Wampum

No Cartoons Please

Fred Clark, the Slacktivist, has a post up about Alabama voters defeating a referendum which would have removed a racist relic from the state constitution. Link via Kevin. The Washington Post story is here.

According to the Post, the amendment would have removed language from the Alabama Constitution that required separate schools for "white and colored children." The amendment would also have eliminated "references to the poll taxes once imposed to disenfranchise blacks from the state constitution."

The measure lost in a close vote.

The Slacktivist notes a quote from the Post piece:

"There are people here who are still fighting the Civil War," said Tommy Woods, 63, a deacon at Bethel [Baptist Church] and a retired school administrator. "They're holding on to things that are long since past. It's almost like a religion."

"Almost like a religion" is exactly right. And the specific religion which it is almost like is Christianity. This almost-religion, this pseudo-Christianity, has become so popular and so successful that it is outselling the authentic original.

Many pundits are convinced that John Kerry lost the election because he was unable to talk comfortably about his faith and thereby to appeal to values voters. But talking about his faith -- he's a churchgoing Catholic -- wouldn't matter to the devotees of this almost-faith. Their almost-religion is not an ecumenical creed.

Leading the defense of Alabama's segregationist statutes were the bishops and archbishops of the almost-church, including the Christian Coalition of Alabama and civil-religion celebrity Roy Moore. They claimed their vigorous defense of segregationist language wasn't really a defense of segregation per se. They claim that they were merely opposing the possibility of future tax increases to fund Alabama's public schools.

You know, the public schools where all the black kids go. See, they're not old-fashioned racists. They're next-generation racists who don't think white people should have to pay taxes to educate black children.

I have lived my entire life in the South (except for those few years in Virginia). Clark is right to note that racism, both the old and the new, still exists throughout much of the South.

Clark's claim that Southerns are practicing a phoney form of Christianity will have to stand on its own, without comment from me, for two reasons. First, I am in no position to judge what real Chritianity is or is not from a theological perspective. I just do not know enough about theology. Secondly, I prefer not to characterize other people's religious beliefs. I have a hard enough time characterizing my own. That said, I read the Slacktivist every day. Fred Clark, perhaps more so than any other blogger, expresses a morality arising out of his religious beliefs to which I subscribe almost completely.

I do think Clark has fundamentally misread the nature of Southerners when he paints most Bush supporters as longing for a return to Jim Crow.

President Bush got a bigger share of the vote in Alabama than did the "no" vote on the amendment, which shows that not all of Bush's supporters there are nostalgic for the days of Jim Crow. Not all, just most.

I do not believe for a moment that most Bush supporters in the South "are nostalgic for the days of Jim Crow." Not even close.

The Alabama referendum was to remove a relic of racism not to remove a current foundation of racism. Federal law long ago invalidated the Alabama Constitutional provisions at issue. Voters were not choosing whether or not to have segregated public schools in Alabama.

A ballot measure to actually return to Jim Crow would fail in every Southern state and in the states with which I am most familar, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, it would fail by huge majorities, on the order of 80-20 or 90-10.

I know lots of Bush supporters. I can not name one who would support an actual return to Jim Crow. Southerners realize that a return to Jim Crow would be a disaster, morally, economically, and culturally. We are past that and we are not going back.

The South has many problems including issues of race, gender, morality, culture, and economics. The failure of the proposed amendment amply demonstrates some of those problems. Still, there is no need to overstate the problem in order to make the point.

If Democrats, liberals, and others make policy and political choices based on a cartoon version of the South, they are unlikely to choose wisely.

Another Liberal for Tort Reform

Jim Henley suggests that Juan Cole, Atrios and Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber may be liberals for tort reform. He can add me to the list but not, perhaps, in the way that tort reform is commonly understood.

Juan Cole posted some comments about the Middle East Media Research Organization (MEMRI). He then received a letter from MEMRI threatening a lawsuit, Henry Farrell sums it up:

MEMRI makes an inept attempt to intimidate Juan Cole.

Dear Professor Cole,

I write in response to your article “Osama Threatening Red States?” published on November 3, 2004 on antiwar.com. The article included several statements about MEMRI which go beyond what could be considered legitimate criticism, and which in fact qualify as slander and libel. … As such, we demand that you retract the false statements you have made about MEMRI. If you will not do so, we will be forced to pursue legal action against you personally and against the University of Michigan, which the article identifies you as an employee of.

MEMRI’s threat is strongly reminiscent of Donald Luskin’s threat of legal action against Atrios a while back. It seems to me (though I note that I’m not a lawyer) that the purported complaint is completely, utterly and entirely bogus.

But like Luskin’s supposed complaint, the threat isn’t so much in the possibility of a successful action, as in outcomes related to that action. In Atrios’ case, the real threat was that his identity would be revealed, possibly landing him in difficulty with the university that employed him. Similarly, MEMRI’s threat seems to me to be more about trying to create difficulties for Cole with the University of Michigan than the nugatory possibility of an adverse judgement in court against him. There’s no remotely plausible theory under which the University of Michigan can be held responsible for Cole’s private activities or statements, even if they were libellous. However, a state-funded university would presumably prefer, all things considered, not to be embroiled in an action of this sort, however frivolous. Thus, the inclusion of University of Michigan in the complaint seems to me to be an inept class of an indirect threat to embarrass the university and thus perhaps put Cole in a tricky position.

If one assumes or believes any suit by MEMRI against Cole or by Luskin against Atrios would be frivolous, the tort system should deter such actions. If the tort system does an inadequate job of provding such deterrence now (and in many jurisdictions, I believe that is does), then the sytem should be reformed. That is why I am a liberal for tort reform.

The question remains as to the nature of the reform. Please note that a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages provides little or not deterrent effect. If the purpose of the Luskin letter was to threaten to disclose Atrios' no longer secret identity (I was betting he was Peter Parker), whether or not non-economic damages are limited is beside the point. Similarly, if the purpose of the threatended suit against Cole is to harm his relationship with the University of Michigan, a damages cap will not prevent that harm.

If you agree with Farrell that the possibility of an adverse judgment is "nugatory" then a damages cap does not effect the expected value of the case. Zero percent chance of winning a million dollars yields exactly the same expected value as a zero percent chances of winning $250,000.

The truth is that a damages cap is designed to reduce the award in meritorious cases. It is ill designed to deter frivolous cases. As a result, if the policy goal is to deter frivolous suits, we must look to a different reform.

In response to Henley, Atrios writes:

Just because I may believe that there exist some potential abuses of our legal system does not mean I believe that, say, a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in malpractice suits is a particular good idea.

That is exactly right. Liberals should be for a form of tort reform that would do several things. Such reform should improve the accuracy of litigation results. It should improve efficiency to lessen the burden the litigation process now imposes on all litigants, win or lose. And it should deter and punish frivolous law suits.

What kind of reform would be effective to deter frivolous suits? The first requirement is to insulate the target of such suits from any harm. A statute giving the trial judge the right, and in some cases the duty, to impose frivolous litigation sanctions in the amount of the victim's attorney fees and litigation expenses is a good idea but it is not enough.

Victims of frivolous litigation may suffer damage over and above their attorney fees and litigation expenses. In the examples above, Atrios could potentially suffered damge to his relationship with the University at which he was teaching. That damage might have resulted in lost future earnings, loss of reputation, and loss of prestige in the acdemic community. Tort reform should impose liability for such damages as a way to deter frivolous suits.

Georgia has a good scheme. OCGA 51-7-81 provides as follows:

Any person who takes an active part in the initiation, continuation, or procurement of civil proceedings against another shall be liable for abusive litigation if such person acts:

(1) With malice; and

(2) Without substantial justification.

The "any person" language includes both the opposing party and the opposing lawyer. As a result, a lawyer filing a frivolous suit on behalf of a client may suffer personal liability for damages caused by such action.

What does it mean to act with "malice" in this context? Malice means:

[A]cting with ill will or for a wrongful purpose and may be inferred in an action if the party initiated ...civil proceedings ... in a harassing manner or used process for a purpose other than that of securing the proper adjudication of the claim upon which the proceedings are based.

The "wrongful purpose" language seems to cover the cases that are brought for the purpose of intimidation.

Of course, many a legitimate law suit will feel like harrasasment to the other side. I certainly hope that my pleadings cause some worry and perhaps "intimidation" to the other party. The better the law suit, the more worrisome to the opposing party is a good rule of thumb. For abusive litigation liability to be imposed, the suit must also have been "without substantial justification."

"Without substanial justification" means frivolous or groundless in law or fact.

To prevent damages from being imposed on meritorious law suits, even of they are losers, the statutory scheme makes "good faith" a defense to a suit for abusive litigation. Good faith means:

[T]hat to the best of a person´s or his or her attorney´s knowledge, information, and belief, formed honestly after reasonable inquiry, that such civil proceeding ... is well grounded in fact and is either warranted by existing law or by reasonable grounds to believe that an argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law may be successful.

The damages available in a claim for abusive litigation include "all damages allowed by law as proven by the evidence, including costs and expenses of litigation and reasonable attorney´s fees."

Please note that in some cases, the non-economic damages available in an abusive litigation action could exceed $250,000. Should those non-economic damages be capped?

The Georgia scheme makes the abuser of the system fully liable for all damage caused by frivolous litigation. It permits those damages against not only the opposing party but against the opposing attorney as well. It provides a good method of distinguishing between frivolous and meritorius suits.

That Georgia statutory scheme may not do everything that a liberal tort reformer might wish, but is does a pretty good job of detering frivolous suits.

It is easy for a liberal to be for tort reform that is actually about reducing frivolous suits. It is a shame that most tort reform debates are centered around a policy proposal that has nothing to do with preventing frivolous suits.

More erosion of worker's rights.

The Bush Administration's war on Labor continues. Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board reversed a Clinton-era decision giving temporary workers the right to join their permanent counterparts in collective bargaining.

Temps Lose Bargaining Rights Won In 2000 NLRB Reverses Stand Along Party Lines By Amy Joyce Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 30, 2004; Page E01

Temporary workers will no longer be able to bargain for job benefits as part of a unit with permanent employees, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled, reversing a Clinton-era precedent.

In a 3 to 2 vote that was issued Friday, the three members appointed by President Bush -- Robert J. Battista, the chairman; Peter C. Schaumber and Ronald E. Meisburg -- said there is a difference between temporary and permanent workers. "Thus, the entity that the two groups of employees look to as their employer is not the same. No amount of legal legerdemain can alter that fact," their ruling stated.

It overturned a 2000 NLRB ruling, called M.B. Sturgis, that said bargaining units that combined both temporary and permanent employees were permissible.

As the Post points out, one of the reasons this is so important is that temporary jobs have made up a significant portion of new employment under the Bush Administration:

One of the biggest sources of job gains in September was temporary jobs, which grew by 33,000. Temporary staffing firms added 48,000 jobs in October, according to the Labor Department. There are about 2.5 million temporary workers in the workforce today, and the hiring of temps has accounted for nearly half of the private jobs created since the beginning of 2002.

I did a little analysis of my own, pulling BLS data for the last 18 months (note: in May 2003, the BLS changed employment categories, so I was reluctant to pull from the earlier one, not completely comfortable they were identical.) In addition to looking at temp workers versus total employment, I thought it important to compare those numbers with job losses/gains in an area traditionally represented by labor unions, e.g., manufacturing production workers. Here are the graphed results, in total and by month:

When viewed in this context, this decision by the NLRB is particularly depressing, as the impact on a shifting worker bee population is inflated. Not only are employees being shunted from permanent to temporary status, but once their status is transformed, they lose not only the rights they held as unionized labor, but the very right to organize. That is, unless their employers or temp agencies approve.

More class warfare compliments of the Bush Administration.

We don't need no stinkin' gender data...

This morning, I was over in at the BLS.gov website when I noticed one of these icons:

which, during this Administration's tenure, always makes me more than a tad uneasy.

Needless to say, my concerns were not unfounded:

Discontinuation of Women Workers Employment Series

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the release of preliminary December 2004 data in February 2005, estimates for women workers will no longer be produced by the Current Employment Statistics program (establishment survey) in an effort to reduce respondent burden.

Data for women workers and other demographic information related to employment from the Current Population Survey will continue to be available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/.

Last Modified Date: November 5, 2004

So what does this mean in layman's terms? Essentially, the BLS will be collecting all of it's data on women's work from the "household" survey, not from the business, or "institutional" survey.

I'm sure the Bush Administration would love to count women who might consider selling their granny's Hummel collection on EBay as viable "employment." Beats having to ask General Motors how many women they have on the payroll, since it's obviously such an onerous task.

Sidenote: Before publishing this, my much-suppressed tin-foil-hat side emerged, and I wondered about the significance of this change in light of my earlier post on the Christian Right's gender agenda. It would be difficult to track the shift of women from the factory floor/corporate office to a home-based economic model if the work was valued "equally" by government accounts.

Rewarding greed and corruption: Part MCXXIV

Many of us have become so jaded with the escalating series of corporate scandals that it's hard to believe the next one can get any worse. However, it appears pharmaceutical giant Merck is willing to make a play for that highly dubious "honor."

Merck, now worried that it's mishandling of the dangers of Vioxx, opening it up to potentially billions in lawsuits from the thousands of consumers it may have injured (or killed), has established a plan of "golden parachutes" for hundreds of senior managers. While Merck would not disclose the actual amounts, it is estimated to total potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.

As noted in this morning's NYTimes article on the subject, in this world of mergers and acquisitions, it is not unusual for companies to develop "golden parachute" plans, to safeguard company "talent" should a takeover occur. But the timing of Merck's plans are particularly suspect, and frankly, downright insidious, as it's clear the company understands that it's odious behavior over the Vioxx scandal has weakened the company enough to make it a prime takeover target. As the Times notes, Merck is rewarding management for greed and corruption.

Ironically, the Bush Administration's "strong (ha!) dollar" policy may lead to Merck's downfall, as European pharmaceuticals, buttressed by the Euro's rise, may be able to acquire Merck on the cheap. GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis are believed to be the most likely competitors, although with increasingly stricter US controls on stem-cell and other emerging research technologies, any number of European drug companies might show interest.

Don't expect the Republican Congress or Bush Administration to make much of a fuss over Merck's rats jumping ship with their pockets lined with investors' gold. American BigPharma is the second largest contributor (after BigEnergy) to Republican political campaigns, with over $30 million given in the last two campaign cycles (2002/2004). This cycle alone, Merck contributed half a million to political campaigns, 72% of it going to Republicans. If anything, as Dwight has mentioned previously, Congress is much more likely to provide Merck with it's own "golden parachute" in the form of liability protection, aka "tort reform".

Intelsat Americas-7 satellite fried

IA7@129°W footprint

At approximately 2:30 am EST on 28 November, a covert space weapons program dischared a directed energy weapon at Intelsat Americas-7, located at 129° West. The weaponized energy burst manifested to the on-board and earth station sensors as a sudden and unexpected electrical distribution anomaly that caused the permanent loss of the spacecraft.

Speaking via a cell phone from his cell at Camp Anaconda, known to its denizens as "Mortaritaville", ex-Dictator-for-Life Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti announced the success of the Iraqi directed energy WMD program, which managed to discharge a weapon located at 33°20 N 44° 26 E, and strike a target located at 129°00 W 0°00 N, a distance of 16,250km (Haversine formula) or 12,737km (cord formula) and located an additional 35,785km (22,236 miles) above the surface of the earth. Seismologiests at the USGS in Menlo Park and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) Program Office (DARPA) analysts at are still reviewing seismic data to determin if the discharge path used ionospheric reflection to a way-point near the Galapagos Islands, before going vertical, or took the shorter "direct-direct" path, the theoretically possible but never demonstrated "Verne manuver".

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the senior Republican political strategist remarked "If the Iraqis managed to pull a Verne, we're in a heap of trouble. Those last 22,000 exoatmospheric miles were an overshoot. When they get our range we'll have operational Iraqi megawatt class lasers under every bed in the Continental United States."

The conference call included synchronized tape-delay segments from Osama Bin Laden in Afganistan, who directed the strategic planning and targeting, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from somewhere in al-Anbar Province (Falluja/Ramadi), who directed the Baghdad-based engineering team. Each commented on their roles in carrying out the attack on IA7@129°W, then took questions from the on-call journalists. Saddam Hussein reminded the journalists that Bush, Chenny and Powell hold a monopoly over the most outragous weapons programs claims on the face of the earth, despite the valient defenses of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf ("Baghdad Bob") but those claims of weapons programs related activities are insufficient to meet exoatmospheric, and potentially lithospheric weapons programs claims.

Note Well: In 1997 the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser/Sea-Lite Beam Director system combination demonstrated the ability to illuminate satellites in orbit [1].

IA7@129°W carried 24x36 MHz C-band and 24x36 MHz Ku-band transponders providing coverage to CONUS, Alaska, Caribbean, Hawaii, Mexico, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Uplink Frequency C-Band: 5925 to 6425 MHz, Ku-Band: 14.0 to 14.5 GHz
Downlink Frequency C-Band: 3700 to 4200 MHz Ku-Band: 11.7 to 12.2 GHz

[1] "Nautilus - Lasers are Lethal," U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, October 3l, 1998, http://www.smdc.army.mil/NAUT.HTML. "Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)," U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, October 31, 1998, http://www.smdc.army.mil/THEL.HTML. Additional information is available from TRW Inc. at http://www.trw.com.

Happy Well-Fed Anniversary

The newly re-recorded Band-Aid 20 single, "Do They Know It's Christmas" goes on sale today.

You can download both the new and old releases at the official Band Aid 20 website for £1.99 (proceeds go to feed Darfur refugees.)

Do they know it's Christmas?
It's Christmastime,
there's no need to be afraid
At Christmastime,
we let in light and we banish shade
And in our world of plenty
we can spread a smile of joy
Throw your arms around the world
at Christmastime

But say a prayer,
pray for the other ones
At Christmastime it's hard,
but when you're having fun
There's a world outside your window,
and it's a world of dread and fear
Where the only water flowing
is the bitter sting of tears
And the Christmas bells that ring there
are the clanging chimes of doom
Well tonight thank God it's them
instead of you

And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmastime
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life(Oooh)
Where nothing ever grows
No rain or rivers flow
Do they know it's Christmastime at all?

Here's to you raise a glass for everyone
Here's to them underneath that burning sun
Do they know it's Christmastime at all?

Feed the world
Feed the world
Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmastime again

Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmastime again

The original, released in 1984, included members from 20 bands or individual singers, mostly British and Irish. Without sending out the Googling Monkeys, who can name them? (answer in the extended comments.)

Original Band Aid ensemble
Adam Clayton (U2)
Phil Collins
Bob Geldof
Steve Norman (Spandau Ballet)
Chris Cross (Ultravox)
John Taylor (Duran Duran)
Paul Young
Tony Hadley (Spandau Ballet)
Glenn Gregory (Heaven 17)
Simon Le Bon (Duran Duran)
Simon Crowe
Marilyn
Keren Woodward (Bananarama)
Martin Kemp (Spandau Ballet)
Jody Watley
Bono (U2)
Paul Weller
James Taylor
George Michael
Midge Ure (Ultravox)
Martin Ware (Heaven 17)
John Keeble (Spandau Ballet)
Gary Kemp (Spandau Ballet)
Roger Taylor (Duran Duran)
Sarah Dullin (Bananarama)
Siobhan Fahey (Bananarama)
Peter Briquette
Francis Rossi (Status Quo)
Robert 'Kool' Bell
Dennis Thomas
Andy Taylor (Duran Duran)
Jon Moss (Culture Club)
Sting
Rick Parfitt (Status Quo)
Nick Rhodes (Duran Duran)
Johnny Fingers
David Bowie
Boy George
Holly Johnson (Frankie Goes to Hollywood)
Paul McCartney

Twenty or Nothing

The issue to understand is why would Iran want 20 centrifuge machines for "research and development ".

USEC and the NRC provide the immediately obvious answer to the question, why a commercial plant developer would seek to operate a set of 20 centrifuge machines:

On Feb. 12, 2003, USEC Inc. submitted a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct and operate the so-called American Centrifuge Demonstration Facility at its Portsmouth plant in Piketon, Ohio. "Scheduled to begin operation in 2005, the demonstration facility will contain a lead cascade of up to 240 centrifuge machines, the first new centrifuge enrichment machines in the United States. The lead cascade is the basic building block of a commercial enrichment plant. It will yield cost, schedule and performance data before USEC begins construction of a $1 billion to $1.5 billion commercial plant later in the decade."

As of March 24, 2003, the license application is available for download from ADAMS [ebw: the NRC's on-line document library, still partially shutdown due to "terrorist" concerns].

Cost, schedule and performance data, before construction of the production facillity. Pretty sane stuff.

At the Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC) in Honolulu last March Ron Green claimed that USEC's centrifuge design features untapped technical margins which would allow the throughput to increase to about 400 SWU/year/machine. This was later "clarified" that the centrifuges wouldn't be run at 20% over the design and it turns out there is a lot of "iffyness" about generating ecomically reliable data from small lead cascades, and running them "maintenance free". Incidently, USEC's lead cascade (03/04) is 30, down from the (02/03) quote of 240 centrifuge machines. The USEC number is 300 SWU/year/machine. Cite: Nuclear Fuel April 26, 2004, WASTE MANAGEMENT; Vol. 29, No. 9; Pg. 4 "Many questions remain about USEC's centrifuge performance", by Mark Hibbs, Bonn.

Ron Green is the Senior VP for Wowserisms at USEC. He's more wedded to powerpoint than to a slide rule, so he wouldn't do quite so well in the management team of Iranian Nuclear Fuels, Ltd. I'm not even going to try and count how much of the news fleets, print and pancake, goes running off with "20 shinny spinning things make us wicked dizzy so it must be bombs" but it should be Iraqi WMDs deja news all over again. They know there's a schedule to keep, flap in December, elections in January, withdrawal from urban centers (other than those logistically necessary for the pivot), the mid-term litmust test vote for Congress and then Drang nach Osten before high-summer, with air before ground by several thousand sorties.

One other thing: The spot price is now about $18.50/lb U3O8 compared to a price of about $11.20/lb on July 30, 2003.

And another: Urenco’s current TC12 technology produces about 40 SWU/year/machine. I'll have to dig up the numbers for the TC21, and of course, the wicked evil P-series machines.

And another: USEC permitting paperwork allows them to enrich up to 10%, which is a lot bigger than 3.5%. Glad I'm not a minority investor. Pre-planned negligence.

If you live in Hartsville (Tennessee), and you read wampum, rethink one or both of those properties.
Dr Pat Upson, Managing Director, Technical, in Urenco Limited (responsible for all site operations, new plant design and construction, research and development, centrifuge manufacturing and diversification, former Enrichment Division Manager of British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd.) and the other partners of the re-spun Louisiana Energy Services (aka "LES-II", who remind you that as the -II business model does not require government funding or customer investment, other than the three surviving LES-I partners, Exelon, Entergy, Duke, the rest is just narrowly-held commercial debt and reactor vendor Westinghouse, they don't have to listen to voters, or rate-payers) would like to move in with you, or move you out, for the long long haul.

The number is approaching 21,000

After I published the initial piece on Oct 16th on the 343rd Quartermaster Company I was surprised by several things. One was that we started getting readers from Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre in Germany. Another was that within 48 hours wampum had acquired a whole new reader demographic, including stripes.osd.mil.

As of Tuesday, 20,802 troops have been treated at Landstuhl from injuries received in Iraq and Afganistan. http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=25671

Had most of the disasterously stupid decisions made after the entry into Baghdad, starting with the demob of the Iraqi Army, not been made by idiological nitwits, about 20,000 men and women would not have detoured through Landstuhl, and we'd still be looking at the interim-to-final-government transition with most of the same balance of forces and a hell of a lot better hearts-and-minds traction with the Iraqis.

Update: 5 more US KIA over the weekend. All in al-Anbar Province (Falluja/ Ramadi). No other details yet.

Cheery News from Goober Technical Support

So EDS does a rollout of a new M$ bag-o-bugs and clobbers the client. Its a record for a OEM/VAR-induced denial-of-service attack on a UK government network (Department of Work and Pensions), coming in at 80,000 desktops disfunctional for 100-plus hours, or an 80% successful attack. The DWP's attempt at damage control is to point out that their mainframes were not affected (and they saved a lot of money not sending out benefits too.)

Those of you who give your entire operating systems and applications software budget to M$ give yourselfs a big high five. You be da winners!!! You know that M$ and EDS will eventually liberate humanity from ... computers.

The Grey Lady's Tales

During the Johnson/Nixon years the newspapers of record in the US were unable to report about Southeast Asia and Latin America. The newspapers of record published a lot of copy, but it wasn't reporting. It was something else. Dahr Jamail's just posted a side-by-side of two pieces, his own and the piece by James Glanz and Richard A. Oppel, Jr. Both pieces contain elements of first-hand accounts of a specific recent event, the second was published in The Grey Lady. Here is the link to Dahr's side-by-side.

The first written compilation of كتاب ألف ليلة و ليلة(pronounce as: Alf Layla wa Layla, trans as: A Thousand Nights and a Night) was made in Iraq by al-Jahshiyari in the 10th century. The Nights have a deeply nested structure, which is wicked attractive to anyone who's groveled about inside a complier. There are stories within stories within stories, held together by Sharazade's neck -- a framing device also used in Cantabury Tales and the Decameron, even Orlando Furioso by Ariosto (Ach mine gott! I've read all three).

Sharazade bared her neck to King Shahrayar, and kept her head on her shoulders with her endless supply of tales was borrowed from the Persian Hazar Afsana, composed in turn by Humae, the daughter of Bahman, and first cited in Kitab ul Fihrist, written by Muhammad Bin Ishaq Un Nadim circa 987. The Tales of the Grey Lady are keeping some heads off of modern pikes. Some state-side heads.

I think tomorrow I'll splurge on a Sunday copy of the Times and dump it in Portland harbor. Rock breaks scissors, paper wraps rock, scissors cut paper, but water does a wicked thorough job of turning paper into pulp.

From 'nutter to an 'nutter...

Surprisingly, G.W. Bush realized that there are other longrunning political disputes in the world other than in Middle East. Than again, maybe it's a smokescreen.

But, for the love of God (or any other deity you might worship), why would any rational US government align themselves with the fascist, evangelical wingers in Northern Ireland, also known as the Ulster Defense Force. Seriously, these are the guys who live, LIVE, to parade through the Catholic sections of Ulster on good old Protestant Day, with the singular goal of rubbing it in the faces of the oppressed that they are in fact, oppressed.

So when given the opportunity to influence the peace process in Ireland Norte, with whom did Bush decide to kibbitz? Ian Paisley. And Christian nutcase to Christian nutcase,

Mr Bush, who makes much of his own Christian beliefs as part of his political identity, appears to have appealed to the Reverend to seek guidance from the Lord.

"I told him we have been praying forever in this country and I wished him well at this time," recounted Mr Paisley.

My introduction to the tragedy of Northern Ireland was two-fold; my grandfather's stepfather was Irish, the family from Ulster (Whalen) and staunchly Catholic and Republican (as in, reunification with the Irish Republic.) And then as a college sophomore, I read Jack Holland's Too Long a Sacrifice. Holland, like me, was a product of a "mixed" marriage - Protestant father, Catholic mother, the battle outside his bedroom window more than personal (note: Jack Holland died this year of lymphmatic cancer at age 56). But his take on Ian Paisley was totally unconflicted. Paisely was the sleasiest of the sleasiest, feeding the ethnic and religious hatred of the Unionist Prots. Think Milosovic. If Paisely could have gotten away with ethinic cleansing, he would have, with glee.

Rumor is that Bush will also be calling Gerry Adams. Sometime this weekend. Maybe.

The State of the Herd

Vine Deloria was giving an invited talk a Stanford and one of the students made the observation that as paleo-indians caused the megafaunal extinctions at the end of the Holocene, indians weren't more moral than europeans. This bugged Vine sufficient for him to write about it later, and there are a couple of holes in the theory of causation and the comfortable comparitive ethics of the conclusion, but the funniest part the notion that 'skins are still hot footing about in moral purgatory for sins 12,000 years past, and euros are already angelic for sins 120 years recent.

Today's SF Chron treats us to this:

Thousands of years before white and Indian hunters drove the buffalo of America's Great Plains to virtual extinction, the ancestors of those lordly animals suffered a similar fate -- but it was major climate change, not hunting, that did them in, says an international research team.

Moving in huge herds, more than 20 million bison roamed the American West before white men arrived. For centuries, the Indians hunted them with bows, arrows and spears for food, clothing and shelter.

But within a few brief years after 1850, the guns of the white men -- and of the Indians -- drove the American buffalo to near extinction. By 1889, naturalists could find only 550 left.

The article goes on, rather interestingly, on the DNA data for archaic bison sample populations. The necessity of framing the piece that begins 37,000 years and ends 8,000 years before the common era with whooping indians and shooting cowboys isn't obvious, and as for the utility, well it might work on indians-as-environmentalists as well as WMDs did for Iraq's soverignty and the UN Charter.

So, how many things are wrong in this picture?

For centuries, the Indians hunted them with bows, arrows and spears ... Two in this phrase. The primary means of take was the pisskan, and the Head-Smashed-In pisskan in the Porcupine Hills of southern Alberta was used for over six thousand years. This is wicked old, and everybody knows it.

and of the Indians ... This one's a hooter. Turning to Melville's Moby Dick there's this:

Next was Tashtego, an unmixed Indian from Gay Head, the most westerly promontory of Martha's Vineyard, where there still exists the last remnant of a village of red men, which has long supplied the neighboring island of Nantucket with many of her most daring harpooneers. In the fishery, they usually go by the generic name of Gay-Headers. Tashtego's long, lean, sable hair, his high cheek bones, and black rounding eyes--for an Indian, Oriental in their largeness, but Antarctic in their glittering expression--all this sufficiently proclaimed him an inheritor of the unvitiated blood of those proud warrior hunters, who, in quest of the great New England moose, had scoured, bow in hand, the aboriginal forests of the main. But no longer snuffing in the trail of the wild beasts of the woodland, Tashtego now hunted in the wake of the great whales of the sea; the unerring harpoon of the son fitly replacing the infallible arrow of the sires. To look at the tawny brawn of his lithe snaky limbs, you would almost have credited the superstitions of some of the earlier Puritans, and half-believed this wild Indian to be a son of the Prince of the Powers of the Air. Tashtego was Stubb the second mate's squire.

Of course the conclusion is obvious. Indians are to blame for whaling, and not just Gay Head Wampanoags, Abenakis whaled too.

Anything else? Where are the Woodlands Buffalo? At Contact Europeans observed them on the shores of the Atlantic. Were there really only 550 left for naturalists to count in 1889? Buffalo would be an odd thing to count the year after the Great Blizzard. 1888 was the year of the omahk'maakai'piiyi -- the Great Blizzard, the year the surviving Amskaapipiikani, utterly destitute, accepted confinement (Sweetgrass Hills Treaty) over starvation. Anyway, both the northern and southern herds had been destroyed by 1883.

It is odd, neh? Indian populations crash and take the bison population with them. How did they do it? And the whales too. It is a mystery. I was thinking of Vine this morning too. Now that's a real mystery.

The Portland many of us take for granted...

Although I live within the Portland city limits, my neighborhood is well off what locals simply term "The Peninsula." With four little kids, we seldom have the opportunity to spend much time down the Old Port, and I often forget how lovely our small city is. Within a couple of months, we'll be moving a couple of hours inland, up towards the Western Mountains, and will spend even less time on our cobblestone streets.

Bob Goodspeed is a Portland expat, now residing in the District. He came home this weekend for Thanksgiving, and began photo-documenting the memories of his youth. I highly recommend you not view them if you're at all ambivient about where you currently reside. Fortunately, the rumors of frigid winters keep most potential emigrants at bay.

The lightbulb turns on for Reuters...

AP still fumbling in the dark.

Last night, just before turning in, I recalled the Durable Goods report had been released earlier in the day, with disappointing numbers. I've been following the report for the past few months, as an interesting trend had developed regarding defense vs. non-defense orders. Opening the report, I was not surprised the trend continued, although I was shocked at the growing disparity.

But back to Reuters. Apparently, they finally picked on the real news in the reporty as well:

Durable Goods Orders Slip Unexpectedly Wed Nov 24, 2004 08:32 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Orders for long-lasting U.S.-made goods unexpectedly slipped 0.4 percent last month as demand for computers, cars and civilian aircraft slumped, a government report showed on Wednesday.
The Commerce Department said orders for durable goods -- big-ticket items like cars and refrigerators meant to last at least three years -- would have been much weaker in October were it not for strong military demand.

Non-defense durable goods orders dropped 1.5 percent, the sixth decline in the last seven months, and orders excluding transportation fell 0.7 percent, the department said.

...

Strong demand for military aircraft gave the October figures a stronger appearance then they would have had otherwise.

Orders for military aircraft soared 35.2 percent last month, but civilian aircraft orders slid 0.4 percent. Motor vehicle demand fell a sharp 2.8 percent and orders for computers and related products dropped 10.3 percent.

AP, on the otherhand, completely missed the boat in their analysis, which failed to make any mention of the import of defense orders on October's bleak, but could be much bleaker numbers.

Reuter's, however, has not completely redeemed itself; they swallowed the Commerce Department's message that last month's revision from 0.2% to 0.9% indicates things really aren't so bad. But even a quick glance at the report reveals that, once again, excluding defense orders, which saw a whopping 26.7% increase in capital goods orders, fell by 0.2%. July's report as well shows that defense orders mitigated the impact of plummeting private sector spending.

Autism in Le Monde

[source: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-388233,0.html]

Le gouvernement face au défi de la prise en charge de l'autisme

Diagnostics tardifs, établissements pour enfants surchargés, absence de structures pour adultes : les professionnels dénoncent une situation "dramatique". Le ministre de la santé propose une accélération des mesures lancées en janvier, qui n'ont pas eu les effets escomptés.

L'autisme est l'objet de toutes les attentions. Alors que le gouvernement avait discrètement lancé, courant janvier 2004, un plan d'action pour rattraper le retard dans la prise en charge de cette grave pathologie du développement, le mi- nistre de la santé, Philippe Douste-Blazy, devait annoncer, mercredi 24 novembre, une accélération de ces mesures qu'il qualifie de "nouvelle impulsion".

Le programme annoncé par M. Douste-Blazy, en compagnie de Marie-Anne Montchamp, secrétaire d'Etat aux personnes handicapées, devrait insister sur le diagnostic précoce des troubles autistiques et sur la création de places supplémentaires dans les établissements accueillant les jeunes autistes et les adultes. Le niveau de prise en charge est notoirement insuffisant en France, plongeant plusieurs milliers de familles dans la détresse, seules face à leurs proches atteints de troubles autistiques.

L'autisme et les troubles qui lui sont apparentés constituent un ensemble de syndromes regroupés dans la classification internationale des maladies (CIM 10) sous le terme de "troubles envahissants du développement" (TED). Apparaissant avant l'âge de 3 ans, les manifestations autistiques sont caractérisées par une absence de communication avec autrui et par le caractère restreint, répétitif et stéréotypé des comportements de l'enfant. Ces pathologies entraînent souvent un handicap sévère, qui rend généralement très difficiles l'autonomie du patient, sa scolarisation, puis son insertion sociale. En l'état actuel des connaissances, les troubles autistiques ne sont pas guérissables. Il est en revanche possible d'orienter leur évolution et d'en limiter considérablement les conséquences pour la personne, par le biais d'un accompagnement éducatif et thérapeutique adapté, mis en œuvre le plus tôt possible.

Le diagnostic précoce apporte aux familles de plus grandes chances de limiter ou réduire le handicap résultant des troubles autistiques. Il "minimise les conséquences de la pathologie dans la vie quotidienne des familles", explique le professeur Charles Aussilloux, qui coordonne les travaux de l'Agence nationale d'accréditation et d'évaluation en santé (Anaes) sur ce sujet. "Les parents s'adaptent plus à la situation, ils se dépriment moins et mettent moins en échec leurs enfants." Or il s'écoule généralement un an et demi entre le moment où les parents s'inquiètent d'une anomalie chez leur enfant et celui où un diagnostic d'autisme est posé par une équipe spécialisée, en moyenne à 32 mois.

"SITUATION DRAMATIQUE"

Ce délai important s'explique en grande partie par la méconnaissance des troubles autistiques par les professionnels de la petite enfance (pédiatres, personnels de crèche...). Ils devraient être la cible d'une "grande campagne de sensibilisation", fin 2005, afin qu'ils identifient mieux les premiers signes de la pathologie.

M. Douste-Blazy souhaite également généraliser les centres de ressources autisme (CRA), qui existent actuellement dans cinq régions. Le développement de ces structures, qui ont pour vocation l'accueil et l'orientation des familles, mais aussi l'aide au diagnostic et le développement de la recherche, devrait permettre de coordonner plus efficacement les différentes initiatives de prise en charge des personnes autistes.

Le diagnostic posé, il faut pouvoir accueillir de manière adaptée ces jeunes enfants. La France dispose d'une palette de structures bien diversifiée en matière de handicap mental, des services de pédopsychiatrie aux centres médico-psychologiques en passant par les instituts médico-éducatifs et les centres d'accueil thérapeutiques à temps partiel. Le nombre de places disponibles pour les autistes dans ces structures est estimé à environ 7 000 mais reste très insuffisant : les listes d'attente s'allongent et ne permettent pas d'envisager une admission avant un délai de deux ou trois ans.

"La situation est plus dramatique qu'il y a quelques années, car les moyens de la pédopsychiatrie ont diminué alors qu'elle prend en charge toujours plus de pathologies, témoigne Marcel Hérault, président de la principale association de familles, Sésame autisme. Il y a dix ans, la plupart des enfants autistes arrivaient à être pris en charge à plein temps ; aujourd'hui, la prise en charge est, au mieux, partielle."

STRUCTURES INADAPTÉES

Pour remédier à cette situation, M. Douste-Blazy propose d'accélérer la création, en 2005 et 2006, de 1 950 places dans les établissements médico-sociaux (750 places pour les enfants et 1 200 pour les adultes) pour un surcoût de 34 millions d'euros s'ajoutant aux 200 millions initialement prévus. Et si l'effort est surtout porté sur les structures pour adultes, c'est que leur situation est "catastrophique", selon des spécialistes du secteur.

Devenus trop âgés pour rester dans les établissements pour adolescents, les adultes autistes se retrouvent souvent dans des structures inadaptées, voire à l'hôpital psychiatrique, où ils régressent. "En ce moment, nous sommes alertés sur le cas d'une jeune fille que nous avions suivie enfant, explique un pédopsychiatre. Depuis qu'elle a été déplacée dans une structure pour adultes, moins adaptée, elle a retrouvé des comportements agressifs comme elle en avait à 4 ans."

Dans ces conditions, plusieurs milliers de familles n'ont d'autre choix que de "reprendre" leurs enfants à leur domicile, parfois dans des conditions dramatiques. Le 17 novembre à Bar-le-Duc, une mère de famille de 54 ans, poussée à bout, a étranglé son fils autiste de 26 ans, lourdement handicapé, qu'elle gardait à la maison : c'est le troisième meurtre d'enfant autiste par sa mère en l'espace de dix ans.

La question de l'autisme, ce handicap majeur, met en évidence les difficultés du dispositif français pour accueillir les enfants et adultes très lourdement handicapés. "Au-delà de l'autisme, il faut aussi penser au devenir de tous ces patients qui ne disposent pas de ce label et qui, devenus adultes, présentent eux aussi des pathologies mentales très lourdes", explique le professeur Alain Lazartigues, qui dirige le CRA Bretagne-Pays-de-Loire. Une réalité souvent méconnue en France, où les conditions de prise en charge du handicap mental ne font presque jamais débat.

Cécile Prieur

Des signes divers, une maladie aux contours flous

Trouble du développement, l'autisme se manifeste dès les premières années de la vie de l'enfant.

Les signes. Ils sont d'intensité différente d'une personne à l'autre, et varient avec l'âge. L'enfant est indifférent ou réagit bizarrement aux autres ; il ne parle pas ou a un langage inhabituel (répétition de mots, ou de phrases, entendus en écho) ; il ne s'intéresse pas aux objets ou joue d'une manière étrange (agite ou fait tourner des objets de manière répétitive) ; il réalise des activités répétitives avec son corps (agitation des mains, tournoiement, stéréotypies, etc.). Aucun de ces signes, pris individuellement, n'est suffisant pour le diagnostic de l'autisme. C'est leur regroupement qui est significatif, après observation.

Prévalence. Le nombre d'autistes est évalué à environ 4,9 enfants sur 10 000 naissances, avec une proportion de 3 ou 4 garçons pour 1 fille. Une estimation plus large table sur une population de 60 000 personnes atteintes de troubles autistiques. Enfin, on évalue cette population à 100 000 personnes en incluant des troubles moins sévères, dits "troubles envahissants du développement".

Moonin' the 'grims

This is a special time of year for Indian families. The kids come home from school with cute pilgrim hats and turkey is wicked cheap. For us it went something like this:

Dad: What was the name of the Indian who met the Europeans?
Grace: Uh ... Samoset?
Dad: Very good. Where did he come from?
Grace: Maine!
Dad: Uh huh. Who were his people?
Grace: That's easy. Us! The Abenakis.
Dad: Uh huh. You are related to Samoset. What were the Europeans doing?
Grace: Uh ... Waiting for Samoset?
Dad: Nope. Grave robbing. They were hungry. They were opening Pautuxet graves and eating the spirit food, the maize.
Grace: Ick. So where was Squanto?
Dad: He was living with the Wampanoags. Samoset reported the Europeans to the Pautuxet and Wampanoag sachems, then he returned to the Kennebec settlements.
Grace: How did Samoset know what to do?
Dad: The Abenakis had starved out the English at a place they call Popham.
Grace: Oh. I remember they all waggled their butts at Verrazano.
Dad: He he. So, at school this year, have they tried to make you do anything stupid this year?
Grace: No.

---

SKINS: CONTEMPORARY INDIGENOUS WRITINGS
A first in international Indigenous publishing compiled by Kateri Akiwenzie-Damm & Josie Douglas

[MB edit: see extended entry for the stuff which may set off the nanny-ware]

I was on the phone to Kateri this morning. Here is some reading. Real Live Indignenous Prose. Enjoy.

WITHOUT RESERVATION: INDIGENOUS EROTICA
Edited By Kateri Akiwenzie-Damm, co-published with Huia Publishers, New Zealand

Good Luck On the Bar Exam

Did you know that Jerry Falwell's college, Liberty University, has a law school?

Dr. Falwell says:

If our graduates wind up in the government, they'll be social and political conservatives. If they wind up as judges, they'll be presiding under the Bible.

That may be true but before one becomes a judge, it is customary to pass the bar. That may be a problem.

The school is not yet accredited by the American Bar Association, which means its students are taking an enormous risk. If accreditation is not granted by the time they graduate in 2007, they will not be eligible to take the bar examination. Dean Green said the subject kept him awake at night.

Tuition is about $18,000 a year, though several students said they had received generous scholarships.

I would not want to pay for and attend three years of law school with the risk that after if I graduate, I may or may not be allowed to take the bar, but I do not begrudge anyone else that choice. You pays your money and takes your choice.

It will be interesting to see how Liberty University teaches law. The early returns are not promising.

In Professor Tuomala's civil procedure class, the topic on Wednesday morning was a law school warhorse: the Supreme Court's 1938 decision in Erie v. Tompkins, a case that has baffled generations of law students. Judging by the halting Socratic dialogue, Professor Tuomala's natural-law critique of the case did not immediately clarify matters.

The Erie decision, which is viewed as uncontroversial in much of the legal academy, represented a disastrous wrong turn, Professor Tuomala said. In ruling that federal courts may not apply general principles in some cases but must follow state laws, he said, the Supreme Court denied the possibility of "a law that's fixed, that's uniform, that applies to everybody, everyplace, for all time."

That remark, perhaps, would be a better subject for someone like Jeff Cooper to discuss. I do not think I have the ability to adequately explain just how stupid a remark it is. Nonetheless, I will give it a shot.

Federal Courts have limited jurisdiction. In order for a case to be brought in federal, as opposed to state courts, there must be some basis for the federal court to exercise its juristidiction. If a case presents an issue under a federal statute or under the US Constitution, a federal court has what is termed "Federal Question Jurisdiction." In those cases, the federal court will apply the law as found in federal statutes or the constitution.

There is also a type of federal jurisdiction known as "diversity jurisdiction." When the Federal court system was established, Congress was concerned that regional bias might effect the results of a law suit. If a New Yorker sued a Georgian in a Georgia state court, the New Yorker might suffer from being an outsider.

To avoid that sort of bias, the Congress gave federal courts jurisdiction to decide cases when the parties were from different states. Even if the case is entirely based on state law claims and presents no federal question, federal courts can exercise jurisdiction if there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.

The Erie decision addresses the issue of what law federal courts should apply when they hear cases pursuant to their diversity jurisdiction. Before Erie, Federal judges in diversity cases applied what they called "the general law" or "Federal common law" to state law issues. Erie ended that practice by requiring federal courts to apply the law of the states as announced by the statutes of the state or the opinions of the highest court of the state in diversity cases.

Professor Tuomala complains that Erie denied the possibility of "a law that's fixed, that's uniform, that applies to everybody, everyplace, for all time." That sounds like a criticism of a lack of uniformity in the law. As such, it is beyond stupid.

The Erie decision ensured uniformity. If a lawsuit about a car wreck involving two Georgians is filed in a Georgia court, it is beyond dispute that the Georgia court would apply Georgia law. If an identical wreck occurred in Georgia between a Georgian and a citizen of another state, the case might be brought in federal court. The Erie decision requires that the very same law be applied in both instances. In the absence of Erie, the state court action would be decided under Georgia law while the Federal Court action, based on identical conduct of the parties, might be decided based on the "general law." If uniformity is the goal, Erie ensures it. Erie is one of the great decisions promoting uniformity of law.

In the absence of Erie, how would judges decide what law to apply in diversity cases? To find the "general law," Federal judges might look to the law and decisions from various states and other federal courts. They might also look to various commentators, law review articles and learned treatises. In the end, though, the Judge, having no binding guidance from the statutes and decisions of the state in which the case arose, would simply decide what he thought the law should be and annouce that it was the "general law."

Is it ironic that a professor at Jerry Falwell's law school would be advocating for pure judicial activism? For a Judge to decide on his own to ignore the legislative enactments of a given state just because of his personal assessment of what the law should be is the core criticism people like Falwell make against what they view as judicial activism. I guess it is not activist for a judge to impose his own view of the law if that view conforms to Falwell's.

Perhaps though, Professor Tuomala is speaking of a greater law. Perhaps he is speaking of a form of natural law or a law as provided by the creator. What then, would be the sources that federal judges are to consult to find the law to be applied in diversity cases? The Ten Commandments, perhaps? Maybe the Old and New Testaments? I think that is a fair conclusion given that Dr. Falwell is promising that if graduates of Liberty University Law "wind up as judges, they'll be presiding under the Bible."

I believe that there is great wisdom in the Bible. Nonetheless, it seems that such wisdom is not particularly relevant to many of the decisions that a federal judge deciding diversity cases has to make. What exactly, is the Ten Commandments' take on the effect of contributory neglience in a personal injury action? What does the New Testament have to say about minority shareholder rights in a closely held corporation? Does the Old Testament address the issue of the statute of limitations in a libel case?

Professor Tuomala is surely correct when he notes that his view of Erie is outside the mainstream of legal thought. Indeed, it is outside the orbit of Saturn.

I hope that the graduates of Liberty Law School are given the opportunity to take the bar exam. Indeed, I do no think that graduating from an accredited law school, or any law school for that matter, should be a requirement for practicing law as long as one can demonstrate sufficient legal knowledge and ethical standards.

Given what at least one of their professors is teaching, I wish Liberty graduates good luck on the bar exam. They may need it.

Walking Backwards

For the past decade under the Sanctions Regime Iraq did not offer its oil on the commodities market. The Occupation-Resistance and hypothetical Reconstruction regimes will not result in Iraqi oil entering the spot market in the forseeable future.

Iran does not offer its oil on the commodities market. Approximately sixty percent of Iranian crude is sold sold in Asia. Iran sells its oil under long-term deals with Shell, British Petroleum, TotalFinaElf, etc., and directly to independent refineries, again, under long-term agreements. Iran is a dependable long-term energy exporter.

Third Army was engaged in a full scale attack along an eastern axis on the Siegfried Line. In two days it disengaged and executed a pivot to advance rapidly along a northern axis and relieve encircled forces (Battle of the Bulge). The pivot needed only the code word "nickle" to execute.

UN forces were encircled at Pussan. In one day UN forces executed a complex amphibious assault and executed a theater-scale pivot to flank the North Korean forces and relieve encircled forces (Inchon landing). The pivot cost only 200 UN forces killed and wounded to execute.

A lot of garbage has been written about some New American Way of War, but most of it is cover for generational competition (there is a publish-or-perish regime in military academia too), marketing collateral from technology vendors, and golly-gee-invincibility messaging for the Hill and media. What's new is the current state of the relationship between fire and maneuver, the changing nature of close air support, the compression of the sensor to shooter loop, and important coalition and jointness issues, and as I pointed out earlier in the essay The Importance of ... Doing Nothing, the strategic reality that the US is engaged in something profoundly different from the first Gulf War, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

But what is the strategic reality? The Afgan campaign was reaction to provocation, resulting in basing agreements in Central Asia. The Iraq campaign eliminated the organized military on the western boarder of Iran, and transformed Iraq into a secure base of operations for the forward-deployed CENTCOM. Both campaigns sold domestically and multilaterally, the means were accepted by the markets even though the ends were ambiguous. Catalogs of war rationals have been assembled and critically reviewed elsewhere. Similarly, catalogs of situational analysis and exit strategies have been assembled and critically reviewed elsewhere.

Prior to the Atta Provocation the defining military conflict of the Bush Regime was the Incident of April 2001 (Hainan incident), involving a US SIGINT asset (EP-3E) performing in-shore surveillence and a PRC Air Interceptor asset (F-8) performing coastal defense. Under the Clinton Administration the Principals Committee's China policymaking process was bottom-up and the controlling policy constructive, strategic partnership. Under the Bush Regime the Principals Committee's China policymaking process is top-down and the controlling policy the China Threat theory.

Asian industrialization requires access to sources of fossil fuel. Access to sources of fossil fuel requires that a policy of hegemony by one or more non-Asian states, manifesting as "containment" or "encirclement", and necessarily affecting the latent ability to attain the policy goal of winning, or at least not loosing a hi-tech war, fail. A "containment" or "encirclement" policy that is real, must attempt to manage China's access to the sources of fossil fuel.

I won't bother to restate NeoCon Conspiracy theory, but if the tip of the spear plunges west, then they do control the apparatus of the state. But if the tip of the spear plunges east, and nuclear weapons related programs or funds-Hammas doesn't float your boat, and the US import oil stream isn't scheduled to be re-sourced to newly "liberated" flow points, then please ... walk backwards and find the point of origin, where this fire began, and who set it.

This is a companion piece to It's not about "gay marriage.".., on the covert motivations of factions within the Bush regime.

Strong and Getting Stronger

Via Atrios we find that Stephen Roach, chief economist of Morgan Stanley, is more than a little pessimistic about the U.S. economy:

Stephen Roach, the chief economist at investment banking giant Morgan Stanley, has a public reputation for being bearish.

But you should hear what he's saying in private.

Roach met select groups of fund managers downtown last week, including a group at Fidelity.

His prediction: America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic ``armageddon.'' ...

Roach sees a 30 percent chance of a slump soon and a 60 percent chance that ``we'll muddle through for a while and delay the eventual armageddon.''

The chance we'll get through OK: one in 10. Maybe.

In a nutshell, Roach's argument is that America's record trade deficit means the dollar will keep falling. To keep foreigners buying T-bills and prevent a resulting rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will be forced to raise interest rates further and faster than he wants.

The result: U.S. consumers, who are in debt up to their eyeballs, will get pounded.

I, for one, certainly would not want to have any adjustable rate debt right now. It is hard to see how rates can avoid going up and going up fast.

Lots of folks took out low payment, adjustable rate mortgages in order to be able to afford a larger house than they otherwise would have been able to buy. Roach says that half of all mortgages are adjustable and therefore rate sensitive.

When the rates on those ARMs go up, the homeowners will be need to find additional disposable income to make their increased mortgage payments. It is hard to see where that income will come from. Wages are stagnant. Roach notes that "Americans are already spending a record share of disposable income paying their interest bills." When rates go up, those interest charges will rise. The fall of the dollar will increase the price of many everyday items people buy at WalMart. Rising rates and rising prices will soak up whatever disposable income consumers may now have.

If homeowners can't make their soon to be rising mortgage payments, there are nothing but bad choices left. They can declare bankruptcy. They can default and have their homes forclosed. They can try to negotiate a deed in lieu of foreclosure and lose their house but avoid the stigma of bakruptcy or foreclosure.

The best option may be to try to sell the house. The trouble with that option is that many homewoners have little or no equity in their homes. Lenders quit requiring subtantial down payments some time ago. The trend towards using refinancing as a means to fund current consumption combined with the rise of home equity lines as a form of consumer debt will mean that, after transacations costs, homeowners may not realize the amount of their debt when they sell their homes. In addition, I suspect that it has been very low interest rates that have to some degree supported high real estate values. When rates go up, the value of real estate may well fall.

All in all, there may be storm clouds on the economic horizon. If you are in law school, you might want to consider taking that class in bankruptcy. That is one area that looks bullish.

State Dinners

A week before the Atta Group carried out their provocation operation I attended a State Dinner in the Southern Cone. It was in Montevideo, and the President of the Republic and luminaries mingled with the visiting ICANN conference attendees. Then we all went off to watch a tango exhibition held just for us.

Yesterday the President of Chile declined to attempt to order the political and economic elites of the Southern Cone to pass through metal detectors in order to attend a State Dinner. It was a condition of the Bush Administration that all who draw nigh bare their necks.

Chile is a freer country than the United States. In Chile the political and economic elites will not bare their necks in order to dine with the President. In the United States the political and economic elites don't even question the demand -- even the Democrats running against the Bush Administration submitted without protest to "security wanding" inorder to travel by air, while campaigning for president of the land of the free, the home of the brave.

God I hope the traveling White House sycophants press corp drank the water.

It's not about "gay marriage."..

It's much, much worse.

Today I've been sidelined from house renovating work which has sucked away much of my blogging time last week by a small bug bite which turned into a large infection which in turn may have spread to my joint. So hello, Couch.

On my first spin through the Yahoo news aggregator, I ran across this AP article on conservative "Christians" urging the masses to take a better look at the "real" problem with marriage today, most of which has little to do with gays seeking the benefits of matrimony.

Referenced in the article was one Bryce Christiansen, a Southern Utah University English professor who writes frequently about conservative family issues. Sending out the Googling monkeys to gather more info on Christiansen, I ran across the Howard Center website, a purported "pro-family" organization which puts out the monthly "publication", "The Family in America." Christiansen's latest article, "Why Homosexuals Want What Marriage Has Now Become," essentially boils down to this:

Once defined by religious doctrine, moral tradition, and home-centered commitments to child rearing and gender complementarity in productive labor, marriage has become a deracinated and highly individualistic and egalitarian institution, no longer implying commitment to home, to Church, to childbearing, to traditional gender duties, or even (permanently) to spouse. Gone is the productive husband-wife bond defined by mutual sacrifice and cooperative labor, replaced by dual-careerist vistas of self-fulfillment and consumer satisfaction. That homosexuals now want the strange new thing marriage has become should surprise no one: contemporary marriage, after all, certifies a certain legitimacy in the mainstream of American culture and delivers tax, insurance, life-style, and governmental benefits—all without imposing any of the obligations of traditional marriage (which homosexuals decidedly do not want). Thus, while the attempt to deny homosexuals the right to marry is understandable and even morally and legally justified, such an attempt is probably foredoomed if it does not lead to a broader effort to restore moral and religious integrity to marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Christiansen, and most of the other contributors to TFIA are only marginally concerned about same sex marriage; their real goal is rolling back the last 40 years of the Women's Right movement, ending no-fault divorce, and defunding international family planning. (All of it, not just anything abortion related, but preventative population control as well.) They also believe that generous pension benefits, Social Security and daycare facilities have led to the breakdown of the intergenerational family, as seniors are no longer dependent on the goodwill of their grown children, and can't be exploited as child caregivers.

I never understood why poor and middle-class Fundies supported the massive tax cuts of the Reagan and Bush years, particularly those which overtly favor the very wealthy. But another TFIA contributor and Howard Center BoD member, David Hartman, argues that the only way to reverse Europe's declining birth rate is by eradicating the welfare state. His eight point plan for a Stronger, more Populous Europe (and America, as well) includes:

Restoring primacy to marriage and family by repudiating policies that make the welfare state the surrogate parent of the child and the surrogate husband of the woman.

Restoring religion to a respected place in society, so allowing it once again to reinforce a family-centered morality, particularly in the education of children.

Encouraging women to devote themselves to child rearing rather than employment, and helping men to accept the challenge of providing for their wives and children.

Relentlessly cutting the welfare state, so reducing the tax burden it imposes on families and so ending the government intrusion into domestic matters that families can and should handle by themselves.

Replacing the old-age pension and health-care programs of the welfare state with individual and family savings accounts owned and managed by individual families for their own benefit.

Ending welfare-state programs that give benefits to unwed mothers and improvident retirees by taxing young families.

Reversing policies that sustain present prosperity by saddling future generations with the responsibility for deficits in trade and in government budgets.

Ending in both social and tax law the discrimination that denies to married couples the rights of any other partnership and excuses them from the obligations.

I highly recommend Progressives spend some time in the archives of the Howard Center and similar conservative "pro-family" websites. We tend to think that the "values war" is simply gay marriage, abortion and school prayer. Truth is, we could completely capitulate on all of these, and it would merely be a drop in the bucket.

Outlawing TIVO

I post this not just for general consumption but especially for my brother, Mike.

I spoke to him on election night and he remarked that he wished he could vote for TIVO for President because TIVO had done more to improve the quality of his life than any politician. Hey Mike, did you know that in a post election orgy of payoffs to its corporate sponsors, the GOP is trying to outlaw TIVO?

Via Tapped comes the following report from Technology Review:

Do you like fast-forwarding through commercials on a television program you’ve recorded? How much do you like it? Enough to go to jail if you’re caught doing it? If a new copyright and intellectual property omnibus bill sitting on Congress’s desk passes, that may be the choice you'll face.

How can this be possible? Because language that makes fast-forwarding through commercials illegal—no doubt inserted at the behest of lobbyists for the advertising industry—was inserted into a bill that would allow people to fast forward past objectionable sections of a recorded movie (and I bet you already thought that was OK). And that’s but one, albeit scary, scenario that may come to pass if the Intellectual Property Protection Act is enacted into law...

Democrats are looking for a winning message. "Don't outlaw TIVO" is a good start. Personally, I prefer a more general statement:

What I watch or don't watch, what I read, how I worship, who I love, and what I think ain't nobody's business but my own.

Update:

Kevin at Lean Left documents some aspects of the proposed legislation that extend far beyond outlawing TIVO. Please read it.

If the special interests kill the fair use doctrine, as seems to be their intent, critical examination of literature, art, politcs, and science will become slow and difficult. Even blogging will be a lot harder if the law does not permit us to quote from copyrighted material without permission. Kevin is rightly outraged by the effort to destroy fair use.

Edited to make the last line of the main post more concise.

Looking For Avedon?

If any of you are looking for Avedon Carol's The Sideshow, it has a new home. Fix your bookmarks and blogrolls please. The new address is http://sideshow.me.uk.

If any of you are not looking for Avedon Carol's The Sideshow (and have not already found it), do yourself a favor and go on over there now. It is essential, everyday reading.

More Vioxx Liability Issues

I previously discussed the possibility that legislation would be enacted providing that FDA approval would shield drug manufacturers from tort liability. In particular, I wondered whether new legislation would insulate Merck from liability for Vioxx-related heart attacks and deaths by virtue of FDA approval of the drug.

Rea, in comments, pointed out that such a liability shield is already in place in Michigan. Michigan statute MCL 600.2946(5) provides:

In a product liability action against a manufacturer or seller, a product that is a drug is not defective or unreasonably dangerous, and the manufacturer or seller is not liable, if the drug was approved for safety and efficacy by the United States food and drug administration, and the drug and its labeling were in compliance with the United States food and drug administration's approval at the time the drug left the control of the manufacturer or seller."

The proposed federal tort reform measures do not go that far. Senate bill S.607 has provisions that, if enacted, would serve to limit, but not eliminate, Merck's liability in Vioxx litigation. The first limitation is a damages cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages. S. 607 provides that:

In any health care lawsuit, the amount of noneconomic damages recovered, if otherwise available under applicable Federal or State law, may be as much as $250,000, regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of separate claims or actions brought with respect to the same occurrence.

A health care lawsuit is defined, inter alia as:

The term `health care lawsuit' means any health care liability claim concerning the provision of health care goods or services ... brought in a State or Federal court ... against a ... manufacturer ... or seller of a medical product, regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim is based ..

A medical product includes any "drug or device intended for humans...".

If that bill passes, non-economic damages will be limited to $250,000 in Vioxx cases.

In addition, S. 607 also prohibits the award of punitive damages for any drug, such as Vioxx, that received FDA approval:

No punitive damages may be awarded against the manufacturer or distributor of a medical product based on a claim that such product caused the claimant's harm where--

(A)(i) such medical product was subject to premarket approval or clearance by the Food and Drug Administration...

Those limitation are particularly significant with regard to Vioxx. Vioxx is a pain reliever often prescribed for arthritis. Many arthritis sufferers, and presumably many Vioxx users, are older and may be at or near retirement age. Retired people do not have much earned income. Lost earnings damages in a Vioxx case are likely to be relatively small.

Vioxx is claimed to cause heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths. In the event of sudden cardiac death, there will be few if any medical expenses.

Thus, of the elements of damage available in a sudden cardiac death of a retired person due to Vioxx, the lost wages are likely to be small, medical expenses may be non-existent, punitive damages are barred, and the non-economic damages will be limited to $250,000. Not to worry, Merck will still have to pay for the funeral.

Limiting Merck's liability for non-economic damages in Vioxx litigation is not without irony.

One of the main elements of non-economic damages is pain and suffering. A person suffering a non-fatal heart attack as a result of Vioxx is likely to endure a substantial amount of pain and suffering.

One justification put forth for limiting pain and suffering awards is that the amount of the award is subjective. Tort reformers often argue that there is no empirical measure of the monetary value of pain and suffering. As a result, they argue, pain and suffering awards look more like a lottery than a measurement of compensation.

When we want empirical measurements of value, usually we look to markets. Markets express the collective opinion of the value of a good or service. Where can we look for a market-based value of pain and suffering?

Well, Vioxx was prescribed, in part, to relieve the pain of arthritis. Merck offered Vioxx for sale and consumers decided whether or not the pain relief it provided was worth the price. Those transactions establish a market price for relief of arthritis pain. If pain and suffering is not capable of empirical measurement through markets, then Merck would have had no customers for Vioxx.

Thus, the very existence of a market for Vioxx undercuts the premise of the argument for a statutory limit on pain and suffering damages.

As I said, the Vioxx example is not without irony.

iitssikohkitsimio'pistsi

Unanimous. The Supreme Court of Canada opined that ABA is "novel, controversial, experimental and not a medically necessary service." The Supreme Court of Canada also opined that a provincial government's refusal to fund a medically necessary service that was neither novel, controversial, or experimental, had not violated the Charter of Rights equality guarantees for the disabled.

The first bit amounts to a finding that research on the treatment of autistic spectrum disorders is still at the swimming-with-dolphins stage (experimental), disputed by disapointed tuna (controversial), and today's date is sometime between 1936 and 1956, an "Idiot's Guide to Operant-Conditioning" has not yet found a friendly publisher (novel), and medical necessity has not yet discovered the immediate value of quality of life, or the lifetime value of early intervention -- in short, that WIC and Headstart and all variations on those themes are terra incognito.

This last bit gets Jamie Cameron excited. He could care less about the substantive issue, he doesn't want the Court to "constitutionalize the health-care system." For Jamie the real issue is power, who gets to make policy -- the illusory war of shadows fought in the clouds. Jamie needs sick children to score a point in the air war. He teaches at York Law. He should be doing time at Fenbrook Institution where he would at least harm no children.

There are more cases moving forward in the Canadian courts, but make no mistake, Friday was not a good day for disability rights in a part of North America. Ignoring the Goober v Crown nonsense above, the real issue was cost. Utilitarianism. A theory of justice flexible enough to allow any minority claim to be subordinated to the greatest good for the greatest number. European cannibalism with a bow tie and vest coat. As Sabrina Freeman, a POA remarked Pierre Elliot Trudeau's vision of a just society died today.

For those that relish them, two cases to dine out on: Queen v. Dudley and Stephens and U.S. v. Holmes. I can't find a URL for the latter. Reader Aid Please.

The title is "where we have a black door", a Siksika term for the Supreme Court of Canada.

A Message in a Yacht?

Republicans tried to sneak a provision into the Omnibus Budget Bill that would have permitted the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate and House Budget Committees, and anyone they designated, to gain access to the tax returns of any American.

Democrat Kent Conrad caught the provision and started making a stink. At first, Republicans tried to say that the provisions was a simple error but it soon became known that the provision was the work of Republican Ernest Istook.

Republicans then tried to distance themselves from the measure. For instance, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa noted that the provision would "bring us back to the doorstep to the days of President Nixon..."

Is it possible that the GOP Congress is trying to send a message to President Bush? Consider that the very same spending bill also contained a provision setting aside more than two million dollars to repurchase the Presidential Yacht, Sequoia.

Here is a photo gallery of the yacht.

Many Presidents used the Sequoia until it was sold in 1977. No President is more associated with the Sequoia than Richard M. Nixon. This Sequoia preservation site notes that Nixon used the yacht more than any other President.

The Sequoia has a one particular place in history:

President Nixon decided on board the Sequoia on August 5, 1974 to resign the Presidency and it was also upon the Sequoia this evening that he informed his family of the decision to resign . Usually, on each cruise, the President had two drinks of 20 year old Ballantine Scotch on the rocks , however this night, he told the crewmember for the first and only time to "Leave the bottle"... In the dark and alone (except for the bottle of scotch) President Nixon sat in the main Salon playing on the piano "God Bless America".

So, do you think the Congress is trying to send a message to President Bush? Nah, me neither.

37 tons of ... yellowcake (II)

A single, unvetted walk-in. There must be sixty gazillion "news" items that Iran is flushing 37 tons of 'yellowcake' (U3O8) into uranium hexaflouride gas (UF6). A press holiday courtesy of Colin and Condi.

Javier Solana went on record in response:

"At this point, the Iranians do not have any nuclear weapons, so it's impossible to use the missiles with nuclear weapons.

So I'm going to give this the coverage it merits.

Two penguins walk into a bar...a third penguin says "You'd have thought the second one would have seen it."

A penguin walks into a bar, goes to the counter, and asks the bartender, "Have you seen my brother?" The bartender asks, "I don't know, what does he look like?"

The Pope goes to visit the Seven Dwarfs who are drinking in a bar. As he is finishing his speech on comparative religions, Dopey raises his hand to ask a question.

"Mr. Pope, are there any dwarf nuns in Rome?".

"No Dopey," responds the Pontiff, "there are not".

"Mr. Pope, are there any dwarf nuns anywhere in Italy?", Dopey questions.

"No Dopey," chuckles the Pope, "there are no dwarf nuns in Italy."

"Mr. Pope," Dopey asks pleadingly, "are there any dwarf nuns anywhere in the world?"

"No Dopey," the Pope says sadly, "there are no dwarf nuns anywhere in the world."

And softly in the background the six remaining dwarves start chanting,

"Dopey kissed a penguin, Dopey kissed a penguin."

That about sums up the "news" on Iran's secret nuclear weapons program. Who would have thought that the US would fabricate ... er ... find a glowing gun within days, plus or minus, of any deal made at the November IAEA meeting. The odds on that are what?

---

---

Oh. Least I forget. Blindly googling about I found that Slow Boat Nitwits for Fables Corsi is in the "Free Iran" vanguard, the bits that make an effort to not be overtly connected to Iran's Moonies, the MEK. Someone should throw a suitably embroidered slipper at Duncan and Matt that they may not want to go yacheting with Skipper Corsi. The cheerful volk at Debka Files are already working out the first strike taskings.

Prior readings: Iranian Nuclear Fuels, Inc. and 37 tons of ... yellowcake.

National Debt

Our current national debt, as of November 17, is $7,443,751,916,595.72.

There will be about 131 million individual tax returns filed in 2004. If you are one of those filers, your share of the debt is about $57,000.

While $7.4 trillion in debt may seem like a lot, the keepers of the national credit card have decided to increase the limit by an additional $800 billion. The GOP will now have the ability to borrow up to $8.2 billion. You can be sure that they will borrow every penny of it. After all, it is you and not just them who have to pay that money back, with interest.

President Bush was pleased to receive the news that his credit limit has increased:

The White House issued a statement saying the president planned to sign the bill, calling it "important to protect the full faith and credit" of the U.S.

How did we get gto this point? I located a very useful site at the Treasury Department that provides year by year data on the national debt.

It took us 190 years (1791-1981) and thirty-nine Presidents to accumulate our first trillion dollars of debt.

It took Ronald Reagan's administration only four years to double the debt to $2 trillion dollars. By the end of the Reagan years (September 1988 actually), our debt stood at $2.6 trillion, about two thirds of which had accumulated in Reagan's eight years.

George Herbert Walker Bush kept on borrowing. In only four years, his administration ran up an additional $1.4 trillion of debt. Late in the Bush I term (September 1992), we reached the four trillion dollar mark.

In the twelve years of Reagan and Bush I, we quadrupled the national debt.

The national debt continued to increase under Bill Clinton but the rate of increase slowed greatly. Measuring from September 30, 1992 through September 30, 2000, the following yearly amounts were added to the debt (figures in billions):

1993 $347

1994 $281

1995 $281

1996 $251

1997 $189

1998 $113

1999 $130

2000 $18

The total increase in the debt in over the eight Clinton years was $1.6 trillion.

On the eve of George W. Bush's inaugural, the debt was $5.7 trillion. With the Congress raising the debt limit to $8.2 trillion, George W, Bush will soon have borrowed $2.5 trillion on your tab. Kash at Angry Bear notes that the increase in the debt limit will be sufficient for only two years.

Last year we added $596 billion to the national debt. For purposes of comparison, the cummulative debt from 1791 through 1975 was $576 billion.

There really is no end in sight. Howard Dean is fond of saying that "You can't trust Republicans with money..."

The history of the national debt suggests that he is right.

Four Word Description

The index of leading economic indicators fell for the fifth consecutive month in October:

The index of leading U.S. economic indicators fell 0.3 percent in October, a fifth consecutive drop, signaling the economy may not accelerate in coming months.

The decline in the Conference Board's gauge of how the economy will perform over the next three to six months follows a revised 0.3 percent decrease in September that was lower than originally reported. The index has been falling since June.

The dollar is falling off a cliff:

After holding in a trading range all year, the dollar has been swooning again since Election Day.

The euro climbed as much as 4 cents in recent weeks, hitting a record $1.3074 on Thursday, before slipping back to $1.2953.

The dollar also hit a seven-month low vs. the yen before firming a bit.

The timing of this latest bout of dollar weakness isn't merely coincidental, economists say. President Bush's re-election, along with bolstered Republican majorities in Congress, suggest that tax cuts will continue to take precedence over deficit reduction.

Congress just passed a bill allowing the administration to add an additional $800 billion of debt to the nation's credit card, bringing the limit to $8.2 trillion.

If you had to give a four word description of the current economy, what would it be?

How about "strong and getting stronger?"

One size kills all or Nits make lice

Something John Abizaid said recently was interesting.

The coalition and the Iraqi government will not tolerate temporary alliances of convenience. Once you align yourself with the insurgents, you've crossed the line and you go on the list. And the only way off the list is to be killed or captured. link

It is interesting for several reasons. First, its false on its face. The Sadr Affair was resolved with the principle Sadr staff and its men under arms neither killed nor captured. Second, if true its failed on its face. The number of daily incident reports (homicides, attempted homicides, assaults against persons, assaults against property) that conclude with "suspects killed or captured" is a small fraction of the total, and the diference between incidents opened and incidents closed with "suspects killed or captured" is diverging, not converging. Third, if true and successful, it is ... extravagantly wasteful.

From men who take paid work (rare in Iraq) to plant IEDs to groups of men who are "weekend warriors" or participate in municipal or politicial militias for occasional operations, there are a lot of "opfors" who, under some conditions, would not self-articulate as "forces" nor initiate "ops". If John Abizid isn't managing those conditions then he isn't doing the job his seniors, every officer who's ever sat on a promotion board that John Abizid's paperwork crossed, entrusted him to do, if he got the central chair at a waging war desk. There are murders, torturers and xenophobes -- psychopaths -- running around with weapons in both the coalition, and anti-coaltion forces. Abizid has put every "temporarily aligned with" person on the dead-or-alive list, which means he's also put every Army nurse, every graves registration clerk, every cook on the same list. If Abu Musab al-Zarqawi dropped the beheadings and all the rest of the medieval drama, and just adopted the rules of engagement of John Abizid, only the style of execution would change.

What do you call conducting operations to kill or capture persons or groups who have in the past conducted military operations, and who may again in the future, but who pose no threat in the present situation. The daily sitrep for "foo" is "non-threat" and the day's tasking is "kill or capture foo".

Pursuit of the enemy down to the last man standing, no matter where they are situated, no matter how hopeless or ineffective they may be. Westmorland didn't do that in Nam. Neither did MacArthur or Ridgway in Korea. Neither did Ike or Monty in Europe. It is as if the mode of operations has shifted from war to dirty war, or Milton Chivington has returned from the grave, ready to kill nits, because they become lice.

A return to taxation without representation

Yesterday, the lefty blogosphere was humming over the Bush Administration floating a trial balloon on tax reform; Essentially, more tax cuts for the rich (eliminating taxes of investment income), while removing current deductions which tend to favor the middle class and small business.

Much of the focus was on the proposed elimination of the deduction for medical insurance premiums for businesses. While the implications of this change would be huge, its impact would mostly be non-specific to any region.

The other change floated was the elimination of the deduction for state and local income taxes. My first thoughts when I heard this was, wow, one more way to whack the Blue states. Of course, it took little time to prove my suspicion correct. The following information is from the Tax Policy Center, from the last year data was made available (2001.)

Looking at the top third (n=17), twelve states are stongly Blue, two Purple, and the remaining three are strongly Red. In the bottom third (n=17), including states with no state and local income taxes, five states are Blue, the remaining twelve are Red.

What does this mean for tax purposes? If we take an average single NYC resident who makes 50K, they currently pay about $5000 in state and local taxes. If their federal tax bracket works out to about 25%, removing that deduction would amount to a tax increase of $1,250.

Of course, we all know where those extra taxes will end up, and it's not in NY or any other Blue state.

Update: Eric reminds me that this may shed new light on the term "Redcoat."

Wall Street's Bonanza

Kevin Drum has been exploring the liberarian and conservative parts of the web in an effort to gauge reactions to partial privitazation of Social Security. He writes a cryptic note:

As near as I can tell, privatization doesn't seem to make sense on any level (including the conspiracy theory level that it's just a payoff to Wall Street, by the way).

Well, really, the point ablout Wall Street is sort of obvious. How much would it cost mutual fund companies to administer 100,000,000+ plus seperate accounts each with account values of less than $1000.00?

Assume a worker making $35,000 per year puts 2% of wages in a private account. That would result in an account of about $58 after the first month and $700.00 after the first year. If the mutual fund company charges an annual fee of 1% (and my funds are with Vanguard which charges substantially less), then the fund will have yearly income from each account of less than $7.

From that money, the fund has to comply with SEC regulations, prepare and send send out a prospectus for each account, prepare and send out quarterly and annual reports as well as account statements and tax statements for each fund held.

The fund must also pay for trading costs, fund managers, computers, lawyers, accountants, office space, executives, complicance officers, clerical employees, insurance, and postage.

I get at more than a dozen items of mail from Vanguard each year. Four times per year, I get account statements. The end of September statement arrived in an envelope with $1.06 of postage. Just mailing out my account statements costs Vanguard $4.24 per year. In addition, they mail me annual fund reports, tax statements, proxy information, and the like. I dollar cost average into a Vanguard account so they must send me a monthly purchase confirmation. Each of those cost about $0.29 for postage. All told, Vanguard spends in excess of $7 per year on my account for postage alone.

Vanguard is able to afford that postage on my account while charging less than half of one percent on the account value (less than 0.20% on the index funds) because I have substantially more than $700 invested.

Does anyone think that mutual fund companies will make a killing off a lot of very small accounts? At least in the first few years, they are likely to lose money on every account if they charge a reasonable fee. The alternative is to charge the actual costs of maintaining the account. If that happens, much of the gain hoped for by investing Social Security funds in the stock market will be lost.

Merck's Vioxx Legal Strategy

The thing I disliked most about representing defendants in civil litigation is that I had no option but to take the case presented. When I am approached by a potential plaintiff, I investigate the case as well as the plaintiff. If the case looks good, if I like the side I will be representing, and if I want to go to war on behalf of that particular person, I accept the case. If any of those elements are missing, I thank the prospective client for their time and return to other matters. Plaintiff's work provides that freedom because any individual plaintiff is unlikely to be a source of repeat business.

It is different in the world of defense work. A big company like Merck provides litigation work not only in the immediate instance but also in the future. If you tell Merck that you do not want their Vioxx litigation becuse you do not want to defend their conduct, or because you think that the litigation is likely to be a disaster, you will not be getting Merck's business in the future. The defense lawyer has few options but to accept the case as it is. That is not all bad. At least Merck will be paying your bills, win or lose. In the Vioxx cases, those bills are likely to be very substantial.

I prefer to have control over which cases I take. I hate losing at trial and prefer to turn down cases I do not think are winners. Other lawyers are happy to represent whichever side is paying the freight. There is nothing wrong with that. There will be plenty of lawyers eager to defend Merck in the Vioxx cases. It will be those lawyers' portfolio to develop a sucessful strategy to minimize the damage done to Merck by the Vioxx cases. What will that strategy look like?

There can be little doubt that developing a succesful defense of the Vioxx cases will present a challenge.

So far, we know the following:

* Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September of 2004 when a study (funded by Merck) of Vioxx's effects with regard to colon polyps revealed that long term use of Vioxx doubled the chances of heart attack, stroke, or other cardiovascular incidents;

* One leading expert estimates that Vioxx is linked to 27,000 sudden cardiac deaths or heart attacks in the period from 1999-2003;

* Internal Merck memos show that Merck had concerns about Vioxx and heart attacks (when compared to other drugs) dating from the mid to late 1990s;

* Despite those concerns, Merck never designed and funded a study to directly test Vioxx for heart problems;

* In 2000, four years before Merck pulled Vioxx, its Chief Researcher "stated the cardiovascular events 'are clearly there' and called it a 'shame'."

* A memo to Merck's sales force addressing how to handle doctor's inquiries about Vioxx and cardiac risks was entitled "Dodge Ball";

* Meetings at which decisions about whether or not to conduct research studies into Vioxx and cardiac problems was attended by members of Merck's marketing department. The marketers were against conducting any such study as they "apparently feared it could send the wrong signal about the company's confidence in Vioxx, which already faced fierce competition from a rival drug, Celebrex";

* The NY Times reports:

In 2001, Dr. Deepak L. Bhatt, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, proposed to Merck a study of Vioxx in patients with severe chest pain. Merck declined, saying the patients proposed for the study did not reflect typical Vioxx users. In Dr. Bhatt's view, the company feared what it might find if it directly examined the dangers of Vioxx...

"They should have done a trial like this," Dr. Bhatt said. "If they internally thought this drug was safe in patients with heart disease, there was no reason not to do it."

* Vioxx was critical to Merck's business. It provided $2.5 billion sales for a company with expected revenue of about $20 billion. In addition, as the Times reports:

Analysts say, however, that the success of Vioxx was critical to Merck. The patents on several popular Merck drugs expired in 2000 and 2001, opening them to generic competition. Merck badly needed Vioxx to replace those lost sales, said Michael Krensavage, a drug industry analyst at the investment bank Raymond James & Associates. "Vioxx was Merck's savior, it's as simple as that."

* A study in 2000 showed that patients taking Vioxx had five times as many heart attacks as patients taking another pain reliever (naproxen). Merck decided to attribute that differential to naorpoxen having beneficial cardiac properties rather than to Vioxx having harmful effects.

Those are not welcome facts for the attorneys charged with developing a legal strategy for Merck. Nonetheless, not all the evidence will be harmfull. Merck's lawyers will develop a strategy that may well be effective. Four possible elements of that strategy are below.

Attack Causation
The fact that someone had a heart attack while taking Vioxx is insufficient to impose liability on Merck. The plaintiff has the burden of proving that Vioxx caused the heart attack. Statistical evidence that Vioxx caused 27,000 additional heart attacks does not prove that Vioxx caused a heart attack in a specific person. People have heart attacks all the time for a lot of reasons unrelated to Vioxx.

If I represented Merck, I would try to develop a cardiac risk profile, independent of Vioxx, for each plaintiff. To the extent that the plaintiff had any risk factors other than Vioxx, a decent argument about causation could be made.

Off the top of my head, the risk factors I would look for include:

* Family medical history. Did any of the plaintiff's parents, siblings or other relatives have cardiac problems?

* Age. Vioxx is commonly used to treat arthritis. Arthritis sufferers skew older. So do heart attack victims.

* Smoking.

* Medical records. What was the cholesterol level of the plaintiff? Was the plaintiff obsese? What was the plaintiff's blood pressure? Has the plaintiff ever had any other cardiac events?

* Lifestyle choices. Did the plaintiff have a healthy diet before the heart attack? Did the plaintiff exercise regularly? Did the plaintiff ever use illegal drugs that pose a risk of heart attack such as cocaine or amphetamines? How much did the plaintiff drink?

* Stress. We all have stress in our lives. A Doctor once asked me if I had any stress in my life. I said that raising an autistic child caused a bit of stress. When he inquired about stress in my professional life, I asked him whether he would think it was stressful to see patients for two years and then have 12 strangers decide if he got paid. I suspect that everyone's life could prompt a similar question. As stress is associated with heart attacks, that is a promising line of inquiry.

Please note that the defense lawyer does not have to prove that any of the above or any combination of the above caused the heart attack. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Any evidence of non-Vioxx related risk factors serves to offer an explantion for a heart attack other than plaintiff's theory. Such evidence undermines the plaintiff's proof of causation.

Many plaintiffs may not enjoy having their lives under a microscope. They may dread having any bad choices they may have made be publicly disclosed. For example, the small town banker may not want it publicly disclosed that he did lots of cocaine when in college and attended a drug rehab program before becoming a pillar of the community. The process of developing the risk factor evidence could well help in lowering the cost of settlement.

Proper Use
Merck may not be liable for harm caused by Vioxx if the plaintiff was taking excessive dosages of the drug or was otherwise not following directions. Vioxx is a pain reliever. If pain medication does not provide full relief, people have a tendency to take more of the medication than has been prescribed. Pharmacy records could be a gold mine of information for Merck. Did the plaintiff ever try to refill the presription before the date when the prior refill should have been exhausted? If so, that suggests overmedication. Did the plaintiff have multiple Vioxx precriptions from different doctors? Did the spouse of the plaintiff also have a Vioxx prescription and did they ever share medications? Did the plaintiff take any other pain medications (particularly Celebrex or other drugs from the sanme family as Vioxx)?

Merck Acted Responsibly
Merck's lawyers will argue that Merck acted responsibly with regard to Vioxx. The fact that Merck voluntarily recalled Vioxx rather than waiting for an FDA recall is a great fact for Merck. The study that demonstrated conclusively that Vioxx had problems was funded by Merck. They did not even wait for the study to be completed before issuing the recall. Those are also great facts.

Merck will argue that it was not possible to design and conduct a study of Vioxx and heart disease (once a relationship beween Vioxx and heart disease had been suggested) that would have taken Vioxx off the market any earlier. They may even be right.

Settle the Bad Ones, Try the Good Ones
Estimates of Merck's potential Vioxx liability are at or above $10 billion dollars. Merck's lawyers do not have to prevent all payments to be successful. If they hold Merck's losses to $5 billion, they may be heroes. One way to minimize the overall payout is to make sure that the first few Vioxx trials are cases that Merck has a good chance to win.

There is nothing like a few well publicized losses by Vioxx plaintiffs to remind the other plaintiffs, and their lawyers, that turning down an settlement offer and going to trial carries significant risk.

My guess is that Merck will settle the cases in which it has the greatest chance of being found liable. They will want to go to trial once they find an elderly, sedentary smoker, with a high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and a family history of heart attack who took double the recommended dosage of Vioxx and ultimately suffered a non-fatal heart attack.

A few wins in cases like that combined with lots of news coverage of the vderdict will reduce the settlement price for lots of other cases.

Merck's lawyers will develop a good strategy for the Vioxx cases. While newspaper headlines may make Vioxx cases seem like slam dunks for the plaintiffs, individual cases always have problems. Do not be surprised if Merck wins a number of Vioxx suits.

Out of state plates

General George Casey went on record that of the more than 1000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in Falluja last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters.

Therefore, either Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Foreign Legionaries are (a) several orders of magnitude better at getting dead than the average, or (b) several orders of magnitude better at bugging out than the average, or (c) as reality-based as Iraq's WMDs, or (d) General George Casey will be home and retired in time for Thanksgiving, or (e) no right-minded journalist in the western hemisphere will touch the quote.

Pick a letter.

Real InfoSec or Overflow error in fetch

MB said "I don't get it." So, there's a ... party that makes a wicked defective product. Defective-by-design you might say. The business model is to maintain this wildly unstable piece of junk by accreting entire Rube Goldbergesque devices onto it, that the manifestations of the latent defects of the product creates the dynamism the market will capitalize upon and flourish. It is contrary to the market plan for the wicked defective product to ever be "fixed", to ever cease to pull along new patches, new work-arounds, new hacks for the failure-of-the-day.

Windows will never be secure. Bush's anti-terrorism product will never produce security. Looking at what works, up close, is looking at what doesn't work, up close and stripped of all its posture and color coded devices for managing the simple "keep buying this" message. Now, back to real programming.

The number of CERT security advisories for the operating system product now pervasive in the Federal and subordinate governments, business, and personal computers is a really big number. Here is what one looks like for a real operating system. First, the code. Because code is art.

Index: usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c,v
retrieving revision 1.74
diff -u -p -r1.74 fetch.c
--- usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c       21 Sep 2004 18:34:19 -0000      1.74
+++ usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c       14 Nov 2004 14:03:12 -0000
@@ -584,7 +584,8 @@ fetch(char *URL, const char *path)
        /* suck in the data */
        signal(SIGINFO, sig_handler);
        while (!sigint) {
-               if (us.size != -1 && us.size - count < B_size)
+               if (us.size != -1 && us.size - count < B_size &&
+                   us.size - count >= 0)
                        size = us.size - count;
                else
                        size = B_size;

To find out what this fixes, see the extended entry, where a real live security notice lives. Look at how prudent the (volunteer) security team is. Now compare that with the public record of any bit of the MicroSoft World, from the "Cyber-Terrorism" wastrels at HSD (Household Soaps n' Doughnuts) down to the unfunded abuse@dsl-isp.net desk that you rely upon to keep your banking information secure. Notice anything?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

=============================================================================

FreeBSD-SA-04:16.fetch                                      Security Advisory

                                                          The FreeBSD Project

Topic:          Overflow error in fetch

Category:       core

Module:         fetch

Announced:      2004-11-18

Credits:        Colin Percival

Affects:        All FreeBSD versions.

Corrected:      2004-11-18 12:02:13 UTC (RELENG_5, 5.3-STABLE)

                2004-11-18 12:03:05 UTC (RELENG_5_3, 5.3-RELEASE-p1)

                2004-11-18 12:04:29 UTC (RELENG_5_2, 5.2.1-RELEASE-p12)

                2004-11-18 12:05:36 UTC (RELENG_5_1, 5.1-RELEASE-p18)

                2004-11-18 12:05:50 UTC (RELENG_5_0, 5.0-RELEASE-p22)

                2004-11-18 12:02:29 UTC (RELENG_4, 4.10-STABLE)

                2004-11-18 12:06:06 UTC (RELENG_4_10, 4.10-RELEASE-p4)

                2004-11-18 12:06:22 UTC (RELENG_4_9, 4.9-RELEASE-p13)

                2004-11-18 12:06:36 UTC (RELENG_4_8, 4.8-RELEASE-p26)

                2004-11-18 12:06:52 UTC (RELENG_4_7, 4.7-RELEASE-p28)

FreeBSD only:   YES

For general information regarding FreeBSD Security Advisories,

including descriptions of the fields above, security branches, and the

following sections, please visit

.

I.   Background

The fetch(1) utility is a tool for fetching files via FTP, HTTP, and HTTPS.

II.  Problem Description

An integer overflow condition in the processing of HTTP headers can result

in a buffer overflow.

III. Impact

A malicious server or CGI script can respond to an HTTP or HTTPS request in

such a manner as to cause arbitrary portions of the client's memory to be

overwritten, allowing for arbitrary code execution.

IV.  Workaround

There is no known workaround for the affected application, although

the ftp(1) application in the FreeBSD base system, and several 

applications in the FreeBSD Ports collection provide similar 

functionality and could be used in place of fetch(1).

V.   Solution

Perform one of the following:

1) Upgrade your vulnerable system to 4-STABLE or 5-STABLE, or to the

RELENG_5_3, RELENG_5_2, RELENG_4_10, or RELENG_4_8 security branch dated

after the correction date.

2) To patch your present system:

The following patches have been verified to apply to FreeBSD 4.8, 4.10,

5.2, and 5.3 systems.

a) Download the relevant patch from the location below, and verify the

detached PGP signature using your PGP utility.

# ftp ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/CERT/patches/SA-04:16/fetch.patch

# ftp ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/CERT/patches/SA-04:16/fetch.patch.asc

b) Execute the following commands as root:

# cd /usr/src

# patch < /path/to/patch

# cd /usr/src/usr.bin/fetch

# make obj && make depend && make && make install

3) IMPORTANT NOTE to users of FreeBSD Update:

FreeBSD Update (security/freebsd-update in the FreeBSD Ports collection)

is a binary security update system for the FreeBSD base system.  It is 

not supported or endorsed by the FreeBSD Security team, but its author

has requested that the following note be included in this advisory:

  FreeBSD Update uses the fetch(1) utility for downloading security

  updates to the FreeBSD base system.  While these updates are 

  cryptographically signed, and FreeBSD Update is therefore immune from

  most attacks, it is exposed to this vulnerability since the files

  must be fetched before their integrity can be verified.

  As a workaround, FreeBSD Update can be made to use the ftp(1) utility

  for downloading updates as follows:

  # sed -i.bak -e 's/fetch -qo/ftp -o/' /usr/local/sbin/freebsd-update

  # freebsd-update fetch

  # mv /usr/local/sbin/freebsd-update.bak /usr/local/sbin/freebsd-update

  # freebsd-update install

VI.  Correction details

The following list contains the revision numbers of each file that was

corrected in FreeBSD.

Branch                                                           Revision

  Path

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELENG_4

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                     1.10.2.28

RELENG_4_10

  src/UPDATING                                              1.73.2.90.2.5

  src/sys/conf/newvers.sh                                   1.44.2.34.2.6

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                 1.10.2.23.2.1

RELENG_4_9

  src/UPDATING                                             1.73.2.89.2.14

  src/sys/conf/newvers.sh                                  1.44.2.32.2.14

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                 1.10.2.21.2.1

RELENG_4_8

  src/UPDATING                                             1.73.2.80.2.29

  src/sys/conf/newvers.sh                                  1.44.2.29.2.27

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                 1.10.2.20.2.1

RELENG_4_7

  src/UPDATING                                             1.73.2.74.2.32

  src/sys/conf/newvers.sh                                  1.44.2.26.2.30

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                 1.10.2.18.2.1

RELENG_5

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                      1.72.2.2

RELENG_5_3

  src/UPDATING                                             1.342.2.13.2.4

  src/sys/conf/newvers.sh                                   1.62.2.15.2.6

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                  1.72.2.1.2.1

RELENG_5_2

  src/UPDATING                                                 1.282.2.20

  src/sys/conf/newvers.sh                                       1.56.2.19

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                      1.62.4.1

RELENG_5_1

  src/UPDATING                                                 1.251.2.20

  src/sys/conf/newvers.sh                                       1.50.2.20

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                      1.62.2.1

RELENG_5_0

  src/UPDATING                                                 1.229.2.28

  src/sys/conf/newvers.sh                                       1.48.2.23

  src/usr.bin/fetch/fetch.c                                      1.58.2.1

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. References



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBnJIEFdaIBMps37IRAm1/AKCISgScX7iQV6689Mm0jVk15pa0EgCgj1Pj

WSxoiyw5dAEC6PcSpMSIgZQ=

=Ikr3

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Note to Ralls + WaPo

You guys read us.

The boy who isn't allowed on Falmouth's schools property during school hours, because he is on the spectrum. The boy who isn't allowed on Portland's schools property during school hours, if accompanied by a parent, because he is on the spectrum.

These are real hardships. Harder than falling off the WaPo syndication list. Harder than getting email that you're going to make go away by removing the presenting problem, rather than handing over consecutive pages over and over again and going for the Pulitzer on the state of "least restrictive environment" and in-home assistance, and the status of spectrum children in the Canadian public heath and educational systems (answer due out Friday) and so on.

Write to us if you want to get real. What you're doing now, both of you, isn't.

Stepping into water

As Sam and Jonah and I entered the clothing store today around lunch time I felt as if we were stepping into water. Something invisible yet pervasive. It was almost sensible, like passing from shadow into light.

Sam has been involuntarily non-serviced by Portland since September 13th, when he and I were turned away because ... it is contrary to policy for POAs to accompany their children beyond the school entrance. Three weeks later his IEP was perfect, except that ... it is contrary to policy for POAs to accompany their children beyond the school entrance.

Today Jonah joined Sam and I. He's been having sleep events for most of the past week, since I put up the Firefox bits on the sidebar, the night after Firefox 1.0 became generally available. Three nights ago he and I spent the wee hours watching La Veuve de Saint-Pierre. Two nights ago it was whatever was on Nickelodeon. Or the reverse. After the better part of a week of sleep deprivation, the variation of importance is how hyperactive Jonah was, and what techniques worked, and what didn't. As I put his socks and shoes on him at the door yesterday MB remarked that his left cheek was pale. I looked. Yup. Pale up to a clear change of coloration, from ear to eye and down to the corner of his mouth, with a sort of rosiola on the frontal margin of the face, extending from below the eye to the mouth, where it merged with the periodic rosiola like markings from pacifier use. Dully I said "Yup. No idea. Slept on the couch, him tucked up behind my back, compression as usual. Bye." And that was that. Or so I thought. The Q and A ritual was repeated at Jonah's school. "Yup. No idea. Sleep event, 2am to dawn. Slept on the couch, him tucked up behind my back, compression as usual. Bye." This morning the drop-off was different. They'd made a call. As mandated reporters. They suspected abuse.

So now the boys and I are ... free. We have to work up an ABA program for two, not one, and embark on the great sea of literacy (Jonah just read back to me from the side of the fridge "big green frog sing ing from the water", only its brown, and he's added the word "moon" before "big", and "sing" is "sing a song") and numeracy in a quiet oared skiff, rather than the big liner that runs noisily through public life.

Its as if we've all just escaped from a BIA boarding school, where control and predation are the real currencies. Corruption isn't simply people skimming profits into their own pockets, it is also the hijacking of schooling, education and special education, and not simply by the Rodents of NCBY.

Oh. We think it was the leather equivalent of pillow face, but that's just a guess. We really don't know, and not knowing constitutes abuse or neglect or both. Jonah's ped isn't playing the game. For non-emergency non-illness visits, the next opening is on December 9th. I was irked by that at first, but then I realized that "defensive medicine" was playing along, and freedom was an alternative.

Jump, Arlen, Jump...

I just realized that Arlen Specter is 74 years old (y/o/b 1930). Is he really contemplating running for re-election in 6 years, at age 80? I know, there are a few old fogies who just don't get it (and a few, in red-turning states, like Byrd, who do,) but generally, most elder statesmen are perfectly content to bask in their emeritus status.

So, should Specter be spurned by his party as chair of the Judiciary, Democrats should lobby far and wide for his defection. Yes, there is little to be gained by abdicating to the loyal opposition, power-wise, but, heck, it's obvious he's powerless anyway, if he is in fact passed over for more conservative pastures.

Tuesday Blog powwow

If you haven't noticed yet, Jim Capozzola of the beloved Rittenhouse Review is all things Santorum residential hijinx. Original scoop is here, update here.

I admit that I'm biased, as Tom , er, Jack, was my campaign field director, but he waxes absolutely poetic on a very difficult subject - executions in Falluja.

Every the science geek after my own heart, Natasha of Pacific Views brings us the latest lowdown on evolution. Yes, it's still the best explanation for the world as we know it, but not surprisingly, 45% of American's think dinosaur skeletons are some liberal conspiracy to undermine "God".

I was going to write today about inflationary pressures as indicated by this morning's release of PPI figures for October, but ended up painting our dining room. Fortunately, Kash at Angry Bear is on the job.

Charles Kuffner gives us a heads-up regarding House Republican scheming over whether to change House rules to allow Majority Leader Tom Delay to retain his leadership position should he be indicted by his local prosecutor. The WaPo has an update on what came of that scheming.

One of my role models is contemplating post-election life sans blog, and I know I'm joined by most of the blogosphere in saying our world will have more than a little less soul. Send Jeanne off with many kind thoughts and coax her to make her hiatus short, for all of our sakes.

ANWAR and the Senate

With the reelection of President Bush, the GOP retaining control of the House, and an enlarged Senate Republican majority, many of the legislative proposals defeated in the last few years may rise again.

Among those porposals will surely be a renewed effort to permit drilling for oil in Alaska's Anwar preserve. In an article about President's Bush's second term priorities, the Desert Sun reports:

With an enlarged majority, Bush will again attempt to get his stalled energy bill passed. The centerpiece of that legislation is "drilling in the ANWAR."

What are the chances that Bush can succeed in getting drilling in ANWAR approved? I think he has he votes.

I presume that Bush will have no trouble getting the provision passed in the House. It passed the House in both 2002 and 2003 and there is no reason to expect a different result in 2005. If the provision is defeated, it will be in the Senate.

In 2002, the administration included the ANWAR provisions in the energy bill. Senate Democrats successfully filibustered that bill.

Having been burned once, in 2003, the GOP included the ANWAR provisions in a budget bill. Senate rules do not permit the filibuster of budget bills. California Senator Barbara Boxer introduced an amendment to strip the ANWAR provisions from the budget bill. The Boxer amendment passed 52-48, thereby killing the drilling measure for that cycle.

Have the changes in the Senate as a result of the 2004 election changed the calculus? In a word, yes.

There are 45 Democrats in the Senate (including Jeffords who voted against ANWAR drilling). Forty of the returning Democratic Senators voted against Anwar drilling in 2003. Three Demcratic Senators, (Inouye and Akaka of Hawaii and Mary Landrieu of Lousiana) voted in favor of drilling in 2003.

Democrats have two new Senators, Obama of Illinios and Salazar of Colorado. Obama is on record opposing drilling in ANWAR while supporting the encouragment of holders of oil leases in the continental US to develop the properties.

Ken Salazar of Colorado's position is less clear to me. His issues page on the environment makes no mention of ANWAR.

Colorado Luis says:

Ken Salazar is second to no one in his defense of the environment. As AG he has made prosecuting environmental crime a top priority -- a serious change from the policies of his predecessor, current Bush Secretary of Interior Gale Norton. He has also fought for protection of in-stream flows and for "basin of origin protection" -- rather arcane water law issues that are very important to the ecology of the rural West.

That sounds good but does not directly address the Anwar issue. Ken Salazar had an opportunity to state clearly that he opposed drilling in ANWAR in a TV interview but left the issue cloudy:

Paul Day: Pete it's been reported that you support oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. True?

Pete Coors: Yes.

Paul Day: Do you favor drilling on the Roan Plateau?

Pete Coors: I'm in favor of doing whatever we can do in this country, in an environmentally sound way, to produce the gas oil that we need to be less dependent on foreign oil. We have technology now, drilling technology, that we didn't have 10 or 20 years ago. I believe we can do it in an environmentally friendly way without disturbing those very sensitive areas, whether it's ANWAR or the Roan, and not only would it be a good thing to do, I think we have an obligation to the people of this state and the people of the country to produce that oil.

Paul Day: Do you support Amendment 37, requiring power companies to produce more amounts of renewable energy?

Ken Salazar: I do because I think that renewable energy is important to help us get rid of our over-dependence on coal and oil. Also, it's good for our economy. It's also good for our environment.

Salazar has also been ambiguous about his position on oil drilling in Colorado's Roan Plateau:

Colorado is experiencing unprecedented levels of applications by the oil and gas industry to drill in the state. The exploration interest has sparked debates about the appropriate use of land in the White River National Forest and the nearby Roan Plateau, which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Salazar said mining and energy development must be “consistent” with local interests. He said a more thorough analysis must be made on the suitability of some public land for exploration and drilling.

Mark Shields says that Salazar is against drilling in ANWAR. Let's assume that Salazar will vote against drilling in ANWAR.

If all returning Democrats maintain their respective positions and Obama and Salazar vote against drilling, the Democrats will have 42 votes to strip the measure from the budget bill. They will need 9 GOP Senators to break ranks.

There are fifty-five Republican Senators. Seven returning Republicans voted against ANWAR drilling in 2003. Those seven are Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mike DeWine of Ohio, John McCain of Arizona, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.

Coleman was on the fence in 2003 and the administration will apply massive pressure to flip him. DeWine is up for releection in 2006 and will also face massive pressure. Even if they lose all seven, the administration has 51 votes unless a new Republican Senator votes against ANWAR drilling or Landreiu, Inoye, or Akaka change their position.

None of the five newly elected Republican Senators are likely to vote against ANWAR drilling. David Vetter of Louisiana is from a oil producing state and is on record as supporting drilling in ANWAR. Similarly, Tom Colburn of Oklahoma is from the oil patch, is a wingnut, and is on record as supporting "opening up Alaska for oil exploration."

Jim DeMint, South Carolina's new Senator, has an issues page that does not include a section on the environment. His energy reform plan calls for increased domestic production including "exploring for domestic energy." DeMint voted for the administration's energy bill, including ANWAR drilling while in the House.

Johnny Isakson, replacing Zell Miller, also voted to permit drilling in ANWAR as a member of the House as did John Thune of South Dakota.

Finally, Mel Martinez of Florida supports the administration Energy bill including oil exploration in Alaska, far from the Florida beaches.

It appears that there are forty-eight Republican votes and three Democratic votes for drilling in Anwar. That is one more than is necessary to enact the policy as long as the measure is attached to a budget bill that prevents a filibuster.

Even if Democrats could prevail upon Inouye and Akaka to switch (I assume that Landrieu is a lost cause and I do not blame her), I presume that the administration could twist an arm or break a knee cap to scare up an additional vote or two.

Democrats need to decide what they want to do about ANWAR. One option is to stand, fight, and lose on the narrow issue of ANWAR. Another option is to try to add provisions that will make the inevitable drilling more environmentally friendly.

My preferred option is to present a comprehensive energy plan as an alternative to the Republican bill and then allow the Republican majority to pass what it will.

The comprehensive plan should set out a road to energy independence for the United States. It should reject the false choice between economic growth and environmental protection and find ways to do both by creating new industries concerned with environmental protection and clean up.

It should be forward looking by calling for investment in new energy technologies such as hydrogen. It should combine new sources of energy with more efficiency and conservation. It should be practical and easily explained.

If any plan can meet those goals, I, for one, am fully prepared to compromise within the party on any specific item (ANWAR, nuclear power, CAFE standards, Gulf drilling, or whatever) to be able to agree on a comprehensive alternative to the Republican plan.

If we take that route, Democrats will not only win elections when the public tires of ineffective Republican policies, but will also have a mandate to enact a set of policies upon attaining power.

Things ANWR

I wrote two pieces on ANWR, one published here, one on the triballaw blog. Here they are again, as here we go again. I've set the time so this appears below Dwight's piece on the current calculus.

1. Akaka Bill (triballaw, 18.11.2003) gee, almost a year ago.

2. Norton opens ANWR and Native Hawi'ian Office in BIA (wampum, 25.01.2004)

Sorry about the length. The point is, to understand why Inoye votes so obviously "wrong" on the Akaka Bill, and why Akaka got the Alaskan Native bill wrong in the first place, and how "big ideas" actually alight on the ground, and what, or who, is crushed by "big ideas" (I've another "big ideas vs Indians" piece in progress), as well as the usual venality present in Hawai'ian and Native Alaskan indigenous politics.

To really get the Alasken congressional delegation to pay attention, the Democrats in the Senate need to look again at the Alaskan Native Claims Act, and chart a course back from a patchwork of municipalities to something either like Treaties or Nunavut. Either way, Alaska becomes a wicked complex place to loot if the ANCA is set aside, or is on plan to set aside when the Dems next hold a majority in the (Treaty making) Senate. This is a specific instance of the general problem for the past 50 years -- the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs is left to "Senators from Indian County (darlings of the Energy companies)", who are mostly in Red States, and erodes the Democratic-Tribal commonality of (some) interests.

It that or trying to stop the Oilers on aesthetic grounds. Recycled material begins.

---

Oki all,

On the subject of modern settlement acts ... Something the googling monkies came up with while researching things worse than the Maine Settlement Act of 1980 ...

I suggest folks go back and re-read Steve Newcomb's "In honor of Tecumseh", posted by Steve Russell to this list under the subject line "Invitation to conspire...." on October 25th. Steve Newcomb didn't mention the Akaka Bill or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act or conflicts of interest between Indian polities, just the doctrines of discovery and plenary power. However just those two are sufficient to put transformation of some Hawai'ians into "Native Americans" into a circular storage facility.

This is long. Please read it and think about the Termination Policy, the Hopi-Dine dispute, and of course modern settlement acts.

[posted to triballaw (ASCII), copied to blog (HTML, linewrap, etc.), and subject to editorial edits such as insertion of links. ebw]

Natives, Senators and Oil
The connection between drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Akaka Bill.

by Anne Keala Kelly

Hours before the war in Iraq officially began on March 19th, the Boxer Amendment stripped a provision from the budget bill that would have allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Had the President announced the beginning of the war sooner, it's unlikely the amendment would have succeeded. Now, as debates about the value of oil intensify,it will become increasingly difficult to keep drilling out of the Refuge. After all, how can we justify risking American lives in the Middle East to secure that region's oil reserves without being willing to drill the wells dry in our own back yard?

This story is about that untapped oil at the top of the world and the surprising connection between it and the Hawaiian Federal Recognition bill, referred to as the Akaka Bill. It's a peek behind the curtain of how the politics of oil can corrupt the politics of native peoples. It shows how the Alaska oil industry has stepped into the Native Hawaiian community to secure Senator Daniel Akaka's support for drilling in the Refuge, and to convince Hawaiians to oppose the Gwich'in people.

The Gwich'in are an Alaska Native tribe fighting to keep the oil industry out of the Refuge. As a federally recognized tribe, the Gwich'in are subject to the plenary powers of Congress, which means Congress has absolute power to make determinations that directly impact their environment and food source. The United States' classification of Hawaiians and how that would affect their political future is part of the debate over the Akaka Bill, which seeks to define them, like the Gwich'in, as federally recognized "Native Americans." Among Hawaiians who oppose the bill, such a definition is viewed as an attempt to extinguish the dual political status Hawaiians have as indigenous people and citizens of an occupied, independent Nation State that was illegally annexed by the US in 1898.

Connections between what is happening with the Gwich'in people, and what may happen with Hawaiians should they choose to go the way of federal recognition, don't end with the plenary powers of Congress or Senator Akaka's vote on drilling. Hawaiians and Gwich'in actually have another critical link in common - that being how Alaska's oil industry has, via the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, influenced Hawaiian politics on the issue of the Akaka Bill. The answer to why this connects the Gwich'in struggle to keep drilling out of the Refuge with Hawaiian debates over the Akaka Bill, is discovered by examining who has power over federal dollars for Hawaiians and who is pressuring them to accept federal recognition.

Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement

Three years ago, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement was organized to help non-profits that provide Hawaiian healthcare, housing, education and cultural programs apply for or keep federal funding. Robin Danner, a Native Hawaiian who, at 36, moved home to Kauai a little more than 4 years ago and led the way to assemble the Council, becoming its first President and CEO. After living 25 years in Alaska with her parents, and brothers and sisters, she brought a working knowledge of how Alaska natives have navigated the path to native corporate and non-profit federal contracts.

Once established, the Council quickly came to include nonprofit powerhouses who handle most of the millions of federal dollars earmarked for Native Hawaiians. It also includes CEOs and trustees from Native Hawaiian trusts like the Queen Lili'uokalani Trust, which has a modest portfolio that benefits Hawaiian orphans, and the billion-dollar Bishop Estates Trust, now called Kamehameha Schools. Since its inception, the Council has become part of the status quo, serving as facilitator of the prestigious Administrative Native American federal contract, which is worth $1.2 million, and directed by Robin's younger sister, Jade Danner. The Council has also received a pledge of $100,000 from Bank of Hawai'i, and other institutional support, including $100,000 from the Inupiat-owned Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.

The need for an organization like the Council became apparent in the wake of the US Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Rice vs. Cayetano, allowing non-Hawaiians to elect trustees to the state agency, Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Since then, funding and tax breaks given to Hawaiian non-profits and trusts have come under legal attack as unlawful, race-based benefits. (See "Rice on Rice," page 17 of this issue of HIJ).

Lesser- known, less well-connected Hawaiian non-profits looking for funding have joined or considered joining the Council, hoping to team up with other non-profits. But what has apparently emerged as the Council's most pressing concern is not what most Hawaiian non-profit organizers were expecting. In September 2002, the Council's 1st Annual Native Hawaiian Conference took place at the Sheraton Waikiki. With a personal visit from Senator Daniel Akaka and videotaped messages from the Hawai'i Congressional delegation that were shown daily, the gathering took the shape of a well-financed sales pitch and rallying cry for the Akaka Bill.

The Council held its second gathering in Waikiki in August 2003. This time the congressional giant himself, Senator Daniel Inouye, addressed several hundred Hawaiians in person, assuring them that there now exists a "rare demonstration of unity" between Hawai'i state, local, and federal lawmakers on the matter of federal recognition. Inouye then went on to urge Hawaiians to do the same and unite behind this bill.

The Alaska Connection

In July of 2001, more than a year before the Council hosted its first convention for Hawaiians, it held the "1st Annual Native Hawaiian-Alaska Native Summit," funded by major Hawai'i banks that hold hundreds of millions of Hawaiian trust dollars. Bank of Hawai'i, First Hawaiian Bank, American Savings Bank and others put up the money for an invitation-only gathering with the stated purpose of discussing management of native trusts, foundations and service agencies. The CEO of the Council, Robin Danner, had proven her ability to gain the cooperation of influential politicians and financial institutions in a very short time, pulling together some of the most distinguished members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. Keynote speakers included Senators Inouye and Akaka; other speakers were then Senator, now Governor of Alaska, Frank Murkowski, Representatives Patsy Mink and Neil Abercrombie, Alaska Representative Don Young, and a videotaped message from Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Senator Stevens, who as pro tempore is third in line to the presidency of the United States, has put his name to the Hawaiian Federal Recognition Bill, which was re-dubbed the Akaka-Stevens Bill in June of this year.

Although Hawaiians are not organized into villages and corporations like the 138 Alaska Native villages and 13 Alaska Native Corporations that comprise the Alaska Federation of Natives, the network of Hawaiian nonprofits now in the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement could be said to be a close imitation. But the Council is either intentionally or unwittingly also mimicking the federation's interest in Alaskan oil money and federal control.

The Gwich'in, The Inupiat, the Oil

Inupiat-owned Arctic Slope Regional Corporation owns five million acres of land, including the Alpine oil field, which is the 10th largest-producing oil field in America. A map of the North Slope shows that millions of acres surrounding the Refuge are dotted by oil-producing fields. Thus far, all drilling has taken place outside of the 5% of the Arctic Coastal Plain known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is where the Porcupine Caribou birthing grounds, sacred to the Gwich'in people, are located. It's estimated that the oil inside the Refuge will take 10 years to deliver and is only enough to sustain U.S. oil consumption for 6 months. So, why are the state of Alaska, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and multi-national oil corporations lobbying the Congress to grant access for drilling the Refuge? And how did drilling inside a national "Refuge" ever become an option?

Settling Native Claims

The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, referred to as ANCSA, is considered by many organizations of indigenous peoples in and outside of the U.S. to be the worst native settlement in modern times. It is also one of the most amended Congressional Acts in the history of the United States. When oil corporations and the State of Alaska realized the substantial wealth and jobs that could be generated from drilling in Prudhoe Bay and the surrounding area, the push was on for a claims settlement. Throughout Alaska, in exchange for extinguishing native title to 90% of their lands, tribes were given what amounted to less than $3 per acre.

In the face of the less-than-generous terms of ANCSA, the Inupiat Eskimos are among a few tribes that have been financially successful strategists. They formed the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and it has paid off. With a rate of growth ahead of the S&P 500 index, last year's revenues through oil and other subsidiaries were about $1.5 billion. Among their many subsidiary corporations is one that maintains a contract with the U.S. to supply fuel to the military, another that provides support services for U.S. military radar systems, a company that operates a plastics manufacturer in Guadalajara, and an office in Venezuela that analyzes that country's oil industry.

But ANCSA was not attractive to all of Alaska's Native tribes, and some communities were split; there were no hearings or votes taken at the villages. Of the 8 Gwich'in villages on the U.S. side of the border, 2 villages opted out of ANCSA and maintained a traditional subsistence life and title to their lands. Like many Federally Recognized tribes, the Gwich'in have a tenuous relationship with the U.S. government.

The Inupiat, on the other hand, have a corporate relationship with the state and federal government. In 1983, Department of Interior Secretary James Watt signed a controversial land exchange with the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation that brought the total acreage of the corporation's contingent subsurface rights in the coastal plain of the Refuge to 92,000. In spite of the stipulation prohibiting development (unless Congress opens the Refuge) the corporation has already made $39 million from speculative lease agreements with Chevron, Texaco, and British Petroleum. In fact, within five years of the 1983 land exchange, efforts were begun in earnest to open the Refuge to drilling. But the Gwich'in people, who live on the south and east border of the Refuge, have put up resistance to every proposal put before Congress and have maintained a grassroots struggle because of the threat to the Porcupine Caribou.

The Inupiat, who own the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, are a coastal people who rely mainly on marine life for their traditional foods; the Porcupine Caribou account for about 10 percent of their diet. But for the Gwich'in, who strategically established their villages along the migratory paths of the Porcupine Caribou herd during the past several thousand years, the caribou are 70 percent of their food. Faith Gemmill, spokesperson for the Gwich'in, said, "The caribou are our family. We made a commitment to protect the caribou and our way of life, and if we are not successful we will perish, too." Other animals that birth and den in the Refuge include grizzly bears, polar bears, and many different species of birds.

The Hawaiian Connection

Before anything can be done to settle Hawaiian claims, it appears that Hawaiians must accept the moniker of being a federally recognized tribe to insure the plenary powers of the U.S. Congress over them as a people. One section of the Akaka Bill allows for a "Hawaiian governing entity" to enter into negotiations with the federal government to settle Native Hawaiian land claims, as was done to/with the Alaska Natives. Plans for a settlement are already being put forth by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, who together with another state agency, Department of Hawaiian Homelands and the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement appear eager to set themselves up as representatives of the Hawaiian people. But the Council has the power at this point because they can lobby for the legislation freely. Whereas, despite the numerous trips Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees have made to D.C. to lobby for the bill, state agencies must at least appear to represent the interests of all residents of Hawai'i.

The motivation for financial support from the Inupiat-owned Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to the Council, though, has come into focus due to a business arrangement between a company called Danner and Associates and an Alaska non-profit group called Arctic Power. Arctic Power is funded by the state of Alaska, oil industry corporations, including Exxon Mobil, and unions with interests in Alaska's oil industry, including the Teamsters. The relationship between Danner and Associates and Arctic Power dates back at least to February 2002. When asked about her role in Danner and Associates, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement CEO, Robin Danner, described it as one of several Danner family initiatives. She then declined a telephone or in-person interview, and stated in an email: "I don't have an ownership interest in it [Danner and Associates], I don't manage it, I've never been paid by it, I've never done any work for it - I can't really tell you much more than that."

A request for an interview with Jade Danner yielded a phone call asking to have questions emailed to her. Question: Are you or have you ever been a paid lobbyist for Arctic Power or any Alaska corporation, specifically with interests in oil development? Answer: "I've never been a 'lobbyist,' paid or unpaid, for Arctic Power or any other Alaska corporation with an interest in oil development. Two years ago, I was contracted by Arctic Power for six weeks to assist the Inupiat people in their efforts to set the record straight and educate the Hawaii public about their position in the ANWR debatee."

Less than two years ago, in March 2002, Jade Danner wrote a letter to the editor of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in response to an op-ed written by Charles Burrows. Burrows, a retired Kamehameha Schools teacher and President of Ahahui Malama I ka Lokahi, a cultural/environmental group on Oahu, criticized Senator Akaka's support for drilling in the Refuge. Akaka has been asked repeatedly about his position on drilling since his visit to Alaska to meet with the Inupiat Eskimoes in 1995, a trip that he credits with changing his vote in favor of drilling. Burrows and others have publicly asked the senator why he hasn't taken the time to visit the Gwich'in to hear their side of the issue, a question that has consistently gone unanswered.

Jade Danner's criticism of Burrows' editorial invoked the kind of rhetoric that confuses native politics with oil politics, lauding Senator Akaka's support for the Inupiat as support for native "self-determination." Public records indicate, however, that she was being paid for writing such letters as part of a contractual agreement with Arctic Power. State of Alaska public records include a copy of an Arctic Power contract signed by Jade Danner on 2/15/02, with no date of termination. It is an agreement to pay Danner and Associates "A flat monthly fee of $5000 for services." Included in the "Scope of Work" section of the contract is: "Development of a Strategic Plan in conjunction with Arctic Power for Hawaii; Monitor and respond to opposing editorials/stories in local news media; Provide periodic updates to Arctic Power about activities and progress in Hawaii; Communicate with Hawaii's Senators' staff to determine how to be most effective in assisting with educating the Hawaiian populace about the facts of ANWR; other projects as may be assigned by Arctic Power," and more.

Staff members from the offices of both Senators Inouye and Akaka say they have no knowledge of Jade Danner being paid to represent drilling in the Refuge. Paul Cardus, Senator Akaka's press secretary said, "No one was aware of her role as a lobbyist, no one met with her to discuss ANWR." He continued, "Jade Danner never met with or spoke to the Senator." Yet, payment from Arctic Power to Danner and Associates, for deflecting criticism from within the Hawaiian community about Senator Akaka's support for drilling, suggests that the senator's staff is aware of the business arrangement between Danner and Associates and the Alaska oil industry, via Arctic Power.

A Danner & Associates ANWR Activity Log lists eight activities undertaken on behalf of Arctic Power. Number seven reads: ". . .Worked to defeat local attempts to use Hawaiian forums as an avenue to pass resolutions opposing Senator Akaka's position on ANWR. Provide appropriate follow-up in communicating action to Senator Akaka's office." One such "Hawaiian forum" was the November 2002 Hawaiian Civic Club Convention, wherein Robin Danner successfully argued against a resolution to support the subsistence rights of the Gwich'in people. She also used the lexicon of native sovereignty struggle, telling the attendees that the matter of drilling in the Refuge is a matter of self-determination for the Inupiat.

With regard to Robin Danner's connection to Arctic Power, when asked if she has ever been financially compensated for efforts done by her on behalf of drilling in the Refuge, through her position as CEO of the Council, she responded, "The answer is clearly no, I have not done any lobbying through CNHA." But in her position with the Council, she billed Arctic Power directly, using a Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement reimbursement request form, for her own travel expenses to attend a Teamster's Convention in Honolulu. Using such a form suggests Arctic Power is well aware of her position at the Council and apparently willing to accept a request for payment with the Council's letterhead on it.

If any of that money was reimbursed directly to the Council, that means Alaska oil lobbying money went into the Council's bank account. If the travel expenses were not reimbursed to the Council, then Robin Danner used Council money to represent Arctic Power at the Teamsters Convention. When asked about this, she explained the Council's reimbursement form as a matter of reverse invoicing for airline coupons, saying that they were "used to attend a regional conference of the Teamsters . . . I was invited to speak at their conference, accepted and did so. Jade did not attend, she did not accompany me, she was not invited."

The Danner and Associates ANWR Activity Log contradicts this and her earlier comment about never having done work for Danner and Associates. Among the activities on the log are: "Prepare and deliver speech to the Teamsters with Presentation of Bowhead Ear Drum to Senator Daniel Akaka. Provide appropriate feedback to Senator Akaka's Office and Arctic Power." The activity log, along with the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement request for travel reimbursement that was signed by Robin Danner on 2/27/02, became part of a $7500 Danner and Associates invoice submitted to Arctic Power in March of 2002, and eventually made its way into Alaska's public records.

Beyond the uncertainties of Hawaiian political identity there remain questions about power and political process. If Alaska's oil industry can reach into the Hawaiian community and make its will known, what other influence does it have in determining the future of the Hawaiian people? As it stands, two politically powerful Hawaiians, with ties to Alaska oil money and two U.S. Senators, have garnered tremendous support for the Hawaiian Federal Recognition Bill and inspired a dearth of support for the Gwich'in and their efforts to keep drilling out of the Refuge. Their economic dealings shine an embarrassing light on the political relationship between the Hawaiian people and Hawaii's Congressional delegation, and chilling similarities between Hawaiians and Alaska Natives. If Federal Recognition can lead to Hawaiians relinquishing claims to any part of Hawai'i, they could end up in a situation like that between the Inupiat and the Gwich'in: corporate natives versus cultural natives.

Right now, the acreage of Hawaiian Homestead land, which is part of the nearly 2 million acres of "Crown and Government land" renamed "ceded lands" when the United States took control, is virtually the same amount of land the Alaska Natives ended up with after their settlement: just 10% of what was once all theirs.

---

Norton opens ANWR and Native Hawi'ian Office in BIA

The linkage between the transformation of the Alaskan and Hawai'ian territories in to states is an unwritten book.

Gale Norton signed off on Thursday to open most of Alaska's North Slope to oil and gas exploration, over 7 million acres of the nearly 9 million acres set aside by Warren Harding in 1923. Insider sources tell us that there is now a Native Hawi'ian Office in BIA.

We posted on this at triballaw last November.

Like Rehnquist's deracination of criminal jurisdiction from 350 years of case law in Oliphant, Kennedy's destruction of the fundamental rights of Hawai'ians established in the Hawai'ian Constitution, was just made up. John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented in their dissents that the decision "rests largely on the repetition of glittering generalities that have little, if any, application to the compelling history of the state of Hawaii."

Here's how the WaPo's Staff Writer Eric Pianin captured the positions of the local actors:

Alaska officials -- including Sen. Ted Stevens (R) and Frank H. Murkowski (R), then a senator and now governor -- as well as industry executives and Indian tribes in the area urged federal officials to expand oil exploration and production.

No mention of the Gwech'in, when the fatal act becomes law, the victims disapear from the journal of record. All that is left is the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation. One party who's interests are not advanced by petrolium extraction, vanished, and one who's intersts are, visible.

A Hopi-Navajo dispute, and these Hopi are kind enough to vanish, at least from the pages of the journal of record of the United States.

Return of the ... One True King (XI)

The political merry-go-round in Tehran just hit a brick. Eleven nationally prominent economists, from universities and state-enterprises co-authored a letter that was published in Tehran yesterday. In a nutshell, the economy sucks, and all the values theater of the last election cycle was ... values theater .

Some quotable quotes: "society infected by politics" and policies dictated by "emotions and idealism regardless of their economic consequences".

The letter may take some of the heat energy out of the trads v neos generational cyclone of the primary season. A second brick I've not yet decoded was the announcement by the GC that the election date set by the Ministry of the Interior has to be reset.

Whoever wants to hold the potato needs to get some face time in Dehli and Beijing and Paris and Moscow. Ottowa would be prudent too.

Another hidden rider on a lame duck security bill...

It's deja vu vu vu.

I've had a number of suspicions rattling around my head for a few days now, mostly regarding this country to a "Revolving Door Administration", similar to that under Reagan (more of my Stuck in the 80's mentality,) so I've been on the lookout for evidence that Bushies are seeking to promote their own corrupt interests while they have the chance. This piece buried deep in the LA Times today only strengthens that nagging concern:

GOP Lawmakers Alter Intelligence Reform Bill to Cloak Financial Ties
Watchdog groups say the provision would make it harder to detect conflicts of interest.
By Lisa Getter
Times Staff Writer
November 16, 2004

WASHINGTON — Citing national security concerns, some Republican members of Congress are trying to limit the personal financial information that top federal officials must disclose.

Tucked within the House's 497-page version of the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" is a provision to repeal the requirement that senior-level officials report their personal financial assets valued at more than $2.5 million. It also would end the practice of disclosing the dates of stock transactions.

The proposal to limit financial disclosures initially covered only top-level intelligence officials. It was recently expanded to include all executive branch officials, according to a draft version of the bill.

According to The Campaign Legal Center's press release last week:

After more than a year of studying the problems that left the United States unprepared for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the 9/11 Commission recommended a series of reforms to enhance the operations and performance of the intelligence community. Congress has since proceeded to implement those recommendations. The commission didn't recommend any cutback on ethics rules.

H.R. 10, the House-passed response to those recommendations, which is now being conferenced with the Senate bill (S. 2845), would, among other things, repeal the requirement that senior-level national security officials and appointees report the amount of their personal financial assets in excess of $2.5 million. Currently, senior-level government officials must report the value of their personal assets over $5 million, $25 million and $50 million. This disclosure can help flag when officials have personal financial stakes that could compromise their decisions on such matters as awarding government contracts.

Think Halliburton. Enron. [Insert your favorite corporate welfare entity.]

S2845 is Susan Collin's (R-ME) baby, and in a call Eric placed with her office earlier today, staff indicated that the language was definitely not contained within the Senate bill.

Here's a list of the House and Senate Conferees. Please give them a call (use the Congressional Toll-Free Switchboard 1-800-839-5276.

Senate Conferees:
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
John Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

House Conferees:
Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Henry Hyde (R-IL)
James Sensenbrenner (R- WI)
David Dreier (R-CA)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Jane Harman (D-CA)
Ike Skelton (D-MO)

You can also use this letter from Public Citizen, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 to contact the conferees.

CWA calls for FDA to ban pregnancy

The ultra-conservative organization CWA (Concerned Women of America) called for the US Food and Drug Administration to ban women from becoming pregnant, since the CDC has reported 4,200 pregnancy-related deaths from 1991-1999, that last period the data was available. CWA said that until pregnancy was 100% safe for all women, the US government should not allow women to engage in such dangerous behavior.

[/satire]

The truth is that CWA is demanding the FDA pull the abortificant RU486 (misoprostol) as it is possibly linked to the deaths of 3 women in the US since it's introduction over 2 years ago. It is estimated that 360,000 have used the drug to terminate pregnancies in that period, most with few unexpected side effects. The cost savings for the healthcare industry has been significant, as RU486 seldom necessitates surgery or otherwide invasive procedures.

Ironically, I checked the CWA website for it's demand that the FDA withdraw Vioxx, due to the tens of thousands of deaths it may have caused. Couldn't find anything.

Controlled Substances

nihil per os

Two months ago Iyad Allawi's regime (really just a device for coloring snowflakes from the Bremer Negroponte CENTCOM SecDef Whitehouse mobs) stopped supplying hospitals and clinics in Falluja. The Red Cresent convoy turned away from Falluja yesterday reports that Falluja's main hospital, seized over a week ago, does not even have aspirin.

The Allawi position of record is still that there are no civilians in Falluja, therefore no need for aid to non-existant civilians.

The Bush position of record is that there are some persons in US custody in Falluja and that they are receiving adequate medical assistance, therefore there is no need for aid to non-existant civilians not in US custody.

Thus far, no officers, retired or still on active duty, have put their names to a paper advising commanders in the field that unlawful orders must not be followed, and orders that give rise to uncontrolled conditions among civilian populations are not presumptively lawful.

Free Solaris (and the rest of Building 5)

One of the tensions inside Sun when I worked in Building 5 was between SMCC, the hardware side of the shop, and SunSoft, the software side. I thought we (SunSoft) should port to any platform there was a market for, the horrible Intel x86 CICS architecture, the various RISC architectures, and so on, and that the principle revenue model was applications, not the operating system product. That SunSoft was an instruction-set and memory model independent software meta-publisher, on which other software publishers offered their product. SMCC thought that SunSoft was a SPARC-specific application (operating system) vendor.

I thought I was right. After all, I'd written the 1st X/Open and 4th Unix standards, and I'd been twice around the block on the VAR vs OEM issues. With IBM, HP, Bull, Siemens-Nixdorf, Olivetti, ICL ... exit Eric, stage left. I went on to Thinking Machines (yea! Jurassic Park), the Open Software Foundation Research Institute, then Hitachi Supercomputer, then tech died.

Today Sun released Solaris 10 (binary) at no cost, and Solaris 10 (source) is announced to be available under an Open Source License real soon now.

Tech is still dead of course, unless one wants to work for a military contractor. Now that's a booming jobs market.

Population And Senate Representation

At Tapped, Nick Confessore writes:

Now,via Josh Marshall, we have another dubious bit of political math courtesy of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. The upshot is that the Democratic Party, in addition to being dependent on the black vote, is also heavily dependent on voters who live in large cities. Why, without votes emanating from these urban citadels, George W. Bush would have won an electoral landslide!

(This is the sort of thing that makes me want to pull out my calculator and figure out what percentage of the United States the incoming Republican Senate caucus actually represents. After all, the Senate is permanently gerrymandered in favor of rural -- which is to say, Republican -- interests.)

I was having similar thoughts last weekend and did pull out the calculator. I got census projections for 2005 here.

Each person (other than residents of DC, who I ignored) has two Senators. I added up the population of each state for each Democratic Senator and for each Republican Senator (I also ignored Jeffords). A state with 2 Senators from the same party had its population counted twice. I then divided the totals by two to get the numbers back to an estimate of the population of the United States.

Democratic Senators represent 143,525,000 Americans while Republican Senators represent 141,365,000 Americans.

The GOP's 55-44 advantage in the new Senate is entirely due to the Constitutiuonal bais in favor of small states. Feel any better, Nick?

Identifying Frivolous Suits

It is always hard to discuss the issue of frivolous litgation for several reasons.

The first reason is that such discussions rarely begin with an agreed upon definition of frivolous. I prefer to use the definition of frivolous found in the Georgia Code at OCGA 9-15-14.

That code section deems litigation frivolous when it is based on an improper purpose or when a party has:

Asserted a claim, defense, or other position with respect to which there existed such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it could not be reasonably believed that a court would accept the asserted claim, defense, or other position.

It is possible to identify some suits that appear from the outset to be brought for improper purposes. I once argued that certain patent infringment suits by drug companies seem to be motivated by a desire to keep drugs on patent for an additional period of time rather than to prevent any actual infringement. See this New York Times editorial for the basis of my argument.

Similarly, I argued that a Monsato suit against a small Maine dairy claiming that the dairy's truthful advertising that it did not use milk from cows that had been given Bovine Growth Hormone was brought for the purpose of intimidating small dairies rather than vindicating any legal right of Monsanto. See here for links to the underlying facts.

It is more difficult to identify suits at the outset that are frivolous because they present such an absence of any justiciable law for fact that it can not reasonably be believed that a Court would accept it. The best evidence that such suits are frivolous occurs only after a court has refused to accept the position.

That difficulty is even more pronouced when information about a suit is gleaned not from an in depth review of the allegations and evidence but rather from a news report or from the characterization of the suit by those with an agenda.

For instance, it is easy to ridicule a person who sued McDonalds because coffee is hot. A hard look at the underlying facts of Stella Liebeck's case convinces most people that her claim was not frivolous.

Many of the discussions of frivolous litigation involve stories of personal injury suits that are either grossly exagerated or just plain made up.

It is not hard to characterize a suit in such a way as to make it appear silly. Let's try some examples of alleged corporate law suit abuse.

Perhaps you heard that the heavy machinery manufacturer Caterpillar sued Disney to stop the release of "George of the Jungle 2" because the movie cast bulldozers in a bad light. Sound pretty silly doesn't it?

Indeed, Caterpillar lost its bid for a Temporary Restraining Order. Still, if one looks closely enough, it is not hard to see that Caterpillar may have had a point. I would hesitate to label Caterpillar's trademark infringement action as completely frivolous unless and until I knew a lot more about both the facts and the law.

Let's try another. Did you hear about that crazy plaintiff suing over a defective Pop Tart? Some litigation-happy plaintiff tried to play the lawsuit lottery to collect $150,000 based on a breakfast pastry being defective.

In that case the plaintiff was Allstate Insurance Company. The Record Eagle of Northern Michigan reports:

A burned Toastette that an insurance company claims caused a Johannesburg house fire has resulted in a $150,000 lawsuit against Kraft Food.

Allstate Insurance Co. alleged in its suit that the toaster pastry ignited while being heated and started a fire that seriously damaged the home of James and Brenda Stricker on April 21, 1999.

Allstate lawyers claimed Kraft was negligent because the frosted fudge Nabisco Toastette was improperly designed and manufactured, making it unsafe. They also alleged that the company failed to warn customers that the product could catch fire.

Allstate has also sued Kellogg for defective pastries:

Joining other jurisdictions such as Washington Township in New Jersey and Springfield, Ohio, Fulton Couty, Ga., now has its own flaming Pop-Tarts suit.

Allstate Insurance Co., filing on behalf of an insured, Deanna Robinson, is suing the Kellogg Co., makers of numerous varieties of Pop-Tarts, claiming that the toaster treat was the proximate cause of a Nov. 13, 2000, house fire that caused $10,742.16 in property damage.

Are the Pop Tart cases frivolous? I really could not say.

Trying to make judgments about whether law suits are frivolous before the parties have an opportunity to present evidence and legal theories, and without a detailed examination of that evidence and authority, is a mug's game. Such efforts have a very low signal to noise ratio.

The way to deal with frivolous suits is to make sure that they do not work. The proper focus is to make whole any party harmed by the filing of a frivolous suit (including attorney fees, litigation expenses, and any other damages) and, in improper purposes cases, to make sure that the party bringing a frivolous suit does not benefit thereby.

There are ways to do both, but first we need to begin to have rational discussions of the subject. Those discussions do not include made up stories, urban legends, or misleading characterizations.

A Respite For Teachers

I have previously noted the very high regard I have for special education teachers who dedicate their professional lives to helping autistic kids. Nonetheless, I often find myself having to write about autistic kids being abused by school system employees. Perhaps it is because autistic kids are such perfect victims.

Today is another such day. This time, the report is from Florida:

Officials say a special needs teacher at a central Florida middle school is accused of beating and humiliating her autistic students.

Casselberry resident Kathleen Mary Garrett was arrested yesterday. She faces nine counts of aggravated child abuse, and is being held at Seminole County Jail on bail.

Garrett teaches at South Seminole Middle School. Witnesses reported seeing Garrett pin a student to his desk with her body, push a student's face in vomit after he threw up and slam a child's head on a desk so forcefully that two teeth fell out.

Garrett has worked at the school for four years. Police say they received the first complaint about her on October 25th.

There is no possible justification for pushing an autistic kid's face into vomit because he was sick. There is no possible justification for banging a kid's head into a desk, knocking out teeth.

Working with autistic kids is hard. It is a very frustrating job. Progress often comes only in the smallest of increments. The lack of social skills that many autistic kids exhibit prevents them from providing the type of positive feedback that teachers of typical kids might receive. It must be easy to mistake the autism for a lack of appreciation.

Parents, principals, school administrators, teachers, and others should watch closely for signs that the stress of working with autistic kids every day is overwhelming special ed teachers. Teachers on the edge should be given a break. It is not just parents who may need a respite from the day to day grind of dealing with autism.

Stuck in the 80's

The local university radio station, WMPG, hosts a Sunday night 2 hour music retrospective on 1980's popular music, mostly of the rock and New Wave genre. I call in frequently enough that the hosts now make sure they have their collection of Split Enz vinyl readily available when they hear my voice.

But recently, the show's name, Stuck in the '80s, has acquired new meaning for me. I spent many an evening convincing my 20-something friends that we older folk has also experienced the same sense of impending doom as Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election loomed. We were sure the world was on the brink of nuclear and environmental apocalypse. To make matters worse, Reagan rode to victory on the wings of the newly formed Moral Majority, headed by the Rev. (sic) Jerry Falwell.

Yes, folks, things looked pretty bleak back then on the social progress front. Don't think it could have been that bad? Well, here's my suggestion for this week's Stuck in the 80's premier cut, by the beloved cult favorite, The Dead Kennedys: (for those easily offended by colorful language, you can skip this one)

"Moral Majority"

You call yourself the Moral Majority
We call ourselves the people in the real world
Trying to rub us out, but we're going to survive
God must be dead if you're alive

You say, 'God loves you. Come and buy the Good News'
Then you buy the president and swimming pools
If Jesus don't save 'til we're lining your pockets
God must be dead if you're alive

Circus-tent con-men and Southern belle bunnies
Milk your emotions then they steal your money
It's the new dark ages with the fascists toting bibles
Cheap nostalgia for the Salem Witch Trials

Stodgy ayatollahs in their dobble-knit ties
Burn lots of books so they can feed you their lies
Masturbating with a flag and a bible
God must be dead if you're alive

Blow it out your ass, Jerry Falwell
Blow it out your ass, Jesse Helms
Blow it out your ass, Ronald Reagan
What's wrong with a mind of my own?

You don't want abortions, you want battered children
You want to ban the pill as if that solves the problem
Now you wanna force us to pray in school
God must be dead if you're such a fool

You're planning for a war with or without Iran
Building a police state with the Ku Klux Klan
Pissed at your neighbour? Don't bother to nag
Pick up the phone and turn in a fag

Blow it out your ass, Terry Dolan
Blow it out your ass, Phyllis Schlafly
Ram it up your cunt, Anita
Cos God must be dead
If you're alive
God must be dead
If you're alive

Time to make sure these old favorites are available on CD and MP3.

Return of the ... One True King (X)

First, Eric's Guide to Garbage: If the writer uses the embassy takeover to frame any piece on Iran, its domestic propaganda, or the product of a neo-plagerist with a stopped clock. If the writer uses "reform" vs "something other than reform" to frame any piece on Iranian politics, its domestic propaganda, or an MEK media placement. Think of the MEK as 1,000 way-way-way-bitter-ender-Saddamists, who in 2024 are plotting to liberate Iraq, using new, improved theology and the occasional cross-border remote village smash-and-grab, with real mock-executions, from a base camp in central Fantasy-stan. Only they're Iranian, and God's Gift to the Present Drooling NeoCon America. I might as well be writing this in Farsi.

Anyway, Primary season in Persia.

Mohammad Khatami is winding up his second, four-year presidential term. Color him "reformist" and term-limited out, for the next four years anyway.

Now, on to the next would be kings. This election is being defined by generational conflict within the dominant forces within Iran, and the pending military conflict with the United States. That is it. The generation that came to power with Imam Khomeni, that exercise power through the major clerical politicial institutions -- the Association of Combatant Clerics (which didn't join the Reform boycott of the elections to the 7th Majlis last spring), the Association of Theological Teachers and the Islamic Coalition Society, versus a generation that would like to come to power, and didn't do too badly in the elections for the 7th Majlis earlier this year, courtesy of the Guardian Council and the re-invigorated Revolutionary Guards. The United States vs Iran. More on that later.

The candidates:

• Aliakbar Velayati, former Foreign Minister. Color him "Traditional".
  
• Ali Larijani, former managing director, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). Color him "Traditional".
  
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, mayor of Tehran. Color him "NeoCon".
  
• Ahmad Tavakoli, influential member of parliament. Color him "NeoCon".
  

Both generational factions are supported by Ayat Allah Ali Khamenei. I don't know if Ayat Allah Ahmad Jannati and the GC are as theoretically even handed as the Supreme Jurist, and if the subtext isn't how the next Supreme Jurist is chosen, and one will have to be chosen under war-time conditions as soon as the decapitation phase of the Anglo [1] - American attack begins.

Then there are the loose canons. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, term-limited (two consequtive terms) former president. Color him ... "calico", he chairs the Expediency Council, the final (non-religious) political arbitration body. The Any-Body-But-Rafsanjani candidate, Gholem-Ali Hadad-Adel, Speaker of the 7th Majlis. Color him "neocon" and a relative of Ayatollah Khamenei.

Somewhere behind all the party positioning, will the trads side with the refs against the neos, the usual stuff of any competitive primary season, there is a real question of calculation. The next President has to be concealed from the American attack, as does the ministerial government and the provincial governments (except Khouzestan), just as the Supreme Jurist has to be exposed to it. The election isn't simply over infantile "hardline" assaults on the status of women or any "values" issue as fundamentally stupid in Iran as elsewhere, it is over who will be running the multi-year war of defense, in an Iran that won't need wilayat-i faqih, at least for the duration, until the occupation of Khouzestan is ended, or the war is generalized to more of the former Central Treaty Organization (nee Baghdad Pact), the Gulf Cooperation Council, and former Soviet states.

It won't be simple. Whoever wins has to run a war of attrition and get at least a cease-fire on terms no worse than those in Security Council Resolution 598. If Mir-Hossein Mousavi were in the running, my money would be on him. He didn't stand for the 1997 election, so his supporters set on Ali Khamenei, who won by a large majority.

While this piece has been in-prep, the UK/DE/FR/IN talks have progressed, and Sunday Iran sent the IAEA a text announcing the suspension of uranium enrichment. Nothing can remove the American pretext for war, not even the Fords, the Carters and the surviving Reagans, traveling jointly to Tehran to apologize to Ayat Allah Ali Khamenei (Supreme Jurist) and Ayat Allah Ahmad Jannati (Guardian Council) at the tomb of the Imam Khomeni, and then to President Muhammad Khatami and the entire 7th Majlis assembled in parliament for the American support for the Pahlavis and the dirty war that kept the Anglo-American regime in place, and the American support for Saddam and the decade of war his regime imposed on Iran under Reagan and Bush (1), and accepting the regrets and apologies of Iraninans for the deaths of American soldiers attempting to rescue the Embassy staff and the American casulties of three decades of intermittant conflict by proxy. It does however under cut the pretext for joining the American war on Iran for European states predisposed to do so, so it is an important diplo-military win for Ali Khamenei and all who sailed with him.

At the end of the Tarrantine War (1607-1615) between the Mic'macs, who won, and the Abenakis, who lost, peace was made when the parties met and performed condolence. There is no "right" or "wrong", only condolences for the crimes of war. The tune isn't snappy and the ceremonial dance takes a long, long time, but the parties don't simply "make peace", they weep for each other's losses, they share suffering, the only bond that matters. It is still part of Wabanaki musical repitoire.

[1] All bad things in Iranian popular consciousness end with "because of the British". It doesn't matter if the Iranian is a royalist or a communist or any point in between.

Autism news from the US...

Which you'll only read about in the British Press.

Both the BBC and the Independent are reporting on a newly released study by Johns Hopkins researchers in the Annals of Neurology which point to brain inflammation as a possible culprit in some cases of autism (nota bene: Only in the US press is it reported that every new finding appears to cover all cases of autism.)

They examined brain tissue from 11 people with autism, aged five to 44 years, who had died of accidents or injuries.

Compared with normal control brains, the brains of the people with autism were found to contain abnormal patterns of immune system proteins called cytokines and chemokines consistent with inflammation.

Researcher Dr Carlos Pardo-Villamizar said: "These findings reinforce the theory that immune activation in the brain is involved in autism, although it is not yet clear whether it is destructive or beneficial, or both, to the developing brain."

Similarly, samples of cerebrospinal fluid obtained from six children with autism were also found to contain elevated levels of cytokines.

The research is clearly signficant to many families who eschew the "all genes all the time" line now towed by many US researchers. It buttresses our arguments that nurture (environment) not nature (DNA) plays a role in growing epidemic of autism in this country.

Now we see if Johns Hopkins, for rocking the lucrative genetic research boat, sees its NIH autism funding cut.

WMDs found in Iraq

BREAKING NEWS FROM ALJAZEERA

Robert Sarmast said a Mesopotamian basin was flooded in 2001 which submerged a rectangular area he believes was Saddam's secret WMD complex, lying 5 meters beneath water level between the Tigris and Euprates rivers. "We have definitely found it," said Sarmast, who led a team of weapons inspectors. Deep water sonar scanning had indicated man-made structures submerged under the Ephrates river, including a 3km-long nuclear complex, a walled presidential palace and deeply entrenched weapons bunkers. "We cannot yet provide tangible proof in the form of bricks and mortar as the artefacts are still buried under several metres of sediment, but the circumstantial and other evidence is irrefutable," he claimed. At a news conference within the Green Zone, Sarmast provided only animated simulations of the "area".

Whether and where Saddam's WMD complex existed has captured imaginations for over a thousand days.

For the complete story click this link.

The poor will sell their children...

So sayeth the EPA:

Scientists at EPA and environmentalists questioned whether the government should give participating families $970 plus a camcorder and children's clothes, saying it might encourage low-income families to use pesticides in their homes.

The study in question, one whose protocol was already approved by four independent sources, including two universities, is to test for the effects of household pesticides and flame retardants on children.

The EPA is not concerned, however, that it's sold it's own soul:

EPA also had agreed to accept $2 million for the $9 million study from the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents chemical makers.

The study will be now be delayed until at least Spring, 2005, while yet another independent source reviews the protocols. Why not just let the American Chemical Council review it, while we're at it?

A liberal after my own heart...

Still-liberal-after-all-these-years Michael Kinsley, on the place of "opinionated" news and political scream-fests, puts my idea into words:

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Kinsley, a former "Crossfire'' host, wrote this month that he's been pitching another approach. Instead of having opposing camps simply argue, the hosts' job should be to push them toward a common ground.

"The idea, in a word, `Cease-Fire,''' he wrote.

Sadly, as Michael pointed out, so far he's had no takers.

Billing for Billing

The Atlanta Journal Constitution today includes another example to file away in the "why people hate lawyers" drawer.

Alston & Bird is one of Atlanta's most venerable and respected law firms. Among its alumni are Bobby Jones, the great golfer of the 1920s, and Bob Dole, the former Senate Majority leader and Presidential candidate.

I have experience litigating against Alston & Bird and can attest to the quality of the legal services they provide their clients. Alston & Bird was opposing counsel in one of the more hard-fought, important, and profitable cases I have litigated.

Alston & Bird has been working on the Enron bankruptcy case as counsel to the bankruptcy examiner. They are seeking $87.5 million in fees for that work. I do not doubt that they have earned a large fee and they are postively pikers compared to the New York firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges which is seeking $158.6 million in fees. Some Weil, Gotshal lawyers afre seeking $900 per hour or $15 per minute for their time.

What is likely to make people hate lawyers is that Alston & Bird is seeking $496,000 in fees for 1,700 hours of time simply preparing its bills. Yes, that is right, Alston & Bird is seeking half a million dollars for its work preparing its bill for $87.5 million dollars. That works out to more than $290 per hour for keeping track of time and preparing a bill.

Alston & Bird has highly skilled lawyers. It appears they have used every bit of that skill to prepare their fee request.

Dinner and a (war) movie

I don't know if it's my age (d/o/b 1964) or undergraduate field of study (modern US diplomatic history, specifically Southeast Asia), but I can't shake the feeling that Iraq War = Vietnam. I realize that critic after critic will tell me, no, they're not at all the same, but I remain unconvinced. This morning's WaPo feature didn't help this frame of mind:

In Fallujah, Marines Feel Shock of War
'We Knew When We Got to the South We Were Going to Get Pounded'
By Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page A31

NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 13 -- On his first night in the city, Sgt. Aristotel Barbosa slept uneasily on the floor near the door of a vacant house that his Marine unit had taken over. A squad leader in the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, Barbosa had been prepared for the worst when U.S. and Iraqi forces began storming into Fallujah on Monday night.

Instead, the slight 26-year-old from Southern California was surprised to find fighters in the city putting up little resistance. By Thursday night, U.S. troops had taken control of the northern half of Fallujah, which lies about 35 miles west of Baghdad, and Barbosa was feeling optimistic about the battle when he woke up Friday. He decided not to shave, figuring things would be over soon enough. "I'm thinking and hoping that it's not that bad," he said, recalling his mood at the time.

But for many Marine and Army units, the battle for Fallujah was only beginning.

Barbosa and his squad set off on foot at 7:40 a.m. Friday following a slow-moving column of Marine infantrymen heading east just below the main highway that divides northern and southern Fallujah.

As he trudged through the desolate, rubble-filled streets, Barbosa said he remembered thinking how bad the city looked, worse than he had imagined. "Basically every house has a hole through it," he said.

Then the unease hit again. "All the squad leaders and myself, we knew when we got to the south we were going to get pounded."

As they began the turn south, gunfire burst from a mosque in front of them. Another platoon began shooting back, and Barbosa led his squad around to the side. "The whole company kept pushing, and we started getting hit from the other side of the street," he said.

Gunfire tore through an aluminum gate when the squad passed a house. Barbosa said he felt a sting in his right bicep. He had been shot. Two other members of his squad were wounded within minutes of each other, including Lance Cpl. Matthew Vetor, 21, who was hit in the lower back just under his flak jacket.

"It was like a whole block of insurgents," Barbosa said Saturday while recuperating with Vetor in a Navy field hospital at a military outpost near the city. "They started throwing grenades at us. It was like a shock. I couldn't believe I got hurt. I went two more blocks. I couldn't believe it."

Since most of my memories of the Vietnam conflict were colored by the lens of childhood (I was 11 when the scene at the US Embassy in Saigon took place, pictured here at the left,) my perception of the events have been dramatically influenced by the flurry of movies produced in the war's aftermath. While many of the films of the 1970's focused on the plight of returning vets, beginning in 1978 with The Deer Hunter, followed by Apocalypse Now (1979), Vietnam films began to show the more graphic, and brutal, nature of the war.

So for those readers who are younger than I, here are a few of the better Vietnam era "war" films (please note, Rambo I thru XI are not on the list, and neither is Eric's cult favorite, Predator:

There are also a few non-Vietnam films which document the conditions under which our soldiers now battle, including Black Hawk Down, Enemy at the Gates, Band of Brothers, The Thin Red Line, Courage Under Fire and the now banned Saving Private Ryan.

Gulf War I Syndrome gets its due

I can't remember exactly when Gulf War Syndrome first showed up on my radar as a nagging blip, but I remember being somewhat stunned by the statistic I saw a year in recent years that a full third of first Gulf War veterans, numbering over 200,000 were now receiving disability benefits. I assumed that with such a large body of chronically ill service men and women, there would be a healthy flow of cash directed towards research of the condition(s).

Thus, I was rather surprised to see this extended lede in the NYTimes yesterday:

V.A. to Study Toxins' Effects From 1991 Gulf War
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 - The government will spend $15 million over the next year for research on the illnesses of veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the secretary of veterans affairs, Anthony J. Principi, announced Friday. He said it would concentrate on the role of neurotoxins, and not the stress and psychological conditions often implicated as a cause of the veterans' health complaints.

Mr. Principi also said the department would establish a research center to develop treatments for gulf war illnesses.

"The men and women who fought there deserve our undivided attention to their questions, to their symptoms, to their futures," he said. "They have been frustrated far too long."

He said his decision was guided by the findings of a committee of scientists and veterans that he appointed in 2002 to study the ailments of thousands of servicemen and women that persisted after the war.

In a report released at a news conference here, the panel, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, broke with earlier study groups by pointing to chemical exposures during the war, not the effects of combat stress, as the primary cause of what has sometimes been called Gulf War Syndrome.

The committee found a "probable link" between veterans' illnesses and neurotoxins, possibly including Iraqi nerve agents. That conclusion has heartened veterans, who resented earlier studies suggesting a psychiatric cause for their problems, but it disturbed some scientists who do not believe it is supported by solid data.

Seems that for the past 8 years, the VA, along with most of the government medical community, has argued that Gulf War Syndrome, if there even was such a thing, was caused by stress. Yes, stress.

In 1997, Dr. Robert Haley of the University of Texas published his research team's first conclusions that Gulf War Syndrome was a result of the interactions of a combination of neurotoxins and chemicals. Not just any neurotoxin/chemical combination, but specifically Iraqi sarin nerve gas dispersed when weapons caches were destroyed; pesticides such as DEET and chlorpyrifos, used in insect sprays and flea collars; and the drug pyridostigmine bromide (PB), given to troops to protect them against nerve gas. In addition, several "clusters" of severe birth defects associated with chemical exposure have appeared in the children of Gulf War I veterans. Yet it stil took seven years for the US government to commit research funding to investigate the health effects of modern war.

Comments on Clark in WaPo

[Comments indented.
Update: There is one thing Clark has to do before the '08 primary cycle begins. He has to run a competitive election. GHM: 14: p0(p0), 15: 8(0), 16: 267(12,13), 17:353(20,24,25),19:451,20:581.
EBW]

The Real Battle
Winning in Fallujah Is Just the Beginning

By Wesley K. Clark
Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page B01

Americans scouring news reports of the U.S.-led assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah can be forgiven if they are experiencing a degree of confusion and uncertainty.

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assures us that U.S. and Iraqi government forces are advancing steadily through the insurgent stronghold and that the assault has been "very, very successful." Yet even as troops move street by street through the Sunni city, the measure of their success is elusive. There's no uniformed enemy force, no headquarters, no central command complex for U.S. troops to occupy and win. At the end, there will be no surrender.

Instead, the outcome of the battle must be judged by a less clear-cut standard: not by the seizure and occupation of ground, but by the impact it has on the political and diplomatic process in Iraq. Its chances for success in that area are highly uncertain. Will Fallujah, like the famous Vietnam village, be the place we destroyed in order to save it? Will the bulk of the insurgents simply scatter to other Iraqi cities? Will we win a tactical victory only to fail in our strategic goal of convincing Iraqis that we are making their country safe for democracy -- and specifically for elections at the end of January?

I disagree with General Clark on the substance of his next two paragraphs. First, there are always parties advancing their pet "predicate condition", and elections could have been held at any time since George Bush snuck in and out of Baghdad late last November, when Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani wrote to the Iraqi journal al Zaman:

"Perhaps it would be possible to hold the elections on the basis of the ration cards and some other supplementary information."

Bush, Bremmer, Sanchez have had their moments of holding the "predicate condition" batton, which has morphed from the ration card voter id "problem" to a general security "problem" and now, with John Negroponte and Iyad Allawi holding the batton, the City of Mosques "problem".

Once there is a "predicate condition", the only question of interest is who is holding the batton, not what the label on the batton is. The idea that Iraq can't find a legitmate government by direct elections while occupied by a foreign military power because one city isn't occupied hasn't passed its sell-by date, yet ... but ... it really means that there is no set date, and by extension, no exit. Wes Clark needs to reach down and find his 6th of June, his certain date on which elections will be held, even if it rains, no matter who gets wet, if he is to be President Clark.

Next, as I pointed out in Not to be contrary or anything ... but, "winning" in Falljua is wiffy. The US lost when political symbolism (see above) took precident over normal peace-keeping operations, and forces were re-deployed, long before the first shot was fired. It isn't any nicer that the political calculus that produced that decision could not anticipate that a major redeplyment to Falluja would enable opposition forces in brigade-strength to take Mossel in two days (Carter Ham) and stage over 100 operations in squad-strength or greater per day in central Iraq, weaken, or eliminate central Iraqi political participation in the election, or that operational errors of judgement (John Sattler) would create conditions generally meeting international standards for war crimes.

See also weathervanes.

An attack on Fallujah has been inevitable for many months. If we are to succeed in the democratization of Iraq, the interim government and its U.S. and coalition allies must have a "monopoly" on the use of force within the country's borders. There can be no sanctuaries for insurgents and terrorists, no fiefdoms run by private armies. Fallujah could not continue to be a base for those waging war on the Iraqi government and a no-go place for those organizing elections.

Now that we have engaged, there cannot be any doubt about the outcome. It, too, is inevitable. U.S. forces don't "lose" on the battlefield these days. We haven't lost once in Iraq. Nor in Afghanistan. Not in the Balkans, or in the first Gulf War. Nor in Panama. We fight where we are told and win where we fight. We are well trained, disciplined and, when we prepare adequately, exceedingly well equipped. We will take the city, and with relatively few U.S. casualties. And we will have killed a lot of people who were armed and resisting us.

But in what sense is this "winning?"

To win means not just to occupy the city, but to do so in a way that knocks the local opponent permanently out of the fight, demoralizes broader resistance, and builds legitimacy for U.S. aims, methods and allies. Seen this way, the battle for Fallujah is not just a matter of shooting. It is part of a larger bargaining process that has included negotiations, threats and staged preparations to pressure insurgent groups into preemptive surrender, to deprive them of popular tolerance and support, and to demonstrate to the Iraqi people and to others that force was used only as a last resort in order to gain increased legitimacy for the interim Iraqi government.

Even the use of force required a further calculus. Had we relentlessly destroyed the city and killed large numbers of innocent civilians, or suffered crippling losses in the fighting, we most certainly would have been judged "losers." And if we can't hold on and prevent the insurgents from infiltrating back in -- as has now occurred in the recently "liberated" city of Samarra -- we also shall have lost.

The battle plan was tailored to prevent significant destruction. It called for a slow squeeze, starting with precision strikes against identified targets, and followed by a careful assault directed at taking out the opposition and reoccupying the city, while minimizing civilian and friendly casualties. We have superior mobility, with heavily armored vehicles; we have superior firepower, with the Bradley's 25mm cannon, M1A1 Abrams tanks, artillery and airstrikes; we have advantages in reconnaissance, with satellites, TV-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles and a whole array of electronic gear. But urban combat partially neutralizes each of these advantages. A weaker defender can inflict much punishment with only a meager force fighting from the rubble, provided they fight to the death. So this has not been a "cakewalk." This has been a tough battle, and the men and women fighting there deserve every Combat Infantryman's Badge, Bronze Star or Purple Heart they receive.

During the recent presidential campaign, there was a lot of talk about supporting our troops in wartime. And yet calling what's going on in Iraq "war" has distracted us from marshaling the diplomatic and political support our troops need to win.

"Support the troops" can't mean letting Iyad Allawi expend them to ensure the right cast of dubious characters form the next government in Baghdad and the 19 provinces. Translated into American, we've just medivaced a half of a battalion of head wounds and amputees to Landstuhl to ensure that Ron Paige's replacement at Education, and John Ashcroft's replacement at Justice, are NeoCons, not Goldwater Republicans or War-time unity Democrats.

I'm not enamored with this next bit either. The primary agents of change in Iraq are Iraqis. How many battalion-equivalents is Syria supposed to have transit-facilitated? It has to be a number bigger than one to be militarily significant. Re-integration of Shi'i is just as likely to bring an end to wilayat-i faqih in Iran as it is to extend it to Shi'i Iraq, and more important than any number of Saudi clerics who begged for peace is the number of Shi'a clerics who didn't, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Still, Clark concludes well after ritual utterances, that if Syria and Iran are already "in theatre", things won't improve.

To a considerable extent, the insurgency in Iraq has been supported by external efforts: Syria's facilitating of passage by jihadists, Iran's eager efforts to reintegrate Shiism and assure the emergence of an Iraqi regime to Tehran's liking, and efforts by some Saudis to reinforce Sunni dominance in Iraq. (On the eve of the battle in Fallujah, one group of 26 Saudi religious scholars urged Iraqis to support the insurgents.)

The success of our military efforts in Iraq is thus directly connected to the skill of U.S. diplomacy in the region. Certainly neither Syria nor Iran could welcome American success in Iraq if they believe it means they'll be next on a list of regimes to be "reformed" by the United States -- and yet that's precisely the goal of American policy. Bringing about change in those countries should be a matter of offering inducements as well as making threats, but not if it adds to the danger for our men and women in uniform. We need to choose: continue to project a grand vision, or focus on success in Iraq. Not only the safety of our troops, but the success of our mission depends on a degree of Syrian and Iranian accommodation for an American-supported, peaceful, stable, democratizing Iraq. And we won't get that support if they think they're next on the hit list.

It is equally important to seek a resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which has fueled the recruiting efforts and determination of the jihadists we're fighting in Iraq.

Bravo. Linkage.

And then there's the matter of the political struggle inside Iraq. If, despite a high level of chaos, the elections do take place, the Bush administration must be prepared to accept and empower an Iraqi government and a nascent political process with sufficient independence to win support from the populace and undercut anger at the American troops. For most of a year, the effort at political transformation was been submerged beneath the rubric of "reconstruction" and hindered by the attitude that "security must come first." Security and domestic Iraqi politics go hand in hand.

Which brings us back to some of the factors that made last week's battle of Fallujah inevitable: a series of circumstances and errors in 2003 -- an initial coalition occupying force too small to achieve dominance over a historically restive population, the lack of a skilled political corps to reorganize the local inhabitants, the proscription of Baathist participation in the early postwar recovery and the disbanding of the Iraqi military. Then there was the aborted April 2004 effort to subdue the city, in which an under-strength Marine assault was called off by the White House. A silly plan of turning the city back over to a thrown-together Iraqi force left the enemy in control of the battlefield and turned Fallujah into even more of an insurgent stronghold.

1. Don Rumsfeld "fast-and-light" was a mistake.
2. Bremer, Senor, and dozens of twenty-somethings from the Heritage Foundation was a mistake.
3. Chalabi was a mistake.
All good. Then Clark goes awry. The April battle of Falluja goes into the MOUT experience as a battle in which the attacker did not have 4:1 force superiority, did not have isolation of the defended urban area, did not attain defeat or surrender of the defenders within four weeks, and therefore lost. Dan Senor and above at the Whitehouse ordered the assault on Falluja, and absent the force, isolation, and time factors, guaranteed the attack would end by some means other than "victory". Bush didn't screw up by stopping the attack, he screwed up by ordering it in the first place.

This insurgency has continued to grow, despite U.S. military effectiveness on the ground. While Saddam Hussein's security forces may have always had a plan to resist the occupation, it was the failure of U.S. policymakers to gain political legitimacy that enabled the insurgency to grow. And while the failure may have begun with the inability to impose order after Saddam's ouster, it was the broader lack of a political coterie and the tools of political development -- such as the Vietnam program of Civil Operations-Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS) -- which seems to have enabled the insurgency to take root amid the U.S. presence. These are the sorts of mistakes the United States must avoid in the future, otherwise the battle of Fallujah may end up being nothing more than the "taking down" of an insurgent stronghold -- a battlefield success on the road to strategic failure.

Troops are in Fallujah only because of a political failure: Large numbers of Sunnis either wouldn't, or couldn't, participate in the political process and the coming elections. Greater security in Fallujah may move citizens (whenever they return) to take part in the voting; it's too early to say. But it's certain that you can't bomb people into the polling booths.

We should be under no illusions: This is not so much a war as it is an effort to birth a nation. It is past time for the administration to undertake diplomatic efforts in the region and political efforts inside Iraq that are worthy of the risks and burdens born by our men and women in uniform. No one knows better than they do: You cannot win in Iraq simply by killing the opponent. Much as we honor our troops and pray for their well-being, if diplomacy fails, their sacrifices and even their successes in Fallujah won't be enough.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark served as commander in chief, U.S. Southern Command and later as supreme allied commander in Europe during the war in Kosovo. He was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

---

Overall this is a pretty good piece of public dissent by a candidate. No military solution is possible, momentary appearences and parades to the contrary. American troops are being wasted. Even Vietnam compares favorably on the area of political accomodation with indigenous forces. I'm looking forward to something comperable from Dennis Kucinich, something not so focused on how illusory "victory" is, and more on what choices the Bush administration can make, and of course won't make, to end the war and start something other than war, tending, with difficulty, towards peace.

N.B. I supported Wes during part of the primary cycle, and set up the meeting between he and the Swanton Band of Abenakis. Ultimately I stood for Dennis Kucinich at the Maine Caucus and was selected to be a Kucinich Delegate to the Maine Democratic Party Convention. After I fulfilled that duty I switched to the Maine Green Independent Party.

The Next VP

MB says the Dick Cheney will be retired and Bill Frist bumped up to VP and run in '08 as an incumbent.

Today's elective carnage ("A" is for atrocity)

1pm EST: US medical evacs to Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre (where wampum has regular readers) now are over 400 for the week, with almost all originating from the Falluja battle. The Red Cresent humanitarian convoy (five tractor-trailers, 30 volunteers, 3 doctors) have gotten as far as Falljua Hospital, isolated on the west bank of the Euphrates. The US Command continues to prevent any medical supplies going into Falluja, or any evacuation of wounded, other than US soldiers or Allawi millitiamen. There is no mention of systematic medical treatment for captured wounded defenders.

Overnight: The Netherlands announces that it will withdraw its 1,300 troops in March.

Broaden The Base, Lower the Rates

Andrew Sullivan recently wrote in favor of a flat tax. There are a number of flat tax ideas floating around. One is a national sales tax. Another is a value added tax. A third is a flat income tax. It is the last I wish to discuss.

Sullivan makes a couple of arguments in favor of a single bracket income tax. The first is simplification:

I've long been a huge enthusiast for the reform for a simple reason. Forget about the obvious economic benefits. The political benefits are legion. First, it deals a death blow to the cancer of corporate lobbying in Washington. If you restrict shelters to one or two (charity or home-ownership, but I'd abolish the latter), then the whole Washington game is over. Far, far more effective than campaign finance reform.

That is a good point. I am very much in favor of tax simplification not only for the reason Sullivan mentions. Last year I made the mistake of preparing my own tax return, and after an all night session with the depreciation recapture rules, simplification sounded pretty good.

Second, I think that economic benefits of broadening the base and lowering the rates is substantial. The base can be broadened by eliminating most, if not all, deductions (okay, I favor retaining the charity deduction if some of you will give to Cure Autism Now). The broadening of the base permits the rates to be lowered while remaining revenue neutral.

Simplification reduces the economic distortion of the tax code and reduces the cost to the taxpayer, in both time and money, of compliance. The major losers are the accounting and tax-lawyer industries as well as the lobbies that have been effective in gaining preferential tax treatment.

Sullivan's point that tax simplification would deal "a death blow to the cancer of corporate lobbying." is basically correct although perhaps overstated.

The beneficial effects of simplification result from the elimination of deductions and other preferentail treatments and not from having a single bracket.

Sullivan posts an email from a reader that makes the point:

Like Steve Forbes during his presidential campaign, you refer to two completely distinct and unrelated issues, progressivity and simplification, as if they were the same. This bait-and-switch takes simplification of the tax code, which would benefit almost all Americans and is highly popular, and uses it as cover to argue for reducing the progressivity of the tax rates, which would benefit only the wealthiest Americans and which has little popular support. As you surely are aware, a tax code that had eliminated progressivity could be just as larded with complex deductions as the current system, while a tax code that had been radically simplified could still retain progressive tax rates (how hard is it to look up the tax you owe in a table?).

That is exactly right. We could eliminate all or almost all deductions and preferences to achieve the benefits of simplification while retaining several brackets to preserve progressivity.

Sullivan goes on to argue that progressivity of the tax code is undesirable:

Second, it upholds an important liberal principle: that the government should be neutral among its citizens. I don't believe in affirmative action, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of race. I oppose heterosexual-exclusive civil marriage, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of emotional/sexual orientation. And I oppose punitive or "progressive" taxation, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of personal success. If we're all taxed at the same proportionate rate, the successful still pay far more into the public coffers than the unsuccessful. They're just not penalized even further by a higher rate. If you want to help the disadvantaged, and I do, then focus government spending on programs that help the under-privileged. But don't penalize work. And don't defend unequal treatment.

If that argument is valid, then what of the unequal treatment provided in other areas of the tax code? Social Security taxes, for instance, have two brackets. For wages up to $87,000, the tax rate is 12.4%. For wages above $87,000, the rate is zero. That is unequal treatment. We rarely hear "don't defend unequal treatment" with regard to that disparity.

Wages, the product of work, are subject to Social Security taxes. Interest, dividends, and capital gains are not. That is not only unequal treatment but forces "work" to carry an additional tax burden when compared to income generated by investment.

Democrats will have little or no effect on whatever tax changes the GOP decides to enact. It is nonetheless important for Democrats to stake out a clear position and offer an alternative even if that alternative has no chance to pass.

A simple, progressive tax code with a broad base and low rates seems to be a good start. "Broaden the base and lower the rates" is a fine slogan. If the GOP argues that progressivity is unequal treatment, Democrats should inquire whether the same principles apply to Social Security taxes.

Ouch!

Le Monde reports that Fox and CNN dumped Iraq/US and Palestine/Israel for the better part of 24 hours for Scott Peterson. I was busy, and I don't watch either, so I hadn't noticed. Circumstantial evidence. Hmm. 1st degree on a fetus. Hmm. Oh well, its 10pm, and at least I know where the Rest of the Republic is.

Today's elective carnage ("W" is for War Crime)

I'll top-update. Remember, this is all so that ballot box stuffing in Falluja next January follows the same rules as ballot box stuffing in Baghdad next January.

6pm EST: Red Cresent/Red Cross/UNICEF have asked the US and the Allawi regime for a cease-fire to allow delivery of water, food, medicine, and evacuation of wounded and non-wounded non-combantants from the Falluja kill-zone. The US military and the Allawi regime have refused the cease-fire request. No humanitarian aid will be allowed into city-kill-zone.

2pm EST: Mosell: American armor has abandoned positions taken 24 hours ago at the bridges after being engaged with rpg and morter. Allawi militia forces have abandoned the remainder of the city.

1pm EST: A UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter carrying four people was shot down in northeast Baghdad this afternoon, injuring three. No indication yet how the UH-60 was engaged.

10am EST: Escaped resident Rasul Ibrahim reports "There's no water. People are drinking dirty water. Children are dying. People are eating flour because there's no proper food." Dr. Abbas Ali reports "I'm one of the few medical cadres that survived last Monday from the massacre. We are in a very tragic situation. Hundreds of dead bodies are spread in the streets. Even the injured are still there. We can not transfer them. We can not do anything to save them."

Mordechai Vanunu re-arrested

In the Fall term of 1973 I took an honors physics seminar in nuclear physics taught by Luis Alverez. We calculated the yeilds of fissile materials from the public data then available on the reactors in Israel. We came up with the number six. 18 years ago Mordechai Vanunu was sentenced to a really long time in prision for disclosing Israel's nuclear weapons program. He was re-arrested today. Find the date 1986 on the plot. What was the magic number then? What is it now?

Today's elective carnage 11.11.04

I'll top-update. Remember, this is all so that ballot box stuffing in Falluja next January follows the same rules as ballot box stuffing in Baghdad next January.

4pm EST: Two AH-1W Super Cobras were successfully engaged by rpgs and forced to make hard landings (controlled crashes). One was interdicted 15 km NW of Falluja, the other 2km SE of Falluja. The crews were recovered. A battalion-sized force of defenders from Sinjar, Tall Afar and Rabia entered Mossel, where six police stations had been captured earlier in the day. A journalist saw one reinforced company size unit (12 vehicles transporting 10 defenders each) enter Mossel.

There appear to be reports of operations conducted by platoon-sized groups of defenders all over Sunni Iraq, and even into Kurdish Iraq, in addition to the multiple company-sized groups conducting operations in Mossel.

Numerous Allawi-associated officials either attacked or assissinated.

Sources in Landstuhl disclose that the CENTCOM AOR sources 30 admits per-day generally, the first real disclosure of the non-KIA casualty rate I've seen. During the past two days that number is up to 100 per day. The US KIA count now stands at 18. No word on Allawi militia prisioners, Allawi family member captives, or a humanitarian cease-fire.

Was The Timing Of The Rehnquist Announcement Politically Motivated?

The following "exclusive" was found at NewsMax:

When Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced in late October that he had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, we took the news sadly.

Now that the election has taken place and the dust has settled, we think the clever veteran of the Court and Beltway politics may have timed his announcement to give George Bush a small boost before Election Day.
Rehnquist could have waited a few days, until after the election was over -- as John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, did to announce her breast cancer.

As NewsMax reader Miguel Tuas first pointed out to us, Rehnquist's timing was impeccable.

Though Rehnquist did not say he planned to step down, many media commentators said the ailing chief justice, now 80 years old, may have to leave the court to attend to his health.

And that suddenly injected the judiciary -- and the number of Supreme Court appointments the next president may have to make -- into the presidential campaign...

I guess that is where the decision in Bush v. Gore has led. The wingers now think that it is appropriate for Supreme Court Justices to enter into the partisan political fray to influence elections even in the absence of a pending case. The fact that Newsmax believes that Rehnquist is capable of such hanky-panky undermines the moral authority of the court and degrades the very notion of impartial justice. I certainly hope that Newsmax is wrong, but the fact that they could suggest such a thing (not to mention the possibility that they could be right) is a sad commentary on the state of our law and our politics.

Fewer Veterans, More Armistices

As Citizen, Ward, Neutral, or Enemy Alien?

The 1914-1918 struggle between Europeans had both an immediate and lasting affect on Indians living under both the Canadian and American regimes. Before either state initiated conscription, Indians enlisted, or tried to enlist in the Canadian Army. The word ksisisttsomo'koan entered Siksika, giving Germans a name, ksis pointed or sharp, isttsomo hat 'koan people -- the Ulhans. Crossing the Medicine Line to Grandmother's Country re-entered our histories.

Carlos Montezuma (Yavapai) graduated from the Chicago Medical College of Northwestern University in 1890. William Plummer, my great-grandfather (Eastern Tsalagi) graduated from the University of Arkansas Medical School ten years later. Adopted-out from age 6, Carlos Montezuma grew up in the East. Will Plummer moved to Little Rock, then moved back to Cherokee City. Dr. Montezuma became an Assimilationist politician, and co-founded the Society of American Indians, the first Pan-Indian Movement of the 20th century. Dr. Plummer practiced medicine, respected tradition, and lived, died, and is buried in Cherokee City Cemetery along the Arkansas-Oklahoma Indian Territory border.

Two Indian doctors, contemporaries, and two life choices. Zitkala-Sa was engaged to Dr. Montezuma, and published "An Indian Teacher Among Indians" in the Atlantic Monthly (March 1900) and "Why I Am a Pagan" Atlantic Monthly (Dec. 1902). These were widely read. I know my great-grandfather didn't need to read the second of these. Zitkala-Sa chose to return to the Yankton Agency, choosing the "grander thing to live among the Indians" (April 1901 letter to Carlos Montezuma) and not join Dr. Montezuma living as a "missionary among whites". Will Plummer married Lucy Williams (Eastern Tsalagi), the daughter of Kezziah Williams, one of the two Kezziah's our Kezzie is named after. His son William joined the Army when he was 15, and served with the AEF in the Ardennes in Belgium.

Dr. Montezuma opposed the draft of non-citizen Indians. He saw conscription of thousands of young Indian men into a European Civil War as an opportunity to change the political status of Indians generally. He wrote to Simon Kahanados (Wisconsin Indian, tribe not known) this:

I do not think it is just for the Superintendents of the Indian service to get Indian young men to go to war. Why, because the United States Government has not given freedom to these young men. The Indian young men would be fighting for the United States government that is keeping them as slaves and not citizens of their own country. It does not look right to me or to those who love justice. The Indian is competent to be a soldier but not a citizen. That does not look right either. Indians that does not vote and lives from the Government he cannot (be) drafted or forced into the war.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was the result of the application of American conscription in the years 1917 -1918 to Indians, some of whom were citizens prior to that act, some were not. The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946 as the result of the application of Canadian conscription in the years 1914 -1918 to Indians, some of whom were citizens prior to that act, some were not. Modernly we see these as the imposition of, not the grant of, citizenship. The continuation of the Assimilationist Policy of substitution of a synthetic American political and cultural identity for Indian identities.

Today is Armistice Day. The hour, day, month that the Great War in Europe ended. The day of the putting down of guns. The day thousands of Indians, painted in clay, climbed up out of the trenches and embrassed the ksisisttsomo'koan soldiers, saying "Brother, it is good to see you live."

No words

There is no excuse for even purported Administration critics such as Ted Rall to produce such dreck as this. Contact the Washington Post if you can find the words at ombudsman@washpost.com.

Thursday blog powwow

Stories not to miss today:

John Arivosis of AmericaBlog on the developing story of two tanks which just happened to show up at an anti-war rally in Los Angeles. (Note: Eric says their not tanks, but Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which are actually more "appropriate force for the circumstance", i.e., a "MOUT", or military operations in urban terrain. Tanks kill tanks, Bradleys kill people.)

Jeanne at Body and Soul eloquently discusses the new media meme on "Internet-fueled conspiracy theories".

I received an email a few days back from SEIU president Andy Stern, asking me (and thousands of others, I imagine) to join with him to revamp Labor. What does that mean? Nathan Newman, at his home-away-from-home, Labor Blog, decifers that message.

The one bright light in last week's election was the success at the state level by Democrats in Colorado. Local blogger Colorado Luis has much to say on the subject, including an appropriate slap-down of left-leaning pundits placing Colorado firmly in the Red/Former Slave State side of the developing political landscape. But read everything else on the page as well.

While I believe that discourse on any issue is important, as I mentioned earlier this week, I'm moving backing into "Action" mode. So, while there are any number of very good post on the Alberto Gonzales nomination, Steve Soto of The Left Coaster provides the names of the current Judiciary Committee Democrats, who you can contact to make sure they thoroughly investigate Gonzales in confirmation hearings.

Happy Anniversary to us...

Two years ago today, depressed and seeking an outlet after the defeat of my friend and mentor, Chellie Pingree, for Maine's junior Senate seat, I found my first blog through a Google search on autism: PLA, or A Journal of Politics, Law and Autism, edited by Dwight Meredith. I was intrigued by this new medium, and set up my own Blogger account that day. After two of three tries, I finally got my first post up. Four days later, I started flogging the Homeland Security Bill "midnight rider" issue, and Wampum found it's place in the blogosphere, aided decidedly by that same exemplar of the craft, Dwight Meredith.

Two years later, Dwight is now Wampum's co-editor, and once again, we're on the losing end of a national election. I imagine that a fair number of the blogs which have proliferated under the nurturing glow of the pre-election sun will fade and close over the next few weeks and months. I don't expect, however, Wampum to do the same, and hope that this time next year we'll be celebrating another anniversary.

I do miss, however, those early days of blogtopia (yes, Skippy coined that), when it felt somewhat more like a small-town community than a raging metropolis. While I don't expect that intimacy to return, I wonder if the contraction I predict will promote more community development once again. I hope so, as I do believe that there's more opportunity and frankly, satisfaction, in a journey, no matter how challenging, embarked on with friends and comrades.

Pre-Koufax Beg-a-thon

During the last Koufax Awards, we were able to squeak by (with lots of slow loading) under our old system. This year, due to the growth of the blogosphere, we anticipate much greater demand, and so will have to update the servers. Wampum has always been a labor of love, and we've never asked for contributions to run the site, but if we want to be prepared for the expected onslaught (without painful site loading) we are passing around the hat just this one time.

Thanks to all in advance.

Update:I've moved this post off the front page, but have put a permanent link up. We're making progress, and I want to thank everyone who has contributed to make the Koufax Awards more accessible this year. Please, however, continue to give, as we are no where near our fundraising goal, and will have to front the money (which means a rather sparse Christmas for four little Wampumlings.)

Not to be contrary or anything ... but

I've been perplexed for three days now, but listening to Daniel Shore (urk!) drone the CW that Falluja is a battle of encirclement, except that the bad guys seem to have gotten away, the penny dropped.

Who has theater-wide initiative? Red or Blue?

Red caused Blue to draw-down forces theater-wide inorder to mass almost 10% of its effectives in a siege against what has turned out to be a phantom menace. Red traded off freedom of manuver in one locale for freedoms of manuvers in many locales. Red forced Blue to destroy of an entire city. Red forced Blue to expend the logistical reserves, to wear-and-tear its mobile arms assets, and burn a wicked huge stock of ordinance. Red forced Blue to discard an allied political party, and got all of Blue's domestic militia enlisted and officer corp read out of civil society.

The Red player doesn't have to learn how to turn 1k five-man pick-up teams into a symmetric combined-arms counterforce, simply to loose half or more of its effectives in a Western Approved Media and Munitions heroiclly doomed extravaganza. It just has to be able to repeat the exercise of causing Blue to react, to concentrate force in one place, and diminish its forces everywhere else. To force Blue to chase, to abandon garrison-and-community-policing-and-peace for hot-pursuit-with-firepower.

So who won?

Blue, because he moved 10,000 Blue troops and their logistical tail to Falluja and blew the place up, neutralizing about 0.01% of his force-equivalent in Red's forces?

Red, because he caused Blue to move 10,000 Blue troops and their logistical tail to Falluja and blow the place up, at a cost of about 0.01% of his force-equivalent in Blue's forces?

Take a good long look at the triumphalism on display over the next few days. You may want to recall it later.

Our friends in Redmond ...

Another reason to dump IE for FF, see sidebar.

Technical Cyber Security Alert TA04-315A Buffer Overflow in Microsoft Internet Explorer

Original release date: November 10, 2004
Last revised: --
Source: US-CERT

Systems Affected

• Microsoft Windows systems running
  
  
  
  • Internet Explorer versions 6.0 and later; previous versions of Internet Explorer may also be affected

  • Other programs that host the WebBrowser ActiveX control
    
  
  

Overview

Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) contains a buffer overflow vulnerability that could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user running IE.

However, if heap memory is prepared in a special manner, an attacker could execute arbitrary code more easily. Publicly observed exploits use scripting to prepare the heap, though this may be accomplished without scripting. Without the ability to prepare the heap, the impact is most likely limited to denial of service.

This vulnerability is described in further detail in VU#842160.

II. Impact

By convincing a user to view a specially crafted HTML document (e.g., a web page or an HTML email message), an attacker could execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user. The attacker could also cause IE (or any program that hosts the WebBrowser ActiveX control) to crash.

Reports indicate that this vulnerability is being exploited by malicious code propagated via email. When a user clicks on a URL in a malicious email message, IE opens and displays an HTML document that exploits the vulnerability. This malicious code may be referred to as MyDoom.{AG,AH,AI} or Bofra.

Yup. Its MyDoom time again. Its been over 10 years since K and I spoke, and it still amazes me that from that late night call the Meadies sprung for the public CERT function and budget, and there are CERTs all over the post-HTRD .mil landscape. The full announcement is here.

Time For A New Talking Point

Over the past dozen years, whenever the GOP wanted to argue that Democrats permit no dissent on the issue of abortion, they had a ready talking point. At the 1992 convention, they often intone, the pro-life Governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, was not even allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

That talking point was intended to demonstrate that Democrats operate such a small tent and permit so little dissent on the issue of abortion that pro-life politicians are not wanted or accepted within the party.

The "Bob Casey didn't get to speak at the convention" argument was always weak for a couple of reasons. First, if pro-life politicians had no place in the Democratic Party, how did one get to be Governor of Pennsylvania?

Second, as Media Matters has reported, not only did a number of pro-life Democrats speak at the 1992 convention, the reason that Bob Casey was not permitted to do so had more to do with his refusal to endorse the Democratic candidate than his position on abortion.

Regardless of the merits of Bob Casey controversy, it is time to put out to pasture the argument that Democrats make no room for pro-life politicians while Republicans are more tolerant of dissenting views on abortion.

Take at look at recent events in the Senate. Democrats stand poised to promote a pro-life Mormon, Harry Reid, to the position of Senate Minority Leader, the top spot in the party at the moment. At the same time, pro-life forces in the Republican Party are trying to oust pro-choice Republican Arlen Specter from the position of Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Now tell me again, which party does not permit dissent on the issue of abortion in its leadership?

The unacceptable costs (to Big Pharma) of a cure

The health section of morning's NYTimes features an article of great hope.. and frustration. It seems that diabetes researcher Denise Faustman, herself inflicted with diabetes mellitus type 1, has nearly single-handedly cured the disease in genetically altered diabetic mice. She now plans to moved her research onto human subjects, but has run into a large wall. No one wants to fund her, namely due to stem-cell research. Not because Dr. Faustman's research utilized stem-cells, because it doesn't. That appears to be much of the problem.

Dr. Faustman found that the secret to curing her mice of diabetes lay in the use of an off-patent immune stimulant drug, BCG, which costs $11/vial. The drug not only destroyed the white cells which attacked critical islet-cells in the pancreas, it allowed those cells to regenerate (although she wasn't allowed to publish the term "regenerate", instead has to say, "restoration of insulin secretion by return of blood sugar to normal.")

BigPharma and the Juvenille Diabetes Research Associtation have refused to fund her research in human patients. It's hard to understand the rationale of the latter, but sadly easy to see why drug companies wouldn't want to promote the use of a non-patent, inexpensive medicine which only needs to be used for a short period of time. The 800,000 Americans suffering from type 1 diabetes are a gold mine for insulin manufactures, and the serious money in research lies in stem cells, which for years has been touted as the only real hope for a diabetes cure. The hypocricy of the failure of the Bush Administration's NIH to take a leading role in investigating the possibilities of such an inexpensive, and non-invasive, treatment is stunning and flies in the face of their stand on stem-cell research.

Former Chrylser head Lee Iacocca has contributed $1 million to Dr. Faustman's research, and has pledged to help raise the additional $10 million needed for human trials. (When I find the foundation link, I'll post it on the sidebar.)

This story resonates for me in two ways. First, my mother died two years ago at age 63 from complications of diabetes mellitus type 2, which she had battled for 20 years. And second, the comparisons to current autism research, which tends to focus heavily on looking for an elusive genetic component, rather than seeking out environmental causes and less expensive treatments and even cures, are numerous, and frankly depressing.

Today's elective carnage 10.11.04

Already voted.

Muhammad Abbud said he watched his nine-year-old son bleed to death at their Falluja home, unable to take him to hospital as fighting raged in the streets and bombs rained down on the Iraqi city. In the midst of a US onslaught and hemmed in by a round-the-clock curfew, he said he had little choice but to bury his eldest son, Ghaith, in the garden.

"My son got shrapnel in his stomach when our house was hit at dawn, but we couldn't take him for treatment," said Abbud, a teacher. "We buried him in the garden because it was too dangerous to go out. We did not know how long the fighting would last."

I'll top-update. Remember, this is all so that ballot box stuffing in Falluja next January follows the same rules as ballot box stuffing in Baghdad next January.

3pm EST: A police checkpoint in Zyona district in central Baghdad was engaged with a car bomb. 4 police and 6 others KIA, with about twice the same numbers of wounded, including the correspondent of Kuwait News Agency.

2pm EST: 20+ Iraqi militias have been captured by the defenders. Falluja residents estimate that the attackers control only 40%, not the 70% claimed, of the city. Food, water, and medical necessities are still not allowed into Falluja, nor is any cease-fire on schedule for the extricaiton of wounded and non-combattants, or exchanges of prisioners, or negociations. Sheik Abdel Wahab Ismaïl al-Janabi has been killed in Falluja.

10am EST: Two tanks and three armored fighting vehicles have been engaged successfully with rgps. 2 tanks have been abandoned by their crews. Marines report in-depth organization by the defenders, who are using light weapons and organized as small fire-teams. Police posts and isolated American units are engaged with small arms, rpgs and ieds in a dozen locations in central Iraq. Platoon sized defenders engaged a convoy, interdicting the Baghdad-Airport road. Baghdad airport closed to all traffic after SAM attack on a C-130. The C-130 was not hit. 60 or so of the 130 the mosques in Falluja are destroyed.

A curfew has been announced for Mosel now also. The Mosel police CP was engaged with 3 KIA and 4 wounded, and additional attacks l killed several more goverment personal, among them a senior officer.

Iyad Allawi has been asked to establish a four-hour cease-fire for the evacuation of the wounded. He refused. Instead he is offering conditional amnesty to defenders, those not accused of having committed major crimes. Two days ago Allawi's position was 'kill them all".

7am EST: Ghazi Allawi, a cousin of the prime minister, his wife and son are captured by Ansar al-Jihad in Baghdad. Release or execution in 48 hours, depending on the conduct of Allawi's militia in Falluja, where Allawi has already authorized "no prisioners", and indiscriminate bombardment.

6am EST: CENTCOM briefs 70/30. The defenders control 30% of the city, primarily the south, and the attacker's control of Jolon neighborhood is tentative. The US killed/wounded numbers are 10/50.

Don't drink the (spiked) koolaide

Duncan's opined "I think Iran has the potential to be a genuine threat". That means about a kazillion "lefties" are now on MEK autopilot, or predisposed to future right-minded "corrective adjustments" on the core issues of Mullah-to-Mullah relations on the Washington-Tehran axis. If Walt Kelly were alive today there would be a sensible camel in the cast of characters that inhabit the American political swamp.

Here's the fink.

It is really no better than the lamentable 500 word piece in the Portland Press Herald that came out during the elections for the 7th Majlis that really amounted to "elections good, mullahs bad", and 496 extra semantically neutral bits of padding.

Try this: Only a coherent strategy among the United States, Europe and Japan will bring Iran to heel.

How? By removing the consumer market from Iraninan Nuclear Fuels, Ltd.? Japan is on the Pu path, and the United States and Europe are LEU exporters, not importers. Try "India" and "China", for ten letters. By removing the technology provider market from Iraninan Nuclear Fuels, Ltd.? Heck, if Halliburton can offshore its Persian Purse, Bectel and GE and the rest of the Glowing Gentlemen can as well, not to mention CIS, PRC, and PAK. Oh! I know. By not buying Iranian oil. Prizes everyone!

Antabuse (disulfiram) interferes with the metabolism of alcohol, causing unpleasant side effects when alcohol is ingested. If you have any, send it to Atrios, c/o General Deliver, Philly PA. The blog-o-stan needs unclarity on the topic of Iran as Bush cruises into his next grand adventure about as much as it needs another Bush.

Sodding bottle prophets. Pollack!

The Grapes of Wrath and The Good Bits

Today's WaPo has a depressing piece, even the "migrant worker" model for post-bubble programmers and allied trades -- pc repair, lan admin, db admin ... and up the food chain, was unrealistic. Here's Greg Schneider's piece. It isn't pretty. Neither was the steel industry shutdown, or aerospace shutdown, or the shoes and textiles shutdown, or ...

Another item of note today is the 1.0 release of the Mozilla Firefox web browser.

These are connected events. Switch over to Firefox. Enter "www.mozilla.org" one final time in the navbar of an instance of Internet Explorer, and suck bits. If the phrases "monopoly" or "offshore" or "malware" or any of a large, possibly unbounded, possibly second uncountable number of cognates passes through your mind while humming the theme tune to Jeopardy (it really is a function of your native clock speed, your associative memory half-word fetch time, and the bandwidth of the data pipe connecting your edge device, located somewhere in Outer Elbonia, and the Mozilla server farm), that is purely coincidental.

Yes, the world is ending, but...

This morning, when I went into to see our son, Jonah, I asked him for a kiss. As he gave me one, he looked up at me and said, "I love you" for the very first time.

He'll be five next month.

Vioxx Liability Immunity for Merck?

On the surface, things are looking pretty bad for Merck with regard to Vioxx. The New York Times reports:

Federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating Merck & Company in connection with Vioxx, the painkiller that was withdrawn from the market in late September because it increased the risk of heart attacks in long-term users.

Merck said yesterday that it had received a subpoena from the Justice Department "requesting information related to the company's research, marketing and selling activities with respect to Vioxx." It said the request related to a "federal health care investigation under criminal statutes."

Vioxx was widely prescribed for people with arthitis. It was a blockbuster drug for Mer k with worldwide sales exceeding $2.5 billion per year. Vioxx was also a marketing success as Merck spent upwards of $100 million on advertising directly to potential customers urging them to ask their doctors about Vioxx.

On September 30 of this year, Merck ceased selling Vioxx after a study found that use of Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke.

The stock market was quick to react to the news and Merck shares fell from the mid forties to the mid twenties. A three-month chart of MRK tells the tale graphically. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I own a few shares of Merck.

The dramatic fall of Mer k's share price reflected not only the lost revenue stream but also liability concerns. Some estimates of Merck's potential liability for Vioxx deaths and injury are in the $10-15 billion range. Merck itself reported to the SEC that the Vioxx controversy could have " a material adverse effect on the company's financial position."

It is easy to see why Merck could have significant exposure. Dr. David Graham, a FDA researcher did a study of a 1.4 million person Kaiser-Permanente data base and found that:

[T]hose who took Vioxx were more likely to suffer a heart attack or sudden cardiac death than those who took Celebrex, Vioxx's main rival. Based on their findings, Graham and his collaborators linked Vioxx to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths nationwide from the time it came on the market in 1999 through 2003.

Although Merck claims that it has acted appropriately, that the company was "putting patient safety first," and that the news of the problems with Vioxx was "unexpected," internal company documents suggest otherwise:

Internal Merck & Co. e-mails and marketing materials show the drugmaker fought forcefully for years to keep safety concerns from destroying the sales of big-selling painkiller Vioxx, according to a published report.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the e-mails seen by the paper show that Merck executives were worried in the mid-to-late 1990's that Vioxx would show greater heart risk than cheaper painkillers that were harsh on the stomach but were believed to reduce the risk of heart attacks...

The paper said that several company officials discussed in e-mails how to design a study that would minimize the finding that Vioxx had a higher heart attack risk than the cheaper drugs, even though some of those writing the e-mails believed that damaging comparisons would be difficult to conceal.

The paper reported that, in a March 9, 2000 e-mail, Merck research chief Edward Scolnick stated the cardiovascular events "are clearly there" and called it a "shame.

A memo to Merck's sales force discussed how to answer doctor's questions about Vioxx and the risk of heart attack. The memo was titled simply "http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1344108,00.html DODGE BALL VIOXX ." In that context, I do not think that "Dodge" was a reference to a city in Kansas. My guess is that Merck does not want a jury to ponder the implications of those memos.

It is not clear that any jury will ever see those memos. Last summer the administration began filing briefs in suits against drug makers arguing that FDA approval of a drug bars any suit over harm caused by the drug.

In July, the NYT reported:

The Bush administration has been going to court to block lawsuits by consumers who say they have been injured by prescription drugs and medical devices.

The administration contends that consumers cannot recover damages for such injuries if the products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In court papers, the Justice Department acknowledges that this position reflects a "change in governmental policy," and it has persuaded some judges to accept its arguments, most recently scoring a victory in the federal appeals court in Philadelphia.

Allowing consumers to sue manufacturers would "undermine public health" and interfere with federal regulation of drugs and devices, by encouraging "lay judges and juries to second-guess" experts at the F.D.A., the government said in siding with the maker of a heart pump sued by the widow of a Pennsylvania man. Moreover, it said, if such lawsuits succeed, some good products may be removed from the market, depriving patients of beneficial treatments.

In 2002, at a legal symposium, the Bush administration outlined plans for "F.D.A. involvement in product liability lawsuits," and it has been methodically pursuing that strategy.

The administration's participation in the cases is consistent with President Bush's position on "tort reform."

In addition, the American Medical Association favors that position. Finally, legislation has been introduced that would make FDA approval a bar to punitive damages.

It would be particularly ironic if FDA approval shields Merck from liability. The role of the FDA in the Vioxx scandal shows that it can not be relied upon to protect the public.

The Lancet recently editorialized as follows (Lancet requires subscription, free reprint here. Scroll down):

The Vioxx story is one of blindly aggressive marketing by Merck mixed with repeated episodes of complacency by drug regulators. We need clear statements from all parties in this sorry tale about the lessons to be learned. Without more vigilant drug regulation in the future, doctors will continue to be misled and patients' lives will continue to be endangered.

In addition, the FDA has been accused of trying to supress evidence of the danger of Vioxx:

Critics describe the rise and fall of Vioxx as a cautionary tale of masterful public relations, aggressive marketing and ineffective regulation. "The FDA didn't do anything," says Eric Topol, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. "They were passive here."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says the FDA was worse than passive.

Investigators for the Senate Finance Committee, which Grassley chairs, met Thursday with FDA researcher David Graham, lead scientist on a study presented in August at a medical meeting in France.

Graham told the finance committee investigators that the FDA was trying to block publication of his findings, Grassley said in a statement. "Dr. Graham described an environment where he was 'ostracized,' 'subjected to veiled threats' and 'intimidation,' " Grassley said. Graham gave Grassley copies of e-mail that appear to support his claims that his superiors suggested watering down his conclusions.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chair of the House Government Reform Committee, last week wrote acting FDA commissioner Lester Crawford to ask what the agency knew about Vioxx and when. Davis also asked whether the FDA plans to collect more data on related drugs.

"In light of Merck's withdrawal of Vioxx ... and other recent news stories examining FDA's review of the safety and efficacy of antidepressant drug use by children, I am concerned whether FDA has been sufficiently aggressive in monitoring drug safety," Davis wrote.

The stage is set for a perfect two-step. The FDA is passive in regulating the industry over which it is supposed to be a watchdog. When FDA researchers find a problem with a drug, they are pressured not to report the problem or to water down the conclusions. When the drug is found to have caused 27,000 heart attacks or deaths, and that the manufacturer tried to cover up the problem, FDA approval is cited as a bar to liability.

The only question becomes whether the evidence of Merck's wrongdoing combined with the FDA passivity (or worse), creates a political environment that will derail the adminitration's efforts to make FDA approval a bar to liability for corporate wrongdoing that causes injury and death.

Given the administration's claims to a far reaching mandate, my guess is that Merck will never have to face a civil jury.

The Rehnquist Indian

The Rehnquist Indian cases, beginning with the surreal fiction in Oliphant that a pushing match between two men was sui generis, because one of the men was a peace officer, and the other was not, requiring the whole weight of the Supreme Court of the United States to reach a decision out of its own collective mind, there being, of necessity, no precedent case or law to consider and uphold or discard, because the pushing match took place within the territorial jurisdiction of a Tribe, and the man assaulting a peace officer was not a member of the Tribe, though he felt himself free to make a nuisance of himself in a community he did not live in, has a friend in Indian Country.

Russ Means, an enrolled Oglala (Pine Ridge) offered a jurisdictional defense to the charge of domestic abuse (battery of his father-in-law) when charged by the Navajo Nation, were Means resided and which has jurisdiction over crimes other than major where the charged act took place. Not Diné, therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Diné Court, and appealing from that foreign jurisdiction to that of the United States, not as an Indian, but as an American, in a land where no man is subject to laws based upon race (see Rice v Cayetano for more collateral damage from the application of race-blind law to an indigenous population).

This put Means in the company of a lot of non-Indians who would prefer, for reasons economic as well as non-economic, not to be subject to tribal jurisdictions when appropriating tribal resources. Railroad corporations, mining corporations, utility corporations, and checkerboarded land owners, even passing, violence-prone drunks, as well as the SCOTUS, since Marshall and Burger dissented from Oliphant.

So, there is considerable joy in Indian Country in the win last Tuesday. Cecelia Fire Thunder was elected president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Unofficial results Wednesday showed her with 2,222 votes to 1,711Russell Means.

In the October primary there were 13 candidates, and Means was the highest vote getter, with 917 votes. Fire Thunder was second with 607 votes. Russell managed to double his vote, his third run for president and his second primary win. Cecelia managed to pick up the anybody-but-Means vote, getting four times her primary vote.

Cecelia Fire Thunder was born on the Pine Ridge reservation, moved to California when she was a child and returned 24 years later in 1987. She went to nursing school and eventually became part of an effort to provide free health care to people who couldn't afford it. After returning to the reservation, Fire Thunder has worked for a hospital, the tribe, state government and as a private consultant. Most recently she's been working on domestic violence programs.

Mean's platform was machismo posturing about downsizing the Federal-Tribal relationship's economic and regulatory footprint. His American political affiliation is Libretarian, and he supported Ralph Nader for president, and endorsed John Thune (R) over Tom Dashle (D). The Ridge is wicked poor, and every male AIMster I've known (both factions) a frothing sexist, but hey, my peoples are all matri-matri.

Now suppose the Anglos inside the Party-Beltway the DNC, the ones who think the net is a collection of toasters that pop sawbucks and c-notes, decided to support Latinas in Aztlan. Do the math on the Four Corners states, which incidently, is where Chief Justice William Rehenquist got his start in Republican politics -- doing English fluency voter challenges against Spanish-speaking American citizens.

Today's Elective Carnage (09.11.04)

CENTCOM closed or bombed all medical facillities in Falluja, killing some doctors, nurses and patients, and seized or fired on and destroyed all ambulances that were operating within Falluja, killing one crew and the person(s) being transported, simply to prevent accurate reporting of civilian casualties. Mr. Abbud's son, a third grader, died a preventable death, to prevent this Sunday's talking bubble heads from having to talk about numbers. Numbers of non-combatants killed and wounded.

3pm EST: The US KIA count is now 12 or 15, with the wounded count at least as great. All but three of the KIA were killed in the Falluja fight. Elements of the US forces have reached the main east-west road (from the north).

10am EST: Le Monde reports that US armor has reached the center of Falluja, however the defenders still control two-thirds of the city. Damage reports for the four-hour long bombardment inflicted 24 hours earlier are that pervasive devistation has taken place in the city-center. US KIA count is now 5, with 14 more not yet dead or just maimed or simply wounded.

7am EST: AFP reports that the center of Ramadi is no longer under American control. US forces retreated under fire down Warar Avenue, an arterial, leaving the city. The Allawi regime announced a curfew for Baghdad begining at 8:30pm local time. The Wahdat, Tahrir and Mafrak police stations in Bakouba were engaged by defensive forces, killing 45 and wounding another 30. The Bohroz police station was engaged with automatic weapons and rpgs and is reported to be completely destroyed. The third in a series of car bombings (two churches and the ambulance entrence of Yarmouk Hospital yesterday is now reported to have killed at least four police.

4am EST: The first political casualty. The Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) (Sunni) has decided to withdraw from the Iyad Allawi "government". The one IIP seat in the Allawi cabinet, Industry and Minerals Minister Hajem al-Hassani, decided to keep his governent job, and resigned from the IIP. Reuters has been reporting that a US helicopter was successfully engaged by a missile, and CENTCOM has issued a denial.

What's a little mercury...eat more tuna!

Late last week, the CDC Volume 53 of it's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Within the publication, was a report entitled, "Blood Mercury Levels in Young Children and Childbearing-Aged Women --- United States, 1999--2002", sure to prick the ears of any mercury-aware googling monkey.

The news, while slightly better than the CDC's earlier report from 2002, indicated that of the 3600+ women in the study group, 6%, or 1 out of 17, had blood mercury levels deemed dangerous by the EPA.

To put that in some perspective, breast cancer rates among women in the US are about 1:10,000.

But not everyone took the news as so grim. From the US Tuna Foundation:

Mercury Levels in Women and Young Children Are Not of Concern, USA 06 Nov 2004

The US Tuna Foundation (USTF) today stated that by finding that mercury levels in women and young children are very low and "not of concern," a new study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should reassure all Americans that eating fish, such as canned tuna, is safe and should be encouraged because of the many health benefits associated with seafood consumption.

Published in the November 5 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC's new study confirms that mercury levels from fish consumption for women and young children in the U.S. are well below any level of concern.

Specifically, CDC researchers used the ongoing National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to analyze the amount of mercury in the blood of more than 3,600 women of childbearing age and 1,500 children aged one to five years and found that all had mercury levels significantly below the threshold for any known risk.

...

"We now have proof that mercury levels in the vast majority of women and young children in the U.S. are not of concern, which should go a long way towards reassuring the public that eating seafood, such as canned tuna, is safe and provides a number of important health benefits."

Hey, it's only 240,000 women. Okay, and their unborn children. Drop in the bucket. Eat more tuna. While you're at it, have some swordfish, mackerel and shark as well.

Where Progressives can find allies

This morning's New York Times brings us an article on the Bush Administration's possible approach to envirnomental policy. It's essentially more of the same: Privatize the environment, handing it over to developers and energy interests. Since there's no future election concerns for Bush, he doesn't have to worry much about how many Americans he ticks off...or poisons.

There are, however, mid-term elections to consider. The environment fell way down the list of voting criteria this election, although a large majority of Americans consistently rank such issues high on their own personal lists of concerns. And while voters did not hold the Adminisration's feet to the fire, there is the potential to use the environment as our own "wedge" issue, to pressure those members of Congress from more environmentally-minded states to oppose the Administration's more dangerous policies.

In the Senate, the easy targets are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Maine got bluer this election, and although both Senators are popular, much of that popularity is due to their pro-choice and pro-environment records. Snowe is up for re-election in 2006, unless she bolts for a race for governor, where her environmental record will have an even greater impact.

New Hampshire Senators Sununu and Gregg are also prime targets, although neither is up for election in 2006. But New Hampshire is turning bluer, and pollution from Mid-west power plants is wreaking havoc on the state's environment, and associated tourism. Sadly their Sierra Club rating aren't that wonderful, but with a little pressure, that might turn around.

I suspect Lincoln Chafee will turn Independent, particularly after his announcement that he wasn't voting for Bush. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committe, he currently chairs the subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management, although that might change come January, leading to his abandoment of the party which left him a decade ago.

Project Vote-Smart provides the record ratings of a large number of issue groups. Scanning through the Sierra Club ratings, I was able to pick out over a dozen Republican House and Senate members with ratings of 60% or above on Sierra Club issues. They include:

Rep. Chris Shays (CT)
Rep. Bob Simmons (CT)
Rep. Nancy Johnson (CT)
Rep. Jim Leach (IA)
Rep. Mark Kirk (IL)
Rep. Tim Johnson (IL)
Rep. Jim Ramstad (MN)
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
Rep. Jim Saxton (NJ)
Rep. Chris Smith (NJ)
Rep. Sue Kelly (NY)
Rep. Sherry Boehlert (NY)
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (WI)
Rep. Tom Petri (WI)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME)
Sen. Susan Collins (ME)
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (RI)

(*note: It's possible one of more of these legislators will not be in the next Congress... if you know of any in particulary, let me know, please. I'm too lazy swamped to look then all up right now.)

The problem lies, I believe, in that we here on the Left try to think that the "liberal" or even moderate Republicans" are a fixed group. While there are some Republicans who do vote with us on a number of issues (Snowe, Chafee, Shays, Johnson), the make-up of our allies for the most part shifts depending on the issue. Some of the abovementioned are also pro-choice; but at least half aren't. And there are another dozen pro-choice Republicans who don't make the environmentalist grade (nota bene: Sen. John McCain is neither pro-choice nor pro-environment.)

We need action lists for each of our important issues; Congressional offices we flood with calls, letters and emails when our critical issues arise. Note as well that all of these legislators are in blue or purple states; not a single red state produced a pro-choice or pro-environment Republican.

Two years ago this week, Wampum set out its shingle for the very first time, and less than a week later we helped spearhead one of the most successful online lobbying efforts seen to this point, the withdrawal of support by Snowe, Collins and Chafee for last minute amendments to the Homeland Security Bill. The environment, choice, healthcare, education, social security - these are issues where we can look across the aisle for bipartisan support. In addition, we should agressively pursuing these alliances and drafting legislation, rather than just be reactionary, as we have for the past 4 years.

If you are the constituent of any of these legislators, give them a call, introduce yourself, tell them they'll be hearing a lot from you. See if you can make an appointment to talk to them when they're in town (you'd be amazed at how accessible many Congresspersons are to their constituents.) So what if you're not a Republican - it's their job to represent you anyway.

(I'll be setting up a permanent list of phone numbers and email for moderate Republican Congressional legislators, and the issues on which we can look to them for support, either on a separate page, or the sidebar to the right.)

Today's Elective Carnage (08.11.04)

I'll top-update. Remember, this is all so that ballot box stuffing in Falluja next January follows the same rules as ballot box stuffing in Baghdad next January.

7pm EST: The car bombings in Baghdad (6 KIA, 80 wounded) earlier has an echo, the ambulence entrance to the Yarmouk Hospital, Baghdad's biggest (and preferred by the Allawiites) is hit with numerous casualties. A unit tasked with interdicting defenders moving to Falluja (Black Watch) is engaged with an IED. One KIA and two wounded. One US soldier KIA in East Baghdad.

6pm EST: Powell is burning up the wires trying to explain the attack. So far on the called list is Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz (Poland), Ahmed Aboul Gheit (Egypt), Hani Moulki (Jordan), Abdullah Gul (Turkey) and Saoud al-Faiçal (Saudi Arabia), and during the day he met with Franco Frattini (Italy).

5pm EST: Le Monde reports that four battalions advanced about 1km (four blocks) along a front of 5km, taking the northern portion of the Jolan neighborhood, a warren of alleyways, and train station. CENTCOM now puts its force level at 12,000, down from yesterday's 20,000. CENTCOM has been running a parade-around-the-town psyop, which accounts for much of the semantic dust in the reportage air. That's about 3,000 combat troops, or most of what CENTCOM can throw at the problem and retain the combat-to-support ratio. CENTCOM now puts the defense at 2,500 with 10,000 reserves. SecDef Rumsford went on record on Day One that the battle will not be over any time soon. Earlier in the day the press officer rhetoric out of the seige possition was "over real soon".

3pm EST: Defenselink (the Pentagon's rumor mill) has managed to re-invent the predictable "human shields" theme. The civilians in Falluja are being held collective hostage and subjected to collective puhishments and prevented from leaving by ... "anti-Iraqi forces", not the US Military. That would explain the 230 men, women and children living next to Falluja hospital, where no defenders were present.

2pm EST: Defenders claim to have captured some attackers. Attackers say the defenders haven't captured any attackers. AMS (not the American Mathematical Society) tells the Iraqi troops to walk away from the battle.

1pm EST: Solana goes on record for the EU: "The situation from the point of view of security does not give much of a hope that that [elections] will be realised on the date [January]." A US convoy is engaged with a car bomb near the Baghdad airport, 3 KIA confirmed. Two additional attempts to engage US forces near Ramadi with car bombs. No US casualties confirmed.

noon EST: Le Monde reports that the aerial bombardments have been worse in the al Askari (north east) and Jughaitha (north) neightborhoods, and that bombs are falling everywhere in the city.

11am EST: Two US tanks engaged by rpgs, other vehicles reported engaged also. No casualties reported. Update of civilians remaining in Falluja to 150,00 (two-fifths of the original population).

10am EST: Heaviest aerial bombardment since April reported. F-16s, C-130s (gunship), armor and artillery conducting the attacks in several neighborhoods. Source: Abu Bakr al-Dulaimi, an Iraqi journalist, via al Jazeera.

9:30am EST: Aerial bombardments of Falluja begin at 6:30pm local (Baghdad) time.

9am EST: Update of civilians remaining in Falluja to 100,00 (one third of the original population). Iyad Allawi tells Iraqi troops to avenge attacks in Baghdad, Kirkush, and elsewhere by killing the defenders of Falluja. A quotable quote was "Yes. We will slaughter them like sheep".

8am EST: Counter-offensive to retake Euphrates bridges fails. Dozens of defenders KIA. Marines capture two appartment blocks. About 230 Iraqis were found still living in the complex, including women and children, some milling about in their underwear.

Random Readings and Notes (Update)

We've been planning for weeks to secure the hospital as a prelude to a potential battle ... Col. John R. Ballard, Marine 4th Civil Affairs Group. Translation: The hospital was the source of some very embarassing information about civilian casualties during the April/May battle, so despite it being separated from the main battle area by the Ephrates river (west bank), and operationally irrelevant to the fight for the Jolon neighborhood (east bank), it is closed.

Bravo CBC (CANADA) for reporting this just like I wrote it 5 hours ago! Its just to shutdown the PR problem created by doctors.

We don't want bad guys using ambulances to attack our troops ..., Col. John R. Ballard, Marine 4th Civil Affairs Group. Translation: No civilian ambulance services for the duration either.

I am closing Baghdad international airport for 48 hours ..., Iyad Allawi. Translation: No new journalists. The "state of seige" applies to even the women and children who could be in Amman or London.

I am closing the boarders except for food and humanitarian supplies ..., Iyad Allawi. Translation: The sanctions regime is back in place.

343rd update

CENTCOM chose yesterday to release a statement that all the unit's M931 Tractors and 5-ton gun trucks have been fitted with fabricated ("hobo") armor, and that all Humvees (now) have been kitted with factory add-on armor.

The fuel contamination issue was not addressed, where there has to be a real paper trail and an NCO or higher who knows that s/he refused the fuel and chose to let someone else "take the heat" via groundstrike or shooting paperwork back at command. At least the brass have stopped asserting that the fuel wasn't contaminated, and by extension, that the unit members were unable to detect dangerous fuel contamination.

Links: A 2nd hand note from a staff officer who spent the Bush I and Clinton 1 and 2 administrations teaching reservists on their options, and my original note, with circles and arrows and all of the overt brat readership on the back of each photo.

Col. Darrell Roll's AR 15-6 hasn't reported out yet. Going in it seemed that the AR 15-6 was going to carefully ignore the possible command element and safety-of-others elements of the unit-level refusal of a direct (stupid, contrary to standing orders, and possibly illegal) order.

I haven't been following the Army TImes' coverage. Last time I checked they were running a rat-fuck-the-troops psyop disguised as a pseudo-poll of "balls-but-no-brains" patriots.

Updates as they come in. Out-of-band communications from carefully-not-dot-mil-or-dot-gov-or-dot-contractor sites accepted, identities will be protected once confirmed.

P.S.
mumble.hqda.pentagon.mil - - [08/Nov/2004:09:53:59 -0500] "GET /archives/001263.html HTTP/1.1" 304 - "http://search.msn.com/preview.aspx?&q=343rd+Quartermaster+Company"
Its sweet of you guys to still be checking us for your public relations exposure.

Seeking out common ground...

I don't know if it's just that the three of here at Wampum are generally more cynical than many of those in the anti-Bush movement, but I get the sense that none of us were surprised by last Tuesday's outcome. For myself, I know I was disappointed, but remember other elections with outcomes I believed at the time pointed to global doom, namely 1980, and particular, 1984. For my mom, it was 1972.

I tend to hold out the hope that truly corrupt Administrations, such as the current one, if they do not find justice at the ballot box, will eventually go down in flames in the courts and/or public opinion, a la Nixon.

But since the election, I haven't really been able to put into words the direction in which I hope the Left heads. But I've been emailing back and forth with some dear old friends, some on the Left, some on the Right, some just tired of the whole partisan thing. In response to a concern we Progressives have all heard, that the Democrats just keep chasing the Republicans further to the Right as the latter moves the goalposts farther and farther back, I wrote this (slightly edited:)

I'm not talking about moving the Left to the Center, or god-forbid, the Right. I'm not talking about capitulating on our ideals either. I do believe, however, that there are places to start talking, to find common ground. How can we ask warring peoples around the world to sit down at the same table and find some commonality, if we cannot ourselves. I really believe it will come to violence in this country if we don't head it off soon. We who live in Blue states should work hard to show by example how "morality" is not guns, God and gays, but feeding and housing the poor, elderly and disabled, providing universal healthcare, removing corruptive money from politics, protecting the environment, all while growing good paying socially responsible jobs. It's great for Kerry to talk about them, but better if we actually do them. Then we can sit down with our Red counterparts, take a stab at a few of these issues, ones which effect both of us, and try and collaborate to find solutions which work.

We need to do this not for ourselves, we who have computers and DSL, but for the tens of thousands who have lost their jobs and homes, throughout the country.

Here in Maine, I think we can actually build a stronger Progressive movement by moving towards a non-partisan Legislature. As I've mentioned previously, Maine's Democrats and Greens are practically at war, the much smaller Republican Party is rubbing it's hands in anticipation of the spoils, and the 38% of the electorate which is "unenrolled" in a party is completely turned off by the whole mess. They are the ones too, who have the most to lose by partisan politics, as they had to vote for candidates they weren't able to chose through the primary process (which strongly favors parties), and then those candidates engage in inter-party bickering and one-up-manship, which leaves unenrolled voters with no one to represent their concerns.

If Maine moved to a non-partisan Legislature, particularly if Instant Runoff Voting were simultaneously enacted (it's on the agenda for this session), the Legislature would be more representative of the diversity of the electorate, and elections would be fairer...and cheaper. Democrats couldn't argue that Greens were "spoilers", allowing for conservatives to slip in due to a split vote, Greens wouldn't see their candidate slots hijacked by fringe candidates, and unenrolled voters would be able to get on the ballot without jumping through the somewhat egregious (in comparison) hoops now required.

The Maine electorate is supposedly the most in-tune in the country and second in voter turnout. Legislative districts are small enough that candidates still are expected to speak with nearly every voter in the months leading up the election. It's thus reasonable to expect that issues can be the deciding factor in the voting booth, not the D, G or R behind a candidate's name.

While I work on this goal in real life, here on Wampum, I'm going back to writing on the topics I favored before this campaign season; autism, environmental and BigPharma watchdogging, armchair economics and native concerns. It seems the right time to be doing the Progressive Politics thing, not just writing about it.

It's begun (updates)

Al Jazeera reports that the friendlies now number 20,000, and that the major engagement has begun.

Lieutenant Colonel Gareth Brandl is already a mental casualty, he thinks Belzebub's running the opfors. You don't usually find that kind of insanity in a field commander at the Lt.Col level.

Updates as they come in.
11pm EST, local affiliates of the big 3 broadcast networks (US) confirm that the major engagement has begun. CENTCOM claims substantial territorial gains. Two US KIA. They managed to drive a bulldozer into the Euphrates, where they drowned. Paper, Scissors, Rock. Water sinks Armor.

Participating in the American attack is the "36th Commando Battalion, formed of former militiamen of the pro-Western parties governing in the interim Iraqi Government." That gives pause.

The greatest single operational risk factor that the US command faces and has control over is Blue-on-Blue fire events. The enormous work of real-time tracking of units, of putting ID sensor beacons on forward deployed vehicles and individual soldiers, isn't simply to allow indirect fire to not engage friendlies, its also to prevent direct fire from engaging friendlies. The greatest single operational advantage that the US command has is combined arms.

Kurdistan Democratic Party (DKP), the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), the Iraqi Islamic Party, the Supreme Counsel of the Islamic Revolution in the Iraqi/Badr Organization, the Iraqi National Accord (INA), the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the Iraqi Hezbollah, the Iraqi Communist Party and Da'wa. The nine militias of these parties were "disbanded" only three months ago. Is the training of the Iraqi units technically sufficient to incorporate them into a sophisticated, combined arms operation against determined forces? If they "flip", like a substantial number of previously trained and armed police and military units have, won't that effect a unit-level technology transfer to the opfors? Since most of the "friendlies" now under arms, were under arms during the Ba'ath period, in exile in Iran or internally but with connections to Iran, or in Kurdistan, which needs Iran more than it needs to be subordinated to a unified Iraqi State and the NATO member Turkish State, who really ends up with the IFF goodie bag?

The Sunday Mail (London) has some rawish information from the UK unit tasked with isolating the defenders. The Telegraph has some writing oddly absent fro the US press on the same general fact pattern:

The men, both bomb disposal experts from the Black Watch battle group, were in the back of an armoured Warrior combat vehicle when a suicide car bomber ploughed into them.

The explosion, within earshot of Camp Dogwood, blew the legs off one of the men and caused horrific limb injuries to the other. It is believed their lives were saved by a doctor at the scene.

I like the fact that the 'graph tries for detail rather than euphemisms.

The top soldier who questioned the decision to use Black Watch troops to replace US marines was last night revealed as their commanding officer in Iraq. Lieutenant Colonel James Cowan also had concerns about the effect the mission to Camp Dogwood would have on soldiersÕ families in a series of emails. In one, Lt-Col Cowan Ð who lives near Edinburgh with his wife Minnie Ð said he expected Òevery lunatic terrorist from miles around to descend on us like bees to honeyÓ. He also said: ÒI hope the Government knows what it has got itself into. I am not sure they fully appreciate the risks. ÒThe marines we have taken over from have taken nine dead and 197 wounded since July. I hope we do better. ÒThe task looks quite challenging Ð a 500-mile line of communications to sustain 800 men and over 100 armoured vehicles largely from the air.Ó The emails were sent from Iraq to Britain shortly before three Black Watch soldiers Ð Private Paul Lowe, 19, Private Stuart McArdle, 22, and Sergeant Stuart Gray, 31, all from Fife Ð were killed by a suicide bomber on Thursday. At the Black WatchÕs Camp Dogwood base south-west of Baghdad, Lt-Col Cowan refused to comment yesterday. The Ministry of Defence in London said they did not comment on the content of leaked documents and emails. Roseanna Cunningham, SNP MSP for Perth, home to the Black Watch, said: ÒI hope these comments serve as a reminder to the Prime Minister about the position he has placed our boys in.Ó

Charade

Much of the wonder felt at the birth of a child comes from the realization that the child's potential is unlimited. I recall holding my first son shortly after his birth. His hand barely fit around my finger and, as he slept, my mind was racing considering all the possibilities of his life. Nothing seemed impossible for him.

Even as I was awed by the lack of boundaries in his life, I noted the October problem. October is a busy month on a lot of fronts. The Supreme Court begins its year on the first Monday in October. The baseball playoffs are in full swing, culminating in the World Series. Political campaigns are winding up heading for early November.

How could my son, I wondered, ask the penetrating question from the bench at the Supreme Court, rally his supporters at a Presidential campaign event, and still make it to the park in time to hit a three run homer in the first inning of the World Series opener, all in the same day? I did not question my son's talent to accomplish all of it, but the logistics were daunting.

Two weeks shy of eleven years later, the possibilities remain vast. It is true that kids who need glasses to see the blackboard in the fourth grade are probably not going to be able to pick up the spin on a slider, but any number of Justices and Presidents need corrective lenses.

At first, it was only slightly different with my second son. Instead of centerfield, I imagined a double play combination. Someone whould have to choose between them for the Chief Justice's chair. Two terms in the White House could stretch to four.

Perhaps the hardest part of parenting an autistic child is accepting that so very many of the doors of possibility close and lock so early. In order to maintain hope as the possibilities narrow, it helps to keep a flexible definition of success.

As Bobby reached nine without significant language and without many basic life skills, it has become apparent that a completely independent life is probably not realistic.

Grandiose dreams aside, what parents really hope is that their children can find happiness in their lives. For us, a group home providing Bobby with a measure of independence while maintaining adequate support and supervision has begun to look like the best chance for him to find happiness after we are gone. For the last year, we have been trying to learn about the various aspects of group homes.

All of that brings me to the story of 13 year old Kasey Warner of Columbus, Ohio. Kasey was severely autistic. He has never been able to speak a word.

Children's Services of Franklin County decided that a group home for autistic kids would be a good place for Kasey. They knew that Kasey needed round the clock supervision so they met with representatives of ViaQuest Behavioral Health.

ViaQuest is a private company that among other things runs a three-bed group home for autistic kids on Warren Avenue in Columbus, Ohio.

Child Services says that it informed ViaQuest that Kasey would need round the clock supervision. Kasey's mom says that she was promised that Kasey would receive 24 hour supervision.

ViaQuest was responsible for providing the staffing for the group home. They provided only one person, Francis Mensah, to supervise three autistic kids. Given that staffing, it was impossible for Kasey to have constant supervision.

ViaQuest trains its employees to staff the group homes. The employees get forty hours of classroom training and then another forty hours watching another staffer perform the job. With those twoweeks of training, they are assinged the care and supervision of autistic kids.

Francis Mensah, apparently, had thetwo weeks of training, He also had about 6 months experience working at ViaQuest when he was assigned to the Warren Street house. On Mensah's first day there, Kasey Warner came to live at the group home.

Child Services says that their contract with ViaQuest required one-on-one constant supervision of Kasey. ViaQuest says the contract was never signed and that one adult supervising three autistic kids at Warren Street was appropriate. ViaQuest's employee, Francis Mensah, says he was never told that Kasey required constant supervision.

What is not in dispute is that less than 48 hours after Kasey entered the Warren Street group home, his mom's hopes for a measure of happiness for her son, as well as her son himself, lay dead in a bathtub:

Why then was he left alone to die in a bathtub in 12 inches of water?

Francis Mensah was alone that night with three autistic children. He says he was never told Kasey needed constant supervision.

Mensah, employed by ViaQuest, told 10TV over the phone that Kasey was restless during the night and even knocked over a dresser. At 3:30 a.m., Mensah heard Kasey in the bathroom. But he says he didn't check on the boy for more than an hour, and that’s when he found him dead. Mensah told 10TV that he called 9-1-1 right away, which would have been around 4:30 a.m. But Columbus police records show the emergency call wasn't made for nearly another hour...

In the meantime, Francis Mensah, the ViaQuest staffer in the home the morning of Kasey’s death, has been placed on leave.

And Kasey Warner has been buried.

Kasay Warner died on October 8, at the height of the campaign. He died in the all important battleground state of Ohio. I am told that the election was all about moral values. I need someone to tell me why the death of a 13 year old autistic boy in a government funded group home where he was not receiving the supervision he needed was never mentioned in an election that was all about moral values.

Last year in another battleground state, Wisconsin, an eight year old autistic boy died when his desperate mother turned to a fringe religious group for support. The group determined that the boy's autism was caused by evil spirits and proceeded to try to cure him by driving those spirits from his body. Their method of exorcism was to hold the boy down while an adult lay across his body. After several hours of such "religious services," the boy's chest was compressed until he could not breathe. He died from being unable to fill his lungs. I think that the mother permitted the "exorcism" because she could not find any other option that provided hope for her son.

One in 160 children, through no fault of their own, are afflicted by autism. The choices we make concerning the care of those children are moral choices. If the last election was about moral values, why were such choices not discussed?

This year in bright red Texas, a mentally ill prisoner was denied water for at least 13 days. The prisoner, James Monroe Mims, nearly died. He spent three months in the hospital, including one month in intensive care. Mims suffered kidney failure that will require dialysis three times a week for the remainder of his life.

Several years ago in Alabama, James Carpenter, who also was mentally ill, was arrested for panhandling outside a fast food restaurant. As I have previously written:

Although the jailers knew that Carpenter was mentally ill, he received no treatment. He also was never taken before any judge for a bail hearing or for any other hearing.

After being arrested, Carpenter was stripped naked and placed in solitary confinement. He was cuffed at his hands and ankles and chained to a bed. Although guards brought food and placed it in his cell, the chains were too short for Carpenter to be able to reach the food. He lost 23 pounds in fifteen days.

Jail procedure required the guards to check in on Carpenter several times every hour. They failed to do so, leaving him unwatched for extended periods.

The handcuffs and ankle shackles rubbed against James Carpenter’s skin and caused ulcers at his wrists and ankles. A flesh eating bacteria entered his body through the wounds. He never received any medical treatment for the wounds or the infection. Fifteen days after being incarcerated in the Mobile County Jail, James Carpenter died from the infection.

The decision to withhold food, water, and medicine from mentaly ill human beings is a moral choice. If the last election was all about moral values, why did we hear no discussion about James Monroe Mims or James Carpenter? .

A recent report found that:

One-fifth of women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their hair that exceed federal health standards, according to interim results of a nationwide survey being conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Asheville.

Julia noted that "A child with mercury poisoning takes a lot of quantity time to raise."

Allowing mercury pollution at a level that endangers the health of one in five women of child bearing age, and their children, is a moral choice. If the last election was about moral values, why was mercury pollution at best a footnote in the campaign?

Unless you read French, you may have missed Eric's post noting a new Lancet study (pdf) of death rates in Iraq. The study found:

We estimate that 98 000 more deaths than expected (8000–194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included.

The methodology of that report may be flawed, or perhaps not (click through and just keep reading), but it is clear that a whole bunch of innocent Iraqis have died as a result of our policies. That issue was at best peripheral to a campaign that was all about moral values. I need to know why that is.

I welcome a political debate about moral values. Somehow though, the morals I value never seem to make the cut. That leads me to believe that we had less a debate about moral values than a charade. I do not welcome a charade about moral values.

The best armor is candy

CENTCOM appears to have figured that one out. Candy brings children, and who wants to attrit an enemy asset that is using children as human shields.

The numbers of opfors (defense) and the material conditions of defensive preparations at Fallouja floated at CENTCOM briefings is rising. The numbers of friendlies (offense) is rising also. The range of estimates for the first is in the middle of the four-figures range, with reserves in place in the low five-figures. For the second the number is 10,000, with another 2,000 at Ramadi. Do the math. Military training aims to produce a standardized soldier, whose training is not expensive, and who's tasking is limited to a multi-mission role in a slightly leathal environment. Fallouja (and the next 19 urban built-ups on the action list) are not slightly leathal environments.

At 350,000 (pop. Fallouja) the tasking requires a minimum of 3,500 combat troops and an additional 4,750 combat support troops, independent of casualties, so CENTCOM is (once again) running a wicked lean mix. More Rumsfield super-doctrine, and a gamble that the 10% casualty rate can be avoided, or concealed by rotations. Not a good day to be in the 1MEF, since this is fundamentally about the same standard of electioneering by hostiles in Fallouja as everywhere else hostiles will be electioneering, or a different standard of electioneering by hostiles in Fallouja than most of the other places where hostiles will be electioneering, which will be FUBAR either way, and should have been held over a year ago. About as reality-based as the WMD snipe hunts into improv opfor kill zones, mercifully passé after November 2nd retired the political necessity for the ongoing
snipe hunt tragi-comedy.

Doctrine is that ROE tighten, not loosen, when conducting MOUT/OBUA. So yesterday's fire missions and air ops (massive bombardments) signal Army Charm School, the 'GONE, and the Hill, that CENTCOM has abandoned the relationship between urban areas and rules of engagement.

That's a think'um. Right up there with abandoning the Geneva Conventions. There are at least 50,000 non-combatants, mostly elderly and destitute or still trying to find or bury their lost loved ones, still inside the kill zone. It is Sabra and Shatilia writ large.

I remember sitting in a blacked-out room during the Six Day War, in Amman, listening to live broadcasts of Um Kalthoom on the radio. (author not named)

Who will you be listening to during the sanitized blackout? I put some of Um's songs on the sidebar. Google for it. You can put arab music on your cell phone, you can blow it out your woofers, you can boombox it at your local Monument Square -- speaches, signs and slogans are not required. You can call-in to your local Jebuz-Land radio show and ask for arab music by name.

Iyad Allaoui, the dirty man with the yellow smile, with good friends in Langley and on K Street, just declared a State of Emergency for everywhere except Kurdistan and the South Pole. At least he's more realistic about the time to complete the killing, and the field of manouver for the opfors not committed to a fixed point defense (Fallouja). Sixty days. Still, he's got four more years, or until tagged out, and the to-be-attrited (either pursuasion) aren't his voters, so he can't help but come out smiling.

Gloss, added upon request in the extended area. And more stuff.

CENTCOM: CENtral COMand, I used to support their battle planning systems, prior to GW1, McDill AF Base, Tampa, now forever-forward-deployed in the Gulf.
Opfor, abbv for Opposition Forces. A neutral phrase, better than "bad guys" or "anti-Iraqi Forces".
1MEF: First Marine Expeditionary Force, people from Camp Pendleton, where these telegrams go.
Recent Releases (Camp Pendleton news, running about two weeks behind the kills):
11/1/04 Camp Pendleton Marine dies in Iraq (1st Lt. Matthew D. Lynch, 25, of Jericho, N.Y.)
ROE: Rules Of Engagement. What care to use when targeting, or selecting the ordinance mix for a set of targets, stuff like that.
MOUT/OBUA: Military Operations in Urban Terrain/Operations in Built Up Areas, combat in cities.
Army Charm School: The War Colleges, Leavenworth CAS et al.

Holly boogers! I just realized that the event that effectively put an end to the primary importance of the Naval War College (permanent forward deployments of the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets post-1941) has actually happened to the Army. CENTCOM is now running a doctrinally seperating Army. I'm so dumb, I should have seen that coming when CENTCOM left MacDill. In a nutshell, over time, CENTCOM will evolve into a Central Asian Military. Intellectually distinct from the NATO, USFK and CONUS Army officer cultures, training, promotion routes, and doctrines. Now there's a win, not. Hooah!

Twisted

Last year, I wrote about what happened when a very desperate mother met up with a very twisted view of religion.

Today, via Lean Left we have an example of what happened with a when a heavily armed man with a twisted view of religion met up with a non-believer.

The Detriot Free Press:

A Taylor police dispatcher took the call at precisely 12:44 p.m. on Oct. 18.

A 49-year-old man said he'd just blasted a man with a revolver and a shotgun because the man said he didn't believe in God.

The dispatcher said the alleged shooter told him he'd just shot "the devil himself" and was still armed and standing over the body of the 62-year-old victim "in case he moved."

"I want to make sure he's gone," the alleged shooter told the dispatcher.
The dispatcher asked the suspect how many times he shot the victim.

"Hopefully enough," was the suspect's chilling reply, according to the dispatcher....

Lying on a hallway floor was a black 12-gauge shotgun. Two spent shotgun shells lay on the floor nearby.

Later, police found a revolver with five spent cartridge casings.

On the way to the police station, the suspect told police "he did not want to deal with anyone that did not believe in God," according to the report...

The suspect said the victim had told him there was nothing he could say that would convince the 62-year-old to believe in God.

Following this discussion, the suspect said, he went into another room and removed his shirt. Then he shaved his face.

He tried once more to convince the victim to believe in God, but this time, he had the shotgun.

"How long would it take you to believe in God?" the suspect said he asked the victim.

"Not until I hear Gabriel blow his horn," the victim allegedly replied, while tipping his hat.

That's when the suspect shot him.

"I did it because he is evil; he was not a believer," the suspect told police.

Religion is not responsible for the actions of an insane person. Nonetheless, I do wonder if the actions described above will be universally condemned.

deja glue (中国) Update (EU)

Li Zhaoxing was in Tehran today with Kamal Kharazi. He said all the obvious things. He added that he'd personally called Powell and Straw, and also Yoriko Kawaguchi, three, no four points he didn't have to make. Nobutaka Machimura is a conservative LDP politician. Yoriko Kawaguchi is non-partisan, and one of the rare women in Japan's ruling elite. The change in Junichiro Koizumi's cabinet a month ago, his 3rd, was not one for the better. At a joint press conference with Li Zhaoxing, Kamal Kharzi invited George W. Bush to change his attitude. He didn't have to talk about defense in depth or total war of attrition initiated by a major power while standing next to Jiang Zemin's ambassador to Washington.

The reason for the catchy little tittle is in the extended entry, and don't forget to read Blix on U23x in Iraq, as well as the two earlier items it links to.

Update: The Invade-Iran-Ijiots just got out smarted (again) by the EU. Look for the technical details in the next 72 hours.

[On November 10th, 2001] I spent a pleasent hour in O'Hare one morning after an over-night flight from Montevideo. My seat-mate was a civil servant in the diplomatic corps of the PRC, and we had time for breakfast before our flights, one east to Portland, one west to Beijing, departed in their respective directions. We talked at length about the change in how the US Consulate in Beijing treated PRC nationals seeking visas from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, and how the crash of a US intelligence aircraft and a PRC interceptor aircraft (the pilot was lost) had played out. He had to use his diplomatic passport, not his personal passport, to take classes in goverment and management and get a Master's. Chinese students pursuing degree programs without diplomatic status were simply left to find other programs to enter, or finish from, in Canada or Europe. The US was closed to China. We parted, amicably, as we had a common purpose in being in Montevideo that week, and in a few weeks I would return to Beijing, again as a guest of the Chinese Academy of Science and the Ministry of Communications, who share responsibility for the oversight of the China Network Information Center, CNNIC.

The next day the policy of provocation, daring-do, and all the high-minded rhetoric about reform and labor conditions and non-entry into the WTO were put on hold, when Jim Roux and many, many others were incinerated, asphixiated, or crushed in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and the Bush administration went from attempting to start a pleasant little war, to being on the wrong end of someone else's pleasant little war. Jim was going to represent Jonah, my constant companion at all hours of the day, except when he is at theraputic nursery school, or I'm on very reluctant travel, in a toxic tort case -- lead.

And the hit list...

Since Dwight and I seem to be on the same wavelength today, here's hoping he's not writing the same post (as we've both done to each other twice today.)

Last but not least is the House of Representatives, where Republicans gained three seats, in part due to Tom Delay's Texas Redistricting fiasco. But returns around the country showed some vulnerability for a number of Republicans, including some of the most notorious member, Delay included.

Jim Gerlach (PA-6): 51-49% v. Lois Murphy

Chris Shays (CT-4): 52-48% v. Diane Farrell

Dave Reichert (WA-8): 52-47% v. Dave Ross (corrected)

Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4): 51-46% v. Stan Matsunaka

David Dreier (CA-26): 54-48% v. Cynthia Matthews + third party candidate

Peter Sessions (TX-32): 54-46% v. Martin Frost + third party candidate

Mark Kennedy (MN-6): 54-46% v. Patty Wetterling

Thelma Drake (VA-2): 55-45% vs. David Ashe

Robert (Robin) Hayes (NC-8): 55-45% v. Beth Troutman

Charles Taylor (NC-11): 55-45% v. Patsy Keever

Tom Delay (TX-22): 55-45% v. Richard Morrison + third party candidate

Katherine Harris (FL-13): 55-45% v. Jan Schneider

Henry Hyde (IL-6): 55-45% v. Christine Cegelis

Start planning now, folks. Two years will fly by.

A light in the darkness...

As I mentioned earlier, Maine's Legislature remained, barely, in Democratic hands this year. As I also noted, it was not due to the electorate here turning any "redder", but as a backlash to last year's failure of the House and Senate to produce meaningful property tax reform.

Seems that the creeping red tide in state legislatures was decidedly stemmed this November all around the country:

NCSL's initial analysis of the 2004 elections give Democrats a slight edge in gaining political ground, picking up a few more legislative chambers than their GOP counterparts. They also overtook the Republicans in total state legislators. Before the election, Republicans had 64 more legislators. Now, the Democrats lead by 12.

By the slimmest of margins, Democrats claimed the most political chamber switches of the night. Based on unofficial results, the Democrats won the Colorado House, Colorado Senate, Montana Senate, North Carolina House, Oregon Senate, Vermont House, Washington Senate. In the case of the Colorado and Washington chambers, the margin of victory is only one seat, and recounts are expected in several districts.

Republicans continued to make gains in the South, claiming the Georgia House, Oklahoma House and Tennessee Senate. The also wrested the Indiana House from the Democrats.

Republicans now control both legislative chambers in 20 states; Democrats in 19. Ten are split (Nebraska is non-partisan and unicameral.) As a whole, Republicans control 50 chambers, Democrats 47, and one is tied.

As Dwight mentioned below, these races, while not particuarly "sexy", are critical for Democrats to regain Congressional seats, as state legislatures control redistricting. And since it's not currently clear between the Colorado and Texas decisions just when redistricting can take place, it's still important to work towards that goal sooner rather than later.

In addition, state legislatures are the real breakwater between the dangerous policies of the Bush Administration and our most vulnerable families.

Senate Blues (or Reds)

Merle Black of Emory University here in Atlanta notes the difficulty of the electroral math for Democrats. From the L.A. Times:

"Democrats face this terrible arithmetic in the Electoral College where if they don't carry any of the 11 Southern states [of the Old Confederacy] they need to win 70% of everything else," says Merle Black, an expert on Southern politics at Emory University.

Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly takes Black to task for ignoring the other side of the equation:

No kidding. But try this on for size instead:

"Republicans face this terrible arithmetic in the Electoral College where if they don't carry any of the 13 Northeastern states they need to win two-thirds of everything else," says Kevin Drum, an expert on simplistic arithmetic at the Washington Monthly.

Digby agrees with Kevin:

I think that this arithmetic epitaph is perhaps the most annoying post election spin of all. You can argue about whether "moral values" as a top reason for voting this election means that the country is awash in religious fervor, but you simply cannot spin these numbers as a huge sea change. This was a squeaker only marginally more comfortable for Bush than 2000, not a blow out. Somebody has to win and the GOP machine has pulled it out the last two elections, but it could very easily have gone the other way. Red is redder and blue is bluer, that's all.

The DLC notes that building a majority involves more than just electoral college wins:

In presidential contests, we begin each campaign at a disadvantage because our strength is limited to the Northeast, the West Coast, and the upper Midwest, where our candidates must win nearly every winnable state. And more obviously, Democrats will be consigned to a permanent minority in the Senate, in the states, and -- because states control redistricting -- in the House as well, if we cannot find a way to become competitive in some parts of the South and the West. That's why we should not take too much solace in the narrowness of Bush's victory in the national popular and electoral vote. National politics is not just about the presidency.

I think the DLC is right and Merle Black's description of the "terrible arthmetic" the Democrats face is even more apparent in the Senate than in the Presidential race.

In the 11 states that constitute the Eastern block of blue (running from Maryland to Maine), the GOP holds a third of the Senate seats (Chafee, Collins, Gregg, Santorum, Snowe, Specter, and Sununu). Of the 12 Southern states (including Texas and Kentucky), the Democrats hold one sixth of the seats (Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, and Pryor). In Senate seats, the GOP does twice as well in the North as Democrats do in the South.

Not only have we been reduced to 45 Senate seats (counting Jeffords) but the 2006 cycle does not offer a lot of hope.

Republicans will be defending 15 seats in 2006. Of those seats, 12 (Allen, Va., Burns, Mt., DeWine, Ohio, Ensign, Nev., Frist, Tenn., Hatch, Utah, Hutchinson, Tex., Kyl, Ariz., Lott, Miss., Lugar, Ind., Talent, Mo., and Thomas, Wyo.) come from red states. Two others, Snowe and Chafee may be from blue states but are personally very popular and will be very hard to knock off.

I would not rate us at even money to win any of those states. Out best chances for picking off any Republican Senate seats are in Pennsylvania (Santorum) and perhaps Nevada (Ensign).

There are 17 Dem seats up in 2006. Five of those seats, Nelson from Florida, Nelson from Nebraska, Conrad from North Dakota, Byrd from West Virginia, and Bingamen from New Mexico are from red states.

While Byrd is certainly a lock, if he decides to retire the West Virginia seat is very vulnerable. I suspect that both Nelsons will have tough fights. Conrad, despite being an excellent Senator and the personification of fiscal responsibility, is reasonably likely to be Daschled. I do not know enough about New Mexico to have an opinion about Bingaman.

I presume that the GOP will gear up to try to poach a couple of seats in blue states by defeating incumbents such as Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Mark Dayton of Minnesota (who has the highest lifetime liberal rating of any Senator according to the National Journal). We need to mount challenges in states that we hope to turn blue (Nevada, Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio for instance).

It would not be surprising to see Democrats lose Senate seats in 2006. A fillibuster proof 60 seat majority in the Senate is potentially possible. We need to make sure we nominate good candidates, fully fund them, and make a real effort to prevent that from happening.

Many Reds got Redder...

But so did many blues.

Source: Washington Post

Interesting trend is the Rocky Mountain states - New Mexico (which did go to Bush, but saw Democratic gains as well), Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The reality in 2008 is that Democrats only have a shot at New Mexico and Colorado, but it bodes well for state-level politics in the others.

John Judis and Ruy Teixeira never promised a Democratic Majority would happen overnight.

I think we tend to look to national leaders and policies to make the map turn blue. But the reason that Maine went bluer is because it has one of, if not the most involved and educated electorates, along with the highest voter turnout rate (over 70% this election.) Maine is not only getting bluer, internally, it's getting Greener, with Maine Green on state and local levels making the largest gains ever, with many candidates garnering over 30% of the vote.

Ironically, Maine also has the highest proportion of the electorate, 38%, unaffiliated (or unenrolled, as we term it here) with any political party. So on some level it seems unusual that Maine should be shifting so far to the "left".

Not that we don't have our own rightwing nutcases. Michael Heath and the Maine Christian Civic League time again try to foist their anti-gay/anti-woman bigotry on the Pine Tree State. Most times they're soundly rebuked, but once in a while they make a gain here or there, more due to the incompetence of the oppositional effort than to the appeal of their message.

But Maine's Progressives have made gains by going on the offensive with their agenda. In 1996, the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund passes the first public financing of elections law in the country. Last year, after a groundswell of support from Progressive organizations such as the Maine People's Alliance, the Maine Legislature passed the first in the nation universal healthcare program. While not currently a single-payer program, chances are that it's only time that it will move into that category.

This year, despite some of the highest per capital taxes in the nation, Maine voters, by a 2-to-1 margin, beat back a California-Prop-13-style property tax cap, which would have devastated local schools and governments.

Ironically, the greatest potential for undermining Maine's Progressive trend is the inability of the Democrat-controlled Legislature to pass meaningful tax reform. Partisanship within the House and Senate (and competition between the two chambers) has led some voters to seek alternatives to the current crop of legislators, leading to the loss of 5 seats for the House Dems.

My goal of the next few years is to overcome the potential damage of legislative partisanship to a Progressive agenda, namely through such initiatives as establishing a non-partisan legislature and electoral reforms, a la Instant Runoff Voting. Make Maine Bluer...or at least more Progressive.

Addendum: Although only 20 states (or 19 + DC) made Democratic gains, nine states saw no change at all. Hence only 22 states actually got redder, with the average change only 2.36%. Gains in Democratic states, on the other hand, averaged 3.0%.

nota bene: changed the title - not enough coffee when I started thinking about the subject, obviously.

Transitions

Le président Chirac a rendu visite jeudi à M. Arafat. Il est resté environ une demi-heure dans sa chambre. Il lui a tenu la main.

Taking Stock Part II, Don't Blame the Candidate

Another lesson to be drawn from the election is to not blame John Kerry.

The first reason not to blame John Kerry is that he did rather well as our standard bearer. He united the party. He raised enough money to be competitive. He performed extremely well in the debates. He won a plurality of independent voters. He won more votes than either Bill Clinton or Al Gore. He maintained a Democratic Northeast, mid Atlantic, and West Coast. He put forth a resonably detailed group of sound policy proposals. This is not 1988. The trouble was not our candidate.

A second reason not to blame John Kerry is that it distracts from the work necessary to build a majority party. Some people argue that we should focus on picking a nominee based on style and public relations.

Will Saletan, in Slate writes as follows:

If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.

I think that is very wrong. First, it is hard to see how nominating and electing an empty suit with good public relation skills will solve our problems.

One way for us to gain power is for the Republicans to screw up so badly that the public turns to us. Jimmy Carter in 1976 is an example of the public turning to a Democrat after Nixon demonstrated that the GOP could not be trusted.

If that happens again, we better be ready with a President who has the ability to govern effectively or our time in power will be short.

The best way to persuade a majority of the voters to stick with us is to govern effectively when given the opportunity. Jimmy Carter, as much as I admire him, did not do so. As a result, the worst scandal in American history kept the Republicans out of the White House for only four years. Saletan's advice to have an empty suit at the ready is like eating candy. It gives you energy for a while but it does not provide the nutrition needed to sustain you.

In 1992, we were very fortunate to have a candidate who combined superb campaign skills with the ability to govern effectively. Such candidates are rare. If we do not do the work of building a majority party, we will gain power only when such a candidate comes along. The Republicans are able to win elections even when they put up candidates relatively poor campaign skills. The 1988 election is a prime example. To be able to win without a candidate like Bill Clinton, we need to begin to rebuild majorities in the House, the Senate, the statehouses, and the state legislatures.

Many Americans do not trust Democrats' ability to govern. Nominating someone who, upon winning an election, confirms those suspicions is crazy.

So what happened?

I'm sure you're all waiting with bated breath over the outcome to the race for which I abandoned you all.

Well, short answer is that we lost.

Long answer, we won.

Maybe this graphic will help.

So, Elizabeth Trice was my candidate. She just happened to be a Green, which is, btw, a recognized third party here in Maine, having achieved not only the required 5%, but a whopping 15% in the last gubernatorial race (shhh...don't tell Baldacci, who fairly openly endorsed me in the primary, but I actually voted for Carter, the Green, two years ago.)

But, to be honest, there aren't a heck of a lot of Greens in our district. Less than a hundred, or 2%, to be honest. So there's really no reason the average Green candidate, if party allegiences hold, should be picking up more than 3% of the vote, 5% max.

Elizabeth won 33%, and this as a "replacement" candidate, i.e., coming into the race in late July, after the original Green candidate pulled out.

The ultimate irony is that the Democratic candidate spent much of his last days and money sending out literature and robocalls reminding voters that he was THE Democratic candidate ("There has been some confusion...") In a race where he should have garnered over 60% of the vote, his pitiful showing of 44% percent (the very sweet 72 year old Republican candidate was still working full time and thus could not campaign heavily) makes him a prime target for both Greens and Republicans in two years. I'd like to think the elected D would actually do something in Augusta, but he's one of the major reasons we're moving out of the district...immediately.

Anyway, I spent 10 minutes this morning on the local college public radio station arguing that we need to get moving, not wring our hands (more of that in an upcoming post). As for me, I'll be forming a policy center focusing on non-Partisan progressive politics and campaign eduation up in the foothills of Western Maine, near the stomping grounds of my most famous ancestor, Molly Ockett. Hmm...I was thinking about the Moosehead Center, but the Ockett Center for Progressive Policy has a certain ring to is as well. What do you all think?

Bad Ideas, Good Politics

Nick Confessore at Tapped notes that the Democrats fail to efectively use wedge issues:

Question: Where were the Democratic wedge issues? Where were the ballot initiatives in Nevada, Oregon, Ohio, and Florida -- home to millions of senior citizens looking down the barrel of the Alzheimer's gun -- legalizing stem-cell research? (California was already in the bag, folks.) What I'm getting at is what appears to be a congenital Democratic inability to think several moves ahead and plant political traps and wedges for the other team, something the Republican Party is very good at doing to Democrats.

Atrios goes a bit further and calls for very popular bad ideas:

Republicans have always been good at coming up with really bad ideas which are very popular with voters (say, term limits), and making it a central campaign issue. Most of these things never actually become law, because they're actually really horrible, but they're useful for scoring points.

I think the Democrats need to come up with a few of these. Get creative...

I think that the GOP is vulnerable on issues related to the way they run the House. Their symbiotic relationship to corporate lobbyists, the arrogance with which the leadership pushes legislation through without any input from the other members, and the violation of procedural rules all suggest a degree of hubris that could be exploited. Remember what the GOP circa 1994 did with the issue of the House bank?

The following ideas are not intended to be good policy. They are just a way to raise the profile of various issues related to the way the GOP runs the House.

One idea is to require each Congressman to sign a statement, under oath, declaring that he or she has read and understands the contents of any bill on which he or she casts a vote. That is a very bad idea that would never be implemented but does not sound bad. It might provide opportunities to ridicule the GOP.

A similar idea is to require that each Congressman certify, under oath, that he or she believes that any earmarked appropriation is in the best interest of the country as a whole and that the benefits of such spending is worth the money.

Perhaps we should require each Congressman post on the net a disclosure of every contact with any registered lobbyist. The disclosure would include the subject matter of the contact, the people present, the time and place of the contact, as well as the number of martinis consumed.

Any thoughts?

Taking Stock

To my surprise, the sun did come up this morning. With the full light of day, it is easy to see that Democrats and liberals suffered a devastating defeat. The American people have reelected Georgve W. Bush and have provided him with expanded majorities in both houses of Congress.

President Bush and the Republicans are to be congratulated on their victory. We can all hope that they use the powers with which they have been entrusted wisely.

Losing hurts. I try law suits for a living. It is in the nature of my job that years of effort and preparation come to a conclusion at trial. I often have many hundreds of hours of work and tens of thousands of dollars of my money invested in a case. If we lose at trial, I do not get paid for my work and I do not get repaid for my expenses. The only thing to gain from a trial loss is knowledge.

To become a better advocate, after each trial, win or lose, I try to interview each of the jurors. Those interviews are always hard after a loss. They are essential to future victories as they force me to see myself and my case through the eyes of the impartial judges of the facts.

The first question that Democrats need to ask after yesterday's loss is whether or not we really are the reality-based community. If we are reality-based, we can learn from the election and more forward to future victories. If we are not reality-based, then we will find excuses and reasons for the loss that are external to ourselves. That will lead to more defeats.

I have not had time to fully digest the lessons of the election but I am fairly sure that we can make at least two preliminary judgments:

1) The election results are valid and legitimate

The idea that George W. Bush is not a legitimate president is no longer operative. A three million+ popular vote margin validates his 2000 election (however it was obtained) as well as his reelection. Arguments that the election was somehow stolen should be avoided unless compelling evidence is brought forward.

We did not lose the election because of paperless voting machines. As Matt Yglesias writes:

So could I just ask commenters to stop alleging that the election was stolen by Diebold in some mysterious manner for which there seems to be no evidentiary support? Your concern on this front is duly noted, and I'm open to examining any evidence people may have, so please email me with it if you feel you have some. The mere fact that the early exit polls were out of line than the apparent vote totals has little probative value.

TNH may disagree:

By the way, I don’t accept these results. I never will. And if you have any sense, you won’t either. I don’t care what your politics are. That’s not the issue. People who mess with the vote are not your friends. If they don’t believe in government by the consent of the governed, they sure as hell don’t believe in government by the consent of you.

Maybe I do not have any sense, but until otherwise shown, I do accept the results. There is a presumption of validity unless and until that presumption is rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. I have seen no such evidence yet but, like Matt, I will consider any that may be put forward.

In addition, the failure to accept the results is self-defeating in several ways. First, if we refuse to accept the results, there is really no reason to think carefully about the result of the election or to learn any lessons from it.

Asserting that the results are not valid, in the absence of strong evidence, is to abandon the reality-based community.

Secondly, the refusal to accept the results of the election separates us from the American people. Those are the folks we need to convince to entrust our side with the levers of power. Refusing to accept what seems completely obvious to most Americans is no way to convince them to trust us. It just makes them think that we are nutbar conspiracy theorists.

Refusing to accept the results of the election is politically counterproductive unless a majority of the America people agree. They do not now agree, so they would have to be convinced. The time and effort required to convince them that the last election (or two) was stolen is better put towards convincing them that our ideas would improve their lives.

Third, even if this election had some voter intimidation, some dirty tricks, and perhaps some ballot manipulation, those are not the reason we lost. If we had the support of a solid majority of the American people on a wide range of policy and value issues, all of the hanky panky would be irrelevant.

The key to political success is not to just find a way to thread the electoral needle to achieve a temporary victory, but to change the fundamentals to grow an enduring majority. Time spent re-fighting the last two wars detracts from that process. We need to focus our attention on persuading the American people that our ideas are better.

The wiser course is to accept the election results and begin to offer proposed solutions to the very real problems in the lives of millions of Americans.

2) The electorate is not to blame

I have never found blaming the jury for my losses to be productive. We did not lose because the American people are stupid, blind, or gullible. I believe in the democratic process. Ground zero of that belief is that the collective wisdom of the American people is generally deeper and more profound than any one person or any small group of people. To think otherwise is a form of elitism that is inconsistent with the idea of democracy.

You do not win trials by treating jurors like idiots. You do not win elections by telling the voters they are stupid. If you do, voters will recognize that you hold them in contempt and are very likely to reciprocate. The voters are not stupid. They are certainly smart enough to reject both you and your argument if you claim they are.

In time, other lessons of the election will emerge. We should endeavor to learn from them and to get about the work of changing the political environment. That is part and parcel of being in the reality-based community.

A Line

Post-KE04

---

KE04

Senate Predictions

This is my second effort at predicting each Senate race. My 2002 predictions are here. In my previous effort, I correctly predicted 31 of 34 races or 91%.

The key to having a high percentage of correct picks is to make sure to post predictions in the safe races. In 2002, there were 17 non-competitive races that were easy to predict. In other words, I missed on 3 of 17 reasonable close races. I thought that Cleland would win in Georgia (embarrassing to miss in my home state), that Coleman would lose in Minnesota, and that Shaheen would prevail over Sununu in New Hampshire. I would like to do better this year but given the number of very close races, I doubt I will. The good news is that I have a high degree of confidence that I will get Georgia right this time. At any rate, here goes.

Baseline

The current Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one Independent, Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Jeffords caucuses with the Democrats so, from here on out, I will lump him in with the Dems. There are 34 Senate seats up this year. Fifteen of those seats are currently held by Republicans and 19 by Democrats. Before the votes are counted, the race for control of the Senate is Republicans 36, Demoncrats 30.

If either party acheives 51 seats, it will control the Senate (to the extent that the Senate can be controlled with fewer than a filibuster proof 60 seats). If the party winning the White House gets 50 seats, the Vice President breaks the tie and gives that party control. If John Kerry becomes President, he will resign his Senate seat. Massachusetts passed a law preventing the Republican Governor Mitt Romney from appointing anyone to that seat pending a special election in the spring.

Safe GOP Seats

There are nine Republican Senators running for reelection who will win easily. Those nine are Shelby of Alabama, McCain of Arizona, Crapo of Idaho, Grassley of Iowa, Brownback of Kansas, Voinovich of Ohio, Gregg of New Hampshire, Bennett of Utah, and Kit Bond of Missouri who will win big for the first time in his career. See how easy it is to inflate one's percentage of correct choices. Barring a miracle, I am now nine for nine.

After those nine Senators cruise to reelection, our running score is:

GOP 45
Dem 30

Safe Democrats

There are safe Democratic seats, too. At one time, Republicans thought they had a chance to defeat Patty Murray in Washington, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. They were wrong. There are now thirteen safe Democratic seats. The lucky thirteen are Feingold of Wisconsin, Boxer of California, Murray of Washington, Lincoln of Arkansas, Inoye of Haiwaii, Dodd of Conn., Bayh of Indiana, Milkulski of Maryland, Reid of Nevada, Shumer of NY, Dorgan of North Dakota, Wyden of Oregon and Pat Leahy, of whom Dick Cheney thinks so highly, of Vermont.

It is particularly satisfying that four of the seats, Lincoln, Bayh, Reid, and Dorgan are safe despite being in red states. Of the safe Republican seats only one, Grassley of Iowa, is from a state won by Al Gore in 2000.

After the safe Dem seats are counted, the Dems have pulled closer:

GOP 45

Dem 43

The remaining seats seats are either closely contested or open seats. Let's take those one at a time.

More under the fold.

1) Illinois

Illinios is an open Republican seat. I smell an upset brewing in Illinois. The Democrats nominated rising star and convention keynote speaker Barrack Obama. The Republicans had troube getting a candidate. Jack Ryan, a young, handsome, smart, rich Wall Street type was all set to run when documents from his bitter divorce from actress Jeri Ryan showed that he pressured his wife to particpate in some exhibitionist sexual activity. Ryan pulled out of the race. The GOP, scrambling to find a candidate, then flirted with such luminaries as Mike Ditka but eventually settled on Alan Keyes. The fact that Keyes lived in Maryland did not seem to cause the Illinios GOP much pause.

Keyes is a certified nut case. Obama is a rising star with national potential.

Obama will win this one in a walk. The over/under on Obama's vote percentage seems to be 70%. I'll take the over. You should expect the GOP slime machine to crank up to throw some dirt his way before he has a chance to become a force in national politics.

Oh yeah, the upset. You didn't really think I was going to predict a Keyes win did you? If I had even suggested as much they would have taken away my predictor's license. No, the upset is that Alan Keyes will made it through the campaign without either throwing himself into a mosh pit or dowsing himself with gasoline and strking a match.

GOP 45

Dem 44

2) Georgia

My home state. This is the first race that fits within the overall theme of this years's Senate races. Can Democrats win state wide elections in red states? In this case, the answer is no.

The Georgia race is for an open seat being vacated by the retiring Zell Miller. I voted for Zell three times but like many Georgia Democrats, I am not sorry to see him go. It appears that a few years in Washington caused him to lose his mind.

The race pits three-term Republican Congressman Johnny Isakson against one-term Democratic Congresswoman, Denise Majette.

On the poltical spectrum of Georgia, Isakson is a moderate who pretends to be a hard line conservative in order to win Republican primaries. Having him in the Senate instead of Zell will not move the ideological make-up of the Senate a centimeter.

Denise Majette is very smart (she graduated from the Duke law school, and everyone knows that Duke law grads are smart, right?), highly competent, and is a good campaigner. I practiced before her when she was a judge, and she was always prepared, interested, open minded, and fair. Majette won a Congressional seat by defeating Cynthia McKinney in a Democratic primary. She is a good candidate.

She is also a black women running as a Democrat in Georgia in 2004. The sitting Democratic Senator (the aforementioned Zell Miller) has not endorsed her. She has no shot in this race and that is a pity.

GOP 46

Dem 44

3) South Dakota

The highest profile Senate race pits Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle against Republican John Thune. South Dakota is a very small, very red state. It went for George Bush over Al Gore 60-38 and President Bush has a 22% lead over John Kerry in recent polling. This race fits our theme. Can the highest ranking elected Democrat win in a bright red state?

Both sides have poured resources into South Dakota. The state has about 750,000 people. Between the two candidates, more than $30 million has been spent. My guess is that the people of South Dakota would rather have the $40 per man, woman and child and let the candidates flip a coin.

The race has been nasty. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader has campaigned against Daschle in South Dakota. That is the first time in history that a Majority Leader has actively campaigned against a Minority Leader. Rush Limbaugh likes to call Daschle the devil. Flyers have been handed out at churchs saying that a vote for Daschle is a vote for sodomy.

Daschle argues that his leadership position is beneficial to South Dakota. He points to all manner of pork he has brought to the state. Daschle notes that his Senate desk in in the front row, at the center of the chamber while Thunes would be in the back in a corner.

Thune argues that Daschle is a moderate at home but a liberal in Washington. In addition, Thune has hugged President Bush so tight that there are rumors of a need for a shotgun wedding. Thune argues that Daschle has obstructed the President, is out of step with South Dakota, and needs to be retired. In other words, its pork versus ideology. A good overview of the dynamic of the race is here.

Recent polling has Thune up a tiny amount but turn out will determine the result. There are likely to be charges of voter fraud (several Republican operatives have been indicted for voter fraud. The GOP responded not by firing those workers but by moving them to other states!). There may be line dancing by Indians across the North Dakota border. Thousands of folks have registered to vote leaving their RV campground as theoir address and hundreds apparently live at the Comfort Inn.

In the end, South Dakota will decide whether it wants to keep Daschle's influence or to line up behind the Bush agenda. I am reminded of when George Nethercutt defeated House Speaker Tom Foley. A poll after the election found that many voters in the Washington district were surprised that Neathercutt did not automaticaly become Speaker as a result of his win.

I would bet either side if given 11-9 odds. The popular position is to call it a toss up but that is a cop out. I predict that Daschle falls.

GOP 47

Dem 44

4) North Carolina

North Carolina is another open seat (John Edwards decided to run for President instead of reelection). Once again, this race will test whether or not a Democrat can win in a red state. The Senate seat has not been kind to incumbents. No Senator has been relected to this seat since the retirement of Sam Erving in 1974.

The race has former Clinton Chief of Staff and investment banker Erskine Bowles against fifth term Republican Congressman Richard Burr.

Polls show the race a dead heat. A poll released on October 29 by the Winston-Salem Journal had Bowles ahead by 0.3% with 7.5% undecided and a MoE of +-4%.

Bowles leads in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill are as well as in the Charlotte area. Burr leads in the Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point triad, in western NC and in the east.

Bowles led early, mainly due to name recognition from his time as Clin