Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

After all, by now, you're a part of the show as much as I am, in terms of making sure that some degree of intellectual honesty and integrity is maintained in here, and so ....

And speaking of intellectual honesty, and integrity, especially in what is called the "media" these days, as opposed to "news", and with good reason, I just received this following from a correspondent on the internet, and since we are on that subject right now, honesty and integrity, especially with respect to Newsweek, or PROPAGANDAWEEK, as I call it, because to me, it has been a willing shill for this Bush Co. machine since before the 2004 presidential elections, we have as follows:

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting - Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2529

MEDIA ADVISORY: Lessons from Newsweek's Retraction

June 1, 2005

In the rush to condemn Newsweek's May 9 report about abuse of the Quran at Guantanamo, little attention has been paid to a technique the magazine used in reporting its original story: submitting articles to government officials prior to publication.

According to Newsweek's accounts of the reporting behind the brief "Periscope" item that caused so much controversy, a draft of the item was actually given to a military official for review.

Wrote assistant managing editor Even Thomas in a post-controversy reexamination (5/23/05):

"Newsweek national security correspondent John Barry, realizing the sensitivity of the story, provided a draft of the Newsweek 'Periscope' item to a senior Defense official, asking, 'Is this accurate or not?'"

Newsweek's editor-in-chief Richard M. Smith later explained (5/30/05), "One of the frustrating aspects of our initial inquiry is that we seem to have taken so many appropriate steps in reporting the Guantanamo story…."

"We sought comment from one military spokesman (he declined) and provided the entire story to a senior Defense Department official, who disputed one assertion (which we changed) and said nothing about the charge of abusing the Quran."

Given the relative media silence over the matter, one would conclude that this action raised few ethical questions among mainstream reporters.

Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz commented in an online chat (5/16/05), "Newsweek did the right thing by running a draft of the item by a senior Pentagon official, and it's odd that the Pentagon didn't raise any red flags."

Post ombudsman Michael Getler agreed (5/22/05) that Newsweek "did the right thing in taking the item to two Pentagon officials for comment before publication."

But is showing articles to government officials prepublication really "the right thing" to do?

Such advance looks can't help but imply that journalists are asking for permission to publish critical articles about the government--a dangerous impression to give if the news media hope to maintain a free press.

The prepublication review also invites officials to give feedback not only on facts but on questions of balance, organization and tone as well--areas in which government officials have no special expertise, but which as interested parties to the story they have every incentive to weigh in on.

Of course, checking facts is an important part of the journalistic process.

But fact-checking traditionally involves asking sources about the facts in a report, not giving sources a chance to review the entire report ahead of time.

This not only protects the story from attempts by sources to participate in the editing process, it's also less fallible than Newsweek's method.

When an official is shown a story in advance and makes no comment about a particular allegation, that can mean many things: "That's true"; "I don't know if that's true or not"; "That's less important than other things I'd like to comment on"; "I hope publishing this false report blows up in your face."

If Newsweek had taken the more time-consuming approach of fact-checking by asking about specific allegations in the story, it would have not only insulated its journalism from the potential for official interference, it might have gotten a more useful response when it asked about the alleged Quran incident.

While the practice of having officials vet stories in advance has received little attention, conventional wisdom holds that the real ethical lesson of the Newsweek incident is to avoid anonymous sources.

In a letter to readers in the magazine's May 30 issue, Newsweek's Smith vowed, "We will raise the standards for the use of anonymous sources throughout the magazine."

"Historically, unnamed sources have helped to break or advance stories of great national importance, but overuse can lead to distrust among readers and carelessness among journalists."

While there's no denying that unnamed sources are overused, the kind of anonymity granted in the May 9 "Periscope" item--protecting a source who is breaking government secrecy to expose official wrongdoing--is actually the most justifiable, and such uses make up a small minority of the anonymous sources who appear in the news media every day.

Overwhelmingly, the officials who are quoted without being identified are not whistleblowers, but rather government officials looking to spin the news in favor of themselves and their bosses.

Sure enough, a few pages from that editor's note, Newsweek ran a piece on a meeting between George W. Bush and Egyptian prime minister Ahmed Nazif.

The meeting occurred behind closed doors, so Newsweek's only source for what happened there was an anonymous White House official--remaining unnamed, the magazine said, "because the meeting was private"--who, unsurprisingly, took the opportunity to boast about Bush's performance.

In the source's version, Bush "counseled patience," "emphasized his commitment to nation-building" and showed a "more nurturing approach" during the meeting.

"It's not a simplistic foreign policy," Newsweek quoted the source.

"It's not just a shoot-from-the-hip, idealistic thing."

This more common use of anonymous sources--to give administration officials a chance to flatter themselves--raised few if any eyebrows among the critics who supposedly objected to Newsweek's reliance on the unnamed.

When asked to explain the discrepancy between the White House's criticism of Newsweek's anonymous sourcing of its Quran item and the fact that the White House itself regularly gives anonymous briefings to reporters, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said (5/17/05) it was acceptable to quote anonymous "officials who are helping to provide context to on-the-record comments made by people like the President or the Secretary of State or others"; the real problem was that "some media organizations have used anonymous sources that are hiding behind that anonymity in order to generate negative attacks."

It's easy to see why the White House press secretary would approve of anonymous sources when they help the administration and condemn them when they don't.

What's more puzzling is that some in the media seem to be judging anonymous sources the same way.

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=5

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ).

We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org .

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.

FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair@fair.org

[Livyjr]

When asked to explain the discrepancy between the White House's criticism of Newsweek's anonymous sourcing of its Quran item and the fact that the White House itself regularly gives anonymous briefings to reporters, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said (5/17/05) it was acceptable to quote anonymous "officials who are helping to provide context to on-the-record comments made by people like the President or the Secretary of State or others"!

The real problem was that "some media organizations have used anonymous sources that are hiding behind that anonymity in order to generate negative attacks."

And while that is going on, we have:

White House - AP

"Bush Pushes Computerized Medical Records"

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

CLEVELAND - President Bush returned to the state that helped seal his re-election victory to pitch his second-term health agenda, urging greater use of computerized medical records and electronic prescriptions.

"It can save money and save lives," Bush said Thursday at a forum at the Cleveland Clinic.

"Most industries in America have used information technology to make their businesses more cost effective, more efficient and more productive — and the truth of the matter is health care hasn't," Bush said.

In the budget he will send Congress next month, Bush will propose spending $125 million to test computerization of health records, more than twice what is being spent in the budget year that ends Sept. 30.

Bush also said ways must be found to safeguard medical records to protect against "people prying into them."

"There has been a huge amount of pressure from across the health care field to have the federal government take an active role in the development of electronic health care records," said Scott Wallace, head of the National Alliance for Health Information Technology.

The Cleveland Clinic has been helping the government develop standards for medical computerization and Bush heard from doctors who showed him some of the technology and then joined him on the stage.

"Very impressive," Bush said.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Levitt, on only his second day on the job, accompanied Bush.

Levitt said wider use of computers for medical information brings "lower costs and fewer mistakes."

About a dozen protesters huddled outside in the bitter cold.

An effigy of Bush was stuck into a snow pile.

Sarah Taylor, 62, held a sign that said "President Bush is a disgrace to the U.S.A."

"I think he's an appalling leader."

"He's trying to dismantle Social Security and he attacks and bombs other countries," Taylor said.
___

Associated Press Writer Joe Milicia contributed to this report.
___

On the Net: http://www.whitehouse.gov

end quotes

Bush also said ways must be found to safeguard medical records to protect against "people prying into them."

SIMPLE, George, don't put them on computers!

I don't want my medical records on some computer system.

Thank you very much!

I don't want anything to do with me being stored on a computer here in George W. Bush's slip-shod version of America for these reasons which follow:

THEY ARE NOT SECURE, AND THEY'RE BECOMING LESS SO, ALL THE TIME, NOW!

See what I mean:

Live Vote as of 5:00 P.M. EST:

How concerned are you about identity theft? * 2273 responses

Very much so. 71%

Somewhat. 23%

Not at all. 3%

I've already been hit. 3%

"Citi notifies 3.9 million customers of lost data - Computer tapes with personal information lost in transit"

The Associated Press

Updated: 2:16 p.m. ET June 6, 2005

NEW YORK - CitiFinancial, the consumer finance division of Citigroup Inc., said Monday it has begun notifying some 3.9 million U.S. customers that computer tapes containing information about their accounts — including Social Security numbers and payment histories — have been lost.

Citigroup, which is based in New York, said the tapes were lost by the courier UPS Inc. in transit to a credit bureau.

The bank said the tapes contained information about both active and closed accounts at CitiFinancial’s branch network.

It said they did not contain information from CitiFinancial Auto, CitiFinancial Mortgage or any other Citigroup business.

The statement said that CitiFinancial “had no reason to believe that this information has been used inappropriately, nor has it received any reports of unauthorized activity.”

Norman Black, a spokesman for Atlanta-based UPS, confirmed that the tapes were missing.

“Despite an exhaustive search for this package, we’ve been unable to find it,” Black said.

It was the latest in a series of data losses or breaches that have forced financial institutions and other data collectors to warn customers that their personal information may be at risk.

Last month, media and entertainment company Time Warner Inc. said that computer backup tapes containing data on 600,000 individuals were lost by an outside data storage firm.

The data were on current and former employees going back to 1986, as well as some of their dependents and beneficiaries, the company said.

It did not include personal data on Time Warner customers, the company said.

Also in May, more than 100,000 customers of Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp., both headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., were notified that their financial records may have been stolen by bank employees and sold to collection agencies.

In all, nearly 700,000 customers of four banks may be affected, according to police in Hackensack, N.J., where the investigation was centered.

And in April, online discount broker Ameritrade Holding Corp. said it had informed some 200,000 current and former customers that a backup computer tape with personal information had been lost.

Kevin Kessinger, executive vice president of Citigroup’s Global Consumer Group and president of Consumer Finance North America, told The Associated Press that the tapes left CitiFinancial on May 2 and were discovered missing on May 20.

Notification of customers was delayed at the request of the Secret Service, which is investigating the loss of the tapes, he said.

Kessinger said the bank’s letter encouraged consumers to review activity on all their accounts to make sure nothing suspicious was occurring.

He said CitiFinancial also was arranging for all affected customers to sign up free of charge with a credit monitoring service for 90 days.

And, he said, if a customer is victimized, they will get free help from Citigroup’s Identity Theft resolution service.

“Clearly we regret that this happened with our customers,” Kessinger said.

“We’re trying to be upfront — to communicate and to talk about what the issues are.”

CitiFinancial said in its statement that the data loss “occurred in spite of the enhanced security procedures we require of our couriers.”

It said there was little risk of the accounts being compromised because most customers already had received their loans and that no additional credit could be issued without the customers’ approval.

Debby Hopkins, chief operations and technology officer for Citigroup, said that the tapes were produced “in a sophisticated mainframe data center environment” and would be difficult to decode without the right equipment and special software.

Hopkins said that most Citigroup units send data electronically in encrypted form and that CitiFinancial data will be sent that way starting in July.

[Livyjr]

I am an older American who has seen more than my share of stupid politicians in this country, and I have always wondered, "How can that be?"

I know, or have a pretty good idea, at least, how George W. Bush came to be back in office for four more years, and to me, an older American, it is a real testament to where the American people are right now in their minds, more than it is any kind of statement about George W. Bush, himself.

Manipulation!

Play around with what people "think" they know, feed them a tidbit here, withold a morsal there, and you can manipulate huge numbers of people, anywhere, in any time.

Karl Rove, the man on whose shoulders George W. Bush stands, he understood this very well, and he was not afraid to do the manipulating, or cause it to happen, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME!

To the Karl Roves of the world, and maybe in the end, to every single one of us, America is an abstract, an idea, rather than a living, breathing entity.

To George W. Bush's benefit, Karl Rove had the astuteness to see America as a bunch of numbers, and by making inputs here and there, and by observing whatever outputs resulted, Karl Rove was able to take fear and terror and make them into a very potent poltical weapon with which to get George W. Bush into the White House for four more years.

Well, he has done it.

And guess what, folks?

All the problems that were masked over before, well, now they are back in spades to haunt us, and for some of us older folks in America, that haunting may well be for the rest of our natural lives, to our detriment.

Right, Karl Rove?

"Rove speaks out on Bush's win"

Mon Nov 8, 7:07 AM ET

By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

President Bush "absolutely" will use his second term to push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, his top political strategist said Sunday.

Karl Rove, who oversaw Bush's re-election victory, said Bush will renew the effort, which failed in Congress this year but may enjoy new support after 11 states approved bans on same-sex marriage on Election Day.

"Five thousand years of human history should not be overthrown by the acts of a few liberal judges or by the acts of a few local elected officials," Rove said on NBC's Meet the Press.

"Marriage is and should be defined as being between one man and one woman."

Rove, 53, usually stays behind the scenes at the White House.

But Sunday, after the victory for which Bush hailed him as "the architect," he made the rounds of talk shows.

He said the president's 3.5 million-vote margin over Kerry amounts to a mandate "to do in office what you said you would do on the campaign trail."

Rove said he also hopes the election will contribute to long-term GOP domination of U.S. politics.

"There are no permanent majorities in U.S. politics," he said, but there are periods of several decades where one party rules.

"Would I like to see the Republican Party be the dominant party for whatever time history gives it the chance to be?"

"You bet."

Well, it sure does sound as if this new Pope has a friend in Karl Rove, which would mean he has a friend in George W. Bush, as well, and that could prove interesting in these next couple of years, indeed:

"Pope condemns gay marriages as fake and anarchic"

By Philip Pullella

51 minutes ago

ROME (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, in his first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election, on Monday condemned same-sex unions as fake and expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threatened the future of the family.

The Pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of these practices were dangerous for the family.

"Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage, free unions, trial marriages as well as the pseudo-matrimonies between people of the same sex are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man," he said.

The Pope spoke to families at Rome's St. John's Cathedral on an issue that has become highly controversial around the world, particularly in Europe and the United States.

In April, parliament in traditionally Catholic Spain gave initial approval to a law legalizing gay marriage.

It is widely expected to be approved by the Senate and to become law.

Gay marriages are already legal in several European countries.

However, just last week, California's Assembly killed off a bill that would have allowed gay marriage in the most populous U.S. state.

U.S. President Bush favors a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

The Pope, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed the Vatican's doctrinal department for more than two decades, said "pseudo freedoms" such as gay marriages were based on what he called the "banalisation of the human body" and of man himself.

Aurelio Mancuso, president of Arcigay, Italy's largest gay rights group, hit back at the Pope.

"Ratzinger pretends not to understand that gay unions are no threat to heterosexual marriages," he said in a statement.

FAMILY'S VITAL ROLE

The Pope, who read his 14-page speech in a steady, professorial manner while seated at a writing table, spoke of the family's vital role for the future of society.

"Matrimony and the family are not, in reality, a casual sociological construction or the fruit of specific historic and economic situations," he said.

In a clear reference to contraception, the Pope said couples went against the nature of love itself when they "systematically shut off" the possibility of "the gift of life."

The 78-year-old Pope's wide-ranging speech, interrupted by applause several times, touched on themes such as human sexuality and freedom.

It clearly showed his background as one of the Roman Catholic Church's leading theologians.

"The greatest expression of freedom is not the search for pleasure," he said, adding that society seemed to want to tear down the moral goalposts he said were needed for its future.

"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to (moral) education is the overwhelming presence in our society and culture of a type of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive...," he said.

Ratzinger has already backed a controversial campaign by bishops who have urged voters to boycott an emotionally-charged referendum in Italy this weekend that would lift bans on embryo research.

The Pope's words on Monday were no surprise.

In an address to fellow cardinals before the start of the conclave that elected him in April, he denounced what he called an "anything goes" mentality that marked modern times.

end quotes

Whoa!

In an address to fellow cardinals before the start of the conclave that elected him in April, this Pope denounced what he called an "anything goes" mentality that marked modern times?

Wow!

Sounds like he would be against George W. Bush, and Karl Rove, and the REPUBLICANS in OUR America, then, because "ANYTHING GOES" is their trademark!

SO!

Interesting times ahead in OUR America, indeed!

[Livyjr]

And from out there in jeffmoskin's land of California, what do we have here?

Head's up, jeffmoskin, the REPUBLICANS are coming!

RUN!

RUN!

And keep your temples covered too, 'cause you just never know .....

"Republicans See Glimmer of Hope in Calif."

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

Mon Jun 6, 7:52 AM ET

SAN JOSE, Calif. - Every six weeks, the Republican Party chairman has traveled to California, a large and solidly Democratic Party stronghold.

With Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor and the state's most conservative areas growing rapidly, Republicans are sensing an opportunity.

Democrats have won the last four presidential contests in California and maintain overwhelming majorities in the congressional delegation and legislature.

But Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman insists GOP prospects are improving, thanks to demographic changes and Schwarzenegger's star power.

"There's tremendous opportunity here because of the governor and his leadership, and because of President Bush and his leadership," Mehlman said in a recent interview.

Mehlman nonetheless faces steep challenges in making his party competitive in California.

Bush lost the state by 10 points to Democrat John Kerry last November, and Schwarzenegger is engaged in a bruising battle with teachers, nurses and other Democrat-leaning interest groups over government reform measures he's proposed to curtail their influence.

Polls show the governor's popularity has dropped below 50 percent.

But analysts have noted several population shifts that suggest potential for Republicans to expand their reach.

California is home to nearly 37 million people — one of every eight Americans — and is projected to add as many as 11 million more in the next two decades, roughly the equivalent of the state of Ohio.

But while population growth is slowing in left-leaning coastal areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco, it is accelerating in more conservative regions such as the Central Valley and the Inland Empire area east of Los Angeles.

The state's large Hispanic population, long staunchly Democratic, has become somewhat less so in recent years.

Bush won 32 percent of California's Hispanic vote in 2004, up from 28 percent in 2000.

Schwarzenegger won about a third of Hispanic voters in the 2003 recall election even though Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a Hispanic, was also on the ballot.

Mehlman has seized on those trends, traveling to California every six weeks this year for outreach work in Hispanic, black and Asian American areas.

On a recent visit, he addressed a Hispanic community center south of Los Angeles and a black leadership forum in Sacramento, and held several fundraisers and meetings with GOP lawmakers.

In his outreach to ethnic minorities, Mehlman said he stresses the party's commitment to economic self-reliance and traditional family values.

Still, most analysts believe Republicans have a long way to go to repair the party's image among Hispanic voters, after a 1994 ballot initiative promoted by GOP Gov. Pete Wilson to deny social services to illegal immigrants.

Since then, Hispanics have lined up solidly with Democrats.

Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party, said Republicans since the Richard Nixon era have spoken of outreach to Hispanic voters but have done little to increase their numbers in the GOP.

"The bottom line is that the dynamics of the national Republican Party have produced a consistent pattern of behavior."

"In even numbered years they talk a good game, but they don't deliver on issues of jobs, education and health care," he said.

But Torres didn't dispute that Republicans may make inroads in California if Democrats aren't vigilant about their own outreach and recruitment efforts.

"I always worry about the next election."

"I never take anything for granted and that includes the Latino community, and that means going to red areas of the state where we don't usually show up where we need to," Torres said.

Schwarzenegger may have complicated Republican efforts to recruit Hispanic voters with his criticism of the federal government for lax border controls and his praise for the so-called Minuteman Project, a controversial civilian patrol that has helped capture hundreds of illegal immigrants in Arizona.

Bush has denounced the group as vigilantes.

In California, Mehlman calls for a comprehensive immigration policy that includes better border enforcement and a guest worker program for migrants already in the United States.

"We need to understand we'll never control the border unless and until we also recognize the reality that there are certain jobs Americans don't want that folks are going to come here for," Mehlman said.

Schwarzenegger's immigration comments aren't the first time he has publicly broken with administration policy.

He also supports gay rights, legalized abortion and stricter gun controls, and has cut sharply to the left of the administration on environmental issues.

Last week, he unveiled an aggressive plan to combat global warming by setting goals for reducing California's emission of greenhouse gases.

Mehlman said he's comfortable with the nation's best-known Republican governor taking positions at odds with the Bush administration, and he downplayed a magazine interview last month in which Schwarzenegger said growing the Republican Party was not part of his mission.

"We're a big party, and we're a party where people will disagree on some issues while agreeing on what it means to be a Republican," Mehlman said.

end quotes

And Ken, what does it mean to be a REPUBLICAN?

Can you edify us, so we will know?

Or is it a secret only some few chosen like yourself can know?

[Livyjr]

And from the other end of the REPUBLICAN spectrum in OUR America, what's this from George Pataki's EMPIRE state?

The emporer is being dis-respected here, or what?

"New York Board Rejects NYC Stadium Plan"

By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 35 minutes ago

ALBANY, N.Y. - New York City's bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics suffered a setback Monday when a powerful state board rejected critical public funding for a $2 billion stadium on Manhattan's West side.

The financing board failed to approve $300 million in state money for the stadium that would also serve as home to the New York Jets.

The plan, which needed unanimous approval from the three-member board, received only one vote.

New York is in competition with Paris, London, Madrid and Moscow for the 2012 Games.

Earlier Monday, the International Olympic Committee released a report ranking Paris highest among the finalists and indicating that construction of the stadium is crucial to New York's chances.

The state board could reconsider the issue again later.

But without the support of member Sheldon Silver — the state Assembly Speaker who came out against the plan less than an hour before vote was taken — the state funding cannot move forward.

"This plan is at best, premature," Silver said, indicating he was willing to continue talking about the issue.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg had heavily lobbied Silver in recent days for support of the stadium.

"If we don't have a stadium, we cannot get the Olympics," Bloomberg said after Silver's announcement.

"I had not been able to persuade him."

The mayor said he would talk with members of the U.S. Olympic Committee about how to proceed.

Silver said the West Side stadium project and its related commercial development would hamper efforts to redevelop lower Manhattan, which he represents, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers.

"Am I to sell out the community I have fought for?" Silver said at a state Capitol news conference.

The speaker renewed his call for officials to consider putting the stadium in Queens.

Silver, Republican Gov. George Pataki and state Senate Republican Majority Leader Joseph Bruno each have a voting representative on the three-member PACB.

Only the representative for Pataki, a stadium backer, voted for the funding plan.

Representatives of Silver and Bruno, who had remained on the fence, abstained.

The meeting, which was scheduled to begin at 3 p.m., was delayed more than an hour in part because of more than 100 vocal stadium supporters who showed up and continued behind-the-scene talks.

Earlier Monday, Bruno had said he was willing to approve the funding contingent on approval of New York City's Olympic bid.

He offered that as an amendment at the PACB meeting, but the motion failed to gain a second.

Bruno said even before the PACB's meeting that negotiations might continue beyond Monday.

Dan Doctoroff, the main supporter of the city's 2012 bid, said after the report came out:

"We have, as they (IOC) pointed out, really only one liability and that liability is thus far our inability to deliver a guaranteed done Olympic stadium."

The stadium plan has been contentious from the start.

Supporters, including Pataki and Bloomberg, have touted its economic development potential.

Detractors, including the owner of the neighboring Madison Square Garden, have questioned everything from the process that would allow the Jets to buy the property where the stadium would be built to the wisdom of spending large amounts of public money.

The NFL has said the Jets can host the 2010 Super Bowl, but only if the team has the new stadium.

The Jets currently play their home games in New Jersey, along with the New York Giants at Giants Stadium.

New York officials have said they fear the Jets, without a Manhattan stadium, will stay in New Jersey where the Giants are going to build their own new stadium.

Associated Press Writers Deepti Hajela and Sara Kugler in New York City and Mark Johnson in Albany contributed to this report.

On the Net:

http://www.nyc2012.org

http://www.olympic.org

[jeffmoskin]

New York City's bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics suffered a setback Monday when a powerful state board rejected critical public funding for a $2 billion stadium on Manhattan's West side.

How about that?

There IS a God after all.

I can't think of a more worthless waste of money (oh, in truth, I'm sure I could if pressed) than the West Side Stadium.

At a time when studio apartments sell for a million bucks; one might think that the City that never sleeps could use a few extra places for people who prefer to sleep.

How about a low cost housing project, somewhat akin to the Metropolitan Life complex on the east side in the 50s?

Or Alphabet City (Avenues A B C and D) done in the 60s?

There are 8 million stories in the naked city. This has been one of them.

[jeffmoskin]

"If we don't have a stadium, we cannot get the Olympics," Bloomberg said after Silver's announcement.

\

I can't think of a more worthless waste of money (oh, in truth, I'm sure I could if pressed) than the West Side Stadium.

At a time when studio apartments sell for a million bucks; one might think that the City that never sleeps could use a few extra places for people who prefer to sleep.

How about a low cost housing project, somewhat akin to the Metropolitan Life complex on the east side in the 50s?

Or Alphabet City (Avenues A B C and D) done in the 60s?

There are 8 million  stories in the naked city. This has been one of them.

Twenty Six Acres. That's how much "land" is available. At least, the air rights are available as I presume the tracks are still needed for the trains to get in and out of Manhattan.

But just think what you could build FOR THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK CITY with that kind of space!

Instead of a stadium.

[Livyjr]

How about that?

There IS a God after all.

I can't think of a more worthless waste of money (oh, in truth, I'm sure I could if pressed) than the West Side Stadium.

And winging our way back to OUR America after that brief stop over there in Putin's Russia, where someone has just stolen a lake, which George W. Bush appears to be getting the blame for, right now, anyway, what is going on here in Bush-buddy George Pataki's "homeland"?

"Jets stadium in Manhattan: Boon or boondoggle for state - Massive infusion of public funding raises questions about failed promises" 
 
By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, May 15, 2005

ALBANY -- One thing's for sure, Gov. George Pataki and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are thinking big.

Their plan to put up $600 million in public funds to the New York Jets for a $2 billion Manhattan football stadium would be a new high in public sports facility subsidies.

The two Republican leaders are staking much political capital on the idea, too, despite polls showing New York residents statewide dislike the idea.

Their proposal triggers a classic public policy question about taxpayer funding of sports facilities.

Polls show New Yorkers question the stadium project, including people like upstate resident Stephen Ten Eyck, 65, a retired commercial cleaner from Altamont who has been following the issue.

"What are we supposed to get out of this stadium?" asks Ten Eyck,

"It sounds like a great boondoggle for Manhattan."

Indeed, "boondoggle" is used a lot by critics, including Capital Region Assemblymen Ronald Canestrari, D-Cohoes, and Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam.

"This is a project that the local community does not want, the local city does not want, the voting population of the state does not want and would waste hundreds of millions of state funding," Canestrari said.

Pataki and Bloomberg are joined by Jets owner, Johnson & Johnson heir Robert Wood "Woody" Johnson IV, in saying the bonuses could be even more far-reaching.

By committing the $600 million to Jets owner Johnson, a billionaire who bought the team for $635 million in 2000 and is now willing to spend at least $1.4 billion for the new stadium, the state and city could become the biggest underwriter of a sports facility in history.

And jeffmoskin, here I thought that you were a man of compassion!

Here we have this poor BILLIONAIRE up here, this Robert Wood "Woody" Johnson IV, and well, jeffmoskin, just like everybody else out there, well, hey, the guy needs a dime or two, and so, where's your sense of charity, here?

And as to this boondoggle being over?

Don't bet on it!

Old "Big Joe" Bruno, the "MAIN MAN" in state government up here, well, on the radio this morning, he was making all kinds of noise about waiting until the Olympic Committee says some more, and in the meantime, the lobbyists are still out there, trying to buy off as many of these politicians as they can to get this WELFARE DEAL for this poor BILLIONAIRE through the "system", and old "Big Joe", well, he's pretty canny, and he knows the value of playing hard to get, and so ....

[Livyjr]

"Edwards Undecided About Running in 2008"

By GARY TANNER, Associated Press Writer

Sun Jun 5, 8:21 AM ET

Edwards also disagreed with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's controversial comment in a speech to liberal activists Thursday that many Republicans "have never made an honest living in their lives."

"The chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the party," Edwards said.

"He's a voice."

"I don't agree with it."

On Saturday, Dean continued his barrage on conservatives while visiting Montana, lambasting the Bush administration for its fiscal irresponsibility and war on terror.

He said President Bush needs to get tough on real threats to national security, nations like North Korea and Iran that claim to have nuclear weapons, rather than nations like Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

"I would make the argument that America is safer when Democrats are in the White House, than when Republicans are in the White House," Dean said in a speech to Democratic supporters.

There was no immediate response from the GOP to Dean's comments Saturday, but RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said after Thursday's speech that Dean's "priority is to generate mudslinging headlines rather than engage in substantive debate."

Associated Press Writer Sarah Cooke contributed to this report from Helena, Mont.

And here is something for the Democrats out there to think about, which is the image that this Howard Dean fellow projects FOR THE PARTY!

Something to think about, indeed, especially in the light of this last election, which thanks to whatever, and whomever, was lost by the Democrats, when it should have been a "slam-dunk":

"Richardson Distances Himself From Dean"

By TIM McCAHILL, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 54 minutes ago

BEDFORD, N.H. - Howard Dean is not the Democratic Party's spokesman, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the latest party leader to distance himself from the outspoken chairman, said Tuesday.

"I believe Governor Dean is a good chairman."

"He's doing a good job," Richardson, the head of the Democratic Governors' Association, told reporters at the start of a two-day visit to New Hampshire.

"He's not the spokesman for the party."

"It's governors, it's senators, it's party leaders."

Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks.

Dean told a group of progressives that Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," a comment he was forced to explain a day later.

The one-time presidential candidate also said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

Richardson said Dean is doing a good job as party chairman, but added: "Nobody's error-free."

"I wouldn't have made the comments he did."

Edwards said that Dean is not the party's spokesman.

"He's a voice."

"I don't agree with it."

Biden said, "I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats."

In response, Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said Dean "is a voice for the party and we have a number of voices who speak for the party."

Richardson has been mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate, but he played down any speculation during his foray to New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary.

"My message to voters is keep your powder dry."

"We've still got 3 1/2 years," he said.

Richardson spoke at a political breakfast Tuesday that is a common stop for potential White House hopefuls.

He was also scheduled to meet with state and local Democrats in New Hampshire.

___

A possible 2008 presidential candidate criticized last year's nominee, John Kerry, on Tuesday for adhering too rigidly to Democratic Party doctrine.

"One of my critiques of Senator Kerry, and I campaigned hard for Senator Kerry, was I can't tell you where he ever broke with anything in Democratic orthodoxy," Virginia Gov. Mark Warner said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We've got to rethink the way we talk to the American people, what we lay out as to where we're headed."

Warner was in Iowa, site of the party caucuses that kick off the quadrennial nominating process, to talk about high school education and prepare for a meeting later this year of the National Governors Association.

He is chairman of the organization.

Warner traveled with Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, another possible 2008 candidate, and did little to quiet speculation about his future aspirations.

"I can honestly say, to quote my colleague from California, 'I'll be back,'" Warner said, a reference to the movie line often uttered by actor-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The criticism of Kerry was the latest from a Democrat.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a Rolling Stone magazine interview that Kerry ignored rural America in his presidential bid.

Warner said Democrats must find a way to expand the party's appeal.

If Democrats continue to "hope that if everything breaks right we can get to a 17th state and somehow 270 electoral votes, we do this country a disservice and we do the Democratic Party a disservice," Warner said.

"Democrats aren't the majority party in this country."

"We've got to convince some other folks to think about voting Democratic."
___

Associated Press Writers Mike Glover in Des Moines, Iowa, and Will Lester in Washington contributed to this report.

[jeffmoskin]

Richardson has been mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate, but he played down any speculation during his foray to New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary.

"My message to voters is keep your powder dry."

"We've still got 3 1/2 years," he said.

Richardson spoke at a political breakfast Tuesday that is a common stop for potential White House hopefuls.

He was also scheduled to meet with state and local Democrats in New Hampshire.

WRONG.

We've got ONE and a half year.

Because if we don't win the House back in 06, there may not be a country left to hold elections by 08.

[Livyjr]

WRONG.

We've got ONE and a half years.

Because if we don't win the House back in 06, there may not be a country left to hold elections by 08.

Boy, am I with you on that sentiment!

And I'm surprised these "rocket scientists" in the Democratic National Committee can't seem to see these things very clearly, especially since it is all right out there in plain sight!

Too much focus goes into the office of the president, is what I think, these days anyway, as compared to a hundred years or so ago, and when one looks at the United States Constitution, and the history of that document, it is quite clear that the House and Senate are the more important bodies in OUR frame of government, at least as it was originally envisioned to be, and so, if the Democratic National Committee wants to start attracting some voters, like me, who am an independent, then the Democratic National Committee is going to have to start, in my own opinion, coming across as knowledgable about OUR frame of government, as opposed to being seen as just a bunch of mouthy, ignorant politicians, which is the image that I got from that Terry MacAuliffe, and now Howard Dean, who I have considered a numbskull ever since that SSSSSCCCCRRREEEEAAAAAMMMMMM!

Being mouthy and ignorant may play well to somebody, but I just don't know who that is, myself, and so ....

[Livyjr]

Being mouthy and ignorant may play well to somebody, but I just don't know who that is, myself, and so ....

And while we're on the subject of mouthy and ignorant not playing well, here in OUR America, what's this, then?

Could it be?

Could it really be?

The American people are finally starting to wake up and realize that in their fear, in their abject terror, which was in their minds, they have just royally screwed a whole vital nation by putting in incompetent back in the White House for FOUR MORE YEARS?

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Poll finds dimmer view of Iraq war - 52 percent say United States is no safer than before conflict"

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane

Updated: 7:29 a.m. ET June 8, 2005

WASHINGTON - For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded.

More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has.

It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home.

In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.

Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency.

A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security.

Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats.

For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

Rising gloom

The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis died in May alone amid a rash of bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorists.

By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.

The dissipating support for the Iraq war is of potential military concern, because, as Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis wrote in a note to his troops as he led them back into Iraq in February 2004, "our friendly strategic center of gravity is the will of the American people."

Some authorities on war and public opinion said the figures indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has reached a dangerous level.

"It appears that Americans are coming to the realization that the war in Iraq is not being won and may well prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor at Boston University.

"That conclusion bleeds over into a conviction that it may not have been necessary in the first place."

That is the view of poll respondent Margaret Boudreaux, 63, a casino worker living in Oakdale, La.

"I don't think it's going well -- there's too much killing," she said, worrying that the Iraq invasion could move more enemies to violence.

"I think that some of the people, if they could, would get revenge for what we've done."

‘A lot of talking’

"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden."

"I don't think he [Bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . ."

"He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse.

"People are getting through airport security with things that are unbelievable. . . ."

"I don't think he learned from 9/11."

While Bush has shelved his routine speeches about terrorism, and Congress has turned to domestic issues, fear of terrorism has receded from the public consciousness.

Only 12 percent called it the nation's top priority, behind the economy, Iraq, health care and Social Security.

The drop in Bush's approval ratings on fighting terrorism came disproportionately from political independents.

In March, 63 percent of independents approved of Bush's job combating terrorism.

By April this had fallen to 54 percent.

And in this weekend's survey, 40 percent gave him good marks.

The poll suggests that views on the Iraq war's impact also remain highly partisan.

Three in four Republicans said the Iraq invasion has boosted domestic security, while three in four Democrats said it has not.

Political independents lean negative on the issue: About six in 10 said the war has not made Americans safer.

Overall, Bush's 48 percent job approval rating was essentially unchanged from the 47 percent rating he received in a late-April poll.

And there was growth in the proportion of people who said the economy was doing well: 44 percent, up from 37 percent in April.

But the public took a generally gloomy view of the White House and Congress.

A plurality said Bush is doing worse in his second term than in his first, and 58 percent said he is not concentrating on the things that matter most to them -- the worst showing Bush has had in this measure in Post-ABC polls.

Disapproval of Congress

Congress fared no better.

The proportion of the public disapproving of the legislative body was at its highest since late 1998, during President Bill Clinton's impeachment.

More people said they would look at a candidate other than their sitting representative than at any point in nearly eight years.

For the first time since April 2001, Democrats (46 percent) were trusted more than Republicans (41 percent) to cope with the nation's problems.

But at the same time, favorability ratings for the Democratic Party, at 51 percent, tied their all-time low.

A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone June 2 to 5 for this Post-ABC News poll.

The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll also found disapproval or division when it came to Bush's performance on several other recent, high-profile issues.

One-third of those surveyed approved of the way Bush is handling federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, while 55 percent disapproved.

The public was divided on the president's handling of judicial nominations, with 46 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving.

And half said they were opposed to drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a proposal backed by Bush and being debated in Congress.

But the most striking trend identified by the survey was the spreading impatience over Iraq and national security matters.

While six in 10 were confident that the United States was not violating the rights of detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Americans were more skeptical that the government is protecting the rights of U.S. citizens at home.

Only half said Americans' rights were being adequately protected, down from 69 percent in September 2003.

James Burk, a sociologist at Texas A&M University, said disillusionment about Iraq may have grown to the point that policymakers will have difficulty reversing it.

"People all across the country know people in Iraq [so] there's a direct connection to the war," he said.

Burk sees a "disjuncture" between upbeat administration rhetoric and realities the public perceives.

"These data suggest we will soon reach the point, if we haven't yet reached the point, where that kind of language will seem too out of touch."

Polling director Richard Morin contributed to this report.

end quotes

Take all the lies out of this administration's mouth, and they would all be mutes, without a solitary thing to say, if they couldn't just tell some more lies, to cover up the lies of yesterday, and the day before that and ........

[Livyjr]

.... so, if the Democratic National Committee wants to start attracting some voters, like me, who am an independent, then the Democratic National Committee is going to have to start, in my own opinion, coming across as knowledgable about OUR frame of government, as opposed to being seen as just a bunch of mouthy, ignorant politicians, which is the image that I got from that Terry MacAuliffe, and now Howard Dean, who I have considered a numbskull ever since that SSSSSCCCCRRREEEEAAAAAMMMMMM!

Being mouthy and ignorant may play well to somebody, but I just don't know who that is, myself, and so ....

And speaking of the man whose head blew up on national TV, or so I heard, anyway, when he emitted that now-famous scream .....

MSNBC Poll @ 6:15 PM EST

What is the political impact of Howard Dean's remarks about the GOP? * 31464 responses

He will rally the Democratic Party faithful 31%

He's a boon to the Republican Party 44%

I'm not sure yet 12%

I don't care 13%

Politics

"Dean defends view of GOP as 'Christian party' - Democratic Party chairman tries to turn attention to other issues"

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:01 a.m. ET June 8, 2005

WASHINGTON - Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday defended his recent harsh criticism of Republicans, including his observation that they are “pretty much a white, Christian party.”

Dean noted that he, too, is a white Christian.

But he said the GOP is too narrow in its scope and the Democratic Party is far more diverse.

While even prominent Democrats in recent days have distanced themselves from some of his comments, the outspoken Dean, appearing on NBC's “Today” show, said criticism of him is meant by Republicans to divert attention from the country’s problems and make him the issue instead.

Dean told a forum of journalists and minority leaders Monday that Republicans are “not very friendly to different kinds of people, they are a pretty monolithic party ... it’s pretty much a white, Christian party.”

Challenged on that during the NBC interview, Dean said “unfortunately, by and large it is."

"And they have the agenda of the conservative Christians.”

“This is a diversion from the issues that really matter: Social Security, and adequate job opportunity, strong public schools, a strong defense,” Dean said.

Raising eyebrows

Asked about it on the “Fox & Friends” show, GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman joked that “a lot of folks who attended my bar mitzvah would be surprised” he heads a Christian party.

“We gotta get ourselves beyond this point where when we disagree about politics, we call the other guy names,” he said.

The former Vermont governor also recently raised eyebrows when he told a group of progressives that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” a comment he was forced to explain a day later.

The one-time presidential candidate also said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

Some Democrats distance selves

On Wednesday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that while Dean was "doing a great job" as party chairman, "I don't think the statement that the governor made was a helpful statement."

She later added that it "is not a fair assessment to characterize the Republicans" the way Dean did.

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party’s spokesman.

Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks, saying he doesn’t speak for them.

Biden, asked about Dean Wednesday during an interview on the Don Imus radio show, also said the chairman is doing a good job.

“A lot of things he does say, I agree with,” Biden said.

But he also said that Dean “has views that are slightly different than mine ... But look, he’s a lightning rod."

" ... It’s probably good that there’s a guy out there that’s a lightning rod ... .”

Biden, however, added that he thinks “the rhetoric is counterproductive.”

“I think this country has a purple heart, not a red heart or a blue heart,” Biden said.

“If we can’t bring this (country) together, man, boy, we’re really in deep trouble.”

[Livyjr]

And speaking of the man whose head blew up on national TV, or so I heard, anyway, when he emitted that now-famous scream .....

MSNBC Poll @ 6:15 PM EST

What is the political impact of Howard Dean's remarks about the GOP? * 31464 responses 
 
He will rally the Democratic Party faithful 31% 

He's a boon to the Republican Party 44% 

I'm not sure yet 12% 

I don't care 13% 

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty .......

"Survey: Scientific Misbehavior Is Common"

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer

2 hours, 49 minutes ago

NEW YORK - It's not the stuff of headlines, like fraud.

But more mundane misbehavior by scientists is common enough that it may pose an even greater threat to the integrity of science, a new report asserts.

One-third of scientists surveyed said that within the previous three years, they'd engaged in at least one practice that would probably get them into trouble, the report said.

Examples included circumventing minor aspects of rules for doing research on people and overlooking a colleague's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.

Such behaviors are "primarily flying below the radar screen right now," said Brian C. Martinson of the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, who presents the survey results with colleagues in a commentary in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Scientists "can no longer remain complacent about such misbehavior," the commentary says.

But "I don't think we've been complacent," said Mark S. Frankel, director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Frankel, who wasn't involved in the survey, said its results didn't surprise him.

But he said that the survey sampled only a slice of the scientific community and shouldn't be taken as applying to all scientists.

The survey included results from 3,247 scientists, roughly 40 percent of those who were sent the questionnaire in 2002.

They were researchers based in the United States who'd received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Most were studying biology, medicine or the social sciences, with others in chemistry and a smaller group in math, physics or engineering.

Of the 10 practices that Martinson's study described as the most serious, less than 2 percent of respondents admitted to falsifying data, plagiarism or ignoring major aspects of rules for conducting studies with human subjects.

But nearly 8 percent said they'd circumvented what they judged to be minor aspects of such requirements.

Nearly 13 percent of those who responded said they'd overlooked "others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data," and nearly 16 percent said they had changed the design, methods or results of a study "in response to pressure from a funding source."

Martinson said the first question referred to other researchers in their own lab, and the second question referred to pressure from companies funding their work.

But David Clayton, vice president and chief scientific officer at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which focuses on biomedical research, said he found both questions worded so vaguely that they could be referring to perfectly acceptable activities.

Clayton also says it's not clear whether the behaviors addressed in the survey have been increasing or declining over time.
___

On the Net:

http://www.nature.com

[Livyjr]

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, indeed .......

"'Downing Street memo' gets fresh attention"

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

Wed Jun 8, 6:58 AM ET

A simmering controversy over whether American media have ignored a secret British memo about how President Bush built his case for war with Iraq bubbled over into the White House on Tuesday.

At a late afternoon news conference, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair about a memo that's been widely written about and discussed in Europe but less so in the USA.

It was the most attention paid by the media in the USA so far to the "Downing Street memo," first reported on May 1 by The Sunday Times of London.

The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision.

The Sunday Times said the memo is the minutes of a meeting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had with some of his top intelligence and foreign policy aides on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street, the prime minister's official residence.

The story said the memo indicates that Blair was told by the head of Britain's MI6 intelligence service that in 2002, the Bush administration was selectively choosing evidence that supported its case for going to war and ignoring anything to the contrary.

The war began in March 2003.

"Intelligence and facts were being fixed" by the Bush administration "around" a policy that saw military action "as inevitable," the newspaper quoted from the memo.

"There's nothing farther from the truth," Bush told reporters as Blair stood at his side.

"Both of us didn't want to use our military," Bush said in response to a question about the memo.

"It was our last option."

Blair added, "The facts were not being 'fixed' in any shape or form at all."

Bush said that at the time the memo was written, no decision had been made about going to war.

He pointed out that it was written two months before he went to the United Nations and asked for a Security Council resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction or face "serious consequences."

The Sunday Times' May 1 memo story, which broke just four days before Britain's national elections, caused a sensation in Europe.

American media reacted more cautiously.

The New York Times wrote about the memo May 2, but didn't mention until its 15th paragraph that the memo stated U.S. officials had "fixed" intelligence and facts.

Knight Ridder Newspapers distributed a story May 6 that said the memo "claims President Bush ... was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy."

The Los Angeles Times wrote about the memo May 12, The Washington Post followed on May 15 and The New York Times revisited the news on May 20.

None of the stories appeared on the newspapers' front pages.

Several other major media outlets, including the evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC, had not said a word about the document before Tuesday.

Today marks USA TODAY's first mention.

Some activists who opposed Bush's decision to attack Iraq have been peppering editors with letters and e-mails to push the media into more aggressive coverage.

Last week, a group known as Democrats.com offered $1,000 to anyone who can get Bush to answer "yes or no" to this question: Did he or his administration "fix the intelligence" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to terrorism?

"We want what the Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton and Star Wars stories have gotten: endless repetition until people have heard about it," says David Swanson, one of Democrats.com's organizers.

Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy.

"'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says.

Ombudsmen at both The New York Times and The Washington Post have been critical of their newspapers for not covering the story more aggressively.

USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news.

"We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source," Cox says.

"There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office)."

"And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."

end quotes

And the way things are today, where seemingly eveything is a lie that is associated with either this Blair, or George W. Bush, and the "media", who can know whether up is down anymore, let along whether right is really left?

And the other point that never seems to get noticed, is that George W. Bush today is STILL TALKING ABOUT SADDAM HAVING WMD's!

Saddam had no WMD's, so George W. Bush's trip to the U.N. to get a resolution making Saddam give up something that he never had, and thus could never give up, was nothing more than a sham to justify attacking Iraq so as to be able to take over its oil, for Dick Cheney's crowd, and so ....

And so, I wonder that anyone at all in the media takes these denials and evasions seriously anymore!

But that's just how it is with toadies and lapdogs, I guess, they are loathe to do anything but lick the hand that feeds and cuddles them, and so .....

[Livyjr]

And while we're on the subject of mouthy and ignorant not playing well, here in OUR America, what's this, then?

Could it be?

Could it really be?

The American people are finally starting to wake up and realize that in their fear, in their abject terror, which was in their minds, they have just royally screwed a whole vital nation by putting in incompetent back in the White House for FOUR MORE YEARS?

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Poll finds dimmer view of Iraq war - 52 percent say United States is no safer than before conflict"

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane

Updated: 7:29 a.m. ET June 8, 2005

WASHINGTON - For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded.

More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.
 
Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has.

It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home.

In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.

end quotes

Take all the lies out of this administration's mouth, and they would all be mutes, without a solitary thing to say, if they couldn't just tell some more lies, to cover up the lies of yesterday, and the day before that and ........

And speaking of all in OUR America that is or can be a casualty to all the endless lies that we have been hearing from the present incumbent's adminstration, how about OUR national security?

"Army Headed to Recruiting Shortfall"

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Army appears likely to fall short of its full-year recruiting goal for the first time since 1999, raising longer-term questions about a military embroiled in its first protracted wars since switching from the draft to a volunteer force 32 years ago.

Many young people and their parents have grown more wary of Army service because of the likelihood of being dispatched on combat tours to Iraq or Afghanistan, opinion polls show.

U.S. troops are dying at a rate of two a day in Iraq, more than two years after President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended.

The Army says today's economy offers attractive alternatives to many high school and college graduates.

The recruiting statistics appear to bear that out.

Officials said Wednesday that although the Army will not release its numbers until Friday, it fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May.

The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350.

The Army said it lowered the May target to "adjust for changing market conditions," knowing that the difference will have to be made up in the months ahead.

The Army also missed its monthly targets in April, March and February — each month worse than the one before.

In February it fell 27 percent short; in March the gap was 31 percent, and in April it was 42 percent.

"It's like having a persistent drought," said Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the private Lexington Institute.

"At some point when you have drought conditions you have to institute water rationing, and that's what you potentially face in the military if it goes on long enough."

"You would get to a stage where you don't have enough people to staff your organizations."

Prior to February, the last time the Army had missed a monthly recruiting goal was May 2000.

The Army National Guard and Army Reserve are even farther behind in recruiting this year.

The shortfalls have led to speculation that the government might be forced to reinstitute the draft.

There is little support for that in Congress, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has ruled it out, saying the all-volunteer force has proven the wisdom of discontinuing the draft in 1973.

Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, spokesman for the Army's chief of personnel, said in an interview that despite the recent setbacks the Army remains cautiously optimistic that it will make up the lost ground this summer — traditionally the most fruitful period of the year for recruiters — and reach the full-year goal of 80,000 enlistees.

"One number matters: 80,000," Hilferty said.

"The Army's fiscal 2005 goal was, is and remains 80,000 recruits."

Others, speaking privately, said the official optimism is sagging rapidly.

They note that with only four months left in the budget year, the Army is at barely 50 percent of its goal.

Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September.

In other words, they would have to far exceed their official targets, which range from 5,650 to 9,250 a month.

With the summer recruiting season in mind, the Army has added hundreds of extra recruiters, raised the enlistment bonus for four-year commitments to $20,000, and targeted more advertising at parents.

Hilferty says the extra recruiters are being counted on to produce big results between now and September.

"They're better now than they were last month," he said.

"Experience counts."

Goure said the prospect of reaching 80,000 is grim.

"I don't see them making it," he said.

If the slump ended next year the impact might not be great.

But if it continues, as many expect, the consequences could be large.

The problem, if it lasts, would be particularly acute for the Army because it is in the midst of a major expansion of its ranks — from about 482,000 soldiers in the active force to 512,000 — in order to complete a top-to-bottom redesign of its 10 combat divisions.

That redesign is central to the Army's "transformation" plan to become more agile and mobile — and to have more units available for duty in Iraq.

The Marine Corps also has missed monthly recruiting targets lately, but only by small margins.

The Air Force and the Navy, in contrast, are easily meeting their goals, in part because they play much smaller and less publicized roles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Navy is actually trying to shed thousands from its ranks.

Beyond the statistical comparisons, the military as a whole may be entering a period in which new approaches are needed to fill its ranks.

Charles Moskos, a sociology professor and expert on military personnel issues at Northwestern University, has said the Army's recruiting woes are likely to persist until the children of upper-class America begin to enlist more readily.

He also sees a possibility of the services relying more on non-Americans to sign up.

Moskos said in an interview Wednesday that of the 750 males in his graduating class at Princeton University in 1956, more than 400 went on to serve in the military.

Of the 1,100 males and females in last year's Princeton class, eight joined.

"That's the difference," he said.
___

On the Net:

Army recruiting aid: http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp

Army Recruiting Command: http://www.usarec.army.mil/

[Livyjr]

And here is one of those local stories from my area that always interest me, for the memories of the history of this particular area that they dredge up, in more ways than one, I guess:

"Burial plot holds secrets to the past - Experts speculate bodies found at site were soldiers from early encampments"

By PAUL GRONDAHL, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, June 9, 2005

COLONIE -- Workers digging a trench for a municipal sewer line uncovered 13 old graves near the Menands line that could date nearly 250 years.

The site at 592 Broadway, called Hedge Lawn, is across from Schuyler Flatts, a sprawling estate and farm of the Schuyler family that served as an encampment for soldiers who mustered out to the French and Indian and Revolutionary wars.

Work was halted Wednesday. Colonie town officials, engineers and archaeologists will determine within the next few days how best to study, dig up and rebury skeletons from the burial plot so that the sewer project can proceed.

Given nearby underground utilities and heavy shale deposits, rerouting the sewer line around the graves or a boring technique that would drive the pipe under them did not seem feasible, officials said.

"Everybody wants to do what's right for the individuals resting there and to comply with the various laws," said Colonie town attorney Arnis Zilgme.

He said the abandoned burial plot does not appear on maps and its provenance is uncertain.

Detailed archaeological work has not yet begun, but a human skull found there appeared from a brief inspection to be very old, perhaps from the mid-1700s.

"It's completely speculative at this point, but there was a lot of activity with soldier encampments from the mid- to late 18th century," said Colonie town historian Kevin Franklin.

The skull discovery was made late Sunday morning when backhoe operator John Vellano Jr. dug a trench across an access road at a time when trucks from a nearby Federal Express warehouse were idle.

He had excavated the first 54 feet of an 1,100-foot trench to a depth of 13 feet near the Colonie-Menands border.

"He dumped a load of soil, and a skull rolled off the pile," said the operator's father, John Vellano, owner of Anjo Construction.

The soil was studded with melon-sized rocks, and workers initially thought what they had seen was a stone.

Upon closer inspection, workers discovered the "rock" had a jaw and eye sockets.

"It was kind of strange and eerie," Vellano said of the skull.

They shut down the backhoe, police were called in and they quickly surmised that the skull dated from centuries past and could not be the remains of any recent missing person case.

Archaeologists with Hartgen Archaeological Associates did a preliminary assessment.

They marked off and covered remnants of 13 wooden coffins with tarps.

The bodies are buried uniformly, about five feet deep, side by side, all facing east to west.

It suggests a burial plot from a specific period.

"There's been a lot of conjecture that possibly this was a burial plot for soldiers who died in action or from disease at the military encampments," said Peter Hess, president of nearby Albany Steel, vice president of Albany Rural Cemetery and a local historian.

Hess said the abandoned cemetery plot probably predates the stunning Greek Revival mansion behind a stand of trees, hardly visible from the roadway at 592 Broadway.

His company owns the 1830 house, which has been divided into eight rental units.

The home was built by Gen. William Jenkins Worth, a commandant of the Watervliet Arsenal and military hero from the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War.

His fame was so great that Fort Worth, Texas, is named for him.

He was buried in Manhattan near the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Broadway.

The grave site is marked by a tall obelisk monument to Worth in a busy median just off Times Square.

Several years before his death in 1849, Worth sold the mansion in Colonie to the Jermain family, who named the estate "Hedge Lawn."

A Jermain relative who lived there, Margaret Olivia Slocum, married the wealthy industrialist Russell Sage and she inherited Sage's fortune of more than $100 million, with which she founded Russell Sage College in Troy.

Today, Hedge Lawn is a stone's throw from a Burger King restaurant and a stretch of commercial buildings, aged strip malls and apartment complexes.

Beginning in the Colonial era, the area was a magnet for the wealthy who settled as country squires in the bucolic setting north of the crowded, dirty and noisy urban center of Albany.

Across Broadway, along the Hudson River plain, Schuyler Flatts had been in the prominent Dutch family from 1672, when Gen. Philip Schuyler's great-grandfather purchased the farmland from the Van Rensselaers.

The Erie Canal, opened in 1825, ran along what is Broadway today between Schuyler Flatts and Hedge Lawn.

In Colonial times, the Flatts was a popular American Indian trading center.

Later, in the 18th century, the Schuylers allowed soldiers to camp on the grounds while on their way to fight in the French and Indian Wars and at the Battles of Saratoga and other Revolutionary War battles.

"This whole area is rich with history," Franklin said.

In 1998, a construction crew came upon an old cemetery plot near the 592 Broadway site while digging a water line to the new Federal Express warehouse.

The remains were determined to be a woman, surrounded by a rotted coffin.

No extensive archaeological work was done then.

The FedEx facility was built on the grounds of the former Tri-City Drive-In.

This week's discovery of 13 coffins will delay the $180,000 sewer rehabilitation project.

It is being done to redirect the current flow into Watervliet back to the Colonie trunk sewer, said Gary Male, managing engineer with C.T. Male Associates.

It is one piece of a $1 million series of sewer rehabilitation projects being undertaken around Colonie.

[Livyjr]

And here is one of those local stories from my area that always interest me, for the memories of the history of this particular area that they dredge up, in more ways than one, I guess:

"Burial plot holds secrets to the past - Experts speculate bodies found at site were soldiers from early encampments" 
 
By PAUL GRONDAHL, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, June 9, 2005

COLONIE -- Workers digging a trench for a municipal sewer line uncovered 13 old graves near the Menands line that could date nearly 250 years.

The site at 592 Broadway, called Hedge Lawn, is across from Schuyler Flatts, a sprawling estate and farm of the Schuyler family that served as an encampment for soldiers who mustered out to the French and Indian and Revolutionary wars.

"It's completely speculative at this point, but there was a lot of activity with soldier encampments from the mid- to late 18th century," said Colonie town historian Kevin Franklin.

"There's been a lot of conjecture that possibly this was a burial plot for soldiers who died in action or from disease at the military encampments," said Peter Hess, president of nearby Albany Steel, vice president of Albany Rural Cemetery and a local historian.

Beginning in the Colonial era, the area was a magnet for the wealthy who settled as country squires in the bucolic setting north of the crowded, dirty and noisy urban center of Albany.

Across Broadway, along the Hudson River plain, Schuyler Flatts had been in the prominent Dutch family from 1672, when Gen. Philip Schuyler's great-grandfather purchased the farmland from the Van Rensselaers.

The Erie Canal, opened in 1825, ran along what is Broadway today between Schuyler Flatts and Hedge Lawn.

In Colonial times, the Flatts was a popular American Indian trading center.

Later, in the 18th century, the Schuylers allowed soldiers to camp on the grounds while on their way to fight in the French and Indian Wars and at the Battles of Saratoga and other Revolutionary War battles.

"This whole area is rich with history," Franklin said.

Probably most people in OUR America today would not recognize the Schuyler name, which is certainly alright with me, but in the early days of this nation's history, the 1750's through the Revolutionary War, and beyond, at least through that period when the United States Constitution ratification was being debated, the Schuylers were quite involved in that history, and if it were not in part for the influence of the Schuylers, whose daughter Betsy, I believe it was, was married to young Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton himself would likely not have been made a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia, and then, who knows, but I always find these connections between people in various places over time to be interesting, and so, when given the opportunity, or maybe even half an opportunity, well, I do prattle on then, don't I.......

Which brings us to this other story, kind of from that same area, but a little later era in time:

"Remaking a 19th century wonder - Canal created the Empire State, but route awaits a vital 21st century role"

By KATE GURNETT, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, May 29, 2005

The Erie Canal ushered in America's industrial era.

Envisioned by a bankrupt flour merchant, it was scoffed at by Thomas Jefferson and designed by self-made engineers.

Building the $7 million waterway proved deadly to laborers, many Irish, who worked up to their waists in leech-ridden waters near Cayuga Lake.

Others were killed in Lockport, blasting through 2 miles of solid rock.

Residents cut trees to lean atop their houses for protection from the flying boulders.

For Native Americans, particularly New York's Iroquois, the canal accelerated their dispossession through questionable land deals and Indian removal policies.

But DeWitt Clinton's "folly," a 363-mile canal just 4 feet deep and 40 feet wide, featured 18 aqueducts and 83 locks to raise or lower boats.

The engineering marvel prompted a national canal fever.

Travel time from Albany to Buffalo was cut in half.

With shipping costs sliced from $100 to $4 a ton, the canal carried Genesee Valley wheat and cheese, Finger Lakes fruit and Adirondack timber to the port of New York, which quickly surpassed Philadelphia.

Along the way, it created a culture best described by Herman Melville.

Living near the locks when Lansingburgh was a major port, he'd hoped for his own canal job.

Later, in Moby Dick, he wrote of the Erie Canal:

"For three hundred and sixty miles, gentlemen ... through numerous populous cities and most thriving villages; through long, dismal, uninhabited swamps, and affluent, cultivated fields, unrivalled for fertility; by billiard-room and bar-room; through the holy-of-holies of great forests; on Roman arches over Indian rivers; through sun and shade; by happy hearts or broken; through all the wide contrasting scenery of those noble Mohawk counties; especially, by rows of snow-white chapels, whose spires stand almost like milestones, flows one continual stream of Venetianly corrupt and often lawless life."

Cargo and passenger boats grew so thick the canal was widened to 70 feet beginning in 1836.

In 1905, the state launched a $155 million conversion of the Erie into New York's "Barge Canal."

The new route used river sections, was 125 feet wide and 12 feet deep.

By then, canal traffic was being eclipsed by trains.

And later, trucks.

Though barges were common on the Erie Canal well into the 1960s, the waterway fell into disrepair by the 1970s.

Locks crumbled.

Concrete chipped.

Piers disintegrated.

By the late 1980s, state leaders turned to recreation as a way to revitalize the Erie Canal corridor, which includes the Champlain, Oswego and Cayuga-Seneca canals and two Finger Lakes.

In 2000, the area was designated a National Heritage Corridor.

After years of review, the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission plans to soon release a management plan.

It covers recreation, marketing, economic development and historic preservation for the canal and many of the 234 municipalities within the corridor.

[Livyjr]

Probably most people in OUR America today would not recognize the Schuyler name, which is certainly alright with me, but in the early days of this nation's history, the 1750's through the Revolutionary War, and beyond, at least through that period when the United States Constitution ratification was being debated, the Schuylers were quite involved in that history, and if it were not in part for the influence of the Schuylers, whose daughter Betsy, I believe it was, was married to young Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton himself would likely not have been made a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia, and then, who knows, but I always find these connections between people in various places over time to be interesting, and so, when given the opportunity, or maybe even half an opportunity, well, I do prattle on then, don't I.......

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, lawyer, statesman, was born Jan. 11, 1757, in the West Indies.

He entered the army as an officer of artillery and became an aid-de-camp to Washington, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel.

He was a delegate to the continental congress in 1782 and 1783, and in 1787 and 1788; in 1786 was elected to the state assembly; was elected to the convention which framed the federal constitution; by his writings, signed Publius, did much to secure its adoption, but was the only member from New York who signed that instrument.

In 1789 he was appointed secretary of the treasury, and continued in that office until 1795, when he resigned.

In 1804 he had a difficulty with Aaron Burr, which resulted in a duel, which took place at Hoboken, when he received a fatal shot, and died on the following day, July 12, 1804.

[jeffmoskin]

Charles Moskos, a sociology professor and expert on military personnel issues at Northwestern University, has said the Army's recruiting woes are likely to persist until the children of upper-class America begin to enlist more readily.

He also sees a possibility of the services relying more on non-Americans to sign up.

Moskos said in an interview Wednesday that of the 750 males in his graduating class at Princeton University in 1956, more than 400 went on to serve in the military.

Of the 1,100 males and females in last year's Princeton class, eight joined.

"That's the difference," he said.

As a brilliant modern American thinker once said,:

" There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."