Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

Ah, yes ....

LEFTIST PLOTS ....

And conspiracies, of course ......

That is what they are, really ...

Any attempts by citizens in OUR America to hold POLITICIANS accountable for MISUSE of their offices ARE LEFTIST PLOTS .....

ATTEMPTS AT SUBVERSION ....

For it is embodied in the United States Constitution that POLITICIANS in OUR America can be "FOR SALE" .....

Just as it is similarly embodied in OUR United States Constitution that what we think of as OUR TREASURY  is really just a SLUSH FUND for OUR politicians to dip into whenever the JONES TO SPEND is upon them .....

And if you think that having a bunch of crooked, lying, stealing, thieving politicians here in OUR America is a bad thing ...

YOU MUST BE SOME KIND OF COMMIE ....

And so ...

You very likely deserve whatever kind of punishment these lying, corrupt politicians can mete out on you ...

So as to be able to PROTECT us all from LEFTIST ABUSES OF POWER .....

Here in OUR OWN AMERICA ....

"Bruno won't say how 'pork' funds to be spent - GOP Senate majority leader says anyone who wants to know can file Freedom of Information request" 
 
By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, March 8, 2006

ALBANY -- Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno refused Tuesday to discuss how his chamber plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in discretionary funds.

As Senate and Assembly leaders prepare to vote on budget bills next week, Bruno, R-Brunswick, bristled when asked how lawmakers will use pots of money that Senate Democrats call "slush" and "pork" funds.

Bruno declared the topic off-limits.

Sen. Neil Breslin, D-Bethlehem, said the state's $48 billion in debt will crush future generations.

"The public is foiled again" - Sen. Joseph Bruno is much too guarded with information about the state budget"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Friday, March 10, 2006

So this is how government, supposedly representative government, really works in New York.

Say you wanted to know how the state Senate actually spends the millions of dollars in discretionary funds formally known as memorandums of understanding, among the governor, Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker, but more commonly known as pork barrel and even slush funds.

As far as Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno is concerned, no one -- except of course, the true political insiders -- should readily know.

If they do, it will be despite Mr. Bruno's more obstinate efforts.

Want answers?

Then go fill out a Freedom of Information Law request, or so Mr. Bruno said the other day.

But there's no good reason why obtaining such information about where the state's money -- which just happens to come, remember, from taxpayers -- has to involve undertaking the rather complex and arduous process of filing a Freedom of Information Law request.

At best, that's a needless stalling and interference tactic on Mr. Bruno's part.

At worst, it's something closer to intimidation.

Activists and journalists might know their way through the FOIL process.

But ordinary citizens probably more likely don't.

They ought to be able to find out who gets what share of this pork barrel money with a few clicks of a computer mouse.

What someone might get as a result of a Freedom of Information Law request isn't always very helpful or very easy to understand, notes E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute.

It's indicative of a secrecy in the state budget process.

Yet the money dispersed by memorandums of understanding is at least subject to the Freedom of Information Law, unlike some other legislative business.

Senate Minority Leader David Paterson is right to make an issue of this as state budget negotiations proceed.

So what if he is at once running for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor and demanding disclosure about a key component of the budget?

"I don't have any interest in getting engaged."

"I'm not running for lieutenant governor," Mr. Bruno says.

Of course not.

He already has the more powerful job.

Telling the public that they can "go FOIL" their questions isn't quite as bad as President Ford telling New York City, in the memorable words of a New York Daily News headline writer, to drop dead, or Marie Antoinette telling the starving French masses to eat cake.

But it's not very becoming for the Senate majority leader, either.

Mr. Bruno should remember these words.

"It is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability whenever and wherever feasible."

That's straight from the very Freedom of Information Law he was hiding behind the other day.

[Livyjr]

There is something going on here in OUR America right now that to me is historic .....

And that is this USURPATION OF POWER by George W. Bush acting as president of the United States of America .....

With him and his various toadies and flunkies, like Dick Cheney, trying to tell us that George has all this alleged power as president ...

Well ....

Read this following BIOGRAPHY of Andrew Johnson that comes from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html ......

To see whether ot not OUR United States Congress can set limits on a sitting United States President .....

Andrew Johnson

With the Assassination of Lincoln, the Presidency fell upon an old-fashioned southern Jacksonian Democrat of pronounced states' rights views.

Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate of Presidents.

Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans in Congress, brilliantly led and ruthless in their tactics.

Johnson was no match for them.

Born in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1808, Johnson grew up in poverty.

He was apprenticed to a tailor as a boy, but ran away.

He opened a tailor shop in Greeneville, Tennessee, married Eliza McCardle, and participated in debates at the local academy.

Entering politics, he became an adept stump speaker, championing the common man and vilifying the plantation aristocracy.

As a Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 1840's and '50's, he advocated a homestead bill to provide a free farm for the poor man.

During the secession crisis, Johnson remained in the Senate even when Tennessee seceded, which made him a hero in the North and a traitor in the eyes of most Southerners.

In 1862 President Lincoln appointed him Military Governor of Tennessee, and Johnson used the state as a laboratory for reconstruction.

In 1864 the Republicans, contending that their National Union Party was for all loyal men, nominated Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, for Vice President.

After Lincoln's death, President Johnson proceeded to reconstruct the former Confederate States while Congress was not in session in 1865.

He pardoned all who would take an oath of allegiance, but required leaders and men of wealth to obtain special Presidential pardons.

By the time Congress met in December 1865, most southern states were reconstructed, slavery was being abolished, but "black codes" to regulate the freedmen were beginning to appear.

Radical Republicans in Congress moved vigorously to change Johnson's program.

They gained the support of northerners who were dismayed to see Southerners keeping many prewar leaders and imposing many prewar restrictions upon Negroes.

The Radicals' first step was to refuse to seat any Senator or Representative from the old Confederacy.

Next they passed measures dealing with the former slaves.

Johnson vetoed the legislation.

The Radicals mustered enough votes in Congress to pass legislation over his veto--the first time that Congress had overridden a President on an important bill.

They passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which established Negroes as American citizens and forbade discrimination against them.

A few months later Congress submitted to the states the Fourteenth Amendment, which specified that no state should "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

All the former Confederate States except Tennessee refused to ratify the amendment; further, there were two bloody race riots in the South.

Speaking in the Middle West, Johnson faced hostile audiences.

The Radical Republicans won an overwhelming victory in Congressional elections that fall.

In March 1867, the Radicals effected their own plan of Reconstruction, again placing southern states under military rule.

They passed laws placing restrictions upon the President.

When Johnson allegedly violated one of these, the Tenure of Office Act, by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House voted eleven articles of impeachment against him.

He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote.

In 1875, Tennessee returned Johnson to the Senate.

He died a few months later.

[Livyjr]

Poor old dopey George .....

He is simply in over his head ......

That's all ......

He's just not quite cut out to be a leader of the free world ...

Nor is he much of a president, when you get right on down to it .....

"Bush: Port deal collapse sends bad message" 
 
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press
Last updated: 4:56 p.m., Friday, March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Friday he was troubled by the political storm that forced the reversal of a deal allowing a company in Dubai to take over take over operations of six American ports, saying it sent a bad message to U.S. allies in the Middle East.

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," the president said.

"In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."

"The Dubai fallout - The outcry over the ports deal has cost Mr. Bush support among congressional Republicans"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Saturday, March 11, 2006

So now President Bush knows how much political capital he has left over from his re-election victory in 2004: almost nothing.

His fellow Republicans in the House and the Senate deserted him in droves Thursday to prevent an Arab company from taking over operations at six U.S. ports.

The $6.8 billion deal had won approval from a secret U.S. committee, but word of the takeover led to a public outcry, and many members of Congress demanded a 45-day review before granting approval.

Mr. Bush fought hard to win that approval, even to the point of accusing opponents of racial profiling.

But in the end, none of the tactics worked, and the company, Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates, pulled out of the deal after the White House got the "no" message from Congress.

In a way, Mr. Bush was a victim of his previous success in persuading the American public that terrorism remains a real, even imminent, threat at home.

That message resonated during the 2004 campaign, and more voters decided that Mr. Bush was better at protecting homeland security than his challenger, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts would be.

So it's hardly surprising that the polls showed a majority of Americans viewed the port deal as a security issue, even as Mr. Bush argued that it was instead an issue of showing solidarity with a strong ally in the Middle East, and that rejecting it would send the wrong signal to friendly Arab governments.

But Republican lawmakers also were hearing from their constituents, who were expressing alarm not only about the Dubai deal but also about the larger issue of why any foreign country should be running American ports.

That concern was addressed when Dubai Ports World announced its would transfer its U.S. operations to an American company.

Mr. Bush's poor record on strengthening port security also surely played a role in his defeat Thursday.

As many critics pointed out, who operates American ports is only half the issue.

The other half is the porous security at those ports, regardless of ownership.

And Mr. Bush's admission that he was unaware of the Dubai deal until it became national news also harmed him.

It made him appear out of touch.

So did his effort to change the rules on foreign companies controlling U.S. airlines.

U.S. law now prohibits foreign companies from taking over U.S. airlines, on the grounds that a hostile government could bring the nation's air transportation to a halt in the event of a crisis.

Incredibly, Mr. Bush pushed for expanding foreign influence -- a move that made critics wonder if he is tone deaf to the whole issue of domestic security.

Republicans in the House and Senate who are facing re-election in November must surely wonder that as well.

[Livyjr]

And here I sit this morning ...

Just kind of musing, I suppose ...

Since that is in fact what I am doing "out there" right now ....

Sitting at the computer keyboard ....

And wondering .....

About this thing called "America", actually .....

This year marks my sixtieth year on the face of this earth of OURS .....

And in that time, well ....

I have been lucky to have been around this country of OURS a time or two .....

Out there, kind of like an obscure version of Charles Kurault ....

"On the road" .....

Meeting people ...

Seeing things ....

Storing up memories, maybe ....

And now, here I am ...

All those years later ...

And still I persist in wondering ...

Who are these people?

What is this place?

And so ....

[jeffmoskin]

Happy birthday, Livyjr, whenever it comes up.

We are all, indeed, lucky to be alive in OUR America.

Before it becomes THEIR America.

[Livyjr]

Happy birthday, Livyjr, whenever it comes up.

We are all, indeed, lucky to be alive in OUR America.

Before it becomes THEIR America.

Good morning, jeffmoskin....

And thanks for the "birthday wishes" ...

And thanks for the segue as well ......

THEIR America .......

Versus "OURS" ......

The one that started out with a DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE from the tyranny and oppression of a tyrant King in Great Britain .....

Followed by the "creation" of thirteen separate "states" .....

Each with their own CONSTITUTION ......

Spelling out in detail the relationship between WE, THE PEOPLE in each of those separate states with the "state" itself .....

Followed by Articles of Confederation which established the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

Which subsequently became a REPUBLIC in 1787 when the United States Constitution came into being ......

THAT IS "OUR" American history .....

WHILE THEIRS, THE BUSHCO CROWD, IS AN ABSOLUTE FANTASY .....

Created in the fertile imaginations of people like Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush, himself ....

OUT OF PURE FANTASY ......

And no historical antecedents at all ......

From http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/12.asp

The Inaugural Address of American President Zachary Taylor, (Monday, March 4, 1849: Washington, DC)

Elected by the American people to the highest office known to our laws, I appear here to take the oath prescribed by the Constitution, and, in compliance with a time-honored custom, to address those who are now assembled.

The confidence and respect shown by my countrymen in calling me to be the Chief Magistrate of a Republic holding a high rank among the nations of the earth have inspired me with feelings of the most profound gratitude; but when I reflect that the acceptance of the office which their partiality has bestowed imposes the discharge of the most arduous duties and involves the weightiest obligations, I am conscious that the position which I have been called to fill, though sufficient to satisfy the loftiest ambition, is surrounded by fearful responsibilities.

Happily, however, in the performance of my new duties I shall not be without able cooperation.

The legislative and judicial branches of the Government present prominent examples of distinguished civil attainments and matured experience, and it shall be my endeavor to call to my assistance in the Executive Departments individuals whose talents, integrity, and purity of character will furnish ample guaranties for the faithful and honorable performance of the trusts to be committed to their charge.

With such aids and an honest purpose to do whatever is right, I hope to execute diligently, impartially, and for the best interests of the country the manifold duties devolved upon me.

In the discharge of these duties my guide will be the Constitution, which I this day swear to "preserve, protect, and defend."

For the interpretation of that instrument I shall look to the decisions of the judicial tribunals established by its authority and to the practice of the Government under the earlier Presidents, who had so large a share in its formation.

To the example of those illustrious patriots I shall always defer with reverence, and especially to his example who was by so many titles "the Father of his Country."

To command the Army and Navy of the United States; with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors and other officers; to give to Congress information of the state of the Union and recommend such measures as he shall judge to be necessary; and to take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed -- these are the most important functions intrusted to the President by the Constitution, and it may be expected that I shall briefly indicate the principles which will control me in their execution.

Chosen by the body of the people under the assurance that my Administration would be devoted to the welfare of the whole country, and not to the support of any particular section or merely local interest, I this day renew the declarations I have heretofore made and proclaim my fixed determination to maintain to the extent of my ability the Government in its original purity and to adopt as the basis of my public policy those great republican doctrines which constitute the strength of our national existence.

In reference to the Army and Navy, lately employed with so much distinction on active service, care shall be taken to insure the highest condition of efficiency, and in furtherance of that object the military and naval schools, sustained by the liberality of Congress, shall receive the special attention of the Executive.

As American freemen we can not but sympathize in all efforts to extend the blessings of civil and political liberty, but at the same time we are warned by the admonitions of history and the voice of our own beloved Washington to abstain from entangling alliances with foreign nations.

In all disputes between conflicting governments it is our interest not less than our duty to remain strictly neutral, while our geographical position, the genius of our institutions and our people, the advancing spirit of civilization, and, above all, the dictates of religion direct us to the cultivation of peaceful and friendly relations with all other powers.

It is to be hoped that no international question can now arise which a government confident in its own strength and resolved to protect its own just rights may not settle by wise negotiation; and it eminently becomes a government like our own, founded on the morality and intelligence of its citizens and upheld by their affections, to exhaust every resort of honorable diplomacy before appealing to arms.

In the conduct of our foreign relations I shall conform to these views, as I believe them essential to the best interests and the true honor of the country.

The appointing power vested in the President imposes delicate and onerous duties.

So far as it is possible to be informed, I shall make honesty, capacity, and fidelity indispensable prerequisites to the bestowal of office, and the absence of either of these qualities shall be deemed sufficient cause for removal.

It shall be my study to recommend such constitutional measures to Congress as may be necessary and proper to secure encouragement and protection to the great interests of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, to improve our rivers and harbors, to provide for the speedy extinguishment of the public debt, to enforce a strict accountability on the part of all officers of the Government and the utmost economy in all public expenditures; but it is for the wisdom of Congress itself, in which all legislative powers are vested by the Constitution, to regulate these and other matters of domestic policy.

I shall look with confidence to the enlightened patriotism of that body to adopt such measures of conciliation as may harmonize conflicting interests and tend to perpetuate that Union which should be the paramount object of our hopes and affections.

In any action calculated to promote an object so near the heart of everyone who truly loves his country I will zealously unite with the coordinate branches of the Government.

In conclusion I congratulate you, my fellow-citizens, upon the high state of prosperity to which the goodness of Divine Providence has conducted our common country.

Let us invoke a continuance of the same protecting care which has led us from small beginnings to the eminence we this day occupy, and let us seek to deserve that continuance by prudence and moderation in our councils, by well-directed attempts to assuage the bitterness which too often marks unavoidable differences of opinion, by the promulgation and practice of just and liberal principles, and by an enlarged patriotism, which shall acknowledge no limits but those of our own widespread Republic.

[Livyjr]

From http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/12.asp

The Inaugural Address of American President Zachary Taylor, (Monday, March 4, 1849: Washington, DC)

The confidence and respect shown by my countrymen ....

In calling me to be the Chief Magistrate ....

Of a Republic ....

Holding a high rank among the nations of the earth .....

"After Four Years, Iraq Withdrawal Elusive"

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

Sat Mar 11, 12:21 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Words like "victory" and "mission accomplished" aren't heard much anymore as the United States enters its fourth year of war in Iraq.

The slogans now are "political process" and handing over "battle space" to Iraq's new army so that the Iraqis themselves can carry the fight to the insurgents and build their promised democracy.

All those plans are now under review in light of another ominous phrase — "civil war" — that has crept into the debate since the wave of sectarian violence set off by a Feb. 22 bombing at a Shiite Muslim mosque in Samarra.

The shift from the upbeat slogans of 2003 represents an acknowledgment by the U.S. command that the war against an insurgency dominated by Iraq's Sunni Arab minority cannot be won by U.S. arms alone.

Instead, the best chance for peace is to encourage the insurgents to lay down their arms and join the political process, while building up an Iraqi force capable of dealing with those who refuse.

But slogans obscure the complexities at play.

The rising tensions between Sunnis and Shiites raise the new question of whether building up Iraq's army forces — the supposed solution — might instead set the stage for civil war.

How events play out in the coming months will determine how long U.S. troops remain in Iraq — and in what numbers.

All signs point to a lengthy American commitment in Iraq, even if Washington draws down significant numbers of troops this year as expected.

At no time since the fall of Saddam Hussein have the words "Iraq stands at a crossroad" been truer.

The next few months will determine whether Iraq stands at the threshold of recovery — or at the brink of disaster.

In the wind-swept plains of western Iraq, where the insurgents are strongest, American officers speak of 2006 as "a year of risk" that will determine whether the U.S. campaign for a stable, democratic Iraq succeeds or whether the war drags on for years — with or without Americans in the fight.

Despite major losses and defeats, Sunni insurgents are estimated to number about 15,000 to 20,000 — roughly the same as two years ago, according to the Brookings Institution.

Roadside bombs, assassinations and scattered clashes occur with such regularity that they draw little attention.

As the fourth year of war approaches, the American strategy is moving along two tracks: encouraging a broad-based government of national unity that can win trust from all communities and transferring security responsibility to the new Iraqi army and police.

Both tracks are well under way, but fraught with risks.

The violence that swept Baghdad and other areas after the Samarra shrine attack suggests the Sunni-dominated insurgency could change into a full-scale civil war between the rival Muslim sects.

"The question is not whether there will be sectarian strife, but rather whether the central state can hold together and contain the violence," said Jeffrey A. VanDenBerg, director of Middle East studies at Drury University in Springfield, Mo.

In the March issue of Foreign Affairs, Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that Washington should slow the expansion of Iraq's security forces — most of whom are Shiites and Kurds — until there is a "broad communal compromise."

For the time being, however, the process of placing an Iraqi face on the war is accelerating.

About 60 of Iraq's 102 battalions "control their own battle space," said Lt. Col. Michael J. Negard, a U.S. military spokesman.

That means they plan and carry out military operations within their area of responsibility.

If all goes according to plan, by the end of the year all Iraqi battalions — expected by then to number 112 — will have that status.

Assuming the Iraqis prove up to the task, the U.S. military can begin sending thousands of soldiers home.

The top commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., is expected to recommend reductions in the 136,000-strong force beginning later this spring.

Casey refuses to talk publicly about numbers.

But it is widely assumed U.S. troop strength in Iraq will fall below 100,000 by the end of the year or early 2007.

Privately, American officers say that figure is reasonable.

Pentagon estimates have proven wrong before, however.

In late 2003, the Pentagon predicted troop strength would drop to 105,000 by the next May.

Instead, insurgent attacks forced an increase to nearly 140,000 in mid-2004.

U.S. officers also caution against inferring that a greater security role for Iraq's army will mean a total American withdrawal.

U.S. troops will leave the cities, but be nearby in case of trouble.

U.S. convoys will have to resupply Iraqi units, and American jets will provide air cover.

And the withdrawal timetable could get snagged if some Iraqi battalions cannot be trained and equipped in time.

"If a unit is not up to task or if equipment or personnel become an issue ... then we take the time needed," Negard said.

"So we're very hesitant to put a mark on a calendar and say 10 months down the road the Iraqi army will control all its battle space."

U.S. officials have praised the performance of Iraqi soldiers.

But the Americans were equally optimistic in 2004 until many Iraqi units fell apart in battle.

The entire 5,000-member police force in Mosul deserted after an insurgent uprising in November 2004.

This time, the U.S. command insists training is better.

Measures have been taken to build up a strong cadre of noncommissioned officers — a major weakness in 2004.

Privately, however, U.S. officers say desertions and absences still dog Iraqi units, especially in the volatile west where hundreds of soldiers have left their commands since a November offensive.

This is where the political track comes in.

The December election raised the amount of Sunni Arab representation in the new parliament more than threefold.

Talks are under way to put together a unity government with participation by Sunni Arabs, Shiite Muslims and Kurds.

At the same time, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has been reaching out to Sunni leaders in insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi.

The process is continuing, despite the assassinations of local Sunnis willing to talk.

But success won't come quickly.

"Even if a broad inclusive national government emerges, there almost certainly will be a lag time before we see a dampening effect on the insurgency," the U.S. national intelligence chief, John Negroponte, a former ambassador in Iraq, told a Senate committee Feb. 2.

All that points to much work and sacrifice ahead.

"Because of the nature of counterinsurgency, it's often hard for people to define what victory is," Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, said recently.

"It's not D-Day."

"There's not a big battle and it's all over."

"It's about people making choices, so it evolves over time."

"And that's exactly what you see here."

[Livyjr]

From http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/12.asp

The Inaugural Address of American President Zachary Taylor, (Monday, March 4, 1849: Washington, DC)

Chosen by the body of the people ....

Under the assurance that my Administration ....

Would be devoted to the welfare of the whole country ....

And not to the support of any particular section or merely local interest ....

I this day ...

Renew the declarations I have heretofore made .....

And proclaim my fixed determination ....

To maintain to the extent of my ability ....

The Government in its original purity ....

And to adopt as the basis of my public policy .....

Those great republican doctrines ....

Which constitute the strength of our national existence .....

"Analysis: States Steadily Restricting Info"

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

2 hours, 35 minutes ago

States have steadily limited the public's access to government information since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new Associated Press analysis of laws in all 50 states has found.

Legislatures have passed more than 1,000 laws changing access to information, approving more than twice as many measures that restrict information as laws that open government books.

The horror of the attacks spurred a wholesale re-examination of information that could put the country in danger, and the state actions roughly mirror those on the federal level.

Federal agencies responded by shutting down Web sites, pulling telephone directories and rethinking everything from dam blueprints to historical records.

In statehouse battles, the issue has pitted advocates of government openness — including journalists and civil liberties groups — against lawmakers and others who worry that public information could be misused, whether it's by terrorists or by computer hackers hoping to use your credit cards.

Security concerns typically won out.

The AP discovered a clear trend from the Sept. 11 attacks through legislative work that ended last year: States passed 616 laws that restricted access — to government records, databases, meetings and more — and 284 laws that loosened access.

Another 123 laws had either a neutral or mixed effect, the AP found.

"What these open government laws do is break down that wall of government secrecy so that everybody knows what's going on," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

"A democracy can only function if we have information."

"You can only have oversight of government if you have information."

Associated Press reporters in every state, often with help from their local press associations, tracked the government access bills introduced since the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon were hit by hijacked planes.

In every state, reporters tallied bills that were proposed each year, and then examined the laws that passed.

They assessed the impact of each new measure and rated it as loosening existing limits on public access to government information, restricting the limits, or neutral.

While fear of another terrorist attack drove many new proposals, it wasn't the only motivator.

Concerns about identity theft, medical privacy and the vulnerability of computerized records have sparked many pieces of legislation, too.

Lawmakers say they are recalibrating the balance between information that could be used against society and what society at large needs to know.

"Since Sept. 11, we're looking at information like plans for our nuclear plants, the records of our bridges and transportation systems."

"All of the critical information that is out there that we don't necessarily want to put in the hands of a terrorist," said New York state Sen. Nick Spano, a Republican who had proposed tightening legislation soon after the attacks.

"It's a very difficult balance between the public's right to know and the public's right to security," Spano said.

A different security measure ultimately became law, limiting access to information about infrastructure from airports to cellular phone systems.

Last year, Spano authored a law that strengthened public access by setting a strict deadline for state agencies to respond to requests for information.

The give and take of a legislature usually forces changes to such bills — like a measure proposed last year in Oklahoma, where freshman state Sen. Charles Wyrick, a Democrat, sought to completely exempt the state's new Department of Homeland Security from the Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act.

"I don't know why all of a sudden the holy grail of security and safety is now closing records," Mark Thomas, head of the Oklahoma Press Association, said after the bill was introduced.

"It seems to me we would be more secure if we knew what was going on around us."

"... Apparently there are those in government who want to close all these records and say, 'We'll keep you safe, trust us.'"

Negotiations brought a compromise.

The law that passed allowed the department to keep communications between the agency and the federal government confidential, along with security plans for private businesses.

"We had to fight that out, and basically it ended up being an equal distribution of unhappiness," Thomas said.

Still, the numerical data shows which side got more out of negotiations overall: The AP analysis of 1,023 new laws dealing with public access to government information found that more than 60 percent closed access.

Just over a quarter created new avenues of access.

The rest had a neutral effect, often through technical changes to existing laws.

Those laws emerged from just over 3,500 bills.

Often, several legislators interested in a topic will each introduce a bill knowing that only one is likely to pass.

In some states, the same legislation is introduced in both House and Senate chambers to speed action and build support.

Across more than four years, 36 states passed more restrictive laws than laws that loosened access; seven states passed more laws that eased barriers to access; seven states passed equal numbers.

The analysis did not attempt to quantify the impact of larger, sweeping laws versus smaller modifications.

The AP analysis also did not study legislation prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, though observers say the changes have been obvious.

"What we see nationwide is states really backing away from their open access laws," said Fred H. Cate, an Indiana University law professor who studies privacy and technology.

Security threats are real — but some lawmakers are just "taking advantage of the public security tide," he said.

The law in Iowa requires that schools draft emergency response plans, but bars them from the public.

In Indiana, legislators agreed to keep disciplinary actions against state employees secret — except when they are suspended, demoted or discharged.

In North Carolina, new advisory committees set up to examine medication errors in nursing homes keep their meetings and records confidential, though the medication error rates found in separate home inspections that exceed a higher, federal standard can be accessed through the federal government.

North Carolina, like other places, also took steps to open access, requiring local and state governments to more quickly provide details about government incentive packages to lure business.

Elsewhere, Oregon opened records on child abuse in cases involving a child who is killed or seriously hurt; South Carolina lawmakers required the governor to open his cabinet meetings; California voters approved an amendment to the state constitution requiring that the state's laws on open meetings and open records be broadly interpreted.

After the amendment passed, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made public his appointment calendar and those of two of his top aides.

Lately, privacy worries are starting to trump security fears.

"The great trend out there — that sweeps across any record — is privacy," said Charles Davis at the Freedom of Information Center in Missouri.

"There's a push by government that every time Joe Citizen's name is mentioned in a government document, it's an inherent threat to Joe Citizen's privacy if that document is released."

Just this month, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced a new government-wide effort to target identity theft, barring access to driver's licenses, phone records and Social Security numbers.

No longer, the governor said, should there be a presumption that government information is public.

"That's backwards," he said.

Open government advocates disagree.

The way they see it, if Pawlenty is successful, information that used to be public in Minnesota will soon be unnecessarily locked away.

___

AP researcher John Parsons contributed to this story.

___

On the Net:

http:http://www.sunshineweek.org

[Livyjr]

And then ...

There is GLOBAL WARMING ...

Which is a secret .....

So don't tell anybody ...

And then ...

They won't know ....

"Bering Sea Altered by Warm Conditions"

Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer, LiveScience.com

Fri Mar 10, 10:00 PM ET

Rising air and water temperatures are altering the environment of the Bering Sea, a new study finds.

The Bering Sea covers more than 700,000 square miles and is demarcated from the North Pacific Ocean by the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands.

The sea is considered one of the world’s most productive fisheries; its northern portions house sea ducks, gray whales, bearded seals and walruses, all of which feed on cold-water critters.

But warming temperatures of recent years have caused the environment to change from Arctic to sub-Arctic conditions in the region and have created an inviting haven for animals that were previously confined to the warmer waters of the south.

These warmer waters are bad news for animals adapted to cold-water environments, however.

These creatures have to move north in search of cooler waters, which in turn is causing problems for people who live off of them.

"We're seeing that a change in the physical conditions is driving a change in the ecosystems," said study team member Jackie Grebmeier of the University of Tennessee.

Observations and satellite images reveal that the sea ice is thinning and shrinking.

This affects two important regions of the Bering Sea.

"In the southeast, fish population and bottom-dweller changes are happening in the context of a complete loss of sea ice," said James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory involved in the study.

"But in the northern Bering Sea, ecological changes are occurring in the context of shifts in the quality of the sea ice."

"The ice there is broken and thin compared with ice floes that were more the norm."

Such ecosystem changes could have far-reaching effects, scientists say.

The waters of the Bering Sea are helping to curb global warming by acting as a "carbon sink," absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Any changes to the Bering Sea environment could affect this ability.

The researchers plan to watch the sea and the organisms that live in it closely over the next few years to understand the extent of environmental change.

The study was detailed in the March 10 issue of the journal Science.

[Livyjr]

"Republicans meet amid Bush's rough straits"

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:45 p.m., Saturday, March 11, 2006

MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- After a full-throated defense of President Bush's policies on Iraq, Iran and even port security, Sen. John McCain shrugged his shoulders and explained why:

"It's easy to be loyal when the guy is at 65 percent."

"I'm not going to kick him while he's down."

His message echoed throughout a weekend convention of GOP activists and potential 2008 presidential candidates who rallied behind the embattled Bush, mostly for his wartime leadership.

But a second theme was less forgiving, and it was aimed at the White House and the entire Republican leadership:

Get your acts together.

Several speakers accused their own party of drifting from conservative values, especially the promise to control government spending, and warned of defeats in November if dispirited GOP voters stay home.

Outside the convention hall, several delegates to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference said they were shaken by a string of White House mistakes and suggested Bush may need a new team.

"I am sorry for letting you down when it comes to spending your money," Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told several hundred delegates Saturday.

"We're going to turn it around and if we don't, we're going to be in trouble" in November.

He apologized for the lobbyist scandal that has tarnished the Republican majorities in Congress.

He apologized for Republican-run Washington failing to stand up to China and India on trade matters.

And, finally, Graham urged activists to make sure the party returns to its roots before Election Day.

"We're not going to win by being Democrats," he said.

"Conservatism sells."

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, forced by state law to balance his budgets, chastised Congress for runaway spending at the federal level.

"It's hard to tell which party is which," the potential 2008 candidate said.

Even an architect of Congress' fiscal record denounced it.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said there was "no justification for a one-way ticket down a wayward path of wasteful Washington spending," which seemed to be an indictment of the institution he leads.

McCain, the early front-runner for 2008, epitomizes how Republican candidates are judiciously handling their approach to Bush.

While praising the president for the fight against terrorism, the Arizona senator criticized the free-spending habits of Congress and noted that President Reagan vetoed a bill with 152 special spending projects.

Without mentioning Bush or the president's unused veto pen, McCain told delegates in his Friday night address that a spending bill recently was signed into law with more than 6,000 such project.

"My friends, that's your money."

"We cannot do that with American tax dollars," McCain said, slashing the air with his finger as he raised his voice to a shout.

"We cannot do that!"

Delegates praised McCain on Saturday for being both fiscally conservative and loyal to Bush who, despite sagging poll numbers, is still supported by three-fourths of Republicans.

McCain has been trying to curry favor with conservatives since his failed 2000 campaign against Bush.

"You don't hear McCain defend the president very often and I found that very encouraging," said Adair Schippers, a delegate from Cheatam County, Tenn.

Graham, who backed McCain in 2000 and would again in 2008, suggested that McCain wants Republican voters to view him as Bush's heir in fighting terrorism, but his own man on fiscal responsibility.

"If you believe the party has drifted from fiscal conservatism, you'll have no greater advocate than John McCain," Graham told reporters.

Though supportive of Bush, delegates here said they were shaken by a spate of White House miscues, culminating with the collapse of a vastly unpopular deal to allow a Dubai company to run six U.S. port terminals.

Several delegates urged Bush to clean house at the White House.

"The president is a good man," said Jim Frazier of Memphis.

"But you've got to wonder how well served he is."

Some ambitious party leaders wrapped themselves in the memory of another president.

"I am Sam Brownback and I am a Ronald Reagan Republican," said the Kansas senator, perhaps the most conservative potential 2008 candidate.

Conference delegates were taking part in an informal poll of the 2008 presidential field.

Sen. George Allen of Virginia, one of those on the "straw poll" ballot, repeatedly mentioned Reagan and echoed Bush's position on the war in Iraq.

"The strategy is we win, they lose," Allen said.

"There's no substitute for victory."

The same could be said about November, when Republicans must defend their majorities in Congress and state capitals.

Huckabee urged the delegates to knock off the "hand-wringing" and dismiss talk of "the ultimate and imminent decline" of the GOP.

"If we think we are in trouble," Huckabee said, "then we are in trouble."

[Livyjr]

"Republicans Looking Beyond Bush to 2008:

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Republicans are already looking beyond the embattled Bush presidency to the 2008 campaign.

Nearly 2,000 GOP activists are attending a weekend conference to hear from presidential prospects and share strategies on a conservative agenda many believe Washington has forsaken.

One highlight will be a straw poll to test the popularity of White House hopefuls including those in attendance — Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

But the straw poll is unlikely to have a lasting impact unless Frist, who has packed the Southern Republican Leadership Conference with supporters, hurts his presidential aspirations with a poor showing.

And, of course, after "packing" the place with his supporters ....

Well, you know ...

"Big BILL" Frist WON ....

Yes ...

That is right ...

"Big BILL" Frist won the "straw poll" ...

Which means that he is the one all the REPUBLICANS want to replace George W. Bush come 2008 .....

"Frist leads informal GOP poll for '08"

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:55 a.m., Sunday, March 12, 2006

MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- With home-field advantage, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist placed first in an informal poll of 2008 presidential hopefuls at a Republican conference Saturday night.

The two-term Tennessee senator received 526 first-place votes, or 36.9 percent, in the Southern Republican Leadership Conference's "straw poll" sponsored by Hotline, a political digest.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished second with 14.4 percent and Sen. George Allen of Virginia finished third, tied with President Bush -- who cannot seek a third term.

The results were not a surprise and were unlikely to impact the still-evolving 2008 presidential field.

Frist was the only potential candidate who aggressively recruited delegates.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, among the most popular Republicans in national surveys, threw a wrench in the polling Friday night by asking delegates to vote for Bush as a show of support.

He finished a distant fifth.

[Livyjr]

"Analysis: States Steadily Restricting Info"

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

States have steadily limited the public's access to government information since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new Associated Press analysis of laws in all 50 states has found.

Legislatures have passed more than 1,000 laws changing access to information, approving more than twice as many measures that restrict information as laws that open government books.

In OUR America ...

As I see it ...

When it comes to "GOVERNMENT" .....

There is no "public" ......

So there is really no "public" access to OUR governmental records .....

In OUR America ...

There are CITIZENS ....

And WE are the "government" ......

SO ....

Let's get off this kick of "the public" ....

As though we were somehow "separate" or "separated" from OUR GOVERNMENT ...

By those of us who just happen to be working for that government at the time ....

"Polls: Public Worried About Gov't Secrecy"

By The Associated Press

36 minutes ago

Two new polls gauging Americans' views on government openness found a majority believe the federal government leans more toward secrecy than openness, while eight in 10 are convinced that an open government is necessary for an effective democracy.

The polls released Sunday also found, however, that the public believed government should keep some information private, particularly if it was necessary to combat terrorism.

One poll, by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University, found that 64 percent of respondents thought the federal government is somewhat or very secretive, while more than a third think their local and state governments lean more toward secrecy.

Fifty-five percent said state and local governments were somewhat or very open.

But Americans were more closely divided on when government information should be made public, according to the telephone poll of 1,007 adults.

Forty-six percent said government records should be considered public and their release should only be blocked when it "would do harm"; 42 percent said the government should protect its information and only release it if there is a "sound legal case" for it to be public.

A separate poll released Sunday found respondents were supportive of open government and access to public records — though solid majorities also said that government officials should keep records secret if "necessary", or to help in the war on terrorism.

The poll by the AccessNorthwest research and outreach project at the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University in Pullman found that 81 percent said democracy requires government to operate openly.

Nearly seven in 10, or 69 percent, told researchers that open public records and meetings keep government honest.

Nearly as many, 63 percent, said it was OK for government officials to keep records secret if they deem it necessary, and almost three-quarters, 73 percent, believe the president should "make some public records secret if it might help with the war on terrorism."

The Scripps poll was conducted from Feb. 19 to March 3.

There is a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The Washington State University poll, conducted from Feb. 19 through March 4, surveyed 403 adults nationwide.

It has an error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

___

On the Net:

http://www.sunshineweek.org/

[Livyjr]

From http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/12.asp

The Inaugural Address of American President Zachary Taylor, (Monday, March 4, 1849: Washington, DC)

As American freemen ....

We can not but sympathize in all efforts to extend the blessings of civil and political liberty .....

BUT ....

At the same time ....

We are warned by the admonitions of history .....

And the voice of our own beloved Washington ......

To abstain from entangling alliances with foreign nations ......

New York Times
March 3, 2006

"The Big Question"

By Thomas L. Friedman

Since the start of the Iraq war, it's been clear that "victory" rested on the answer to one Big Question:

Was Iraq the way Iraq was because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraq was the way Iraq was — a country congenitally divided among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that can be held together only by an iron fist.

Unfortunately, to answer this big question — even Iraqis didn't know — the U.S. had to provide a minimum degree of security for all Iraqis, so people could feel relaxed enough to think beyond their most narrow tribal or religious identities.

We didn't do that, because of President Bush's decision to approach the Iraq invasion with the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which calls for just enough troops to fail, rather than the proven Powell Doctrine, which calls for overwhelming force to win.

What happened in the absence of an overwhelming U.S. force was the looting of government buildings and ammo dumps, open borders for infiltrators, and then widespread insecurity, which naturally prompted Iraqis to fall back on tribal loyalties and militias, rather than trusting the Iraqi Army or the police.

People are very good at figuring out who will protect them in a crisis, and too many Iraqis opted for local militias.

Yes, we are now better at training an Iraqi Army and have held national elections.

But the failure to provide security after the invasion means we are trying to build these national institutions in competition with the insurgents, Qaeda terrorists, Shiite death squads and sectarian Iraqi militias that sprouted in the security vacuum.

One thing that covering the Lebanese civil war taught me was this: once sectarian militias take root, they develop their own interests and are very hard to uproot.

"Militias are the infrastructure of civil war, and the basis of warlordism," the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told The Washington Post.

This did not have to be.

The Bush team repeatedly declared that it had enough troops in Iraq and that no one on the ground was asking for more.

Totally untrue.

As Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian administration in Iraq, reveals in his new book, "My Year in Iraq," he repeatedly asked for more troops, but was ignored.

Mr. Bremer confesses in his book:

"Coalition forces were spread too thin on the ground."

"During my morning intelligence briefings, I would sometimes picture an understrength fire crew racing from one blaze to another."

He writes that he told Condoleezza Rice in 2003, "The coalition's got about half the number of soldiers we need here, and we run a real risk of having this thing go south on us."

Mr. Bremer describes this in 2004: "On May 18, I gave Rice a heads-up that I intended to send Secretary Rumsfeld a very private message suggesting that the coalition needed more troops."

"... That afternoon I sent my message."

"... I noted that the deterioration of the security situation since April had made it clear, to me at least, that we were trying to cover too many fronts with too few resources."

But, Mr. Bremer writes of Mr. Rumsfeld, "I did not hear back from him."

Because the U.S. never deployed enough troops, America alone cannot establish order in Iraq today.

We don't have a way to do that.

And Iraq's Army, no matter how well trained, will never have enough will — without a broad political consensus.

So we're down to the last hope, and it's a mighty thin reed.

The only people who can produce a decent outcome now are Iraq's new leaders — by coming together, burying their hatchets, forging a real national unity government and getting their followers to follow.

This is the season of decision.

We have an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi-written constitution.

Either the elected Iraqi leaders will heroically come together and forge a national unity government — and save Iraq — or they will divide Iraq.

Our job was to help them decide in a reasonably secure environment, not in a shooting gallery.

We failed in that task, but they will have to decide nevertheless.

It is Iraqis who will now tell Americans whether they should stay or go.

A majority of Americans, in a gut way, always understood the value of trying to produce a democratizing government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

That is why there has been no big antiwar movement.

Americans should, and will, stick with Iraq if they sense that Iraqis are on a pathway to building a decent, stable government.

But Americans will not, and should not, baby-sit an Iraqi civil war.

The minute they sense that's what's happening, you will see the bottom fall out of U.S. public support for this war.

[Livyjr]

From http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/12.asp

The Inaugural Address of American President Zachary Taylor, (Monday, March 4, 1849: Washington, DC)

It is to be hoped ....

That no international question can now arise ....

Which a government confident in its own strength ....

And resolved to protect its own just rights .....

May not settle by wise negotiation ....

And it eminently becomes a government like our own ....

Founded on the morality and intelligence of its citizens ....

And upheld by their affections ...

To exhaust every resort of honorable diplomacy ...

Before appealing to arms .....

"Government subverts its own ideals"

By ALLAN M. JALON
First published: Saturday, March 11, 2006

Thirty-five years ago Wednesday, a group of anonymous activists broke into the small, two-person office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Media, Pa., and stole more than 1,000 FBI documents that revealed years of systematic wiretapping, infiltration and media manipulation designed to suppress dissent.

The Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI, as the group called itself, forced its way in at night with a crowbar while much of the country was watching the Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier fight.

When agents arrived for work the next morning, they found the file cabinets virtually emptied.

Within a few weeks, the documents began to show up -- mailed anonymously in manila envelopes with no return address -- in the newsrooms of major American newspapers.

When The Washington Post received copies, Attorney General John N. Mitchell asked executive editor Ben Bradlee not to publish them because disclosure, he said, could "endanger the lives" of people involved in investigations on behalf of the United States.

Nevertheless, The Washington Post broke the first story on March 24, 1971, after receiving an envelope with 14 FBI documents detailing how the bureau had enlisted a local police chief, letter carriers and a switchboard operator at Swarthmore College to spy on campus and black activist groups in the Philadelphia area.

More documents went to other reporters -- Tom Wicker received copies at his New York Times office; so did reporters at The Los Angeles Times -- and to politicians including Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota and Rep. Parren J. Mitchell of Maryland.

To this day, no individual has claimed responsibility for the break-in.

The FBI, after building up a six-year, 33,000-page file on the case, couldn't solve it.

But it remains one of the most lasting consequential (although underemphasized) watersheds of political awareness in recent American history, one that poses tough questions even today for our national leaders who argue that fighting foreign enemies requires the government to spy on its citizens.

The break-in is far less well-known than Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers three months later, but in my opinion it deserves equal stature.

Found among the Media documents was a new word, "COINTELPRO," short for the FBI's "secret counterintelligence program," created to investigate and disrupt dissident political groups in the United States.

Under these programs, beginning in 1956, the bureau worked to "enhance the paranoia endemic in these circles," as one COINTELPRO memo put it, "to get the point across there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

The Media documents -- along with further revelations about COINTELPRO in the months and years that followed -- made it clear that the bureau had gone beyond mere intelligence-gathering to discredit, destabilize and demoralize groups -- many of them peaceful, legal civil rights organizations and anti-war groups -- that the FBI and Director J. Edgar Hoover found offensive or threatening.

For instance, agents sought to persuade Martin Luther King Jr. to kill himself just before he received the Nobel Prize.

They sent him a composite tape made from bugs planted illegally in his hotel rooms when he was entertaining women other than his wife -- and threatened to make it public.

"King, there is one thing left for you to do."

"You know what it is," FBI operatives wrote in their anonymous letter.

Under COINTELPRO, the bureau also targeted actress Jean Seberg for having made a donation to the Black Panther Party.

The fragile actress ultimately committed suicide after a gossip nugget based on a FBI wiretap was leaked to The Los Angeles Times and published.

The item, suggesting that the father of the baby she was carrying was a Black Panther rather than her French writer-husband, turned out to be wrong.

The sheer reach of a completely politicized FBI was one of the most frightening revelations of the Media documents.

Underground newspapers were targeted.

Students (and their professors) were targeted.

Celebrities were targeted.

The Communist Party of the USA, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Non-Violent Organizing Committee, the Black Panther Party, the Women's Strike for Peace -- all were targeted.

"Neutralize them in the same manner they are trying to destroy and neutralize the U.S.," one memo said.

Eventually, the COINTELPRO memos -- some from Media and some unearthed later -- prompted hearings led by Rep. Don Edwards of California and by Sen. Frank Church of Idaho on intelligence agency abuses.

In the mid-1970s, the wayward agency began finally to be reined in.

It is tragic when people lose faith in their government to the extent that they feel they must break laws to expose corruption.

But a war that had been started and sustained by lies had gone on for years.

And a government had betrayed its citizens, manipulating their fear to strengthen its grip on power.

Today, again, many people worry that their government may be on the road to subverting its own ideals.

I hope that the commemoration of those unknown activists that was to be held Wednesday in Media, Pa., will serve as a reminder that fighting for democracy abroad must remain more than merely an excuse to weaken civil liberties at home.

Allan M. Jalon is a contributing writer for The Los Angeles Times, where this article first appeared.

[Livyjr]

"Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear ......"

- Mark Twain

[Snuffysmith]

Happy birthday, Livyjr, whenever it comes up.

We are all, indeed, lucky to be alive in OUR America.

Before it becomes THEIR America.

Belate Happy Birthday Liv - assuming it is your birthday and I apologize that I didn't know - I also believe that birthdays should be celebrated as national events even it becomes "their America."

Enjoy your day. You deserve it.

The Snuff

[Livyjr]

Belate Happy Birthday Liv - assuming it is your birthday and I apologize that I didn't know - I also believe that birthdays should be celebrated as national events even as it becomes "their America."

Enjoy your day.

You deserve it.

The Snuff

Thanks, Snuf ....

But you're out ahead of the "curve" ....

The actual day will be just as summer begins its wane towards fall ...

And the "cold" comes once again .....

Boy, we "northrons" are a dour lot, aren't we?

Winter isn't yet over ...

And already, I am preparing myself for it to come ...

Once again ...

And so ....

[Livyjr]

Only in New York, jeffmoskin .....

"Cops accused of mafia ties head to trial"

By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:55 p.m., Sunday, March 12, 2006

NEW YORK -- It's a crime story that begs for a best seller: A pair of oft-decorated NYPD detectives are accused of leading double lives, joining the mob's payroll.

They allegedly go on a crime spree, leave a trail of dead bodies, and retire to a life as Las Vegas high rollers.

But who could write such a bizarre tale?

There's plenty of talent right at the defense table.

Ex-detective turned defendant Louis Eppolito wrote an autobiography titled "Mafia Cop" and even appeared in a mob movie.

His attorney, Bruce Cutler, wrote "Closing Argument," covering a career that includes defending mob boss John Gotti.

Cutler's co-counsel, Edward Hayes, has a memoir titled "Mouthpiece" that just hit stores, and he was a model for a character in a Tom Wolfe novel.

All this media know-how will assemble in court Monday when the so-called "Mafia Cops" -- Eppolito and former partner Stephen Caracappa -- arrive for opening statements in their racketeering and murder trial.

Expect a few plot twists.

"I think there will be some surprises," Hayes predicted.

"And I certainly have a few."

According to prosecutors, the two ex-detectives engaged in a cornucopia of criminal activity between 1979 and last year.

Their indictment lists eight murders, allegedly at the bidding of Luchese family underboss Anthony "Gaspipe" Casso.

Authorities said Casso paid $75,000 for one of the hits, regularly paid the pair $4,000 a month, and referred to them as his "crystal ball."

In one case, however, thinking they were turning a mobster named Jimmy Hydell over to Casso for execution, the pair allegedly supplied an inaccurate tip that led to an innocent man with the same name, who died in a hail of gunfire on Christmas Day 1986.

There are charges of racketeering, kidnapping, murder, obstruction of justice, and money laundering, and after the pair retired to Nevada they were distributing methamphetamine, according to the indictment.

The list could have been longer; in January, prosecutors opted to drop two additional murder counts.

Eppolito, 57, and Caracappa, 64, are both insistent about their innocence.

Caracappa went on "60 Minutes" in January to express his indignation.

"Totally ridiculous," he said of the charges.

"It's ludicrous."

"Anybody that knows me knows I love the police department."

Caracappa spent 23 years with the NYPD, working his way up to detective first grade and helping to establish the department's nerve center for Mafia murder investigations before retiring in 1992.

Eppolito actually grew up in a mob family: His father, grandfather and an uncle were all members of the Gambino family.

The contrast between his police work and his family life was detailed in his autobiography, "Mafia Cop: The Story of An Honest Cop Whose Family Was the Mob."

He joined the department in 1969, and also made detective first-grade.

Before his 1990 retirement, Eppolito was known among fellow cops as a tough guy with plenty of street smarts.

The partners settled in Las Vegas to enjoy their golden years.

They were arrested on March 9, 2005, at a Las Vegas restaurant, and released on $5 million bail each.

Their trial promises to be one of the year's great legal spectacles.

The bombastic Cutler is best known for his work with Gotti.

In one memorable opening statement, he dramatically spiked the indictment against Gotti in a courtroom trash can.

"Garbage!" he thundered.

Hayes, a former prosecutor, brings his impeccable attire and a glittering client list that includes Robert De Niro and Sean "Diddy" Combs.

He was the model for take-no-prisoners defense attorney Tommy Killian in Tom Wolfe's "The Bonfire of the Vanities."

Hayes said he's willing to let somebody else write about this case:

"I already wrote a book."

If someone else takes up the challenge, there's always the chance of a movie -- and Eppolito could play himself.

He had a bit part in the Martin Scorsese mob classic "GoodFellas."

[Livyjr]

And from there ...

We wing our way over to the economy .....

"Banks Fear Minimum Credit Card Payments"

By JOE BEL BRUNO, AP Business Writer

38 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Making the minimum payment on your credit card bill might not be as easy as it used to be — and two of the nation's largest banks say their own finances might suffer as a result.

Both Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that delinquencies and charge-offs might spike in the second half of the year.

That's when the banks believe new federal guidelines that require significantly increased monthly minimum payments will begin to hurt customers already struggling to pay bills.

The new requirements imposed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — which regulates banks and some credit card companies — are designed to help customers avoid getting deeper into debt.

However, a new spate of defaults as customers adjust to the new minimums could hurt profit at the nation's card issuers — especially those that cater to borrowers with weaker credit.

"Banks will not only have increased losses, but reduced revenue as well," said Lehman Brothers analyst Jason Goldberg.

"For some customers, the banks will have to reduce interest payments in order to keep them from defaulting."

"There's a bit of uncertainty because it's hard to predict human behavior."

Banks have instituted the new minimum balances at a time when American families continue to reel from credit card debt.

The Federal Reserve said last month in its survey of consumer finances that 46.2 percent of all families now carry a credit card balance — up from 44.4 percent in 2001.

Meanwhile, consumers are also carrying higher balances — with the mean balance growing to $5,100 from $4,400 in 2001, according to the report.

The median income is currently $43,200 and the typical family's credit card balance is now almost 5 percent of their annual income, according to the Fed.

The new guidelines require credit card issuers to charge an amount that includes not just the outstanding fees and finance charges, but at least 1 percent of the principal owed.

This could cost JPMorgan and Citigroup each about $500 million of losses and lost revenue this year, Goldberg said.

Citigroup, the nation's largest financial institution with about $120.32 billion in revenue last year, has more than 130 million credit card accounts.

The majority of its card holders pay more than the minimum due, but the bank didn't have a specific breakdown available, according to Citigroup spokesman Samuel Wang.

At JPMorgan, which has more than 110 million credit card accounts and posted about $80 billion of revenue last year, customers were required to make the new minimum requirements at the end of 2005.

Prior to the change, about 10 percent of its overall customers were making only the minimum payment, said JPMorgan spokesman Paul Hartwick.

Bill Hardekopf, chief executive of credit card Web site Lowcards.com, said many of the credit card companies will be affected as consumers move to consolidate their cards.

He believes most consumers will get over the "sticker shock" of being forced to make higher payments, and the amount of defaults will lessen as months go by.

"The new minimums could be very beneficial to credit card companies because they'll get their money quicker, but it could become very expensive if it has the effect of driving more consumers into bankruptcy," he said.

"It's too early to tell, but this won't hurt the big boys as much as it will hurt the subprime lenders."

Subprime lenders have a higher incidence of charge-offs and delinquencies, and charge customers higher interest rates because they are deemed less credit worthy.

Some of the bigger public companies that have large subprime businesses include issuers such as Capital One Corp. and Providian Financial Corp.

The actual impact of the new minimum payments won't be known for a few quarters, analysts said.

In fact, JPMorgan said in its filing with the SEC that it expects the first six months of the year to see sharply fewer bankruptcies as a result of new laws that went into effect.

Credit card companies were besieged by losses stemming from a surge in consumer bankruptcies in the fourth quarter.

Banks reported a sharp increase in loan charge-offs amid a rush of consumer bankruptcy filings prior to the Oct. 17 change in the nation's bankruptcy law, which made it more difficult for consumers to discharge their debts.

[Livyjr]

And then ...

There is OUR America ...

Circa 2006 ......

"Military shuns many of recruiting age"

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:15 p.m., Sunday, March 12, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says.

But does he really?

Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato -- or some combination of the above.

As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces.

But recruiting is still a two-way street -- and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.

Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.

"As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply," said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.

Some experts are skeptical.

Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75 percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University.

While the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is "a baloney number," he acknowledges he has no figures to counter it.

"Recruiters are looking for reasons other than themselves," said David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.

"So they blame the pool."

The military's figures are estimates, based partly on census numbers.

They are part of an elaborate analysis the military does as it struggles each year to compete with colleges and companies for the nation's best and brightest, plan for future needs and maintain diversity.

The Census Bureau estimates that the overall pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages.

There were 1 million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says.

The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered.

The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.

Other factors include:

--the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.

--a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.

--a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.

Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey.

Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.

Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents.

Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.

Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma.

The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.

That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.

The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group.

In the budget year that ended last September, 15 percent of recruits required a waiver in order to be accepted for active duty services -- or about 11,000 people of some 73,000 recruited.

Most waivers were for medical problems.

Some were for misdemeanors such as public drunkenness, resisting arrest or misdemeanor assault -- prompting criticism that the Army is lowering its standards.

This year the Army is trying to recruit 80,000 people; all the services are recruiting about 180,000.

And about the tattoos: They are not supposed to be on your neck, refer to gang membership, be offensive, or in any way conflict with military standards on integrity, respect and team work.

The military is increasingly giving waivers for some types of tattoos, officials said.

------

On the Net:

Defense Department career and aptitude exploration site: http://www.asvabprogram.com