secret method to tell if someone lies to you and you'll be able to sniff lies like a police dog.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Markella_M.
Do you think its impossible to tell if someone lies to you? Then reconsider, because there are several body language techniques that can help you identify lies and expose the liar. The methods described in this article are often used by the police, private investigators or security professionals, but you can use them too in order to avoid being a victim of scams or other deceptions.
Important: Sometimes, not knowing the truth is better, especially if you are too sensitive to handle the truth. Knowing that someone lied to you might hurt you, so be aware.
And here are some body language secrets that can identify liars:
* These people feel uncomfortable and they often turn their heads or bodies away.
* They usually touch their nose or their ears when they lie. It is highly unlikely for them to touch their chest.
* Liars usually make only a few hand, arm or leg movements when they lie. Their movements are towards their own body.
* They will avoid looking you in the eyes when they lie.
* A liar's expression will usually not match their statements. For example they might have a frowning face when they say "I like this" etc. Also, their expressions will almost always be limited to mouth movements instead of the whole face.
* There's absence of timing in a liar's emotions and gestures. For example when liars receive a gift they don't like, they will say that they loved the gift and smile a few seconds later. The normal would be to smile naturally at the same time a statement is made.
* Liars usually feel guilty, thus they will get defensive. A sign of a defensive behavior would be for example to start placing objects like books or coffee cups between themselves and you.
* They usually don't emphasize words when they talk. You will also notice syntax or grammar errors in their statements.
* Liars will usually repeat your words to answer questions. For example if you ask them "Did you steal my iPod?" they will answer "No, I didn't steal your iPod". Also, liars will imply answers instead of directly denying something.
* They expose a sarcastic behavior when they try to avoid a subject.
* They usually add unnecessary details when they talk in order to convince you. They will also feel and look uncomfortable if you suddenly pause a conversation.
* Liars will feel relaxed if you suddenly change the subject of the conversation. Normally, an innocent person will get confused by a sudden topic change.
Important: If you find a person with some or all of the above characteristics, that doesn't necessarily make him/her a liar. These are just signs or indicators of an untruthful behavior.
You should value these indicators comparing them with the general behavior of a person. For example a person might always touch his nose when he speaks. That doesn't make him a liar.
But if a person never touches his nose when he speaks and you suddenly notice him doing it, then this could be a sign of a lie.
Are you tired of other people's lies? Would you like to have the knowledge to transform yourself into a human lie detector?
Try this secret method to tell if someone lies to you and you'll be able to sniff lies like a police dog.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Markella_M.
Credit Crunch Isn't Really So Bad, But Still May Decide '08 Election
By ROBERT SAMUELSON Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Don't believe all the hype about the "credit crunch."
Not yet, anyway. It's supposedly suffocating the economy.
True, big banks and investment houses have suffered multibillion-dollar losses on "subprime" mortgages and related securities. But except for housing — where lending has collapsed — the effects on consumers and businesses have so far been modest.
Should they get worse, however, the "crunch" wouldn't be just about economics. It could decide the next president.
People vote their pocketbooks. Up to a point this is unfortunate, because politicians of both parties usually get too much praise or blame for the economy, when their influence on its behavior is often negligible.
But politics isn't always rational or fair, and a slowing economy is already a burden that — along with Iraq — Republicans will carry into the election.
Consider the latest economic outlook from the forecasting firm Global Insight. Though not yet predicting a recession, it sketches an economy that won't feel good for much of the 2008 election cycle:
• Housing's slide continues. New-home starts fall to 1 million, down from 2.1 million in 2005. By early 2009, home prices decline a cumulative 11% from their peak. On a median-priced home of $220,000, the loss is $24,000.
• Car and light-truck sales dip to 15.7 million, the lowest since 1998; they were 16.9 million as recently as 2005.
• Unemployment averages 5%, up from 4.6% this year.
• Pretax corporate profits decline 2.1%, the first decrease since 2001.
Moreover, Global Insight thinks there's a 35% chance that the slowdown might become a recession.
Two threats loom. One is oil. The forecast assumes that prices will fall from about $90 a barrel now to $76 in 2008. Every $10 above that is reckoned to raise gasoline prices 19 cents a gallon and cut employment by 100,000. The second threat is an aggravated credit crunch.
What we call "crunch" is merely a new label for the old credit cycle.
In a strong economy, people think they can handle more debt. Lenders relax credit standards.
Sooner or later, the process reverses. Heavy debt payments oppress borrowers. Lenders react to rising delinquencies by tightening lending. Housing's recent boom-and-bust cycle conforms perfectly to this script.
But elsewhere, lending proceeds. Other consumer debt (credit cards, auto loans, personal loans) is growing at about a 5% annual rate, says Susan Sterne of Economic Analysis Associates.
Although corporate bond issuance has declined, the main consequence seems to have been a drop in mergers, acquisitions and private equity buyouts.
These have relied heavily on bonds for financing. As yet, business investment in new machinery, software and buildings seems barely affected.
Lending hasn't collapsed in part because the subprime losses, though large in billions, are still small compared with the financial system's total capital.
Brian Bethune of Global Insight figures that American investors have so far lost $50 billion. By contrast, stockholders' equity in U.S. banks alone exceeds $1 trillion.
Still, the crunch is the first major crisis for a new financial system that has taken shape slowly since 1980.
Loans that were once made and held by banks are now increasingly "securitized." That is, they're bundled into bondlike financial instruments and resold to other investors (pension funds, hedge funds, other banks).
Two major problems have emerged.
First, because banks and other loan "originators" didn't keep all the loans they made — and earned fees for making the loans — they got careless and greedy. They relaxed credit standards; weak borrowers got mortgages or were persuaded unwisely to refinance existing mortgages for higher amounts.
Second, some of the securities into which the mortgages were packaged were so complex that the people selling and buying them didn't understand, with hindsight anyway, what they were doing.
As a result, it's hard to determine the securities' value.
The specter of the subprime debacle is that it's just a start. Huge amounts of auto loans, credit card debt, commercial mortgages and equipment leases have also been securitized.
If similar problems should emerge, it would shake confidence in the securitization model and, by magnifying investors' losses, threaten to turn the credit crunch from a slogan into a reality. A broader crisis, though a long shot, can't be excluded.
All of which brings us back to politics. Global Insight has one of many computer models that calibrate voting behavior with the economy's performance.
The model has picked the winner of the popular vote in 13 of the last 15 presidential elections (it missed 1968 and 1976).
Right now, the Republican and Democratic candidates are, putting Iraq aside, dead even. A deeper credit crunch would swing the advantage to the Democrat.
Ironically, while all the candidates are fighting frantically for their party's nomination, the financial markets may be quietly determining the ultimate victor.
© 2007 Washington Post Writers Group
Don't believe all the hype about the "credit crunch."
Not yet, anyway. It's supposedly suffocating the economy.
True, big banks and investment houses have suffered multibillion-dollar losses on "subprime" mortgages and related securities. But except for housing — where lending has collapsed — the effects on consumers and businesses have so far been modest.
Should they get worse, however, the "crunch" wouldn't be just about economics. It could decide the next president.
People vote their pocketbooks. Up to a point this is unfortunate, because politicians of both parties usually get too much praise or blame for the economy, when their influence on its behavior is often negligible.
But politics isn't always rational or fair, and a slowing economy is already a burden that — along with Iraq — Republicans will carry into the election.
Consider the latest economic outlook from the forecasting firm Global Insight. Though not yet predicting a recession, it sketches an economy that won't feel good for much of the 2008 election cycle:
• Housing's slide continues. New-home starts fall to 1 million, down from 2.1 million in 2005. By early 2009, home prices decline a cumulative 11% from their peak. On a median-priced home of $220,000, the loss is $24,000.
• Car and light-truck sales dip to 15.7 million, the lowest since 1998; they were 16.9 million as recently as 2005.
• Unemployment averages 5%, up from 4.6% this year.
• Pretax corporate profits decline 2.1%, the first decrease since 2001.
Moreover, Global Insight thinks there's a 35% chance that the slowdown might become a recession.
Two threats loom. One is oil. The forecast assumes that prices will fall from about $90 a barrel now to $76 in 2008. Every $10 above that is reckoned to raise gasoline prices 19 cents a gallon and cut employment by 100,000. The second threat is an aggravated credit crunch.
What we call "crunch" is merely a new label for the old credit cycle.
In a strong economy, people think they can handle more debt. Lenders relax credit standards.
Sooner or later, the process reverses. Heavy debt payments oppress borrowers. Lenders react to rising delinquencies by tightening lending. Housing's recent boom-and-bust cycle conforms perfectly to this script.
But elsewhere, lending proceeds. Other consumer debt (credit cards, auto loans, personal loans) is growing at about a 5% annual rate, says Susan Sterne of Economic Analysis Associates.
Although corporate bond issuance has declined, the main consequence seems to have been a drop in mergers, acquisitions and private equity buyouts.
These have relied heavily on bonds for financing. As yet, business investment in new machinery, software and buildings seems barely affected.
Lending hasn't collapsed in part because the subprime losses, though large in billions, are still small compared with the financial system's total capital.
Brian Bethune of Global Insight figures that American investors have so far lost $50 billion. By contrast, stockholders' equity in U.S. banks alone exceeds $1 trillion.
Still, the crunch is the first major crisis for a new financial system that has taken shape slowly since 1980.
Loans that were once made and held by banks are now increasingly "securitized." That is, they're bundled into bondlike financial instruments and resold to other investors (pension funds, hedge funds, other banks).
Two major problems have emerged.
First, because banks and other loan "originators" didn't keep all the loans they made — and earned fees for making the loans — they got careless and greedy. They relaxed credit standards; weak borrowers got mortgages or were persuaded unwisely to refinance existing mortgages for higher amounts.
Second, some of the securities into which the mortgages were packaged were so complex that the people selling and buying them didn't understand, with hindsight anyway, what they were doing.
As a result, it's hard to determine the securities' value.
The specter of the subprime debacle is that it's just a start. Huge amounts of auto loans, credit card debt, commercial mortgages and equipment leases have also been securitized.
If similar problems should emerge, it would shake confidence in the securitization model and, by magnifying investors' losses, threaten to turn the credit crunch from a slogan into a reality. A broader crisis, though a long shot, can't be excluded.
All of which brings us back to politics. Global Insight has one of many computer models that calibrate voting behavior with the economy's performance.
The model has picked the winner of the popular vote in 13 of the last 15 presidential elections (it missed 1968 and 1976).
Right now, the Republican and Democratic candidates are, putting Iraq aside, dead even. A deeper credit crunch would swing the advantage to the Democrat.
Ironically, while all the candidates are fighting frantically for their party's nomination, the financial markets may be quietly determining the ultimate victor.
© 2007 Washington Post Writers Group
Don't Let Patent Regs Kill Golden Goose
By SALLY C. PIPES Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Google has achieved wild success and cultural notoriety by operating under the corporate mantra "Don't be evil."
But when it comes to patent reforms currently under consideration in Congress, Google — along with several other tech heavyweights — seems to be straying from the company line.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007, while purporting to bring efficiency and flexibility to the patent system, would actually water down existing patent protections.
This may be good for a few large technology firms, whose products incorporate hundreds or even thousands of patented components. But it will inflict serious harm on small entrepreneurs and research-based health science firms, whose livelihoods depend on marketing just a handful of lifesaving inventions.
The tech industry's support for patent reform makes sense, as these companies are increasingly targeted by unscrupulous patent traders who file suit in plaintiff-friendly districts to extort large settlements.
By claiming rights — sometimes dubiously — to just a small portion of a finished product, the manufacture of a larger creation can come to a screeching halt. The proposed legislation would streamline the legal process when these cases are challenged.
But the costs to biotech and pharmaceutical companies are far greater than any efficiencies created by leaner patent litigation.
Patent protection provides the security that chemists and other scientists need to undertake the labor- and time-intensive research at the core of drug production.
Patents last between 17-20 years, but the average drug takes about 13 years and $800 million to bring to market.
So once a drug hits the shelves, there's only four to seven years to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs. That's why firms and investors demand the sales exclusivity that a patent guarantees.
Moreover, only about one out of every three drugs are ever profitable. The rest are financial misfires whose losses must be recovered via the success of a handful of blockbuster drugs.
It's curious that Congress would favor faster software development over new medicines.
Further, it's not just the pharmaceutical and biotech industries that are threatened by this legislation. For small firms and individual inventors, patents provide the protection to create, develop and profit from their inventions.
In fact, small tech companies are the drivers of much innovation, and currently hold about a third of all patents registered.
The proposed changes to the current legal protections would make it much harder for smaller firms to defend a patent claim. Large tech companies — with their big budgets and seasoned legal teams — would therefore enjoy an enormous advantage.
What's more, the proposed measure comes with a large price tag.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost more than $131 million per year to comply with the changes to today's patent system. Big companies can afford this; smaller ones can't.
The proposed reforms also place limits on compensation for patent infringement. Such terms allow those with deep pockets to buy their way out of legal woes.
While this change might make lawsuits more manageable for the tech industry, it would drastically undervalue the worth of individual patents on products like pharmaceuticals, where each patented compound can cost millions of dollars to develop.
All innovators could benefit if Congress considered meaningful reforms that strengthen, not weaken patent protections.
A strong patent system enables the research and creativity that have produced everything from the paper clip to asthma medication. When pondering changes to our current patent system, Congress should give a nod to Google's mantra and "do no evil."
Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of "Miracle Cure: How to Solve America's Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn't the Answer."
Google has achieved wild success and cultural notoriety by operating under the corporate mantra "Don't be evil."
But when it comes to patent reforms currently under consideration in Congress, Google — along with several other tech heavyweights — seems to be straying from the company line.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007, while purporting to bring efficiency and flexibility to the patent system, would actually water down existing patent protections.
This may be good for a few large technology firms, whose products incorporate hundreds or even thousands of patented components. But it will inflict serious harm on small entrepreneurs and research-based health science firms, whose livelihoods depend on marketing just a handful of lifesaving inventions.
The tech industry's support for patent reform makes sense, as these companies are increasingly targeted by unscrupulous patent traders who file suit in plaintiff-friendly districts to extort large settlements.
By claiming rights — sometimes dubiously — to just a small portion of a finished product, the manufacture of a larger creation can come to a screeching halt. The proposed legislation would streamline the legal process when these cases are challenged.
But the costs to biotech and pharmaceutical companies are far greater than any efficiencies created by leaner patent litigation.
Patent protection provides the security that chemists and other scientists need to undertake the labor- and time-intensive research at the core of drug production.
Patents last between 17-20 years, but the average drug takes about 13 years and $800 million to bring to market.
So once a drug hits the shelves, there's only four to seven years to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs. That's why firms and investors demand the sales exclusivity that a patent guarantees.
Moreover, only about one out of every three drugs are ever profitable. The rest are financial misfires whose losses must be recovered via the success of a handful of blockbuster drugs.
It's curious that Congress would favor faster software development over new medicines.
Further, it's not just the pharmaceutical and biotech industries that are threatened by this legislation. For small firms and individual inventors, patents provide the protection to create, develop and profit from their inventions.
In fact, small tech companies are the drivers of much innovation, and currently hold about a third of all patents registered.
The proposed changes to the current legal protections would make it much harder for smaller firms to defend a patent claim. Large tech companies — with their big budgets and seasoned legal teams — would therefore enjoy an enormous advantage.
What's more, the proposed measure comes with a large price tag.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost more than $131 million per year to comply with the changes to today's patent system. Big companies can afford this; smaller ones can't.
The proposed reforms also place limits on compensation for patent infringement. Such terms allow those with deep pockets to buy their way out of legal woes.
While this change might make lawsuits more manageable for the tech industry, it would drastically undervalue the worth of individual patents on products like pharmaceuticals, where each patented compound can cost millions of dollars to develop.
All innovators could benefit if Congress considered meaningful reforms that strengthen, not weaken patent protections.
A strong patent system enables the research and creativity that have produced everything from the paper clip to asthma medication. When pondering changes to our current patent system, Congress should give a nod to Google's mantra and "do no evil."
Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of "Miracle Cure: How to Solve America's Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn't the Answer."
Waving The Flag Of Fear
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Scare Tactics: One day after the United Nations issued a doomsday report on global warming, it admits it has grossly exaggerated the seriousness of the AIDS problem. The cycle of fear-mongering at the U.N. continues.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the U.N.'s "top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement." We're still waiting for an expression of remorse for dragging the world through a swamp of anxiety.
Remember the 1980s, when we were told that AIDS was a nondiscriminatory disease destined to wipe out large segments of the population and bring untold ruin to humanity?
When Life magazine declared on its cover in 1985 that "Now No One Is Safe From AIDS"? When the new Black Plague, worse than the first, was upon us? Who could forget Oprah Winfrey's dire warning that a fifth of heterosexuals would be dead by 1990?
Recall more recent days when alarmists said that global warming due to human activity was turning Earth into an unlivable inferno of mass species extinctions and churning seas overflowing onto land? Think of those times when man was charged with being the author of his own miserable destruction because he exploited Gaia.
Oh, wait, those days are still with us. Al Gore has not stopped jetting around the world to condemn the burning of fossil fuels nor have environmentalists quit showing up at climate change rallies in SUVs to hector Americans about their energy use.
But their day is getting dark. Global warming fear-mongering is likely to fall by the wayside in the next decade or so when it becomes obvious that the charlatans have been wrong. That won't be the end, however; global warming will be replaced by a wild exaggeration that sounds even more threatening.
Though columnist H.L. Mencken made his wry observations more than a half century ago, he understood then the machinations that fuel the scare tactics of any day.
"The whole aim of practical politics," he wrote, " is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
What's stunning is that the global warming true believers have confessed to being guilty of sending out hobgoblins — and gotten away with it.
"I believe it appropriate to have an overstatement of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate to opening up the audience to listen," Gore told the environmentalist magazine Grist in 2006.
In the early days of the warming scare, when Gore was just a Tennessee senator who had mere presidential, not world-saving, aspirations on his mind, Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989 that "we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination."
"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Guilty as well is James Hansen, the climate change godfather, who said in 2003 that "emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue."
We're sure he no longer believes they are appropriate because he knows they aren't needed. He and others have effectively bamboozled the world into believing that climate disaster is imminent.
Like the AIDS frenzy, the global warming hysteria has been politically driven. So will the next "crisis." The competition for taxpayers' dollars handed out by government, say for AIDS research, is fierce, the instinct among some to command others' lives, using the cudgel of panic-generated public policy, is insatiable.
Don't think this fear-mongering has no costs, that it's merely a harmless distraction.
The fury over AIDS caused scarce financial resources to be misallocated and generated a climate of dread.
Embellishments about the impact of man's energy use have brought undue fear, unnecessarily pitted people against each other and will inflict widespread economic pain if the alarmists' costly solutions are applied.
The real threat is not from a gas-guzzler but those who create an entangling web of hype.
Scare Tactics: One day after the United Nations issued a doomsday report on global warming, it admits it has grossly exaggerated the seriousness of the AIDS problem. The cycle of fear-mongering at the U.N. continues.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the U.N.'s "top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement." We're still waiting for an expression of remorse for dragging the world through a swamp of anxiety.
Remember the 1980s, when we were told that AIDS was a nondiscriminatory disease destined to wipe out large segments of the population and bring untold ruin to humanity?
When Life magazine declared on its cover in 1985 that "Now No One Is Safe From AIDS"? When the new Black Plague, worse than the first, was upon us? Who could forget Oprah Winfrey's dire warning that a fifth of heterosexuals would be dead by 1990?
Recall more recent days when alarmists said that global warming due to human activity was turning Earth into an unlivable inferno of mass species extinctions and churning seas overflowing onto land? Think of those times when man was charged with being the author of his own miserable destruction because he exploited Gaia.
Oh, wait, those days are still with us. Al Gore has not stopped jetting around the world to condemn the burning of fossil fuels nor have environmentalists quit showing up at climate change rallies in SUVs to hector Americans about their energy use.
But their day is getting dark. Global warming fear-mongering is likely to fall by the wayside in the next decade or so when it becomes obvious that the charlatans have been wrong. That won't be the end, however; global warming will be replaced by a wild exaggeration that sounds even more threatening.
Though columnist H.L. Mencken made his wry observations more than a half century ago, he understood then the machinations that fuel the scare tactics of any day.
"The whole aim of practical politics," he wrote, " is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
What's stunning is that the global warming true believers have confessed to being guilty of sending out hobgoblins — and gotten away with it.
"I believe it appropriate to have an overstatement of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate to opening up the audience to listen," Gore told the environmentalist magazine Grist in 2006.
In the early days of the warming scare, when Gore was just a Tennessee senator who had mere presidential, not world-saving, aspirations on his mind, Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989 that "we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination."
"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Guilty as well is James Hansen, the climate change godfather, who said in 2003 that "emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue."
We're sure he no longer believes they are appropriate because he knows they aren't needed. He and others have effectively bamboozled the world into believing that climate disaster is imminent.
Like the AIDS frenzy, the global warming hysteria has been politically driven. So will the next "crisis." The competition for taxpayers' dollars handed out by government, say for AIDS research, is fierce, the instinct among some to command others' lives, using the cudgel of panic-generated public policy, is insatiable.
Don't think this fear-mongering has no costs, that it's merely a harmless distraction.
The fury over AIDS caused scarce financial resources to be misallocated and generated a climate of dread.
Embellishments about the impact of man's energy use have brought undue fear, unnecessarily pitted people against each other and will inflict widespread economic pain if the alarmists' costly solutions are applied.
The real threat is not from a gas-guzzler but those who create an entangling web of hype.
Ocean Spray's Recipes
As I travel this holiday I'll pass within a mile or two of the world headquarters of Ocean Spray, which is just down the street from Plymouth Rock!
Plus I love cranberry sauce.
Plus I love cranberry sauce.
The Mayflower Society
Today there are tens of millions of people who are descended from the passengers aboard the Mayflower.
It's been about fifteen and a half generations since the Mayflower sailed (1 generation=25 years), That means you have about 46 thousand individual ancestors from that time period (if nobody in that entire time married a distant cousin, which is unlikely, but still) .
And when you consider that the Mayflower settlers were the ONLY Europeans in the neighborhood in those days, If your family has been in New England for any length of time, it's a good bet that one of those forty-six thousand ancestors was one of the forty-one people who signed the Mayflower Compact.
Now you just need to do the research.
It's been about fifteen and a half generations since the Mayflower sailed (1 generation=25 years), That means you have about 46 thousand individual ancestors from that time period (if nobody in that entire time married a distant cousin, which is unlikely, but still) .
And when you consider that the Mayflower settlers were the ONLY Europeans in the neighborhood in those days, If your family has been in New England for any length of time, it's a good bet that one of those forty-six thousand ancestors was one of the forty-one people who signed the Mayflower Compact.
Now you just need to do the research.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Saudi Justice: Lashing Rape Victims
Human Rights: Saudi Arabia has a funny way of moving toward democratic reforms. Its Shariah court just sentenced a gang-raped woman to 200 lashes of the whip, arguing she was to blame.
This is barbaric on so many levels. First, that any state in the 21st century still whips citizens; second, that women are defendants in rape crimes, and worst of all, that victims of violence are then punished with more violence.
But, hey, this is just another day in Saudi Arabia, where religious police trap teenage girls in burning school buildings for shedding the head-to-toe Islamic garments they must wear in the presence of men. Where it's a crime for adult women to drive, vote or hold office. And where polygamy is encouraged, and men in their 60s take 14-year-old brides.
Now this. The 19-year-old rape victim, a Shiite woman, originally received a sentence of 90 lashes from the Islamic court after she was kidnapped, beaten and repeatedly raped. Her crime? Being in the same car with an unrelated male companion.
She only agreed to meet the man after he threatened to tell her father they were having an affair if she didn't join him alone. She subsequently was abducted and raped by seven other men. Then her brother beat her for good measure because the rapes brought shame to the family.
Last week, the Supreme Judicial Council convicted her of unchaperoned car-sitting and hiked the sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison.
After the West got wind of the barbarous ruling, the Saudi Ministry of Justice defended it by saying that "charges were proven" against the woman. So what's the problem?
They really don't get it, do they?
But wait a minute. Wasn't our good ally — the one who supplied most of the hijackers who attacked us six years ago, and financed their terrorist kingpin — supposed to be reforming its barbaric ways, moving toward democracy and equal rights for women?
Wasn't this pledge part of the reason we agreed to keep kissing their royal keisters and not melt their sandbox into a glass parking lot with 2,000-pound bombs?
Indeed, this was the promise of King Abdullah, the new "progressive" ruler who was supposed to herald in more rights for women and minority Shiites. Yes, he was going to heel the Islamic troglodytes who run the police and courts.
Only, as soon as he took the throne, Abdullah ordered Saudi newspapers to stop publishing photos of women — even in traditional Muslim head scarf — as they could make young men go "astray."
Publishing an image of a woman for the world to see was inappropriate, he said in explaining his decree. Yes, scandalous.
The administration can't lay this latest atrocity at the feet of the religious police or Wahhabi clerics; the Saudi ruler we do business with clearly buys into such misogyny.
We weren't supposed to get wind of the ruling. The lawyer for the Shiite girl leaked it. Now he's in trouble with the government, which denounced him for "speaking insolently about the judicial system."
What's the sentence for that — cutting out his tongue? We wouldn't be surprised. They may schedule that punishment in the public square the same day his client is scourged.
There are many things we're not supposed to know about our friends the Saudis. Like how they're not really cleaning up their hate-filled, anti-Western school textbooks as promised. Or how they're not really cracking down on al-Qaida terrorists and their financiers as promised.
But the charade of our cherished alliance goes on. This rape case is garnering too many international headlines and world outrage to sweep under the royal carpet.
President Bush should personally appeal to the Saudi delegation at next week's Mideast peace conference in Annapolis to commute the sentence of the rape victim. He might also press the point that such barbaric punishment enshrined in Shariah law violates international human rights and should be abolished.
This is barbaric on so many levels. First, that any state in the 21st century still whips citizens; second, that women are defendants in rape crimes, and worst of all, that victims of violence are then punished with more violence.
But, hey, this is just another day in Saudi Arabia, where religious police trap teenage girls in burning school buildings for shedding the head-to-toe Islamic garments they must wear in the presence of men. Where it's a crime for adult women to drive, vote or hold office. And where polygamy is encouraged, and men in their 60s take 14-year-old brides.
Now this. The 19-year-old rape victim, a Shiite woman, originally received a sentence of 90 lashes from the Islamic court after she was kidnapped, beaten and repeatedly raped. Her crime? Being in the same car with an unrelated male companion.
She only agreed to meet the man after he threatened to tell her father they were having an affair if she didn't join him alone. She subsequently was abducted and raped by seven other men. Then her brother beat her for good measure because the rapes brought shame to the family.
Last week, the Supreme Judicial Council convicted her of unchaperoned car-sitting and hiked the sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison.
After the West got wind of the barbarous ruling, the Saudi Ministry of Justice defended it by saying that "charges were proven" against the woman. So what's the problem?
They really don't get it, do they?
But wait a minute. Wasn't our good ally — the one who supplied most of the hijackers who attacked us six years ago, and financed their terrorist kingpin — supposed to be reforming its barbaric ways, moving toward democracy and equal rights for women?
Wasn't this pledge part of the reason we agreed to keep kissing their royal keisters and not melt their sandbox into a glass parking lot with 2,000-pound bombs?
Indeed, this was the promise of King Abdullah, the new "progressive" ruler who was supposed to herald in more rights for women and minority Shiites. Yes, he was going to heel the Islamic troglodytes who run the police and courts.
Only, as soon as he took the throne, Abdullah ordered Saudi newspapers to stop publishing photos of women — even in traditional Muslim head scarf — as they could make young men go "astray."
Publishing an image of a woman for the world to see was inappropriate, he said in explaining his decree. Yes, scandalous.
The administration can't lay this latest atrocity at the feet of the religious police or Wahhabi clerics; the Saudi ruler we do business with clearly buys into such misogyny.
We weren't supposed to get wind of the ruling. The lawyer for the Shiite girl leaked it. Now he's in trouble with the government, which denounced him for "speaking insolently about the judicial system."
What's the sentence for that — cutting out his tongue? We wouldn't be surprised. They may schedule that punishment in the public square the same day his client is scourged.
There are many things we're not supposed to know about our friends the Saudis. Like how they're not really cleaning up their hate-filled, anti-Western school textbooks as promised. Or how they're not really cracking down on al-Qaida terrorists and their financiers as promised.
But the charade of our cherished alliance goes on. This rape case is garnering too many international headlines and world outrage to sweep under the royal carpet.
President Bush should personally appeal to the Saudi delegation at next week's Mideast peace conference in Annapolis to commute the sentence of the rape victim. He might also press the point that such barbaric punishment enshrined in Shariah law violates international human rights and should be abolished.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Romulus cave find stuns Italy
November 21, 2007 - 7:45AM
Italian archaeologists believe they have found the cave where, according to legend, a wolf suckled Romulus and Remus, the twin founders of Rome.
An underground cavity decorated with seashells, mosaics and pumice stones was discovered near the ruins of the palace of Emperor Augustus on the Palatine hill.
Experts say they are "reasonably certain" it is the long-lost place of worship sacred to ancient Romans and known as Lupercale, from the Latin word for wolf.
"This could...
more here and the cave video also>>>
Italian archaeologists believe they have found the cave where, according to legend, a wolf suckled Romulus and Remus, the twin founders of Rome.
An underground cavity decorated with seashells, mosaics and pumice stones was discovered near the ruins of the palace of Emperor Augustus on the Palatine hill.
Experts say they are "reasonably certain" it is the long-lost place of worship sacred to ancient Romans and known as Lupercale, from the Latin word for wolf.
"This could...
more here and the cave video also>>>
Fear of Physics
Don't be afraid of physics, embrace them and call them friends.
You're bound to find-out some fascinating answers to questions like, "Why don't satellites fall out of the sky?"
find out why here>>>
You're bound to find-out some fascinating answers to questions like, "Why don't satellites fall out of the sky?"
find out why here>>>
Ten Things You Didn't Know About You
Some of the interesting things about how your body works that you maybe never knew.
click here to see how your body works>>>
click here to see how your body works>>>
China’s first lunar probe opens facilities for data transmission
BEIJING, Nov. 20 (APP) - China’s first lunar orbiter Chang’e-1, has opened its facilities to transmit data back to earth, a spokesman for the China National Space Administration (CNSA) said Tuesday.
The facilities will be tested over the next few days which will help ensure smooth operation of the probe and reliable data transmission, spokesman Pei Zhaoyu said.
The satellite has gone through a number of tests since it entered the moon’s orbit on Nov. 7 and adjusted its position to point its probing facilities toward the moon on Monday.
Monday’s maneuvers also positioned the probe’s solar panel toward the sun and the directional antenna toward the earth to allow data to be transmitted back to the ground.
Chang’e-1 is expected to relay its first picture of the moon in late November.
The facilities will be tested over the next few days which will help ensure smooth operation of the probe and reliable data transmission, spokesman Pei Zhaoyu said.
The satellite has gone through a number of tests since it entered the moon’s orbit on Nov. 7 and adjusted its position to point its probing facilities toward the moon on Monday.
Monday’s maneuvers also positioned the probe’s solar panel toward the sun and the directional antenna toward the earth to allow data to be transmitted back to the ground.
Chang’e-1 is expected to relay its first picture of the moon in late November.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Is Yoga Just Posing as a Good Workout?
While practitioners say the ancient art is good cardiovascular exercise, most fitness experts say that's a stretch. How to find a balanced routine
By NANCY KEATES
November 17, 2007; Page W1 WSJ
Ask Bikram Choudhury, founder of the Bikram style of yoga, if yoga alone is enough of a cardiovascular workout, and he will laugh in your face: "My classes are so hard you use your heart more than if you run a marathon."
Ask Kenneth H. Cooper, the physician credited with coining the term "aerobics" and founding the aerobics movement back in the 1960s, and he says that while some types of classes can provide good exercise, yoga should be supplemented with at least 30 minutes of sustained, rhythmic cardiovascular training three times a week. "Don't make the mistake of only doing yoga," he warns.
So who is right? Almost every study on yoga and fitness agrees that the practice has a significant positive impact on muscular strength, endurance and flexibility. But most find doing only yoga -- without mixing in some traditional aerobic workouts -- doesn't exercise the heart enough. That's a growing concern, with more than 14 million Americans practicing yoga and Tai Chi now, up from six million in 2000, according to the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.
Cardiovascular exercise -- defined as a repetitive, rhythmical exercise involving large muscle groups -- is widely viewed as increasing longevity by increasing the body's demand for oxygen and making the heart and lungs work harder. According to the American College of Sports Medicine, it should involve pushing your heart rate to 60% to 90% of its maximum, and keeping it there for 20 to 60 minutes at a time.
Seeing a horror movie can elevate the heart rate -- so a faster rate isn't proof of cardio conditioning. To see how efficiently the muscles are using oxygen, it is necessary to use a test-tube-like mask over the mouth of the person exercising to find how much oxygen is consumed. The term used to measure cardio respiratory fitness is VO2 -- or the maximum oxygen used by the body.
By NANCY KEATES
November 17, 2007; Page W1 WSJ
Ask Bikram Choudhury, founder of the Bikram style of yoga, if yoga alone is enough of a cardiovascular workout, and he will laugh in your face: "My classes are so hard you use your heart more than if you run a marathon."
Ask Kenneth H. Cooper, the physician credited with coining the term "aerobics" and founding the aerobics movement back in the 1960s, and he says that while some types of classes can provide good exercise, yoga should be supplemented with at least 30 minutes of sustained, rhythmic cardiovascular training three times a week. "Don't make the mistake of only doing yoga," he warns.
So who is right? Almost every study on yoga and fitness agrees that the practice has a significant positive impact on muscular strength, endurance and flexibility. But most find doing only yoga -- without mixing in some traditional aerobic workouts -- doesn't exercise the heart enough. That's a growing concern, with more than 14 million Americans practicing yoga and Tai Chi now, up from six million in 2000, according to the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.
Cardiovascular exercise -- defined as a repetitive, rhythmical exercise involving large muscle groups -- is widely viewed as increasing longevity by increasing the body's demand for oxygen and making the heart and lungs work harder. According to the American College of Sports Medicine, it should involve pushing your heart rate to 60% to 90% of its maximum, and keeping it there for 20 to 60 minutes at a time.
Seeing a horror movie can elevate the heart rate -- so a faster rate isn't proof of cardio conditioning. To see how efficiently the muscles are using oxygen, it is necessary to use a test-tube-like mask over the mouth of the person exercising to find how much oxygen is consumed. The term used to measure cardio respiratory fitness is VO2 -- or the maximum oxygen used by the body.
What Happened at Haditha
This article is a must read. mc
The massacre that wasn't, and its political exploitation.
Friday, October 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
The incident at Haditha--or the massacre, as it is often called--is due for a wholesale rethinking. The allegations are that in 2005 U.S. Marines went on a killing spree and deliberately executed 24 Iraqi civilians. The casualties have drawn an extraordinary amount of political attention, becoming an emblem for everything critics say is wrong with the Iraq war--in the common telling, another My Lai.
Thus Congressman Jack Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, made accusations of war crimes and said the Marines had killed "in cold blood." These are serious charges; and military justice continues to deal with them seriously, though thankfully at a slower pace than politics. Now the prosecutions have mostly unraveled. It seems Haditha, though tragic, was exploited politically, and the allegations were exaggerated, if not unfounded.
Here is what we know. On November 17, 2005, Kilo Company of the First Marine Regiment's Third Battalion was returning from a routine logistics mission in Haditha, a town 140 miles northwest of Baghdad. Haditha is in Anbar province, a heart of the Sunni insurgency with one of the highest U.S. casualty rates in Iraq. The security situation at the time was treacherous.
Shortly after 7 a.m., an improvised explosive device detonated under the last vehicle in Company K's four-Humvee convoy. It instantly killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas and wounded two others. Windows were shattered for 150 yards, and smoke and debris were everywhere.
An oncoming white sedan had been waved over near the stalled convoy. Five military-age occupants exited and disobeyed orders in Arabic to halt; at least one began to run. Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the squad commander, and Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz opened fire, killing all of them. The men were suspected of being spotters for, or remotely detonating, the IED.
As a quick reaction force arrived, headed by First Lieutenant William Kallop, Company K began taking small arms fire from several locations on either side of the convoy. While taking cover, they identified at least one shooter in the vicinity of a nearby "trigger house." Lt. Kallop ordered SSgt. Wuterich and a makeshift team to treat the building as hostile and "clear" it.
They forced entry and shot a man on a flight of stairs, then another when he made a movement toward a closet. The Marines say they heard the sound of an AK-47 being racked, so threw grenades into a nearby room and fired; they killed five occupants, with two others wounded by grenade fragments and bullets.
SSgt. Wuterich and his men pursued a runner into an adjacent house. They led the assault with grenades and gunfire, in the process killing another man. Unknown to the Marines, two women and six children were in a back room. Seven were killed. It was chaotic and fast-moving in the dark, close-range quarters, and accounts diverge on the chronology and offensive actions.
After the firefight ended, around 9:30, the Marines noted men suspected of scouting for another attack "turkey peeking" behind the wall of a third house. A team followed to find women and children inside (who were not harmed). They moved to a fourth house off a courtyard and killed inside two men wielding AK-47s and two others.
In March 2006, Time magazine broke the story, which erupted in the press. The accounts relied on a narrative that the Marines had gone berserk after the killing of Cpl. Terrazas and murdered Iraqis in retaliation. "Eyewitnesses" reported that the riders in the car had been lined up and executed, and that there had been a rampage through the houses targeting women and children. A coverup by the top brass was also asserted.
After the incident became public, the military was unusually aggressive. It launched at least two exhaustive, months-long inquiries. Four of the enlisted men from Company K were charged with unpremeditated murder--essentially, killings without sanction. Four Marine officers who were not on the scene were charged with dereliction of duty for improperly reporting and investigating.
Before courts martial, all charges are referred to Article 32 hearings, the military equivalent of a grand jury. The senior investigating officer for the infantrymen, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Ware, had a chance to look at all the evidence, not just that selectively leaked or filtered. The result is that the charges are being reduced or dismissed altogether.
In separate Article 32 proceedings, two of the officers have been exonerated; one, the highest ranking, has been recommended for a court martial, and the other case remains pending. Of the four infantrymen, two have seen their charges dismissed (one in exchange for testimony); and charges against a third have been recommended to be dismissed. Ten of SSgt. Wuterich's indictments have been recommended for dismissal, and the seven others reduced to negligent homicide, essentially, accidental or negligent killings. Why?
The first imperative is to understand the complex, asymmetrical combat conditions in Iraq. The Marines were (and are) facing a determined enemy who dress as civilians and use homes, schools, hospitals and mosques as their bases of operation. They try to goad killings among the civilian population because it foments domestic opposition against U.S. troops while undermining them with elite international opinion.
In this environment, accusations of U.S. atrocities against civilians occur after almost every military operation. That partly explains why the Marines did not immediately investigate the Haditha killings. They viewed some Iraqi claims as part of insurgent "information operations" and did not suspect any misconduct. That day also saw citywide violence and multiple combat actions, and the killings seemed, regrettably but realistically, routine.
Perhaps, ex post facto, the officers might have erred on the side of scrutiny, though it is more exactly the duty of commanders to report accurately up the chain of command. Aside from some glitches, such as an erroneous public affairs statement that some of the civilians had been killed by the roadside bomb, they seem to have done so. There are also accusations that the delay in the full probe compromised the case. One indication of affairs in Haditha is that the heavily guarded investigators came under a coordinated insurgent attack.
Still, negligence, if proved, does not constitute a cover-up. Even the most fault-finding Haditha inquiry, conducted by Army Major General Eldon Bargewell, rejected the idea of some upper-level conspiracy. As for the infantrymen at Haditha, Lt. Col. Ware's investigation concluded, in a representative statement, that "No trier of fact can conclude SSgt Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill." The allegations of a deliberate massacre are entirely unfounded. They are contradicted by credible testimony, and remain a "story unsupported by evidence."
If any of the reduced cases do move to courts martial, as some likely will, they will turn on the rules of engagement. Decisions made in the heat of battle are hard to judge from the outside. At the critical moment, hesitation can result in a soldier or his unit getting killed. Thus military justice usually presumes a benefit of the doubt if decisions that were reasonable in the line of fire appear wrong in hindsight. A bad result does not imply a bad decision.
At Haditha, did the Marines act reasonably and appropriately based on their training? They were in a hostile combat situation where deadly force was authorized against suspected triggermen for the IED, and were ordered to assault a suspected insurgent hideout. In retrospect, the men in the car had no weapons or explosives; in retrospect, the people in the house were not insurgents. No one knew at the time.
Innocents were killed at Haditha, as they inevitably are in all wars--though that does not excuse or justify wrongdoing. Yet neither was Haditha the atrocity or "massacre" that many assumed--though errors in judgment may well have been committed. And while some violent crimes have been visited on civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, overall the highly disciplined U.S. military has conducted itself in an exemplary fashion. When there have been aberrations, the services have typically held themselves accountable.
The same cannot be said of the political and media classes. Many, including Members of Congress, were looking for another moral bonfire to discredit the cause in Iraq, and they found a pretext in Haditha. The critics rushed to judgment; facts and evidence were discarded to fit the antiwar template.
Most despicably, they created and stoked a political atmosphere that exposes American soldiers in the line of duty, risking and often losing their lives, to criminal liability for the chaos of war. This is the deepest shame of Haditha, and the one for which apologies ought to be made.
The massacre that wasn't, and its political exploitation.
Friday, October 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
The incident at Haditha--or the massacre, as it is often called--is due for a wholesale rethinking. The allegations are that in 2005 U.S. Marines went on a killing spree and deliberately executed 24 Iraqi civilians. The casualties have drawn an extraordinary amount of political attention, becoming an emblem for everything critics say is wrong with the Iraq war--in the common telling, another My Lai.
Thus Congressman Jack Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, made accusations of war crimes and said the Marines had killed "in cold blood." These are serious charges; and military justice continues to deal with them seriously, though thankfully at a slower pace than politics. Now the prosecutions have mostly unraveled. It seems Haditha, though tragic, was exploited politically, and the allegations were exaggerated, if not unfounded.
Here is what we know. On November 17, 2005, Kilo Company of the First Marine Regiment's Third Battalion was returning from a routine logistics mission in Haditha, a town 140 miles northwest of Baghdad. Haditha is in Anbar province, a heart of the Sunni insurgency with one of the highest U.S. casualty rates in Iraq. The security situation at the time was treacherous.
Shortly after 7 a.m., an improvised explosive device detonated under the last vehicle in Company K's four-Humvee convoy. It instantly killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas and wounded two others. Windows were shattered for 150 yards, and smoke and debris were everywhere.
An oncoming white sedan had been waved over near the stalled convoy. Five military-age occupants exited and disobeyed orders in Arabic to halt; at least one began to run. Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the squad commander, and Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz opened fire, killing all of them. The men were suspected of being spotters for, or remotely detonating, the IED.
As a quick reaction force arrived, headed by First Lieutenant William Kallop, Company K began taking small arms fire from several locations on either side of the convoy. While taking cover, they identified at least one shooter in the vicinity of a nearby "trigger house." Lt. Kallop ordered SSgt. Wuterich and a makeshift team to treat the building as hostile and "clear" it.
They forced entry and shot a man on a flight of stairs, then another when he made a movement toward a closet. The Marines say they heard the sound of an AK-47 being racked, so threw grenades into a nearby room and fired; they killed five occupants, with two others wounded by grenade fragments and bullets.
SSgt. Wuterich and his men pursued a runner into an adjacent house. They led the assault with grenades and gunfire, in the process killing another man. Unknown to the Marines, two women and six children were in a back room. Seven were killed. It was chaotic and fast-moving in the dark, close-range quarters, and accounts diverge on the chronology and offensive actions.
After the firefight ended, around 9:30, the Marines noted men suspected of scouting for another attack "turkey peeking" behind the wall of a third house. A team followed to find women and children inside (who were not harmed). They moved to a fourth house off a courtyard and killed inside two men wielding AK-47s and two others.
In March 2006, Time magazine broke the story, which erupted in the press. The accounts relied on a narrative that the Marines had gone berserk after the killing of Cpl. Terrazas and murdered Iraqis in retaliation. "Eyewitnesses" reported that the riders in the car had been lined up and executed, and that there had been a rampage through the houses targeting women and children. A coverup by the top brass was also asserted.
After the incident became public, the military was unusually aggressive. It launched at least two exhaustive, months-long inquiries. Four of the enlisted men from Company K were charged with unpremeditated murder--essentially, killings without sanction. Four Marine officers who were not on the scene were charged with dereliction of duty for improperly reporting and investigating.
Before courts martial, all charges are referred to Article 32 hearings, the military equivalent of a grand jury. The senior investigating officer for the infantrymen, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Ware, had a chance to look at all the evidence, not just that selectively leaked or filtered. The result is that the charges are being reduced or dismissed altogether.
In separate Article 32 proceedings, two of the officers have been exonerated; one, the highest ranking, has been recommended for a court martial, and the other case remains pending. Of the four infantrymen, two have seen their charges dismissed (one in exchange for testimony); and charges against a third have been recommended to be dismissed. Ten of SSgt. Wuterich's indictments have been recommended for dismissal, and the seven others reduced to negligent homicide, essentially, accidental or negligent killings. Why?
The first imperative is to understand the complex, asymmetrical combat conditions in Iraq. The Marines were (and are) facing a determined enemy who dress as civilians and use homes, schools, hospitals and mosques as their bases of operation. They try to goad killings among the civilian population because it foments domestic opposition against U.S. troops while undermining them with elite international opinion.
In this environment, accusations of U.S. atrocities against civilians occur after almost every military operation. That partly explains why the Marines did not immediately investigate the Haditha killings. They viewed some Iraqi claims as part of insurgent "information operations" and did not suspect any misconduct. That day also saw citywide violence and multiple combat actions, and the killings seemed, regrettably but realistically, routine.
Perhaps, ex post facto, the officers might have erred on the side of scrutiny, though it is more exactly the duty of commanders to report accurately up the chain of command. Aside from some glitches, such as an erroneous public affairs statement that some of the civilians had been killed by the roadside bomb, they seem to have done so. There are also accusations that the delay in the full probe compromised the case. One indication of affairs in Haditha is that the heavily guarded investigators came under a coordinated insurgent attack.
Still, negligence, if proved, does not constitute a cover-up. Even the most fault-finding Haditha inquiry, conducted by Army Major General Eldon Bargewell, rejected the idea of some upper-level conspiracy. As for the infantrymen at Haditha, Lt. Col. Ware's investigation concluded, in a representative statement, that "No trier of fact can conclude SSgt Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill." The allegations of a deliberate massacre are entirely unfounded. They are contradicted by credible testimony, and remain a "story unsupported by evidence."
If any of the reduced cases do move to courts martial, as some likely will, they will turn on the rules of engagement. Decisions made in the heat of battle are hard to judge from the outside. At the critical moment, hesitation can result in a soldier or his unit getting killed. Thus military justice usually presumes a benefit of the doubt if decisions that were reasonable in the line of fire appear wrong in hindsight. A bad result does not imply a bad decision.
At Haditha, did the Marines act reasonably and appropriately based on their training? They were in a hostile combat situation where deadly force was authorized against suspected triggermen for the IED, and were ordered to assault a suspected insurgent hideout. In retrospect, the men in the car had no weapons or explosives; in retrospect, the people in the house were not insurgents. No one knew at the time.
Innocents were killed at Haditha, as they inevitably are in all wars--though that does not excuse or justify wrongdoing. Yet neither was Haditha the atrocity or "massacre" that many assumed--though errors in judgment may well have been committed. And while some violent crimes have been visited on civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, overall the highly disciplined U.S. military has conducted itself in an exemplary fashion. When there have been aberrations, the services have typically held themselves accountable.
The same cannot be said of the political and media classes. Many, including Members of Congress, were looking for another moral bonfire to discredit the cause in Iraq, and they found a pretext in Haditha. The critics rushed to judgment; facts and evidence were discarded to fit the antiwar template.
Most despicably, they created and stoked a political atmosphere that exposes American soldiers in the line of duty, risking and often losing their lives, to criminal liability for the chaos of war. This is the deepest shame of Haditha, and the one for which apologies ought to be made.
Google Under Fire Over a Controversial Site
Racist Speech, Porn
Stir Battle in Brazil;
A 'Pandora's Box'
By ANTONIO REGALADO and KEVIN J. DELANEY
October 19, 2007; Page A1
SÃO PAULO, Brazil -- Google Inc. makes billions marrying advertising to the Web. Just yesterday, it reported yet another surge in revenue and profit.
But here in Brazil, the Internet powerhouse is embroiled in an embarrassing episode over its efforts to profit from social networking, one of the fastest-growing activities online.
Google has gotten in hot water over its Web site Orkut, which like other social-networking sites allows people to swap information and create personal Web pages. While many Americans have never heard of it, Orkut is a powerhouse overseas, with more than half its 25 million monthly visitors in Brazil. By some measures, it ranks among the top 10 sites on the Web in popularity, alongside other heavily used social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace and Facebook Inc....
read more>>>
Stir Battle in Brazil;
A 'Pandora's Box'
By ANTONIO REGALADO and KEVIN J. DELANEY
October 19, 2007; Page A1
SÃO PAULO, Brazil -- Google Inc. makes billions marrying advertising to the Web. Just yesterday, it reported yet another surge in revenue and profit.
But here in Brazil, the Internet powerhouse is embroiled in an embarrassing episode over its efforts to profit from social networking, one of the fastest-growing activities online.
Google has gotten in hot water over its Web site Orkut, which like other social-networking sites allows people to swap information and create personal Web pages. While many Americans have never heard of it, Orkut is a powerhouse overseas, with more than half its 25 million monthly visitors in Brazil. By some measures, it ranks among the top 10 sites on the Web in popularity, alongside other heavily used social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace and Facebook Inc....
read more>>>
Last Chance for DDT
By ROGER BATE
November 5, 2007; Page A19 WSJ
Thanks to the pragmatism of African health officials and the efforts of some in the U.S. government, the insecticide DDT is still repelling and killing mosquitoes in Africa nations, saving thousands of people from malaria and other infectious diseases each year. But its days may be numbered. While the Bush administration and the World Health Organization have argued articulately in favor of DDT over the past two years, so-called environmentalists and those companies selling alternatives to DDT are pushing to prevent it from being deployed.
President Bush launched the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) in 2005 with the explicit aim of using all the best methods for preventing the disease. As a result, last year DDT was procured with taxpayer funds for use indoors in tiny amounts in Zambia. The tactic, known as indoor residual spraying, or IRS, is cheap and highly effective, repelling and killing mosquitoes before they can bite and transmit disease while avoiding widespread, outdoor spraying. (The PMI has not procured this insecticide for any other nation, but has funded alternatives to DDT, such as deltamethrin, in Uganda, Angola, Tanzania and Rwanda.)
But developing nations are skittish. Their populations have been scared by environmentalists into thinking DDT causes cancer and birth defects; and their farmers have been frightened by EU officials and segments of the Western chemical industry into believing their crop exports will be boycotted. As a result, many African leaders have delayed re-introduction of DDT, perhaps indefinitely. Over the past three years, for example, two different Ugandan health ministers have wanted to deploy DDT indoors, but fearful of Western trade reprisals, their farmers have blocked all attempts to do so.
Meanwhile, vast swathes of the anti-malaria community, including the malaria teams within national donor agencies, are quietly opposed to DDT. Agencies include insecticide spraying in their literature, but then run No-Spray programs. Aid agencies -- including UNICEF and the World Bank -- have steered clear of DDT, choosing instead to support anti-malaria experiments such as mosquito bed nets for the past decade. The managements of the donor agencies offer spurious explanations as to why DDT and indoor spraying in general shouldn't be used.
The favorite excuse is that DDT campaigns are unsustainable because they require more infrastructure to be delivered than simply handing out bed nets. Yet the evidence is that the distribution of bed nets, without significant educational support on their proper use, is not as effective as hoped. Some of the recent bed-net success stories in Kenya highlight this fact.
With the notable exception of the PMI, and occasionally the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, no agencies seem to want to sustain a spray program. Yet Mozambique, which has very poor health infrastructure, has managed to sustain a well-run indoor residual spraying program for more than seven years by partnering with neighboring South Africa and Swaziland. As a result of this initiative, the country's malaria burden has dramatically decreased. Rates have dropped by 88% among children in the key target areas. Instead of excuses, regional leaders made malaria control sustainable.
Such success stories about spraying are rarely reported. What is reported is any bad news about DDT. And anti-DDT bias in the academic literature is accelerating. A recent article in The Lancet Infectious Diseases Journal alleges that superior methods for malaria-control exist, yet the authors do not provide a single reference for this claim. The authors also claim that DDT represents a public-health hazard by citing two studies -- studies that, according to a 1995 WHO technical report, do not provide "convincing evidence of adverse effects of DDT exposure as a result of indoor residual spraying."
In fact, after 60 years of use there is still no solid evidence of any human harm from DDT. Yet the article in The Lancet, like so many before it, will be used by those in the field to dissuade Africans from using the insecticide.
The United Nations is also ramping up opposition to DDT. At its third session, ending on May 4, 2007, the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants requested its secretariat, in collaboration with the "World Health Organization and interested parties [emphasis mine] to develop a business plan for promoting a global partnership to develop and deploy alternatives to DDT for disease vector control."
Since there are many "interested parties" who want to sell alternatives to DDT, and nearly all the participants in the Stockholm Convention are opposed to the insecticide, the partnership is likely to be broad, well-financed and politically connected. It may prove to be the final nail in the coffin.
DDT is no panacea, but it has a far better track record on malaria control than any other intervention, and in most settings is also the most cost-effective. But lives are lost every day because of continued opposition to its use. Aid agencies must help overcome that opposition rather than support it. DDT will one day no longer be necessary, but that day remains a long way off.
Mr. Bate is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. This commentary is adapted from a longer paper, "The Rise, Fall, Rise and Imminent Fall of DDT," published today by AEI.
November 5, 2007; Page A19 WSJ
Thanks to the pragmatism of African health officials and the efforts of some in the U.S. government, the insecticide DDT is still repelling and killing mosquitoes in Africa nations, saving thousands of people from malaria and other infectious diseases each year. But its days may be numbered. While the Bush administration and the World Health Organization have argued articulately in favor of DDT over the past two years, so-called environmentalists and those companies selling alternatives to DDT are pushing to prevent it from being deployed.
President Bush launched the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) in 2005 with the explicit aim of using all the best methods for preventing the disease. As a result, last year DDT was procured with taxpayer funds for use indoors in tiny amounts in Zambia. The tactic, known as indoor residual spraying, or IRS, is cheap and highly effective, repelling and killing mosquitoes before they can bite and transmit disease while avoiding widespread, outdoor spraying. (The PMI has not procured this insecticide for any other nation, but has funded alternatives to DDT, such as deltamethrin, in Uganda, Angola, Tanzania and Rwanda.)
But developing nations are skittish. Their populations have been scared by environmentalists into thinking DDT causes cancer and birth defects; and their farmers have been frightened by EU officials and segments of the Western chemical industry into believing their crop exports will be boycotted. As a result, many African leaders have delayed re-introduction of DDT, perhaps indefinitely. Over the past three years, for example, two different Ugandan health ministers have wanted to deploy DDT indoors, but fearful of Western trade reprisals, their farmers have blocked all attempts to do so.
Meanwhile, vast swathes of the anti-malaria community, including the malaria teams within national donor agencies, are quietly opposed to DDT. Agencies include insecticide spraying in their literature, but then run No-Spray programs. Aid agencies -- including UNICEF and the World Bank -- have steered clear of DDT, choosing instead to support anti-malaria experiments such as mosquito bed nets for the past decade. The managements of the donor agencies offer spurious explanations as to why DDT and indoor spraying in general shouldn't be used.
The favorite excuse is that DDT campaigns are unsustainable because they require more infrastructure to be delivered than simply handing out bed nets. Yet the evidence is that the distribution of bed nets, without significant educational support on their proper use, is not as effective as hoped. Some of the recent bed-net success stories in Kenya highlight this fact.
With the notable exception of the PMI, and occasionally the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, no agencies seem to want to sustain a spray program. Yet Mozambique, which has very poor health infrastructure, has managed to sustain a well-run indoor residual spraying program for more than seven years by partnering with neighboring South Africa and Swaziland. As a result of this initiative, the country's malaria burden has dramatically decreased. Rates have dropped by 88% among children in the key target areas. Instead of excuses, regional leaders made malaria control sustainable.
Such success stories about spraying are rarely reported. What is reported is any bad news about DDT. And anti-DDT bias in the academic literature is accelerating. A recent article in The Lancet Infectious Diseases Journal alleges that superior methods for malaria-control exist, yet the authors do not provide a single reference for this claim. The authors also claim that DDT represents a public-health hazard by citing two studies -- studies that, according to a 1995 WHO technical report, do not provide "convincing evidence of adverse effects of DDT exposure as a result of indoor residual spraying."
In fact, after 60 years of use there is still no solid evidence of any human harm from DDT. Yet the article in The Lancet, like so many before it, will be used by those in the field to dissuade Africans from using the insecticide.
The United Nations is also ramping up opposition to DDT. At its third session, ending on May 4, 2007, the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants requested its secretariat, in collaboration with the "World Health Organization and interested parties [emphasis mine] to develop a business plan for promoting a global partnership to develop and deploy alternatives to DDT for disease vector control."
Since there are many "interested parties" who want to sell alternatives to DDT, and nearly all the participants in the Stockholm Convention are opposed to the insecticide, the partnership is likely to be broad, well-financed and politically connected. It may prove to be the final nail in the coffin.
DDT is no panacea, but it has a far better track record on malaria control than any other intervention, and in most settings is also the most cost-effective. But lives are lost every day because of continued opposition to its use. Aid agencies must help overcome that opposition rather than support it. DDT will one day no longer be necessary, but that day remains a long way off.
Mr. Bate is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. This commentary is adapted from a longer paper, "The Rise, Fall, Rise and Imminent Fall of DDT," published today by AEI.
The Easier Rider: Baby Boom Bikers Defect to the Trike
By JONATHAN WELSH
November 5, 2007; Page A1 WSJ
One day last March, Robert Lee hit a patch of gravel while piloting his 800-pound motorcycle. He survived the wipeout unscathed, but the retired Linotype operator threw in the towel. He switched to a three-wheel motorcycle known as a "trike."
"At my age, I can't afford to be stranded on the road," says Mr. Lee, a 77-year-old Massachusetts resident who has been riding motorcycles for four decades. Mr. Lee admits he's gotten a "few strange looks" while cruising around in his new method of transport, which has one wheel in front for steering and two in back for power. But so far, he's gotten no insults.
After decades of being dismissed as fringe vehicles, trikes are gaining favor with baby boomers confronting the realities of old age, from knee injuries and arthritis to a diminished sense of balance. Motorcycles may forever symbolize youthful rebellion. But trikes, which sacrifice heart-pounding acceleration and the thrill of leaning into turns for greater stability, are a lot easier to maneuver in stop-and-go traffic.
Another factor is the passenger sitting in back. The heavier the passenger, the harder it is for the rider to balance a traditional two-wheel bike. And "many of these riders are guys with wives who have -- we like to say blossomed -- over the years," says Jeffrey Vey, president of Texas-based trike maker Thoroughbred Motorsports Inc ...
November 5, 2007; Page A1 WSJ
One day last March, Robert Lee hit a patch of gravel while piloting his 800-pound motorcycle. He survived the wipeout unscathed, but the retired Linotype operator threw in the towel. He switched to a three-wheel motorcycle known as a "trike."
"At my age, I can't afford to be stranded on the road," says Mr. Lee, a 77-year-old Massachusetts resident who has been riding motorcycles for four decades. Mr. Lee admits he's gotten a "few strange looks" while cruising around in his new method of transport, which has one wheel in front for steering and two in back for power. But so far, he's gotten no insults.
After decades of being dismissed as fringe vehicles, trikes are gaining favor with baby boomers confronting the realities of old age, from knee injuries and arthritis to a diminished sense of balance. Motorcycles may forever symbolize youthful rebellion. But trikes, which sacrifice heart-pounding acceleration and the thrill of leaning into turns for greater stability, are a lot easier to maneuver in stop-and-go traffic.
Another factor is the passenger sitting in back. The heavier the passenger, the harder it is for the rider to balance a traditional two-wheel bike. And "many of these riders are guys with wives who have -- we like to say blossomed -- over the years," says Jeffrey Vey, president of Texas-based trike maker Thoroughbred Motorsports Inc ...
Central Chinese Television CCTV
Competition winner
OMA
New Headquarters
Central Chinese Television CCTV
Beijing, China
OMA
New Headquarters
Central Chinese Television CCTV
Beijing, China
CCTV's new 550,000 square meter headquarters, to be completed for the Beijing Olympics in 2008, will be among the first of 300 towers to be constructed in Beijing's new Central Business District.
As part of an international architectural competition organized by the Beijing International Tendering Co., the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) was awarded the contract on December 20, 2002.
On the 10-hectare site in the new Central Business District in Beijing, the OMA proposal consolidates the program in an iconic configuration of two high-rise buildings.
The new CCTV headquarters, at a height of 230 meter and a floor area of about 400,000 square meters, combines administration with news, broadcasting, studios and program production - the entire process of TV making - in a sequence of interconnected activities. Although the building is 230 meter tall it is not a traditional tower, but a continuous loop of horizontal and vertical sections that establish an urban site rather than point to the sky. The irregular grid on the building's facades is an expression of the forces traveling throughout its structure.
The second building, the 115,000 m2 Television Cultural Center (TVCC) includes a hotel, a visitor's center, a large public theatre and exhibition spaces. It is visible from the main intersection of the Central Business District through the "window" of the CCTV headquarters.
A Media Park forms a landscape of public entertainment, outdoor filming areas and production studios as an extension of the central green axis of the CBD.
Rem Koolhaas and Ole Scheeren will be partners-in-charge. The OMA design team will consist of Shohei Shigematsu, Adrianne Fisher, Hiromasa Shirai, Anu Leinonen, Charles Berman and many others. Qingyun Ma from Shanghai will be advisor to the project.
The CCTV Headquarters will be realized in collaboration with ECADI, the East China Architecture & Design Institute from Shanghai.
Cecil Balmond and his team of Ove Arup & Partners will be responsible for the structural and mechanical engineering.
OMA will collaborate with its media and research branch AMO.
The top ten stupidest As Seen on TV products
When I first started writing this post, it was originally about my three favorite As Seen on TV products of all time: the Eurosealer, the 'Ove Glove, and the Rotato. But as I was looking for Rotato images, I ran across a few other As Seen on TV items, and I was reminded of several items I've seen that are just a little ...ridiculous.
Here is a list of the top ten weirdest, stupidest, and strangest As Seen on TV products I've ever seen. Obviously I'm just one guy, and I'm sure I missed some good ones. Feel free to let me know where I went wrong.
Pirates Foil Hollywood's High-Tech Security
By SARAH MCBRIDE and PETER SANDERS
October 26, 2007; Page B1
A new high-profile movie-bootlegging case involving the coming Oscar hopeful "American Gangster" shows that Hollywood's supposedly reinforced preventive measures on piracy aren't as reliable as the industry thought.
The movie, which stars Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, is being distributed by General Electric Co.'s Universal Pictures and is set to open Nov. 2. Yet it has been available since at least Wednesday at various file-sharing sites on the Internet. High-quality DVDs were being sold for $5 yesterday morning in Los Angeles, where someone in a car pulled up in front of a Wilshire Boulevard office building and quickly sold a few copies before moving on.
October 26, 2007; Page B1
A new high-profile movie-bootlegging case involving the coming Oscar hopeful "American Gangster" shows that Hollywood's supposedly reinforced preventive measures on piracy aren't as reliable as the industry thought.
The movie, which stars Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, is being distributed by General Electric Co.'s Universal Pictures and is set to open Nov. 2. Yet it has been available since at least Wednesday at various file-sharing sites on the Internet. High-quality DVDs were being sold for $5 yesterday morning in Los Angeles, where someone in a car pulled up in front of a Wilshire Boulevard office building and quickly sold a few copies before moving on.
From Balls of Concrete
Shown at low tide, the breakwater helps reduce beach erosion'Designer Reefs' Proliferate
As a Tool to Counter the Toll
Of Pollutants, Overfishing
By GAUTAM NAIK
October 26, 2007; Page B1
ISLA MUJERES, Mexico -- During a recent dive here, Todd Barber hovered above such familiar tropical sights as red sea sponges, iridescent fish and a half-hidden moray eel. But the coral reefs -- hollow, spherical and made entirely from concrete -- were anything but typical.
Mr. Barber wasn't surprised, though. A decade earlier, he created the artificial reefs using 300 concrete "reef balls." Now, those once-bare and ugly spheres have been transformed into minireefs, rich with life.
"They're in pretty good shape," said Mr. Barber after he climbed onto a boat and stripped off his scuba gear. He was particularly pleased by the presence of a Pederson shrimp, a translucent creature with blue flecks making a reef ball its home.
As a Tool to Counter the Toll
Of Pollutants, Overfishing
By GAUTAM NAIK
October 26, 2007; Page B1
ISLA MUJERES, Mexico -- During a recent dive here, Todd Barber hovered above such familiar tropical sights as red sea sponges, iridescent fish and a half-hidden moray eel. But the coral reefs -- hollow, spherical and made entirely from concrete -- were anything but typical.
Mr. Barber wasn't surprised, though. A decade earlier, he created the artificial reefs using 300 concrete "reef balls." Now, those once-bare and ugly spheres have been transformed into minireefs, rich with life.
"They're in pretty good shape," said Mr. Barber after he climbed onto a boat and stripped off his scuba gear. He was particularly pleased by the presence of a Pederson shrimp, a translucent creature with blue flecks making a reef ball its home.
Sex-Ed Podcast Is Frank, Funny and Controversial
Friday November 9, 2:07 pm ET
By Andrew LaVallee
Wall Street Journal
Episode No. 4 of "The Midwest Teen Sex Show," a new video podcast, opens with a shot of a young woman holding a crying baby. Nearby, two young boys are noisily scuffling and trading noogies. Looking into the camera, the obviously stressed-out mother of three says nothing, but her expression says: How did I get into this mess?
Seconds later, the episode's title, "Birth Control," flashes on the screen.
That sort of wry, pointed presentation has helped the show lure thousands of viewers since its debut this past summer. Some may have been attracted by the provocative title, but this isn't pornography. Instead, it aims to teach teenagers about sex using risqué sketches, explicit language and anecdotes that draw on the teenage experiences of its two 28-year-old creators -- host Nikol Hasler, the aforementioned woman, and Guy Clark, an aspiring filmmaker.
The two felt that existing sexual-education efforts were far too prim -- and boring -- to be useful to teens. Their podcast focuses less on birds-and-bees basics and more on real-life scenarios teens are likely to face.
In "The Older Boyfriend," which warns teenage girls against taking up with a guy in his 20s or 30s, Ms. Hasler says, "You may think you're pretty cool for having an older boyfriend, but what you have to remember is he's not cool for dating you. He's a loser. And you can find plenty of losers to date at school."
More than 50,000 people subscribe to the podcast through iTunes. The "Midwest Teen Sex Show" is listed under iTunes' "Health" category, where it regularly is in the top 10. Yesterday, it was No. 7, compared with Discovery Health Channel at No. 20.
Along with growth has come controversy, particularly among sex-education teachers and therapists. While some praise it for tapping a hard-to-reach audience, others worry it's too racy for younger teens, and still others say the podcast focuses too much on humor and not enough on the facts kids need.
Amy Bryant, the editor of Planned Parenthood's site TeenWire.com, says she has mixed feelings about the show. "On the one hand, it's edgy and gets teens talking about their health," she says. She's concerned, however, that the content isn't medically reviewed. (The show's Web site has a disclaimer that "all advice given is simply opinion and should not be taken as fact.")
It's the show's tone, not overall subject matter, that has drawn more criticism. Deborah Roffman, a sex-education teacher who works in Baltimore schools, says, "I can see why it would be very popular with kids. It's daring, it's very open, and it's funny, and it has information that they would find very useful. "At the same time, it is satirical in nature," she says, adding that unless teens are intellectually sophisticated, it's not "the right vehicle." She says further: "The entertainment value of this material is not the same thing as its educational value."
One early-episode joke was a crash course in dealing with viewer feedback and balancing the show's tone with acceptable taste. In "The Older Boyfriend" episode, Ms. Hasler says, "If you're in junior high and you're dating someone who's out of high school, he's a pedophile. And pedophilia's a disease. Would you date someone with cancer? No."
The remark drew a torrent of angry responses on the program's Web site, and in emails. But Ms. Hasler remains unapologetic. "We have no intention of changing our style or changing the type of humor we use," she says. "We're going to make the same jokes that cause the same amount of controversy."
Mr. Clark says his goal was to create a podcast that teens wouldn't feel was condescending -- and in the process show off his cinematography skills to would-be employers. He and Ms. Hasler are friends from high school who reconnected at her last birthday party. He asked her to host the show shortly thereafter. "I suppose that the fact that I had two kids before I was even of the legal drinking age would've been a good indicator that I knew a thing or two about sex," she says. "Plus, I'm really funny."
The podcast's third collaborator is Britney Barber, a 25-year-old Chicago comedian who plays characters in many of the show's sketches and holds a day job at a warehouse. She met Mr. Clark and Ms. Hasler after responding to an ad on Craigslist.
The three don't earn any money on the podcast but are looking for advertisers. For now, they work on a shoestring budget: Episodes are filmed at Ms. Hasler's Waukesha, Wis., home and Mr. Clark's mother's house in Woodstock, Ill., a two-hour drive from Waukesha.
Scenes are often lit with a bare light bulb attached to the ceiling with duct tape. Bric-a-brac from Ms. Barber's apartment is used to outfit many of the sketches: She has loaded up her car to bring a rubber chicken, mannequin bust, tambourines, nunchakus and a fire marshal's hat to shoots.
Ms. Hasler, who works as an office manager for a company that sells vegan products, often draws on her own life in the show. In an episode on abstinence, after making it clear she's skeptical that teens can be persuaded not to have sex, she goes on to say, "You can't just ... decide to have sex with somebody because you think it'll keep them around. Trust me, it won't."
In another episode, focused on the self-consciousness that crops up in gym class, she says, "I hated my body in high school, but if I had that body now, I'd strut around the locker room. I'd go to other high schools and strut around their locker rooms. You should appreciate what you have."
"Definitely, I rely heavily on my own experience," Ms. Hasler says. As a child, she spent time in more than a dozen foster homes, and became sexually active at age 11. She would have benefited from a show like the one she's making, she says. "I want to reach out and shake these kids by their shoulders."
She doesn't shy away from the questions her two older sons -- one is nine years old, the other seven -- have about sex, though not everything on "Midwest" gets discussed.
"I give them as much information as they can handle," Ms. Hasler says. Of her job as the show's host, she adds, "they're actually very proud of me."
Write to Andrew LaVallee at andrew.lavallee@wsj.com
By Andrew LaVallee
Wall Street Journal
Episode No. 4 of "The Midwest Teen Sex Show," a new video podcast, opens with a shot of a young woman holding a crying baby. Nearby, two young boys are noisily scuffling and trading noogies. Looking into the camera, the obviously stressed-out mother of three says nothing, but her expression says: How did I get into this mess?
Seconds later, the episode's title, "Birth Control," flashes on the screen.
That sort of wry, pointed presentation has helped the show lure thousands of viewers since its debut this past summer. Some may have been attracted by the provocative title, but this isn't pornography. Instead, it aims to teach teenagers about sex using risqué sketches, explicit language and anecdotes that draw on the teenage experiences of its two 28-year-old creators -- host Nikol Hasler, the aforementioned woman, and Guy Clark, an aspiring filmmaker.
The two felt that existing sexual-education efforts were far too prim -- and boring -- to be useful to teens. Their podcast focuses less on birds-and-bees basics and more on real-life scenarios teens are likely to face.
In "The Older Boyfriend," which warns teenage girls against taking up with a guy in his 20s or 30s, Ms. Hasler says, "You may think you're pretty cool for having an older boyfriend, but what you have to remember is he's not cool for dating you. He's a loser. And you can find plenty of losers to date at school."
More than 50,000 people subscribe to the podcast through iTunes. The "Midwest Teen Sex Show" is listed under iTunes' "Health" category, where it regularly is in the top 10. Yesterday, it was No. 7, compared with Discovery Health Channel at No. 20.
Along with growth has come controversy, particularly among sex-education teachers and therapists. While some praise it for tapping a hard-to-reach audience, others worry it's too racy for younger teens, and still others say the podcast focuses too much on humor and not enough on the facts kids need.
Amy Bryant, the editor of Planned Parenthood's site TeenWire.com, says she has mixed feelings about the show. "On the one hand, it's edgy and gets teens talking about their health," she says. She's concerned, however, that the content isn't medically reviewed. (The show's Web site has a disclaimer that "all advice given is simply opinion and should not be taken as fact.")
It's the show's tone, not overall subject matter, that has drawn more criticism. Deborah Roffman, a sex-education teacher who works in Baltimore schools, says, "I can see why it would be very popular with kids. It's daring, it's very open, and it's funny, and it has information that they would find very useful. "At the same time, it is satirical in nature," she says, adding that unless teens are intellectually sophisticated, it's not "the right vehicle." She says further: "The entertainment value of this material is not the same thing as its educational value."
One early-episode joke was a crash course in dealing with viewer feedback and balancing the show's tone with acceptable taste. In "The Older Boyfriend" episode, Ms. Hasler says, "If you're in junior high and you're dating someone who's out of high school, he's a pedophile. And pedophilia's a disease. Would you date someone with cancer? No."
The remark drew a torrent of angry responses on the program's Web site, and in emails. But Ms. Hasler remains unapologetic. "We have no intention of changing our style or changing the type of humor we use," she says. "We're going to make the same jokes that cause the same amount of controversy."
Mr. Clark says his goal was to create a podcast that teens wouldn't feel was condescending -- and in the process show off his cinematography skills to would-be employers. He and Ms. Hasler are friends from high school who reconnected at her last birthday party. He asked her to host the show shortly thereafter. "I suppose that the fact that I had two kids before I was even of the legal drinking age would've been a good indicator that I knew a thing or two about sex," she says. "Plus, I'm really funny."
The podcast's third collaborator is Britney Barber, a 25-year-old Chicago comedian who plays characters in many of the show's sketches and holds a day job at a warehouse. She met Mr. Clark and Ms. Hasler after responding to an ad on Craigslist.
The three don't earn any money on the podcast but are looking for advertisers. For now, they work on a shoestring budget: Episodes are filmed at Ms. Hasler's Waukesha, Wis., home and Mr. Clark's mother's house in Woodstock, Ill., a two-hour drive from Waukesha.
Scenes are often lit with a bare light bulb attached to the ceiling with duct tape. Bric-a-brac from Ms. Barber's apartment is used to outfit many of the sketches: She has loaded up her car to bring a rubber chicken, mannequin bust, tambourines, nunchakus and a fire marshal's hat to shoots.
Ms. Hasler, who works as an office manager for a company that sells vegan products, often draws on her own life in the show. In an episode on abstinence, after making it clear she's skeptical that teens can be persuaded not to have sex, she goes on to say, "You can't just ... decide to have sex with somebody because you think it'll keep them around. Trust me, it won't."
In another episode, focused on the self-consciousness that crops up in gym class, she says, "I hated my body in high school, but if I had that body now, I'd strut around the locker room. I'd go to other high schools and strut around their locker rooms. You should appreciate what you have."
"Definitely, I rely heavily on my own experience," Ms. Hasler says. As a child, she spent time in more than a dozen foster homes, and became sexually active at age 11. She would have benefited from a show like the one she's making, she says. "I want to reach out and shake these kids by their shoulders."
She doesn't shy away from the questions her two older sons -- one is nine years old, the other seven -- have about sex, though not everything on "Midwest" gets discussed.
"I give them as much information as they can handle," Ms. Hasler says. Of her job as the show's host, she adds, "they're actually very proud of me."
Write to Andrew LaVallee at andrew.lavallee@wsj.com
Ellis Island Passenger Search
From 1892 to 1954, over twelve million immigrants entered the United States through Ellis Island in New York Harbor.
learn more here>>>
learn more here>>>
Saturday, November 17, 2007
The Borrower Who Never Was
Synthetic-Identity Fraud
Hits Credit Bureaus, Banks;
A Night at the Ritz-Carlton
Hits Credit Bureaus, Banks;
A Night at the Ritz-Carlton
By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY
October 29, 2007; Page B1 WSJ
FLORENCE, Ariz. -- In May 2002, Las Vegas resident Adam Gregory went on a business trip to Phoenix. He stayed at the Ritz-Carlton and charged the $1,082 bill to his American Express card -- or so financial records show.
In fact, Mr. Gregory didn't live in Las Vegas, never held a job and wasn't even a real person.
Rather, Mr. Gregory was a "synthetic" identity -- a person who appears real on paper but is actually a fraudster's concoction designed to trick financial institutions into granting loans and issuing credit cards. In the case of Mr. Gregory, the man behind the mask was James Rose, a 46-year-old former credit-bureau operator.
Working with a partner, Mr. Rose tricked the guardians of the credit system -- lenders and the three big credit bureaus -- into treating his fake identities as if they were real, creditworthy consumers. He obtained several hundred credit cards in the names of Mr. Gregory and as many as 500 other fake personas over two years, filching around $750,000 over a two-year period.
Unlike traditional identity thieves, who purloin people's information to get loans or make purchases, fraudsters like Mr. Rose mix legitimate and phony data to create synthetic identities. This kind of fraud doesn't usually directly affect consumers. The big losers are banks, which get stuck with loan defaults and unpaid credit-card bills that identity thieves leave behind.
There are no reliable figures documenting losses from synthetic identity fraud -- banks are secretive about losses -- but many say the problem is growing. Avivah Litan, a fraud specialist at research firm Gartner Inc., estimates that synthetic schemes constitute at least 20% of credit charge-offs and 80% of losses from credit-card fraud. Banks "are very nervous," she says. Synthetic-identity fraud "is showing up all over the place."
Scams like Mr. Rose's also show how fraudsters can exploit the practices of the three big credit-reporting companies, Equifax Inc., Experian and TransUnion LLC. The companies and the FTC say some inaccuracies and fraud are unavoidable given the bureaus' complex task and lenders' demand for quick access to credit histories.
Mr. Rose's story is based on court documents and interviews with law-enforcement officials and Mr. Rose himself, who was sentenced to 70 months last week in Phoenix. His partner in crime, a Canadian immigrant named Malcolm Newton, is awaiting sentencing and declined to comment.
Growing up in North Hollywood, Calif., Mr. Rose branched out from television-studio work to set up a small home-building business in the mid-1980s. He started a credit-reporting company after finding other companies took too long to produce credit histories.
Attending credit-bureau seminars, Mr. Rose learned that the bureaus maintain a file for every inquiry lenders make, even if it contains mismatching or erroneous data. The credit bureaus may tell the lender that it couldn't find a match -- a "no-hit" situation -- but they still use the data to create a new file in their databases. Most of these files are legitimate. Some emerge when lenders submit inquiries with misspelled names; others get created when people apply for their first credit card.
Mr. Rose realized he could plant no-hit files within the credit bureaus by applying for credit cards using a mix of real and phony data. Could these files be transformed into seemingly real people with seemingly respectable credit histories, so that lenders would extend credit to them? Mr. Rose experimented with the idea in the late 1980s. A decade later, the Internet had turbocharged the credit-granting process and depersonalized steps needed to make the scheme work on a grander scale.
Around 2000, Mr. Rose teamed with Mr. Newton, a credit-savvy acquaintance, to launch the scheme. Their goal: make a lot of money "without actually hurting people," Mr. Rose says.
The men paired fake names with Social Security numbers of real people. Adam Gregory, the purported Las Vegas resident, had the Social Security number of a real California resident.
The conspirators needed addresses for their synthetic identities and for a dozen or so shell companies that helped to facilitate the scam. Eventually they rented 200-odd apartments in 14 states. They kept binders of data in their Phoenix headquarters to keep the details straight.
The duo acquired business licenses, usually online, for the dummy businesses. A few had real offices with furniture; others rented "virtual" office space. After Messrs. Rose and Newton triggered the credit bureaus to set up no-hit files for their synthetic identities, their shell companies fed false data to credit bureaus.
As the fake data funneled into the credit bureaus, the planted no-hit files began to acquire history and look like creditworthy customers. Messrs. Rose and Newton successfully applied for credit cards with at least 15 major firms, all in the names of their synthetic identities. The financial institutions included Wells Fargo & Co., American Express and Household, now part of HSBC Holdings PLC. All declined to comment.
Cards in hand, the partners bought goods and services, mostly from their shell companies. After the shell companies received payments from the card-issuing banks to cover the charges, Mr. Rose withdrew cash from bank accounts set up for these companies using ATM cards. "It was exciting when it came together," he says. "I realized, 'My god, this can be done.' "
U.S. Secret Service agents first detected the scheme in the summer of 2003, Mr. Rose says, when Mr. Newton was apprehended in Honolulu trying to cash checks made out by some of their fake identities. Agents subsequently raided the pair's headquarters and Mr. Rose's home. On Aug. 31, 2006, agents arrested Mr. Rose. "This case illustrates the level of misguided creativity and ingenuity that we commonly see on the part of identity thieves," said Eric Zahren, a Secret Service spokesman.
All three credit bureaus say their data-management procedures are legal, adequate and continually updated. Meanwhile, each company vigorously markets premium data-screening services to businesses interested in taking extra security steps to weed out identity-theft schemes, including synthetic fraud.
Evan Hendricks, editor of the Privacy Times newsletter, says credit bureaus should better scrutinize data and the FTC should mandate stricter rules. "The credit bureaus are at the epicenter of identity theft and there's no pressure at this point to force them to make changes," he says.
The FTC has estimated that the no-hit phenomenon has created "tens of millions" more files in the credit bureaus' databases than there are actual consumers. It has said the bureaus don't routinely investigate these files, pointing to cost as a factor.
The credit bureaus say they view the automatic creation of such files as a legal requirement. TransUnion says it deletes files containing nothing besides an initial inquiry "within a set period of time," which it won't specify.
Regulators are torn over what, if anything, to do about the problem. Tweaking the system too far in the direction security could slow down credit granting and economic activity. But today's looser approach continues to invite fraud.
Write to Christopher Conkey at christopher.conkey@wsj.com
Annual "Stella Awards"
It's time again for the annual "Stella Awards"! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico where she purchased the coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right?
That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S . You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy.
Here are the Stella's for the past year:
7TH PLACE :
Kathleen Robertson of Austin , Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.
6TH PLACE:
Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. T ruman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.
Go ahead, grab your head scratcher.
5TH PLACE:
Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT, days on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish.
Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish.
Keep scratching. There are more...
4TH PLACE :
Jerry Williams, of Little Rock , Arkansas , garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.
Grrrrr . Scratch, scratch.
3RD PLACE :
Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. What ever happened to people being responsible for their own actions?
Scratch, scratch, scratch. Hang in there; there are only two more Stellas to go...
2ND PLACE :
Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000....oh, yeah,
plus dental expenses. Go figure.
1ST PLACE : (May I have a fanfare played on 50 kazoos please)
This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set . The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down, $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.
Are we, as a society, getting more stupid...? Ya Think??!!
More than a few of our judge's elevators don't go to the top floor either!
That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S . You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy.
Here are the Stella's for the past year:
7TH PLACE :
Kathleen Robertson of Austin , Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.
6TH PLACE:
Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. T ruman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.
Go ahead, grab your head scratcher.
5TH PLACE:
Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT, days on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish.
Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish.
Keep scratching. There are more...
4TH PLACE :
Jerry Williams, of Little Rock , Arkansas , garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.
Grrrrr . Scratch, scratch.
3RD PLACE :
Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. What ever happened to people being responsible for their own actions?
Scratch, scratch, scratch. Hang in there; there are only two more Stellas to go...
2ND PLACE :
Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000....oh, yeah,
plus dental expenses. Go figure.
1ST PLACE : (May I have a fanfare played on 50 kazoos please)
This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set . The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down, $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.
Are we, as a society, getting more stupid...? Ya Think??!!
More than a few of our judge's elevators don't go to the top floor either!
For These Sculptors, The Medium Is Big, Orange and Stinky
Mr. Moser's Masterpiece,
Huge Enough to Squash Him,
Is No Mere Jack-o'-Lantern
By SUSAN WARREN
October 31, 2007; Page A1
GREAT VALLEY, N.Y. -- Muffled inside the 10-inch-thick walls of a 908-pound pumpkin, Patrick Moser's voice was an echoing blur.
"It's beautiful in here," he shouted. "It's like Carlsbad Caverns."
As a giant-pumpkin carver, Mr. Moser regularly ventures where no man has gone before. Carving the behemoths isn't just an art, he says, it's a personal odyssey. And this month, his journey has brought him to Pumpkinville, a rustic pumpkin farm tucked into a valley of the Allegheny Mountains, where he has been commissioned to sculpt a hulking pale orange specimen harvested by a nearby grower.
Cross-breeding and better growing techniques have created a new variety of monster pumpkins called Atlantic Giant. Backyard farmers across the country are competing in weigh-offs, and the giants keep getting bigger -- up to 1,689 pounds for the plumpest pumpkin this year. But after all the competitions are over, one question still looms: What to do with all this fruit the size of hot tubs?
One answer has emerged...
Huge Enough to Squash Him,
Is No Mere Jack-o'-Lantern
By SUSAN WARREN
October 31, 2007; Page A1
GREAT VALLEY, N.Y. -- Muffled inside the 10-inch-thick walls of a 908-pound pumpkin, Patrick Moser's voice was an echoing blur.
"It's beautiful in here," he shouted. "It's like Carlsbad Caverns."
As a giant-pumpkin carver, Mr. Moser regularly ventures where no man has gone before. Carving the behemoths isn't just an art, he says, it's a personal odyssey. And this month, his journey has brought him to Pumpkinville, a rustic pumpkin farm tucked into a valley of the Allegheny Mountains, where he has been commissioned to sculpt a hulking pale orange specimen harvested by a nearby grower.
Cross-breeding and better growing techniques have created a new variety of monster pumpkins called Atlantic Giant. Backyard farmers across the country are competing in weigh-offs, and the giants keep getting bigger -- up to 1,689 pounds for the plumpest pumpkin this year. But after all the competitions are over, one question still looms: What to do with all this fruit the size of hot tubs?
One answer has emerged...
JOHN R. CHRISTY'S NOBEL MOMENT
Without doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, says John R. Christy, co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
How might humans reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures?
California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade.
Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable.
Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.
Suppose we were very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10 percent of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on projections similar to those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent, says Christy.
But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty? According to Christy, his experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened his eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short.
The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today, says Christy. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."
Source: John R. Christy, "My Nobel Moment," Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2007.
How might humans reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures?
California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade.
Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable.
Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.
Suppose we were very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10 percent of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on projections similar to those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent, says Christy.
But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty? According to Christy, his experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened his eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short.
The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today, says Christy. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."
Source: John R. Christy, "My Nobel Moment," Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2007.
Tips From Web Greats
By LEE GOMES November 14, 2007; Page B1 WSJ
It's sad, really sad, to see so many Americans work hard and play by the rules without ever getting ahead.
YouTube is bulging with videos from citizens, especially young ones, who want nothing more than the American Dream: celebrity status without appreciable talent. They work long hours chasing the dream, doing take after take of their mash-ups, their parodies, their response tapes. But at the end of the day, they're no more famous than when they woke up, most likely in a bedroom in their parents' home.
If this sounds like you, you're probably telling yourself that you've just had bad luck. But real-life Web celebrities know better: They got where they are today not just because they were lucky, but because they knew a few secrets you probably don't.
That fact was abundantly clear when I interviewed some of the biggest Net stars last week, asking what advice they'd give to someone trying to break into the business. Here's what they told me about "Becoming a Viral Web Superstar: Tips From the Experts."
The most important thing is to understand the dynamics of the medium and the nature of your audience. "The Internet moves very fast," says Gary "Numa Numa" Brolsma. "Your video has to be funny, or get to the point, very quickly. People are clicking all the time. If you don't hook people in the first 15 seconds, they'll move on."
Mr. Brolsma certainly knows what he's talking about. He was voted "Greatest Internet Superstar" by VH1. You may not have heard of him, or for that matter, any of the other megasuperstars mentioned in this column. Well, you can read about them on Wikipedia. Or, ask the guy in your office who seems always glued to his computer, "working on PowerPoint."
Another glide path to online fame involves pushing as many demographic buttons as possible. That's the word from Judson "Evolution of Dance" Laipply, whose video has long reigned as the most-viewed on YouTube.
"My video crosses almost every generation -- it doesn't have a language barrier and it has nostalgia going for it, too," he says. "One of my favorite emails was from a grandmother who said she watched it with her daughter, her granddaughter and her great-granddaughter, and they all were laughing hysterically."
Tenacity and self-confidence also should be in your arsenal. "Be obsessive," says Fritz Grobe, the short, bearded one on the right in the famous Diet Coke and Mentos video. "We spent six months developing our experiments and asking ourselves, 'Is this cool, or are we just crazy?' Lots of the biggest Internet videos have been made by real people showing what they are passionate about."
It helps to have been lucky in the parents department, at least according to Adam "Chocolate Rain" Bahner, known as Tay Zonday. "The song took off because it had a catchy hook and because there were aspects of its presentation that were unconventional: my young looks and my deep voice. There is something mystical, captivating and even a little freakish about the genes I've been given," he says.
One more tip: Avoid what Matt "Where the Hell Is Matt?" Harding describes as "closing the loop."
"You want to leave something for people to figure out," he says. "The videos I am interested in are the ones where, at the end, I still have lots of questions: Who is that? How did they learn to do that? Is this for real? A debate still rages about whether my video is fake. There are a lot of people who don't believe that you can go to places like the Galapagos or Antarctica."
So what is it like being what Mr. Harding calls a "pseudo-faux celebrity?" Pretty sweet, mostly. Naturally, though, you're always worried whether lightning will strike twice.
Mr. Brolsma, whose new "Numa Three" video debuts today on his newnuma.com Web site, says Web celebrity lets him live like he would with a regular job, without having to actually have one. Mr. Laipply has been on "Oprah," giving his career as an "inspirational comedian" a big boost. He chatted last week while driving from one college gig at South Dakota State to another one at Mississippi State.
Mr. Bahner is hoping his appearances on the likes of "Jimmy Kimmel" will turbo charge a career in show business and voiceover. Mr. Harding was in New Guinea last week filming a new dancing/traveling video for release in June. And Mr. Grobe and his partner are paid to travel the globe setting up Diet Coke fountains. They last for just a few minutes, but oh, what a show!
To be sure, being the latest, greatest Web meme has its drawbacks. You're human kitsch, so you're never sure whether people are laughing with you or at you. And until your dying day, strangers will be coming up to you on the street asking you to make cola shoot out of a bottle.
Some readers may wonder why anyone would want to become a Web celebrity in the first place. All this youthful exhibitionism! What ever happened to the good old days, when Greta Garbo wanted to be left alone?
Note to kids: If you want to defend yourself, but have never heard of Greta Garbo, she was a celebrity back when they were called "movie stars." You can look her up on Wikipedia. Or, just ask someone who is always glued to a TV set watching real movies.
• Email me at lee.gomes@wsj.com.
It's sad, really sad, to see so many Americans work hard and play by the rules without ever getting ahead.
YouTube is bulging with videos from citizens, especially young ones, who want nothing more than the American Dream: celebrity status without appreciable talent. They work long hours chasing the dream, doing take after take of their mash-ups, their parodies, their response tapes. But at the end of the day, they're no more famous than when they woke up, most likely in a bedroom in their parents' home.
If this sounds like you, you're probably telling yourself that you've just had bad luck. But real-life Web celebrities know better: They got where they are today not just because they were lucky, but because they knew a few secrets you probably don't.
That fact was abundantly clear when I interviewed some of the biggest Net stars last week, asking what advice they'd give to someone trying to break into the business. Here's what they told me about "Becoming a Viral Web Superstar: Tips From the Experts."
The most important thing is to understand the dynamics of the medium and the nature of your audience. "The Internet moves very fast," says Gary "Numa Numa" Brolsma. "Your video has to be funny, or get to the point, very quickly. People are clicking all the time. If you don't hook people in the first 15 seconds, they'll move on."
Mr. Brolsma certainly knows what he's talking about. He was voted "Greatest Internet Superstar" by VH1. You may not have heard of him, or for that matter, any of the other megasuperstars mentioned in this column. Well, you can read about them on Wikipedia. Or, ask the guy in your office who seems always glued to his computer, "working on PowerPoint."
Another glide path to online fame involves pushing as many demographic buttons as possible. That's the word from Judson "Evolution of Dance" Laipply, whose video has long reigned as the most-viewed on YouTube.
"My video crosses almost every generation -- it doesn't have a language barrier and it has nostalgia going for it, too," he says. "One of my favorite emails was from a grandmother who said she watched it with her daughter, her granddaughter and her great-granddaughter, and they all were laughing hysterically."
Tenacity and self-confidence also should be in your arsenal. "Be obsessive," says Fritz Grobe, the short, bearded one on the right in the famous Diet Coke and Mentos video. "We spent six months developing our experiments and asking ourselves, 'Is this cool, or are we just crazy?' Lots of the biggest Internet videos have been made by real people showing what they are passionate about."
It helps to have been lucky in the parents department, at least according to Adam "Chocolate Rain" Bahner, known as Tay Zonday. "The song took off because it had a catchy hook and because there were aspects of its presentation that were unconventional: my young looks and my deep voice. There is something mystical, captivating and even a little freakish about the genes I've been given," he says.
One more tip: Avoid what Matt "Where the Hell Is Matt?" Harding describes as "closing the loop."
"You want to leave something for people to figure out," he says. "The videos I am interested in are the ones where, at the end, I still have lots of questions: Who is that? How did they learn to do that? Is this for real? A debate still rages about whether my video is fake. There are a lot of people who don't believe that you can go to places like the Galapagos or Antarctica."
So what is it like being what Mr. Harding calls a "pseudo-faux celebrity?" Pretty sweet, mostly. Naturally, though, you're always worried whether lightning will strike twice.
Mr. Brolsma, whose new "Numa Three" video debuts today on his newnuma.com Web site, says Web celebrity lets him live like he would with a regular job, without having to actually have one. Mr. Laipply has been on "Oprah," giving his career as an "inspirational comedian" a big boost. He chatted last week while driving from one college gig at South Dakota State to another one at Mississippi State.
Mr. Bahner is hoping his appearances on the likes of "Jimmy Kimmel" will turbo charge a career in show business and voiceover. Mr. Harding was in New Guinea last week filming a new dancing/traveling video for release in June. And Mr. Grobe and his partner are paid to travel the globe setting up Diet Coke fountains. They last for just a few minutes, but oh, what a show!
To be sure, being the latest, greatest Web meme has its drawbacks. You're human kitsch, so you're never sure whether people are laughing with you or at you. And until your dying day, strangers will be coming up to you on the street asking you to make cola shoot out of a bottle.
Some readers may wonder why anyone would want to become a Web celebrity in the first place. All this youthful exhibitionism! What ever happened to the good old days, when Greta Garbo wanted to be left alone?
Note to kids: If you want to defend yourself, but have never heard of Greta Garbo, she was a celebrity back when they were called "movie stars." You can look her up on Wikipedia. Or, just ask someone who is always glued to a TV set watching real movies.
• Email me at lee.gomes@wsj.com.
Wave of Home Invasions
Lax Security Often Opens Door
To Increasingly Brazen Crimes;
The Buffetts' Uninvited Guest
By M.P. MCQUEEN
November 15, 2007; Page D1
In the past year, billionaire investors Warren Buffett and Ernest Rady, socialite Anne Bass and professional basketball players Eddy Curry and Antoine Walker all have joined a group to which they would rather not belong: victims of home invasion.
In affluent enclaves across the country, from Beverly Hills, Calif., to Scarsdale, N.Y., these high-profile cases and others -- many of them unsolved -- have set nerves on edge amid what law-enforcement officials and security experts say is becoming an alarming trend. One particularly gruesome case in July underscored the dangers for many, when a home invasion in Cheshire, Conn., ended in the deaths of a doctor's wife and his two daughters. Two men have been arrested and charged in the case.
In home-invasion robberies -- unlike burglaries -- thieves hope to confront the occupants, often intending to force victims to open a safe or divulge bank-card PIN numbers. Home invasions aren't separately tallied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or by most state and local police. According to the most recent FBI data, residential robberies, which include home invasions, rose nearly 13% in 2006 from 2002, even as violent crime overall decreased 0.4%. Last year, 64,000 residential robberies were reported.
Experts believe home invasions are underreported. Security experts who serve high-profile clients say their clients often don't report attempted robberies to the police because of privacy concerns. And local law-enforcement agencies only keep track of incidents within their jurisdictions, making it difficult to establish a national picture for these crimes.
The Connecticut State Police handled two high-profile home invasions recently, including the Cheshire case. Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance says, "It hasn't reached epidemic levels, but certainly we are very aware of this type of criminal activity and behavior."
The impact on victims is profound. When Mr. Rady, the 70-year-old Wachovia Co. director and principal shareholder, his wife Evelyn, 66, and their housekeeper were assaulted by a Taser-wielding intruder in their La Jolla, Calif., home in February, "it was a life-changing event for the family," says their attorney, Robert L. Grimes. Since the robbery, members of the extended Rady family have hired personal armed bodyguards and installed elaborate home-security systems, the attorney says.
According to San Diego police, Mr. Rady was stunned with the Taser, bound with duct tape, and cut with a sharp object as the intruder tried to force the couple to produce cash and valuables. The robber, who is still at large, escaped with less than $100, police and Mr. Grimes say.
One reason for the rise in home invasions is demographic: The numbers of rich people with homes to plunder has risen fast in recent years. But police and security experts say robbers are hitting homes more because their traditional targets -- banks, stores and offices -- have been hardened with closed-circuit video surveillance, alarms and guards. By comparison, security at many private homes remains lax, they say.
Indeed, in several high-profile crimes, assailants gained access through unlocked doors. In other cases, home-alarm systems apparently weren't turned on. Security and alarm experts say this is a surprisingly common mistake: Many homeowners lock their doors and set alarms only when they are away.
Increasingly, wealthy and high-profile individuals must step up security at home and be vigilant in their cars to avoid becoming victims, security experts and police say. They may also need to reduce the amount of information they reveal about themselves on the Internet in places like Facebook, and in the media. And perhaps most importantly, they should thoroughly investigate the background of anyone who has access to their home, because many robberies are inside jobs.
"I have gone out to estates that are absolutely magnificent and have been shocked that they have the same level of security as for a rowhouse in Queens," says Paul Michael Viollis Sr., chief executive of Risk Control Strategies of New York. The firm does complimentary "personal risk assessments" for high-net-worth clients of the Chubb Group of Insurance Cos.
In some areas, that is beginning to change. Around the stately homes of Greenwich, Conn., many of the low, meandering stone borders typical of New England are being replaced with thick, shoulder-high walls and densely packed treelines to block any view from the street. Local real-estate agents say they've also seen an upswing in the number of people putting in driveway entrance gates with touchpad security systems, even for relatively modest homes.
Gideon Fountain, vice president of Cleveland, Duble & Arnold, a Greenwich real-estate firm, says investor Edward Lampert's kidnapping there in 2003 was a watershed event. Mr. Lampert was held at gunpoint for two days and talked his captors into letting him go. "People think what are the odds it could happen to them? Not good, but possible," Mr. Fountain says.
Inadequate security may have played a part in what happened to Anne Bass, the 65-year-old ex-wife of Texas oil magnate Sam Bass, and her friend, painter Julian Lethbridge, 60, in April, when several robbers entered her 1,000-acre estate in rural Litchfield County, Conn. Bass's preschool-age grandson also was home at the time.
The robbers put a gun to Mr. Lethbridge's head and held the two captive, their eyes blindfolded and their mouths taped shut. At one point, Ms. Bass and Mr. Lethbridge were injected with a blue liquid the men claimed held a lethal virus, hoping to scare the captives into handing over millions in cash for an antidote. They left about 10 hours later, apparently convinced there wasn't a lot of cash in the house.
A case containing a gun, knife and syringes, including one with a blue fluid, washed ashore days later about 90 miles away in Queens, N.Y. A Jeep stolen from the property also was recovered in New York City, but no arrests have been made, according to Connecticut State Police.
Several security and alarm experts say crimes like these can be prevented with a perimeter motion-detection system that sounds whenever someone drives or walks onto a property. Many alarm systems wire only the doors and windows of a home; the problem with that, security experts say, is that by the time someone trips the alarm, it can be too late. Moreover, any alarm system has to be armed to work, and often, they aren't.
Home-invasion robbers also pick their victims by staking them out in public and following them home. That is what may have happened to Messrs. Walker and Curry of the National Basketball Association in separate incidents in July. Police believe the men were trailed to their multimillion-dollar homes in Chicago, where they were surprised by armed masked men. In each case, the robbers stole thousands of dollars in cash and jewelry, as well as the victims' cars, police say. Four men, alleged gang members, have been charged in connection with those robberies.
Police and security experts say that to avoid this type of robbery, people should be alert to whether they are being followed before driving onto their property, and if they are, to call the police or drive to a police station. Houses should be well-lighted with automatic exterior lights. Additionally, security experts advise clients to avoid drawing attention to money and possessions while they're out and about. They also recommend reducing the amount of detailed personal information that can be found on the Web.
While at home, it is a mistake to open the door without verifying the identity of a visitor first and to accept unscheduled deliveries. Security experts say homes should be equipped with a voice-video intercom system with cameras trained on the doors and the grounds, and deliveries should be sent to a post-office box or family office instead of to the residence.
On Sept. 5, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett's wife, Astrid, accompanied by a security guard, answered the doorbell at the couple's Omaha, Neb., home, according to police there. They encountered a man dressed in black with camouflage paint on his face who tried to force his way in. The guard managed to wrestle a gun away from the intruder while Mrs. Buffett called 911. The intruder fled, and the gun turned out to be fake, according to Omaha police. No arrests have been made. Mr. Buffett wouldn't comment for this story.
Security experts emphasize that preventive steps can be taken without resorting to extreme measures, such as obtaining firearms without proper licensing and training. Such actions can raise legal problems for people wanting to protect their homes and families, as with Harry Maxwell Rady, the son of banker Ernest Rady.
The younger Mr. Rady, 40, pleaded guilty to illegally receiving AK-47s and other semi-automatic firearms after the robbery to defend his family from potential kidnappers, his attorney, Mr. Grimes, says. Mr. Rady was sentenced on Nov. 2 to 10 months of home confinement and three years' probation. He also was fined $75,000 for violating federal gun laws.
--Sara Schaefer Muñoz contributed to this article.
Write to M.P. McQueen at mp.mcqueen@wsj.com
To Increasingly Brazen Crimes;
The Buffetts' Uninvited Guest
By M.P. MCQUEEN
November 15, 2007; Page D1
In the past year, billionaire investors Warren Buffett and Ernest Rady, socialite Anne Bass and professional basketball players Eddy Curry and Antoine Walker all have joined a group to which they would rather not belong: victims of home invasion.
In affluent enclaves across the country, from Beverly Hills, Calif., to Scarsdale, N.Y., these high-profile cases and others -- many of them unsolved -- have set nerves on edge amid what law-enforcement officials and security experts say is becoming an alarming trend. One particularly gruesome case in July underscored the dangers for many, when a home invasion in Cheshire, Conn., ended in the deaths of a doctor's wife and his two daughters. Two men have been arrested and charged in the case.
In home-invasion robberies -- unlike burglaries -- thieves hope to confront the occupants, often intending to force victims to open a safe or divulge bank-card PIN numbers. Home invasions aren't separately tallied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or by most state and local police. According to the most recent FBI data, residential robberies, which include home invasions, rose nearly 13% in 2006 from 2002, even as violent crime overall decreased 0.4%. Last year, 64,000 residential robberies were reported.
Experts believe home invasions are underreported. Security experts who serve high-profile clients say their clients often don't report attempted robberies to the police because of privacy concerns. And local law-enforcement agencies only keep track of incidents within their jurisdictions, making it difficult to establish a national picture for these crimes.
The Connecticut State Police handled two high-profile home invasions recently, including the Cheshire case. Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance says, "It hasn't reached epidemic levels, but certainly we are very aware of this type of criminal activity and behavior."
The impact on victims is profound. When Mr. Rady, the 70-year-old Wachovia Co. director and principal shareholder, his wife Evelyn, 66, and their housekeeper were assaulted by a Taser-wielding intruder in their La Jolla, Calif., home in February, "it was a life-changing event for the family," says their attorney, Robert L. Grimes. Since the robbery, members of the extended Rady family have hired personal armed bodyguards and installed elaborate home-security systems, the attorney says.
According to San Diego police, Mr. Rady was stunned with the Taser, bound with duct tape, and cut with a sharp object as the intruder tried to force the couple to produce cash and valuables. The robber, who is still at large, escaped with less than $100, police and Mr. Grimes say.
One reason for the rise in home invasions is demographic: The numbers of rich people with homes to plunder has risen fast in recent years. But police and security experts say robbers are hitting homes more because their traditional targets -- banks, stores and offices -- have been hardened with closed-circuit video surveillance, alarms and guards. By comparison, security at many private homes remains lax, they say.
Indeed, in several high-profile crimes, assailants gained access through unlocked doors. In other cases, home-alarm systems apparently weren't turned on. Security and alarm experts say this is a surprisingly common mistake: Many homeowners lock their doors and set alarms only when they are away.
Increasingly, wealthy and high-profile individuals must step up security at home and be vigilant in their cars to avoid becoming victims, security experts and police say. They may also need to reduce the amount of information they reveal about themselves on the Internet in places like Facebook, and in the media. And perhaps most importantly, they should thoroughly investigate the background of anyone who has access to their home, because many robberies are inside jobs.
"I have gone out to estates that are absolutely magnificent and have been shocked that they have the same level of security as for a rowhouse in Queens," says Paul Michael Viollis Sr., chief executive of Risk Control Strategies of New York. The firm does complimentary "personal risk assessments" for high-net-worth clients of the Chubb Group of Insurance Cos.
In some areas, that is beginning to change. Around the stately homes of Greenwich, Conn., many of the low, meandering stone borders typical of New England are being replaced with thick, shoulder-high walls and densely packed treelines to block any view from the street. Local real-estate agents say they've also seen an upswing in the number of people putting in driveway entrance gates with touchpad security systems, even for relatively modest homes.
Gideon Fountain, vice president of Cleveland, Duble & Arnold, a Greenwich real-estate firm, says investor Edward Lampert's kidnapping there in 2003 was a watershed event. Mr. Lampert was held at gunpoint for two days and talked his captors into letting him go. "People think what are the odds it could happen to them? Not good, but possible," Mr. Fountain says.
Inadequate security may have played a part in what happened to Anne Bass, the 65-year-old ex-wife of Texas oil magnate Sam Bass, and her friend, painter Julian Lethbridge, 60, in April, when several robbers entered her 1,000-acre estate in rural Litchfield County, Conn. Bass's preschool-age grandson also was home at the time.
The robbers put a gun to Mr. Lethbridge's head and held the two captive, their eyes blindfolded and their mouths taped shut. At one point, Ms. Bass and Mr. Lethbridge were injected with a blue liquid the men claimed held a lethal virus, hoping to scare the captives into handing over millions in cash for an antidote. They left about 10 hours later, apparently convinced there wasn't a lot of cash in the house.
A case containing a gun, knife and syringes, including one with a blue fluid, washed ashore days later about 90 miles away in Queens, N.Y. A Jeep stolen from the property also was recovered in New York City, but no arrests have been made, according to Connecticut State Police.
Several security and alarm experts say crimes like these can be prevented with a perimeter motion-detection system that sounds whenever someone drives or walks onto a property. Many alarm systems wire only the doors and windows of a home; the problem with that, security experts say, is that by the time someone trips the alarm, it can be too late. Moreover, any alarm system has to be armed to work, and often, they aren't.
Home-invasion robbers also pick their victims by staking them out in public and following them home. That is what may have happened to Messrs. Walker and Curry of the National Basketball Association in separate incidents in July. Police believe the men were trailed to their multimillion-dollar homes in Chicago, where they were surprised by armed masked men. In each case, the robbers stole thousands of dollars in cash and jewelry, as well as the victims' cars, police say. Four men, alleged gang members, have been charged in connection with those robberies.
Police and security experts say that to avoid this type of robbery, people should be alert to whether they are being followed before driving onto their property, and if they are, to call the police or drive to a police station. Houses should be well-lighted with automatic exterior lights. Additionally, security experts advise clients to avoid drawing attention to money and possessions while they're out and about. They also recommend reducing the amount of detailed personal information that can be found on the Web.
While at home, it is a mistake to open the door without verifying the identity of a visitor first and to accept unscheduled deliveries. Security experts say homes should be equipped with a voice-video intercom system with cameras trained on the doors and the grounds, and deliveries should be sent to a post-office box or family office instead of to the residence.
On Sept. 5, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett's wife, Astrid, accompanied by a security guard, answered the doorbell at the couple's Omaha, Neb., home, according to police there. They encountered a man dressed in black with camouflage paint on his face who tried to force his way in. The guard managed to wrestle a gun away from the intruder while Mrs. Buffett called 911. The intruder fled, and the gun turned out to be fake, according to Omaha police. No arrests have been made. Mr. Buffett wouldn't comment for this story.
Security experts emphasize that preventive steps can be taken without resorting to extreme measures, such as obtaining firearms without proper licensing and training. Such actions can raise legal problems for people wanting to protect their homes and families, as with Harry Maxwell Rady, the son of banker Ernest Rady.
The younger Mr. Rady, 40, pleaded guilty to illegally receiving AK-47s and other semi-automatic firearms after the robbery to defend his family from potential kidnappers, his attorney, Mr. Grimes, says. Mr. Rady was sentenced on Nov. 2 to 10 months of home confinement and three years' probation. He also was fined $75,000 for violating federal gun laws.
--Sara Schaefer Muñoz contributed to this article.
Write to M.P. McQueen at mp.mcqueen@wsj.com
The Big Thirst
Ethanol producers face a huge challenge: ensuring they don't deplete water supplies in the Corn Belt
By JESSICA RESNICK-AULT
November 12, 2007; Page R12
Ethanol plants sprouting up across the Corn Belt have brought with them some of the best financial opportunities seen in those areas in a generation.
Producers of ethanol have pumped nearly $14 billion into a wide array of businesses, and the resulting economic boost has created more than 40,000 jobs since the corn-based gasoline additive gained popularity two years ago.
At first glance, ethanol may seem like a panacea for a weak economy in the Midwest.
But critics point to hidden costs associated with the new ethanol plants: rising corn prices for consumers, gasoline that gets fewer miles per gallon, and, perhaps most ominous, potential water shortages.
"We, and lots of environmentalists, are in a tough spot," says Timothy Male, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. "Biofuels have a lot of promise, but there's an issue with waste and water," Mr. Male says. "Any time you're putting a high-water-use industry in the middle of the desert, it's a concern." Ethanol plants are going up in places "where there were already too many straws in the ground," he says.
Aquifer at Risk?
The amount of water needed to grow the corn, process the fuel and dispose of the waste at a small ethanol plant is about equal to the water needs of a town of about 10,000, according to an Environmental Defense Fund report. And although the next five to 10 years may not see major changes to the Plains region's water levels, long-term implications could be severe, says a study from the National Research Council, a Washington, D.C.-based public-policy research institute.
The council and other scientific groups are worried about the declining Ogallala aquifer, an underground body of water that stretches from Texas to Wyoming. Water levels in the aquifer have fallen more than 100 feet in the past 60 years, and may drop further as ethanol plants multiply in the region. Diminution of the Ogallala beyond a certain point could begin to harm human, animal and plant life in the region.
Yet, even staunch opponents of ethanol's rising profile say that the fuel may be able to avoid seriously sapping regional water supplies if producers and policy makers focus on addressing the fuel's thirst for drinkable water.
"As biofuels production expands and technology advances, there is a real opportunity to shape policies to also meet objectives related to water use and quality impacts," the Research Council's report says. The report made recommendations on tighter restrictions for plant locations and where corn for the plants can be grown.
The Environmental Defense Fund, too, agrees that plant placement can have an impact, and suggests that the viability of the Ogallala aquifer could be sustained if fewer ethanol plants are concentrated in vulnerable areas.
Technical Solutions
Ethanol producers say they are prepared for the challenges as the business expands and are ready to adapt quickly. Producers, plant designers and water engineers are all teaming up to try to reduce water consumption, says Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a Washington, D.C.-based group that represents ethanol producers.
Producers as small as newcomer US BioEnergy of St. Paul, Minn., and as big as Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. of Decatur, Ill., have discussed measures to reduce their impact.
"Historically, ethanol-plant constructors have tried to standardize the design, and just bang them out like cookies," says Paul Greene, global director, food, beverage and biofuels industries, for Siemens Water Technologies, a division of Germany's Siemens AG. "We've seen that you can't do that."
Ethanol plants currently require about four gallons of water to produce a single gallon of ethanol, Mr. Greene says. As the size of plants increase from producing about 100 million gallons of ethanol a year to 200 million or 300 million gallons a year, a single plant will consume as much water as a city of 30,000, Mr. Greene says.
As plants are built outside the Midwest, increasingly encroaching on drought-plagued states like Florida and California, the impact could be more severe, Mr. Greene says.
Significant technical innovations are required to reduce the amounts of water that ethanol plants consume. One ethanol plant designer, Delta T Corp., based in Williamsburg, Va., says it has created a system that will reduce consumption to just one-and-a-half gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, down from four gallons of water.
To further reduce the plants' impact on drinkable water, engineers also can route more low-quality water -- even waste water -- to functions where high purity is unnecessary. In the past two years, demand for engineers experienced in this kind of work has skyrocketed in the ethanol industry, Mr. Greene says.
Cutting the water needed to grow corn is a taller order. Still, companies can do a better job of controlling run-off from irrigation, and reducing amounts of water contaminated by fertilizer. Developing more advanced ethanol, made from crops other than corn, may also lessen the burden on the water table. Still, these fuels have yet to be produced in commercial volumes, and may have unknown environmental impacts of their own.
Despite concerns, growing more corn and building more plants may be needed to keep up with U.S. mandates for renewable fuel, according to Ron Oster, a St. Louis-based analyst with Broadpoint Capital Inc.
The U.S. can currently produce about seven billion gallons of ethanol a year, a little more than the amount required federally. New production to come online by the end of this year, and additions in the years that follow, should increase capacity by about 5.5 billion gallons by 2009.
But if the energy bill pending in Congress passes, more than 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel production will be mandated. And with ethanol as the most easily available renewable fuel, there could be a dramatic upswing in new cornfields and ethanol-production facilities.
Concerns over the ramifications of the bill have led to some unlikely bedfellows. The National Petrochemical and Refiner's Association, for example, doesn't want to see legislation taking the place of market demand when it comes to determining how much ethanol should be produced.
The energy bill's ethanol mandate could impact the bottom line of members of the Washington, D.C.-based trade organization. To help block such a mandate, the group has joined the environmentalists and others expressing concerns about water.
"There's an impact in terms of both water quantity and quality," says Bill Holbrook, a spokesman for the group. Mandated production also could drive ethanol supplies beyond the volume that the market is able to readily absorb, he adds.
The ethanol industry, for its part, is quick to point out that failing to accept the mandate might still result in a drain on water. Canadian oil reserves, seen as a possible source of conventional fuel for the U.S., produce a thick grade of oil that requires just as much -- if not more -- water for refining than ethanol does, says Mr. Hartwig.
"The water from that [refining] process is so toxic that it has to be put into holding ponds so large they can be seen from space -- and it takes 200 years to separate," he says.
--Ms. Resnick-Ault is a reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in Houston.
Write to Jessica Resnick-Ault at jessica.resnick-ault@dowjones.com
By JESSICA RESNICK-AULT
November 12, 2007; Page R12
Ethanol plants sprouting up across the Corn Belt have brought with them some of the best financial opportunities seen in those areas in a generation.
Producers of ethanol have pumped nearly $14 billion into a wide array of businesses, and the resulting economic boost has created more than 40,000 jobs since the corn-based gasoline additive gained popularity two years ago.
At first glance, ethanol may seem like a panacea for a weak economy in the Midwest.
But critics point to hidden costs associated with the new ethanol plants: rising corn prices for consumers, gasoline that gets fewer miles per gallon, and, perhaps most ominous, potential water shortages.
"We, and lots of environmentalists, are in a tough spot," says Timothy Male, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. "Biofuels have a lot of promise, but there's an issue with waste and water," Mr. Male says. "Any time you're putting a high-water-use industry in the middle of the desert, it's a concern." Ethanol plants are going up in places "where there were already too many straws in the ground," he says.
Aquifer at Risk?
The amount of water needed to grow the corn, process the fuel and dispose of the waste at a small ethanol plant is about equal to the water needs of a town of about 10,000, according to an Environmental Defense Fund report. And although the next five to 10 years may not see major changes to the Plains region's water levels, long-term implications could be severe, says a study from the National Research Council, a Washington, D.C.-based public-policy research institute.
The council and other scientific groups are worried about the declining Ogallala aquifer, an underground body of water that stretches from Texas to Wyoming. Water levels in the aquifer have fallen more than 100 feet in the past 60 years, and may drop further as ethanol plants multiply in the region. Diminution of the Ogallala beyond a certain point could begin to harm human, animal and plant life in the region.
Yet, even staunch opponents of ethanol's rising profile say that the fuel may be able to avoid seriously sapping regional water supplies if producers and policy makers focus on addressing the fuel's thirst for drinkable water.
"As biofuels production expands and technology advances, there is a real opportunity to shape policies to also meet objectives related to water use and quality impacts," the Research Council's report says. The report made recommendations on tighter restrictions for plant locations and where corn for the plants can be grown.
The Environmental Defense Fund, too, agrees that plant placement can have an impact, and suggests that the viability of the Ogallala aquifer could be sustained if fewer ethanol plants are concentrated in vulnerable areas.
Technical Solutions
Ethanol producers say they are prepared for the challenges as the business expands and are ready to adapt quickly. Producers, plant designers and water engineers are all teaming up to try to reduce water consumption, says Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a Washington, D.C.-based group that represents ethanol producers.
Producers as small as newcomer US BioEnergy of St. Paul, Minn., and as big as Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. of Decatur, Ill., have discussed measures to reduce their impact.
"Historically, ethanol-plant constructors have tried to standardize the design, and just bang them out like cookies," says Paul Greene, global director, food, beverage and biofuels industries, for Siemens Water Technologies, a division of Germany's Siemens AG. "We've seen that you can't do that."
Ethanol plants currently require about four gallons of water to produce a single gallon of ethanol, Mr. Greene says. As the size of plants increase from producing about 100 million gallons of ethanol a year to 200 million or 300 million gallons a year, a single plant will consume as much water as a city of 30,000, Mr. Greene says.
As plants are built outside the Midwest, increasingly encroaching on drought-plagued states like Florida and California, the impact could be more severe, Mr. Greene says.
Significant technical innovations are required to reduce the amounts of water that ethanol plants consume. One ethanol plant designer, Delta T Corp., based in Williamsburg, Va., says it has created a system that will reduce consumption to just one-and-a-half gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, down from four gallons of water.
To further reduce the plants' impact on drinkable water, engineers also can route more low-quality water -- even waste water -- to functions where high purity is unnecessary. In the past two years, demand for engineers experienced in this kind of work has skyrocketed in the ethanol industry, Mr. Greene says.
Cutting the water needed to grow corn is a taller order. Still, companies can do a better job of controlling run-off from irrigation, and reducing amounts of water contaminated by fertilizer. Developing more advanced ethanol, made from crops other than corn, may also lessen the burden on the water table. Still, these fuels have yet to be produced in commercial volumes, and may have unknown environmental impacts of their own.
Despite concerns, growing more corn and building more plants may be needed to keep up with U.S. mandates for renewable fuel, according to Ron Oster, a St. Louis-based analyst with Broadpoint Capital Inc.
The U.S. can currently produce about seven billion gallons of ethanol a year, a little more than the amount required federally. New production to come online by the end of this year, and additions in the years that follow, should increase capacity by about 5.5 billion gallons by 2009.
But if the energy bill pending in Congress passes, more than 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel production will be mandated. And with ethanol as the most easily available renewable fuel, there could be a dramatic upswing in new cornfields and ethanol-production facilities.
Concerns over the ramifications of the bill have led to some unlikely bedfellows. The National Petrochemical and Refiner's Association, for example, doesn't want to see legislation taking the place of market demand when it comes to determining how much ethanol should be produced.
The energy bill's ethanol mandate could impact the bottom line of members of the Washington, D.C.-based trade organization. To help block such a mandate, the group has joined the environmentalists and others expressing concerns about water.
"There's an impact in terms of both water quantity and quality," says Bill Holbrook, a spokesman for the group. Mandated production also could drive ethanol supplies beyond the volume that the market is able to readily absorb, he adds.
The ethanol industry, for its part, is quick to point out that failing to accept the mandate might still result in a drain on water. Canadian oil reserves, seen as a possible source of conventional fuel for the U.S., produce a thick grade of oil that requires just as much -- if not more -- water for refining than ethanol does, says Mr. Hartwig.
"The water from that [refining] process is so toxic that it has to be put into holding ponds so large they can be seen from space -- and it takes 200 years to separate," he says.
--Ms. Resnick-Ault is a reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in Houston.
Write to Jessica Resnick-Ault at jessica.resnick-ault@dowjones.com
One Step Forward, One Step Back
U.S. policies will reduce dependence on foreign oil -- unless they increase it
By IAN TALLEY AND BETH HEINSOHN
November 12, 2007; Page R14
In its efforts to set the U.S. on the road toward energy independence, Congress may be constructing a detour.
The House and Senate have passed separate energy bills and are now working on combining the two into final legislation that could come up for a vote by the end of the year.
By IAN TALLEY AND BETH HEINSOHN
November 12, 2007; Page R14
In its efforts to set the U.S. on the road toward energy independence, Congress may be constructing a detour.
The House and Senate have passed separate energy bills and are now working on combining the two into final legislation that could come up for a vote by the end of the year.
• See the complete Energy report.Both bills are designed to lessen American reliance on foreign oil, in part by mandating far greater use of corn-based ethanol and so-called cellulosic ethanol, which is made from biomass like grasses and wood chips. The Senate bill also calls for higher fuel-economy standards.
Here's the catch: Anything that creates uncertainty about demand for gasoline over the long term means less incentive for refiners in the U.S. to expand their capacity. And that means greater reliance on gasoline imports in the near term, at least until ethanol becomes a mainstream fuel. And that, of course, is the opposite of energy independence.
"It's safe to say that our imports of gasoline will be steadily increasing over the next several years," says Adam Robinson, an energy research analyst at Lehman Brothers. "The big question is whether or not we can make that silver-bullet jump to cellulosic, and also whether or not we can develop the downstream systems to deliver the ethanol."
Already, imports are satisfying an ever-larger share of America's thirst for gasoline. As of August, imports stood at 11.4% of demand, up from 9.4% in the same month in 2002 and 5.5% in July 1998.
Alternatives Questioned
And while the largest foreign suppliers of gasoline are nearby Canada and the Virgin Islands, a growing proportion of imports is coming from refiners in other locations, like Europe, that have a greater choice of places to send their gasoline. That makes them less reliable sources, since they'll ship their product elsewhere if they can get higher prices for it.
Alternative fuels may not provide relief any time soon. While biofuels have attracted massive investment, cellulosic ethanol has yet to be produced on a commercial scale. But the Senate bill depends on cellulosic ethanol to provide 21 billion gallons of fuel a year by 2022, with the first mandated volumes in 2016. Critics are skeptical that the technological breakthroughs necessary for mass cellulosic production will occur so soon.
Critics also question whether the country can supply the 15 billion gallons a year of corn-based ethanol that the Senate bill mandates by 2015 without substantially raising the cost of food -- or whether the supply can be relied on in drought years.
In the first six months of this year, ethanol accounted for three billion of the 70 billion gallons of fuel used by cars and trucks in the U.S.
Even if the production targets for alternative fuels can be reached, vast additions to the fuel-delivery infrastructure -- new pipelines and storage tanks, for starters -- must be built to accommodate much larger volumes of ethanol.
All that could delay the emergence of ethanol as a mainstream fuel. Meanwhile, refiners in the U.S. are re-evaluating expansion plans.
Cutting Back
U.S. refiners now plan to add enough capacity by 2011 to process just over one million barrels of crude oil a day, Joanne Shore, a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, told Congress earlier this year. That's down from an estimate last year of 1.9 million barrels, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Current U.S. crude-processing capacity is 17.4 million barrels a day.
The push in Congress for alternative fuels and greater fuel efficiency is only the latest disincentive for refiners. Tax incentives to encourage increased refining capacity are losing political support. And engineering and construction costs for refineries continue to rise.
Not long ago, at hearings and press conferences, lawmakers called on refining companies to increase capacity in the U.S., after the devastating hurricanes of 2005 hobbled a number of Gulf Coast refineries and sent pump prices soaring. And there remains some support in Congress for such an expansion.
"We're going to become dependent on foreign refineries," Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, warned at a Finance Committee hearing earlier this year. "If we can't refine oil, others will do it for us, and it's foolish if we don't wean ourselves off imports."
But refiners see the political winds shifting. "If you want to add refining capacity here, how can you have the president advocating reduced consumption?" says Greg King, president of Valero Energy Corp., the largest independent refiner in the U.S. "It's a mixed message."
Mr. King says he is concerned that incentives to encourage expansion are in jeopardy. The House version of the energy bill doesn't extend beyond 2008 a provision from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that grants refiners tax savings on 50% of the costs of investments that increase capacity by at least 5% at any one refinery. The bill also would take away from refiners a tax deduction granted to other U.S. manufacturers.
"We think the legislation might continue the trend of incremental increase" in gasoline imports, Mr. King says.
The Cost Factor
Meanwhile, the cost of expanding the capacity of refineries is climbing. West Coast refiner Tesoro Corp. canceled and Sunoco Inc. and Valero delayed or downsized multimillion-dollar expansion plans last year, citing rising costs for construction and engineering. And while two even more-expensive plans for expanded crude-processing capacity have moved ahead, another has stalled.
As for new-plant construction, the last new refinery in the U.S. was built in 1976, and there may not be another one soon. There are plans for three new refineries in the U.S. and another three in Canada, but they are tentative at best.
One new plant, planned for Yuma, Ariz., has been in the works since 1989. The project obtained key federal and state permits several years ago but has failed to secure commitments from investors. A project in Louisiana exists only as a memorandum of understanding between the state and Kuwait to study the construction of a refinery. Backers of a recently announced third project, in the upper Plains region, haven't disclosed financial details or a final location. The three prospective Canadian plants haven't advanced beyond the proposal stage.
Expansion Abroad
Meanwhile, refiners in other countries are forging ahead. Saudi Arabia is gearing up to start four refineries, each able to process 400,000 barrels of crude oil a day. Kuwait has approved plans for a 615,000-barrel-a-day plant, and a 580,000-barrel-a-day facility will soon be processing in India.
"It will be difficult to build a new refinery in the United States," says Lehman's Mr. Robinson. "There are significant investments coming on line in the world that will, in addition to this whole ethanol craze, continue to de-incentivize building new refineries in the U.S."
Bill Wicker is a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is one of the chief proponents of the proposed biofuels mandate. Mr. Wicker concedes that the energy policies in the Senate bill might increase gasoline imports if cellulosic-ethanol technology doesn't produce on schedule the billions of gallons the mandate requires. But he urges the energy industry to join the effort to steer the country away from oil-based fuels.
"There are big oil companies that are also looking at investing in ethanol refineries," Mr. Wicker notes. "They are energy companies, not oil companies, and if the market is trending towards domestic grown or produced energy, I certainly hope that the industry sees that and acts accordingly."
--Mr. Talley and Ms. Heinsohn are reporters for Dow Jones Newswires in Washington and Jersey City, N.J., respectively.
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com and Beth Heinsohn at beth.heinsohn@dowjones.com.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Vapid Debates: Can't Parties Do Any Better?
Obama takes his turn at being flummoxed.By DAVID S. BRODER Posted Friday, November 16, 2007 4:30 PM PT
During Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was given a chance to answer the question about offering driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Before CNN's Wolf Blitzer turned to him, several of Richardson's rivals had wrestled with the question that had thrown Sen. Hillary Clinton for a loop in the previous debate, triggering two weeks of complaints that she was being dodgy.
Obama takes his turn at being flummoxed.
Clearly intent on setting that notion to rest, she answered this time with a monosyllable, "No." Her governor, Eliot Spitzer, had abandoned the plan a day earlier, so she was joining the retreat.
Instead, it was Sen. Barack Obama who seemed flummoxed. At first, he acknowledged that he had voted as an Illinois state senator to require undocumented aliens to "get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety." But a moment later, confusingly, he said, "I am not proposing that that's what we do." And finally, he said, "Yes."
Former Sen. John Edwards objected to the question, then said "No, but . . . anyone who's on the path to earning American citizenship should be able to have a driver's license."
Sen. Chris Dodd said "I think driver's licenses are the wrong thing to be doing, in terms of attracting people to come here as undocumented."
Rep. Dennis Kucinich objected to the question because "there aren't any illegal human beings," and, after an irrelevant swipe at NAFTA, ended up agreeing with Edwards.
And then came Richardson, who said that four years ago, when the Legislature sent him a bill allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, "I signed it. My law enforcement people said it's a matter of public safety. . . . We wanted more people to be insured. When we started with this program, 33% of New Mexicans were uninsured. Today, it's 11%. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It's a matter of public safety. States have to act when the federal government and Congress doesn't act (on comprehensive immigration reform)."
Blitzer then turned to Sen. Joe Biden, whose whole answer, like Clinton's, was "No." The transcript notes this was followed by laughter and applause.
And, of course, none of the other candidates was ever asked, "What about the public safety argument cited by Richardson?"
That is revealing of these debates' weakness as tools for helping voters decide which candidate to support. The TV impresarios are so eager for headlines, they rarely pause to ask the candidates for evidence to support their opinions or assertions. It is bang-bang, but rarely because-and-here's-proof.
On driver's licenses, Richardson offered such proof, but in another case, he did not. His "solution" to Iraq is to pull out all U.S. troops and contractors within a year and leave it to "an all-Muslim, all-Arab peacekeeping force, with some European forces, headed by the U.N."
Well, it's a nice idea, but such a force exists only in Richardson's imagination — and none is likely to materialize. But he is not called upon to explain.
There are similar, if not worse, examples on the Republican side. This kind of thing makes these preprimary debates seem an exercise in theatrical artificiality, rather than substance.
Three weeks ago, it was Clinton "stumbling." Last week, she was feisty and aggressive, flinging her own accusations of mud-slinging at Edwards and Obama, and finding inconsistencies in their positions.
In all the sound and fury, several important points were lost. The candidates circled around — but never directly engaged — the question of whether it is realistic, effective and practical to mandate that every family in the country obtain health insurance — and if so, how it would be financed.
As to international policy, we learned along the way that Clinton is more hard-line than her main rivals, not only on her willingness to keep a substantial residual force in Iraq, but in her belief that national security trumps human rights as a priority for American foreign policy. No Jimmy Carter she.
But the implications of these positions go unexplored, because there's always another candidate, another topic, another headline clamoring for attention.
I suspect these candidates are better than they have looked, and that they'd have reasons to give, if they had time to utter them. I know the voters deserve better. Can't these debates be rescued?
© 2007 Washington Post Writers Group
During Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was given a chance to answer the question about offering driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Before CNN's Wolf Blitzer turned to him, several of Richardson's rivals had wrestled with the question that had thrown Sen. Hillary Clinton for a loop in the previous debate, triggering two weeks of complaints that she was being dodgy.
Obama takes his turn at being flummoxed.
Clearly intent on setting that notion to rest, she answered this time with a monosyllable, "No." Her governor, Eliot Spitzer, had abandoned the plan a day earlier, so she was joining the retreat.
Instead, it was Sen. Barack Obama who seemed flummoxed. At first, he acknowledged that he had voted as an Illinois state senator to require undocumented aliens to "get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety." But a moment later, confusingly, he said, "I am not proposing that that's what we do." And finally, he said, "Yes."
Former Sen. John Edwards objected to the question, then said "No, but . . . anyone who's on the path to earning American citizenship should be able to have a driver's license."
Sen. Chris Dodd said "I think driver's licenses are the wrong thing to be doing, in terms of attracting people to come here as undocumented."
Rep. Dennis Kucinich objected to the question because "there aren't any illegal human beings," and, after an irrelevant swipe at NAFTA, ended up agreeing with Edwards.
And then came Richardson, who said that four years ago, when the Legislature sent him a bill allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, "I signed it. My law enforcement people said it's a matter of public safety. . . . We wanted more people to be insured. When we started with this program, 33% of New Mexicans were uninsured. Today, it's 11%. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It's a matter of public safety. States have to act when the federal government and Congress doesn't act (on comprehensive immigration reform)."
Blitzer then turned to Sen. Joe Biden, whose whole answer, like Clinton's, was "No." The transcript notes this was followed by laughter and applause.
And, of course, none of the other candidates was ever asked, "What about the public safety argument cited by Richardson?"
That is revealing of these debates' weakness as tools for helping voters decide which candidate to support. The TV impresarios are so eager for headlines, they rarely pause to ask the candidates for evidence to support their opinions or assertions. It is bang-bang, but rarely because-and-here's-proof.
On driver's licenses, Richardson offered such proof, but in another case, he did not. His "solution" to Iraq is to pull out all U.S. troops and contractors within a year and leave it to "an all-Muslim, all-Arab peacekeeping force, with some European forces, headed by the U.N."
Well, it's a nice idea, but such a force exists only in Richardson's imagination — and none is likely to materialize. But he is not called upon to explain.
There are similar, if not worse, examples on the Republican side. This kind of thing makes these preprimary debates seem an exercise in theatrical artificiality, rather than substance.
Three weeks ago, it was Clinton "stumbling." Last week, she was feisty and aggressive, flinging her own accusations of mud-slinging at Edwards and Obama, and finding inconsistencies in their positions.
In all the sound and fury, several important points were lost. The candidates circled around — but never directly engaged — the question of whether it is realistic, effective and practical to mandate that every family in the country obtain health insurance — and if so, how it would be financed.
As to international policy, we learned along the way that Clinton is more hard-line than her main rivals, not only on her willingness to keep a substantial residual force in Iraq, but in her belief that national security trumps human rights as a priority for American foreign policy. No Jimmy Carter she.
But the implications of these positions go unexplored, because there's always another candidate, another topic, another headline clamoring for attention.
I suspect these candidates are better than they have looked, and that they'd have reasons to give, if they had time to utter them. I know the voters deserve better. Can't these debates be rescued?
© 2007 Washington Post Writers Group
An America Divided Along Class Lines? 75% 'Haves' Say No
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, November 16, 2007 4:30 PM PT
As Americans take time this week to count their blessings and think of others less fortunate, they can take comfort in knowing that those who put themselves in the latter category are far fewer than they probably realize.
Contrary to politicians and even polls that claim the U.S. is a nation deeply split between "haves" and "have-nots," a new IBD/TIPP Poll finds that three of four of us (75%) consider ourselves "haves."
This includes>>>
As Americans take time this week to count their blessings and think of others less fortunate, they can take comfort in knowing that those who put themselves in the latter category are far fewer than they probably realize.
Contrary to politicians and even polls that claim the U.S. is a nation deeply split between "haves" and "have-nots," a new IBD/TIPP Poll finds that three of four of us (75%) consider ourselves "haves."
This includes>>>
Bordering On Insanity
By INEVSTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, November 16, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Criminal Justice: He's not as famous as Barry Bonds, but the indictment of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila is a reminder of why there should be an asterisk alongside U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's name as well.
Normally the indictment of someone arrested for smuggling drugs into the U.S. would be of little note. But the arrest of Aldrete-Davila at an international port of entry in El Paso on Thursday is a stark reminder of a grave miscarriage of justice involving two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were incarcerated, we believe, for doing their assigned job of protecting the American people against criminals and intruders.
Aldrete-Davila's arrest was announced by U.S. Attorney for West Texas Johnny Sutton. Sutton is the prosecutor who convicted former Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, now serving 12 and 11 years, respectively, for the nonfatal shooting of Aldrete-Davila in 2005. The agents shot Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks as he was transporting more than 700 pounds of marijuana into America through Fabens, Texas, 40 miles east of El Paso.
Compean and Ramos thought they were fulfilling their duties on Feb. 17, 2005, when they shot an allegedly unarmed Aldrete-Davila as he was fleeing into Mexico.
They were convicted of, among other charges, violating Aldrete-Davila's civil rights and trying to conceal their "crime."
Aldrete-Davila showed his gratitude by breaking the immunity agreement he was given by Sutton in exchange for testifying against the two agents and attempting to smuggle an additional 753 pounds of weed into the U.S. the following October. It is that second incident that Sutton successfully concealed from the jury. It is this second felony for which Aldrete-Davila has been arrested and indicted.
As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., has pointed out, "The prime witness against these two border patrol agents was involved in another major load of drugs, and the prosecution made a conscious decision to keep these facts from the jury."
And as World Net Daily reports, DHS special agent Christopher Sanchez described in a memo how DEA investigators conducted a knock-and-talk in Clint, Texas, on Oct. 23, 2005, with one Cipriano Ernesto Ortiz-Hernandez, who positively identified Aldrete-Davila as the driver who dropped off the 753 pounds of marijuana in a Chevy Astro van at Ortiz-Hernandez's home the day before.
Compean and Ramos were prosecuted by Sutton on the grounds that they shot an unarmed man and conspired to cover it up. But in an April 4, 2005, memo, Agent Sanchez states that Compean believed Aldrete-Davila was armed.
"Compean said that Aldrete-Davila continued to look back over his shoulder toward Compean as Aldrete-Davila ran away from him," Sanchez wrote in the memo.
"Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila's left hand. . . . Compean said he thought that the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot him because he kept looking back at him as he was running away."
We believe that, like the Marines accused of crimes at Haditha in Iraq, Ramos and Compean were wrongly accused and imprisoned for doing their job along a border that's becoming increasingly violent. We have reported on repeated armed incursions by drug runners and those paid to protect their operations.
Shawn Moran, a 10-year Border Patrol veteran who serves as vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 in San Diego, says:
"They've got weapons, high-tech radios, computers, cell phones, GPS systems and can react faster than we are able to. And they have no hesitancy to attack the agents on the line, with anything from assault rifles and improvised Molotov cocktails to rocks, concrete slabs and bottles."
In February, ICE agents seized an arms cache that included two improvised explosive devices, materials for making 33 more, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, five grenades and other hardware for making weapons to kill border agents.
Convict Aldrete-Davila. Pardon Ramos and Compean.
Criminal Justice: He's not as famous as Barry Bonds, but the indictment of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila is a reminder of why there should be an asterisk alongside U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's name as well.
Normally the indictment of someone arrested for smuggling drugs into the U.S. would be of little note. But the arrest of Aldrete-Davila at an international port of entry in El Paso on Thursday is a stark reminder of a grave miscarriage of justice involving two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were incarcerated, we believe, for doing their assigned job of protecting the American people against criminals and intruders.
Aldrete-Davila's arrest was announced by U.S. Attorney for West Texas Johnny Sutton. Sutton is the prosecutor who convicted former Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, now serving 12 and 11 years, respectively, for the nonfatal shooting of Aldrete-Davila in 2005. The agents shot Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks as he was transporting more than 700 pounds of marijuana into America through Fabens, Texas, 40 miles east of El Paso.
Compean and Ramos thought they were fulfilling their duties on Feb. 17, 2005, when they shot an allegedly unarmed Aldrete-Davila as he was fleeing into Mexico.
They were convicted of, among other charges, violating Aldrete-Davila's civil rights and trying to conceal their "crime."
Aldrete-Davila showed his gratitude by breaking the immunity agreement he was given by Sutton in exchange for testifying against the two agents and attempting to smuggle an additional 753 pounds of weed into the U.S. the following October. It is that second incident that Sutton successfully concealed from the jury. It is this second felony for which Aldrete-Davila has been arrested and indicted.
As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., has pointed out, "The prime witness against these two border patrol agents was involved in another major load of drugs, and the prosecution made a conscious decision to keep these facts from the jury."
And as World Net Daily reports, DHS special agent Christopher Sanchez described in a memo how DEA investigators conducted a knock-and-talk in Clint, Texas, on Oct. 23, 2005, with one Cipriano Ernesto Ortiz-Hernandez, who positively identified Aldrete-Davila as the driver who dropped off the 753 pounds of marijuana in a Chevy Astro van at Ortiz-Hernandez's home the day before.
Compean and Ramos were prosecuted by Sutton on the grounds that they shot an unarmed man and conspired to cover it up. But in an April 4, 2005, memo, Agent Sanchez states that Compean believed Aldrete-Davila was armed.
"Compean said that Aldrete-Davila continued to look back over his shoulder toward Compean as Aldrete-Davila ran away from him," Sanchez wrote in the memo.
"Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila's left hand. . . . Compean said he thought that the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot him because he kept looking back at him as he was running away."
We believe that, like the Marines accused of crimes at Haditha in Iraq, Ramos and Compean were wrongly accused and imprisoned for doing their job along a border that's becoming increasingly violent. We have reported on repeated armed incursions by drug runners and those paid to protect their operations.
Shawn Moran, a 10-year Border Patrol veteran who serves as vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 in San Diego, says:
"They've got weapons, high-tech radios, computers, cell phones, GPS systems and can react faster than we are able to. And they have no hesitancy to attack the agents on the line, with anything from assault rifles and improvised Molotov cocktails to rocks, concrete slabs and bottles."
In February, ICE agents seized an arms cache that included two improvised explosive devices, materials for making 33 more, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, five grenades and other hardware for making weapons to kill border agents.
Convict Aldrete-Davila. Pardon Ramos and Compean.
Judicial Overreach
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, November 16, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Courts: The often-loopy 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now giving orders to the White House. A three-judge panel ruled Thursday that federal fuel-economy standards for light trucks and SUVs must be tougher.
The unanimous decision was made in favor of the 11 states, the cities of New York and Washington, and various environmental groups that sued the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over fuel-mileage standards issued last year.
Using the save-the-planet argument, the plaintiffs claimed corporate average fuel economy requirements should be higher. They dislike the federally mandated 1.5-miles-per-gallon increase to 24 miles per gallon for 2008 through 2011 model-year trucks.
Naturally, the complaint was based on the unnecessary, but still growing, fear that carbon dioxide emissions from autos — particularly the SUVs and light trucks that environmentalists are fixated on — are contributing to global warming.
With no deference to the checks and balances that were designed to keep the federal government from ruling like a tyrant — but an enthusiastic endorsement of a trendy, vacuous environmental movement — the appeals court panel ordered Washington to toughen the rules for the earliest possible model year.
The decision is not just brassy, but also ignorant. President Bush has already told NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency to craft new fuel economy rules for 2012 and beyond. The plans have to be drawn up by the time he leaves office.
But it's nothing new for this court to be unable to see beyond its house-of-mirrors world. The 9th Circuit, working in a haze out of San Francisco, is the nation's most-reversed court.
It has a history of making such foolish rulings as throwing out a murder conviction because the victim's relatives wore buttons with his photograph in the courtroom, and overturning a death sentence because the jury was not properly told to consider the defendant's potential to be a model prisoner under a life sentence.
It's no surprise, then, that the left-tilting court favored a hip cause based on a theory that's yet to be proved.
The only magistrate who has made sense in this case is unfortunately no longer involved. Judge Martin Jenkins of the Northern District of California initially ruled in a lower court in September that the "global warming thicket" is a political issue that should be untangled by policymakers, not the courts.
Is it asking too much to insist that the 9th Circuit be guided by the same common-sense understanding of the law and our American system?
Courts: The often-loopy 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now giving orders to the White House. A three-judge panel ruled Thursday that federal fuel-economy standards for light trucks and SUVs must be tougher.
The unanimous decision was made in favor of the 11 states, the cities of New York and Washington, and various environmental groups that sued the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over fuel-mileage standards issued last year.
Using the save-the-planet argument, the plaintiffs claimed corporate average fuel economy requirements should be higher. They dislike the federally mandated 1.5-miles-per-gallon increase to 24 miles per gallon for 2008 through 2011 model-year trucks.
Naturally, the complaint was based on the unnecessary, but still growing, fear that carbon dioxide emissions from autos — particularly the SUVs and light trucks that environmentalists are fixated on — are contributing to global warming.
With no deference to the checks and balances that were designed to keep the federal government from ruling like a tyrant — but an enthusiastic endorsement of a trendy, vacuous environmental movement — the appeals court panel ordered Washington to toughen the rules for the earliest possible model year.
The decision is not just brassy, but also ignorant. President Bush has already told NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency to craft new fuel economy rules for 2012 and beyond. The plans have to be drawn up by the time he leaves office.
But it's nothing new for this court to be unable to see beyond its house-of-mirrors world. The 9th Circuit, working in a haze out of San Francisco, is the nation's most-reversed court.
It has a history of making such foolish rulings as throwing out a murder conviction because the victim's relatives wore buttons with his photograph in the courtroom, and overturning a death sentence because the jury was not properly told to consider the defendant's potential to be a model prisoner under a life sentence.
It's no surprise, then, that the left-tilting court favored a hip cause based on a theory that's yet to be proved.
The only magistrate who has made sense in this case is unfortunately no longer involved. Judge Martin Jenkins of the Northern District of California initially ruled in a lower court in September that the "global warming thicket" is a political issue that should be untangled by policymakers, not the courts.
Is it asking too much to insist that the 9th Circuit be guided by the same common-sense understanding of the law and our American system?
Airborne Cats
The Internet is an amazing thing.
Thousands of dollars, millions of web sites, more information at your fingertips than ever before and what do we use it for?
Cute kittys flying through the air>>>
Thousands of dollars, millions of web sites, more information at your fingertips than ever before and what do we use it for?
Cute kittys flying through the air>>>
Military Rank Insignia
So what do those stripes on that guy's unifrm mean?
Is he a Corporal or a Sergeant?
And how does this Air Force guy compare to that Navy guy?
Here's your handy guide>>>
Is he a Corporal or a Sergeant?
And how does this Air Force guy compare to that Navy guy?
Here's your handy guide>>>
The Pledge of Allegiance--A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.
The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography:
Baer, John. The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007, Annapolis, Md. Free State Press, Inc., 2007.
Miller, Margarette S. Twenty-Three Words, Portsmouth, Va. Printcraft Press, 1976.
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.
The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography:
Baer, John. The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007, Annapolis, Md. Free State Press, Inc., 2007.
Miller, Margarette S. Twenty-Three Words, Portsmouth, Va. Printcraft Press, 1976.
Gallagher Interviews the Vet Who Cut Down the Mexican Flag
A Power to the People moment here. While other Americans sit at home and complain, Jim Brossard had enough. Brossard is the Army Vet who cut down the Mexican Flag in Reno, Nevada.
Flag tribute proves moving
John Patriquin/Staff PhotographerPortland residents Jay Johnson and Meg McNamara walk by the Healing Fields Project flag display at Deering Oaks on Wednesday. The Veterans Day exhibit was organized by the American Legion. The flags, numbering more than 800, will come down this weekend
The Healing Fields display of more than 800 flags at Deering Oaks honors veterans and others.
By DAVID HENCH Staff Writer
November 15, 2007
Jim and Connie Berryman strolled through the forest of American flags that has blossomed in Portland's Deering Oaks, stopping every few minutes to snap pictures.
"I think it's breathtaking -- beautifully done," Connie Berryman said Wednesday as she gazed thoughtfully at the hundreds of flags dancing in a brisk November breeze.
The flags, more than 800 of them, are part of the Healing Fields Project organized by the American Legion to coincide with Veterans Day. Similar displays have been installed in Bath, Rockland, Augusta and Lubec.
Flags also were placed along the Maine Turnpike and Interstate 95 from Kittery to Augusta -- 2,900 of them.
At Deering Oaks, each person can draw their own meaning from the precise rows along State Street and on the banks of the park's pond, said Bob Wright, commander of the American Legion's Harold T. Andrews Post 17.
"I was in the service for 10 years. I fought with that flag, for that flag and under that flag. To me, that is America," said Wright. "It makes me shiver just to look at them."
Wright is one of those who sponsored the flags, paying $20 each to have them displayed on behalf of his father, his son, his brother, himself -- all of them veterans -- and his wife.
People also could pay $5 for a yellow ribbon to commemorate someone, with the proceeds going to help veterans and the American Legion's youth programs.
By DAVID HENCH Staff Writer
November 15, 2007
Jim and Connie Berryman strolled through the forest of American flags that has blossomed in Portland's Deering Oaks, stopping every few minutes to snap pictures.
"I think it's breathtaking -- beautifully done," Connie Berryman said Wednesday as she gazed thoughtfully at the hundreds of flags dancing in a brisk November breeze.
The flags, more than 800 of them, are part of the Healing Fields Project organized by the American Legion to coincide with Veterans Day. Similar displays have been installed in Bath, Rockland, Augusta and Lubec.
Flags also were placed along the Maine Turnpike and Interstate 95 from Kittery to Augusta -- 2,900 of them.
At Deering Oaks, each person can draw their own meaning from the precise rows along State Street and on the banks of the park's pond, said Bob Wright, commander of the American Legion's Harold T. Andrews Post 17.
"I was in the service for 10 years. I fought with that flag, for that flag and under that flag. To me, that is America," said Wright. "It makes me shiver just to look at them."
Wright is one of those who sponsored the flags, paying $20 each to have them displayed on behalf of his father, his son, his brother, himself -- all of them veterans -- and his wife.
People also could pay $5 for a yellow ribbon to commemorate someone, with the proceeds going to help veterans and the American Legion's youth programs.
19-Year Old Saudi Rape Victim Ordered to Undergo 200 Lashes
Thursday, November 15, 2007 Fox News
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A 19-year-old female victim of gang rape who initially was ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for telling her story to the news media.
The new verdict was handed down by Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council following a retrial, the Arab News reported.
The court last year sentenced the six heavily-armed men who carried out the attack against the Shiite woman to between one and five years for committing the crime.
But the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," a court source told the Arab News.
The new verdict issued on Wednesday also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.
Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine that forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.
The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A 19-year-old female victim of gang rape who initially was ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for telling her story to the news media.
The new verdict was handed down by Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council following a retrial, the Arab News reported.
The court last year sentenced the six heavily-armed men who carried out the attack against the Shiite woman to between one and five years for committing the crime.
But the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," a court source told the Arab News.
The new verdict issued on Wednesday also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.
Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine that forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.
The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.
Judge Who Sued Dry Cleaner for $54 Million Over Lost Trousers Not Reappointed
Washington: The DC Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges has voted not to reappoint Roy Pearson as a judge after his term expired. Pearson had been a judge in the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Pearson made headlines earlier in the year after attempting to sue a dry cleaner who lost his trousers for $54 million to cover mental distress, inconvenience, legal fees, and compensation for the lost trousers. (SN reported)
Justice is served! mc
Pearson made headlines earlier in the year after attempting to sue a dry cleaner who lost his trousers for $54 million to cover mental distress, inconvenience, legal fees, and compensation for the lost trousers. (SN reported)
Justice is served! mc
Theory On Thin Ice
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Environment: Global warming alarmists have made a big deal out of North Pole ice melting and polar bears suffering due to climate change. Before they mouth off again, they should look at a new NASA study.
From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.
But listening to the ecozealots and Al Gore acolytes, one would think the North Pole was melting because too many conservatives drive too many SUVs and don't have enough social responsibility to tame their wicked fossil-fuel burning ways.
This isn't the first time that real science has exposed hyperbole concerning melting ice at the North Pole. In August 2000, the New York Times ran an apocalyptic story that said the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years.
"It was retracted three weeks later as a bar
Environment: Global warming alarmists have made a big deal out of North Pole ice melting and polar bears suffering due to climate change. Before they mouth off again, they should look at a new NASA study.
From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.
But listening to the ecozealots and Al Gore acolytes, one would think the North Pole was melting because too many conservatives drive too many SUVs and don't have enough social responsibility to tame their wicked fossil-fuel burning ways.
This isn't the first time that real science has exposed hyperbole concerning melting ice at the North Pole. In August 2000, the New York Times ran an apocalyptic story that said the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years.
"It was retracted three weeks later as a bar