On Lisa Rein's Radar: June 2003 Archives

June 30, 2003

Time Asks: Who Lost the WMD?

Who Lost the WMD?
As the weapons hunt intensifies, so does the finger pointing. A preview of the coming battle
By Massimo Calabresi and Timothy J. Burger for Time.

What Was Cheney's Role?
Lawmakers who once saluted every Bush claim and command are beginning to express doubts. Two congressional panels are opening new rounds of investigations into the Administration's prewar claims about WMD. One of their immediate inquiries, sources tell Time, involves Vice President Dick Cheney's role in reviewing the intelligence before the bombing started. Cheney made repeated visits to the CIA in the prelude to the war, going over intelligence assessments with the analysts who produced them. Some Democrats say Cheney's visits may have amounted to pressure on the normally cautious agency. Cheney's defenders insist that his visits merely showed the importance of the issue and that an honest analyst wouldn't feel pressure to twist intelligence. The House intelligence committee (and possibly its Senate counterpart, sources say) plans to question the CIA analysts who briefed Cheney, and that could lead to calling Cheney's hard-line aides and perhaps the Veep himself to testify.

Is Powell Trying To Have It Both Ways?
Secretary of State Colin Powell, who staked his reputation on his February declaration at the U.N. about Saddam Hussein's arms program, is also feeling the heat. Powell's aides fanned out after that performance to say the Secretary had gone to the CIA and scrubbed every piece of intelligence to make certain it was solid. But since then, little of Powell's presentation has been proved by evidence on the ground, and last week his aides were on the defensive over a memo from the State Department's intelligence bureau that questioned whether two Iraqi trailers discovered in April were mobile bioweapons labs, as Powell has asserted. Questionable intelligence that made it into Powell's February speech leaves him particularly vulnerable. Expect a push by Democrats, and perhaps some Republicans, to seek Powell's testimony too.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030707-461781,00.html

Who Lost the WMD?
As the weapons hunt intensifies, so does the finger pointing. A preview of the coming battle
By MASSIMO CALABRESI AND TIMOTHY J. BURGER

ERIC DRAPER/THE WHITE HOUSE/AP
QUESTION TIME: Bush huddles with Bremer and Franks in Doha, Qatar

Sunday, Jun. 29, 2003
Meeting last month at a sweltering U.S. base outside Doha, Qatar, with his top Iraq commanders, President Bush skipped quickly past the niceties and went straight to his chief political obsession: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Turning to his Baghdad proconsul, Paul Bremer, Bush asked, "Are you in charge of finding WMD?" Bremer said no, he was not. Bush then put the same question to his military commander, General Tommy Franks. But Franks said it wasn't his job either. A little exasperated, Bush asked, So who is in charge of finding WMD? After aides conferred for a moment, someone volunteered the name of Stephen Cambone, a little-known deputy to Donald Rumsfeld, back in Washington. Pause. "Who?" Bush asked.

It seems as if just about everyone has questions these days about the missing WMD. Did U.S. intelligence officials—or their civilian bosses—overstate the evidence of weapons before the war? And if some intelligence officials expressed skepticism about WMD, who ignored them? For the past several weeks, the usually lockstep Bush Administration has done its best to maintain a unified front in the face of these queries. Whenever asked, Administration officials have replied that the weapons will turn up eventually. But as the search drags on through its third largely futile month, the blame game in Washington has gone into high gear. And as Bush's allies and enemies alike on Capitol Hill begin to pick apart some 19 volumes of prewar intelligence and examine them one document at a time, the cohesive Bush team is starting to come apart. "This is a cloud hanging over their credibility, their word," Republican Senate Intelligence Committee member Chuck Hagel told abc News. Here are key questions Congress wants answered:

What Was Cheney's Role?
Lawmakers who once saluted every Bush claim and command are beginning to express doubts. Two congressional panels are opening new rounds of investigations into the Administration's prewar claims about WMD. One of their immediate inquiries, sources tell Time, involves Vice President Dick Cheney's role in reviewing the intelligence before the bombing started. Cheney made repeated visits to the CIA in the prelude to the war, going over intelligence assessments with the analysts who produced them. Some Democrats say Cheney's visits may have amounted to pressure on the normally cautious agency. Cheney's defenders insist that his visits merely showed the importance of the issue and that an honest analyst wouldn't feel pressure to twist intelligence. The House intelligence committee (and possibly its Senate counterpart, sources say) plans to question the CIA analysts who briefed Cheney, and that could lead to calling Cheney's hard-line aides and perhaps the Veep himself to testify.

Is Powell Trying To Have It Both Ways?
Secretary of State Colin Powell, who staked his reputation on his February declaration at the U.N. about Saddam Hussein's arms program, is also feeling the heat. Powell's aides fanned out after that performance to say the Secretary had gone to the CIA and scrubbed every piece of intelligence to make certain it was solid. But since then, little of Powell's presentation has been proved by evidence on the ground, and last week his aides were on the defensive over a memo from the State Department's intelligence bureau that questioned whether two Iraqi trailers discovered in April were mobile bioweapons labs, as Powell has asserted. Questionable intelligence that made it into Powell's February speech leaves him particularly vulnerable. Expect a push by Democrats, and perhaps some Republicans, to seek Powell's testimony too.

Will Tenet Be Left Holding the Bag?
CIA Director George Tenet is faring a bit better. The House committee's top Democrat, Jane Harman, noted last week that "caveats and qualifiers" Tenet raised in prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons were "rarely included" in Administration arguments for war. After the awkward Q&A in Doha, Bush put Tenet in charge of the WMD hunt. Tenet in turn hired a former U.N. weapons inspector, David Kay, to run the search, but Tenet and Kay have a lot of ground to make up fast. Tenet, sources say, recently conceded to the House panel that the CIA should have done more to warn that finding WMD could be a drawn-out process. Tenet got a reprieve last week when an Iraqi scientist who had hidden parts and documents for nuclear-weapons production in his backyard for 12 years came forward. Tenet's usually behind-the-scenes CIA suddenly became very public in trumpeting the importance of the discovery, if only to remind people how hard illicit weapons would be to find. But Tenet's hot zone isn't Baghdad; it's Capitol Hill. He canceled testimony before the Senate committee last week, citing a schedule conflict. If he doesn't find any weapons, he needs to find a way not to be blamed.

Bush officials believe that time and history are on their side. They argue that now that Saddam is gone, Americans don't care very much about finding WMD. They also say it is only a matter of time before more evidence of weapons materials and programs emerges. And when that occurs, they contend, all their opponents will look as silly as they did when they argued that the war was going badly in its second week. "The Dems are looking for an issue, but I think they're making a mistake," says a senior Administration official.

Democrats do sense a possibly potent campaign theme, but they run the risk of appearing to politicize a sensitive national-security issue as they try to prove the Administration has a credibility gap. But Democrats are not alone in feeling as though they may have been sandbagged on the evidence before the war began. Sources say g.o.p. Senate Intelligence Committee members Olympia Snowe and Hagel have privately questioned the Administration's handling of prewar intelligence. The Republican-held House voted last week to order the CIA to report back on "lessons learned" from the buildup to war in Iraq. The House and Senate intelligence-committee leaders have agreed to coordinate their probes loosely to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. In a rare move, the House panel quietly voted on June 12 to grant all 435 Representatives access to the Iraq intelligence, although a Capitol Hill source said fewer than 10 members outside the committee had reviewed the material.

Administration officials have a further concern about where all these questions are leading. They fear that any problem with the prewar intelligence could undermine Bush's ability to continue his muscular campaign against terrorism overseas. The Administration has argued that to counter new kinds of threats posed by terrorists, rogue states and WMD, it has to be able to act pre-emptively. But pre-emption requires excellent intelligence, and the whole doctrine is undermined if the intelligence is wrong—or confected. "Intelligence takes on an even more important role than in the past because you can't wait until you see an enemy army massing anymore," says former Clinton Deputy National Security Adviser James Steinberg. But if WMD don't turn up and the Administration wants to act elsewhere, it may find that the enemy massing against it is public opinion at home.

From the Jul. 07, 2003 issue of TIME magazine

Posted by Lisa at 06:53 AM

John Cougar Mellencamp Speaks Out

This interview could have been better (the guy could have asked better questions and stopped trying to pigeon hole Cougar's musical style -- I'm referring to the "are you the Creedence of today" line of questioning on page 3).

But no matter, at least someone gave John a chance to speak!

Ain't that America? Denounced as un-American after he blasted Bush on his 21st album, John Mellencamp talks about the rise of Fox News, pay-for-play, what's wrong with the Rolling Stones and why most Republicans aren't rich enough to be Republicans.
By Eric Boehlert for Salon.

Salon: Talk about people's reaction to "To Washington."

John: Initially I was surprised. My album wasn't going to come out for a few months and I had the song
recorded so I put it up on my Web site and asked for people's comments. And there were some mean
damn comments coming back.

Salon: How about today?

John: It's changed. Now they're almost totally in favor of the song. Because people are starting to
realize, "Now wait a minute, what really happened in Iraq?" I see the climate changing
tremendously. But when people hear those drums of war pounding, and Fox News is showing it on
television, people got pretty riled up. People were afraid, and when people are afraid they make
emotional decisions.

Salon: Did that include people in your hometown of Bloomington, Ind.?

John: When the song first came out I was in the car one day and we were driving to the airport and I had
my kids with me and a radio station was playing "To Washington" and having callers call in. Some
guy comes on and says, "I don't know who I hate the most, John Mellencamp or Osama bin Laden." My
kids heard that and my 9-year-old said, "Dad, are they talking about you? Why are people mad at
you?"

... Salon: Were there discussions about not including the song on your record?

John: I was asked not to put it on the record.

Where did it go from there?

John: I think the people who asked me knew what my response would be, but they felt they had to ask. They
were polite about it.

Salon: Did they say it just didn't feel right, or the tone wasn't right for the record?

John: No, it was more, "You're asking for trouble, and look what happened to the Dixie Chicks, which was
based on just an offhand comment they made." And my point to them was, "Look, I'm John Mellencamp,
I've been doing this 25 years. For anybody to say I'm un-American is laughable."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.salon.com/ent/music/int/2003/06/30/mellencamp/index_np.html

page 1

Ain't that America? Denounced as un-American after he blasted Bush on his 21st album, John
Mellencamp talks about the rise of Fox News, pay-for-play, what's wrong with the Rolling Stones and
why most Republicans aren't rich enough to be Republicans.

- - - - - - - - - - - - By Eric Boehlert

June 30, 2003 | "The whole thing was surreal to me," says John Mellencamp. He's remembering the
three-month period during the winter and spring when America was wrestling with the notion of war
against Iraq. The roots-rocker found himself caught in the public fray after he released an antiwar
song at the height of the debate, with some radio listeners comparing him to Osama bin Laden.

It was a startling charge for the Hoosier recently dubbed "Mr. Middle America" by ABC News. After
nearly 30 years on the public stage, Mellencamp and his lunch-bucket rock and populist tales have
come to signify heartland values like faith, hard work and, yes, a healthy skepticism toward
authority. But anti-Americanism? "Get the fuck out of here," he scoffs.

His protest song "To Washington," with its thinly veiled jabs at President Bush, struck a chord
with listeners on the left and right alike. "Isn't it funny?" he asks. "A 51-year-old guy who's
made as many records as I have can still piss off the right wing."

Born in 1951 in Seymour, Ind., the son of a fundamentalist father and a Miss Indiana runner-up,
Mellencamp joined his first band at the age of 13. After graduation and a failed job installing
telephones for Indiana Bell, he landed a record contract despite, he says, having no discernible
talents. "I had a deal when I was a kid not because I could write songs or sing. It was the way I
looked," he says. "The idea of actually writing songs had not even dawned on me."

The songs, and the hits, came later, as Mellencamp honed his vocal and songwriting prowess and
fought his way onto portions of the pop charts usually not occupied by bar band singers. In 1986,
the top three selling artists of the year were Whitney Houston, Madonna and Mellencamp.

Through the years the headstrong Mellencamp has remained one of the few major recording artists not
to cash in by selling his songs for use in television commercials or to accept corporate
sponsorship for his concert tours, decisions that have cost him millions of dollars.

Wrapping his workmanlike rock in what he calls his "left-of-center" politics, in the '80s
Mellencamp teamed up with Willie Nelson to begin staging charity concerts and raise millions of
dollars for Farm-Aid. In 1989, at the height of commercial appeal, he penned "Jackie Brown," among
the most stinging indictments of American poverty ever put to record. ("We shame ourselves to watch
people like this live.")

As the late Timothy White, his good friend and the longtime editor of Billboard, wrote in 2001,
"Mellencamp's best music is rock 'n' roll stripped of all escapism, and it looks directly at the
messiness of life as it's actually lived. This is rock music that tells the truth on both its
composer and the culture he's observing."

More recently, Mellencamp has been tackling the topic of race relations. The title track to 2001's
"Cuttin' Heads" featured Chuck D. rapping about the word "nigger": "I connect the word with pain,
now some smile when they scream the name?/ Die, N-word, die. I want to live."

The album's second song, the sweet-sounding single "Peaceful World," was equally blunt: "Racism
lives in the U.S. today." Not exactly Top-40 fare.

While Mellencamp's radio hits in the '90s couldn't match such '80s anthems as "Pink Houses" and
"Lonely Ol' Night," they were always among the smartest on the airwaves, featuring his trademark
American Bandstand sound that's always easy to dance to: "Love and Happiness" (1991), "Human
Wheels" (1993), "Dance Naked" (1994), "Key West Intermezzo (I Saw You First)" (1996) and "Your Life
Is Now" (1998).

Mellencamp has amassed 29 Top-40 singles in a career spread over 21 albums, including his latest,
the steel-tipped, blues-flavored "Trouble No More."

As the years pass, however, it's gotten progressively harder for Mellencamp to get his music heard
on FM radio, or even VH1. "I was standing outside a restaurant the other night," he recalls with a
laugh. "And a guy, about 37, says, 'Man, are you John Mellencamp?' I said yeah. He said, 'I love
your songs,' and then he said, 'Did you stop making records?'"

Thanks to "To Washington," fans have been likelier to read about Mellencamp in the news pages than
the arts section. Originally written in 1903 as "White House Blues," a commentary on the 1901
assassination of President William McKinley, the folk classic has previously been updated as
political commentary by the Carter Family and Woody Guthrie. Mellencamp continued that tradition:

So a new man in the White House With a familiar name Said he had some fresh ideas But it's worse
now since he came From Texas to Washington.

During a recent phone call from South Carolina, Mellencamp talked at length about the song, his
politics and contemporary pop culture, as well as the ailing music industry.

Talk about people's reaction to "To Washington."

Initially I was surprised. My album wasn't going to come out for a few months and I had the song
recorded so I put it up on my Web site and asked for people's comments. And there were some mean
damn comments coming back.

How about today?

It's changed. Now they're almost totally in favor of the song. Because people are starting to
realize, "Now wait a minute, what really happened in Iraq?" I see the climate changing
tremendously. But when people hear those drums of war pounding, and Fox News is showing it on
television, people got pretty riled up. People were afraid, and when people are afraid they make
emotional decisions.

Did that include people in your hometown of Bloomington, Ind.?

When the song first came out I was in the car one day and we were driving to the airport and I had
my kids with me and a radio station was playing "To Washington" and having callers call in. Some
guy comes on and says, "I don't know who I hate the most, John Mellencamp or Osama bin Laden." My
kids heard that and my 9-year-old said, "Dad, are they talking about you? Why are people mad at
you?"

I just thought that was really jerky and wrong. Why would you play a song on the radio and tell
people to call up and say what they think about it. What is this? Is this like a football game?
Tit-for-tat? I don't like this sporting-event mentality to people's lives, which is basically what
it became.

In retrospect, there were only a handful of famous musicians who opposed the war in their music.
Were you surprised, or is it just not feasible today for artists to put out songs like that on
major record labels?

Major record companies don't want those songs. You know, when the record company heard "To
Washington," it was kind of like "Whoa, wait a minute. We don't want you to do this."
Understandably so, because this record was on the same label that has the Dixie Chicks and that had
just blown up in their face.

Were there discussions about not including the song on your record?

I was asked not to put it on the record.

Where did it go from there?

I think the people who asked me knew what my response would be, but they felt they had to ask. They
were polite about it.

Did they say it just didn't feel right, or the tone wasn't right for the record?

No, it was more, "You're asking for trouble, and look what happened to the Dixie Chicks, which was
based on just an offhand comment they made." And my point to them was, "Look, I'm John Mellencamp,
I've been doing this 25 years. For anybody to say I'm un-American is laughable."

But people have said that recently, haven't they?

Oh yeah. But who knows what people are going to say. I read a list of un-American people and there
was Jimmy Carter on there. He's probably the most honest president we've ever had, since I was
alive, and now he's un-American?

page 2

You said earlier that when people hear the drums of war they react out of fear. Were you surprised
at the heights the rhetoric reached this spring?

Well, the whole thing was surreal to me. I have watched Vietnam and a bunch of other skirmishes,
but I've never seen another point in time where I felt that McCarthyism was rearing its head. And
that's how I felt.

But I don't feel it now. These [pro-war] people are having a hard enough time defending what they
did in Iraq, they don't have time to fuck with anybody about being un-American now.

You also mentioned Fox News and the role they played during what you call that surreal period.
What's your take on how they covered the war?

Today's Daypass sponsored by Blue from American Express

Concord Records - For 30 years bringing you the best in independent jazz

I did an interview two weeks ago for Fox News. They invited me to come on their national news show
and talk about "Trouble No More." And I thought, well wait a minute, am I going to have to go on TV
and argue with somebody and defend myself? That's not my job. I'm a singer, a songwriter, I'm not
going to go on TV and debate and all that bullshit.

They said, "No, no, no. This is strictly about the record." So I said OK. So I go in there and they
ask me a few questions about the record. Then all of a sudden the guy says to me, "You wrote a song
that took some potshots at the president." I said, "Whoa, motherfucker! I didn't take any potshots
at anybody, that's not my style. I'm not yelling from the back of the crowd or giving somebody the
finger. That's not what I do." I said, "Listen, I wrote a song and got the lyrics out of any
newspaper in the country." He said, "Well, you saw what happened to the Dixie Chicks." I said,
"Listen, people have died in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam and a bunch of
little wars in between so that people will have the freedom to speak out, and then the
administration gets on the news and says there's a price for freedom. Yeah, and these dead guys
have already paid for it. For people to drive by those women's houses [the Dixie Chicks] and call
them on the phone and threaten them is criminal. What the Dixie Chicks did was legal."

What's your take on George Bush?

Well, what I think of George Bush doesn't really matter, does it?

I think people would be interested to know.

I'm a songwriter. I kind of like the way he struts around sometimes. [Laughs.] Let's leave it at
that.

There was a recent story in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the gap between the facts and people's
perceptions about the war, about how a majority of Americans thought Saddam was behind the 9/11
attacks, and that a large portion thinks we found the weapons of mass destruction.

There's no point in even talking about people's perceptions. I'm always amazed at what people think
about me, just a dumb singer in a rock band, let alone some important topic. People are really
involved, and rightfully so, in their own lives. You can't say anything negative about people not
being informed, because they don't have time to be informed. It's a hard world to get a break in.

Have your politics changed much over the last 10 or 20 years?

I'm proud to say they haven't.

Do you think the country's politics have changed?

I'm un-proud to say I think they have.

Your parents were Democratic Party activists in Indiana, weren't they?

Oh, they were active locally, in our county. My mother campaigned for Bobby Kennedy. I was
surrounded by Democrats. And I don't understand, in this day and age -- most people who are
Republicans, they're not rich enough to be Republicans! I don't get it. My best friend is a
Republican. He and I vowed a couple months ago never to talk about politics again. He's just a
normal guy with a normal job and I've known him since I was 5 years old. But I just said to him,
"Man, you don't have enough money to be a Republican. How can you afford this?"

When your friend Timothy White died a year ago, you said that rock 'n' roll had lost its
conscience. What did you mean by that?

Tim would stand up against the record companies when he felt they needed to be stood up against. I
remember one day Tim called me and said, "John, you're not going to believe what just happened. You
know on your recording contract, how your songs and your albums revert back to you after 35 years?"
I said yeah. "Well, they don't anymore." I said, "What?" He said, "Yeah, it was pork in some bill
that just got signed." Well, come to find out they did it. But it got overturned.

One of the things I've noticed about your music videos over the years is their racial diversity. So
many of them feature both black and white people, and it's unusual, in a rock video, to see black
and white people side by side, especially if they're real people and not extras in a dance line.
I'm assuming that's not just a coincidence.

I'll tell you, when I wrote "Peaceful World," one of the problems I had with the record company was
that they didn't understand why I was even writing a song about racism in America today. I found
that reaction to be awe-inspiring. That they thought there was no problem in America. What? You
guys live in New York City and you don't see any race problems? Once I heard that I thought, "Oh
shit. They don't like the record."

Because of the content? The lyrics?

Yeah, because it was about racism. And it mentioned being politically correct. They had a long
laundry list of problems. Their complaint was, "You have this beautiful chorus ['Come on baby take
a ride with me/ I'm up from Indiana down to Tennessee'], why do you have to fill the song with
these things that will agitate people?" Well, that's what the song is.

Did they come around in the end?

No. That's why I left Columbia Records.

Because you didn't feel you could work with people who felt that way?

Because I always thought it wasn't the record company's job to like the song. I thought it was
their job to sell them. And I just didn't see the point of me arguing with people about the
material.

But the fact that the disagreement was about race relations, was that particularly upsetting? I
mean, it seems to be a topic that has been running through your music for years.

Yeah, and I don't think many people get it either. I think people look at me in a different way. If
Elvis Costello writes a great song, nobody is really surprised. He writes a lot of great songs. But
if John Mellencamp writes a great song it's like, "Wow, what the fuck?" So I'm kind of a Hoagy
Carmichael.

page 3

How about this: You're more the John Fogerty, the Creedence Clearwater Revival, of today?

Well, I was a kid and very much into music when Creedence was popular on the radio. Critics tore
those guys up. They tore poor John Fogerty up.

Because he wrote pop singles.

Yep. The rock critics were so mean to that guy. I never really understood it.

Today's Daypass sponsored by Blue from American Express

Concord Records - For 30 years bringing you the best in independent jazz

If you look back now, the Creedence catalog is just amazing.

There's just one great song after another.

But with Creedence, there's a much closer fit with you, right? Very roots -- there's something
uniquely American about that sound.

John Fogerty was an American original, no question about it. But in the moment of the late '60s, he
just didn't fit. But now you listen to those records, like "Fortunate Son" -- there was a guy who
was saying something, saying it plainly. It was plainly played. Very American. People just didn't
get it.

Do you think that comparison could apply to your career?

I don't know. I just don't even want to think about it, because if I start thinking about it I'll
get pissed off. See, that's what happened to John. John Fogerty, through a long list of reasons,
got so mad that he really couldn't make records anymore. He just got so sick and tired of
everything, and when you get sick and tired of everything you can't put things in a way where
you're trying to learn.

I heard that not long ago you added "Gimme Shelter" to your playlist. What's that about?

Yeah, a couple tours ago I was starting the show with that. I don't really know why I did that. I
just like playing the song, I guess. I really don't think much of the Rolling Stones these days. I
don't mean to come off sounding pompous but I just think, I don't know, some of the stuff the
Rolling Stones say and stand for today is a little too corporate for me.

What do they stand for, do you think?

I don't think they stand for anything. Being the oldest rock band, I guess. And, "Man, didn't we
write some great songs when we were kids." But there's too much American Express. Too corporate.
Listen, I got nothing against people making money, don't misunderstand me. If you can make money,
go make it.

Do advertisers even bother calling you to ask about using your songs in commercials?

Sometimes we still get calls. Tim [White] and I used to fight about it, too. Because there have
been some offers over the years I've almost done, big money. I remember once I said, "Tim, goddamn,
this is a song, why are we being so precious about it?" I was so close to taking the money, and he
said, "If you fucking do this I'll never speak to you again." [Laughs.] I hung up the phone and
told my wife, "I can't do this." I decided my relationship with Tim was more important than that.

Are there any songs of yours where you think, "I don't want to play them this year?"

I don't want to play "The Authority Song."

Why not?

It just seems a little juvenile. Don't get me wrong, I've got a lot of fucking juvenile songs:
"Hurt So Good." Mike Wanchic, who is my guitar player and public conscience, he'll actually stand
there and argue with me about it:

"What do you mean we're not playing 'The Authority Song'?"

"Mike, I don't want to play that song."

"But do you see the audience, do you see what happens when we start in on that song?"

"Yeah, but I don't care. They're fucking perking up and I want to throw up."

One of the biggest changes in the music business over the last five years has been the massive
consolidation of the companies that own radio stations and control the tour business. A few weeks
ago the FCC voted to allow major TV and newspaper owners to consolidate.

Now you know why Fox was so supportive of the war.

You think there was a connection there?

I don't think, I know.

What's your take on Clear Channel Communications and its influence on the radio and concert
business?

I'm not going to single out Clear Channel, but I just think that when you control so much ... When
a person owns the horse, the track and the other horses in the race, it's probably not going to be
a fair race.

Another topic that's come up lately is pay-for-play in the radio business -- the way artists and
labels actually get songs on the radio by paying indie middlemen. I was just wondering if you had
any thoughts about that process.

You might be surprised about how I feel about that: That's the way it's supposed to be.

In what sense?

That's the way the music business has always been. And to take that away from a business that has
never really operated aboveboard? [Laughs.] Listen, there is no way that you can devise it so that
people are not going to figure out how to get around it.

When it comes to getting songs on the radio?

Sure. There is no way it can be done. Look, in the '80s when people were paying openly to get songs
on the radio, here's the way it worked. "We want you to play this record and we're going to give
you a spiff [kickback] of $100 to get it on the radio." OK, the guy plays it for a week and says,
"I've been playing the song for a week and nobody likes it." "Well, here's $200 to play it next
week." They've been playing the song for two weeks and nobody likes it. Guess what, they're done
paying. It's over at that point. You cannot pay your way into having a hit. It won't happen. The
only thing you can pay your way into is having the opportunity to have a hit. If you don't pay, you
don't even have the opportunity. That's the way it should be done.

What about the folks who can't afford to have an opportunity?

I hate to be cruel about it, but that's the way it's always been. Look, you're talking to a guy
right now who doesn't have a chance [of getting on FM rock radio]. What am I going to do about it?
What's Tom Petty going to do about it? We could write "God Bless America" and nobody wants to play
it. It doesn't matter what we do.

You've always been pretty upfront about the fact that you were playing this game to be on Top-40
radio, to have hits. Meaning if you're going to put time into a project, you might as well have as
many people hear it as possible.

You're right. I always said there's no reason to make these records if nobody's going to hear them.
What's the point, unless you can do something positive with the song, or entertain people? These
things are too hard to make, they take too long, they cost too much money and there's no reason to
make them unless the record company is going to support you and try to sell the fucking thing.

Is this your last album?

I don't know. Listen, I never planned anything in my life. It depends what comes my way. I'm not
out looking for a record deal. I'm not calling anybody up. I don't have anybody who represents me
calling people up. But I would imagine I'd make another record.

You've been doing this for a long time. If you do leave the stage, do you think it's not a bad time
to do it, considering all those things you just said?

Look, my reward for "Trouble No More" has already happened. The fact we had so much fun making that
record. It was challenging. It was interesting. That was reward enough. It would be like my
painting. I don't paint for anything other than enjoyment. I look at other artists like Neil Young,
that's the way he lives. I admire the guy. I don't know what goes on in his private conversations
with his manager, but I see Neil and he doesn't care. He doesn't go on television. He doesn't
promote these records. If they sell half a million or they sell 3 million, it's all the same to
Neil.

You're not there, though, mentally?

I'm not there yet, but that doesn't mean I won't get there. Let's not forget I'm the luckiest guy
in the world.

So you've had a good time?

Did I have fun in the music business? Are you kidding me? More fun than most guys deserve to have
in their life. I have laughed so hard at myself that I couldn't get up off the floor.

Posted by Lisa at 05:51 AM

June 29, 2003

Info On Friday's Anti-Shrub Protest In Burlingame, CA (SF Bay Area)

Glad these guys made it, but I'm kinda glad I didn't go too. I was unprepared and would've gotten heatstroke in a traffic jam, sounds like.

(Unrelated side note: Boy am I glad it's cooled down here in S.F. -- That was a miserable couple of days [and nights] last week...)

Protesters battle heat to boo Bush --
Tough day to make voice heard as cars jam airport-area streets
By Ryan Kim for the SF Chronicle.

The day was trying for many of the protesters and Bush supporters trying to converge on Friday's luncheon. While the relentless heat did its share of damage, the closure of Millbrae Avenue and Old Bayshore Highway for security reasons caused major traffic headaches on streets and Highway 101.

Opponents of Bush harped on a number of topics but consistently hammered home their belief that the president lied about Iraq's weapons capabilities as a false pretext for invasion.

"Bush lied, people died," shouted the throng of protesters as he arrived.

Inside the hotel, five members of Code Pink, a nationwide anti-war organization, gained access to the lobby after they booked a hotel room together. Dressed in pink evening wear, the women engaged many of the luncheon guests, knocking Bush and his $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser.

"I find it obscene to charge $2,000-a-plate when he's making sweeping budget cuts across the country in veterans' benefits and health care," said Carol Norris, an organizer with Code Pink.

The Code Pink women drew their own protester -- Terri Connell of Fairfield, who paused from checking into the Marriott to say, "I respect your First Amendment rights, but you're wrong."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/28/MN278215.DTL&type=news

Despite near triple-digit heat, extensive street closures and frustrating traffic, about 1,000 protesters turned out Friday to boo the arrival of President Bush during a brief fund-raising lunch in Burlingame.

The president's visit to the San Francisco Airport Marriott attracted a vocal but peaceful gathering of protesters, who along with more than 50 Bush supporters, lined a half-mile stretch of Old Bayshore Highway just outside the hotel.

About 300 police officers formed a human barricade in front of the hotel, but they made no arrests and reported no major incidents.

Protesters used Bush's rare visit to the Bay Area to blast him on everything from the war in Iraq to his handling of domestic issues. Many called for his impeachment.

"I'm in 'shock and awe' about what Bush is doing to this country," said Bridgette Fuller, a 48-year-old unemployed tech worker from Santa Cruz. "We're spending far too much of our budget on the military, and we need to spend more money back at home. I just think for the sake of this country, we can't have another four years of Bush."

Mill Valley resident Martin Guffler, however, defended the president and touted Bush's vision and strength in the face of adversity.

"He's one of the most courageous presidents we've had," said Guffler, 59, a business analyst. "He has the ability to make difficult decisions that are necessary. He's a leader and we need a leader in this world."

The day was trying for many of the protesters and Bush supporters trying to converge on Friday's luncheon. While the relentless heat did its share of damage, the closure of Millbrae Avenue and Old Bayshore Highway for security reasons caused major traffic headaches on streets and Highway 101.

Opponents of Bush harped on a number of topics but consistently hammered home their belief that the president lied about Iraq's weapons capabilities as a false pretext for invasion.

"Bush lied, people died," shouted the throng of protesters as he arrived.

Inside the hotel, five members of Code Pink, a nationwide anti-war organization, gained access to the lobby after they booked a hotel room together. Dressed in pink evening wear, the women engaged many of the luncheon guests, knocking Bush and his $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser.

"I find it obscene to charge $2,000-a-plate when he's making sweeping budget cuts across the country in veterans' benefits and health care," said Carol Norris, an organizer with Code Pink.

The Code Pink women drew their own protester -- Terri Connell of Fairfield, who paused from checking into the Marriott to say, "I respect your First Amendment rights, but you're wrong."

Connell, who came to the Marriott specifically to counter anti-Bush protesters, praised Bush's character and said she was "sick and tired of no morals in the presidency."

Chronicle staff writer Mark Simon contributed to this report. / E-mail Ryan Kim at rkim@sfchronicle.com.

Posted by Lisa at 02:01 PM

Day 4: Printing Station Set Up!

Date: 6/29/03
Time: 4:58 pm

Day...4! Still making steady progress with the Library's stationary printing and binding unit. Unfortunately, the laserjet has been causing yet more troubles (in addition to the concerns that it might be used for counterfeiting money) since it came as 110v instead of 220v. Nothing a transformer can't take care of though.

We worked on getting signage for the station today, and, after my weak attempts at taking pitcures of it in use, had a pro. photographer and designer from the lib. do the work for the signs.

Tomorrow we go van shopping and then Tuesday off to Cairo to meet with a Human Rights activist who's based here and in the States.

Hopefully tonight we can find some of Alexandria's famous seafood, since we've been mainly eating when there has been time (and, yes, I actually ate at McDonald's once...pathetic).

Here's some more pics. Enjoy.

Ashley in Egypt.

Warning: the photo below is linked to a really big file that may crash your browser if you're on an older system or a system with lousy memory! (So don't click on it if that may be a problem.)

Posted by Lisa at 12:45 PM

Day 3: Photos From Egypt

You might want to go check out Day 2 again, because I just added photos there too.

Date: 6/28/03
Time: 7:42pm

Text:

Hi.

This is day three and things are still moving pretty fast, especially by Egyptian standards. Shockingly, all the equipment arrived, and the arrival coincided with our arrival, so we're really stoked about that.

We're going to buy some PCs tomorrow (which is a bit complicated here-- it's not going to CompUSA and whipping out the credit cards) and then we'll be ready to roll out books on demand.

We've been exploring Alexandria more and more, and get more and more enchanted by it. We smoked hookah (flavored tobacco) last night and drank Turkish coffee after a 10hour work day.

We hope to head to Cairo on Tuesday to meet with a human rights activism group that's also based in the States and focuses on digital divide issues as well.

More pics attached.

best
ashley

Warning: the photo below is linked to a really big file that may crash your browser if you're on an older system or a system with lousy memory! (So don't click on it if that may be a problem.)

Posted by Lisa at 11:00 AM

June 28, 2003

Video and Audio Of Sydney Levy Of Jewish Voice For Peace At Friday 13 INS Protest

This footage is from the protest in front of the INS building that took place from noon to 1pm at 444 Washington Street in San Francisco on June 13, 2003.

Speaker: Sydney Levy
Organization: Jewish Voice For Peace

Sydney Levy in San Francisco (Small - 10 MB)
Audio - Sydney Levy in San Francisco (MP3 - 3 MB)

Sydney Levy, Jewish Voice For Peace

Need technical help with viewing these videos?

Posted by Lisa at 01:48 PM

Video and Audio Of Father Louie Vitale At The INS Mass Deportation Protest

This footage is from the protest in front of the INS building that took place from noon to 1pm at 444 Washington Street in San Francisco on June 13, 2003.

Speaker: Father Louie Vitale
Organization: Franciscian School Of Theology, St. Boniface Church in San Francisco

Father Louis Vitale, O.F.M. is a Lecturer in Spirituality and Practice of Nonviolence at the Franciscian School Of Theology. He is also a Pastor of St. Boniface Church in San Francisco.

Father Louie ended up serving some time in a Federal Prison in Georgia for committing acts of civil disobedience while protesting the School of the Americas (a U.S. terrorist training camp whose graduates are known for committing human rights violations).

Father Louie Vitale in San Francisco (Small - 24 MB)
Audio - Father Louie Vitale in San Francisco (MP3 - 7 MB)

Father Louie Vitale, Pastor of St. Boniface Church

(Excerpt) I just want to say to those of you who are from maybe my background -- a Judeo-Christian tradition -- If you want to honor the scriptures we have that talk about loving your neighbor and bearing one another's burdens, then we better get off our duffs and do something, or put away our bibles and forget it.

We have to be outraged! And we have to get out and show our rage in non-violent and peaceful ways, and put a stop to this terrible, terrible racism that's going on and the abuse and oppression that destroying families and simply destroying lives.

Need technical help with viewing these videos?

Posted by Lisa at 10:14 AM

Video and Audio Of Andrew Lichterman Of The People's Non-violent Response Coalition

This footage is from the protest in front of the INS building that took place from noon to 1pm at 444 Washington Street in San Francisco on June 13, 2003.

Speaker: Andrew Lichterman
Organization: The People's Non-violent Response Coalition

Andrew Lichterman in San Francisco (Small - 20 MB)
Audio - Andrew Lichterman in San Francisco (MP3 - 8 MB)

Andrew Lichterman Of The People's Non-violent Response Coalition

Need technical help with viewing these videos?

Posted by Lisa at 09:52 AM

Rick Boucher's Anti-Spam Act

Rick Boucher (D-VA) and his collegues have introduced an anti-spam bill. (I know, I know, Yet Another Anti-Spam Bill...)

Here's a press release and actual text of the bill for you to chew on.

The Anti-SPAM Act, of which Congressman Boucher is an original co-author, would enable consumers to opt-out of all commercial e-mail from any company. Companies who send commercial e-mails would be required to clearly identify the e-mail as a business solicitation or advertisement and to provide the recipient with a return e-mail address or website where he or she can opt-out from receiving the company’s e-mail. Companies would be required to comply with a consumer’s request to opt-out from the unsolicited commercial e-mail within 10 days.

The measure would also protect consumers against fraudulent or sexually-explicit e-mail. If enacted, the bill would make it a criminal offense to send e-mails which incorrectly state the origin of the e-mail. Companies who send e-mails which contain sexually-explicit material would also be required to clearly indicate the content of the e-mail, and to allow consumers to opt-out from receiving it.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs), state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission will be given the authority to enforce the Anti-Spam Act. Any person or company found to be in violation of the Act could face up to 2 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

There is no url for this press release. Rick Boucher's Folks sent it me in an email. Sorry to be so late posting it. I'm way backed up (just wait till you see the other old news I'm going to be posting today :-)

Congressman Rick Boucher

2187 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

For Immediate Release
Contact: Amanda Potter, (202) 225-3861

June 18, 2003

BOUCHER CO-AUTHORS NEW APPROACH TO

ELIMINATING SPAM

(Washington, D.C.) –

U.S. Representative Rick Boucher today joined with Representatives Wilson, Green, Dingell and Markey in introducing the bipartisan Anti-SPAM Act of 2003. "Our SPAM legislation protects consumers and provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to stop unsolicited commercial e-mail. SPAM is no longer just an annoyance to consumers. Today, it is an epidemic which costs Internet Service Providers millions of dollars and slows down consumers e-mail connections," Boucher said.

The Anti-SPAM Act, of which Congressman Boucher is an original co-author, would enable consumers to opt-out of all commercial e-mail from any company. Companies who send commercial e-mails would be required to clearly identify the e-mail as a business solicitation or advertisement and to provide the recipient with a return e-mail address or website where he or she can opt-out from receiving the company’s e-mail. Companies would be required to comply with a consumer’s request to opt-out from the unsolicited commercial e-mail within 10 days.

The measure would also protect consumers against fraudulent or sexually-explicit e-mail. If enacted, the bill would make it a criminal offense to send e-mails which incorrectly state the origin of the e-mail. Companies who send e-mails which contain sexually-explicit material would also be required to clearly indicate the content of the e-mail, and to allow consumers to opt-out from receiving it.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs), state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission will be given the authority to enforce the Anti-Spam Act. Any person or company found to be in violation of the Act could face up to 2 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

-more-

Boucher noted that the Anti-SPAM Act goes much further than other proposals which are under consideration by the U.S. Congress. "The Anti-SPAM Act provides consumers, ISPs, and law enforcement with the necessary weapons to fight vigorously the onslaught of millions of unsolicited commercial messages. It contains broad enforcement powers for federal and state authorities, tight restrictions on e-mail marketers, and includes an anti-pornography provision," he said.

-###-

Amanda Potter
Press Secretary
Office of Congressman Rick Boucher
(202) 225-3861

Posted by Lisa at 09:27 AM

a.k.a. Register In The "No Call" Registry (and It's Illegal For Telemarketers To Call You)

A few months ago, I got all hot and bothered about the news that our cell phone numbers would soon be made available to telemarketers via 411 info.

One solution to this is to sign up for the "Do Not Call Registry."

Most telemarketers cannot call your telephone number if it is in the National Do Not Call Registry. You can register your home and mobile phone numbers for free. Your registration will be effective for five years.

If a telemarketer calls you during that time, you can file a complaint.

It just took me less than a minute to register my home and cell phone numbers.

Posted by Lisa at 09:21 AM

June 27, 2003

Day 2: Ashley In Egypt

This just in from Ashley the Bookmobilist in Egypt on day 2.

Date: 27 June 2003
Time: 4:44pm

Hello everyone! Day 2 has gone really smoothly here. We've managed to get all the equipment (printers, cutters, scorers) out of the tighter-than-tight Egyptian customs and have had the Library's engineering dept. construct some tables. We hope to have things up and running soon.

On Monday the filmmakers (who are making a documentary about these goings on) and I will be travelling around, shopping for some sort of vehicle to create the BibAlex Bookie.

We've also begun to think about a catalog system where users will be able to see if a text in the Library is available in digital form, and then, if they want, go upstairs (or downstairs, there are 11 floors) and print and bind it.

Things are looking good: the setup is housed in its own space right next to the Children's Library at an entrance to the building.

Warning: the photo below is linked to a really big file that may crash your browser if you're on an older system or a system with lousy memory! So don't click on it if that may be a problem.

Posted by Lisa at 07:51 AM

June 26, 2003

Bills To Investigate WMD Lies Further Fail House

House Rejects Deeper Probe on Iraqi Arms
By Ken Guggenheim the Associated Press.

The House on Thursday rejected two attempts by Democratic lawmakers for additional inquiries into the handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

Democrats sought to include the inquiries in a bill authorizing 2004 intelligence activities. That bill, whose details are mostly classified, was expected to be approved late Thursday or early Friday...

Reviews of administration assertions of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction already under way by the House and Senate intelligence committees and the Senate Armed Services committees. But some Democrats said they don't go far enough.

An amendment proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas to require the U.S. comptroller general to study U.S. intelligence-sharing with U.N. inspectors was defeated 239-185.

By a 347-76 vote, the House rejected an amendment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio to require the CIA's inspector general to audit all telephone and electronic communications between the CIA and Vice President Dick Cheney relating to Iraq's weapons.

Kucinich, a presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of the war, cited a Washington Post story in which unidentified intelligence analysts said they had felt pressured by Cheney to make their assessments meet administration policy objectives.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-congress-iraq,0,4279811.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

House Rejects Deeper Probe on Iraqi Arms

By KEN GUGGENHEIM
Associated Press Writer

June 26, 2003, 11:30 AM EDT

WASHINGTON -- The House on Thursday rejected two attempts by Democratic lawmakers for additional inquiries into the handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

Democrats sought to include the inquiries in a bill authorizing 2004 intelligence activities. That bill, whose details are mostly classified, was expected to be approved late Thursday or early Friday.

Democrats have questioned whether prewar intelligence was inaccurate or manipulated to back up President Bush's push for war. Republicans have said there is no sign of wrongdoing and have accused Democrats of raising the issue for political reasons.

Reviews of administration assertions of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction already under way by the House and Senate intelligence committees and the Senate Armed Services committees. But some Democrats said they don't go far enough.

An amendment proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas to require the U.S. comptroller general to study U.S. intelligence-sharing with U.N. inspectors was defeated 239-185.

By a 347-76 vote, the House rejected an amendment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio to require the CIA's inspector general to audit all telephone and electronic communications between the CIA and Vice President Dick Cheney relating to Iraq's weapons.

Kucinich, a presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of the war, cited a Washington Post story in which unidentified intelligence analysts said they had felt pressured by Cheney to make their assessments meet administration policy objectives.

In debate Wednesday, Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., called Kucinich's proposal the "cheap shot amendment of the year."

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman of California, also opposed Kucinich's proposal, saying his concerns could be examined by the committee's review of prewar intelligence.

Harman said the early stages of that review found that the administration ignored doubts about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability. But Harman said she still believes Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could now be in the hands of anti-American fighters in Iraq or terrorists elsewhere.

She said the early stages of her committee's review has made clear that Iraq once had chemical and biological weapons and that these weapons were easy to hide -- but administration officials "rarely included the caveats and qualifiers attached to the intelligence community's judgments."

"For many Americans, the administration's certainty gave the impression there was even stronger intelligence about Iraq's possession of and intention to use WMD," she said.

Harman said the committee was reviewing whether intelligence agencies "made clear to policy-makers and Congress that most of its analytic judgments were based on things like aerial photographs, Iraqi defector interviews -- not hard facts."

Harman also said that intelligence linking al-Qaida to Iraq "is conflicting, contrary to what was claimed by the administration."

Harman said the committee's review would be thorough and that Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., has told her he will hold open hearings, which she hopes will begin in July. But she also said the investigation had to be "mindful of the burden the intelligence agencies are carrying."

"Our nation is best served by an effective intelligence community, not one hobbled by risk-aversion and finger-pointing," she said.

The intelligence authorization bill would pay for programs aimed at improving intelligence sharing among agencies, increase training of state and local agencies, modernize an aging satellite network, strengthen human espionage and improve counterintelligence efforts.

The bill's cost is classified, but has been estimated at $40 billion. Goss said that level would meet Bush's request. It will have to be reconciled with a version being considered by the Senate.

Posted by Lisa at 09:47 PM

Howard Dean On How We Can Afford Health Care For All

This footage is from the "Democratic National Candidates Forum" organized by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition that took place on June 22, 2003 at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers in Chicago, IL.

This is by far my favorite quote from the Forum. The question is (paraphrased) "How can we afford healthcare?"

In a nutshell, the repeal of the Shrub's latest tax cut for the rich would cover the cost two times over. (See the longer edits below if you want to hear more -- this clip is the sound byte version. Howard Dean On Health Care - Soundbyte (Small - 2 MB)

"If you say to the American People 'You have a choice. You can have the President's tax cut, or you can have health insurance that can't be taken away. You can have the President's tax cut, or you can fully fund Special Education. You can have the President's tax cut, or you can start to balance the budget and get jobs back again in this country. What people are gonna say is 'I'll take the jobs, the education, and the health care, cause I didn't get the President's tax cut.'" - Howard Dean.

Howard Dean On Health Care - Edited (Small - 3 MB)
(Includes a bit more of what was said immediately before the quote above, for context.)

Howard Dean On Health Care - Complete (Small - 5 MB)

Posted by Lisa at 09:09 PM

Man On Trial For Holding Sign Outside Shrub Speech

Looks like there will be a whole lot of political statements being misinterpreted as death threats if all you gotta do is hold up a "No War For Oil" sign to qualify.

I'm not sure if I'm going to be there tomorrow myself yet, when the Shrubbery himself pulls into Burlingame for an instant tomorrow afternoon (morning?), but I think I can speak for a lot of other people when I say:

'See you tomorrow, Mr. "President." No death threats. No violence. Just a whole lotta love for each other and our country. Something you probably wouldn't understand...'

S.C. Man Charged with Threatening the President’s Safety For Holding Protest Sign
On the Democracy Now website.

Real Stream Including an Interview With Britt Bursey

Brett Bursey goes on trial today for simply holding a sign that read “No War For Oil” outside a President Bush speech last October. Bursey is being charged with the federal crime of threatening the president’s safety.

He is believed to be the first protester to ever be arrested on these charges for simply holding a sign.

He faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Back in October he was originally charged by the state with trespassing at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport. But the state dropped the trespassing charges perhaps because they knew the courts would rule in Bursey’s favor.

In fact they did 33 years ago when he was also arrested at the same airport for protesting Richard Nixon. He was charged with trespassing. Bursey challeneged his arrest and the state Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

But much has changed since then.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/1459249

Democracy Now!

Join our mailing list.

Top Ten Signs You're In Love With Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean

10. You've actually heard of him.

9. Whenever he discusses plans to revitalize economy, you get goosebumps.

8. Named your cats "Howard," "Dean" and "Six-Term Governor Howard Dean."

7. You'll only watch movies featuring Ron Howard or Harry Dean Stanton.

6. When you hear a report on the radio about a highway accident, you murmur, "Please, god, don't let Howard Dean be involved."

5. Constantly complain rival candidate Dennis Kucinich isn't "Howardly" enough.

4. Changed outfit four times before watching Dean's appearance on "Meet the Press."

3. You stand by him despite the fact his infidelities embarrassed you in front of the entire...oh wait, wrong Democrat.

2. When he announced his candidacy, you didn't laugh your ass off.

1. You're actually considering wasting a vote on him.

Posted by Lisa at 09:50 AM

Public Domain Enhancement Act Picking Up Steam!

Good news and more good news from Larry about his trip to Washington D.C.

I have just arrived in DC, where I was planning on meeting with staffers on the Hill tomorrow to drum up support for the Public Domain Enhancement Act. We’ve got CD’s of all 15k+ of the signatures on our Reclaim the Public Domain petition to hand out. It was going to be a fun day (as fun as any DC day gets) in DC.

But we’ve now learned that Congresswoman Lofgren (D-CA) and Congressman Doolittle (R-CA) have agreed to introduce the bill into Congress. We’re having an event at 1pm tomorrow at the Capitol to announce this first step on a long road to Reclaiming the Public Domain.

Count this as great news, and spread the word: there are two great souls on Capitol Hill. I’ll see if I can find some more.

Posted by Lisa at 09:35 AM

Creative Commons Interview With Jerry Goldman

Here's a great interview with Jerry Goldman, Professor of Political Science at Northwestern on the Creative Commons site.

Jerry Goldman is determined to archive every recorded oral argument and bench statement in the Supreme Court since 1955, when the Court began to tape-record its public proceedings. Goldman, a professor of political science at Northwestern, founded the OYEZ Project in 1989 "to create and share a complete and authoritative archive of Supreme Court audio." This month the OYEZ mission takes a new step forward with the release of hundreds of hours of MP3 versions of their archived audio under a Creative Commons license.

Here is the full text of the interview in case the link goes bad:

http://creativecommons.org/learn/features/oyez

Jerry Goldman

Interview by Laura Lynch
Photo by Dennis Glenn
June 2003

Jerry Goldman is determined to archive every recorded oral argument and bench statement in the Supreme Court since 1955, when the Court began to tape-record its public proceedings. Goldman, a professor of political science at Northwestern, founded the OYEZ Project in 1989 "to create and share a complete and authoritative archive of Supreme Court audio." This month the OYEZ mission takes a new step forward with the release of hundreds of hours of MP3 versions of their archived audio under a Creative Commons license.

We spoke with Jerry recently about The OYEZ Project, their use of Creative Commons licenses, and the impact of their new MP3 release.

CC: What inspired you to create The OYEZ Project?

Jerry Goldman: In the late 1980s Professor Linda Kerber gave a talk at Northwestern University on her project dealing with gender discrimination in the law. Kerber played a few audio excerpts from the oral arguments in Hoyt v. Florida, a case that upheld the exemption of women from jury service. The audio was enlightening because it opened up a new way of thinking about the Court and grasping its work. It was my view that technology could enable a better use of these materials.

A later demonstration of such technology was equally inspiring. Two English professors visited Northwestern to discuss their Shakespeare project. Using an early Mac, a video-laser disc player, a color monitor, and some speakers, they demonstrated how one could highlight, say, Act II Scene 3 from Macbeth and then instantly play back the corresponding video. The ability to integrate text, audio, and video lay the groundwork for future OYEZ projects involving audio and annotation tools.

CC: After you became interested in the Court's audio recordings, how did The OYEZ Project begin?

JG: The earliest version of The OYEZ Project dates back to 1989. I came up with the idea of presenting our Supreme Court data and archives like a baseball card collection while sitting at a Chicago Cubs game at Wrigley Field. The idea materialized into a pre-web version consisting of complex HyperCard stacks. The stacks contained an elementary demonstration of video and audio linked to background information on the individual justices and the cases they decided. As a tribute to OYEZ's origin we created the "Law-Baseball Quiz," an idea from the creative mind of the late law professor, Robert Cover.

The transition to downloadable MP3s is a result of working with Chris Karr, a creative and forward-thinking computer scientist and web architect. Chris made me wake up to the need for wider sharing of our materials. I'm greatly indebted to him and quite pleased to acknowledge his contribution to the Creative Commons effort and to the entire re-conceptualization of The OYEZ Project.

CC: How did you obtain the Supreme Court audio materials? Why have you decided to release them?

JG: We purchased and collected the audio from the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland. The audio materials — principally in the form of oral arguments — are the core of The OYEZ Project.

We released the public proceedings because they are some of the greatest intellectual and legal debates of our era. Transcripts — even with the justices identified — lack the emotive qualities of humor, irony and anger, which audio conveys. The first Roe v. Wade argument (the case was reargued) stands out in my mind. When Jay Floyd, representing the state of Texas, began his argument, he tried a bit of good-ole-boy humor, which was met by the Court's silence. (Remember that the bench was all men in the early 1970s.) His argument headed downhill from there. Sarah Weddington, representing Jane Roe, made a kitchen-sink argument, throwing every thing she could imagine at the Court. That struck me as pointless, though some of the justices were very gentle about it. Among the announcements of opinions, the Regents v. Bakke audio stands out. In a rare exercise, the justices spoke at length about their disagreements in the case, and the emotions are palpable.

CC: Government works are essentially uncopyrightable. How did you obtain the copyright for these works?

JG: The OYEZ audio is a derivative work because we've made technical and editorial judgments that depart from the original source. The raw audio we obtain from the National Archives often needs to be edited. Sometimes, the first part of an argument will exist on one reel and the remainder is on a second. We dub both reels and then match them up, removing any overlap. We have voice corrected many hours of audio because of timbre and pitch problems.

CC: How does this MP3 release add to what OYEZ is offering currently? What good might come of this for OYEZ in the future?

JG: It offers new independence to users by permitting downloads of OYEZ audio and promoting the sharing of those materials — subject to our Creative Commons license — on peer-to-peer networks. While we enjoy our popularity in academic and educational circles, we can reach more listeners by enabling downloadable versions. With the development of Creative Commons, we have, for the first time, a way to license our content that assures use consistent with our objectives.

The more I listen to the recordings the more I realize that the true value is not in the audio itself but in a community of dedicated listeners and scholars who could add to the audio. The original Court transcripts do not identify the justices, only the attorneys. Adding transcripts and voices to the audio would help create a searchable audio archive. For instance, you could search and listen to any audio where Scalia used the expression "strict scrutiny." Listeners could annotate audio by pinpointing selections that illustrate good and bad advocacy, or particularly interesting views on an issue, and then share their annotation findings with others in a shared community. Encouraging a community to select and identify audio clips will increase awareness of OYEZ audio as a primary source for scholarship and teaching.

CC: Why did you decide to use Creative Commons licenses? Why do you think this project is important?

JG: Creative Commons has a good solution to the nagging problem of commercialization and is based on a solid theory regarding the power of creativity. We want to contribute to that creative enterprise. It doesn't make sense to maintain the high transaction costs associated with acquiring these materials. Having made this investment — with the help of many institutions —it is our responsibility to freely share this treasure.

Peer-to-peer networking is getting a bad name as a result of the enormous amount of unlicensed music file-sharing. By making our collection available we are emphasizing a good use of P2P and hopefully inspiring other content creators to recognize that there is more to be gained by sharing than by withholding their work from the public.

We hope OYEZ audio will be used by law students, Supreme Court junkies, practicing attorneys, teachers, and the general public. To borrow from the immortal Yogi Berra: "You can hear a lot by listening." The experience is daunting and thrilling, and my hope is that by listening and learning, the quality of advocacy and communication will improve.

Posted by Lisa at 07:50 AM

MP3s Of Affirmative Action Oral Arguments

Note: this case has been decided since this oral argument was heard.

Oyez Project Releases Affirmative Action Arguments in MP3 Format

It's being released under a Creative Commons license.

There's also a great interview with Jerry Goldman, Professor of Political Science at Northwestern on the Creative Commons site.

Posted by Lisa at 07:47 AM

Ashley's In Egypt!

This came in today (no pictures yet):

Hello all! So I'm here with 3 filmmakers in Alexandria Egypt. This place is really incredible. We were given the VIP tour of the Library of Alexandria (BibAlex), which is one of the most beautiful contemporary structures I've seen.

I'm working with BibAlex's IT Team to build these Bookmobile units. They've dedicated almost an entire hall to this unit, which is at the entrance of ISIS-- the International School for Information Science.

Things are going great. I'm in the middle of a meeting with the IT Team, so I've got to go for now. Will write soon.

Posted by Lisa at 07:36 AM

Why I'm Giving The Other Underdogs Their Say

Although I have already made my endorsement for Howard Dean for President, you'll notice that I'll be posting video from all of the candidates over the days and weeks to come.

That's because I didn't want to be a party to the typical Media Monopoly practice of not giving the other candidates any time. In the TV and Cable "airwaves," you can bet that we're going to be seeing a lot of the Shrub and no one but the Shrub because he's the only one who can pay for all the time he wants.

I also didn't want to be the "all Dean and only Dean all the time" channel or anything -- I'm already worried about alienating those of you haven't made up your mind yet -- and you're the people I most want to reach!

So I won't say I'm going to be giving them all "equal time," because that means I'll have to get my calculator out to keep things even. I also plan on collecting all the great things Howard Dean has said and done in one category -- and he's done a lot of great things in the past and he keeps saying great things about what he'd do in the future -- so I'm pretty sure there will still be more Dean here than anything else.

However, a friend of mine reminded me earlier this week (as she was checking "none of the above" on her MoveOn Primary Ballot) that it's important to keep the debate going on these issues in order to make the public aware of them -- and to not just get behind one candidate early and let the issues take a backseat to the campaign.

So, although I still feel that Dean is the obvious choice at this point, and so much more than the other candidates I just had to say something, I do agree with her point about keeping up the debate on these so very important issues.

That means I'll be covering all of the candidates to a certain extent -- should one (or all) of them say something worthy (or damning) that I feel the public needs to hear.

That means that on my little media monopoly, we'll be hearing from all of the Democratic candidates.

I just felt compelled to explain my strategy a bit here.

Peace y'all.

Posted by Lisa at 06:29 AM

June 25, 2003

Kucinich On What He Would Do To Counter The FCC's New Media Ownership Rules (If He Were President)

This footage is from the "Democratic National Candidates Forum" organized by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition that took place on June 22, 2003 at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers in Chicago, IL.

Here's the original question that was presented to the candidates (courtesy of Jesse Jackson).

Kucinich On Media Ownership (Small - 3 MB)

"I'll have my Justice Department file suit to break up all the monopolies in the media. That's number one. And while they're at it, they'll start to pay attention to the concentration of wealth that's going on in this society, and file suit to break up monopolies in energy, in agriculture and communications." -- Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Lisa at 09:23 PM

Creative Commons MP3 Metadata Info Released

Creative Commons CTO Mike Linksvayer has announced that CC mp3 (and general "non-web") metadata guidelines are now linked to from the website and supported with additional material.

They've provided a cute little how-to to help you get started.

Posted by Lisa at 09:07 PM

Video and Audio Of Greg Marutani From The Japanese America Citizens League

This footage is from the protest in front of the INS building that took place from noon to 1pm at 444 Washington Street in San Francisco on June 13, 2003.

Speaker: Greg Marutani
Organization: Japanese American Citizens League

Greg Marutani in San Francisco (Small - 12 MB)
Audio - Greg Marutani in San Francisco (MP3 - 4 MB)

Greg Marutani, Japanese American Citizens League

Need technical help with viewing these videos?

Posted by Lisa at 08:10 PM

Democratic Candidates On The FCC's New Media Ownership Rules

Just wanted to provide a cross-reference to my Democrats By Issue - Media Ownership category, which covers the speeches of Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry and Dick Gephard as they ALL explain how they would re-regulate the media industry.
(6/25/03 - Note that I'm still in the process of linking to all of these, but if you can't wait, you can look at them all -- named accordingly in this directory.)

To date, all of my footage on this issue is from "Democratic National Candidates Forum" organized by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition that took place on June 22, 2003 at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers in Chicago, IL.

In the future, I may post clips of candidates discussing this topic from other sources.

Posted by Lisa at 06:00 PM

Howard Dean On The FCC's New Media Ownership Rules

This footage is from the "Democratic National Candidates Forum" organized by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition that took place on June 22, 2003 at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers in Chicago, IL.

Here's the original question that was presented to the candidates (courtesy of Jesse Jackson).

Howard Dean On The FCC's New Media Ownership Rules

"...when the Dixie Chicks were kicked off the air for disagreeing with the President of the United States over the Iraq invasion, I suddenly realized that this was a corporation who was censoring our ability to get information on our airwaves." -- Howard Dean.

Complete transcript of the above video clip:

Q: Governor Dean. The FCC made this decision. The market's gonna react. Companies are going to be acquiring more outlets. What are you gonna try to do? Try to undo it?

Dean: Yup.

(applause)

Dean: Look, I'm not a big country music person. I like it alright. I don't know much about the Dixie Chicks. But when the Dixie Chicks were kicked off the air for disagreeing with the President of the United States over the Iraq invasion, I suddenly realized that this was a corporation who was censoring our ability to get information on our airwaves. So, yeah. Deregulation has been a failure. We need to re-regulate the media. They've behaved irresponsibly, and when people behave irresponsibly, they need to have the privileges that we're giving them using our airwaves taken away.

So yes. I would re-regulate the media. I would limit the ownership of stations in a particular market and limit the overall ownerships in the entire country. We made a mistake in deregulation. We need to re-regulate.

Uncropped photograph (linked to larger image):

Posted by Lisa at 05:11 PM

Cool Anti-War Song Site

Anti War Songs, à la Carte

And this I really, really like:
Putting the Anti-War Songs to Work

Sing it loud. "Hell no! We won't go for it!" Take a while each day to pull out your old anti-war songs. Find some new ones. Play them in your car. Print them out for your children and their friends. Burn some new theme CDs. Load them into your iPod. Call every local radio station request line and ask for a different song. Repeat. Link to here from your own web page. Download the lyrics to your hard drive as a hedge against the day when such transmissions may be illegal. Encourage musicians to make new anti-war songs by buying the ones already available. Play them as backdrop to your anti-war efforts or while you make a living. Sing them while marching or between marches. Play them when you feel there's nothng more that you can do.

Here is the text of the page in case the link goes bad:

http://www.lacarte.org/songs/anti-war/about.html#How_to_Use_the_Anti-War_Songs

Putting the Anti-War Songs to Work:
Sing it loud. "Hell no! We won't go for it!" Take a while each day to pull out your old anti-war songs. Find some new ones. Play them in your car. Print them out for your children and their friends. Burn some new theme CDs. Load them into your iPod. Call every local radio station request line and ask for a different song. Repeat. Link to here from your own web page. Download the lyrics to your hard drive as a hedge against the day when such transmissions may be illegal. Encourage musicians to make new anti-war songs by buying the ones already available. Play them as backdrop to your anti-war efforts or while you make a living. Sing them while marching or between marches. Play them when you feel there's nothng more that you can do.

Posted by Lisa at 04:44 PM

Video and Audio Of Global Exchange's Ladan Sobhani At Friday 13 INS Mass Deportation Protest

This footage is from the protest in front of the INS building that took place from noon to 1pm at 444 Washington Street in San Francisco on June 13, 2003.

Speaker: Ladan Sobhani
Organization: Global Exchange

Ladan Sobhani in San Francisco (Small - 12 MB)
Audio - Ladan Sobhani in San Francisco (MP3 - 4 MB)

Ladan Sobhani of Global Exchange

Need technical help with viewing these videos?

Posted by Lisa at 04:10 PM

Shrub Sets New Deficit Record

CBO Expects Deficit to Shatter Record
By for the Alan Fram for the Associated Press.

Congress' top budget analyst warned Tuesday that the government is on track this year for a record deficit exceeding $400 billion, providing fresh fodder to President Bush and Democrats in their battle over taxes and spending.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated last month that the 2003 shortfall would surpass $300 billion. But that was before lawmakers approved fresh tax cuts for families and investors plus aid for cash-strapped states, projected to cost $61 billion this year alone. It also did not fully reflect the economy's malaise, which has constricted revenue.

The deepest shortfall ever, $290 billion, occurred in 1992. This year's deficit will be the second straight, a jarring turnabout from the four consecutive annual surpluses that marked the last years of the Clinton administration.

"The president has us on an utterly reckless course," said the Senate Budget Committee's top Democrat, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, referring to budget pressures that will intensify when the baby boom generation starts retiring late this decade.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-deepening-deficit,0,4803012.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

CBO Expects Deficit to Shatter Record

By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer

June 10, 2003, 8:06 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Congress' top budget analyst warned Tuesday that the government is on track this year for a record deficit exceeding $400 billion, providing fresh fodder to President Bush and Democrats in their battle over taxes and spending.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated last month that the 2003 shortfall would surpass $300 billion. But that was before lawmakers approved fresh tax cuts for families and investors plus aid for cash-strapped states, projected to cost $61 billion this year alone. It also did not fully reflect the economy's malaise, which has constricted revenue.

The deepest shortfall ever, $290 billion, occurred in 1992. This year's deficit will be the second straight, a jarring turnabout from the four consecutive annual surpluses that marked the last years of the Clinton administration.

"The president has us on an utterly reckless course," said the Senate Budget Committee's top Democrat, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, referring to budget pressures that will intensify when the baby boom generation starts retiring late this decade.

Republicans said their push for tax cuts and restrained spending would energize the economy and help erase the red ink.

"The president's fiscal policy is to increase take-home pay," said White House budget office spokesman Trent Duffy. "And through greater economic growth, we get on a path to a return to balance."

For years, Republicans decried federal imbalances and used them as a rationale for spending cuts. In recent months, many in the GOP have minimized the importance of the shortfalls, saying they are manageable in a $10.5 trillion economy.

"The deficit we care about is the jobs deficit," said Sen. George Allen of Virginia, who heads the Senate GOP's election efforts.

In a role reversal, it is mostly Democrats who have taken up the cry for dealing with long-range budget problems.

"The best way to ensure that we, as well as our children and our grandchildren, are overtaxed for the rest of our lives is to keep borrowing money to cover our deficits," said Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Texas.

Though unprecedented shortfalls loom, polls indicate that voters are far more concerned about the economy and the specter of terrorism. Historically low interest rates have cushioned the budget problem's impact on the public, blunting its emergence as a potent issue.

Even economists, while expressing concern over long-term fiscal difficulties, showed little alarm over the latest figures. Private analysts have long expected this year's deficit to exceed $400 billion, and many say flushing that money into the economy will help keep today's economic conditions from worsening.

"Budget discipline has been thrown out the window in Washington," said Ethan Harris, chief U.S. economist for Lehman Bros., the investment bank. "It's a long-run problem for the economy."

The new budget office numbers emerged as Bush and lawmakers craft legislation to establish new prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients expected to cost at least $400 billion over the next decade. Other spending increases are expected later this year for defense, education, combatting AIDS overseas and other areas.

The Senate also has approved a bill expanding tax cuts for some lower- and higher-income Americans. House GOP leaders are discussing adding items to that measure.

Tuesday's budget office report, a monthly analysis of Treasury Department data, estimated a $291 billion deficit for the first eight months of the federal budget year, which runs through Sept. 30.

That is double the $145 billion shortfall for the same period a year ago, and $1 billion more than the previous record for an entire budget year.

"The deterioration in the short-term budget outlook stems from continued weakness in revenue collections" and May's tax cut legislation, the report said. That bill cut taxes by $330 billion through 2013 and provided a two-year cash infusion of $20 billion for states.

So far, federal receipts are down by $60 billion, or 4.9 percent, from a year ago, with the largest decline in individual income taxes. Spending is up by 6 percent, or $86 billion, largely due to the military, Social Security and Medicare.

A $400 billion deficit would be nearly 4 percent as large as the U.S. economy, a measure many economists consider significant because it illustrates the government's ability to afford its red ink.

As the condition of the budget worsened in the 1980s and early 1990s, there were seven annual federal deficits that were at least that large compared to the economy.

Bush and top lawmakers neared an agreement Tuesday to limit Congress to adding about $5 billion, or just over 1 percent, to its original plans for domestic programs for next year.

They hope to finalize details of the deal this week, which could help them minimize year-end battles and complete Congress' spending legislation near the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2004.

Posted by Lisa at 03:51 PM

MoveOn's "Distortion Of Evidence" Page

Just wanted to make sure you guys saw this:

MoveOn: Distortion of Evidence

Distortion of Evidence

The President took the nation to war based on his assertion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our country. Now the evidence that backed that assertion is falling apart. We believe that:

"Congress must establish an independent,
bipartisan commission to investigate and
hold the President and his officials accountable
if they manipulated or fabricated intelligence
to justify taking the country to war."

Please join us below. We'll send your comments to your Representative and your Senators, and we'll keep you posted about what more you can do to support this campaign.

Posted by Lisa at 03:47 PM

Video and Audio Of Penelope Houston At Howard Dean Rally In San Francisco

Penelope Houston performed two songs at the San Francisco node of Howard Dean's nationwide launch last Monday night, June 23, 2003.

I've created a couple different edits of these movies:

- Movies that have both songs, with an introduction to the second song in the middle.
- Movies consisting of each song as a separate clip.
- A "radio edit" of "Scum" in case you wish to add it to your MP3 collection without having to listen to the talking at the beginning everytime (although Penelope teaching the audience the words to the song is pretty fun to listen to).

(That's me singing backup along with the guitar player at the end of "Scum." I think it came out pretty good actually, considering :-)

Penelope has asked me to retain our traditional copyright on this footage until she has a chance to look over the Creative Commons Licenses in more detail. (Sounds fair to me!)

Thanks again for an incredible show, Penelope!

Penelope Houston At Howard Dean Rally - "American In Me" and "Scum" (With intro to "Scum" in between)
Penelope Houston - Both Songs (Small - 17 MB)
Penelope Houston - Both Songs (Hi-res - 234 MB)
Audio - Penelope Houston - Both Songs (MP3 - 8 MB)

Penelope Houston At Howard Dean Rally - "American In Me"
Penelope Houston - American In Me (Small - 7 MB)
Penelope Houston - American In Me (Hi-res - 92 MB)
Audio - Penelope Houston - American In Me (MP3 - 3 MB)

Penelope Houston At Howard Dean Rally - "Scum" (w/intro)
Penelope Houston - Scum w/intro (Small - 10 MB)
Penelope Houston - Scum w/intro (Hi-res - 137 MB)
Audio - Penelope Houston - Scum w/intro (MP3 - 5 MB)

Penelope Houston At Howard Dean Rally - "Scum" (Radio Edit - no intro)
Penelope Houston - Scum (Radio Edit) (Small - 8 MB)
Penelope Houston - Scum (Radio Edit) (Hi-res - 111 MB)
Audio - Penelope Houston - Scum (Radio Edit) (MP3 - 4 MB)

Posted by Lisa at 03:24 PM

What Do Barbie and I Have In Common?

Barbie and I are both mentioned in this nice little intro about blogging by Deirdre Clemente.

I sure never thought me and Barbie would be mentioned in the same breath about anything...

Wow I didn't realize that 35 of bloggers are women now. Great start.

Blogging. It may sound like a fraternity hazing ritual but these days, everybody is doing it. Disoriented new moms, disgruntled teens, and somewhat sickening thirtysomethings are enthusiastically creating and maintaining weblogs or “blogs” --online journals that feature everything from boyfriend bashing to baby food reviews. Even Barbie has a blog.

Although they’ve been around since the mid-nineties, “blogs” had been reserved for techies and professional writers. In 1999, there were only an estimated 100 blogs in existence; today, the number is around one million. In a traditionally male forum, a whopping 35 percent of these blossoming bloggers are women.

Posted by Lisa at 03:14 PM

Daily Show Interview With Harper's Magazine's Lewis Lapham

Here's a Daily Show interview with Lewis Lapham, Senior Editor for Harper's Magazine.

This interview was broadcast on June 17, 2003.

Lewis Lapham On The Daily Show

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Posted by Lisa at 02:50 PM

Another U.S. Citizen Denied Due Process - Declared 'Enemy Combatant' By The Shrub

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't care what horrible crime the guy is SUSPECTED of committing. The key word is SUSPECTED and in this country we used to have something called DUE PROCESS. Anybody remember that?

And since when does the President have the sole authority to hand pick individuals out of our criminal justice system? At the very least it should be a very large panel of individuals that might serve to provide some kind of checks and balances to the process. What an embarrassment to our country. (Add it to the list of Shrub embarassments, I guess.)

We've got a president that thinks he's dictator. That makes our country a dictatorship. (Like the dictatorships we're fighting against on the other side of the world.) Nice work Shrub.

Bush Declares Student an Enemy Combatant
By for the NY Times.

President Bush made a surprise decision today to remove a Qatari student from the criminal justice system and declare him an enemy combatant after prosecutors said new evidence linked him to another round of terrorist plots by Al Qaeda after Sept. 11.

The student, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, 37, had been held in civilian custody since late 2001, first as a material witness in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks and later on charges of lying to the F.B.I. and credit card fraud.
Advertisement

Because he was declared an enemy combatant, Mr. Marri was moved from a prison in Illinois to a military brig in South Carolina, according to Lawrence S. Lustberg, who represented him in the criminal case. As an enemy combatant, Mr. Marri can be held indefinitely, and he has no access to a lawyer unless the military decides to bring charges, officials said...

Neither of the other two men publicly identified as enemy combatants, Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was captured in fighting in Afghanistan, and Jose Padilla, suspected in a scheme to set off a "dirty bomb," had faced criminal charges beforehand. Both are Americans...

"To just pluck someone from the criminal justice system and remove them from any of the protections of the legal system to me suggests a very troubling disregard for the rule of law," said Jamie Fellner, the United States director for Human Rights Watch.

Mr. Lustberg, a private lawyer in Newark, said he planned to seek a reversal of the decision by filing a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court system in a few days.

Mr. Marri had been scheduled to go to trial next month in federal court in Illinois on the criminal charges pending against him, and Mr. Lustberg said, "We thought he had a powerful defense."

Mr. Marri had apparently planned to argue that the charge he had lied to F.B.I. agents in interviews in late 2001 about his travels in the United States was based on a misunderstanding, and Mr. Lustberg said that notes from the bureau agents could bear that out...

Frank W. Dunham Jr., a standby lawyer for Mr. Moussaoui — who is representing himself and who has also been considered for enemy combatant status — said he was concerned that administration officials were abusing the judicial process by failing to maintain a separation between the military and civilian systems.

"You shouldn't be allowed to switch tracks like they're doing," Mr. Dunham said in an interview. "That's how you get into the abuse of threatening criminal defendants, suggesting that `if you don't pleaded guilty to this charge or that charge, we're going to declare you an enemy combatant and lock you up forever.' "

Elisa C. Massimino, director of the Washington office of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the Bush administration had made it difficult for the public to tell why someone like Mr. Marri was declared an enemy combatant while the administration used the criminal system to convict someone like Iyman Faris, a truck driver from Ohio who admitted last week that he was involved in a conspiracy by Al Qaeda to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.

"It really looks like a situation where they make the rules up as they go along," Ms. Massimino said.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/24/politics/24TERR.html

THE COURTS
Bush Declares Student an Enemy Combatant
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, June 23 — President Bush made a surprise decision today to remove a Qatari student from the criminal justice system and declare him an enemy combatant after prosecutors said new evidence linked him to another round of terrorist plots by Al Qaeda after Sept. 11.

The student, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, 37, had been held in civilian custody since late 2001, first as a material witness in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks and later on charges of lying to the F.B.I. and credit card fraud.
Advertisement

Because he was declared an enemy combatant, Mr. Marri was moved from a prison in Illinois to a military brig in South Carolina, according to Lawrence S. Lustberg, who represented him in the criminal case. As an enemy combatant, Mr. Marri can be held indefinitely, and he has no access to a lawyer unless the military decides to bring charges, officials said.

The case represents the first time that the administration is shifting custody of someone charged by criminal prosecutors to the military as an enemy combatant, administration officials said.

Neither of the other two men publicly identified as enemy combatants, Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was captured in fighting in Afghanistan, and Jose Padilla, suspected in a scheme to set off a "dirty bomb," had faced criminal charges beforehand. Both are Americans.

The administration said national security interests drove the decision to turn over Mr. Marri to military custody. They would not elaborate.

Critics of the detention policies said the move added to the confusion over using the array of military, criminal and civil measures against people considered terrorism suspects.

"To just pluck someone from the criminal justice system and remove them from any of the protections of the legal system to me suggests a very troubling disregard for the rule of law," said Jamie Fellner, the United States director for Human Rights Watch.

Mr. Lustberg, a private lawyer in Newark, said he planned to seek a reversal of the decision by filing a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court system in a few days.

Mr. Marri had been scheduled to go to trial next month in federal court in Illinois on the criminal charges pending against him, and Mr. Lustberg said, "We thought he had a powerful defense."

Mr. Marri had apparently planned to argue that the charge he had lied to F.B.I. agents in interviews in late 2001 about his travels in the United States was based on a misunderstanding, and Mr. Lustberg said that notes from the bureau agents could bear that out.

Legal observers surmised that classifying Mr. Marri as an enemy combatant might have been driven by concerns about being forced to expose intelligence sources in open court. That issue has complicated the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, who is accused of participating in the Sept. 11 conspiracy.

Justice Department officials said the decision to remove Mr. Marri from the criminal system was not based on any concern about the strength of the case against him.

"We had no obstacles in pursuing that case," Alice Fisher, a deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division of the Justice Department, said at a briefing.

Mr. Marri arrived here on Sept. 10, 2001, on a student visa to pursue graduate studies at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. The Federal Bureau of Investigation questioned him in October 2001 about possible links to terrorism.

Justice Department officials said new evidence uncovered in the last several months, after criminal charges had been brought against Mr. Marri, provided further links to overseas operatives of Al Qaeda.

The officials said people in American custody indicated that Mr. Marri had visited a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, met with Osama bin Laden and pledged support for Al Qaeda's cause. He was assigned to help "settle" operatives for follow-up attacks after Sept. 11, officials said.

They added that Mr. Marri's effort to call a financier for Al Qaeda by using a calling card account also used by Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, further corroborated his role. The Justice Department refused to identify the detainees who gave them information, but law enforcement officials said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior leader of Al Qaeda captured in March in Pakistan, was a source.

At the F.B.I., the assistant director for counterterrorism, Larry A. Mefford, said there was no evidence that Mr. Marri was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks or knew about them beforehand. But, Mr. Mefford added, "Clearly, we think he's very important."

Mr. Lustberg, a prominent civil liberties lawyer, said he had never heard some of the allegations that Justice Department officials were making today against his client.

"It's either brand new," he said, "or it was withheld from us. The whole thing is really puzzling to me."

Frank W. Dunham Jr., a standby lawyer for Mr. Moussaoui — who is representing himself and who has also been considered for enemy combatant status — said he was concerned that administration officials were abusing the judicial process by failing to maintain a separation between the military and civilian systems.

"You shouldn't be allowed to switch tracks like they're doing," Mr. Dunham said in an interview. "That's how you get into the abuse of threatening criminal defendants, suggesting that `if you don't pleaded guilty to this charge or that charge, we're going to declare you an enemy combatant and lock you up forever.' "

Elisa C. Massimino, director of the Washington office of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the Bush administration had made it difficult for the public to tell why someone like Mr. Marri was declared an enemy combatant while the administration used the criminal system to convict someone like Iyman Faris, a truck driver from Ohio who admitted last week that he was involved in a conspiracy by Al Qaeda to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.

"It really looks like a situation where they make the rules up as they go along," Ms. Massimino said.

Justice Department and military officials said that each situation was evaluated on the merits and that they could not set forth a broad policy on who is considered an enemy combatant.

"There's no bright line," Ms. Fisher said.

Posted by Lisa at 06:54 AM

June 24, 2003

Howard Dean House Party In Berkeley This Saturday

Matthew Taylor and friends would like to give you a chance to get to know Gov. Dean a little better, so they're throwing a party where he'll call in live and answer your questions. (Details below.)

Here's Matthew explaining his support for Dean and the details about his party.

Matthew Taylor Invites You To Howard Dean House Party

When: SATURDAY, JUNE 28TH -- 6:00 P.M.
Where: 2933 BENVENUE AVENUE (near Ashby), Berkeley (tasty appetizers and beverages provided)

**LIVE CONFERENCE CALL WITH HOWARD DEAN!!!!**

At exactly 7:00 p.m., Howard Dean will speak to House Party guests via speaker-phone. Bring Questions to Ask, and Don't Be Late!!

R.S.V.P. to Matthew Taylor (info removed due to spam problems. drop lisa a line if you need to connect with matthew for some reason)

Dear everyone,

You've probably been hearing a lot about Howard Dean, Vermont's former Governor who is running for President - if not from the media, than from my persistent emails. Well, now's your chance to actually talk to the Governor *live* on a conference call at a house party and find out if you want to support him! Details below - please email to RSVP your space. It's on Saturday, June 28th, 6pm in Berkeley (the call's at 7pm). -Matthew

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

Berkeley Rent Board Commissioner Paul Hogarth Berkeley Transportation Commissioner Sarah Syed and former Empire 21 Publishing CEO Matthew Taylor cordially invite you to a

HOUSE PARTY FOR *** HOWARD DEAN FOR AMERICA ***

Come learn about Howard Dean's campaign for President, and his record as Governor of Vermont -- a balanced budget, universal health care, civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, and strong opposition to the President's unilateral war in Iraq. Learn why we are supporting Howard Dean, and how he is the most progressive electable Democrat running to defeat George W. Bush!!!

SATURDAY, JUNE 28TH -- 6:00 P.M. 2933 BENVENUE AVENUE (near Ashby), Berkeley (tasty appetizers and beverages provided)

*******LIVE CONFERENCE CALL WITH HOWARD DEAN!!!!*******

At exactly 7:00 p.m., Howard Dean will speak to House Party guests via speaker-phone. Bring Questions to Ask, and Don't Be Late!!

Please bring your checkbook or credit card, and if you are impressed with Governor Dean's plan to take back America, he needs your support!

********************************************

R.S.V.P. to Matthew Taylor, ---- or ---- or Paul Hogarth, ---- or Sarah Syed, ---- or sign up online at: http://action.deanforamerica.com/meet/selectmtg.html?zip=94705&distance=1 Want to know more about Howard Dean? Visit the official campaign website at http://www.deanforamerica.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: The titles of the party's co-hosts are strictly for identification purposes only. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS - If you decide you can't make it to the party but wish to contribute, please visit: http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute and email me a confirmation of the contribution amount so we can count it toward our overall goal for the party. Thanks!

Posted by Lisa at 09:22 AM

June 23, 2003

Ashley The Bookmobilist On His Way To Egypt

The Library of Alexandria ("BibAlex.") (sorry, "eg" url doesn't seem to work right now) in Egypt is working with the Internet Archive to build its own bookmobile.

Here is a little movie of Ashley Rindsberg, Internet Archive Bookmobilist, about his upcoming voyage to Egypt to build a "Library of Alexandria Bookmobile."

Ashley will be blogging in this category from Egypt starting this Wednesday on (after he gets situated in Egypt) and going for the next two weeks while he sets things up over there.

Some independent film makers will be going over there with him to film the process for a movie they're making. (More on this soon!)

Ashley the Bookmobilist (Small - 6 MB)

Ashley the Bookmobilist (Hi-res - 83 MB)

Audio - Ashley the Bookmobilist (MP3 - 3 MB)

Here are a couple more photos linked to high resolution JPEGs:

Posted by Lisa at 03:09 PM

Mess O' Potamia - An Update On The Shrub War From The Daily Show

Here are two clips from the June 16, 2003 episode:

Mess O' Potamia - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 5 MB)

Mess O' Potamia - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 4 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Posted by Lisa at 03:02 PM

Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action

Supreme Court Splits on Diversity Efforts at University of Michigan
By David Stout for the NY Times.

The law school's policy was affirmed in a 5-to-4 ruling, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that rejected Bush administration arguments that the policy should be voided. She declared that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

"Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized," Justice O'Connor wrote.

She was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/23/politics/23WIRE-COURT.html

Supreme Court Splits on Diversity Efforts at University of Michigan
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, June 23 — In its most important statements on affirmative action in a quarter-century, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the admissions policy of the University of Michigan law school today, finding that minority applicants may be given an edge, but struck down the part of the university's undergraduate-admissions system that relies on a point system.

The pair of rulings did not go as far as opponents of affirmative action would have liked, nor perhaps as far as people committed to affirmative action would have wished. But taken together, the twin decisions were the most important rulings on the subject since the landmark Bakke decision of 1978, which rejected rigid quotas but recognized race as a "factor" in admissions and hiring decisions.

The rulings are expected to have wide impact through private college and universities, businesses and other areas of everyday life even though, technically, they address only admissions at public institutions.

The law school's policy was affirmed in a 5-to-4 ruling, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that rejected Bush administration arguments that the policy should be voided. She declared that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

"Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized," Justice O'Connor wrote.

She was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Chief Justice Rehnquist called the law school program "a naked effort to achieve racial balancing" in accordance with statistics.

"This is precisely the type of racial balancing that the court itself calls `patently unconstitutional,' " he wrote.

In its 6-to-3 ruling on undergraduate admissions, the justices struck down a point system under which applicants were rated on various factors, including race. In so ruling, the court showed the wariness with which it has regarded the general concept of "quotas" in recent years.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, found that in considering undergraduate applicants, the university had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The University of Michigan decisions were handed down as the court set to conclude its 2002 term. The justices also upheld the use of filters to screen out Internet smut in public libraries and struck down a California law requiring insurance companies that do business in the state to disclose information about their Holocaust-era policies.

Still to be decided is a death-penalty case from Maryland, involving the extent of a defense lawyer's duty to search out background information that might persuade a court to spare a defendant.

In the undergraduate case, Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas sided with the chief justice, as did Justice Breyer, in part.

Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented, as did Justice Breyer, in part.

The law school case is Grutter v. Bollinger, No. 02-241; the undergraduate case is Gratz v. Bollinger, No. 02-516. Both can be read on the Supreme Court Web site: www.supremecourtus.gov.

The University of Michigan's leadership was elated at the outcome. "A majority of the court has firmly endorsed the principle of diversity," the university's president, Mary Sue Coleman, told The Associated Press. "This is a resounding affirmation that will be heard across the land from our college classrooms to our corporate boardrooms."

Together, the decisions and dissents run to some 150 pages, which are certain to be pored over by lawyers, educators and policymakers for some time.

It was no surprise that today's decisions were not entirely clear-cut, given the tone of the arguments before the tribunal on April 1.

The yearning for nuance became especially obvious when Kirk O. Kolbo, a lawyer from Minneapolis, had a sharp exchange with Justice O'Connor.

"The Constitution protects the rights of individuals, not racial groups," Mr. Kolbo said. He described his clients — Barbara Grutter, who was turned down by the law school when she applied at the age of 43, and Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who failed to win admission as undergraduates — as the victims of discrimination.

Justice O'Connor, whose position at the center of the court on this issue made her the object of particular attention, challenged Mr. Kolbo. Was he saying that race "can't be a factor at all," she wanted to know.

"Race itself should not be a factor among others in choosing students, because of the Constitution," Mr. Kolbo replied.

Justice O'Connor objected that the court's precedents held otherwise. "You are speaking in absolutes, and it isn't quite that," she said.

Justice Thomas explained his dissent in part by quoting Frederick Douglass: "What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice."

The justice went on, "Like Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators." The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, had upheld the law school plan. It had not yet ruled on the undergraduate plan when the Supreme Court decided to hear both cases.

Posted by Lisa at 12:50 PM

Photographs from June 19, 2003 San Francisco Ferry Ride With Howard Dean

Here's a link to the video from this trip.

Photographs from San Francisco Ferry Ride With Howard Dean

Date: June 19, 2003

Each of these smaller photos (7) is linked to its larger high resolution JPEG image.

Howard Dean Says Hello (Below)

Howard thanks his "Meetup.com" supporters. (Below)

Howard on the ferryboat talking to a commuter. (Below)

A happy Dean supporter. (Below)

Nice shot of the flag and the Bay Bridge from the Ferryboat. (Below)

Dean and friend on the front deck of the ferryboat. (Below)

Dean giving his speech to a 200+ person crowd at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. (Below)

This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)

Posted by Lisa at 12:07 PM

Video From Ferry Ride In San Francisco With Howard Dean - June 19, 2003

Howard Dean For President in 2004

Here are the photographs from this trip.

I met and spoke with Howard Dean in person last Thursday night on a Ferry ride from San Francisco to Larkspur. (On the way to a pep rally in Larkspur.)

I didn't have a windsock for my microphone, so a lot of the footage on the Ferry is almost inaudible, but I was able to get some great footage with him before and after the ferry ride itself. I've included some clips of the Ferry ride so you can get a feel for what it was like hanging out and talking to him. (I'll have to transcribe later it so you guys can hear what was said on the Ferry.)

As I mentioned before, I'm not going to spend time trying to convincing anyone to vote for Dean.
(Although it would be great if you participated in the MoveOn Primary going on tomorrow through Wednesday, whoever you decide to vote for.)

I'm just letting you guys know who I'm endorsing and why, so you can take that into consideration when deciding for yourself.

Over the coming weeks and months, I'll be providing more details about Dean and his current stance (and past accomplishments that back up that stance) in Health Care, Education, Civil Rights and other domestic issues that I feel are the crux of this election.

Complete and Edited Movies Of Ferry Ride and Speech With Howard Dean

Read the individual description of each. I've created a couple different edits so you can see and hear as little or as much as you want.

First Half Of The Trip

Here's me talking to Howard Dean before he gets on the Ferry to Larkspur. He mentions the 34,000 meetup.com supporters and Howard Dean TV. He says hello to people in the downstairs cabin and heads out to the front deck of the boat, where he remained for a good part of the ride.
Lisa Rein Talks To Howard Dean (Small - 8 MB)

Second Half Of The Trip

Long Version: The crowd gets off the ferry, my running through the crowd to find a spot to film the speech, and the entire speech itself (give or take a second).
Long Version - Howard Dean In Larkspur (Small - 51 MB)

Short Version - everything included in the "Long Version," but a little less of it.
Shorter Version - Howard Dean In Larkspur (Small - 21 MB)

Highlight Reel: Short Version Of Speech Only

A highlight reel of Howard Dean's Speech
Howard Dean In Larkspur - Highlights (Small - 15 MB)

This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)

Posted by Lisa at 11:35 AM

Interview With Penelope Houston, Tonight's Musical Guest At 'Howard Dean For President' Party In San Francisco

Here's a cool interview with Penelope that explains more about who they are and what happened to them.

Note: Penelope Houston, formerly of The Avengers will be performing at 8:00pm. (Yes, the punk rock group that opened for the Sex Pistols in San Francisco in 1978, although she's got a mellower sound now, she has promised to "rock" :)

Here is the full text of the interview in case the link goes bad:

http://www.richieunterberger.com/houston.html

PENELOPE HOUSTON

Penelope Houston is still known to many punk fans only for her stint in the Avengers, one of the first California punk bands, in the late 1970s. Actually, by now her career as a solo folk-rock-influenced singer-songwriter has lasted far longer than the Avengers did. With a voice now more given to soft, wistful sweetness than harsh wailing, she would by the 1990s enjoy a large following in Germany, getting dubbed "the Queen of Neo-Folk." She talked about all phases of her career in her Oakland home on Halloween 1996.

What Avengers releases have there been, besides the album compilations?

There's a three-song EP seven-inch, four-song EP 12-inch. There are a huge number of bootlegs, most of them being singles. And one really horrendous CD that I heard, that I swear it sounded like somebody taped the show with a regular transistor radio, and then they played it on the air somewhere, and somebody else taped it with a little hand-held thing. Off of a radio, and it wasn't tuned in right, I swear. You can hear it sort of tuning in and tuning out, and the first half of it kind of sounds fast. So you're listening to 25 minutes of Avengers songs played really fast from a live show, through a radio show, recorded by somebody, put on a CD. Then they have some other stuff that was recorded that sounds slow from a live show, and it's really godawful. And somehow they got their hands on some actual recorded stuff that was done at rehearsals or at some studio or something. This thing has come out in Europe, and says it's limited to 500. But if it's a bootleg, who's to believe anything like that at all? Most of them are live, and they're just godawful.

One of them was really funny. Somebody wrote down the lyrics as they heard them, and I saw them. It's in one of the seven-inch bootlegs. All wrong! Really funny. It was kind of a gruesome lyric that didn't actually exist, having two heads or something like that.

Why didn't the band put out more while they existed?

We were actually together for two years, but there was no independent music industry. There were hardly any labels. Our first record came out on Dangerhouse, and the second on White Noise. Now it's hard to imagine there not being somebody who lives right down the street who's got a record company. Or me, I've got a record company, I put out my own tapes. But back then, there just wasn't. There were more tiny English labels that were putting stuff out. But there wasn't that whole sense of, we'll just go in and record something ourselves and do it. It was kind of like waiting for somebody to recognize that we're this hot little punk band, and that somebody should pay to have us record it.

The first three songs that came out were paid for by Dangerhouse. White Noise, I guess, paid for the four songs we did with Steve Jones, which we remixed. Everything else that's on the Avengers album is from a couple different studios saying, well, we'll give you some spec time, and see if we can do something with it in the future.

Were there any original songs that were never recorded?

There might be some. I tend to just forget things that don't get recorded. I would say that if you had a live tape of our last five shows, you'd find a bunch of songs that never came out. Some of the bootleg stuff was of that.

How did the CD Presents compilation album happen?

I moved to England, and before I left the country--this was in '81, '82--Danny [Furious], who was the drummer, was living in San Francisco trying to ask me for any tapes I had or photos. Because he wanted to get an album together. I think I sent him some stuff. The album originally came out on Go! Records, which were partners with David Ferguson [of CD Presents]. They had some falling out. He ended up suing them, and preventing them from releasing that record when they had already printed up 1000 record covers. Every now and then you can see those in collections. But I was in Europe, and basically he was dealing with Danny. So he had Danny's permission to put it out on his label.

At some point, I think that the other guys said hey, what about us? Because Danny was getting these producer advances. So then Jimmy came on board, Jimmy Wilsey, and he was doing something with it. Because he felt that Danny was not handling it. When I came back to San Francisco, I called up Ferguson's. I said, "You've put all this stuff [out], you haven't even asked me. And you haven't given me money, you haven't sent me any contract." He said, "Oh, yeah, come on in." I was visiting, actually, I hadn't moved back. I called and called and called. I tried to contact him from the U.K., where I was living. I went to his house, and as soon as I was there on his door, somebody said, "Oh, I have some contracts for you to sign now!" So he gave me a small advance. That was the last money that I ever saw from him. It came out as a CD after that. Of all the CDs that have sold of that record, I've seen zero royalties.

It would have been great if somebody might take it upon themselves to wrest the rights from CD Presents, because they really don't exist as a lab3el anymore. They can sell the rights. Since he hasn't paid the band their royalties or their publishing...at one point I got together with Jimmy and Greg [Westermark], and we went and saw a lawyer. Danny was living in Sweden. To see what we could do to get back the publishing. The contract that was signed was so horribly written that not only did we get nothing, not only that we didn't get the pittance that was accorded to us on the contract, but you couldn't take it to court, it had to be settled in arbitration or something like that. The lawyers just looked at it and said, "This is fucked." We didn't have the money to throw at it. I keep hoping that someday some label will decide to write them a letter and see what they're willing to do. In the meantime, we haven't gotten anything. The last time we saw any money from them was over ten years ago. I don't know what it really sold.

You were one of the first few punk bands in the San Francisco area, or even in California.

There were very few bands that came before us. I'd say Crime and the Nuns came before us. The Nuns were influenced more by the Dictators, and Crime was...It's funny. It seemed to me that at the beginning of the whole punk rock thing or new wave thing, all the bands were really distinct. You wouldn't confuse Devo with Crime or the Nuns. It was like everybody had their own thing. It was really more original. We were kind of more English-influenced than the Nuns and Crime. From L.A., X and the Dils--the Dils were probably a little more political than the Avengers. But then, they had those cool harmonies, the kin and bro harmony thing. I don't think there really were that many bands that were...there weren't many bands with female leads that were doing the same thing that we were at the time. X was around, but they had their own kind of L.A. thrift store kind of thing going on.

It's hard to say who we would have sounded like. You could say we sounded like the Weirdos, but the Weirdos had John Denney, and their subject matter was always clowns painted on velvet or something (laughs). We were sort of straightahead classic punk before punk turned into its really boring 1980 version, which it continued to be forever and forever.

How was it that Steve Jones ended up producing some of the Avengers stuff?

We played with the Sex Pistols. They had a publishing company, Glitterhouse, that Malcolm McLaren owned. They opened an office in L.A. And we'd play L.A. a lot of the time, we were pretty popular there. The guy that was running it in L.A., Rory, was also their tour manager for the U.S. He always wanted to manage us. He was really interested in signing us to the publishing company. That was around the time everything just blew up for the Sex Pistols. We did get to play that show [with the Sex Pistols in San Francisco], and we did meet them. I guess Steve Jones fancied himself a producer, and went after that. That was kind of arranged.

Actually, I think when we went in, we recorded that stuff with him without having a label. Nobody was paying for it. Actually, maybe we did do it for a label. I can't remember (laughs). It did end up coming out, but it came out after we broke up. I say things about him in interviews, and he says things about me in interviews--that's the contact we have. I re-recorded all my vocals that I'd recorded with Steve Jones later. The interesting thing about the four-song EP that he worked on was that nobody was there the day that he recorded the guitars with our guitar player, and he got a real Steve Jonesish sound. To this day, I don't know if he actually did any of the guitar playing on that. He did some piano playing on it, that was funny. You won't really know it from listening to it. It's more the thumb going down the keyboard.

I actually recorded some stuff there that's never seen the light of day. It was kind of an odd pop style. I think Steve Berlin played on it. Kind of poppy, kind of like new wave, and poppier than the Avengers. But it had electric guitars and stuff. One of the songs had strings on it. It's really funny stuff. I never listen to it. I never ever play it for anyone either.

I was working with this guy who was actually a film director from Holland. He was putting together this film for the Screamers that was going to be like a big...I don't know what it was going to be. But it was a musical and a film, and all this stuff was going on with the Screamers. He just got the people together that we played with. Interestingly enough, one of the people that arranged all the strings on this one song, and may have played violin, is Beck's father, who Beck never talks about, who is a big Scientologist and a big string arranger. Beck makes it sound like his Dad was some kind of street musician or something, and he was being carried around in a backpack by a bunch of hippies. But his dad was actually a big-time string arranger in L.A., David Campbell. Besides Steve Berlin, I don't remember who else played on it. I guess they were people I didn't know.

That happened in 1980, '81, and then I moved to England. I did kind of a backing track on one of songs that's on...it's a song called "Taking Over Heaven" that's on "Jerky Versions of a Dream." Once I did an interview with some fanzine, and they called that album "Turkey Versions of a Dream." That was his first solo album.

How was it that you made the transition from punk rock to much more acoustic-flavored folk-rock?

I just started getting interested in different instruments, from listening to Tom Waits's Swordfishtrombones, the Violent Femmes, a bunch of people that were coming up at the beginning of the 1980s with weird sounds. And I was sick of electric guitar. I'd basically had it with electric guitar. I thought, if I have a band without an electric guitar in it, that would be great! Just have some different instruments.

In '84, my husband and I had come to San Francisco, actually to look up Ferguson, and we ended up staying; September '84. I ran into Greg from the Avengers. He'd been writing all this music, and he wrote the music to "Summers of War" and "Harry Dean." I started working with him on this music. Actually writing music--he wasn't playing in a band. Somehow a year went by.

You did a single under the name -30-. What was the history of that group?

I started recording some stuff in the middle of '86. -30- was a name that only existed for the record. We never actually played in a group called -30-, because the guitar player quit. It always seemed like the person who named the group would be the next person to quit, so after a while we just, okay, it's Penelope Houston.

I was playing with different people under the name Treehouse, actually. Club Nine, they had the art motel. It was where the Stud is now. They had a couple big rooms where they had bars and bands and would play and stuff. And then upstairs, they had the art motel, which was maybe five rooms of installation art. And we did a treehouse in one of the rooms. People had to climb in the window, and there were leaves everywhere and stuff, glued all over the ceiling, and little films showing on the wall. We played up there. We played a bunch of places around town. I think we switched guitar players, and by the time we finished recording, he talked me into calling it -30- because he was a journalist. [He's] a journalist in New York now. He was really into the poppy end. He co-wrote "Full of Wonder" with me.

I guess I just decided to put that out myself as a single just for fun. But I didn't have a solid group around me to be working with, and was just trying to write my own songs. I think at the time we did that, we had half an album's worth of songs or maybe more. But I hadn't found the wonderful autoharp, so I was still in the stage where I would write lyrics and maybe a melody, and try to find somebody who could find the chords for me. At some point I discovered that "oh, I can do that myself. And fuck all these people." (laughs)

That period, I was going through different band members and having different lineups and stuff. Right when the record came out, I think Eric had just moved to New York, and we got Pat Johnson, who was--his nickname was "Birdboy." He was one of the mainstays of Penelope Houston and the Birdboys. From there, we started to have a more solid kind of band. Birdboys was recorded in '87. Then that band broke up. And then the record came out in '88.

That record had a lot of folk influence, much more folk than punk rock. Was your interest in folk something that arose right before the record, or something you'd had for a long time?

When I was younger, before the Avengers, listened to a lot of Pentangle and Fairport Convention and Incredible String Band. I loved them. I didn't really realize this until maybe six years ago, after I'd recorded Birdboys. I got a copy of the double Pentangle album, Sweet Child. I listened to it and I knew ever song on it. I was like, "Whoa! This is weird." It was before my punk life, I'd heard a lot of English folk-rock. So I think that was a big influence that I'd forgotten about somehow.

What was the reaction among listeners, both in the folk scene and the rock scene?

There's a big folk scene in Berkeley. There's the Freight and Salvage and the traditionalists and stuff, and we weren't really accepted by them. And we weren't accepted by the alternative clubs because we were quiet, so we were kind of in a hard place.

There must have been a lot of surprise among listeners who knew you only for your punk music with the Avengers, though.

Yeah (laughs). In fact, I did an interview with Maximum Rock'n'Roll, and on the air they accused me of selling out. I just thought that was outrageous, because obviously if I wanted to sell out, I'd re-form the Avengers and go touring around. And also, if I'm selling out, where's my big house? Now I've got my big house. Now I have sold out! (laughs)

I was just over at Billy Joe from Green Day's house yesterday, and we're going to write some songs together, amazingly enough. For my next album. We sat around talking about how all these people had accused both of us of selling out. I said, "At least you have a ten million-selling album to prove that you did! (laughs) I sold out, I got nothing. No, I never sold out. I'm true to my punk attitude.

But yeah, they just didn't get it at all. The people that have become Avengers fans since the Avengers had broken up didn't understand it. The people that are my age, that had been around then, obviously--either that was something that you were into for some kind of social world to be in, or that was the beginning of becoming a music fan. I think most people that are music fans that keep it up throughout their life expose themselves to a lot of different kind of genres and can appreciate different things. So I've had lots and lots of people say, "Oh yeah, I was around when the Avengers, I like what you're doing now, I understand the change." So it's not a big confusing thing for me. I've had young people that were Avengers fans also say, "My friends can't understand why I want to play your music, but..." That's something for me. I've had both--people who've just said [in Jewish mother accent], "What are you doing?," and other people who've said, "I like it."

For a long time, there was no attempt at having anything related to rock in our music. It was all these other influences, like jazz and country and folk, and a little punk, but more coming from me I think, but more of a punk attitude. We really fell in the cracks, we didn't fit. There was this point where Michelle Shocked was having airplay and Suzanne Vega, and a bunch of female vocalists were getting signed. There was this kind of a little flurry of excitement around that, but I didn't get signed. I just said, 'Well, I'm just going to go into debut and record this record, The Whole World, at my favorite studio.

Actually, Snakefinger had recorded at Different Fur a lot. So when he died, they told me that they wanted to help me out, because he'd always talked about bringing me in there and stuff. So they were willing to spec me some time. That's where I recorded the last three albums. That was the beginning of the '90s. I just said, after waiting around to find a record deal for several years and putting out cassettes on my own label, "I'm going to make an album, and then I'll shop that. And if it's a small label that wants to put it out, that's okay, let's do it." I'd kind of given up on the waiting around to get signed thing, and made this album which I think was a really good album. Very acoustic and everything, but I had probably my best writing on it. Then Heyday put it out. I licensed it maybe a year later to Normal, and that's when all the exciting stuff started happening.

Why do you think it is you've had more success in Germany than here?

I think that they find the things that are American to be exotic. It's the same as jazz being big in Europe forever and ever and ignored here, or the blues, or country music. You get cult-type fans over there. I think what happened in '93 was that that was a true thing that was going on, this general interest, but also they started it up as this alternative, hip, neo-folk thing, San Francisco neo-folk scene. And it was through the taste of several tastemakers over there. They really pushed it till that was going to sell easily. I think that Heyday and other labels, Normal and other labels, suddenly flooded the market, 'cause there was this big market suddenly for it. And I got to be the queen of neo-folk, which is a title that now I'm ready to lose (laughs). And it got endlessly quoted. That's what I am over there, unfortunately. Ever since Karmal Apple, I've been going in a harder direction than folk and acoustic. I never got an audience in America, so now I'm ready to move on from what I was doing that got me an audience in Germany. So I'm really kind of taking a chance here.

It just took off over there. Part of it was a little bit of hype that was going on. I think maybe people there are more capable of listening to more complex music or something. They have MTV over there, and they have VH1. So there's more to choose from, as far as how music is being presented to the public. Here [in the San Francisco Bay Area] it's kind of like Live 105 and MTV. There's also VH1 and the country music channel and billions of different radio stations, but the majority of people get most of their taste from MTV or Rolling Stone. It's been a mystery. A lot of people have asked me, "Why do you think you're popular in Germany?" It's the German-speaking nations--Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. I got signed to WEA Germany.

How were you able to get an album deal with Warner Brothers in the US eventually?

I signed to WEA Germany for the world, so it was up to them to find licensees. The guy that was the manager for Green Day was shopping my tape for America before I signed a deal with WEA Germany for the whole world. So he was over there talking to them and he knew Howie. When Howie became the president in January, the people from WEA Germany were quite close to him and said, "What about Penelope Houston?" He said, "Oh yeah, I love Penelope. What's she doing now?" (laughs) He liked the Avengers, and he liked the whole punk thing. He actually did know that I was doing a more acoustic thing, and he said, "Well, you're our first signee." I wasn't actually a signing--a licensing. Reprise was one of the labels that I was offered to in America from the German WEA. They did send it out to different people and say, "and she's an American, obviously." For an American label to license an American from a European label is just, "We either really fucked up and else we didn't want her in the first place. We're not gonna admit that we really fucked up." But since Howie knew me, he just said, "Yeah, that'd be great."

Do you have any regrets about working with a major label after being with indies?

No, it seemed like the right thing to do. The thing about European major labels is that they're, especially WEA Germany, the deal they write is much more artist-oriented. They're gonna go out and get some big producer for this next album, and it's all out of their pocket. My recording budget's all out of their pocket. So I don't owe them--they might spend a quarter of a million dollars on my record, and I don't owe them a quarter of a million dollars. I owe them like $30,000 or something like that. So it's a deal that you don't see in America. It's a much better deal. So when that happened, I thought that was great. And I also knew that I'd hit the glass ceiling of my independent labels' abilities. Normal, they're all great people. I really like 'em, I still like 'em. But it's just like, they knew they could only take my records so far.

Is your next album going to be different from the ones over the last few years?

The next record is completely all-new stuff. It's not gonna be as acoustic as things in the past. I actually fired my band when I got back from my tour, pretty much. I might have them play on a couple tracks. I'm just gonna record with different people, and not have it be a band thing. The whole reason I decided I didn't want to work as a band anymore--most people see me as an individual singer-songwriter anyway, but I've been working with the same people for the last three albums. They know that the direction that I've been pushing, I sort of fell like I'm dragging them along in a harder direction, a more electric direction. It's just too much stress to a bandleader to be playing with people and trying to get them to do stuff musically that they don't really enjoy doing. They're really great musicians and the level of musicianship has been amazing on the tours and on the recordings, but when you want the down and dirty stupid drumbeat, and your drummer is like this amazing jazz drummer who studied Indian drumming, it's just kind of like torturing you to get this sound. I thought I would just go ahead and record the next album without--just have people come in and do the parts that they're really good at.

Are the songs much different in nature than ones on your last few albums?

They're not. They're still--a lot of them are based on relationships between men and women, and my general attitude about being alive in the world. That hasn't changed that much. I still have the general attitude, which is cynical but also hopeful. I think it's probably changed a little bit since I was in the Avengers.

A lot of people would hear the music I was doing and say, "oh, this music sounded really nice and pretty and lovely and stuff. And then I started listening to your lyrics and I just thought, these lyrics are twisted and warped and weird! Or angry, or whatever. They would either like that aspect of it, or they would feel like--some people feel like the music isn't representing the lyric. Other people feel like, the lyric is ruining it for them for the music. But I think that there are many many people in the world who listen to music and don't even hear the lyrics. And for me, the lyrics have to be there. If I don't like the lyrics, I can't stand listening to the song.

What I'm trying to do is free myself up to be in a position where the music's gonna serve the gist of the song more directly and more obviously. That way, each song will be more extreme, whatever the feeling of it is.

What do you see as the continuity between what you were doing in the Avengers, and what you've done in the late 1980s and late 1990s on your own?

I guess the continuity is me. The thing that's similar about what I do now without the Avengers is just me. When I was in the Avengers, other people came up with the music, and I came up with the lyrics and the melodies. Now I come up with a lot more. But writing melodies and lyrics to music that is like your basic punk rock formulas, you're gonna tend to write things that you can shout, in a way. I didn't write very many complex melodies back then. It was more shouting. But I think if you take a song like "Glad I'm a Girl," which is on the last album, but it was written maybe five, six years ago, when I was in the throes of the acoustic thing. "Glad I'm a Girl" could be done by a punk band, and it would sound exactly like punk rock. There's nothing about it that would be in any way indicative of being a folk song, or anything like that. If you take the trappings of the music and change it, people think that somehow there's a big change. But actually, good songwriting will lend itself to different interpretations.

I think that myself and my attitude towards life and my willingness to express it is the same as it was then. I don't feel like a different person, really. The music's different, but like, big deal (laughs). For people that are really musically based, or like to listen to the music and don't even hear the lyrics, that would be like, it's totally different. But for me, it's more the feeling of what the person is saying. I can't see the huge difference. It's said differently, but I feel like I'm the same person.

I remember I used to tell people that we were a folk band when I was in the Avengers. What I meant was that we were just playing music that we made up for friends, the way the original of folk is just music of the people. It's the folk music of Mexico, or the folk music of whatever. It's music that's played by regular people. It's not played by the court entertainers for the king. It's just the music that people go out on their porch and start strumming, and the neighbors come around. When I said the Avengers were a folk band, I just meant that we were making it up ourselves, that we'd taken it out of the realm of arena rock and the gigantic showplaces, and taken it back to the garage.

I never really thought, oh, I want to do a cover version of "Wild Mountain Thyme." But there wasn't any...the loudness of the Avengers was so much of the expression. There wasn't really a chance to actually sing. I don't remember ever having monitors. I know we must've had monitors, but I don't remember looking at them and thinking, "I'm not getting enough of myself on the monitor." Everything was really loud and you just screamed at the top of your voice to be heard in live shows. I didn't think our live shows were anything...they were so different than our recorded output.

I guess it was 1984 that I did my first show that was acoustic. The idea of having these big holes in the music, where there was no sound and then my voice would come out, was the most terrifying thing to me. I thought it was much more frightening than getting up in front of a Marshall stack three-piece band and screaming your lungs out. It was like stepping on a tightrope over this huge hole that was left in the music.

And I was never a big fan of rock. I was never a rock'n'roller before I was a punk rocker. I was just a punk. I was just doing it because it was the most exciting thing that was happening. It was different, it was new, and we were creating it ourselves, and I felt the same way when I started doing this music with different instruments that had big holes in it. I didn't think, I'm going to start playing folk music. I just thought, we're doing something new and it's exciting and it's scary. The whole thing became more musical after that. But the way we started it was more like the Violent Femmes. It was more like kind of a punk attitude towards really quiet music. Since then, I think I've become a lot more musical. I guess in that way, I've changed.

Posted by Lisa at 11:05 AM

See Penelope Houston Perform Tonight At 'Howard Dean For President' Party At The San Francisco Hyatt

If you're in the SF Bay Area, you should come to the party TONIGHT (Monday, June 23rd) from 6:30-9:00 pm at the SF Hyatt on Embarcadero.

Penelope Houston will be performing around 8pm.

The party is in the Grand Ballroom. There's an Open Bar.
(It might make a nice pit stop after a hard day at the office...)

There will be a marching band there around 6:30 pm when the doors open.

Directions: The hotel is at Embarcadero Bart, on the northernmost end of Market at Main St. Bart's easier, but there's lots of overpriced parking if you cross Market (with the Hyatt on your right) and hit one of the lots.

Penelope Houston, formerly of The Avengers will be performing at 8:00pm. (Yes, the punk rock group that opened for the Sex Pistols in San Francisco in 1978, although she's got a mellower sound now, she has promised to "rock" :)

Here's a cool interview with Penelope that explains more about who they are and what happened to them.

Posted by Lisa at 10:42 AM

Daily Show: License To Pill

Here's a clip from the June 17, 2003 daily show that satirizes a group of old folks' monthly voyage into ~~Canada~~ Mexico to pick up their prescription medicines at the price they can almost afford:

License To Pill

By request, for Mark.

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Posted by Lisa at 07:35 AM

More Background On Dean

Thanks to Christopher at Paper Frog for sending me this nice little backgrounder on Howard Dean that he published back in May.

Favorite Dean quote from this article: "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party!"

He’s unapologetic for his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. His approach to Homeland Security is biased toward international cooperation and massive support for first-responders, rather than military solutions. Dean’s track record on gay and lesbian issues (he signed the country’s first civil union law) is enough to whip the Christian Right—and many conservative Democrats—into full lather. He’s against tax cuts and in favor of a balanced federal budget.

But it’s health care that Dean plays as his trump card. Dean and his wife, Judith Steinberg Dean, are both medical doctors. The family trade figures strongly into Dean’s plan for the phased introduction of a Universal Health Benefits Program.

Dean’s four-point proposal, released last week, expands existing programs for low-income families and allows small businesses to buy into a low-cost insurance pool modeled after those available to federal workers. And while Dean’s plan doesn’t mandate employer-provided health insurance, it penalizes large companies who opt-out by yanking some of their current tax breaks.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://paperfrog.com/blog/archives/000066.html

Heating Up

An uninteresting Democratic race gets more interesting

Howard Dean.jpg

Dark horses get to have all the fun. And former Vermont governor Howard Dean knows he’s the ultimate dark horse.

So Dean pulls no punches in his pursuit of the Democratic nomination for president. Conventional wisdom—the wisdom espoused by groups like the so-called “New Democrat” coalition—says that the most viable challenger to the Republic juggernaut in 2004 will match the GOP’s hawkish defense policies while taking the Bush to task on his weak domestic agenda. But Dean will have no part of conventional wisdom.

Instead, Dean is speaking freely, staking out progressive positions and refusing to adopt the mainstream Democratic campaign strategy some critics have labeled “Bush Lite.”

He’s unapologetic for his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. His approach to Homeland Security is biased toward international cooperation and massive support for first-responders, rather than military solutions. Dean’s track record on gay and lesbian issues (he signed the country’s first civil union law) is enough to whip the Christian Right—and many conservative Democrats—into full lather. He’s against tax cuts and in favor of a balanced federal budget.

But it’s health care that Dean plays as his trump card. Dean and his wife, Judith Steinberg Dean, are both medical doctors. The family trade figures strongly into Dean’s plan for the phased introduction of a Universal Health Benefits Program.

Dean’s four-point proposal, released last week, expands existing programs for low-income families and allows small businesses to buy into a low-cost insurance pool modeled after those available to federal workers. And while Dean’s plan doesn’t mandate employer-provided health insurance, it penalizes large companies who opt-out by yanking some of their current tax breaks.

Some critics have praised Dean’s platform as a fresh approach to traditional Democratic values. Some Democrats are not amused.

Hence the Democratic Leadership Council’s bitter denunciation of Dean’s candidacy last Thursday. The DLC, which fronts the centrist New Democrat coalition, emerged from two days of meetings with a single message to their party: don’t nominate Dean.

The DLC claims much credit in sending Bill Clinton to the Oval Office, but were less successful with the campaigns of New Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Just what went wrong is a matter of controversy. A DLC post-mortem blamed Gore for abandoning New Democrat values. Progressives blame the DLC for ignoring the concerns of organized labor and driving Democratic activists to the campaign of Green Party nominee Ralph Nader.

Blame game aside, the DLC is certain Dr. Dean’s prescription for America is bad political medicine. Coalition founder Al From blasted the Dean campaign. stooping to a little name-calling by slamming Dean for his “self-interested liberalism.” In doing so, the DLC may have energized the Dean candidacy and positioned the former governor as the Man to Beat.

That’s likely to please Dean, whose sometimes brusque manner and impolitic speech is the source of so many one-liners: “I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party!”

Dean’s biggest challenge at this point is a lack of national name-recognition. Not only does being in the hot seat suit his personality, it may play to his strategic advantage.

Fund-raising has gone surprisingly well for Dean, whose campaign literature paints him as the “heart and soul” of the Democratic party. He’s the only candidate with real executive experience. Fellow partisans Lieberman and Gephardt are hardly setting the woods on fire, and the campaign of North Carolina senator John Edwards has already stumbled over allegations of some oddball contributions. That could set up a dual between Dean and current front runner John Kerry.

But it’s a long way to New Hampshire. The only thing certain is that a Democratic race which started off as a real snoozer is now a bit more interesting.

The Doctor is in.

More On Blix's Washington "Bastards"

Blix attacks Washington 'bastards'
By the Staff at the Daily Telegraph.

Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, branded his detractors in Washington yesterday as "bastards", claiming that they sought to undermine his three-year mission.

Mr Blix also rounded on the Pentagon, where he said "some elements" had orchestrated a smear campaign against him during his mission to root out Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

"I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, who planted nasty things in the media," he told the Guardian. "Not that I cared much. It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/11/wblix11.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/11/ixnewstop.html

Blix attacks Washington 'bastards'
By Our Foreign Staff
(Filed: 11/06/2003)

Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, branded his detractors in Washington yesterday as "bastards", claiming that they sought to undermine his three-year mission.

Mr Blix also rounded on the Pentagon, where he said "some elements" had orchestrated a smear campaign against him during his mission to root out Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

"I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, who planted nasty things in the media," he told the Guardian. "Not that I cared much. It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant."

He said that "we cannot exclude" that Iraq's elusive WMD's would yet be found.

His outburst comes as Mr Blix, 74, prepares to retire to his native Sweden.

In an interview with America's ABC network, Mr Blix declined to criticise the sincerity of Tony Blair and George W Bush, but said the intelligence that they acted on was far from "solid".

Posted by Lisa at 03:27 PM

Daily Show: Hans Blix Explains "Bastards" Comment

Blix said it, and he says he said it. He just didn't think it would be printed.

Was he referring to members of the U.S. Government? Or one of the many other "bastards" in Washington? (The town is known to have its share.) The world may never know.

Blix was intentionally vague about who the "bastards" were. He's not a career diplomat for nuthin'!
That's the great thing about being intentionally vague :-)

Hans Blix On The "Bastards" Remark (Small - 5 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Posted by Lisa at 03:21 PM

June 16, 2003

Joi Ito Joins Creative Commons Board

Welcome Joi!

Creative Commons Welcomes Joi Ito to Board of Directors
(Creative Commons Press Release)

Creative Commons, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to expanding the world of reusable content online, announced today that Joichi Ito has joined its Board of Directors. Ito is a venture capitalist, technologist, and internationally popular weblogger and commentator based in California and Japan.

"We are thrilled to have Joi Ito join the team," said Lawrence Lessig, chairman of Creative Commons and professor of law at Stanford University. "His unique breadth of experience in technology, business, and policy — and his well-earned reputation as an innovator on an international level — make him a perfect new colleague for our growing organization."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/3721

Creative Commons Welcomes Joi Ito to Board of Directors

Monday, June 16, 2003

San Francisco- and Tokyo-based venture capitalist, technologist, and policy expert joins leadership of the Silicon Valley nonprofit

Palo Alto, USA — Creative Commons, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to expanding the world of reusable content online, announced today that Joichi Ito has joined its Board of Directors. Ito is a venture capitalist, technologist, and internationally popular weblogger and commentator based in California and Japan.

"We are thrilled to have Joi Ito join the team," said Lawrence Lessig, chairman of Creative Commons and professor of law at Stanford University. "His unique breadth of experience in technology, business, and policy — and his well-earned reputation as an innovator on an international level — make him a perfect new colleague for our growing organization."

"Protecting the commons is essential for enabling emerging technologies and businesses in networked consumer electronics and the Internet," said Ito. "It is critical for Japan and the rest of the world to understand and embrace Creative Commons‚ principles and tools. I am honored to join this world-class organization to help make it happen."

Ito joins a Board of Directors that includes Lessig; fellow cyberlaw experts James Boyle, Michael Carroll, and Molly Shaffer Van Houweling; public domain web publisher Eric Eldred; filmmaker Davis Guggenheim; MIT computer science professor Hal Abelson; and lawyer-turned-documentary filmmaker-turned-cyberlawyer Eric Saltzman.

More about Joichi Ito

Joichi Ito is the founder and CEO of Neoteny, http://www.neoteny.com, a venture capital firm focused on personal communications and enabling technologies. He has created numerous Internet companies including PSINet Japan, Digital Garage and Infoseek Japan. In 1997 Time ranked him as a member of the CyberElite. In 2000 he was ranked among the "50 Stars of Asia" by Business Week and commended by the Japanese Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications for supporting the advancement of IT. In 2001 the World Economic Forum chose him as one of the 100 "Global Leaders of Tomorrow" for 2002.

More information at http://joi.ito.com.

More about Creative Commons

A nonprofit corporation, Creative Commons promotes the creative re-use of intellectual works — whether owned or public domain. It is sustained by the generous support of The Center for the Public Domain and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Creative Commons is based at Stanford Law School, where it shares staff, space, and inspiration with the school's Center for Internet and Society.

More information at http://creativecommons.org.

Contact

Glenn Otis Brown
Executive Director
Creative Commons
1.650.723.7572 (tel)
1.415.336.1433 (cell)
glenn -AT- creativecommons.org

Joichi Ito
jito -AT- neoteny.com

Neeru Paharia
Assistant Director
Creative Commons
1.650.724.3717 (tel)
1.510.823.1073 (cell)
neeru -AT- creativecommons.org

Posted by Lisa at 07:06 PM

Daily Show: Top Al Qaeda Operatives Say No Ties With Sadaam

So there's no connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government the U.S. just overthrew and the Shrub Administration has known this since last year?

So much for the "we had to invade Iraq because of 911" rationalization.
Daily Show: Osama and Sadaam Weren't Buddies (Small - 4 MB)

This Daily Show clip is based on this story by the NY Times:

C.I.A.; Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad

Two of highest-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in American custody reportedly tell CIA in separate interrogations that Al Qaeda did not work jointly with Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein; Abu Zubaydah, Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in Mar 2002, is said to tell questioners that Osama bin Laden vetoed idea of working with Hussein's government because he did not want to be beholden to Hussein; separately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Qaeda chief of operations until his capture this Mar, tells interrogators that group did not work with Hussein; spokesmen at White House, State Dept and Pentagon decline to comment on why Zubaydah's debriefing report was not publicly disclosed by Bush administration last year

Here is the full text of the partial excerpt of the article that is still available online at the time of this writing:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20715F73E5D0C7A8CDDAF0894DB404482

Foreign Desk | June 9, 2003, Monday
THREATS AND RESPONSES: C.I.A.; Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad

By JAMES RISEN (NYT) 781 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Two of highest-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in American custody reportedly tell CIA in separate interrogations that Al Qaeda did not work jointly with Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein; Abu Zubaydah, Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in Mar 2002, is said to tell questioners that Osama bin Laden vetoed idea of working with Hussein's government because he did not want to be beholden to Hussein; separately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Qaeda chief of operations until his capture this Mar, tells interrogators that group did not work with Hussein; spokesmen at White House, State Dept and Pentagon decline to comment on why Zubaydah's debriefing report was not publicly disclosed by Bush administration last year; senior intelligence official plays down significance of both debriefings, saying everything Qaeda detainees say must be regarded with great skepticism; other intelligence and military officials say evidence of possible links between Hussein's government and Al Qaeda were discovered both before war and since, but no conclusive evidence of joint terrorist operations has been found (M) Two of the highest-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in American custody have told the C.I.A. in separate interrogations that the terrorist organization did not work jointly with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, according to several intelligence officials.

Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation.

Posted by Lisa at 02:13 PM

June 15, 2003

Video Out For John Cougar Mellencamp's "To Washington"

It's a nice one, too. I've saved a copy of it in my archive, in case the link goes bad.

Thanks, John. You are a true patriot!

To Washington - John Cougar Mellencamp. (Lyrics)

I also just bought the

new John Cougar Mellencamp Album to show him my support!
Please do the same, if you can.

Posted by Lisa at 11:29 PM

More On The Forged WMD Evidence From Niger

Fake document tied to Niger Embassy
By Sam Roe for the Chicago Tribune.

At one point, the Niger letters were seen as key evidence in the U.S. case against Iraq. In December, the State Department said Iraq's declaration to the United Nations regarding its weapons program omitted numerous items. Among them, the State Department said, were "efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

On March 7, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, told the Security Council that U.N. experts had determined the letters were forged.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/5401751.htm

Fake document tied to Niger Embassy
BY SAM ROE
Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - (KRT) - Forged documents that the United States used to build its case against Iraq were likely written by someone in Niger's embassy in Rome who hoped to make quick money, a source close to the United Nations investigation said.

The documents, about a dozen letters on Niger's governmental letterhead, suggested that the African nation had agreed to supply Iraq with uranium, used in nuclear weapons production, the source said. Some of the letters were addressed to an Iraqi official.

But when International Atomic Energy Agency investigators analyzed the contents of the letters, they discovered discrepancies in names and titles that led them to conclude that the documents were fabricated.

An IAEA spokeswoman would not comment on the investigation, though she said the agency did not fault the United States or Britain for the forged evidence.

"We believe it was given to us in good faith," the spokeswoman said. "It doesn't seem that it was fabricated by British or American intelligence agencies in order to make a case" for war.

The source said that the IAEA suspects the letters were intended to be sold to intelligence agencies.

On Friday, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked the FBI to investigate who forged the letters and why U.S. intelligence officials did not recognize them as fakes.

"There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq," he wrote in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

An FBI inquiry, he wrote, "should, at a minimum, help to allay any concerns" that the U.S. government created the letters to build support for war.

Rockefeller spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said that "the rest of the world is not shining brightly on America right now," and the forged evidence "hurts our credibility, and it's embarrassing."

Niger Embassy officials were unavailable for comment.

At one point, the Niger letters were seen as key evidence in the U.S. case against Iraq. In December, the State Department said Iraq's declaration to the United Nations regarding its weapons program omitted numerous items. Among them, the State Department said, were "efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

On March 7, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, told the Security Council that U.N. experts had determined the letters were forged.

Research into the contents, such as whether names and titles were correct, revealed inconsistencies, the source said. The IAEA questioned Niger officials about the letters, and the officials denied knowledge of them, the source said.

U.S. officials have downplayed the discovery of the forgeries. Last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine."

Posted by Lisa at 09:36 PM

Troops Being Sucked Into Iraqi Quagmire

Resistance to occupation is growing
US and British troops are being sucked into an Iraqi quagmire
by Richard Norton-Taylor and Rory McCarthy for the Guardian U.K.

A sudden upsurge in violence in the past couple of weeks has killed at least 10 American soldiers and wounded more than 25 in a series of attacks against checkpoints and military convoys. Iraqi fighters yesterday brought down an Apache helicopter in the west of the country.

Far more more numerous than these incidents is the unpublicised number of attacks on American positions that do not injure or kill soldiers. Attacks occur daily - more than a dozen every day in the past week, according to some accounts. Troops patrolling even the calmest neighbourhoods in Baghdad still wear bullet-proof jackets and Kevlar helmets and raise their rifles, finger on the trigger, whenever approached. Attack helicopters are flying low over Baghdad day and night without lights.

The most experienced combat units from the 3rd Infantry, deployed away from home since September, have now been sent in to deal with Falluja, a town at the centre of a steadily growing resistance in the Sunni Muslim heartland just west of Baghdad.

Hostile residents are not shy of threatening more attacks, insisting they are not Saddam loyalists but angry at the US military occupation. Aggressive house searches and the killing by US troops of 18 protesters in a demonstration last month have provoked fury. Soldiers on the ground say the attacks they are facing, mostly from rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, are disciplined and skilled, not the random shootings of angry civilians. American generals admit that though the attacks may be locally organised there is no evidence yet of a reformed Ba'ath party centrally coordinating the assaults.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,976486,00.html

Resistance to occupation is growing

US and British troops are being sucked into an Iraqi quagmire

Richard Norton-Taylor and Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Friday June 13, 2003
The Guardian

While attention has focused on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, growing evidence that the war is far from over has been overlooked. Fighting with real weapons is on the increase.

A sudden upsurge in violence in the past couple of weeks has killed at least 10 American soldiers and wounded more than 25 in a series of attacks against checkpoints and military convoys. Iraqi fighters yesterday brought down an Apache helicopter in the west of the country.

Far more more numerous than these incidents is the unpublicised number of attacks on American positions that do not injure or kill soldiers. Attacks occur daily - more than a dozen every day in the past week, according to some accounts. Troops patrolling even the calmest neighbourhoods in Baghdad still wear bullet-proof jackets and Kevlar helmets and raise their rifles, finger on the trigger, whenever approached. Attack helicopters are flying low over Baghdad day and night without lights.

The most experienced combat units from the 3rd Infantry, deployed away from home since September, have now been sent in to deal with Falluja, a town at the centre of a steadily growing resistance in the Sunni Muslim heartland just west of Baghdad.

Hostile residents are not shy of threatening more attacks, insisting they are not Saddam loyalists but angry at the US military occupation. Aggressive house searches and the killing by US troops of 18 protesters in a demonstration last month have provoked fury. Soldiers on the ground say the attacks they are facing, mostly from rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, are disciplined and skilled, not the random shootings of angry civilians. American generals admit that though the attacks may be locally organised there is no evidence yet of a reformed Ba'ath party centrally coordinating the assaults.

Their response has been to saturate problem areas with large numbers of combat troops. Even senior officers admit now that security in Iraq, more than two months after the fall of the regime, will get worse before it gets better.

America's generals, happy to boast about the rapid defeat of Saddam's regime, now admit the war is far from over. In Baghdad yesterday Lieutenant General David McKiernan, commander of US ground forces in Iraq, said his troops would be needed for a long time to come, that Baghdad and a large swathe of northern and western Iraq is only a "semi-permissive" environment, and that "subversive forces" are still active. Should all this be so surprising?

The US and Britain said they came to liberate Iraq and protect its people. The failure to understand how Iraqis would respond may be rooted in arrogance. It is also a colossal failure in intelligence which may prove to be at least as important as the inability to find any of Iraq's banned weapons. The commander of British forces in the war, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, admitted as much in remarkably frank evidence to MPs this week. Asked about the problems of "policing" Iraq, and the number of forces needed to do the job, he replied: "I'm not sure we understand yet."

Burridge confirmed that British military commanders were expecting - on the basis of intelligence - that the Iraqi army would offer to help US and UK troops maintain law and order after the invasion. This hopelessly naive advice came from the CIA. Judging by what Britain's commanders say, MI6 appeared to have done nothing to disabuse them. Iraqi distrust of the foreign invaders seems to have come as a complete surprise.

British forces, charged with securing Basra and the southern oilfields, had an easier task than US forces in the rest of the country. Yet this did not prevent British commanders from contrasting their approach with that of the Americans. The new chief of defence staff, General Sir Michael Walker, reminded the Commons defence committee that British forces have been conducting operations "around the world since world war two".

However, such prowess did not encourage British commanders to volunteer to send troops from southern Iraq to help the Americans elsewhere. They are seriously concerned about overstretch and, as important, about getting bogged down deeper in the quagmire.

The US admits it had to revise drastically the number of troops it needed within weeks of the fall of Baghdad, as looting, armed robberies, rapes, kidnapping, and carjackings multiplied. The arrival of the US army's 1st Armoured Division was brought forward, the departure of the 3rd Infantry Division, which led the invasion from Kuwait, delayed. US troops are now being sucked into Iraq much deeper than they imagined, or were told.

r.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk

Posted by Lisa at 09:31 PM

Hans Blix Interview In Le Monde Regarding "Bastards" In Washington

Interview with Hans Blix, Head UN Disarmament Inspector
Interviewer: Corine Lesnes for Le Monde.

Lesnes: In the interview you gave to the British Daily, The Guardian, on June 11, did you really say there were "bastards" in the American administration?

Blix: No, no, not at all. I never said there were bastards in the administration. I said; in Washington. I was referring to private detractors in the private sector.

L: To whom were you referring?

B: The people who criticized the IAEA-the International Atomic Energy Agency-, for example, all through the nineties.

L: Can you say a little more about it?

B: No, it's not important enough. These are old stories that were spread about my work in Iraq in 1991-(Note: the IAEA, directed at the time by Mr. Blix was accused of having totally missed Iraq's nuclear program) There were criticisms by former inspectors who reproached us for not being up to snuff; there were articles published by a former Swedish Prime Minister, one in the Washington Times, another in the Wall Street Journal. All that came from the same group of people; it wasn't governmental.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061403C.shtml

Interview with Hans Blix, Head UN Disarmament Inspector
Interviewer: Corine Lesnes
Le Monde

Thursday 12 June 2003

"This is not the first time that force has been used on the basis of erroneous intelligence," Mr. Blix questions the trustworthiness of American intelligence. From our United Nations correspondent.

Lesnes: In the interview you gave to the British Daily, The Guardian, on June 11, did you really say there were "bastards" in the American administration?

Blix: No, no, not at all. I never said there were bastards in the administration. I said; in Washington. I was referring to private detractors in the private sector.

L: To whom were you referring?

B: The people who criticized the IAEA-the International Atomic Energy Agency-, for example, all through the nineties.

L: Can you say a little more about it?

B: No, it's not important enough. These are old stories that were spread about my work in Iraq in 1991-(Note: the IAEA, directed at the time by Mr. Blix was accused of having totally missed Iraq's nuclear program) There were criticisms by former inspectors who reproached us for not being up to snuff; there were articles published by a former Swedish Prime Minister, one in the Washington Times, another in the Wall Street Journal. All that came from the same group of people; it wasn't governmental.

L: At the end of April, journalists from the Presidential Press Corps at a dinner to which you had been invited heard Richard Perle, one of Donald Rumsfeld's advisers, take you to task.

B: That's a mistake. We were speaking of interviews with foreign scientists. He said it would be important to do them. I said it was difficult to make happen, that's all.

L: The Americans are asking for patience with regard to the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They didn't show you much patience. Does that seem unfair to you?

B: I wish them good luck. We all want to know the truth. It should be easier for them to establish it than it was for us. Witnesses no longer need fear speaking. The totalitarian regime has fallen.

L: What lessons do you draw from the Iraqi crisis?

B: Leading preemptive strikes on the basis of secret services' intelligence is something to which we must pay the most careful attention. This is not the first time that force has been used on the basis of intelligence that has proven to be erroneous.

The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was a result of false information. A chemical production factory near Khartoum was destroyed in the same way. This time, a war was begun on the basis of intelligence. We still don't know if it was correct. But the question remains: on what basis may a war be started? Is this basis sufficiently solid? And what importance do we give to having the Security Council's authorization?

L: When did you understand that the war was inevitable?

B: Only at the end. And I don't think it was inevitable until the end. I remember that Bill Clinton, who had begun to send planes against Iraq (in 1998), cancelled the operation when Kofi Annan succeeded in getting the message to the Iraqis. I think that if Saddam Hussein had made some spectacular move, the Americans would also have stopped it all.

L: There was the destruction of missiles.

B: It wasn't enough for the Americans. But remember the British proposaL: that Saddam Hussein should make a statement on television that Iraq would rapidly take five disarmament measures. If that resolution had been adopted, if Iraq had fulfilled the conditions, there could have been a new dynamic. That was the calculation I had made. But that proposal collapsed in the Security Council.

L: The French didn't go along. If they had, could things have turned out differently?

B: The French thought that they would be implicated then in an authorization of force. They distrusted American intentions. They were convinced the war had already been decided.

L: Is there anything you would have done differently?

B: No. In the final analysis, we demonstrated that it is possible to create a team of United Nations inspectors who are independent, not directed by foreign secret services and at the same time, effective. That was not enough in the case of Iraq to change the outcome, but it is an experience to take into account for the future.

L: You don't think you should have said more forcefully that Iraq perhaps didn't have any weapons of mass destruction?

B: But we never stopped saying it! We said that we had no proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that we did have numerous proofs of the existence of unresolved questions.

At the end of January we had found 12 missile warheads and a pile of documents. At that e moment, I said: This could be the tip of the iceberg. But it could also be remains. Of course, when I think about it now, it seems more probable that it was nothing but remains. The same thing for the documents we found at the home of a scientist: that was consistent with the intelligence we had received for a long time from the intelligence services according to which Iraqi archives weren't in the companies or the ministries, but at private homes.

L: Where are the weapons? Can we speak of an enigma?

B: Yes, it is one. One can only speculate. The more time goes by, the more we must ask ourselves: if there are no weapons of mass destruction, what motivated the Iraqis? They could have avoided sanctions and suffering if there were no weapons. But Saddam Hussein saw himself as the Emperor of Mesopotamia. It didn't matter much to him if Iraqis suffered from the sanctions.

L: And where do you fit on the political chessboard?

B: I am a member of the Swedish Liberal Party. I am a non-Socialist somewhat to the left of center.

Print This Story E-mail This Story

Posted by Lisa at 08:52 PM

Anonymous Coward vs. A-list Bloggers

It's actually some guy fighting with himself :-)

Nevertheless, I laughed outloud for the fifty-fifth time and decided that, in all fairness, I had to blog this.
(Thanks, Larry.)

Here is the full text of the page in case the link goes bad:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/blogparody.htm

Simple Guide to the A-List Bloggers

Dave Winer

Anyone who disagrees with me is a festering disease-carrying burnt-toast maggot. I am the Internet, doncha know that? I made it what it was. I invented Blogs. And my markup spec's are the all. Scripting and DaveNet was everything, I was ahead of the game. And when you all were still in diapers, I was (and still am) the world. I am King of the Whole Wide World. Microsoft is pure evil, they want to steal your kids, salt your lawn, plant greenish-oozed nuclear waste in your laundry detergent. I, however, have only the best of intentions. Comments? Sorry no can do. But trust me. Link Link Link Link to my supporters. Slam slam slam the ones I hate. Backstab here, backstab there. Change this spec here, change that spec here. RSS Spec fight here, RSS Spec fight there. Only thing worse than Microsoft are the morons at SixApart. Change spec - here, there and everywhere. Disagree? Then you are Evil Incarnate. Unreadable unmanageable code here, unreadable unmanageable code there. How to Disinfluence People and Tick-Off the Entire World via Blog. Anyone who was under the mistaken impression that Bloggers all get along hasn’t met me. Slam slam slam slam slam slam the ones I hate. Hey, not so fast, I invented that. Yes I did. YES I DID! Here’s a pointer to this issue 3.5 years ago when I discussed and invented it. So there! Here is my definition of what a makes a blog a blog, and I outta know.

10. Print “Blogs are Cool, they will Save the World. And Dave is the King of the Entire World.”
20. Goto 10.

Commmeoooon, everyone, shout along to the beat. Ready now? A one...A one, two three, fouuurrr...Slam slam s-l-a-m - Slam slam s-l-a-m - Slam slam s-l-a-m.

“In the beginning was the Blog, and the Blog was with Dave, and the Blog was God. The same was in the beginning with Dave. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness (everyone but Dave) comprehended it not.”

Doc Searls

Peace brother. Peace. Chill out, man. If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands. If you’re happy and you know it, your Blog will surely show it. Clap your hands. Greetings from the Left Coast. Internet Utopia. Blogs do have a metaphor. It’s writing. Journalism. I am not a real Doctor, but Linux will cure cancer. Toke up, yah man, peace. Happy happy. No conflicts, Contractions do not exist. Someone said Blogs are the director’s cut of journalism. I am never wrong. Circumvent, distort, sleight-of-hand tricks, and even when I am cornered, I simply open the discussion for my supporters to back me up. Follow along. Or contribute. Or both. Whatever. Just don't disagree. This new meme here, that new meme there. Here’s some pointage to back and forth between this person and that person on this issue. DIY Journalism. The powers of Big Media have been forever broken!! Power to the People. Linux rules! Linux makes a great hamburger topping. Blogs, there is no us and them. It’s all us. Weblogs are the highest form of audience content. Weblogs are the highest form of evolutionary development. Printwash, Searlsowash, but NOT Googlewash, no no. Google is God. If not on Google it doesn’t count. Libraries, reference material? Hogwash! Wall yourself out, get what you deserve. Hotel Internet troubles! Blanket the World in FREE broadband Wi-Fi. Yes! Wi-Fi will save us all! And oh, Andrew-Orlowski-is-the-Devil-Wash-But-I-Still-Sorta-Like-Him-As-I-am-A-Happy-Person-Always, Ireallyhavenoearthlyideawhatiamtalkingaboutbutiblogonwash, Chill, Peace, Everything should be free man. Free! Paying for content on the web is downright Satanic. Free man free. The blog train has been delivering clues to the newspaper publishing business for several years now, but we don’t have a sign that the biz is taking delivery. Link Link Link to these people who support me. I had lunch with this person, she’s been one of my favorite conference buddies. Link Link to the ones that don’t, but only to the ones I can make fools of (in a nice way). Linux weenie Geek Cruises. Linux weenie Geek Conference Blog reporting. Linux weenie geeky tours of this city, of that city. Check out this Geek party I was at. Companies may start launching Web logs that have a business objective. Bad. Bad. Bad. As they won’t really have authentic voices. Link Link Link to these interesting things. Cluetrain. No such thing as branding. Cluetrain. Comment. Comment. Comment. Understanding the new world. AirplaneWindowMoblogging. At 5 or so I arrive at JFK. I’m in New York through Tuesday. Whoa. So very very dreamy. The web is growing larger and more important to nearly everybody. I am bulletproof, even if I am wrong, I will blog endlessly and bore you to death in a Blog comment ‘endless-loop-link-link-link-maze’ so you will forget. I’m here, somewhere in Long Island. Blogging from The World of Sheraton. Internet is the all, always growing. Technobabble. Link Link Link to these interesting things. Comment. Comment. Comment. Here's some totally pointless pointage to back and forth between this person and that person on this issue and that issue. Now I’m at this conference, which thankfully has working Net access provided by a solid Wi-Fi connection. Yeah, strange as it may seem, I actually believe half of the BuzzPhrases, I made up in that old computer program. I have two regrets about this conference trip. One is that I only brought one undershirt. The other is that I forgot my copy of this latest book. I had lunch with this person, he’s been one of my favorite conference buddies. This new meme here, that new meme there. Friends, supporters and speaking fees. I want speaking gigs, 6 figures please, and oh please buy my book! Pretty please! I alone know all about the New Age of Marketing. Clap your hands. Every one else has no Clue. Internet Utopia. Linux-weenie Geek Conference Blog reporting. How did I ever live with dial-up? Suffering it at this hotel is proving how blogging is a grace of bandwidth, at least for me. Here’s some pointage to some back and forth between this person and that person on this issue. This person brings up a really good question. Discuss. Here’s some pointage back and forth on this question. This new meme here, that new meme there. Discuss. Discuss.

DocSpeak Demystified

Doc: The sky is purpleish brown green with red dots and grayish-yellow stripes.

No the sky is blue.

Doc: Well, the real issue is, what do we really mean by sky and how do we externally perceive it? And where does (what we mean by) sky exist? All skies are not “blue”, as on some planets somewhere, I think maybe, the sky could be purpleish brown green with red dots and grayish-yellow stripes. The sky is, in fact, multi-colored, it is just our false perception of what the internal makeup of this thing we call “blue” is to our imperfect human eyes. This false reality that forms our observation of what is, is in fact, not reality at all. Far out. Stop being so close minded and dogmatic. Link. Link. Link. Chill out. Link. Link. Link. Link. Peace. Link. Link. Link. Link. Link. Discuss.

Dan Gillmor

I am not really a journalist, I just play one on a Blog. This meme here, that meme there. Swarm Journalism!! Blogs are everything. Hey, I am writing a book on this, please help me. Blogs are everything yes. Blogs are everything yes yes. Repeat, Rinse, Repeat, Rinse and Dry. Journalism needs to get a clue, yo wake up, you old-fashioned Newspapermen, this is the future. I am leading the charge, I get it, how come you don't? Buncha morons!! It’s cloudy and chilly in Helsinki, where I’ll be participating in a social software/blog workshop. It’s foggy and chilly in London, where I’ll be participating in a social software/blog workshop. I am in Europe phone calls are expensive, Net access is iffy. And there’s no ketchup to be found for miles!! And I am not really a political reporter or Blogger, but I hate those Republicans and all their drumbeat Warmongering Buddies! Oh they are EVIL! They all just play golf, inherit money and wage wars for Oil! SUVs are EVIL. Silicon Valley Leftist short-comment rant here, Silicon Valley Leftist short-comment rant there. Bill Moyers is God! Technorati is God. This meme here. Sheesh, hotel Internet problems! Anyone know any cool Wi-Fi hotspots? Any Bloggers out there wanta go for a coffee? Visit to this Internet start-up company, visit to that Internet start-up company. They are the greatest, they do good work. News story comment quip. UPDATE: Several readers say they read this story different. After a closer reading, I tend to agree. I tend to write before I think. This meme here, that meme there. This meme here, that meme there. This meme here, that meme there. This meme here, that meme there. Thanks to the Blogosphere I never have to do real reporting. I take what Bloggers say at face value. Microsoft is Evil no wwwaaaiiiit I mean Good, no Evil, no now they are Good, but Evil, but still Good, Evigood Gooevil EvGoilod. Google is God. This meme here, that meme there. This meme here, that meme there. Repeat. Endless loop.

Howard Rheingold

Smart Mobs. Smart Mobs. Could you Mobs who are Smart, buy my Smart Mobs book, please? Smart Mob thyself to the bookstore. Whole Earth, Whole Earth, The Well, remember me? I was the original Internet hippie. I was everything. Power to the People, yeah yeah. Hum that around the drum circle. The Virtual Community, Virtual Reality, Tools for Thought. Mondo 2000, Wired ’94, all the glory utopiaistic future. Social Revolution, yeah man, yeah yeah. Brainstorms Community, MUDs as Constructionist Learning Environments, far out man. Are we awake to the world we’re building, or are we, as an old Sufi saying goes, merely asleep in life's waiting room? Excursions to the Far Side of the Mind: A Book of Memes, Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming. New Age Cybertechnophile’isms. Whoa, far out. Rheingold Associates, sustainable social networks, teamwork spaces, Online Social Networking, hire me, pretty pretty please. Yah yah yah. Man. Brave new world. I was present at birth. Smart Mobbing. Woulda like to see my painted shoes? Social Revolution, yeah man yeah. Smart Mobs, and don’t forget to Smart Mob thyself to the bookstore. Whole Earth, Whole Earth.

Joi Ito

Blog about Blogging. More Blogging about Blogging, yet more Blogging about Blogging, still more Blogging about Blogging, would you believe more, Blogging about Blogging. Blogging about Wiki. Wiki’ing about Wiki. A new meme: OPM (Other Peoples Money). It’s amazing where you can go, and what you can do using OPM. Social software. Look at me, I am doing Lunch with these VIPs. Lunch. Lunch. I am Japans best citizen. Making the World Safe for Emerging New Democracy, that's all me. Hussling Energy. I was here, before any of you. I am the Silicon Valley of Japan. I “survived” the Bubble, but I won’t tell you how. I am everything to the world, and I have money. I am a Venture Capitalist, I will talk up this tech, get everyone jazzed, but I am looking to get in on it or I already have, but everything I do is so open and transparent, you can trust me, repeat, you can trust me, I am just having a conversation. Emergent Democracy American Bandstand Dance Party. Lunch, Lunch, Link Link to friends and people that like and reward me. Blogging about Blogging. Lunch, Lunch, Party, Party, Conference, Government panel, Lunch, Party, Party, Jet Set Travel. Government panel. Overthrow the Japanese Government! Cultural and Political Revolution! Check out my non-profit. I give back to the little people. Tell me I am great. The Internet will save us all. Speech here, speech there. Moblogging. Moblogging about Blogging. Moblogging about Moblogging. Moblogging about Wiki'ing. Blogging about me. Doncha wish you were me? Tough. Blogging about my greatness. Japan needs a Revolution. Wiki. Wiki. Blog. Blog. Emergent Democracy Lunch. Times are tough, revenues are down, but I don't let that stop my enthusiasm or the hype machine. Emergent Democracy Blogger Hula Hoop Party. Join the conversation. Lunch. Lunch. I am Japans best citizen. Blog about Blogging. More Blogging about Blogging. Emergent Democracy ‘Toys-R-Us’ Superstore Grand-Opening Party.

Chris Locke/Rageboy

Long rambling essays about my penis. Casuistic sickening introspection. Internet is everything. I was here at the start. But because I am a tad narcissistically satirical, you can see that I don't take it all so very seriously, but yet oddly I do. Buy my book. Rolling Stone 70s era drugified rock-and-roll journalism revivals. I only wish I was Lester Bangs. Pointless wandering meanderings about nothing, but aren't I a good writer? You think Hunter S. Thompson likes me?

Esther Dyson

Release. Spew. Discovering the obvious and promoting the impossible. New Age Tech Cult of the Month. Whoa this Blogger meme here. How did I miss this? Thanks to the O’Reilly Emerging Tech Conference, for turning me onto this. Whoa. You mean I have to communicate clearly? Oh this is new. This is so very very new. I can’t really talk about anything, all under wraps. But trust me, whatever I do, and wherever I go, whomever I talk with, it all is so very very very important. Santa Fe Institute, yeah, join my New Age Science Cult. I have been orbiting Pluto for quite sometime now. I don’t think I was born on this planet. But I know everyone in this industry I am powerful, so doncha DARE cross me, or you will pay dearly. I know people. Double-agent and back-stabbing extortion as a profession. Highest bidder wins out. Hi. Pre-Release 4.0. Pay me money. NOW!

Chris Pirillo

I am everything. I created newsletters. I made them work. Want some of my spammy newsletters? Former TechTV star. I am cool. The size of my ego wouldn’t even fit in Texas. Doncha wish you lived my life? In the Age of Spam, my answer to everything is email newsletters, yes, links to shareware, freeware, thisware, that ware, along with smart comments quips from Super Geek, why I mean me, of course. It is all about branding and my chaotic hyperkinetic personality. Join my Brain Trust and I can tell you how *I* did it, yes, yoooou tooo, can cassssshhhh in on all the Internet Riches out there just waitttting to be found, for onnnnnlllllllyyyyy $97 a month. But waiiiiit thereeeereee’s moooree, we'll throw in a cool piece of Pocket PC software that I got from my Microsoft buddies. They like me. I like me. I use a Palm now however. But I am Super Geek. And there was no Bubble. No no no. That’s a lie! This shareware product here is cool, that shareware there is too, this freeware thing here rocks me. Hey, I want freebies. I won’t review or promo your product unless you give it to me. I am a Marketing Tidal Wave. Doncha know that? You just don’t get it, do yah? TechTV sucks now, it should be called LeoTV. I hate TechTV, don’t pay attention to them now that *I* am not there. Well, they were crap even when I was there, but that's beside the point. I am here now, Your Super Geek at work. Come to my Conference. Link Link. Link to this this cool computer magazine I am in, you can subscribe too, pretty please. Link to Gretchen. Amusing private story about Gretchen. I am the real Geek. Supreme Geek of All. Come to my conference. Its everything. All the other Bloggers know this. I am El Geeko Numbero Uno, there is no other. Wanta know my tricks? You too can be a geek like me, just open your wallet, and send all to me. Multi-Level-Geek-Marketing, its a whole new world! I am a Geek, repeat I am a Geek. But Linux sucks. Geek. Geek. My face as branding, only I know how to market, I am the new Marketing Force, check out these sexy hot chic pictures, my wife cuts cabbage to relieve stress, we got a video of it. Want to pay me lots of money for creative weird advertising things I dream up after too much computer monitor radiation? Advertise on my coffee mug. Advertise on my t-shirt. Advertise on my laptop, send your company logo stickers. Want to pay me some money for my photobloglog? You never know who I will run into. Multi-Level-Geek-Social-Software-Spammy-Newsletter Marketing, its a whole new world! Link to Gretchen. Amusing private story about Gretchen. I am the future of Marketing, everyone else just doesn’t get it. Only I do.

Ben and Mena

We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We like blogs. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute. Blogs rule. Moveable Type rules. We are cute. We are cute. We got money from Joi, yippie. We are cute. We are cute. Blogs rule. Moveable Type rules. We are cute. We are cute. Blogs rule. Moveable Type rules. We are cute. No one else is cuter. We are cute. We are cute. We are cute.

Adam Curry

Celeblogging. I used to be a MTV VJ, you know, big hair, that whole thing? Yeah, I was cool. MTV sucks now though. I am cool. I am Beautiful People. But I am now European cool again. Follow my life. Oh I love Macs. Wonder if my stock is up? Our Italian wedding made all 4 major gossip mags! Link Link Link to interesting things, mini-comments, snippy mini-comments. Link Link to interesting things, big comment, small comment. My wife is a sexpot. I am so lucky. Link Link to interesting things, comment, comment. I used to be a MTV VJ. Good morning from Belgium. Good morning from Italy. Good morning from France. Good morning from Germany. Good morning from London. Europeans rule, Americans suck. I hate Americans and your doofus President. Europeans rule, Americans suck. Link Link Link to interesting things. Follow my life. I am cool, but sophisticated, yeah, not like you Americans who eat at McDonalds and ruin the world, no no. Link Link to semi-interesting things, comment quip, comment quip. Link to celebrity news, comment quip. Link to bad MTV news, comment quip. I wish they’d go bankrupt! MTV sucks, so do you Americans! I try and forget that I am American. Check out this big name celebrity party I was at, comment quip. Good morning from Holland. I am Beautiful People. I am Beautiful People. Yeah, I was cool. MTV sucks now though. I am cool. Good Morning from Belgium. Partly sunny with showers.

Gnome Girl

Freak out. I have more blogging friends than non-blogging friends. I communicate better in writing then verbally. Live from California. Whoa. See like, this, like, was, like, fer sure, like, totally, like, cool, like, like, yeah. Ok, I hafta have a serious moment now. Real serious. Oh ok, like that's over. See like, this, like, was, like, fer sure, like, totally, like, cool, like, like, yeah. Krad! Totally. I am sexy. I want someone to sing “your body is a wonderland” someday to me. I rock. To GnuKnow me is to GnuKnow that you GnuKnow me, GnuKnow what I am saying? Like, totally! No Gnunews is good Gnunews. Goodbye suck toes man. Groovy angels, rock my world. Miss Gnomedex. I think everyone has a superpower, mine is the ability to put lipstick on without looking in a mirror. See like, this, thing was like, was, like, fer sure, like, totally, like, cool. I rock. I am sexy. I love presents!! Send me some. Totally! Seriously I don’t like golf so I stay as far away from it as possible, also spinach can’t stand the stuff!

David Weinberger

Darwinism'ims. Leftist shrill rant. Small pieces, loosely joined. Loosely joined small pieces. Leftist shrill rant. Link Link, Blog friend link. Leftist shrill rant. Leftist shrill rant. Leftist shrill rant. Touchy-feely Leftist shrill rant. Bleeding-heart Leftist shrill rant. Capitalism is evil. Commons is good. Neo-Communism rules. Leftist shrill rant. Good and Evil do not exist, but Andrew Orlowski is the Devil. Link Link. Interesting things. One paragraph sum up of this link here. Link Link, Blog friend link. Leftist shrill rant. Blogs as Education. Blogs. Blogs. New meme here, rant there. The Internet is a whole water-skiing pyramid of giants. Utopia. Blog friend link. Blog friend link. Leftist shrill rant. Touchy-feely Leftist shrill rant. Bleeding-heart Leftist shrill rant. New meme here, rant there. Link Link, Blog friend link. Leftist shrill rant.

Ray Ozzie

Social software. Social software. Incredibly powerful collaborative project management software. Social software. Groove me baby. Incredibly powerful collaborative project management, project management, chaotic collaborative project management. Thoughts about Blogging in companies. Blogging Guidelines. Blogging as collaborative project management. Ubiquitous computing, Networking, Web and RAD technologies. COM and C++, .NET and Scripting. Social software, yeah man. Force chaos into the system. Groove on. Collaborative Project Management. Lotus. Far out. Eastern Psychobabble Mysticisms. Ubiquitous computing. My thoughts on remaking the whole internet in my image. Thoughts about Blogging in companies. Chaos! Blogging Guidelines. Grooooovvvvve. Repeat 100x.

Anil Dash

New York. New York. Big Apple Blogger Bash. But the thing I kept coming back to was the barley. I mean, wheat is the big man on the grain campus. You can’t ignore wheat. Links. Weird Links. Cool Links. Links about Links. Links. More Links. Index of Links. Link Indexes of Link Indexes Indexed. Ben and Mena inside gossip. Moveable Type. Radio sucks! Dave Winer is a smushed toad. Winer is a Whiner. I work in Marketing. Moveable Type! Journalists are the Devil, they only ever rewrite Press Releases. Just who do they think they are anyways? Bah Humbug! Bloggers are the future. Weird Links. Cool Links. Links about Links. Links. More Links. Andrew Orlowski is exactly what is wrong with the world. Avoid trolls, or anyone who disagrees with me, same thing. Pretentious New York City life random observations. The other day, I had beef mushroom barley soup. But that was unusual, not just because it included mushrooms, but because Carson Daly was sitting about 10 feet away at the time. But I digress. Links about Links. Links. More Links. New York stories. Links about Links. Links. More Links. Moveable Type! Ben and Mena! Yeah! Blogs are the future. Big Journalism has met its final deathmatch. Bloggers are the future. Bloggers of the World, Unite! New York stories. Links about Links.

Dave Barry

I am not really a Blogger. Just spreading the humor to the Blogosphere. I am a super popular newspaper columnist. I am hip enough to understand the web. Me make funny joke. You laugh. I love Miami. South Florida is like heaven. Come back to the early days of the web, when everything was all a funny weird link. Its the Worst of the Web, with Dave as your host. See me try and make funny. Me make funny. See my snippy, oh so funny, comments about all these weird links. Yes, the weird is out there. Funny funny. Please laugh. Read my column. Buy my numerous pointless but funny (least I think so) books. The Publishers are kinda getting mad. Laugh Laugh. Please? Question of the day: Will they run up the Pyramids in slow-motion wearing really tight Bathing Suits? Laugh. “If you leave this blog, I will kill this defenseless toilet.” Me make funny. Dave Barry for President. Me make funny joke. You laugh. Me make funny joke. I know the humor is so very very dated and stale. But laugh. Laugh. Please?

Robert Scoble

I am nice, reasonable, normal smart type, not always given to the usual Blog Groupthink. I am not like all those other Bloggers. So why I am a Blogger? I am just gaming this meme. Link to friends. Link to more friends. Link to other friends. Link to these friends. Link to more friends. Link to my boss, he’s way way cool. Hey, didyah know, I used to work for Radio Userland. And I used to plan Tech Conferences, I know every Geek in the world! They all like me. Link to other friends. Link to Microsoft developers. NEC Tablet PC rocks. See this picture of Bill Gates holding one, here’s another picture. But I have a Toshiba Tablet PC at Microsoft, as the NEC Tablet PC is not on Microsoft’s approved list. Link to .NET developers. Link to friends. Link to other friends. I like Apple too. Link to other friends. Microsoft stories. Working at Microsoft is so very super cool. I love this place. Woz is my friend. Don Box is my friend. Chris Sells is my friend. Chris Pirillo is my friend. I am Dave Winer’s only friend. Name drop here, name drop there. Link to this Developer here, link to that Developer there. Blogs are like everything. So what if I don’t have that many readers? I want quality. Its all about quality. People who don’t read me, obviously aren’t quality material. Blogs are power. Link to friends. I am friends of all. And now look who I am having lunch with. I know lots of people, used to be Silicon Valley Geek Schmooze King, now I am playing the same game in Seattle. Name drop here, name drop there. Blogger Movie Night. Blogger Food Court Night. Blogger Shopping Spree. Blogger Wal-Mart Blueberry Slurpee run. Link to friends. Link to other friends. Career advice. Link to friends. Link to other friends. I love working at Microsoft. Come to the Professional Developers Conference. Link to friends. Link to other friends. If you are an important person, wanta do lunch? Link to friends. Name drop here, name drop there.

Andrew Sullivan

Political Media Blogger Soup. Daily Political Soap Dish. Blogger Power! Journalism is outdated. Pledge Week. Give me money. Money, I know I asked before, but I need more. Donate money. Donate money. Link to a NYT piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong. Link to Wash Post piece. Oh they missed the whole point. Link to a NYT piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong again. Link to another NYT piece. Oh heck, fire them all. Link to a BBC piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong. Nitpick here, nitpick there. Link to a NPR piece. They are all wrong! Should be called National Public Communist Radio. The root of all evil is the New York Times, except, of course, when I write for them. Blogs as takedown POWER! This New Republic piece is total junk. Rick Santorum = Satan. The Guardian is total evil. Oh pleassseee donate. Pledge Week II. Donate. If you read this page regularly please help us keep it going by chipping in. Support your Sullivan. Money money. I need to pay my bills. I am your watchdog. And hey, even Liberals hate Hillary and Bill. Insane Hillary quote. Insane Clinton Administrational figure quote. One thing everyone (Left or Right) can agree on: We ALL are SICK of Hillary. Oh donate! If we keep up this pace this week, we’ll truly establish this site financially. Link to a NYT piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong. Link to a BBC piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong. Link to a Wash Times piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong. Oh look at this here, another embarrassment for the New York Times. Pledge Week. Donate. SOS! Support Our Sullivan. Money money. My take on this now completely debunked hysteria. My take on this now completely debunked news story. My take on this now completely debunked New York Times story. My take on this now completely debunked Washington Post story. Pledge Week XXVII. Pledge Week MMMMCMXCIX. Our goal this week is to reach a total of 350,000 members altogether - a base that can assure the site’s survival and my actually getting a salary. Link to a NYT piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong. My take on this observation. I’m amazed that more people haven’t been asking this question. It seems to me that it’s extremely important. Link to a BBC piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong. Donate, essentially, we’re trying to create a model that’s subscription-based but still free to access. Link to a LA Times piece. Oh gosh they got it all wrong. My take on this now completely debunked Washington Post story. My take on this now completely debunked Nation story. Oh look at this here, yet another embarrassment for the New York Times. Donate money. Donate money. Donate money. Donate money. My take on this now completely debunked New York Times story. I need money! Money!!

Glenn Reynolds

What??? What? You mean the war is over? Say it ain’t so, Joe! Oh no!!! But still important questions remain! Yes. Yes! Pay attention now. Post-War Iraq, the War on Terror, that still goes on! How dare you go about your normal life! Do you NOT understand? Sheeesh, what is it with you people anyways? If you’ve spent the weekend, you know, “having a life,” and missed things, you may want to scroll down to these 150 or so posts. Important! Post-War Iraq, people are still getting killed. Very Important! Let’s discuss things. Yes, important issues. Discuss, discuss. Comment quip on Iraq news. Comment quip on the latest Pentagon news. Comment quip on Iranian news. Comment quip on Syrian news. Comment quip on Terrorism news. War on Terror still being fought. How can you even dare to think of mundane everyday life stuff? Blogs are power: the role of the Internet in dissolving the Raines regime. Send me links. Links to stories. War Stories the Major Media Missed. War Stories the Major Media are Missing. Post-War Stories the Major Media Missed. Post-War Stories the Major Media are Missing. All sorts of interesting information on French doings, and a very cool Flash banner on War stories. Paris Correspondent Reports. And I’ve published quite a few constructive recommendations for The New York Times. Christopher Hitchens points out something *I* noted here a while back. Comment quip on new Post-War Iraq news. Comment quip on new Iranian news. Reader emails. Political terminology hairsplitting. Excerpt of this news story. Excerpt of that news story. Swarmy sarcastic comment quip on this news story. Swarmy sarcastic comment quip on that news story. Comment quip on Iraq news. Comment quip on the latest Pentagon news. News story: they are absolutely right on this, and it seems clear that priorities are still askew. But if pop-ups have been keeping you away, be advised that his site is now popup free! Why the Russians would want a not-terribly-friendly-or-stable nuclear-armed power on their southern border has never made sense to me. Comment quip on Major-Media missed Iranian news. Comment quip on Syrian news. Comment quip on Terrorism news. The former, of course, supports an Administration claim; the latter contradicts one. Former true? Latter true? Is either reliable? Who knows. Sorry for the lack of intensive Blogging this morning. It’s been busy around the InstaPundit household, 5 months worth of laundry. Comment quip on Terrorism news. War on Terror still being fought. Andrew Sullivan made lots of money. I didn’t. Its not fair!! Pout pout. But thanks to those who gave. I’m using the money for a series of sessions with a trainer who specializes in stretching exercises that remedy the problems caused by excessive computer use. Comment quip on the latest Pentagon news. Post-War Iraq, the War on Terror, that still goes on! How dare you go about your normal life!!! I’m going to talk about the role of the Internet in helping usher in perfect world peace.

Lawrence Lessing

This Blogger permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees must give the original Blogger full credit and total kudos. Translated: Link to me, tell me I am great! I am cyberlaw! But Creative Commons is not a law firm and does not provide legal services, in fact it is a House of Sand that has never stood the test of Law. I am Cyberlaw Superman! I can’t win in courtrooms, but I will win in the Blogosphere! Free! Internet needs to be Free! Capitalism is EVIL. Record Companies are EVIL’ER still. AlwaysOn has an interview with Professor Lessig. Open Education has an interview with Professor Lessig. NYT has an interview with Professor Lessig. GQ has an interview with Professor Lessig. The Stanford Report has a write-up of Professor Lessig’s talk. Slashdot discusses Professor Lessig’s Q & A forum. Wired has an interview with Professor Lessig. Professor Lessig is mentioned in an online news article. Everyone loves me, well except for those evil Judge types. Courts and corporations are attempting to wall off portions of cyberspace. In so doing, they are destroying the Internet’s potential to foster democracy. Power to the people. Internet utopian Democracy! And Mickey Mouse is the Devil! Copyright Law and the Roasted Ham. Publish out-of-print books onto the Internet. So this is so very cool — the 7th Circuit posts mp3s of its argument. Reform copyright. Framers had the timeframe right. And Peer to Peer is the future. Reclaim the Public Domain, yes. All free. Copyrights are evil. Bad. Bad. Scalia to Marx in one easy step. Free! Everything should be Free! I am a Lawyer. I argue important cases, but I never seem to win. I lose cases. I am a washout as a lawyer (thank God for tenure) BUT I have street credits with the Slashdot crowd. When you see me on a case, its a guaranteed short-sell signal. Reclaim the Public Domain petition! Sign it please. Spam the world with my petition!!! A Bounty on Spammers, exceptions for me of course, the Law always has loopholes. I actually believe people will pay attention to some corny online petition! Also take pictures at Starbucks! Civil Disobedience Protests! And oh Microsoft is evil. Bad bad bad. They ruined Netscape. Netscape could have been a platform. Lucifer works for Microsoft. New Evils: DRM and Palladium! Petition! Petition! Petition! Yet there are many who are frustrated that this doesn’t go far enough. Many on Slashdot, for example, demand that we “hold out” for something much more radical, but small step. I once was a normal mainstream conservative, but I am now an Internet Commons Communist. I am cyberlaw! No one ELSE knows more about CYBERLAW than I do. I am everything. Wired did a profile on me! I belong to EFF! And look at all these other groups I am a part of. I am cyberlaw! Take a look at my 2.5 gigs of PowerPoint slides, they show you why I am right! My Internet vision is sharper than anyone else’s. I am not a Scientist, but Scientific American named me a Visionary! Make New (Free) Code, Not War. Free! Open Source! Money is the root of all Evil. Free! I have a degree in Economics but I still somehow believe in the Free Lunch Philosophy. Software copyrights are bad! Abuses mean there should be no laws at all! I am cyberlaw! I am cyberlaw! I am cyberlaw! REDUCE Spam Act! Except for my Petition! That is ok SPAM. The ends justifies the means! Doncha know anything about the Law? Sign my Petition and forward to your closest 8,675,309 friends! Thank You!

Jeff Jarvis

TV Guide of the Blog World! I used to be a TV critic. Now I am a BLOG evangelist! War Blog! War Blog! War Blog! War Blog! News Story Fact-Check Blogging. News Story Fact Check Blog Comment. News Story Comment. News Story Fact-Check Blogging. Buzz buzz buzz. Power to the people. I report on Entertainment...but Pop Culture is evil. I am a Media Critic, but doncha DARE criticize Blogs! News Story Comment. News Story Comment. The people are POWER. Blogs are that power! IM and blogs are killing all the old ways. Blog tech report. Blogs in the news. Ways Blogs will change society. Blogs as household babysitters. Blogs as Education. Buzz buzz buzz. Creative uses of a Blog. News Story Comment. News Story Comment. 101 Uses for a Blog. Creative Ways this Business is using a Blog. Important people who are now using Blogs. People who finally understand the importance of Blogs. People who hated Blogs that have seen the light. Blogs as Journalism. Check out this blog about how big weblogging is. Blogs as Blogs, as power. News story comment quip. Buzz buzz buzz. War story comment quip. NYT story comment quip. Republicans-Are-Evil story comment quip. But Janeane Garofalo is a nuthead comment quip. Weblogs are a clickstream of consciousness. That is both their charm and their value. Buzz buzz. An important factor in the appeal and success of weblogs is that they are badly written. Buzz buzz buzz. New Meme. There’s a trend to watch here. Not sure whether it’s good or bad yet, but it’s rolling. Buzz buzz buzz. Jayson Blair did far more than bring down the House of Howell. He had an impact on the news business that we cannot even begin to measure. News story comment quip. Buzz buzz buzz. War story comment quip. NYT story comment quip. The Sunday Times of London gives credit to bloggers for spearing Raines. But that’s wrong; the competitor in the news business isn’t other news, it’s other, more fun things to watch and do. This doesn’t apply to Blogs however. Blogging goes light (as opposed to lite) for a few hours; I’m soon to get on the train to this city for the blog confab. Damn, I do love my comments. But there are a few people who drive me batty (and I won’t name them). Creative uses of a Blog. 101 Uses for a Blog. Creative Ways this Business is using a Blog. Important people who are now using Blogs. But now let’s get back to arguing over Andrew Sullivan and his monotonous harping. Now, of course, neither of these inside-baseball brawls will matter one whit to anybody with a life -- and it won’t serve the blogosphere’s interests to dwell on them -- but they will be fun to watch. But seriously, here’s some important people who are now using Blogs and some more people who finally understand the importance of Blogs. People who hated Blogs that have now been Saved. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Some info about Blogs as Journalism. Buzz buzz buzz. News story comment quip. War story comment quip. NYT story comment quip. Republicans-Are-Evil-But-So-Are-The-Democrats story comment quip. Link to this, link to that. News Story Comment. Smarty News Story Comment. News Story Comment. News Story Comment. Sarcastic News Story Commenting. Buzzwords. Buzz.

Clay Shirky

P2P Part 2 (P2P P2). Permanent, NearFarWideCloseNet, ObjectsinMirrorAreCloserThanTheyAppearNet, Position paper here, position paper there. Buzzphrase here, Buzzphrase there. “Systems where supposed innovation vests to lose out interest of.” Not really a blogger, I am a positional papergger. Social software! A live conversation in the room, and an overlapping real-time text conversation. P2P 1337ness. Peer to Peer as Salvation. Oh but that was so, like, last year. New Memes to take its place. Take all Memes in one-big casserole soup bowl. Mix, add some spice, stir and serve. I plan Emerging Tech conferences, but you better think like me. My orthodoxy is the only way. LazyWeb. WebLazy. LazyWeb. The Fellowship of the 802.11b. I want speaking gigs! I can chat endlessly about nothing! I am a charmer! Speaking gigs! Money, money! Position papers as a ticket to fame, ego-gratification and fortune. I create nothing, I only yabber on endlessly. I am an Internet Philosopher. The FCC’s vote on media concentration, diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality. Wi-Fi and VoIP mean that the telecos significant competitors are its customers. DNA as Database. Moldy cheese as spreadsheet. Wi-Fi will save the world! Wi-Fi. Evil companies destroy power of the people! The skills required to do online media well can actually damage online community. Weblogs are so efficient that they destroy the financial value of publishing. P2P Jedi Council! Software designed for groups encodes political bargains. I wait till the Blogosphere and the Internet Community has said its piece and then I swoop in and summarize, adding all sorts of new twists. Twisting in the wind. Discuss. Discuss. Feedback loop. Discuss my stuff. Feedback. Adds value! Position paper here, position paper there. Position paper here, position paper there. Peer to Peer = Freedom. Since discovering the Internet in 1993, I am a Producer of Position Papers, a Professor of Memes, a Designer of Thoughts, an Author of Ideas, a Consumer of Pop Tarts, a Watcher of Television Media, an Observer of Things that Happen. My position paper on the approach to representation in 3D space and the super spacey-looking blue-ray gun in shoot-’em-up games. When it rains, why is it easy to buy an umbrella, but next to impossible to hail a cab? And why is it easy to buy an iPod, but next to impossible to cook a microwaveable pizza to perfection? Position paper here, position paper there. Speaking gigs! Money, money! Speaking gigs! Money, money! The Telco’s are totally clueless! They don’t know anything, well except that Microsoft’s SmartPhone is total crap, they know that at least. Position paper. Discuss. Feedback loop. Discuss my stuff. Feedback. Interoperability, interoperability. In Praise of Freeloaders! Dot-communism and Net leeches Unite! In things digital it is replicated; not consumed. But freeloading doesn’t work elsewhere, so stay outta my fridge! The rest of that Subway sandwich is mine! And hey that’s MY soda, go getcha own! Ok, who used all the shampoo? But freeloading works, in digital space at least. Speaking gigs! Money, money! Peer to peer computing, web services, wireless internet, weblogging and emergent intelligence, whooo!

Cory Doctorow

“I mean, books are printed on substrate that is so fragile that it burns when it comes into contact with oxygen. We actually use that substrate to wipe our asses with. This is not robust, archival material. This is the very definition of ephemeral, that literature is a book written on toilet paper.” - Cory Doctorow

y0 toTaL 0wnz0red. y0 LiKeZ kRaD!!1!!1! DRM is EVIL! Magic Sci-Fi Future Net-Inspired Utopia Whuffie Waffle dust. Post-death, post-work, net-in-your-head future. BounceBounce. BoingBoing. SmoingeSmoinge. eBook freebies as marketing gimmick, yes get my freeeeeee book. This person is doing a killer-job live-blogging about this blogging conference of bloggers. News-Links-of-the-Day-with-Pithy-Comments-from-the-Doctorow. News Links. Sci-Fi Industry News Links. Sci-Fi Industry Contest Links. More Sci-Fi Industry News/Contests Links. Sci-Fi Writing Contests! Contests! Contests! News links. News Links. More News Links. Misc. News Links. Still more News Links. Yet even more News Links. CNN - Cory News Network with Comments extra. Check out the guest blogger! We bagged Dvorak! Blogs have power! Guess old John C. knows old media is DOOMED. “Amazzzing Graccce, I onccce wasss blllinnnnddd butttt noooowww I seeeeeeeeee...” Whooooo! My first novel is out! I love me. I write weirdly chaotic ‘makes-no-sense’ Sci-Fi stories about a not-to-distant future, or maybe the future is now. But since it is all Sci-Fi I get away with all this random un-defragged sheer-chaos. Look at me! I write Sci-Fi. I won all these awards! I won the John W. Campbell Award! Yeah yeah yeahhhh! I am special! I like Disney! Jeff Bezos likes my book! Look at my history of Short Sci-Fi stories. Gosh, I am one heck of an accomplished writer. And yes, sometimes it is hard to distinguish between my fiction and and my non-fiction. But look at me! I write Sci-Fi. I won all these awards! Stuff the Hugo Online Awards ballots. Creative Commons licensing system, I am so great. I give back to the people. Look at me! I write Sci-Fi. Support me in other ways. Love me! Invite me to conferences! Let me be a speaker! I am also a bigtime Blogger! I embrace everything the Groupthink says. Whatever meme is the meme of the moment I am for it. Bad memes? Despite the fact that I think that these memes are foolish, they persist. Bad meme, Bad bad. Swat the Bad Memes with a Rolled-Up Newspaper. I love Emerging Tech. Want to quote me in a newspaper story or Radio/TV show? Huh? Huh? Please! Pleeeaaaase! Pretty Please? I want publicity! Novel, novel. The novel is not really digestible, per se, to someone not on a Lucid Dreaming plane. I also write things about Emerging Tech. Return of the Mind-Warp Cyberpunk Utopia Future Novel. Buy my next books, please! Remember me! Movable Type rules! I love Ben and Mena! P2P as distro method! My first novel, promotion! Whuffie Lucky Charms Cereal, with the Blue-Marshmallow Diamonds. Respect, Karma, Mad-Props! Whuffie Whuffie!

“The guy who’d figured out the pineapple-orange fruit roll-up edible routing tags had Whuffie to spare: Adrian’s mom knew someone, who also knew someone, who knew this guy, who knew the friend, who knew this neighbor down the street, who had a sister, who knew this guy that worked at the donut shop, who had a blogger friend that told her, and she said that he had an entire sub-aquatic palace, with an exotic tropical-fish aquarium and a room full of robotic Furbies, to rattle around in. A clamor of swallowing and burping noises filled his ears, as the crowd subvocalized...”

Posted by Lisa at 08:47 PM

Details About Friday 13, 2003 Protest Against the INS Special Registration Deportations

I'll be posting video from this tomorrow.

Muslim And Middle Eastern Men Targeted
By Jessie Mangaliman for the SJ Mercury News.

A number of Bay Area civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups rallied outside the federal immigration office in San Francisco on Friday to protest the pending deportation of more than 13,000 Muslim and Middle Eastern men found to be living illegally in the United States during a national security registration program.

``What the government is doing is targeting immigrants instead of targeting terrorists,'' Jayashri Srikantiah, an attorney with the Northern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said to a group of about 50 people, across the street from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, in downtown San Francisco...

In all, more than 82,000 people registered. About 16 percent, or more than 13,000, were found in violation of their visas and placed in deportation proceedings, according to a government report issued last week.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/6085669.htm

Posted on Fri, Jun. 13, 2003
Groups rally in S.F. against deportations
MUSLIM AND MIDDLE EASTERN MEN TARGETED
By Jessie Mangaliman
Mercury News

A number of Bay Area civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups rallied outside the federal immigration office in San Francisco on Friday to protest the pending deportation of more than 13,000 Muslim and Middle Eastern men found to be living illegally in the United States during a national security registration program.

``What the government is doing is targeting immigrants instead of targeting terrorists,'' Jayashri Srikantiah, an attorney with the Northern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said to a group of about 50 people, across the street from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, in downtown San Francisco.

Srikantiah and others repeated their criticism of a national anti-terrorism program that required men and boys older than 16 from 25 primarily Muslim, Arab and Middle Eastern countries to register with the government. They were required to report to local offices of the BCIS to be fingerprinted and photographed as part of a system designed to monitor the comings and goings of U.S. visitors.

In all, more than 82,000 people registered. About 16 percent, or more than 13,000, were found in violation of their visas and placed in deportation proceedings, according to a government report issued last week.

``It doesn't seem unjust to place in deportation proceedings those who are in violation of the terms of their visas,'' said Sharon Rummery, a BCIS spokeswoman in San Francisco.

Rummery said everyone who received deportation notices from the special registration program will get a chance to ``tell the immigration judge why they shouldn't be deported.''

Esam Jalboush, 34, a Jordanian-Palestinian who has been living in the United States since he was 19, was among many Bay Area residents caught in the dragnet and ordered deported. But rather than fight the deportation, Jalboush, who came on a student visa in 1988, said he will leave the country voluntarily.

Accompanied by his lawyer, Jalboush, a supermarket store manager in San Francisco, picked up his expired Jordanian passport at the BCIS office Friday afternoon. Officials had confiscated his passport when he registered in March. He was detained for 24 hours and released on a $15,000 bond.

He has agreed to leave the United States and is bound this weekend for Montreal, where he has a sister. He said he will fly into Detroit and enter Canada at Windsor, where he hopes to get political asylum.

``There is no justice here for me; that's why I've chosen to leave rather than fight,'' said Jalboush, who said he fled Jordan because he was persecuted as a Palestinian.

He had a green card application pending in March when he was placed in deportation. He had applied for a green card in 2000. An immigration official found that after his student visa expired in 1993, Jalboush was out of status -- in the United States illegally for about a year. He then married an American citizen.

``Now a decade later, the government is deporting him for that violation. How is that good for the country's national security?'' said Banafshe Akhlaghi, an immigration lawyer in San Francisco representing Jalboush and about about three dozen other people facing deportation.

Akhlaghi spoke at the protest before accompanying Jalboush to the BCIS office.

``The targeting of immigrants and Muslims has created a culture of fear and helplessness,'' said Samina Faheem, a member of the American Muslim Alliance, a national non-profit group in Fremont.

Contact Jessie Mangaliman at jmangaliman@mercurynews .com or (408) 920-5794.

Posted by Lisa at 08:15 PM

Waxman Asks Condoleeza Rice About Shrub's Use Of Forged WMD Evidence

Henry Waxman is stepping up to ask the Shrub Klan about the use of forged documents within their WMD "evidence."

Page One Of Waxman's Letter To Condoleeza Rice

Page Two Of Waxman's Letter To Condoleeza Rice

In addition to denying that senior officials were aware that the President was citing forged evidence, you also claimed (1) "there were also other sources that said that there were, the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake - uranium oxide - from Africa" and (2) "there were other attempts to get yellowcake from Africa."

This answer does not explain the President's statement in the State of the Union address. In his State of the Union address, the President referred specifically to the evidence from the British. He stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Presumably, the President would use the best available evidence in his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. It would make no sense for him to cite forged evidence obtained from the British if, in fact, the United States had other reliable evidence that he could have cited.

Moreover, contrary to your assertion, there does not appear to be any other specific and credible evidence that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. The Administration has not provided any such evidence to me or my staff despite our repeated requests. To the contrary, the State Department wrote me that the "other source" of this claim was another Western European ally. But as the State Department acknowledged in its letter, "the second Western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the U.S. that was subsequently discredited."

...On Sunday, you stated that "there is now a lot of revisionism that says, there was disagreement on this data point, or disagreement on that data point." I disagree strongly with this characterization. I am not raising questions about the validity of an isolated "data point," and the issue is not whether the war in Iraq was justified or not.

What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address? This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts.

Here is the full text of the documents at the below urls in case they ever go bad:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8069

page two below: http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8070

June 10, 2003

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Dr. Rice:

Since March 17, 2003, I have been trying without success to get a direct answer to one simple question: Why did President Bush cite forged evidence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in his State of the Union address?

Although you addressed this issue on Sunday on both Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulos, your comments did nothing to clarify this issue. In fact, your responses contradicted other known facts and raised a host of new questions.

During your interviews, you said the Bush Administration welcomes inquiries into this matter. Yesterday, The Washington Post also reported that Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet has agreed to provide "full documentation" of the intelligence information "in regards to Secretary Powell's comments, the president's comments and anybody else's comments." Consistent with these sentiments, I am writing to seek further information about this important matter.

Bush Administration Knowledge of Forgeries

The forged documents in question describe efforts by Iraq to obtain uranium from an African country, Niger. During your interviews over the weekend, you asserted that no doubts or suspicions about these efforts or the underlying documents were communicated to senior officials in the Bush Administration before the President's State of the Union address. For example, when you were asked about this issue on Meet the Press, you made the following statement:

We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken.

Similarly, when you appeared on This Week, you repeated this statement, claiming that you made multiple inquiries of the intelligence agencies regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. You stated:

George, somebody, somebody down may have known. But I will tell you that when this issue was raised with the intelligence community... the intelligence community did not know at that time, or at levels that got to us, that this, that there were serious questions about this report.

Your claims, however, are directly contradicted by other evidence. Contrary to your assertion, senior Administration officials had serious doubts about the forged evidence well before the President's State of the Union address. For example, Greg Thielmann, Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department, told Newsweek last week that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had concluded the documents were "garbage." As you surely know, INR is part of what you call "the intelligence community." It is headed by an Assistant Secretary of State, Carl Ford; it reports directly to the Secretary of State; and it was a full participant in the debate over Iraq's nuclear capabilities. According to Newsweek:

"When I saw that, it really blew me away," Thielmann told Newsweek. Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible - and made that point clear to Powell's office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents to report to the nation, he thought, "Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?"

Moreover, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has reported that the Vice President's office was aware of the fraudulent nature of the evidence as early as February 2002 - nearly a year before the President gave his State of the Union address. In his column, Mr. Kristof reported:

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.... The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted - except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

"It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

When you were asked about Mr. Kristof's account, you did not deny his reporting. Instead, you conceded that "the Vice President's office may have asked for that report."

It is also clear that CIA officials doubted the evidence. The Washington Post reported on March 22 that CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence." The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001," when "the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quoted a CIA official as saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information."

With all respect, this is not a situation like the pre-9/11 evidence that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. When you were asked about this on May 17, 2002, you said:

As you might imagine... a lot of things are prepared within agencies. They're distributed internally, they're worked internally. It's unusual that anything like that would get to the president. He doesn't recall seeing anything. I don't recall seeing anything of this kind.

That answer may be given more deference when the evidence in question is known only by a field agent in an FBI bureau in Phoenix, Arizona, whose suspicions are not adequately understood by officials in Washington. But it is simply not credible here. Contrary to your public statements, senior officials in the intelligence community in Washington knew the forged evidence was unreliable before the President used the evidence in the State of the Union address.

here is the full text of page two of the letter:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8070

Other Evidence

In addition to denying that senior officials were aware that the President was citing forged evidence, you also claimed (1) "there were also other sources that said that there were, the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake - uranium oxide - from Africa" and (2) "there were other attempts to get yellowcake from Africa."

This answer does not explain the President's statement in the State of the Union address. In his State of the Union address, the President referred specifically to the evidence from the British. He stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Presumably, the President would use the best available evidence in his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. It would make no sense for him to cite forged evidence obtained from the British if, in fact, the United States had other reliable evidence that he could have cited.

Moreover, contrary to your assertion, there does not appear to be any other specific and credible evidence that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. The Administration has not provided any such evidence to me or my staff despite our repeated requests. To the contrary, the State Department wrote me that the "other source" of this claim was another Western European ally. But as the State Department acknowledged in its letter, "the second Western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the U.S. that was subsequently discredited."

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also found no other evidence indicating that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Niger. The evidence in U.S. possession that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Niger was transmitted to the IAEA. After reviewing all the evidence provided by the United States, the IAEA reported: "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Ultimately, the IAEA concluded: "these specific allegations are unfounded."

Questions

As the discussion above indicates, your answers on the Sunday talk shows conflict with other reports and raise many new issues. To help address these issues, I request answers to the following questions:

1. On Meet the Press, you said that "maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency" that the evidence cited by the President about Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Africa was suspect. Please identify the individual or individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the Union address, had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim.

2. Please identify any individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the Union address, were briefed or otherwise made aware that an individual or individuals in the Administration had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim.

3. On This Week, you said there was other evidence besides the forged evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa. Please provide this other evidence.

4. When you were asked about reports that Vice President Cheney sent a former ambassador to Niger to investigate the evidence, you stated "the Vice President's office may have asked for that report." In light of this comment, please address:

(a) Whether Vice President Cheney or his office requested an investigation into claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from Africa, and when any such request was made;

(b) Whether a current or former U.S. ambassador to Africa, or any other current or former government official or agent, traveled to Niger or otherwise investigated claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from Niger; and

(c) What conclusions or findings, if any, were reported to the Vice President, his office, or other U.S. officials as a result of the investigation, and when any such conclusions or findings were reported.

Conclusion

On Sunday, you stated that "there is now a lot of revisionism that says, there was disagreement on this data point, or disagreement on that data point." I disagree strongly with this characterization. I am not raising questions about the validity of an isolated "data point," and the issue is not whether the war in Iraq was justified or not.

What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address? This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member

Posted by Lisa at 03:34 PM

The Nation On Bill Moyers's Controversial Speech

Bill Moyers's Presidential Address
By John Nichols for The Nation.

Recalling the populism and old-school progressivism of the era in which William Jennings Bryan stirred the Democratic National Convention of 1896 to enter into the great struggle between privilege and democracy -- and to spontaneously nominate the young Nebraskan for president -- journalist and former presidential aide Bill Moyers delivered a call to arms against "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class."

Condemning "the unholy alliance between government and wealth" and the compassionate conservative spin that tries to make "the rape of America sound like a consensual date," Moyers charged that "rightwing wrecking crews" assembled by the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies were out to bankrupt government. Then, he said, they would privatize public services in order to enrich the corporate interests that fund campaigns and provide golden parachutes to pliable politicians. If unchecked, Moyers warned, the result of these machinations will be the dismantling of "every last brick of the social contract."

"I think this is a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America," said Moyers, as he called for the progressives gathered in Washington -- and for their allies across the United States -- to organize not merely in defense of social and economic justice but in order to preserve democracy itself. Paraphrasing the words of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president rallied the nation to battle against slavery, Moyers declared, "our nation can no more survive as half democracy and half oligarchy than it could survive half slave and half free."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=739

Bill Moyers's Presidential Address
By John Nichols
The Nation

Monday 09 June 2003

Democratic presidential candidates were handed a dream audience of 1,000 "ready-for-action" labor, civil rights, peace and economic justice campaigners at the Take Back America conference organized in Washington last week by the Campaign for America's Future. And the 2004 contenders grabbed for it, delivering some of the better speeches of a campaign that remains rhetorically -- and directionally -- challenged. But it was a non-candidate who won the hearts and minds of the crowd with a "Cross of Gold" speech for the 21st century.

Recalling the populism and old-school progressivism of the era in which William Jennings Bryan stirred the Democratic National Convention of 1896 to enter into the great struggle between privilege and democracy -- and to spontaneously nominate the young Nebraskan for president -- journalist and former presidential aide Bill Moyers delivered a call to arms against "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class."

Condemning "the unholy alliance between government and wealth" and the compassionate conservative spin that tries to make "the rape of America sound like a consensual date," Moyers charged that "rightwing wrecking crews" assembled by the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies were out to bankrupt government. Then, he said, they would privatize public services in order to enrich the corporate interests that fund campaigns and provide golden parachutes to pliable politicians. If unchecked, Moyers warned, the result of these machinations will be the dismantling of "every last brick of the social contract."

"I think this is a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America," said Moyers, as he called for the progressives gathered in Washington -- and for their allies across the United States -- to organize not merely in defense of social and economic justice but in order to preserve democracy itself. Paraphrasing the words of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president rallied the nation to battle against slavery, Moyers declared, "our nation can no more survive as half democracy and half oligarchy than it could survive half slave and half free."

There was little doubt that the crowd of activists from across the country would have nominated Moyers by acclamation when he finished a remarkable address in which he challenged not just the policies of the Bush Administration but the failures of Democratic leaders in Congress to effectively challenge the president and his minions. In the face of what he described as "a radical assault" on American values by those who seek to redistribute wealth upward from the many to a wealthy few, Moyers said he could not understand why "the Democrats are afraid to be branded class warriors in a war the other side started and is winning."

Several of the Democratic presidential contenders who addressed the crowd after Moyers picked up pieces of his argument. Former US Senator Carol Moseley Braun actually quoted William Jennings Bryan, while North Carolina Senator John Edwards and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry tried -- with about as much success as Al Gore in 2000 -- to sound populist. Former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt promised not to be "Bush-lite," and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean drew warm applause when he said the way for Democrats to get elected "is not to be like Republicans, but to stand up against them and fight." Ultimately, however, only the Rev. Al Sharpton and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich came close to matching the fury and the passion of the crowd.

Kucinich, who earned nine standing ovations for his antiwar and anti-corporate free trade rhetoric, probably did more to advance his candidacy than any of the other contenders. But he never got to the place Moyers reached with a speech that legal scholar Jamie Raskin described as one of the most "amazing and spellbinding" addresses he had ever heard. Author and activist Frances Moore Lappe said she was close to tears as she thanked Moyers for providing precisely the mixture of perspective and hope that progressives need as they prepare to challenge the right in 2004.

That, Moyers explained, was the point of his address, which reflected on White House political czar Karl Rove's oft-stated admiration for Mark Hanna, the Ohio political boss who managed the campaigns and the presidency of conservative Republican William McKinley. It was McKinley who beat Bryan in 1896 and -- with Hanna's help -- fashioned a White House that served the interests of the corporate trusts.

Comparing the excesses of Hanna and Rove, and McKinley and Bush, Moyers said "the social dislocations and the meanness" of the 19th century were being renewed by a new generation of politicians who, like their predecessors, seek to strangle the spirit of the American revolution "in the hard grip of the ruling class."

To break that grip, Moyers said, progressives of today must learn from the revolutionaries and reformers of old. Recalling the progressive movement that rose up in the first years of the 20th century to preserve a "balance between wealth and commonwealth," and the successes of the New Dealers who turned progressive ideals into national policy, Moyers told the crowd to "get back in the fight." "Hear me!" he cried. "Allow yourself that conceit to believe that the flame of democracy will never go out as long as there is one candle in your hand."

While others were campaigning last week, Moyers was tending the flame of democracy. In doing so, he unwittingly made himself the candle holder-in-chief for those who seek to spark a new progressive era.

Posted by Lisa at 03:15 PM

A History Lesson and 'A Call To Arms' From Bill Moyers

New Category - Bill Moyers Archive

Bill Moyers gave a really gutsy speech at last week's Take Back America Conference sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future.

The speech provides an incredible history lesson about a time in our country's history when things were much like they are now -- when we were up against a ruling class bent upon plundering the country's budget and common resources for its own personal gain.

Moyers also does a beautiful job of clarifying that this really is a class struggle. The sooner we accept it, the sooner we can all deal with it.

Rumor has it that Moyers is under attack from Fox News and other unruly forces that are trying to get him kicked off of PBS for this speech. But I know exactly why they are trying to get Moyers off of the air: for speaking the truth about the Shrub Administration. He's speaking the truth very calmly and clearly, as is always his style -- and with pictures. He's been blowing my mind on "Bill Moyers NOW" these last few months and I've been loving every minute of it.

But now he's under attack by the disinformation news posse for speaking the truth about this administration and trying to get that truth out to you. Well, I'm going to help him out by posting some of what I feel must have been his most controversial stories over these last few months.

For now, please take the time to read this transcript of his speech.

We can all learn a lot from history. I think I've learned more about American History in the last two years than in the entire 20 years beforehand. Turns out that history actually gets more interesting, the more you know -- and especially when you read an account of the same event from numerous different perspectives. Even perspectives you don't agree with. The more the merrier! (There will be certain facts that all sides agree on -- and you can start the model in your mind of "what really happened" from there.)

In the case of our present situation, Bill teaches us that this isn't the first time our democracy has been in serious danger from those that wish to exploit it for personal gain.

Moyers draws a distinct parallel between the Shrub's right hand man, Karl Rove, and (alleged Corporate Whore) President William McKinley's right hand man, Mark Hanna. Apparently Karl Rove cites Hanna as one of his greatest influences. Rove has been successful at implementing the same corrupt policies and disinformation campaigns from 100 years ago to the modern day with the helpful addition of a new rhetoric of fear instilled by the popular media.

We can learn from Rove by learning from the other half of this history tale. According to Moyers, the reaction to McKinley and his policies was that, eventually, people joined together spread the truth to the masses and put pressure on our representatives to stand up for what's right. They beat the bad guys in the long run and made standing up for the little guy a matter of public policy. It's why we have things like minimum wage and child labor laws and the like these days. People like us had to fight tooth and nail for those. Corporations didn't implement those policies on their own; They had to be forced to do so.

Time to make history repeat itself guys!

This is what's hard to believe – hardly a century had passed since 1776 before the still-young revolution was being strangled in the hard grip of a merciless ruling class. The large corporations that were called into being by modern industrialism after 1865 – the end of the Civil War – had combined into trusts capable of making minions of both politics and government. What Henry George called "an immense wedge" was being forced through American society by "the maldistribution of wealth, status, and opportunity."
We should pause here to consider that this is Karl Rove's cherished period of American history; it was, as I read him, the seminal influence on the man who is said to be George W.'s brain. From his own public comments and my reading of the record, it is apparent that Karl Rove has modeled the Bush presidency on that of William McKinley, who was in the White House from 1897 to 1901, and modeled himself on Mark Hanna, the man who virtually manufactured McKinley. Hanna had one consummate passion – to serve corporate and imperial power. It was said that he believed "without compunction, that the state of Ohio existed for property. It had no other function...Great wealth was to be gained through monopoly, through using the State for private ends; it was axiomatic therefore that businessmen should run the government and run it for personal profit."

Mark Hanna – Karl Rove's hero – made William McKinley governor of Ohio by shaking down the corporate interests of the day. Fortunately, McKinley had the invaluable gift of emitting sonorous platitudes as though they were recently discovered truth. Behind his benign gaze the wily intrigues of Mark Hanna saw to it that first Ohio and then Washington were "ruled by business...by bankers, railroads and public utility corporations." Any who opposed the oligarchy were smeared as disturbers of the peace, socialists, anarchists, "or worse." Back then they didn't bother with hollow euphemisms like "compassionate conservatism" to disguise the raw reactionary politics that produced government "of, by, and for" the ruling corporate class. They just saw the loot and went for it...

It is the most radical assault on the notion of one nation, indivisible, that has occurred in our lifetime. I'll be frank with you: I simply don't understand it – or the malice in which it is steeped. Many people are nostalgic for a golden age. These people seem to long for the Gilded Age. That I can grasp. They measure America only by their place on the material spectrum and they bask in the company of the new corporate aristocracy, as privileged a class as we have seen since the plantation owners of antebellum America and the court of Louis IV. What I can't explain is the rage of the counter-revolutionaries to dismantle every last brick of the social contract. At this advanced age I simply have to accept the fact that the tension between haves and have-nots is built into human psychology and society itself – it's ever with us. However, I'm just as puzzled as to why, with right wing wrecking crews blasting away at social benefits once considered invulnerable, Democrats are fearful of being branded "class warriors" in a war the other side started and is determined to win. I don't get why conceding your opponent's premises and fighting on his turf isn't the sure-fire prescription for irrelevance and ultimately obsolescence. But I confess as well that I don't know how to resolve the social issues that have driven wedges into your ranks. And I don't know how to reconfigure democratic politics to fit into an age of soundbites and polling dominated by a media oligarchy whose corporate journalists are neutered and whose right-wing publicists have no shame.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061203A.shtml

Print This Story E-mail This Story

This is Your Story - The Progressive Story of America. Pass It On.

By Bill Moyers
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Wednesday 04 June 2003

Text of speech to the Take Back America conference sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future.

Thank you for this award and for this occasion. I don't deserve either, but as George Burns said, I have arthritis and I don't deserve that, either.

Tomorrow is my 69th birthday and I cannot imagine a better present than this award or a better party than your company.

Fifty three years ago tomorrow, on my 16th birthday, I went to work for the daily newspaper in the small East Texas town where I grew up. It was a good place to be a cub reporter – small enough to navigate but big enough to keep me busy and learning something every day. I soon had a stroke of luck. Some of the old timers were on vacation or out sick and I got assigned to cover what came to be known as the Housewives' Rebellion. Fifteen women in my home town decided not to pay the social security withholding tax for their domestic workers. They argued that social security was unconstitutional, that imposing it was taxation without representation, and that here's my favorite part – "requiring us to collect (the tax) is no different from requiring us to collect the garbage." They hired themselves a lawyer – none other than Martin Dies, the former congressman best known, or worst known, for his work as head of the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the 30s and 40s. He was no more effective at defending rebellious women than he had been protecting against communist subversives, and eventually the women wound up holding their noses and paying the tax.

The stories I wrote for my local paper were picked up and moved on the Associated Press wire. One day, the managing editor called me over and pointed to the AP ticker beside his desk. Moving across the wire was a notice citing one Bill Moyers and the paper for the reporting we had done on the "Rebellion."

That hooked me, and in one way or another – after a detour through seminary and then into politics and government for a spell – I've been covering the class war ever since. Those women in Marshall, Texas were its advance guard. They were not bad people. They were regulars at church, their children were my friends, many of them were active in community affairs, their husbands were pillars of the business and professional class in town. They were respectable and upstanding citizens all. So it took me awhile to figure out what had brought on that spasm of reactionary rebellion. It came to me one day, much later. They simply couldn't see beyond their own prerogatives. Fiercely loyal to their families, to their clubs, charities and congregations – fiercely loyal, in other words, to their own kind – they narrowly defined membership in democracy to include only people like them. The women who washed and ironed their laundry, wiped their children's bottoms, made their husband's beds, and cooked their family meals – these women, too, would grow old and frail, sick and decrepit, lose their husbands and face the ravages of time alone, with nothing to show from their years of labor but the crease in their brow and the knots on their knuckles; so be it; even on the distaff side of laissez faire, security was personal, not social, and what injustice existed this side of heaven would no doubt be redeemed beyond the Pearly Gates. God would surely be just to the poor once they got past Judgment Day.

In one way or another, this is the oldest story in America: the struggle to determine whether "we, the people" is a spiritual idea embedded in a political reality – one nation, indivisible – or merely a charade masquerading as piety and manipulated by the powerful and privileged to sustain their own way of life at the expense of others.

Let me make it clear that I don't harbor any idealized notion of politics and democracy; I worked for Lyndon Johnson, remember? Nor do I romanticize "the people." You should read my mail – or listen to the vitriol virtually spat at my answering machine. I understand what the politician meant who said of the Texas House of Representatives, "If you think these guys are bad, you should see their constituents."

But there is nothing idealized or romantic about the difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud. That difference can be the difference between democracy and oligarchy.

Look at our history. All of us know that the American Revolution ushered in what one historian called "The Age of Democratic Revolutions." For the Great Seal of the United States the new Congress went all the way back to the Roman poet Virgil: Novus Ordo Seclorum" – "a new age now begins." Page Smith reminds us that "their ambition was not merely to free themselves from dependence and subordination to the Crown but to inspire people everywhere to create agencies of government and forms of common social life that would offer greater dignity and hope to the exploited and suppressed" – to those, in other words, who had been the losers. Not surprisingly, the winners often resisted. In the early years of constitution-making in the states and emerging nation, aristocrats wanted a government of propertied "gentlemen" to keep the scales tilted in their favor. Battling on the other side were moderates and even those radicals harboring the extraordinary idea of letting all white males have the vote. Luckily, the weapons were words and ideas, not bullets. Through compromise and conciliation the draftsmen achieved a Constitution of checks and balances that is now the oldest in the world, even as the revolution of democracy that inspired it remains a tempestuous adolescent whose destiny is still up for grabs. For all the rhetoric about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it took a civil war to free the slaves and another hundred years to invest their freedom with meaning. Women only gained the right to vote in my mother's time. New ages don't arrive overnight, or without "blood, sweat, and tears."

You know this. You are the heirs of one of the country's great traditions – the progressive movement that started late in the l9th century and remade the American experience piece by piece until it peaked in the last third of the 20th century. I call it the progressive movement for lack of a more precise term. Its aim was to keep blood pumping through the veins of democracy when others were ready to call in the mortician. Progressives exalted and extended the original American revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history, not only here but in aspiring democracies everywhere, especially those of western Europe.

Step back with me to the curtain-raiser, the founding convention of the People's Party – better known as the Populists – in 1892. The members were mainly cotton and wheat farmers from the recently reconstructed South and the newly settled Great Plains, and they had come on hard, hard times, driven to the wall by falling prices for their crops on one hand and racking interest rates, freight charges and supply costs on the other. This in the midst of a booming and growing industrial America. They were angry, and their platform – issued deliberately on the 4th of July – pulled no punches. "We meet," it said, "in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political and material ruin....Corruption dominates the ballot box, the [state] legislatures and the Congress and touches even the bench.....The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced....The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few."

Furious words from rural men and women who were traditionally conservative and whose memories of taming the frontier were fresh and personal. But in their fury they invoked an American tradition as powerful as frontier individualism – the war on inequality and especially on the role that government played in promoting and preserving inequality by favoring the rich. The Founding Fathers turned their backs on the idea of property qualifications for holding office under the Constitution because they wanted no part of a 'veneration for wealth" in the document. Thomas Jefferson, while claiming no interest in politics, built up a Republican Party – no relation to the present one – to take the government back from the speculators and "stock-jobbers," as he called them, who were in the saddle in 1800. Andrew Jackson slew the monster Second Bank of the United States, the 600-pound gorilla of the credit system in the 1830s, in the name of the people versus the aristocrats who sat on the bank's governing board.

All these leaders were on record in favor of small government – but their opposition wasn't simply to government as such. It was to government's power to confer privilege on insiders; on the rich who were democracy's equivalent of the royal favorites of monarchist days. (It's what the FCC does today.) The Populists knew it was the government that granted millions of acres of public land to the railroad builders. It was the government that gave the manufacturers of farm machinery a monopoly of the domestic market by a protective tariff that was no longer necessary to shelter "infant industries." It was the government that contracted the national currency and sparked a deflationary cycle that crushed debtors and fattened the wallets of creditors. And those who made the great fortunes used them to buy the legislative and judicial favors that kept them on top. So the Populists recognized one great principle: the job of preserving equality of opportunity and democracy demanded the end of any unholy alliance between government and wealth. It was, to quote that platform again, "from the same womb of governmental injustice" that tramps and millionaires were bred.

But how? How was the democratic revolution to be revived? The promise of the Declaration reclaimed? How were Americans to restore government to its job of promoting the general welfare? And here, the Populists made a breakthrough to another principle. In a modern, large-scale, industrial and nationalized economy it wasn't enough simply to curb the government's outreach. That would simply leave power in the hands of the great corporations whose existence was inseparable from growth and progress. The answer was to turn government into an active player in the economy at the very least enforcing fair play, and when necessary being the friend, the helper and the agent of the people at large in the contest against entrenched power. So the Populist platform called for government loans to farmers about to lose their mortgaged homesteads – for government granaries to grade and store their crops fairly – for governmental inflation of the currency, which was a classical plea of debtors – and for some decidedly non-classical actions like government ownership of the railroad, telephone and telegraph systems and a graduated – i.e., progressive tax on incomes and a flat ban on subsidies to "any private corporation." And to make sure the government stayed on the side of the people, the 'Pops' called for the initiative and referendum and the direct election of Senators.

Predictably, the Populists were denounced, feared and mocked as fanatical hayseeds ignorantly playing with socialist fire. They got twenty-two electoral votes for their candidate in '92, plus some Congressional seats and state houses, but it was downhill from there for many reasons. America wasn't – and probably still isn't – ready for a new major party. The People's Party was a spent rocket by 1904. But if political organizations perish, their key ideas don't - keep that in mind, because it give prospective to your cause today. Much of the Populist agenda would become law within a few years of the party's extinction. And that was because it was generally shared by a rising generation of young Republicans and Democrats who, justly or not, were seen as less outrageously outdated than the embattled farmers. These were the progressives, your intellectual forebears and mine.

One of my heroes in all of this is William Allen White, a Kansas country editor – a Republican – who was one of them. He described his fellow progressives this way:

"What the people felt about the vast injustice that had come with the settlement of a continent, we, their servants – teachers, city councilors, legislators, governors, publishers, editors, writers, representatives in Congress and Senators – all made a part of our creed. Some way, into the hearts of the dominant middle class of this country, had come a sense that their civilization needed recasting, that their government had fallen into the hands of self-seekers, that a new relationship should be established between the haves and the have-nots."

They were a diverse lot, held together by a common admiration of progress – hence the name – and a shared dismay at the paradox of poverty stubbornly persisting in the midst of progress like an unwanted guest at a wedding. Of course they welcomed, just as we do, the new marvels in the gift-bag of technology – the telephones, the autos, the electrically-powered urban transport and lighting systems, the indoor heating and plumbing, the processed foods and home appliances and machine-made clothing that reduced the sweat and drudgery of home-making and were affordable to an ever-swelling number of people. But they saw the underside, too – the slums lurking in the shadows of the glittering cities, the exploited and unprotected workers whose low-paid labor filled the horn of plenty for others, the misery of those whom age, sickness, accident or hard times condemned to servitude and poverty with no hope of comfort or security.

This is what's hard to believe – hardly a century had passed since 1776 before the still-young revolution was being strangled in the hard grip of a merciless ruling class. The large corporations that were called into being by modern industrialism after 1865 – the end of the Civil War – had combined into trusts capable of making minions of both politics and government. What Henry George called "an immense wedge" was being forced through American society by "the maldistribution of wealth, status, and opportunity."

We should pause here to consider that this is Karl Rove's cherished period of American history; it was, as I read him, the seminal influence on the man who is said to be George W.'s brain. From his own public comments and my reading of the record, it is apparent that Karl Rove has modeled the Bush presidency on that of William McKinley, who was in the White House from 1897 to 1901, and modeled himself on Mark Hanna, the man who virtually manufactured McKinley. Hanna had one consummate passion – to serve corporate and imperial power. It was said that he believed "without compunction, that the state of Ohio existed for property. It had no other function...Great wealth was to be gained through monopoly, through using the State for private ends; it was axiomatic therefore that businessmen should run the government and run it for personal profit."

Mark Hanna – Karl Rove's hero – made William McKinley governor of Ohio by shaking down the corporate interests of the day. Fortunately, McKinley had the invaluable gift of emitting sonorous platitudes as though they were recently discovered truth. Behind his benign gaze the wily intrigues of Mark Hanna saw to it that first Ohio and then Washington were "ruled by business...by bankers, railroads and public utility corporations." Any who opposed the oligarchy were smeared as disturbers of the peace, socialists, anarchists, "or worse." Back then they didn't bother with hollow euphemisms like "compassionate conservatism" to disguise the raw reactionary politics that produced government "of, by, and for" the ruling corporate class. They just saw the loot and went for it.

The historian Clinton Rossiter describes this as the period of "the great train robbery of American intellectual history." Conservatives – or better, pro-corporate apologists – hijacked the vocabulary of Jeffersonian liberalism and turned words like "progress", "opportunity", and "individualism" into tools for making the plunder of America sound like divine right. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was hijacked, too, so that conservative politicians, judges, and publicists promoted, as if it were, the natural order of things, the notion that progress resulted from the elimination of the weak and the "survival of the fittest."

This "degenerate and unlovely age," as one historian calls it, exists in the mind of Karl Rove – the reputed brain of George W. Bush – as the seminal age of inspiration for the politics and governance of America today.

No wonder that what troubled our progressive forebears was not only the miasma of poverty in their nostrils, but the sour stink of a political system for sale. The United States Senate was a "millionaire's club." Money given to the political machines that controlled nominations could buy controlling influence in city halls, state houses and even courtrooms. Reforms and improvements ran into the immovable resistance of the almighty dollar. What, progressives wondered, would this do to the principles of popular government? Because all of them, whatever party they subscribed to, were inspired by the gospel of democracy. Inevitably, this swept them into the currents of politics, whether as active officeholders or persistent advocates.

Here's a small, but representative sampling of their ranks. Jane Addams forsook the comforts of a middle-class college graduate's life to live in Hull House in the midst of a disease-ridden and crowded Chicago immigrant neighborhood, determined to make it an educational and social center that would bring pride, health and beauty into the lives of her poor neighbors. She was inspired by "an almost passionate devotion to the ideals of democracy," to combating the prevailing notion "that the well being of a privileged few might justly be built upon the ignorance and sacrifice of the many." Community and fellowship were the lessons she drew from her teachers, Jesus and Abraham Lincoln. But people simply helping one another couldn't move mountains of disadvantage. She came to see that "private beneficence" wasn't enough. But to bring justice to the poor would take more than soup kitchens and fundraising prayer meetings. "Social arrangements," she wrote, "can be transformed through man's conscious and deliberate effort." Take note – not individual regeneration or the magic of the market, but conscious, cooperative effort.

Meet a couple of muckraking journalists. Jacob Riis lugged his heavy camera up and down the staircases of New York's disease-ridden, firetrap tenements to photograph the unspeakable crowding, the inadequate toilets, the starved and hollow-eyed children and the filth on the walls so thick that his crude flash equipment sometimes set it afire. Bound between hard covers, with Riis's commentary, they showed comfortable New Yorkers "How the Other Half Lives." They were powerful ammunition for reformers who eventually brought an end to tenement housing by state legislation. And Lincoln Steffens, college and graduate-school educated, left his books to learn life from the bottom up as a police-beat reporter on New York's streets. Then, as a magazine writer, he exposed the links between city bosses and businessmen that made it possible for builders and factory owners to ignore safety codes and get away with it. But the villain was neither the boodler nor the businessman. It was the indifference of a public that "deplore[d] our politics and laud[ed] our business; that transformed law, medicine, literature and religion into simply business. Steffens was out to slay the dragon of exalting "the commercial spirit" over the goals of patriotism and national prosperity. "I am not a scientist," he said. "I am a journalist. I did not gather the facts and arrange them patiently for permanent preservation and laboratory analysis....My purpose was. ...to see if the shameful facts, spread out in all their shame, would not burn through our civic shamelessness and set fire to American pride."

If corrupt politics bred diseases that could be fatal to democracy, then good politics was the antidote. That was the discovery of Ray Stannard Baker, another journalistic progressive who started out with a detest for election-time catchwords and slogans. But he came to see that "Politics could not be abolished or even adjourned...it was in its essence the method by which communities worked out their common problems. It was one of the principle arts of living peacefully in a crowded world," he said [Compare that to Grover Norquist's latest declaration of war on the body politic. "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." He went on to say that bi-partisanship is another name for date rape."]

There are more, too many more to call to the witness stand here, but I want you to hear some of the things they had to say. There were educators like the economist John R. Commons or the sociologist Edward A. Ross who believed that the function of "social science" wasn't simply to dissect society for non-judgmental analysis and academic promotion, but to help in finding solutions to social problems. It was Ross who pointed out that morality in a modern world had a social dimension. In "Sin and Society," written in 1907, he told readers that the sins "blackening the face of our time" were of a new variety, and not yet recognized as such. "The man who picks pockets with a railway rebate, murders with an adulterant instead of a bludgeon, burglarizes with a 'rake-off' instead of a jimmy, cheats with a company instead of a deck of cards, or scuttles his town instead of his ship, does not feel on his brow the brand of a malefactor." In other words upstanding individuals could plot corporate crimes and sleep the sleep of the just without the sting of social stigma or the pangs of conscience. Like Kenneth Lay, they could even be invited into the White House to write their own regulations.

And here are just two final bits of testimony from actual politicians – first, Brand Whitlock, Mayor of Toledo. He is one of my heroes because he first learned his politics as a beat reporter in Chicago, confirming my own experience that there's nothing better than journalism to turn life into a continuing course in adult education. One of his lessons was that "the alliance between the lobbyists and the lawyers of the great corporation interests on the one hand, and the managers of both the great political parties on the other, was a fact, the worst feature of which was that no one seemed to care."

And then there is Tom Johnson, the progressive mayor of Cleveland in the early nineteen hundreds – a businessman converted to social activism. His major battles were to impose regulation, or even municipal takeover, on the private companies that were meant to provide affordable public transportation and utilities but in fact crushed competitors, overcharged customers, secured franchises and licenses for a song, and paid virtually nothing in taxes – all through their pocketbook control of lawmakers and judges. Johnson's argument for public ownership was simple: "If you don't own them, they will own you. It's why advocates of Clean Elections today argue that if anybody's going to buy Congress, it should be the people." When advised that businessmen got their way in Washington because they had lobbies and consumers had none, Tom Johnson responded: "If Congress were true to the principles of democracy it would be the people's lobby." What a radical contrast to the House of Representatives today!

Our political, moral, and intellectual forbearance occupy a long and honorable roster. They include wonderful characters like Dr. Alice Hamilton, a pioneer in industrially-caused diseases, who spent long years clambering up and down ladders in factories and mineshafts – in long skirts! – tracking down the unsafe toxic substances that sickened the workers whom she would track right into their sickbeds to get leads and tip-offs on where to hunt. Or Harvey Wiley, the chemist from Indiana who, from a bureaucrat's desk in the Department of Agriculture, relentlessly warred on foods laden with risky preservatives and adulterants with the help of his "poison squad" of young assistants who volunteered as guinea pigs. Or lawyers like the brilliant Harvard graduate Louis Brandeis, who took on corporate attorneys defending child labor or long and harsh conditions for female workers. Brandeis argued that the state had a duty to protect the health of working women and children.

To be sure, these progressives weren't all saints. Their glory years coincided with the heyday of lynching and segregation, of empire and the Big Stick and the bold theft of the Panama Canal, of immigration restriction and ethnic stereotypes. Some were themselves businessmen only hoping to control an unruly marketplace by regulation. But by and large they were conservative reformers. They aimed to preserve the existing balance between wealth and commonwealth. Their common enemy was unchecked privilege, their common hope was a better democracy, and their common weapon was informed public opinion.

In a few short years the progressive spirit made possible the election not only of reform mayors and governors but of national figures like Senator George Norris of Nebraska, Senator Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin, and even that hard-to-classify political genius, Theodore Roosevelt. All three of them Republicans. Here is the simplest laundry-list of what was accomplished at state and Federal levels: Publicly regulated or owned transportation, sanitation and utilities systems. The partial restoration of competition in the marketplace through improved antitrust laws. Increased fairness in taxation. Expansion of the public education and juvenile justice systems. Safer workplaces and guarantees of compensation to workers injured on the job. Oversight of the purity of water, medicines and foods. Conservation of the national wilderness heritage against overdevelopment, and honest bidding on any public mining, lumbering and ranching. We take these for granted today – or we did until recently. All were provided not by the automatic workings of free enterprise but by implementing the idea in the Declaration of Independence that the people had a right to governments that best promoted their "safety and happiness."

The mighty progressive wave peaked in 1912. But the ideas leashed by it forged the politics of the 20th century. Like his cousin Theodore, Franklin Roosevelt argued that the real enemy of enlightened capitalism was "the malefactors of great wealth" – the "economic royalists" – from whom capitalism would have to be saved by reform and regulation. Progressive government became an embedded tradition of Democrats – the heart of FDR's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal, and honored even by Dwight D. Eisenhower, who didn't want to tear down the house progressive ideas had built – only to put it under different managers. The progressive impulse had its final fling in the landslide of 1969 when LBJ, who was a son of the West Texas hill country, where the Populist rebellion had been nurtured in the 1890s, won the public endorsement for what he meant to be the capstone in the arch of the New Deal.

I had a modest role in that era. I shared in its exhilaration and its failures. We went too far too fast, overreached at home and in Vietnam, failed to examine some assumptions, and misjudged the rising discontents and fierce backlash engendered by war, race, civil disturbance, violence and crime. Democrats grew so proprietary in this town that a fat, complacent political establishment couldn't recognize its own intellectual bankruptcy or the beltway that was growing around it and beginning to separate it from the rest of the country. The failure of democratic politicians and public thinkers to respond to popular discontents – to the daily lives of workers, consumers, parents, and ordinary taxpayers – allowed a resurgent conservatism to convert public concern and hostility into a crusade to resurrect social Darwinism as a moral philosophy, multinational corporations as a governing class, and the theology of markets as a transcendental belief system.

As a citizen I don't like the consequences of this crusade, but you have to respect the conservatives for their successful strategy in gaining control of the national agenda. Their stated and open aim is to change how America is governed - to strip from government all its functions except those that reward their rich and privileged benefactors. They are quite candid about it, even acknowledging their mean spirit in accomplishing it. Their leading strategist in Washington - the same Grover Norquist – has famously said he wants to shrink the government down to the size that it could be drowned in a bathtub. More recently, in commenting on the fiscal crisis in the states and its affect on schools and poor people, Norquist said, "I hope one of them" – one of the states – "goes bankrupt." So much for compassionate conservatism. But at least Norquist says what he means and means what he says. The White House pursues the same homicidal dream without saying so. Instead of shrinking down the government, they're filling the bathtub with so much debt that it floods the house, water-logs the economy, and washes away services for decades that have lifted millions of Americans out of destitution and into the middle-class. And what happens once the public's property has been flooded? Privatize it. Sell it at a discounted rate to the corporations.

It is the most radical assault on the notion of one nation, indivisible, that has occurred in our lifetime. I'll be frank with you: I simply don't understand it – or the malice in which it is steeped. Many people are nostalgic for a golden age. These people seem to long for the Gilded Age. That I can grasp. They measure America only by their place on the material spectrum and they bask in the company of the new corporate aristocracy, as privileged a class as we have seen since the plantation owners of antebellum America and the court of Louis IV. What I can't explain is the rage of the counter-revolutionaries to dismantle every last brick of the social contract. At this advanced age I simply have to accept the fact that the tension between haves and have-nots is built into human psychology and society itself – it's ever with us. However, I'm just as puzzled as to why, with right wing wrecking crews blasting away at social benefits once considered invulnerable, Democrats are fearful of being branded "class warriors" in a war the other side started and is determined to win. I don't get why conceding your opponent's premises and fighting on his turf isn't the sure-fire prescription for irrelevance and ultimately obsolescence. But I confess as well that I don't know how to resolve the social issues that have driven wedges into your ranks. And I don't know how to reconfigure democratic politics to fit into an age of soundbites and polling dominated by a media oligarchy whose corporate journalists are neutered and whose right-wing publicists have no shame.

What I do know is this: While the social dislocations and meanness that galvanized progressives in the 19th century are resurgent so is the vision of justice, fairness, and equality. That's a powerful combination if only there are people around to fight for it. The battle to renew democracy has enormous resources to call upon - and great precedents for inspiration. Consider the experience of James Bryce, who published "The Great Commonwealth" back in 1895 at the height of the First Gilded Age. Americans, Bryce said, "were hopeful and philanthropic." He saw first-hand the ills of that "dark and unlovely age," but he went on to say: " A hundred times I have been disheartened by the facts I was stating: a hundred times has the recollection of the abounding strength and vitality of the nation chased away those tremors."

What will it take to get back in the fight? Understanding the real interests and deep opinions of the American people is the first thing. And what are those? That a Social Security card is not a private portfolio statement but a membership ticket in a society where we all contribute to a common treasury so that none need face the indignities of poverty in old age without that help. That tax evasion is not a form of conserving investment capital but a brazen abandonment of responsibility to the country. That income inequality is not a sign of freedom-of-opportunity at work, because if it persists and grows, then unless you believe that some people are naturally born to ride and some to wear saddles, it's a sign that opportunity is less than equal. That self-interest is a great motivator for production and progress, but is amoral unless contained within the framework of community. That the rich have the right to buy more cars than anyone else, more homes, vacations, gadgets and gizmos, but they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else. That public services, when privatized, serve only those who can afford them and weaken the sense that we all rise and fall together as "one nation, indivisible." That concentration in the production of goods may sometimes be useful and efficient, but monopoly over the dissemination of ideas is evil. That prosperity requires good wages and benefits for workers. And that our nation can no more survive as half democracy and half oligarchy than it could survive "half slave and half free" – and that keeping it from becoming all oligarchy is steady work – our work.

Ideas have power – as long as they are not frozen in doctrine. But ideas need legs. The eight-hour day, the minimum wage, the conservation of natural resources and the protection of our air, water, and land, women's rights and civil rights, free trade unions, Social Security and a civil service based on merit – all these were launched as citizen's movements and won the endorsement of the political class only after long struggles and in the face of bitter opposition and sneering attacks. It's just a fact: Democracy doesn't work without citizen activism and participation, starting at the community. Trickle down politics doesn't work much better than trickle down economics. It's also a fact that civilization happens because we don't leave things to other people. What's right and good doesn't come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it – as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit - to believe that the flame of democracy will never go out as long as there's one candle in your hand.

So go for it. Never mind the odds. Remember what the progressives faced. Karl Rove isn't tougher than Mark Hanna was in his time and a hundred years from now some historian will be wondering how it was that Norquist and Company got away with it as long as they did – how they waged war almost unopposed on the infrastructure of social justice, on the arrangements that make life fair, on the mutual rights and responsibilities that offer opportunity, civil liberties, and a decent standard of living to the least among us.

"Democracy is not a lie" – I first learned that from Henry Demarest Lloyd, the progressive journalist whose book, "Wealth against Commonwealth," laid open the Standard trust a century ago. Lloyd came to the conclusion to "Regenerate the individual is a half truth. The reorganization of the society which he makes and which makes him is the other part. The love of liberty became liberty in America by clothing itself in the complicated group of strengths known as the government of the United States." And it was then he said: "Democracy is not a lie. There live in the body of the commonality unexhausted virtue and the ever-refreshed strength which can rise equal to any problems of progress. In the hope of tapping some reserve of their power of self-help," he said, "this story is told to the people."

This is your story – the progressive story of America.

Pass it on.

Posted by Lisa at 02:16 PM

Jon Stewart: The Flag Is The Only Thing You Can't Burn In The U.S.A.

Here's a thoughtful piece by Jon Stewart that he wrote up when he realized that if you combine the Shrub's new policy of continuing to relax the last 30 years of EPA regulations with last week's (undoubtedly unconstitutional) Amendment that was passed in one of the Houses banning burning the flag as a form of political speech, it would appear that the flag is the only thing you aren't allowed to burn in the U.S.

Flag burning: A Jon Stewart Perspective (Small - 7 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Posted by Lisa at 01:46 PM

Repubs Stop Low Income Families From Receiving New Child Tax Credit

Repubs Stop Low Income Families From Receiving New Child Tax Credit (Small - 3 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Posted by Lisa at 01:45 PM

So Much For The Roadmap For Peace In The Middle East

Roadmap For Peace - RIP (Small - 4 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Posted by Lisa at 01:11 PM

U.S. Brings Monarchy Back To Iraq?

U.S. Brings Monarchy Back To Iraq? (Small - 7 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Posted by Lisa at 01:02 PM

More Apologies For The Barrage Brief Posts That You Are About To Witness

Hi guys. I had to make a decision with regard to what I could actually get done this weekend and what clips were important for people to see. It turns out they're all pretty important, so I'm going to give you guys "Small" versions of all of them, and see if I get around to posting pictures and Hi-res versions later.

I didn't want to risk not getting them all up today (there are like 8 of them)...So that's why there's a lot of links and not much explaining going on today (kinda like Friday night).

It's subtle, but I believe there is a lot of important information in these clips, and I wanted to post them on a Sunday, when you guys might actually have a chance to look at all of them.

I would appreciate it if you guys would post news articles regarding these stories to my comments if you run across any. (Well, in general, I really like that, but especially regarding any of these stories.)

Thanks!

Posted by Lisa at 01:01 PM

Free Patti Smith Concert Today In Berkeley

I don't have a link for it, but I do know that Patti Smith is giving a free concert today (like an entire set, w/opening bands and everything concert type concert) from 1-4pm in the middle of Berkeley at McLaren Park. Patti wanted to thank everyone for their hard work these last few months.

That's my local stomping ground, so I thought I'd provide some directions.

Directions:

BART: Just get off at the Berkeley Bart station and walk two blocks AWAY from campus. Ask someone if you don't see it immediately :-)

Driving - Don't. No really. You're whole day will be easier if you don't. At the very least, park at another bart station (like Coliseum Bart - where there's lots of parking always) and take Bart in. (Coliseum Bart is off the 66th St. or Hegenburger exits off of 880 south).

No really: the trick if you're going to drive in (if you're coming from far away and you can't help it) is to get there at least an hour or two before the show with at least 10 bucks for parking money. Parking is pricey in Berkeley.

Get on 80 North to Berkeley/Sacramento or South to Berkeley/Oakland/San Francisco. Depending on which direction you're coming from here are directions:

If you're coming from the south on 80, or from San Francisco, I would take 580 to 24 to the 51st/Martin Luther King exit, and then stay to the left to get on MLK. Take MLK all the way past Ashby street and park if you can. Otherwise look for parking lots that might be around.

If you end up on 80 north (easier to figure out), get off at "Ashby" and continue along Ashby until you have crossed Sacramento Street. Then start looking for parking and take it if you see any. Otherwise, when you get to Martin Luther King Jr. Way, make a left and pay for the pricey parking lots that will start showing up that I mention above. My guess is that MLK will be blocked off at some point.

If you cross MLK (on Ashby) make sure you turn left on the next intersection (Shattuck). After you take a left there, if you see parking, take it. (Shattuck and MLK run parallel.) If you cross "Haste" street, you'll want to park or turn off of Shattuck immediately because my guess is that driving right next to the Bart station (from Durant north) will be messy.

From the north take the University exit off of 80, and continue on University for many blocks. After you've passed Sacramento Street, if you see parking, take it. Otherwise, make a right on Martin Luther King Jr. Way and look for the pricey parking.

Hope this helps.

Sorry I can't be there today. I'm taking to day to catch up on my iLaw homework. (It's labor of love, believe me -- I am really digging the program!)

If you came from out of town to go to the concert, you should hang around in Berkeley for the evening and head up to the spam cybersalon for dinner afterwards. (See you there!)

Posted by Lisa at 08:56 AM

June 13, 2003

Lawrence Lessig Talks About Brewster And The Internet Archive

This is just a little clip I excerpted from Lessig's complete SXSW 2003 presentation:

Lessig On The Internet Archive (Small - 5 MB)

Lessig On The Internet Archive (Hi-res - 60 MB)

Audio - Lessig On The Internet Archive (MP3 - 4 MB)

This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)

Posted by Lisa at 10:15 PM

Daily Show: Parliament Places Tony Blair On The Defensive Over Missing WMDs

This is the also from June 9, 2003 and followed the other two clips I posted earlier from that date (Democrat Montage) (Flooding The Zone).

Tony Blair Defends Himself (Small - 5 MB)
Tony Blair Defends Himself (Hi-Res - 63 MB)

The Daily Show (the best news on television).

Posted by Lisa at 07:15 PM

Davey D Song Added To My Anti-war/Peace Song Archive

Just added Davey D's new song Down w/U.S. to my peace song archive.

Posted by Lisa at 07:06 PM

Pardon My Haste This Evening

I'm on a catch up mission tonight so I'm just going to be throwing stuff up here and depending on links or the music/movies themselves to do most of the explaining.

I'm also updating my Video Index tonight. (So it won't be worthless anymore.)

Thanks!

Posted by Lisa at 06:56 PM

Uber-Spammers and Anti-spam Super Heroes Duke It Out In Berkeley This Sunday

There's a cool panel I'll be going to this Sunday in Berkeley at the Hillside Club.

I don't mean to make the event sound confrontational in my headline. The goal of this panel is to get everybody in one room so we can hear all of the different viewpoints on these issues. Hopefully we'll be willing to listen to one another. It should be pretty interesting.

Members of the press: this would be a good chance for you to spend an hour or so of your time and learn everything you ever wanted to know about spam tech and collect a round of business cards from the participating parties for quotes in the future when this stuff hits the mainstream media over the next few months.

CAN WE STOP SPAM?
A Panel of Spammers, Anti-Spammers, and the Spam-Inflicted Duke It Out

Here's the official description:

We'll hear all sides - including your own - at a revolving panel, which
includes antispam developers Brightmail, Postini, Mail Frontier,
Cloudmark, and ActiveState (from Canada); Internet entrepreneur Gary
Kremen, founder of Match.com and sex.com, who argues that spam is
ineradicable; Paul Goldman, CEO of Markado, an "intelligent" etailer;
EFF Chair Brad Templeton; Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist; and PC
World's Harry McCracken, whose team has just completed an exhaustive
round-up of anti-spam legislation.

What: Sylvia's and Jeff's CyberSalon
When: SUNDAY, June 15, 2003
Time: 5:30-8:00 p.m.
Where: Hillside Club, 2286 Cedar St. Berkeley

Directions are at the bottom of the full invite.

See you there.

Sylvia's and Jeff's CyberSalon
SUNDAY, June 15, 2003
5:30-8:00 p.m.
Hillside Club, 2286 Cedar St.*
Berkeley

CAN WE STOP SPAM?
A Panel of Spammers, Anti-Spammers, and the Spam-Inflicted Duke It Out

Come join an exhilarating panel discussion covering all aspects of a
growing Internet irritant: spam. Most people treat it like a weed, while
some consider it their bread and butter. Others think a cure is
impossible or potentially - like Agent Orange -- worse than the problem.

We'll hear all sides - including your own - at a revolving panel, which
includes antispam developers Brightmail, Postini, Mail Frontier,
Cloudmark, and ActiveState (from Canada); Internet entrepreneur Gary
Kremen, founder of Match.com and sex.com, who argues that spam is
ineradicable; Paul Goldman, CEO of Markado, an "intelligent" etailer;
EFF Chair Brad Templeton; Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist; and PC
World's Harry McCracken, whose team has just completed an exhaustive
round-up of anti-spam legislation.

Jeff Ubois, my partner in this event and a member of the Hillside Club -
which he hopes will become a forum for ideas about technology and
society -- will archive the discussion online and also tally votes at
the end when we see which solution you all prefer.

The Cybersalon is open to all, including friends and family. We start at
5:30 with food and drinks (we ask for a $15 donation), and because it's
also Father's Day, anyone who brings a father gets dad in for half
price. The panel discussion starts around 6:15. RSVP to
whoisylvia@aol.com by June 13.

Sylvia (Paull)
Founder, Gracenet, Cybersalons, Nerd Walks

*Directions:

From San Francisco, take Bay Bridge, and merge onto I-80 East.
Exit University Ave. and bear RIGHT UNDER the freeway toward 4th St.
Continue STRAIGHT on frontage road for half a mile
RIGHT onto Cedar
STRAIGHT on Cedar for a couple of miles, past Shattuck and Spruce.

From North Bay, take Richmond Bridge to I-80 and Berkeley.
Exit Gilman St., go straight up past San Pablo and bear LEFT onto Cedar
at fork in road
Straight on Cedar for a couple of miles, past Shattuck and Spruce.

Parking: yes.

Public transport: Get off at Downtown Berkeley BART - you can get a bus,
cab, or hitch/walk/bicycle one mile along Shattuck, then make a right
onto Cedar.

Posted by Lisa at 02:56 PM

June 12, 2003

Daily Show - Colin Powell And Friends "Flooding The Zone"

This clip is also from June 9th and provides a great recap of the fast talking going on by the Repubs all day Sunday on the various major news networks regarding their WMD lies. Stewart has edited in a little footage from one of Colin Powell's WMD speeches, just so we can all refresh our memory about what was said.

I'm also about to post some footage of my own that I was able to dig up from the weeks before the Shrub War that should help to refresh our memories a bit :-)

"The Republicans, for the first time in this Administration, are on the defensive. Their tactic can be best described as "flooding the zone."

The Repubs Flood The Zone (Small - 7 MB)
The Repubs Flood The Zone (Hi-Res - 96 MB)

The Daily Show (the best news on television).

Posted by Lisa at 01:55 PM

Californians Beware: Don't Buy In To The Latest Energy "Crisis" Scam

I'm hearing murmurings on my local TV news (KTVU) a week or two ago about how California might be headed for some kind of new energy crisis because of repairs being made on power plants.

You have got to be kidding me. Every year there's a new and improved reason for a "crisis" to justify charging Californians even more for their power than the previous year.

Not only is there a "crisis" all of a sudden around summertime every year for a different reason, but every year we find out the year before's reason was merely a new creative inaccuracy (as revealed later in some report before being swept under the carpet, again).

Here's a CNN article from November 2002 that I just found in a pile of stuff I never got around to blogging before now that sums up how things were just starting to look back then.

Looks like they're starting to pick up the offenders. How nice. Nice show for the people. Let's see if it goes anywhere.

Here are some other articles I've posted earlier on this subject that remind us that the important part is to make sure that the State of California doesn't pay these companies a penny more for these blatant overcharges.

Last I checked, the State Of California still owed the power companies a bundle for the overcharges.

More articles and docs on this in the days to come. Maybe this will be the year that Californians 1) don't get shafted by the energy companies again and 2) see some of these crooks actually go to jail and 3) (new addition 6/13/03) "Get their money back" from the crooks who conspired to steal it from them by not having to pay one penny of the 7 Billion dollar tab.

I'm not holding my breath, but it sure will be interesting to see how this thing plays out.

Report: Evidence of price-gouging during California energy crisis

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- A report by federal energy regulators details how two power companies may have conspired to drive up prices during California's 2000-2001 energy crisis.

The previously undisclosed findings have angered officials who say regulators let the companies off with just a slap on the wrist.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report focuses on discussions between employees of Williams and AES Corporation about prolonging an outage at a power plant to take advantage of higher prices the state was paying at the height of the crisis.

The report says employees also cut deals to shut down a second power plant AES operated for Williams.

As a result of the two plants being closed for 15 days, Williams earned more than $10 million in energy sales from its other plants.

The FERC investigation ended in March 2001 when Williams agreed to refund the state $8 million. The companies did not admit any wrongdoing.

Here is the entire text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/11/16/california.energy.ap/index.html

Report: Evidence of price-gouging during California energy crisis

Sunday, November 17, 2002 Posted: 1:25 AM EST (0625 GMT)
Story Tools
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- A report by federal energy regulators details how two power companies may have conspired to drive up prices during California's 2000-2001 energy crisis.

The previously undisclosed findings have angered officials who say regulators let the companies off with just a slap on the wrist.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report focuses on discussions between employees of Williams and AES Corporation about prolonging an outage at a power plant to take advantage of higher prices the state was paying at the height of the crisis.

The report says employees also cut deals to shut down a second power plant AES operated for Williams.

As a result of the two plants being closed for 15 days, Williams earned more than $10 million in energy sales from its other plants.

The FERC investigation ended in March 2001 when Williams agreed to refund the state $8 million. The companies did not admit any wrongdoing.

Posted by Lisa at 12:23 PM

Emergency Protest This Friday 13th At San Francisco INS Building

There's an "emergency" protest going on tomorrow afternoon to protest the Shrub Administration's deportation of over 13,000 muslim men who cooperated voluntarily with the INS Special Registration Program.

The news conference and rally afterwards is going on from 12pm (noon) - 1:30pm at the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Building on 444 Washington Street (at Sansome) in San Francisco. Here's a map of the location and a gif of that map, in case the mapquest link doesn't work.

I'll be there recording it so you'll still be able to check it out if you can't make it, but it's very important to get as many people there as possible for this so please try to make it if you can.

See you there!

Here's the official scoop (courtesy of an email I received from Refuse and Resist:

Civil rights and community organizations will hold a
news conference and demonstration outside the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) offices in San Francisco on Friday, June
13. Following reports that 13,000 of the Arab and Muslim men who
voluntarily registered with the INS as part of the government's
controversial Special Registration Program (NSEERS) will face
deportation, the groups are calling on the INS to halt the expulsions
of men from a list of mainly Arab and Muslim nations. The groups say
that the proposed deportations constitute racial profiling and will
not aid the fight against terrorism.

Speakers will include:

-Jayashri Srikantiah, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California
-Samina Faheem, American Muslim Alliance / Pakistan American
Democratic Forum
-Matthew Van Saun, Amnesty International
-Ben Allen, Blue Triangle Network
-Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange
-Riva Enteen, National Lawyers Guild
-Rev. John Oda, Pine United Methodist Church
-Greg Marutani, SF Japanese American Citizens League
-Statement from Attorney Lynne Stewart

Speakers at the protest following the news conference include
representatives of ANSWER, Arab-American Anti-Discrimination
Committee, Global Exchange, Refuse & Resist, South Alameda Peace &
Justice Committee, Not in Our Name, and others.

MEDIA ADVISORY
Thursday, June 12, 2003
CONTACT:
Samina Faheem,
American Muslim Alliance:
650-387-1994
Ben Allen, Blue Triangle Network:
415-713-3103

Civil Rights, Community Groups Protest Looming Deportations of 13,000
Immigrants,
Call on INS to Halt Expulsions of Muslim and Arab Men

What: News Conference and Protest

When: Friday, June 13, 2003, 12:00 noon-1:30 PM

Where: Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Building
444 Washington Street (at Sansome), San
Francisco

Who: News Conference Speakers
„X Jayashri Srikantiah, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California
„X Samina Faheem, American Muslim Alliance / Pakistan American
Democratic Forum
„X Matthew Van Saun, Amnesty International
„X Ben Allen, Blue Triangle Network
„X Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange
„X Riva Enteen, National Lawyers Guild
„X Rev. John Oda, Pine United Methodist Church
* Greg Marutani, SF Japanese American Citizens League
„X Statement from Attorney Lynne Stewart

SAN FRANCISCO -- Civil rights and community organizations will hold a
news conference and demonstration outside the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) offices in San Francisco on Friday, June
13. Following reports that 13,000 of the Arab and Muslim men who
voluntarily registered with the INS as part of the government¡¦s
controversial Special Registration Program (NSEERS) will face
deportation, the groups are calling on the INS to halt the expulsions
of men from a list of mainly Arab and Muslim nations. The groups say
that the proposed deportations constitute racial profiling and will
not aid the fight against terrorism.

Posted by Lisa at 10:50 AM

Daily Show Democrat WMD Montage

Jon Stewart has put together a nice montage of Democrats asking the Shrub "where the heck are the WMDs?"

These clips are from the June 9, 2003 Daily Show.

Democrats Ask About WMDs (Small - 8 MB)
Democrats Ask About WMDs (Hi-Res - 102 MB)

The Daily Show (the best news on television).

Posted by Lisa at 08:09 AM

RIAA Threatens Penn State Astronomy Department With DMCA Shutdown On Finals Week - Piracy Allegations Proven To Be Unsubstantiated

I love the way the RIAA has already blamed a temp for the incident.

The temp, of course, was just following instructions. The RIAA was just using the same inaccurate methods it always uses to make its usual faulty assumptions about the presence of "pirated" MP3s.

This article includes the actual letters that the RIAA sent out.

Complaint From Recording Industry Almost Closes Down a Penn State Astronomy Server
By Scott Carlson for The Chronicle of Higher Education.

A case of mistaken identity by a temporary recording-industry employee looking for illegal file trading came close to shutting down an academic server at the astronomy department at Pennsylvania State University during final exams last week.

On Thursday, the Recording Industry Association of America sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint to Penn State's network-security office saying that a server on the university's main campus, at University Park, was offering a song by Usher, a popular R&B artist.

The network-security office responded by sending a polite yet adamant message to Matthew P. Soccio, the manager of the astronomy department's server: Remove the song from the server or we will shut it down within 24 hours.

Mr. Soccio spent hours scouring the machine for Usher's MP3 files and found a couple of an unlikely offenders: One was a directory of files owned by Peter D. Usher, a professor emeritus of astronomy. The other was an MP3 of a goofy a cappella song about a satellite that detects gamma-ray bursts.

Mr. Soccio brought the non-results back to the network-security office and begged not to be shut down. "They were kind enough to leave us up," he says, adding that the server is used to transfer academic work. "It's the middle of finals week, so that would have killed us."

Penn State's network-security officials did not respond to calls from The Chronicle.

The recording-industry association, which regularly scours the Internet for evidence that copyrighted songs are being shared illegally, acknowledges that there was indeed a mix-up. In an e-mail statement, the association's officials said that temporary employees usually verify each complaint before it is sent out, and that an employee had made a mistake in this case. The recording industry is reviewing all of the complaints verified by that employee. The association apologized for the blunder.

Mr. Soccio, however, is still a bit irked. He spent the weekend reading up on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and compared the recording-industry's complaint letter with the letter of the law. "I have a problem with that complaint on a couple of different levels," he says. "The DMCA is pretty clear about needing complainants to specify the files in question and the copyright in question, and that complaint does neither of those. That letter just points to the top level of my server and says I should look for 'artists like Usher.' I don't know what that means." Until Thursday, Mr. Soccio had never heard of the R&B star.

The experience has turned Mr. Soccio into an activist. He plans to send letters to Congressional representatives, and is circulating the texts in his department, seeking signatures from professors and other employees. The letters will ask Congress to strengthen fair-use laws and protections for institutions under the DMCA, he says.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://chronicle.com/daily/2003/05/2003051302t.htm

Complaint From Recording Industry Almost Closes Down a Penn State Astronomy Server
By SCOTT CARLSON

A case of mistaken identity by a temporary recording-industry employee looking for illegal file trading came close to shutting down an academic server at the astronomy department at Pennsylvania State University during final exams last week.

On Thursday, the Recording Industry Association of America sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint to Penn State's network-security office saying that a server on the university's main campus, at University Park, was offering a song by Usher, a popular R&B artist.

The network-security office responded by sending a polite yet adamant message to Matthew P. Soccio, the manager of the astronomy department's server: Remove the song from the server or we will shut it down within 24 hours.

Mr. Soccio spent hours scouring the machine for Usher's MP3 files and found a couple of an unlikely offenders: One was a directory of files owned by Peter D. Usher, a professor emeritus of astronomy. The other was an MP3 of a goofy a cappella song about a satellite that detects gamma-ray bursts.

Mr. Soccio brought the non-results back to the network-security office and begged not to be shut down. "They were kind enough to leave us up," he says, adding that the server is used to transfer academic work. "It's the middle of finals week, so that would have killed us."

Penn State's network-security officials did not respond to calls from The Chronicle.

The recording-industry association, which regularly scours the Internet for evidence that copyrighted songs are being shared illegally, acknowledges that there was indeed a mix-up. In an e-mail statement, the association's officials said that temporary employees usually verify each complaint before it is sent out, and that an employee had made a mistake in this case. The recording industry is reviewing all of the complaints verified by that employee. The association apologized for the blunder.

Mr. Soccio, however, is still a bit irked. He spent the weekend reading up on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and compared the recording-industry's complaint letter with the letter of the law. "I have a problem with that complaint on a couple of different levels," he says. "The DMCA is pretty clear about needing complainants to specify the files in question and the copyright in question, and that complaint does neither of those. That letter just points to the top level of my server and says I should look for 'artists like Usher.' I don't know what that means." Until Thursday, Mr. Soccio had never heard of the R&B star.

The experience has turned Mr. Soccio into an activist. He plans to send letters to Congressional representatives, and is circulating the texts in his department, seeking signatures from professors and other employees. The letters will ask Congress to strengthen fair-use laws and protections for institutions under the DMCA, he says.

Meanwhile, along with its apologies, the recording-industry association is sending an Usher CD and Usher T-shirt to Professor Usher.

The e-mail message to Penn State from the Recording Industry Association of America's Anti-Piracy Unit:

To: "Security"
From: RIAA Anti-Piracy
Subject: Unauthorized Music Site - Case ID 710857
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 12:32:46 -0400

VIA EMAIL

May 08, 2003

Security
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
16802
US
Re: [IP address removed]

Dear Sirs:

I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member record companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.

We believe your service is hosting the above-referenced site on its system. This site, which we accessed on 29 Apr 2003 22:07:31 EDT (GMT -0400), offers approximately 1 sound files for download. Many of these files contain recordings owned by our member companies, including songs by such artists as Usher. We have a good faith belief that the above-described activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We assert that the information in this notification is accurate, based upon the data available to us.

We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity. Specifically, we request that you remove the site, delete the infringing sound files or that you disable access to this site or the infringing files being offered via your system. In addition, please inform the site operator of the illegality of his or her conduct and confirm with the RIAA, in writing, that this activity has ceased.

You should understand that this letter constitutes notice to you that this site operator may be liable for the infringing activity occurring on your service. In addition, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if you ignore this notice, you and/or your company may also be liable for any resulting infringement. This letter does not constitute a waiver of any right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any such unauthorized activities, and such rights as well as claims for other relief are expressly retained.

Thank you in advance for your prompt assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at antipiracy2@riaa.com, via telephone at (202) 775-0101, or via mail at RIAA, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C., 20036. Please reference Case ID 710857 in any response or communication regarding this infringement.

Sincerely,

Anti-Piracy Unit
RIAA

Penn State's e-mail message to Matt Soccio:

Good Afternoon,

Our office received the following RIAA copyright complaint regarding the anonymous FTP server at [IP address removed] . The nature of the complaint is that the server is hosting a copyright-protected song by the artist Usher. Could you please locate and remove the Usher song as soon as possible (we need to take action expeditiously, or the University itself could become liable for hosting infringing material). If you are not able to do so in the next 24 hours, we will need to disable access to the machine hosting the infringing song.

If you are able to determine the origin of the song, we ask that you please provide us with the identity of the user.

Thank you,
Laurie Walters
PSU Security Operations and Services

Posted by Lisa at 08:02 AM

June 10, 2003

Lawrence Lessig At Law And Technology Of DRM 2003

Larry explains why he feels we need to reframe the problem of DRM because a lot of really smart people have been working on it "forever" to no avail. He talks about the three kinds of copyright holders out there: those who want "none" "some" or "all" of their rights protected and the different ways in which Creative Commons addresses the needs of the "somes" and "nones" that have been virtually ignored up until now.

He also talks a bit about the Eldred case.

Lawrence Lessig - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 16 MB)
Lawrence Lessig - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 15 MB)

Lawrence Lessig - Complete (Small - 31 MB)

No Hi-res at this time - Coming soon...

Audio - Lawrence Lessig - Complete (MP3 - 20 MB)

Here's a transcript.

This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)

Posted by Lisa at 03:36 PM

By Request: The Daily Show Texodus Intro

Just a little snippet for fun's sake for a reader by special request.

This one's for Joshua!

The Shrub is off to the middle east...

Daily Show Texodus Clip (Small - 4 MB)
Daily Show Texodus Clip (Hi-Res - 42 MB)

The Daily Show (the best news on television).

Posted by Lisa at 03:20 PM

A Great Collection Of Shrub Iraq Lies

A List of Bush LIES on Iraq

Here is a list of the serial lying from the Bush Regime about Iraq, including links to a cross section of all the news sources.

It's nowhere near a complete list, and you probably already knew about most of these lies, but its a great list to send any annoying dittohead who buys into this fake war.

Best,

Kelley Kramer

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html

March 27, 2003

A List of Bush LIES on Iraq

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Kelley Kramer

Here is a list of the serial lying from the Bush Regime about Iraq, including links to a cross section of all the news sources.

It's nowhere near a complete list, and you probably already knew about most of these lies, but its a great list to send any annoying dittohead who buys into this fake war.

Best,

Kelley Kramer

Note - I lifted much of this from an internet forum and lost the link, apologies for not being able to give due credit.

* * *

If Iraq is so bad, why does the Bush Administration have to repeatedly Lie to start a war?

1. Powell relies on FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.

MSNBC: "They have been the closest of allies. But under the intense pressure of a diplomatic crisis at the United Nations and an imminent war in Iraq, the friendship between the United States and Britain is beginning to fray. The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. The fake letters supposedly laid out how Iraqi agents had tried to purchase uranium from officials in Niger, central Africa."

MORE: http://www.msnbc.com/news/883164.asp?cp1=1

CNN: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

MORE: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

Sydney Morning Herald, Australia: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has demonstrated that UK and US intelligence authorities relied on forged documents to support assertions that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

MORE: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/15/1047583740556.html

LA Times: WASHINGTON -- Phony weapons documents cited by the United States and Britain as evidence against Saddam Hussein were initially obtained by Italian intelligence authorities, who may have been duped into paying for the forgeries, U.S. officials said Friday. The documents, which purport to show Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger, were exposed as fraudulent by U.N. weapons inspectors last week. The matter has embarrassed U.S. and British officials.

MORE: http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-docs15mar15,0,5016930.story

And even more:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=africa+uranium+forged+documents

* * *

2. Bush/Powell's UN "evidence" relies on even MORE supposedly "up to date" FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.

CNN: Large chunks of the 19-page report -- highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a " fine paper ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" -- contains large chunks lifted from other sources, according to several academics. " The British government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes," Rangwala said. Al-Marashi's article, published last September, was based on information obtained at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Rangwala said. " The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. " So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old."

MORE: http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/

UK Guardian: Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old. Amid charges of "scandalous" plagiarism on the night when Tony Blair attempted to rally support for the US-led campaign against Saddam Hussein, Whitehall's dismay was compounded by the knowledge that the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday.

MORE: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,892069,00.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,890962,00.html

http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/207939.htm

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

3. Bush/Powell tries to use edited audio-tape to LIE about Saddam/Bin Laden Connection.

NY Times: It offered little evidence of an alliance between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, but it did seem to validate Arab leaders' warnings that Islamic extremists would exploit any assault on Baghdad to further inflame the region.

MORE: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/international/middleeast/12TAPE.html

NY Times: Germany dismissed Wednesday U.S. claims that a new audiotape purportedly by Osama bin Laden proved he was in league with Iraq, while some Muslims were cheered by the possibility the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks was still alive.

More: Article Link

Philadelphia Daily News: But if bin Laden was trying to show personal solidarity with Saddam himself, he had a strange way of doing so. He denounced Saddam's secular, socialist al-Baath party as "infidels." What's more, the statement said that Iraq's rulers had "lost their credibility long ago" and that "socialists are infidels wherever they are." He didn't even mention Saddam by name.

MORE: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/5157847.htm

Salon.com: War, lies and audiotape If truth is the first casualty of war, then this war's second casualty is the credibility of Colin Powell. Yesterday morning he insisted that the new tape from Osama bin Laden would show a "partnership" between al-Qaida and Iraq. He told the nation that he had a transcript of bin Laden's remarks. Understandably, however, the secretary of state didn't read from the transcript he claimed to have in his possession -- because it so clearly contradicted the headlines he was trying to create.

MORE: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/02/12/osama/index_np.html
* * *

4. Bush/Powell LIES again about Saddam's ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

News Interactive: An Iraqi drone found by UN weapons inspectors is of "very primitive" design and is definitely not capable of flying 500km as suggested by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Jane's Defence Weekly said today.

On February 5, Powell told the UN Security Council that the Iraqis possessed a drone that could fly 500km, violating UN rules that limit the range of Iraqi weapons to 150km. " There is no possibility that the design shown on 12 March has the capability to fly anywhere near 500 kilometres," drones expert Ken Munson said on Jane's website (http://jdw.janes.com). " The design looks very primitive, and the engines -- which have their pistons exposed -- appear to be low-powered," he said.

MORE: Article Link

Originally from the NY Times: AL TAJI, Iraq -- To hear senior Bush administration officials tell it, Iraq's latest pilotless drone has the potential to be one of Saddam Hussein's deadliest weapons, able to deliver terrifying payloads of chemical and biological warfare agents across Iraq's borders to Israel or other neighboring states. It could even, they say, be broken down and smuggled into the United States for use in terrorist attacks. But viewed up close yesterday by reporters hastened by Iraqi officials to the Ibn Firnas weapons plant outside Baghdad, the vehicle the Iraqis have code-named RPV-30A, for remotely piloted vehicle, looked more like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of aeronautical design than anything that could threaten Iraq's foes. To the layman's eye, the unveiling of the Iraqi prototype seemed to lend the crisis over Iraq's weapons an aura less of deadly threat than of farce.

"In any case, he and other officials said, the vehicle could not be controlled from a distance of more than 5 miles, in good weather, since its controllers tracked it "with the naked eye."

MORE: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/112262_drone13.shtml

Boston Globe: Duct tape reinforced by aluminum foil held together the black and white drone's balsa wood wings. The wooden propellers and tiny engines were fastened to a well-worn fuselage, fashioned from the fuel tank of a larger aircraft. The words ''God is Great'' were hand painted in red ink on both sides. Perched on a sawhorse at a military research base 20 miles north of Baghdad, the drone looked more like a large school science project than a vehicle capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons. Iraqi officials denied the airplane had any strategic use.

More: Article Link
* * *

5. Bush/Powell LIE about Iraq's Nuclear capabilities concerning "aluminum tubes":

ABC News: Before Congress, and in public, President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have repeatedly pointed to aluminum tubes imported by Iraq which they say are for use in making nuclear weapons. But on Friday, head United Nations nuclear inspector Mohammad ElBaradei told the Security Council that it wasn't likely that the tubes were for that use. ElBaradei also said that documents Bush had cited and relied upon to make the case that Iraq tried to buy uranium from a country in central Africa were fake.

More: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/2020/GMA030310Iraq_weapons_evidence.html

Washington Post: The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." But according to government officials and weapons experts, the claim now appears to be seriously in doubt. After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment

More: Article Link

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

Posted by Lisa at 03:01 PM

US-based Norwegian Weapons Inspector Accuses The USA And Secretary Of State Colin Powell With Providing 'Incorrect and Misleading' Information To U.N. Security Council

USA lied about Iraq's weapons
By Jonathan Tisdall for the Aftenposten English Web Desk.

A US-based Norwegian weapons inspector accuses the USA and Secretary of State Colin Powell with providing the United Nations Security Council with incorrect and misleading information about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), newspaper Dagbladet reports...
Siljeholm told Dagbladet that Colin Powell's report to the Security Council on how Iraq camouflaged their WMD program was full of holes.

"Much of what he said was wrong. It did not match up at all with our information. The entire speech was misleading," Siljeholm said.

Asked if the Americans lied, Siljeholm said: "Lie is a strong word - but yes, the information Powell presented about Iraq's nuclear program was simply incorrect," Siljeholm said.

"We received much incomplete and poor intelligence information from the Americans, and our cooperation developed accordingly. Much of what has been claimed about WMDs has proven to be sheer nonsense. From what I have seen they are going to war on very little," Siljeholm told Dagbladet.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article.jhtml?articleID=511811

USA lied about Iraq's weapons

A US-based Norwegian weapons inspector accuses the USA and Secretary of State Colin Powell with providing the United Nations Security Council with incorrect and misleading information about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), newspaper Dagbladet reports.

Jørn Siljeholm during a weapons inspection in Baghdad in January.

Joern Siljeholm, Ph.D. in environmental chemistry, risk analysis and toxicology, said that the USA's basis for going to war is thin indeed, and called it a slap in the face to the United Nations weapons inspectors.

Siljeholm told Dagbladet that Colin Powell's report to the Security Council on how Iraq camouflaged their WMD program was full of holes.

"Much of what he said was wrong. It did not match up at all with our information. The entire speech was misleading," Siljeholm said.

Asked if the Americans lied, Siljeholm said: "Lie is a strong word - but yes, the information Powell presented about Iraq's nuclear program was simply incorrect," Siljeholm said.

"We received much incomplete and poor intelligence information from the Americans, and our cooperation developed accordingly. Much of what has been claimed about WMDs has proven to be sheer nonsense. From what I have seen they are going to war on very little," Siljeholm told Dagbladet.

After 100 days in Iraq, Siljeholm, now a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston, is on holiday in Florida with his family.

"I strongly doubt that the American will find anything at all. In any case I doubt that they will find WMDs that constitute a military threat," Siljeholm said.

Siljeholm said that his thoughts are now with the Iraqi people he met, and who cooperated with the inspectors.

"It is a weary country with many weary people. The people want peace," Siljeholm said.

Aftenposten English Web Desk
Jonathan Tisdall

Posted by Lisa at 08:35 AM

June 09, 2003

Ed Felten Explains How Black Boxes Interfere With Effective Public Policy

A number of distinguished organizations sponsored the Law and Technology of DRM conference that took place February 27 - March 1, 2003.

This presentation by Ed Felten is a real mind blower. The public is expected to tolerate the use of black box technologies in situations where doing so cannot possibly be in our best interest to do so, such as electronic voting machine systems.

The stills below explain a bit about this, but you'll really want to listen to the whole thing for yourself. Please do. It's really important that we all start taking this stuff very seriously so that we can start making our representatives aware of the current intolerable situation.

Ed Felten - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 10 MB)
Ed Felten - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 8 MB)

Ed Felten - Complete (Small - 17 MB)

Ed Felten - Complete (Hi-Res - 226 MB)

Audio - Ed Felten - Complete (MP3 - 12 MB)

Here's a transcript.

This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)

Posted by Lisa at 01:19 PM

June 08, 2003

How Do I Export Frames Without Distortion In Adobe Premiere?

From the "oh yeah I think I know so much until I can't do something simple" file, maybe one of you real video experts out there can tell me how to change my settings in Adobe Premiere so when I export frames, they don't look like this:

Thanks in advance!

Posted by Lisa at 10:53 AM

Powell Defends WMD Claims

Colin Powell has spoken up about the onslaught of allegations that he (along with the rest of the Shrub Administration) lied to Congress and the U.N. and the American People and the rest of the world about having indisputable evidence of Sadaam's WMDs.

He's spoken up to say, in a nutshell, "Did not! You can take my word for it."

We're not taking your word for anything Colin. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. Cough up with the evidence or forget it. Put up or shut up.

And this doesn't count (shown within context below) "Iraq used these weapons against Iran in the late '80s" -- what does having weapons in the late 80's have to do with having them last February? You told us that he had them THIS YEAR. Remember? That's why we had to go in to protect ourselves and the rest of the world...remember?

And what's this stuff about not using the information about buying uranium from Niger in his speech? I thought he absolutely used that evidence in one of his U.N. speeches.

You guys want to help me clarify this one way or the other? (Whether or not he used the Niger evidence in his U.N. speech.)
Update 11:13 am PST - Readers have refreshed my memory that it was the Shrub that used the Niger evidence in his January speech, not Colin who used it in one of his U.N. speeches.

So that means tha the "evidence" was credible enough for our Shrub of a "president" to use in one of his State of the Union addresses, but it wasn't credible enough for the Secretary of State who works for him to use it in one of his own speeches to the U.N. (?)

Still putting together docs/video/anything I can find to clarify the facts.

Thanks for your help on this guys. -- lisa

Powell Defends Intelligence on Suspected Iraq Arms
By Arshad Mohammed for FindLaw.

Speaking in Rome, Powell said he thought the evidence that Iraq had continued to develop such weapons was "overwhelming."

"There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination. Iraq used these weapons against Iran in the late '80s," Powell said. "There is no question, there is no debate here."

"There was no doubt in my mind as I went through the intelligence and as I prepared myself for the (Feb. 5) briefing ... that the evidence was overwhelming that they had continued to develop these programs," he added...

Powell told reporters as he flew to Egypt he chose not to cite intelligence suggesting Iraq tried to buy "yellow cake" uranium from Niger -- quoted by other U.S. officials but later found by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be based partly on forged documents -- because he felt there was insufficient substantiation.

"Not that I thought it was untrue, it's just that I didn't think it was solid enough for the kind of presentation I had to give," Powell said. "It turned out to be untrue. That happens a lot in the intelligence business."

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.findlaw.com/politics/s/20030602/iraqusaweaponsdc.html

Powell Defends Intelligence on Suspected Iraq Arms

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

By Arshad Mohammed

SHARM EL-SHEIKH (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell on Monday defended intelligence he presented to justify war against Iraq despite the United States' failure so far to find any weapons of mass destruction in the country.

Speaking to reporters in Rome and en route to Egypt, Powell appeared to be trying to beat back media reports questioning the quality of U.S. intelligence about Iraq's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Powell said he spent days culling down the masses of U.S. intelligence into the selection that he presented to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, rejecting some because he felt it was not sufficiently substantiated to present in public.

Speaking in Rome, Powell said he thought the evidence that Iraq had continued to develop such weapons was "overwhelming."

"There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination. Iraq used these weapons against Iran in the late '80s," Powell said. "There is no question, there is no debate here."

"There was no doubt in my mind as I went through the intelligence and as I prepared myself for the (Feb. 5) briefing ... that the evidence was overwhelming that they had continued to develop these programs," he added.

Powell noted that the CIA and the Pentagon last week said they had concluded that two truck-trailers found in Iraq could only have been mobile biological weapons factories, although no trace of biological weapons was found in either.

The U.S. failure to find Iraqi biological or chemical weapons has triggered suggestions from former U.S. officials that U.S. intelligence may have been skewed to buttress the case for war, something the Bush administration has denied.

Powell told reporters as he flew to Egypt he chose not to cite intelligence suggesting Iraq tried to buy "yellow cake" uranium from Niger -- quoted by other U.S. officials but later found by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be based partly on forged documents -- because he felt there was insufficient substantiation.

"Not that I thought it was untrue, it's just that I didn't think it was solid enough for the kind of presentation I had to give," Powell said. "It turned out to be untrue. That happens a lot in the intelligence business."

Posted by Lisa at 09:32 AM

The Daily Show's Lewis Black On The New Tax Cuts For The Rich

According to the IRS Website, thanks to the extra $400 you might be able to get for each kid this summer, parenting doesn't have to be the same old thankless, pain in the ass of an experience:

In the summer of 2003, your kids could be memorable for more than just a skinned knee, a stray dog, or a boyfriend with an earring. This summer your kids could be the reason you get a special check from Uncle Sam! And all you have to do is cash it.

By the way, there are parts of this bit that Lewis Black isn't kidding about. There really is a baby surrounded by money on the cover of the IRS Website.

Here's a link to the
other section of the IRS website he pokes fun at. (Yes I've saved a picture of it in case they take it down, but right now you can look for yourself.)

Lewis Black On The New Tax Cuts (Small - 9 MB)
Lewis Black On The New Tax Cuts (Hi-Res - 115 MB)

Republican Kiddie Porn

Posted by Lisa at 07:26 AM

June 06, 2003

Findlaw's John W. Dean On The Implications Of The Shrub's WMD Lies

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By John W. Dean for FindLaw.

In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed...this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A Desperate Search For WMDs Has So Far Yielded Little, If Any, Fruit

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports

Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption --when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons--exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame - informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it - they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct - and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Senator Bob Graham - a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee - told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they find WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

Posted by Lisa at 11:09 PM

Important Message From Move On About The FCC Media Ownership Rules

Sorry I can't talk about this stuff more today (no time till the weekend), but I did want to make sure you saw this message from Move On about what happened Wednesday, June 4, 2003 between Congress and the FCC. Namely, that Congress basically told the FCC to not be so hasty. I'm still trying to understand completely how the power struggle will operate from here and I promise when I figure it out I'll let you know.

For know, here's the scoop on what you can do to take this to the next level:

Luckily, democracy's awful resilient. Congress has the power to
overturn these rule changes. More than 100 members of the House and
roughly 20 members of the Senate asked the FCC not to approve these
rule changes at this time. The members of Congress were right to be
concerned, and they have the authority to act on those concerns now by
introducing legislation that will undo these changes. Our friends at
Common Cause have made it easy to contact your Representatives and
Senators and let them know that you want the FCC's rules repealed.

You can take action now at:
http://causenet.commoncause.org/afr/issues/alert/?alertid=2446521

Link to above URL

Thus far, we've had a truly remarkable campaign. Here are some of the
highlights:

* The Stop Media Monopoly petition now has just under 200,000 signers
-- one of the largest public statements ever made on this issue.
Combined with comments from members of the NRA, Common Cause, the
Consumer Federation of America, and other groups, the FCC has
received over 700,000 comments on this issue. As of last count,
about 1 in 1,000 of these supported the rule change. So the FCC
clearly knows where the public stands.

* So many MoveOn and Common Cause members called and emailed the FCC
on Friday that their voicemail system and web site went down. CNN
covered the story.

* MoveOn members raised over $180,000 to pay for print and TV ads,
which we ran in partnership with Common Cause and Free Press. The
ads played an instrumental role in making newspapers and TV
stations cover the rule change: the day after they were launched,
the Washington Post discussed them in a front-page story. George
Stephanopoulos showed our TV ad to Michael Powell and Senator John
McCain on Sunday, and grilled them on the media issues. They also
attracted the attention of the New York Times, ABC World News
Tonight, CNN, MSNBC, Newshour with Jim Lehrer, and even The
Guardian in the UK -- and that's only a partial list. Common Cause
President Chellie Pingree and I were both invited on to cable news
shows to debate the issue.

It's pretty clear where Americans stand on this issue: no one wants a
few big companies controlling their access to news and entertainment.
Thank you for being a part of the first stage of an incredible
campaign, and stay tuned for the next steps.

Sincerely,
--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Peter, Wes, and Zack

Posted by Lisa at 03:09 PM

See Congress Hearing On FCC Media Ownership Rules

Here's direct link to the Real video feed of the Congress hearing on the FCC changing its media ownership rules that took place on Wednesday, June 4, 2003.

Congress Hearing On FCC Media Ownership Rules

Posted by Lisa at 03:04 PM

Daily Show On The FCC Media Ownership Vote

You may not have seen anything on television in the news this week about the FCC Media Ownership Vote, probably because the five media conglomerates that own the news didn't think it was important to tell you about it. (And that's what happens when there are only five different companies deciding what you see and don't see on television.)

Luckily, The Daily Show came through with a full report.

Daily Show On FCC Vote (Small - 10 MB)

Daily Show On FCC Vote (Hi-res - 91 MB)

The Daily Show (the best news on television).

Posted by Lisa at 02:38 PM

Newsweek Asks: Where are Iraq’s WMDs?

Where are Iraq’s WMDs?
By Evan Thomas, Richard Wolffe and Michael Isikoff for Newsweek (With Mark Hosenball and John Barry in Washington and Tamara Lipper in St. Petersburg).

It is doubtful that congressional investigators or reporters will turn up evidence that anyone at the CIA or any other intelligence agency flat-out lied or invented evidence. More likely, interviews with some of the main players suggest, the facts will show that the agency was unable to tell the Bush administration what it wanted to hear. Tenet might have tried harder to keep the Bushies from leaping to unwarranted conclusions. In fact, in one case, he aggressively pushed evidence about an Iraqi nuclear program that was strongly challenged by nuclear-weapons experts elsewhere in the government. But the agency’s failure was more elemental: the CIA was unable to penetrate Saddam’s closed world and learn, with any real precision, his real capabilities and intentions...

That is truly disturbing news for the war on terror. If America has entered a new age of pre-emption—when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons—exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can’t say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad? The story of how U.S. intelligence tracked Iraq’s WMD capability, pieced together by NEWSWEEK from interviews with top administration and intelligence officials, is not encouraging.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp?0cv=CB10

Where are Iraq’s WMDs?
The message was plain: Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction made war unavoidable. So where are they? Inside the administration’s civil war over intel
By Evan Thomas, Richard Wolffe and Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK
June 9 issue — George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, was frustrated. For four days and nights last winter, some of the most astute intelligence analysts in the U.S. government sat around Tenet’s conference-room table in his wood-paneled office in Langley, Va., trying to prove that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America. The spooks were not having an easy time of it.

ON FEB. 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell was scheduled to go to the United Nations and make the case that Saddam possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But the evidence was thin—sketchy and speculative, or uncorroborated, or just not credible. Finally, according to a government official who was there, Tenet leaned back in his chair and said, “Everyone thinks we’re Tom Cruise. We’re not. We can’t look into every bedroom and listen to every conversation. Hell, we can’t even listen to the new cell phones some of the terrorists are using.”
Tenet was being truthful. Spying can help win wars (think of the Allies’ cracking the Axis codes in World War II), but intelligence is more often an incomplete puzzle (think of Pearl Harbor). Honest spies appreciate their own limitations. Their political masters, however, often prefer the Hollywood version. They want certainty and omniscience, not hedges and ambiguity. Bush administration officials wanted to be able to say, for certain, that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of chem-bio weapons; that he could make a nuclear bomb inside a year; that he was conspiring with Al Qaeda to attack America.
‘Why Rumsfeld Is Wrong’

And that is, by and large, what they did say. On close examination, some of the statements about Saddam and his WMD made by President George W. Bush and his top lieutenants in the months leading up to the Iraq war included qualifiers or nuances. But the effect—and the intent—was to convince most Americans that Saddam presented a clear and present danger and had to be removed by going to war.

SOUNDING DEFENSIVE
No wonder, then, that many people are perplexed (or vexed) that U.S. forces in Iraq have been unable to find any WMD. Administration officials insist that eventually they will be able to prove that Saddam was working on a dangerous weapons program. They say that two trailers found in northern Iraq are in fact mobile bioweapon labs, capable of brewing up enough anthrax in a weekend to snuff out a city. But some of Bush’s top men are beginning to sound a little defensive or unsure, and congressional critics are starting to circle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz caused a flap by telling Vanity Fair magazine that removing Saddam’s WMD was a “bureaucratic” justification for going to war (Wolfowitz says that he was quoted out of context). A recently retired State Department intelligence analyst directly involved in assessing the Iraqi threat, Greg Thielmann, flatly told NEWSWEEK that inside the government, “there is a lot of sorrow and anger at the way intelligence was misused. You get a strong impression that the administration didn’t think the public would be enthusiastic about the idea of war if you attached all those qualifiers.”
1 / 3
’A very bad outcome’ ’A very bad outcome’
May 25 -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the lack of evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is a “very bad outcome” for the U.S.
click for more
2 / 3
Biden: Iraq’s weapons will eventually be found Biden: Iraq’s weapons will eventually be found
May 25 -- Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the U.S. hyped Iraq’s potential danger to the world, but said he believed that weapons of mass destruction would be found eventually.
click for more
3 / 3
U.S. not credible if Iraq’s weapons not found U.S. not credible if Iraq’s weapons not found
May 25 -- Sen. Pat Roberts, (D-Kansas) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the U.S. will suffer a credibility problem unless weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq.
click for more
Printable version

The prospect of a serious inquiry hung uneasily over a small dinner party of top intelligence officials, including Tenet, in Washington last week. The guests “were stressed and grumpy,” reports a former CIA official who was present. “There was a lot of rolling of eyes and groans” about a coming wave of investigations. Tenet tried to reassure his dinner partners that the second-guessing was premature. “We’ll be fine,” he said. In an unusual move, the DCI two days later put out a public statement defending the CIA’s “integrity and objectivity.” The job of the CIA director is, as the former agency official puts it, “to speak truth to power.” The CIA is supposed to be an independent agency that doesn’t blow in the political wind.
It is doubtful that congressional investigators or reporters will turn up evidence that anyone at the CIA or any other intelligence agency flat-out lied or invented evidence. More likely, interviews with some of the main players suggest, the facts will show that the agency was unable to tell the Bush administration what it wanted to hear. Tenet might have tried harder to keep the Bushies from leaping to unwarranted conclusions. In fact, in one case, he aggressively pushed evidence about an Iraqi nuclear program that was strongly challenged by nuclear-weapons experts elsewhere in the government. But the agency’s failure was more elemental: the CIA was unable to penetrate Saddam’s closed world and learn, with any real precision, his real capabilities and intentions.

VIDEO ARCHIVE: Satellite analysis
February 5, 2003 — Secretary of State Colin Powell shows the Security Council satellite images that allegedly show cargo trucks removing material from Iraqi weapons sites prior to U.N. inspections.

That is truly disturbing news for the war on terror. If America has entered a new age of pre-emption—when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons—exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can’t say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad? The story of how U.S. intelligence tracked Iraq’s WMD capability, pieced together by NEWSWEEK from interviews with top administration and intelligence officials, is not encouraging.

WAS HE JUST BLUFFING?
The case that Saddam possessed WMD was based, in large part, on assumptions, not hard evidence. If Saddam did not possess a forbidden arsenal, the reasoning went, why, then, would he put his country through the agony of becoming an international pariah and ultimately risk his regime? Was he just bluffing in some fundamentally stupid way? Earlier U.N. weapons inspectors projected that Saddam kept stores of anthrax and VX, but they had no proof. In recent years, the CIA detected some signs of Saddam’s moving money around, building additions to suspected WMD sites, and buying chemicals and equipment abroad that could be used to make chem-bio weapons. But the spooks lacked any reliable spies, or HUMINT (human intelligence), inside Iraq.
Then came the defectors. Former Iraqi officials fleeing the regime told of underground bunkers and labs hiding vast stores of chemical and biological weapons and nuclear materials. The CIA, at first, was skeptical. Defectors in search of safe haven sometimes stretch or invent the facts. The true believers in the Bush administration, on the other hand, embraced the defectors and credited their stories. Many of the defectors were sent to the Americans by Ahmed Chalabi, the politically ambitious and controversial Iraqi exile. Chalabi’s chief patron is Richard Perle, the former Reagan Defense Department official and charter member of the so-called neocons, the hard-liners who occupy many top jobs in the Bush national-security establishment.
The CIA was especially wary of Chalabi, whom they regarded as a con man (Chalabi has been convicted of bank fraud in Jordan; he denies the charges). But rather than accept the CIA’s doubts, top officials in the Bush Defense Department set up their own team of intelligence analysts, a small but powerful shop now called the Office of Special Plans—and, half-jokingly, by its members, “the Cabal.”
The Cabal was eager to find a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, especially proof that Saddam played a role in the 9-11 attacks. The hard-liners at Defense seized on a report that Muhammad Atta, the chief hijacker, met in Prague in early April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence official. Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts.)

SEARCHING FOR NUKES
No matter. The Iraq hawks at Defense and in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney continued to push the idea that Saddam had both stockpiles of WMD and links to terrorists who could deliver those weapons to American cities. Speeches and statements by Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Bush himself repeated these claims throughout the fall of 2002 and the winter of 2003. One persistent theme: that Saddam was intent on building a nuke. On Oct. 7, for instance, Bush predicted in a speech in Cincinnati that Saddam could have “a nuclear weapon in less than a year.”
The evidence sometimes cited to support Saddam’s nuclear program was shaky, however. On the morning after Bush’s State of the Union address in January, Greg Thielmann, who had recently resigned from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)—whose duties included tracking Iraq’s WMD program—read the text in the newspaper. Bush had cited British intelligence reports that Saddam was trying to purchase “significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Thielmann was floored. “When I saw that, it really blew me away,” Thielmann told NEWSWEEK. Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible—and made that point clear to Powell’s office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents to report to the nation, he thought, “Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?” It later turned out that the documents were a forgery, and a crude one at that, peddled to the Italians by an entrepreneurial African diplomat. The Niger minister of Foreign Affairs whose name was on the letterhead had been out of office for more than 10 years. The most cursory checks would have exposed the fraud.
The strongest evidence that Saddam was building a nuke was the fact that he was secretly importing aluminum tubes that could be used to help make enriched uranium. At least it seemed that way. In early September, just before Bush was scheduled to speak to the United Nations about the Iraqi threat, the story was leaked to Judith Miller and Michael Gordon of The New York Times, which put it on page one. That same Sunday (Sept. 8), Cheney and national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice went on the talk shows to confirm the story.

NOT-SO-SECRET WEAPONS
At the CIA, Tenet seems to have latched on to the tubes as a kind of smoking gun. He brought one of the tubes to a closed Senate hearing that same month. But from the beginning, other intelligence experts in the government had their doubts. After canvassing experts at the nation’s nuclear labs, the Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were the wrong specification to be used in a centrifuge, the equipment used to enrich uranium. The State Department’s INR concluded that the tubes were meant to be used for a multiple-rocket-launching system. (And Saddam was not secretly buying them; the purchase order was posted on the Internet.) In two reports to Powell, INR concluded there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear program at all. “These were not weaselly worded,” said Thielmann. “They were as definitive as these things go.” These dissents were duly recorded in a classified intelligence estimate. But they were largely dropped from the declassified version made available to the public. U.N. inspectors say they have found solid proof that Iraq bought the tubes to build small rockets, not nukes.
The real test of the government’s case against Saddam came in the testimony by Secretary of State Powell delivered to the United Nations on Feb. 5. Powell, the administration’s in-house moderate, was very wary of being set up for a fall by the administration hawks. Presented with a “script” by the White House national-security staff, Powell suspected that the hawks had been “cherry-picking,” looking for any intel that supported their position and ignoring anything to the contrary.
Powell ordered his aides to check out every fact. And to make sure he would not be left hanging if the intel case against Saddam somehow proved to be full of holes, he gently but firmly informed Tenet that the DCI should come up to New York—and take his place behind the secretary of State at the U.N. General Assembly. (“I don’t think George looked too comfortable sitting there,” said a former top official, chuckling, in 41’s administration.)

Missing Weapons: Iraq and Iran
• Audio: Evan Thomas, NEWSWEEK Assistant Managing Editor, Washington, and Chris Dickey, NEWSWEEK Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Editor, Rome
• Audio: Listen to the complete weekly On Air show
For four days and nights, Powell and Tenet, top aides and top analysts and, from time to time, Rice, pored over the evidence—and discarded much of it. Out went suggestions linking Saddam to 9-11. The bogus Niger documents were dumped. Powell did keep a hedged endorsement of the aluminum tubes and contended that Saddam “harbored” Al Qaeda operatives. His most compelling offering to the United Nations was tape recordings (picked up by spy satellites) of Iraqi officials who appeared intent on hiding something from the U.N. arms inspectors. Just what they were hiding was never quite clear.
The almost round-the-clock vetting process in Tenet’s conference room at the CIA was tense and difficult, according to several participants. The debate over whether to include the purported links between Al Qaeda and Saddam went on right up to the eve of Powell’s speech.

CENTCOM VERSUS CIA
Powell’s presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat. As the military began to gear up for an invasion, top planners at Central Command tried to get a fix from the CIA on WMD sites they could take out with bombs and missiles. After much badgering, says an informed military source, the CIA allowed the CENTCOM planners to see what the agency had on WMD sites. “It was crap,” said a CENTCOM planner. The sites were “mostly old friends,” buildings bombed by the military back in the 1991 gulf war, another source said. The CIA had satellite photos of the buildings. “What was inside the structures was another matter,” says the source. “We asked, ‘Well, what agents are in these buildings? Because we need to know.’ And the answer was, ‘We don’t know’,” the CENTCOM planner recalled.
When the military visited these sites after the war, they found nothing but rubble. No traces of WMD. Nor did Special Forces find any of the 20 or so Scud missiles, possibly tipped with chem-bio warheads, that were said by the CIA to be lurking somewhere in the Western Desert. The search is not over. While CENTCOM is pulling out its initial teams of WMD hunters, the Pentagon has created a whole new program to search sites, looking for the elusive WMD. It is disheartening that the military was unable to secure Saddam’s large nuclear-material storage site at Al Tuwaitha before the looters got there. Materials for a “dirty bomb” could have found their way by now into the hands of terrorists.
And so the searching—and guessing—goes on. So do the bureaucratic wars: last week one of the founders in the Cabal had his security clearance pulled—by enemies in the intelligence community, his associates suspected. The CIA has done a reasonably good job of tracking down Al Qaeda chieftains, capturing about half of them so far. Despite some reports of low morale (mostly from retired analysts), the agency is well funded and well aware of its central role in the war on terror. The spooks for the most part know the imprecise nature of their business. It would be healthier if politicians and policymakers did, too. A little realism would be a good thing, especially in an age of sneak attacks by both sides, when the margin for error is just about zero.

With Mark Hosenball and John Barry in Washington and Tamara Lipper in St. Petersburg

Posted by Lisa at 09:47 AM

June 05, 2003

Judge Breyer Sentences Rosenthal To 1 Day In Jail (With Time-Served)

Convicted pot grower Rosenthal is spared jail time -- Medical marijuana backers claim victory
By Bob Egelko for SF Gate.

...U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said the "extraordinary, unique circumstances of this case" justified an exemption from the usual sentencing requirements. He imposed the lightest term possible -- a day in jail, which Rosenthal served after his February 2002 arrest. He also fined Rosenthal $1, 300 and put him on supervised release for three years with orders not to violate any criminal laws and to submit to searches.

The packed courtroom erupted into cheers and shouts when Breyer announced his sentence. Some spectators wept. Moments later, the information reached a crowd of Rosenthal backers in the hallway, prompting another celebration.

"This is Day 1 in the crusade to bring down the marijuana laws, all the marijuana laws," Rosenthal proclaimed after the hearing to about 100 jubilant supporters.

Rosenthal, who had denounced Breyer as biased during the trial, was in no mood to praise him after the sentencing.

"He did me no favors," Rosenthal said. "He made me a felon because he would not allow the jury to hear the whole story. He had an agenda."

Rosenthal plans to appeal his conviction based on Breyer's rulings that kept virtually the entire defense case from the jury -- that Rosenthal was protected by Proposition 215, the 1996 California initiative that allowed seriously ill patients to obtain marijuana with a doctor's recommendation, and that the city of Oakland had designated him as an officer to supply marijuana to a patients.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/05/MN291734.DTL

A federal judge, striking a dramatic blow to the government's campaign against medical marijuana, spared pot advocate Ed Rosenthal from a prison sentence Wednesday for his conviction on cultivation charges, saying Rosenthal believed he was acting legally.

Rosenthal, 58, a prominent author, columnist and authority on marijuana growing, could have received at least five years in prison under federal law for his conviction of growing more than 100 plants for the Harm Reduction Center, a San Francisco dispensary operating under California's medical marijuana law. A federal prosecutor had asked for a 6 1/2-year sentence.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said the "extraordinary, unique circumstances of this case" justified an exemption from the usual sentencing requirements. He imposed the lightest term possible -- a day in jail, which Rosenthal served after his February 2002 arrest. He also fined Rosenthal $1, 300 and put him on supervised release for three years with orders not to violate any criminal laws and to submit to searches.

The packed courtroom erupted into cheers and shouts when Breyer announced his sentence. Some spectators wept. Moments later, the information reached a crowd of Rosenthal backers in the hallway, prompting another celebration.

"This is Day 1 in the crusade to bring down the marijuana laws, all the marijuana laws," Rosenthal proclaimed after the hearing to about 100 jubilant supporters.

Rosenthal, who had denounced Breyer as biased during the trial, was in no mood to praise him after the sentencing.

"He did me no favors," Rosenthal said. "He made me a felon because he would not allow the jury to hear the whole story. He had an agenda."

Rosenthal plans to appeal his conviction based on Breyer's rulings that kept virtually the entire defense case from the jury -- that Rosenthal was protected by Proposition 215, the 1996 California initiative that allowed seriously ill patients to obtain marijuana with a doctor's recommendation, and that the city of Oakland had designated him as an officer to supply marijuana to a patients.

Prosecutors could appeal Breyer's decision to reduce the sentence below the standard federal guidelines. No decision has been made on an appeal, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Jacobs, spokesman for the office.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups declared victory.

'A VERY STRONG MESSAGE'

"Today marks the beginning of the end of the federal war on medical marijuana patients," said Robert Kampia, executive director of the nonprofit Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C.

"It sends a very strong message to the Bush administration that they had better focus their law enforcement resources on serious and violent crime, especially terrorism, and stop arresting patients and caregivers in the nine states that have legalized medical marijuana," said Keith Stroup, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Also celebrating were some of the jurors who disavowed their guilty verdict after learning that Rosenthal's medical marijuana defense had been kept from them during the trial. Seven of the 12 jurors signed a letter urging Breyer not to sentence Rosenthal to prison, and four attended Wednesday's hearing. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer also called for a lenient sentence.

"Today has put my faith back into our judicial system," said juror Pamela Klarkowski, a registered nurse from Petaluma.

The prosecution of a noted activist on his home turf was only one of a series of federal enforcement actions against medical marijuana operations since California voters approved Prop. 215, actions that have drawn increased resistance from local and state officials.

A civil suit initially filed by the Clinton administration resulted in a U. S. Supreme Court ruling that shut down the Oakland marijuana cooperative -- though more than 30 others are still operating in the state -- and both the Clinton and Bush administrations have sought, unsuccessfully so far, to punish doctors who recommend marijuana.

The Bush administration has also raided pot farms and dispensaries and filed numerous criminal charges against medical marijuana growers, winning prison sentences in at least four cases, with a dozen more cases pending, according to advocates.

Rosenthal's case was unique because of his relationship with the city of Oakland. Trying to shield its Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative from the federal crackdown, the City Council declared the organization an official city agency in 1998 and allowed its leaders to designate suppliers -- including Rosenthal - - as city officers.

BLOCKING EVIDENCE

Breyer, saying he was following federal drug laws, ruled before the trial that Rosenthal did not qualify as a narcotics law enforcement officer, which would have immunized him from prosecution. But he cited the same evidence Wednesday in his sentencing decision.

Rosenthal "believed that he was not violating federal law," the judge said. "His belief, while erroneous, was reasonable."

Because his ruling served notice that a local agency can't provide protection from federal charges, Breyer said, leniency for Rosenthal won't encourage lawbreaking by others.

But Rosenthal predicted predicted to reporters that higher courts would find Breyer "dead wrong" on the immunity issue.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

Posted by Lisa at 08:54 PM

Wayne Francis: Bush Lied and Soldiers Died

Bush Lied and Soldiers Died
By Wayne Francis for t r u t h o u t.

Legions of foreign intelligence agencies, from China to France to Russia to Germany, reported that Iraq was no threat, had no terrorists, and most importantly had no weapons of mass destruction. Understandably, the leaders of these countries opposed the war, and the citizens protested in the streets. It appears the Bush administration was well aware of these facts, but proceeded to use “diplomacy” to convince the American people, and anyone else without shouting distance, that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and its allies. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, this deception left a trail.

Before the war and in his address to the United Nations, Colin Powell asserted in no uncertain terms that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons and was prepared to use them at the first available opportunity. Vice President Dick Cheney went so far as to say that, “he (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” Ari Fleischer also promised reporters on multiple occasions that weapons of mass destruction, “are what this war is about.” And in an interview with Al Jazeera, Donald Rumsfeld plainly stated that the war, “is about weapons of mass destruction. It is unquestionably about that.”

Somewhere along the line, this rhetoric came to a grinding halt. Several weeks have now passed since the end of the war, and WMD’s have yet to be found in Iraq. Specialized teams of engineers, scientists, and intelligence agents have been searching for these weapons since the outbreak of war, yet have been unable to locate even the slightest trace of chemical and biological weapons. (Nuclear weapons were essentially dismissed as a possibility sometime before the war.)

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060103A.shtml

Bush Lied and Soldiers Died
by Wayne Francis
t r u t h o u t | Opinion

Saturday 31 May 2003

In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz revealed that weapons of mass destruction were the “diplomatic” reason for the War on Iraq. This statement simultaneously explains why the Bush administration is so horrible at diplomacy, (they don’t even know the definition) and why every country in the world except the U.S. and Israel had public majorities that opposed the war. Legions of foreign intelligence agencies, from China to France to Russia to Germany, reported that Iraq was no threat, had no terrorists, and most importantly had no weapons of mass destruction. Understandably, the leaders of these countries opposed the war, and the citizens protested in the streets. It appears the Bush administration was well aware of these facts, but proceeded to use “diplomacy” to convince the American people, and anyone else without shouting distance, that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and its allies. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, this deception left a trail.

Before the war and in his address to the United Nations, Colin Powell asserted in no uncertain terms that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons and was prepared to use them at the first available opportunity. Vice President Dick Cheney went so far as to say that, “he (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” Ari Fleischer also promised reporters on multiple occasions that weapons of mass destruction, “are what this war is about.” And in an interview with Al Jazeera, Donald Rumsfeld plainly stated that the war, “is about weapons of mass destruction. It is unquestionably about that.”

Somewhere along the line, this rhetoric came to a grinding halt. Several weeks have now passed since the end of the war, and WMD’s have yet to be found in Iraq. Specialized teams of engineers, scientists, and intelligence agents have been searching for these weapons since the outbreak of war, yet have been unable to locate even the slightest trace of chemical and biological weapons. (Nuclear weapons were essentially dismissed as a possibility sometime before the war.)

In the greater scheme of things, the War on Iraq was assumed to be part of the much larger “War on Terrorism.” It is disappointing, then, to learn that the U.S. military occupying Iraq has not found any terrorists, weapons for terrorists, money for terrorists, or any possible connection between Al Qaeda and the now dissipated government of Iraq. If the War on Iraq was a remedy for the growing threat of terrorism to the U.S., one could easily conclude our mission was a dismal failure.

Moreover, Saddam Hussein’s military provided hardly any resistance to U.S. forces when the invasion began, thus proving that Iraq posed no danger to the U.S. or any of its allies. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) stated, “What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well trained troops.”

The rebuilding of Iraq is also developing into a significant embarrassment for the Bush administration. In a Senate meeting with Paul Wolfowitz, Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-CN) said, "It is very hard to fathom what the administration's strategy is with respect to the immediate stabilization of the situation, let alone the longer-term reconstruction of Iraq." Sen. Richard Lugar, (R-IN) head of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated, "The planning for peace was much less developed than the planning for war." Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R-NE) also remarked, "we may have underestimated or mischaracterized the challenges of establishing security and rebuilding Iraq."

A great deal of animosity is also evolving out of a disastrous situation in Afghanistan, where the last few weeks have yielded a great deal of unfortunate news. A British aid worker recently reported that, “The country is on its knees: roads, bridges, tunnels, schools, homes, hospitals, and farmlands are reduced to rubble and dust. Only 5% of the rural population have access to clean water, 17% have access to medical services, 13% have access to education, 25% of all children are dead by the age of five.” In addition, Afghanistan has now regained its title as the world’s largest opium producer. Opium, according to the Bush administration, provided enormous funding for some of the terrorist organizations responsible for 9/11. The Taliban have also recently taken responsibility for several killings involving U.S. soldiers, Afghan soldiers, and Afghan civilians. Amazingly, as of today, the United States military controls just one city.

In the interim, the Al Qaeda terrorist network has reorganized its command structure and is flagrantly boasting that it is stronger than ever before. Jonathan Stevenson, senior fellow for counter-terrorism at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies said, “The US war on Iraq gave Al Qaeda the opportunity to reinvigorate its weakened terrorist network with new recruits and more funding. The Iraq war clearly increased the terrorist impulse.” Paul Wilkinson, head of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence also stated, “The political masters in the US and Europe underestimated the extent to which bin Laden would use the war in Iraq as a propaganda weapon to rejuvenate the movement and attract more funds. As far as the war against Al Qaeda goes, it possibly has been counterproductive. We face turbulent times ahead.”

Recent events suggest this line of reasoning is legitimate. Saudi Arabia and Morocco were rocked by terrorist bombings last week, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is continuing to produce incessant terrorism from each side. The Pentagon has also reported that Al Qaeda leaders are coordinating terrorist attacks from Iran; regime change is now under consideration. Furthermore, Osama bin Laden continues to traverse the world as a free man. Saddam Hussein, the anthrax killer, and the senior leadership of Al Qaeda are also evading the “resolve” of Mr. Bush. And for whatever reason, the Homeland Security Department has recently raised America’s terror alert to “high.”

Taking into account present circumstances, it appears that the U.S. is, by any logical standard of measurement, losing the War on Terrorism. Just a brief review of events from the world stage should provide even the most credulous American with incontrovertible proof that the world is not a safer place since Mr. Bush took office. The international community, and specifically the Arab world, has never been more candid about their contempt for US policy.

All things considered, it now appears that the gigantic chore undertaken by the United States Military, the State Department, the Pentagon, and U.S. intelligence agencies to invade and occupy Iraq has not yielded one single victory in the War on Terrorism. Mr. Bush’s strategy to combat terror was undoubtedly doomed to fail from the beginning. Military force was his one and only answer to the events of 9/11, and despite massive increases in defense spending and a budget-busting war in Iraq, America has nothing to show for its efforts in the War on Terrorism. These immense costs, coupled with Mr. Bush’s trillion-dollar tax cut package, are directly responsible for what is now the biggest budget deficit in United States history.

As America’s economy continues to nosedive, the gap between the haves and have-nots will most assuredly widen. Concurrently, less and less funding will be delivered to places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where our failure to establish a structured government system is producing perpetual criticism from the United Nations. As these countries and the surrounding areas continue to suffer, Al Qaeda will assuredly prosper. Fueled by disdain for U.S. international policy, new recruits for the terrorist networks of the world will join the fight against what they believe is an ungodly, aggressor nation. Our government, and specifically the Bush administration, bears responsibility for this upheaval. If immediate steps are not taken to ameliorate the suffering caused by U.S. led military combat, the current international unrest will prove to be only a glimpse of things to come.

Wayne Francis lives in Jacksonville, Florida. He can be reached at waynejkd@hotmail.com

Posted by Lisa at 06:46 PM

NY Times Op Ed By Paul Krugman - How Lying Is The Norm For This Administration

Standard Operating Procedure
By Paul Krugman for The NY Times.

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s...

In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else."

Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts...

It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain's participation in the war — writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."

...But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/03KRUG.html?th

The New York Times The New York Times Opinion June 3, 2003

Columnist Page: Paul Krugman

Forum: Discuss This Column

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Standard Operating Procedure
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s.

And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence.

In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else."

Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?

It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain's participation in the war — writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."

It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

Posted by Lisa at 06:33 PM

Colin Powell About His Own U.N. Report: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit."

Oh, ok. That quote was his reaction to a "draft" and not the final report.
(Theoretically the report was transformed accordingly into something Powell could stomach before reading it to the world.)

Powell was under pressure to use shaky intelligence on Iraq: report

According to the report, the draft contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit."

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030531/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_powell&cid=1514&ncid=1480

Powell was under pressure to use shaky intelligence on Iraq: report
Fri May 30, 8:42 PM ET
Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) was under persistent pressure from the Pentagon (news - web sites) and White House to include questionable intelligence in his report on Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction he delivered at the United Nations (news - web sites) last February, a US weekly reported.

US News and World Report magazine said the first draft of the speech was prepared for Powell by Vice President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in late January.

According to the report, the draft contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit."

Cheney's aides wanted Powell to include in his presentation information that Iraq has purchased computer software that would allow it to plan an attack on the United States, an allegation that was not supported by the CIA (news - web sites), US News reported.

The White House also pressed Powell to include charges that the suspected leader of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer prior to the attacks, despite a refusal by US and European intelligence agencies to confirm the meeting, the magazine said.

The pressure forced Powell to appoint his own review team that met several times with Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) to prepare the speech, in which the secretary of state accused Iraq of hiding tonnes of biological and chemical weapons.

US News also said that the Defense Intelligence Agency had issued a classified assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons program last September, arguing that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."

However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress shortly after that that the Iraqi "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gas," according to the report.

Posted by Lisa at 06:20 PM

William Rivers Pitt: We Used To Impeach Liars

I hate arguments about impeaching the Shrub "like we impeached Clinton" because I think the Clinton impeachment was a total crock and you can't even compare lying to a political witchhunt about a sexual affair to the act of lying to the American Government, American Public, and the rest of the World about why the military invasion of a foreign country is necessary. That said. This editorial contains an interesting perspective.

We Used To Impeach Liars
By William Rivers Pitt for T r u t h o u t.

The case for war against Iraq has not been made. This is a fact. It is doubtful in the extreme that Saddam Hussein has retained any functional aspect of the chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons programs so thoroughly dismantled by the United Nations weapons inspectors who worked tirelessly in Iraq for seven years. This is also a fact.

This was a straightforward argument, set against stern and unrelenting prophesies of doom from Bush administration officials, and from Bush himself. I can tell you, as the writer, that it was a tough sell. The facts contained in the book were absolutely accurate, as has been proven in the aftermath of war, but Americans are funny. They fall for Hitler's maxim on lies over and over again: "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." Over and over and over and over and over again, the American people were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction practically falling out of his ears. The American people were told that Hussein was giving away these weapons to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda the way you and I might give away birthday presents.

Feast for a moment, on this brief timeline:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, April 25 2003

"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction."
- Colin Powell, May 4 2003

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060303A.shtml

We Used To Impeach Liars
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 03 June 2003

In September of 2002, fully six months before George W. Bush attacked Iraq, I published a small book entitled "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know." The essential premise of the book was that the threats surrounding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were wildly overblown by the Bush administration for purely political reasons. In the opening paragraphs, I framed the argument as follows:

According to Bush and the men who are pushing him towards this war-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.The United States will institute a "regime change" in Iraq, and bring forth the birth of a new democracy in the region. Along the way, we will remove Saddam Hussein, a man who absolutely, positively has weapons of mass destruction, a man who will use these weapons against his neighbors because he has done so in the past, a man who will give these terrible weapons to Osama bin Laden for use against America.

A fairly cut-and-dried case, no? America is more than prepared to listen to these pleasing arguments about evil in black and white, particularly after the horrors of September 11th. Few can contemplate in comfort the existence of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman like Saddam Hussein. The merest whisper that he might give these weapons to Qaeda terrorists is enough to rob any rational American of sleep. Saddam has been so demonized in the American media-ever since the first President Bush compared him to Hitler-that they believe the case has been fully and completely made for his immediate removal.

Yet facts are stubborn things, as John Adams once claimed while successfully defending British redcoats on trial for the Boston Massacre. We may hate someone with passion, and we may fear them in our souls, but if the facts cannot establish a clear and concise basis for our fear and hatred, if the facts do not defend the actions we would take against them, then we must look elsewhere for the basis of that fear. Simultaneously, we must take stock of those stubborn facts, and understand the manner in which they define the reality-not the rhetoric-of our world.

The case for war against Iraq has not been made. This is a fact. It is doubtful in the extreme that Saddam Hussein has retained any functional aspect of the chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons programs so thoroughly dismantled by the United Nations weapons inspectors who worked tirelessly in Iraq for seven years. This is also a fact.

This was a straightforward argument, set against stern and unrelenting prophesies of doom from Bush administration officials, and from Bush himself. I can tell you, as the writer, that it was a tough sell. The facts contained in the book were absolutely accurate, as has been proven in the aftermath of war, but Americans are funny. They fall for Hitler's maxim on lies over and over again: "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." Over and over and over and over and over again, the American people were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction practically falling out of his ears. The American people were told that Hussein was giving away these weapons to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda the way you and I might give away birthday presents.

Feast for a moment, on this brief timeline:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, April 25 2003

"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction."
- Colin Powell, May 4 2003

These are the words of administration officials who were following orders and the party line. It has been axiomatic for quite a while now that the people behind the scenes, and not the Main Man Himself, are running the ways and means of this administration. Harken back to the campaign in 2000, when the glaring deficiencies in ability and experience displayed by George W. Bush were salved by the fact that a number of heavy hitters would be backstopping him. Yet a Democrat named Harry Truman once said, "The buck stops here." What did the man in receipt of said stopped buck have to say on the matter?

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
- George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George Bush, March 17 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
- George Bush, April 24 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
- George Bush, May 3 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
- George W. Bush, May 6 2003

It has become all too clear in the last several days that the horrid descriptions of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were nothing more than the Big Lie which Hitler described. The American people, being the trusting TV-stoned folks they are, bought this WMD lie bag and baggage. Imagine the shock within the administration when Lieutenant General James Conway, top US Marine Commander in Iraq, said that American intelligence on Iraqi WMDs was "Simply wrong." Conway went on to state about the WMDs that, "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

Imagine the consternation within the administration when Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said on May 28 that, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." A short translation of that comment is as straightforward as one can get - There was no real threat of WMDs, but everyone who wanted the war for whatever reasons decided to settle on that concept because it was an easy sell to Americans still traumatized by September 11.

Imagine the teeth-gnashing within the administration when Patrick Lang, former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, accused Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's personal intelligence team of having "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" to make it seem like the WMD threat in Iraq was real. Lang went on to say that the DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD." Vince Cannistraro, former chief of the CIA counterterrorist operations, described serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for proffering "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."

Ahmad Chalabi, it should be noted, is the hand-picked-by-Don-Rumsfeld successor to power in Iraq. Chalabi was convicted in 1992 of 31 counts of bank fraud and embezzlement in Jordan and sentenced to 22 years hard labor in absentia. Even the most optimistic of intelligence observers take what he has to say with a massive grain of salt. Certainly, as the chosen leader of Iraq - a position he has enjoyed thanks to Rumsfeld and his cabal since 1997 - Chalabi had no reason whatsoever to exaggerate or lie about Iraq's weapons program. Of course.

The process of proving the presence of Iraqi WMDs has been tortured, to say the least. Bush at one point described recent Iraqi efforts to purchase "significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Greg Thielmann, recently resigned from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, was appalled by these claims. "When I saw that, I was really blown away," said Thielmann. His Bureau of Intelligence and Research had absolutely debunked this claim. The documents used to support the accusation were crude forgeries - the name on the letterhead of the main evidentiary document was that of a Nigerian minister who had been out of office for ten years. When he saw that Bush was using the fraudulent documentation to back up his claims, he thought to himself, "Not that stupid piece of garbage," according to Newsweek.

And then, of course, there was the famous presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5th. Powell held aloft a British Intelligence dossier on the current status of Iraqi weapons, praised it lavishly, and used it as the central underpinnings of his argument that Iraq was a clear and present danger. It came to light some days later that vast swaths of the dossier he praised had been plagiarized from a magazine article penned five months earlier by a California graduate student from California whose focus had been Iraq circa 1991. You can read more on this aspect of the mess in my article from that time entitled Blair, Powell UN Report Written By Student. Last week, Powell described this profoundly flawed UN presentation as "the best analytic product that we could have put up."

The aggravation within the administration, after all these statements, caused George W. Bush to exclaim on May 30, "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." He was referring to an alleged Iraqi mobile chemical laboratory, one of the "Winnebagos of Death" described by Colin Powell. Said mobile facility contained exactly zero evidence of having been used to produce weapons of any kind, and was in fact most likely used as a mobile food testing platform in the service of Saddam Hussein, who was always paranoid about assassination.

Over 170 American soldiers died in the second war in Iraq. The Iraqi populace is deeply angered by the American presence in their country, and they are armed to the teeth. More soldiers will die in the impossible police action that has become victory's inheritance. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died, along with untold scores of Iraqi soldiers. The Middle East has been inflamed by the war; bombings in Riyadh and Casablanca provide a bleak preview of what is to come. According to Mr. Bush, the entire thing was aimed at that one mobile lab. The thousands of tons of WMDs we were promised do not exist, so that empty mobile lab is what we must settle for if we are to justify this war in our hearts and minds.

Once upon a time, we impeached a sitting President for lying under oath about sexual trysts. No one died, no one had their legs or arms or face or genitals blown off because of the lies of a President who had been caught with his pants down. Today in America, we endure a sitting President who lied for months about the threat posed by a sovereign nation. That nation was invaded and attacked, and thousands died because of it. The aftereffects of this action will be felt for generations to come. The very democracy which gives us meaning as a country has been put in peril by these deeds. When the smoke cleared, every reason for that war was proven to be a lie.

Of course, there will be no impeachment with a Republican Congress. This must not dissuade us from demanding satisfaction. Let the House be brought to order. Gavel the members to attention, and let the evidence be brought forth. Let there be justice for the living and the dead. Let this man Bush be impeached and cleansed from office for the lies he has told. These are not innocent lies. The dead remember.

Posted by Lisa at 01:42 PM

The Wolfowitz Loose Cannon Continues

Note that there has now been a Correction and Clarification posted, and the article has been removed. Except that the correction doesn't say that any of the words that Wolfowitz was reported as saying were incorrect, only that the magazine's interpretation of them was incorrect.

Luckily we'll always have a copy of the article right here.

And now, on with my original post...

For the life of me, I can't understand why Paul Wolfowitz is blowing the whistle on his own administration like this. (See above note, this is only a ~~logical~~ crazed interpretation and is not what he really meant to say. So with that in mind, let's get back to my little rant, shall we?) Is he so mad with power he thinks it won't matter? Is he simply mad in general, and perhaps he doesn't even realize the implications of what he is saying? Is this part of some greater scheme to prove to the rest of the world that the American public will tolerate this kind of behavior so he can go do the same thing in other parts of the world? (Presumably with the American people's blessing?)

I can't figure it out, but it sure is fun to watch. These days, I'll take little sputters of truth from this administration any way I can get them :-)

Wolfowitz: ‘Iraq War Was About Oil’
By George Wright for The Guardian UK.

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Correction is posted at the bottom of this page.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml

for url (~~temporarily down~~ removed and this correction posted): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html

Wolfowitz: ‘Iraq War Was About Oil’
By George Wright
The Guardian

Wednesday 04 June 2003

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.

Correction posted here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4684865,00.html

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Posted by Lisa at 12:35 PM

Madeleine Albright On The Daily Show

Here is last night's interview with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Fascinating stuff. They talk about North Korea and what's really going on over there (not what we're told here -- that the country's leader is just a looney tune) -- and how the United States is pretty much hated and feared by the rest of the world at this point. (How sad.)

Hi-res versions will go up later today.

Madeleine Albright On The Daily Show - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 12 MB)
Madeleine Albright On The Daily Show - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 8 MB)

The Daily Show (the best news on television).

Posted by Lisa at 07:29 AM

June 04, 2003

WMD's = 'The Most Convenient Excuse For War' = 'Not A Real Threat' = 'Lies To Congress and American People'

WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
By David Usborne and Katherine Butler for the Independent UK.

The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged.

The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair...

The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found...

Most striking is the fact that these latest remarks come from Mr Wolfowitz, recognised widely as the leader of the hawks' camp in Washington most responsible for urging President George Bush to use military might in Iraq. The magazine article reveals that Mr Wolfowitz was even pushing Mr Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the 11 September attacks in the US, instead of invading Afghanistan...

Critics of the administration and of the war will now want to know how convinced the Americans really were that the weapons existed in Iraq to the extent that was publicly stated. Questions are also multiplying as to the quality of the intelligence provided to the White House. Was it simply faulty given that nothing has been found in Iraq, or was it influenced by the White House's fixation on the weapons issue? Or were the intelligence agencies telling the White House what it wanted to hear?

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410730

WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
By David Usborne

30 May 2003

The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged.

The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.

Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.

The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found.

The failure to find a single example of the weapons that London and Washington said were inside Iraq only makes the embarrassment more acute. Voices are increasingly being raised in the US and Britain demanding an explanation for why nothing has been found.

Most striking is the fact that these latest remarks come from Mr Wolfowitz, recognised widely as the leader of the hawks' camp in Washington most responsible for urging President George Bush to use military might in Iraq. The magazine article reveals that Mr Wolfowitz was even pushing Mr Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the 11 September attacks in the US, instead of invading Afghanistan.

There have long been suspicions that Mr Wolfowitz has essentially been running a shadow administration out of his Pentagon office, ensuring that the right-wing views of himself and his followers find their way into the practice of American foreign policy. He is best known as the author of the policy of first-strike pre-emption in world affairs that was adopted by Mr Bush shortly after the al-Qa'ida attacks.

In asserting that weapons of mass destruction gave a rationale for attacking Iraq that was acceptable to everyone, Mr Wolfowitz was presumably referring in particular to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He was the last senior member of the administration to agree to the push earlier this year to persuade the rest of the world that removing Saddam by force was the only remaining viable option.

The conversion of Mr Powell was on full view in the UN Security Council in February when he made a forceful presentation of evidence that allegedly proved that Saddam was concealing weapons of mass destruction.

Critics of the administration and of the war will now want to know how convinced the Americans really were that the weapons existed in Iraq to the extent that was publicly stated. Questions are also multiplying as to the quality of the intelligence provided to the White House. Was it simply faulty given that nothing has been found in Iraq or was it influenced by the White House's fixation on the weapons issue? Or were the intelligence agencies telling the White House what it wanted to hear?

This week, Sam Nunn, a former senator, urged Congress to investigate whether the argument for war in Iraq was based on distorted intelligence. He raised the possibility that Mr Bush's policy against Saddam had influenced the intelligence that indicated Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction.

This week, the CIA and the other American intelligence agencies have promised to conduct internal reviews of the quality of the material they supplied the administration on what was going on in Iraq. The heat on the White House was only made fiercer by Mr Rumsfeld's admission that nothing may now be found in Iraq to back up those earlier claims, if only because the Iraqis may have got rid of any evidence before the conflict.

"It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict," the Defence Secretary said.

* The US military said last night that it had released a suspected Iraqi war criminal by mistake. US Central Command said it was offering a $25,000 (315,000) reward for the capture of Mohammed Jawad An-Neifus, suspected of being involved in the murder of thousands of Iraqi Shia Muslims whose remains were found at a mass grave in Mahawil, southern Iraq, last month.

The alleged mobile weapons laboratories

As scepticism grows over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, London and Washington are attempting to turn the focus of attention to Iraq's alleged possession of mobile weapons labs.

A joint CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency report released this week claimed that two trucks found in northern Iraq last month were mobile labs used to develop biological weapons. The trucks were fitted with hi-tech laboratory equipment and the report said the discovery represented the "strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biowarfare programme".

The design of the vehicles made them "an ingeniously simple self-contained bioprocessing system". The report said no other purpose, for example water purification, medical laboratory or vaccine production, would justify such effort and expense.

But critics arenot convinced. No biological agents were found on the trucks and experts point out that, unlike the trucks described by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, in a speech to the UN Security Council, they were open sided and would therefore have left a trace easy for weapons inspectors to detect. One former UN inspector said that the trucks would have been a very inefficient way to produce anthrax.

Katherine Butler

Posted by Lisa at 05:33 PM

A Woman's Right To Choose Is Getting Kicked Around In Congress - Right Now

These clips were from the live CSPAN feed less than an hour ago.

The Repubs are trying to pass legislation banning "partial birth abortions," a term that doesn't even have any meaning in the medical profession. (The Repubs made it vague on purpose so that its meaning could be interpreted later, and could potentially apply to procedures it was not originally intended for.)

Here are some short video clips from some of the Democrats fighting for our right to choose that I thought provided some simple, concise explanations about what this legislation tries to do exactly and why it is unconstitutional on so many different levels.
Rep. Nita Lowey - NY (Small - 4 MB)

Rep. Jerrold Nadler - NY (Small 5 MB)

Posted by Lisa at 03:46 PM

Sign The Petition For Public Domain Enhancement Act (The Eldred Act)

Last October, I camped out in front of the Supreme Court in order to witness the Eldred Argument.

We lost, and now, if copyright law stays the way it is right now, nothing is going to go into the public domain for at least 18 years. (Maybe longer, if the copyright term is extended again.)

However, as of yesterday, there is hope. "Phase Two" if you will, of the Eldred strategy to rebuild the public domain: The Public Domain Enhancement Act.

The Public Domain Enhancement Act is the same thing as the "Eldred Act" that many of you have been asking me about over the last few months. At the time, I couldn't explain it to anyone. But it turns out it's pretty simple.

The law would place works in the public domain after 50 years unless a copyright holder sent in a dollar to secure the later 80+ years of protection. That's it.

You can help out right now by signing this petition.

We'll figure out how to rebuild the public domain yet!

Posted by Lisa at 02:22 PM

Shrub Dodges WMD Question

Here's a little ditty to start off this fine day -- Courtesy of

The Daily Show (the best news on television).

Shrub Dodges WMD Question (Small - 2 MB)

Shrub Dodges WMD Question (Hi-res - 15 MB)

Posted by Lisa at 08:33 AM

June 03, 2003

Wolfowitz Admits That Iraqi WMD 'Threat' Was Chosen As Justification For The War For 'Burecratic reasons'

Wolfowitz reveals Iraq PR plan
By John Shovelan for The World Today.

The Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz is seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration, and it was he who, shortly after the terrorist strikes on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, laid out the reasoning for President Bush why the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown.

In an interview with Vanity Fair, Mr Wolfowitz is quoted at saying the reason for choosing Iraq's alleged stocks of chemical and biological weapons to justify going to war was taken for bureaucratic reasons.

It was, he says one of many reasons. The magazine quotes Mr Wolfowitz saying "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Despite a concerted effort by US forces in Iraq, no chemical or biological weapons have been found. In the lead-up to the war, President Bush and his key allies, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister, John Howard repeated assertions that the threat posed by Saddam's stocks of banned weapons was sufficient enough to go to war and eliminate them...

JOHN SHOVELAN: In his interview with Vanity Fair, Mr Wolfowitz said another reason largely ignored for going to war with Iraq was that it enabled the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. Lifting that burden, he said, is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s867453.htm

Wolfowitz reveals Iraq PR plan
PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today - Thursday, 29 May , 2003 12:10:02
Reporter: John Shovelan
HAMISH ROBERTSON: There's been a very candid statement by the United States Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, that the US decision to stress the dangers posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all other reasons was taken because of disputes within the Washington bureaucracy.

Mr Wolfowitz says that stressing Iraq's alleged chemical and biological weapons as the main argument for going to war with Iraq was the only one that all arms of the bureaucracy could agree on.

John Shovelan reports from Washington:

JOHN SHOVELAN: The Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz is seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration, and it was he who, shortly after the terrorist strikes on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, laid out the reasoning for President Bush why the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown.

In an interview with Vanity Fair, Mr Wolfowitz is quoted at saying the reason for choosing Iraq's alleged stocks of chemical and biological weapons to justify going to war was taken for bureaucratic reasons.

It was, he says one of many reasons. The magazine quotes Mr Wolfowitz saying "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Despite a concerted effort by US forces in Iraq, no chemical or biological weapons have been found. In the lead-up to the war, President Bush and his key allies, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister, John Howard repeated assertions that the threat posed by Saddam's stocks of banned weapons was sufficient enough to go to war and eliminate them.

The UN Security Council disagreed. Just yesterday, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked why no weapons of mass destruction had been found, said Iraq may have destroyed them before US-led forces invaded.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Of late, the administration has begun focussing on the human rights violations under Saddam Hussein and the mass graves that have been discovered since the end of the war.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: That are testament to what this regime was like and let's not lose sight of the fact that the Iraqi people are far better off with that brutal dictator gone.

JOHN SHOVELAN: But some Democrats in Congress believe US intelligence was faulty, and on Sunday, Senator Joe Biden said the administration had hyped the claims about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

As the US administration now pressures Iran about its alleged nuclear weapons program, Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser, denied the standing of US intelligence in the region had suffered.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I think that US credibility on these issues is actually quite high.

JOHN SHOVELAN: In his interview with Vanity Fair, Mr Wolfowitz said another reason largely ignored for going to war with Iraq was that it enabled the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. Lifting that burden, he said, is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East.

The interview was conducted just days before the terrorist bombing in Riyadh.

Not long after the major conflict was declared over in Iraq, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld announced US troops would be withdrawing. One of Osama bin Laden's demands has been the withdrawal of US forces from the home of Islam's holiest sites.

John Shovelan, Washington.

Posted by Lisa at 08:58 PM

Black Voices For Peace President Damu Smith Interviewed On CSPAN About Yesterday's FCC Vote

The group Black Voices For Peace were protesting yesterday outside of the FCC Building in Washington D.C. during yesterday's meeting.

Here is an interview with its President, Damu Smith, that was broadcast yesterday on CSPAN yesterday after the re-broadcast of the meeting/vote/protest.

This is a really solid and concise three minute explanation about the greater situation and how groups such as Black Voices For Peace, and others, are starting to organize to help raise public awareness about Media Consolidation and other issues.

Damu Smith, President, Black Voices For Peace - Complete Interview

Damu Smith At FCC Vote Protest (Small - 14 MB)
Damu Smith At FCC Vote Protest (Hi-Res - 170 MB)
Audio - Damu Smith At FCC Vote Protest (MP3 - 5 MB)

Posted by Lisa at 03:07 PM

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein Explains Why Changing The FCC Media Ownership Rules Is Such A Bad Idea

Here's most of FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein's speech from yesterday's FCC meeting. (I missed the very beginning of it.)

He gave his speech, received polite applause, and before the applause was even over, Michael Powell took a vote, democracy went down the drain, and the meeting was adjourned.

That's when the Code Pink ladies began singing their song and were escorted out of the room by the cops.

No Hi-res or highlight reels on this one guys. There's just no time.

If anyone ever really needs a high resolution version of this for something, just let me know and I'll generate one for you (even on short notice).

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein - Near Complete

Jonathan Adelstein At FCC Vote (Small - 33 MB)
Audio - Jonathan Adelstein At FCC Vote (MP3 - 19 MB)

Posted by Lisa at 02:56 PM

June 02, 2003

New Category: The Shrub War - WMD Lies

So the Shrub Administration is now admitting openly to the American Public that it was lied to in order to gain public support for the war.

I just wanted all of these articles in one place so we can remind everyone of the truth when election day grows near and the Repubs start up with the revisionist history regarding its official position as to why the war was necessary.

Posted by Lisa at 07:07 PM

Video of Code Pink Speaking Out (Singing In Protest) At Today's FCC Vote - Members Escorted Out By Police

Here's a little web movie of the very end of fcc commissioner Jonathan Adelstein's speech before the vote was taken and Medea Benjamin (Media Alliance, Code Pink) and Victoria Cunningham (Code Pink) and other Code Pinkers that you can't see off camera (including Rebecca Stone Gordon, Adjunct Professor, Computer Science, Audio Technology and Physics at American University) started singing "the mass deregulation of the mass communication is the end of democracy" and got taken away by police:
Code Pink Protests The FCC Deregulation Of Media Ownership Rules (Small - 4 MB)

Code Pink Protests The FCC Deregulation Of Media Ownership Rules (Hi-res - 44 MB)

Audio - Code Pink Protests The FCC Deregulation Of Media Ownership Rules (MP3 - 2 MB)

Audio - Code Pink Protests The FCC Deregulation Of Media Ownership Rules (AIFF - 8 MB)

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein's speech will be in the same directory later today:

Directory Of Goodies From Today's FCC Vote

This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)

Posted by Lisa at 03:03 PM

Excitement At The FCC Hearing!

Wow I just recorded Medea Benjamin, Founding Director of Global Exchange and co-founder of Code Pink and Friends getting taken away by police immediately after the vote was taken on the media ownership rules in Washington DC today.

Maybe they woke up Jesse Jackson. (He was falling asleep in the audience :-)

From the CSPAN footage, it looks like they broke up the meeting over it.

I guess things were over with anyway at that point.

Commissioner Adelstein gave a nice speech at the end there, too.

I'll have this stuff up in an hour or so max. Capturing and generating movie files now...

Posted by Lisa at 01:55 PM

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein On CSPAN Now

Today's FCC meeting/vote is being rebroadcast on CSPAN right now.

Right now, Jonathan Adelstein, one of the "good guys" on this issue at the FCC is explaining just how bad these new rules will be for the American people and their diversity of source of information.

Posted by Lisa at 01:33 PM

Webcasting Rates and Terms Agreement Reached Between RIAA/SoundExchange and the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System

A group of non-commercial webcasters including American Council on
Education (ACE), Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI), Intercolegiate
Broadcasting System (IBS), Harvard Radio Broadcasting (WHRB) and National
Religious Broadcasters Music License Committee (NRBMLC) reached an
agreement over the weekend with the RIAA/SoundExchange on rates and terms
for webcasting.

IBS Announcement

A low fixed price agreement has been reached that also provides for no reporting/recordkeeping for participating IBS Member radio stations/webcasters. The period covered by the agreement is October 1998 through December 31, 2004...

Here's a PDF of the agreement.

Here are the rate specs from the "rates and terms" that were published today:

(1) $200 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1999 (which shall be treated as one year for purposes of
these Rates and Terms);

(2) $250 for each of the years 2000 through 2003; and

(3) $500 for 2004, except in the case of an NEE that is, or is affiliated
with, an educational institution with fewer than 10,000 enrolled students,
in which case the minimum fee shall be $250.

(b) Other Noncommercial Webcasters Transmitting a Single Channel. Except
as provided in Section 3(c) and subject to Section 4, each Noncommercial
Webcaster that is not an NEE shall pay nonrefundable minimum annual fees
as set forth below for all or any portion of a year in which it made or
makes any digital audio transmissions of sound recordings under the
section 114 statutory license (whether a Broadcaster Simulcast, an
Internet-only transmission or otherwise):

(1) $200 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1999 (which shall be treated as one year for purposes of
these Rates and Terms);

(2) $250 for 2000;

(3) $300 for 2001, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250;

(4) $350 for 2002, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250;

(5) $400 for 2003, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250; and

(6) $500 for 2004, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250.

(c) Noncommercial Webcasters Transmitting Multiple Channels.
Notwithstanding Section 3(a) or (b) as applicable, the nonrefundable
minimum annual fee shall be $500 for each year (as identified in Section
3(a)(1) through (3) or 3(b)(1) through (6)) for any Noncommercial
Webcaster that made or makes digital audio transmissions of sound
recordings on more than one channel or station of programming; provided
that -

(1) if the digital audio transmissions of sound recordings over any
channels or stations in excess of one consist only of "Incidental
Performances" (as defined in Section 9(f)), the nonrefundable minimum
annual fee shall be as provided in Section 3(a) or (b) as applicable;

(2) if substantially all of the programming of all of a Noncommercial
Webcaster's channels and stations is reasonably classified as news, talk,
sports or business programming, the minimum fee shall be $250;

Here is the text of the document in case the link goes bad:

Rates and Terms Available to Certain Noncommercial Webcasters

1. General

(a) Availability of Rates and Terms. The rates and terms set forth herein
(the "Rates and Terms") cover the making of public performances of sound
recordings by means of digital audio transmissions under the statutory
license of 17 U.S.C. 114 by "Noncommercial Webcasters" (as defined in
Section 9(e) hereof), and the reproduction of ephemeral recordings used
solely to facilitate such transmissions under the statutory license of 17
U.S.C. 112(e), during the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending
on December 31, 2004. A Noncommercial Webcaster may elect to be subject to
these Rates and Terms, in their entirety, by complying with the procedure
set forth in Section 2 hereof.

(b) Relationship to Other Provisions. Subject to Section 7, any
Noncommercial Webcaster relying upon the statutory licenses set forth in
17 U.S.C. 112 and 114 under these Rates and Terms shall comply with the
requirements of 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, these Rates and Terms and other
governing provisions established by the Copyright Office. Any terms
determined in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114 and applicable to the
collection and distribution by SoundExchange of payments under 17 U.S.C.
112 and 114 from commercial eligible nonsubscription transmission services
(e.g. terms relating to distribution of royalties by SoundExchange,
deductions from distributions, unclaimed funds, possible designation of
successors to SoundExchange in the event of its dissolution, retention of
records, verification, and confidentiality of payment information) shall
apply to payments under these Rates and Terms except to the extent
inconsistent with these Rates and Terms.

(c) Relationship to Other Agreements. These Rates and Terms are without
prejudice to, and subject to, any voluntary agreements that a
Noncommercial Webcaster may have entered into with any sound recording
copyright owner. Should there be any voluntarily negotiated rates and
terms arrived at between copyright owners and webcasters that are adopted
by the Librarian of Congress during 2003 as rates and terms for eligible
nonsubscription transmission services following publication of such rates
and terms in the Federal Register pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Sec. 251.63(b),
any Noncommercial Webcaster that qualifies for such rates may, by written
notice to SoundExchange, elect, for 2004, to pay royalties under the rates
and terms adopted by the Librarian in lieu of the rates and terms
applicable hereunder; provided that if a Noncommercial Webcaster does so,
it shall at the time its first 2004 payment is due under the terms adopted
by the Librarian, pay any additional amount that would have been due under
the rates and terms adopted by the Librarian for the period beginning on
October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2003, in excess of the
royalties previously paid by the Noncommercial Webcaster for that period
under these Rates and Terms.

(d) CARP Proceedings. A Noncommercial Webcaster that elects to be subject
to these Rates and Terms agrees that it has elected these terms in lieu of
participating in a copyright arbitration royalty panel ("CARP") proceeding
to set rates for the 2003-2004 period and in lieu of any different rates
and terms that may be determined through such a CARP proceeding. Thus,
once a Noncommercial Webcaster has elected these Rates and Terms, it shall
refrain from participating in any such CARP proceeding and can opt out of
these Rates and Terms only as provided in Section 1(c).

2. Election for Treatment as a Noncommercial Webcaster

(a) Election Process. A Noncommercial Webcaster that wishes to elect to be
subject to these Rates and Terms in lieu of any other royalty rates and
terms that otherwise might apply under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114 for the
period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2004,
shall submit to SoundExchange a completed and signed election form
(available on the SoundExchange Web site at http://www.soundexchange.com)
by no later than the date 30 days after publication of these Rates and
Terms in the Federal Register. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence-

(1) if a Noncommercial Webcaster has not previously made digital audio
transmissions of sound recordings under the section 114 statutory license,
the Noncommercial Webcaster may make its election by no later than the
first date on which it would be obligated under these Rates and Terms to
make a royalty payment for the use of sound recordings under the section
112 or 114 statutory license; and

(2) an "NEE" (as defined in Section 9(d)) may make its election by no
later than October 15, 2003.

(b) Effect of Election or Nonelection. A Noncommercial Webcaster that
fails to make a timely election shall pay royalties as otherwise provided
under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114 (the "Statutory Rate"). Subject to Section
1(c), if a Noncommercial Webcaster timely elects to be covered by these
Rates and Terms, the Noncommercial Webcaster shall thereafter be obligated
to pay royalties under and comply with the provisions of these Rates and
Terms through December 31, 2004, provided that such Noncommercial
Webcaster continues to meet the conditions for eligibility as a
Noncommercial Webcaster, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(E)(i) (as
added by the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002).

(c) Proof of Eligibility. A Noncommercial Webcaster that makes an election
pursuant to Section 2(a) shall make available to SoundExchange, within 30
days after SoundExchange's written request at any time during the 3 years
following such election, sufficient evidence to support its eligibility as
a Noncommercial Webcaster and, if applicable, as an NEE. Any proof of
eligibility provided hereunder shall be provided with a certification
signed by the chief executive officer of the Noncommercial Webcaster, or
other person with similar management authority over the Noncommercial
Webcaster, certifying that the information provided is accurate and the
person signing is authorized to act on behalf of the Noncommercial
Webcaster.

3. Minimum Annual Fees

(a) NEEs Transmitting a Single Channel. Except as provided in Section 3(c)
and subject to Section 4, each NEE shall pay nonrefundable minimum annual
fees as set forth below for all or any portion of a year in which it made
or makes any digital audio transmissions of sound recordings under the
section 114 statutory license (whether a "Broadcaster Simulcast" (as
defined in Section 9(b)), an Internet-only transmission or otherwise):

(1) $200 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1999 (which shall be treated as one year for purposes of
these Rates and Terms);

(2) $250 for each of the years 2000 through 2003; and

(3) $500 for 2004, except in the case of an NEE that is, or is affiliated
with, an educational institution with fewer than 10,000 enrolled students,
in which case the minimum fee shall be $250.

(b) Other Noncommercial Webcasters Transmitting a Single Channel. Except
as provided in Section 3(c) and subject to Section 4, each Noncommercial
Webcaster that is not an NEE shall pay nonrefundable minimum annual fees
as set forth below for all or any portion of a year in which it made or
makes any digital audio transmissions of sound recordings under the
section 114 statutory license (whether a Broadcaster Simulcast, an
Internet-only transmission or otherwise):

(1) $200 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1999 (which shall be treated as one year for purposes of
these Rates and Terms);

(2) $250 for 2000;

(3) $300 for 2001, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250;

(4) $350 for 2002, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250;

(5) $400 for 2003, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250; and

(6) $500 for 2004, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250.

(c) Noncommercial Webcasters Transmitting Multiple Channels.
Notwithstanding Section 3(a) or (b) as applicable, the nonrefundable
minimum annual fee shall be $500 for each year (as identified in Section
3(a)(1) through (3) or 3(b)(1) through (6)) for any Noncommercial
Webcaster that made or makes digital audio transmissions of sound
recordings on more than one channel or station of programming; provided
that -

(1) if the digital audio transmissions of sound recordings over any
channels or stations in excess of one consist only of "Incidental
Performances" (as defined in Section 9(f)), the nonrefundable minimum
annual fee shall be as provided in Section 3(a) or (b) as applicable;

(2) if substantially all of the programming of all of a Noncommercial
Webcaster's channels and stations is reasonably classified as news, talk,
sports or business programming, the minimum fee shall be $250;

(3) if a Noncommercial Webcaster that owns or operates multiple
over-the-air terrestrial AM or FM radio stations offers more than one
Internet channel or station on which substantially all of the programming
consists of Broadcaster Simulcasts, then -

(A) a nonrefundable minimum annual fee otherwise determined in accordance
with this Section 3(c) shall extend to only three such Internet channels
or stations offering Broadcaster Simulcasts, as well as associated
Internet-only channels (subject to Section 5);

(B) additional nonrefundable minimum annual fees shall be payable under
this Section 3(c) for additional groups of up to three Internet channels
or stations offering Broadcaster Simulcasts, as well as associated
Internet-only channels (subject to Section 5);

(C) each such group of up to three such Internet channels or stations, as
well as associated Internet-only channels (subject to Section 5), shall be
treated as a separate Noncommercial Webcaster for purposes of Sections
3(c)(2), 4 and 5;

(D) all such channels or stations offering Broadcaster Simulcasts in a
group shall be treated as a single channel or station for purposes of
Section 5;

(E) any additional channels or stations considered with the group for
purposes of Section 5 shall also be considered with the group for purposes
of Section 4; and

(F) accordingly, the Noncommercial Webcaster may offer two additional
Internet-only channels or stations with each group of up to three channels
or stations offering Broadcaster Simulcasts without triggering payments
under Section 5(b), but all of such channels or stations (up to a total of
five) shall be considered together for purposes of determining whether the
Noncommercial Webcaster exceeds the 146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hour
threshold in Section 4; and

(4) for purposes of determining the number of channels or stations of
programming offered by a Noncommercial Webcaster, an "archived program"
(as defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(2)) that complies with the conditions in
17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2)(C)(iii)(I) and (II) shall not be considered a separate
channel or station of programming except in the case of a Noncommercial
Webcaster that exclusively makes digital audio transmissions of archived
programming.

(d) Payment in Lieu of Providing Reports of Use. All Noncommercial
Webcasters' payments of nonrefundable minimum annual fees for each of 2003
and 2004 shall be accompanied by an additional payment of $50 in 2003 and
$25 in 2004 in lieu of the provision of reports of use of sound
recordings, as described in Section 7.

4. Usage Fees for 2004

(a) In General. Subject to Section 5, the nonrefundable minimum annual fee
payable under Section 3 for 2004 shall constitute full payment for digital
audio transmissions totaling not more than 146,000 "Aggregate Tuning
Hours" (as defined in Section 9(a)) per month. If, in any month during
2004, a Noncommercial Webcaster makes digital audio transmissions of sound
recordings under the section 114 statutory license in excess of 146,000
Aggregate Tuning Hours, the Noncommercial Webcaster shall pay additional
royalties for those digital audio transmissions in excess of 146,000
Aggregate Tuning Hours at the following rates, subject to an election as
provided in Section 4(b):

(1) $0.0002176 (.02176¢) per "Performance" (as defined in Section 9(f));
or

(2) $.00251 (.251¢) per "Aggregate Tuning Hour," except in the case of
channels or stations where substantially all of the programming is
reasonably classified as news, talk, sports or business programming, in
which case the royalty rate shall be $.0002 (.02¢) per Aggregate Tuning
Hour.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Noncommercial Webcaster shall calculate its
Aggregate Tuning Hours of digital audio transmissions each month and shall
pay any additional royalties owed for such month as provided above in this
Section 4(a), but the Noncommercial Webcaster shall not owe any additional
royalties for any subsequent months until such time as the Noncommercial
Webcaster again exceeds the 146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hour threshold during
a given month.

(b) Election of Per Performance or Aggregate Tuning Hour Rate. The first
time a Noncommercial Webcaster is required to pay additional royalties
under Section 4(a), the Noncommercial Webcaster shall elect to pay based
on the per performance royalty set forth in Section 4(a)(1) or the
aggregate tuning hour royalty set forth in Section 4(a)(2) for all
additional royalties under Section 4(a) incurred during the remainder of
2004, if any. Thus, for example, a Noncommercial Webcaster may not in one
month when its digital audio transmissions exceed 146,000 Aggregate Tuning
Hours calculate its additional royalties based on the per performance
royalty and in another month when its digital audio transmissions exceed
146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hours calculate its additional royalties based on
the aggregate tuning hour royalty.

(c) Reporting. For 2004, each Noncommercial Webcaster making digital audio
transmissions in excess of 146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hours in any month
shall report its Aggregate Tuning Hours of digital audio transmissions to
SoundExchange in its monthly statement of account under Section 6(d). Each
Noncommercial Webcaster having a statutory license in 2004 and not making
digital audio transmissions in excess of 146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hours in
any month shall so certify in the statement of account accompanying its
first payment in 2005, if any.

5. Fees for More Than Three Channels of Programming

Subject to Section 3(c)(3), if in any year (as identified in Section
3(a)(1) through (3) or 3(b)(1) through (6)), a Noncommercial Webcaster
made or makes digital audio transmissions of sound recordings on more than
three channels or stations of programming, then -

(a) the Noncommercial Webcaster shall by written notice to SoundExchange
at the time of its first payment for the year or its inception of its
first channel or station in excess of three, whichever is later, designate
three channels or stations for which the nonrefundable minimum annual fee
payable under Section 3, and in 2004, any additional royalty payment under
Section 4, shall constitute full payment; and

(b) the Noncommercial Webcaster shall pay royalties for all its digital
audio transmissions of sound recordings under the section 114 statutory
license over its other channels and stations at the Statutory Rate for
digital audio transmissions made by commercial eligible nonsubscription
transmission services at such time, provided that -

(1) the Noncommercial Webcaster shall not be required to make any minimum
payment that otherwise applies to commercial eligible nonsubscription
transmission services;

(2) the nonrefundable minimum annual fee payable under Section 3 shall not
be creditable toward such payments for its other channels and stations;

(3) such payments for its other channels and stations shall be due at the
times provided in Section 6 (rather than any different times otherwise
applicable to commercial eligible nonsubscription transmission services),
except that if the Statutory Rate for digital audio transmissions made by
commercial eligible nonsubscription transmission services has not then
been determined, such payments for its other channels and stations shall
be due 45 days following the month in which the Statutory Rate is
determined; and

(4) the Noncommercial Webcaster shall comply with other terms relating to
royalty payments that otherwise apply to commercial eligible
nonsubscription transmission services (e.g. terms concerning any election
among payment options).

For the avoidance of doubt, by operation of Section 3(c)(3), when a
Noncommercial Webcaster that owns or operates multiple over-the-air
terrestrial AM or FM radio stations offers more than one Internet channel
or station on which substantially all of the programming consists of
Broadcaster Simulcasts: (i) such Broadcaster Simulcasts shall in no event
be subject to the Statutory Rate for digital audio transmissions made by
commercial eligible nonsubscription transmission services, and (ii) only
programming offered on Internet-only channels or stations in excess of two
that may be associated with a group of up to three channels or stations
offering Broadcaster Simulcasts may be subject to that Statutory Rate as
provided in this Section.

6. Payment of Royalties in General

(a) Timing of Minimum Payments. Payments of nonrefundable minimum annual
fees under Section 3 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and
ending on December 31, 2003, shall be due by October 15, 2003.
Nonrefundable minimum annual fees for 2004 shall be due by January 31,
2004. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 6(a), when
a Noncommercial Webcaster has not previously made digital audio
transmissions of sound recordings under the section 114 statutory license,
the Noncommercial Webcaster may make its first payment of nonrefundable
minimum annual fees within 45 days following the month in which the
Noncommercial Webcaster commences digital audio transmissions of sound
recordings under the section 114 statutory license.

(b) Timing of Other Payments. Any payments due under Section 4 or 5 shall
be due 45 days following the month in which the liability accrues.

(c) Credit. Any payments of section 112 or 114 statutory license royalties
made by a Noncommercial Webcaster to SoundExchange prior to its election
under Section 2 shall be creditable to the payments due under Sections 3
through 5 of these Rates and Terms.

(d) Remittance. Payments of all amounts due under these Rates and Terms
shall be made to SoundExchange and shall under no circumstances be
refundable. Payments shall be accompanied by a statement of account in the
form made available on the SoundExchange Web site located at
http://www.soundexchange.com.

(e) Ephemeral Recordings. The royalty payable under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) for
any reproduction of a phonorecord made during the period beginning on
October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2004, and used solely by a
Noncommercial Webcaster to facilitate transmissions for which it pays
royalties as and when provided in these Rates and Terms shall be deemed to
be included within, and to comprise 8.8% percent of, the Noncommercial
Webcaster's royalty payments under these Rates and Terms.

(f) Continuing Obligation to Pay. If Statutory Rates and terms for
Noncommercial Webcasters for the period beginning January 1, 2005 have not
been established by December 31, 2004, then Noncommercial Webcasters shall
continue to make payments at the 2004 rates under these Rates and Terms
until such successor rates and terms are established. Such interim
royalties shall be subject to retroactive adjustment based on the final
successor rates. Any overpayment shall be fully creditable to future
payments, and any underpayment shall be paid within thirty days after
establishment of the successor rates and terms, except as may otherwise be
provided in the successor terms.

(g) Late Payments. A Noncommercial Webcaster shall pay a late fee of
0.75% per month, or the highest lawful rate, whichever is lower, for any
payment received by SoundExchange after the due date. Late fees shall
accrue from the due date until payment is received by SoundExchange.

7. Notice and Recordkeeping

(a) Data for Distributions. Noncommercial Webcasters electing these Rates
and Terms shall not be required to provide reports of use of sound
recordings for 2003 and 2004, even if the Librarian of Congress issues
regulations otherwise requiring such reports by Noncommercial Webcasters.
The payments required by Section 3(d) are intended to facilitate
SoundExchange's ability to collect or otherwise acquire substitute data on
which to base distributions to copyright owners and performers of payments
made by Noncommercial Webcasters, although SoundExchange shall be under no
obligation to spend such payments in any particular way or to collect or
otherwise acquire any particular data by any particular means.
SoundExchange may base its distributions to copyright owners and
performers of payments made by Noncommercial Webcasters on any data or
methodology determined by its board.

(b) Future Reporting. The Noncommercial Webcasters shall designate a task
force of not less than five members that shall be obligated to use
reasonable efforts to work with SoundExchange to determine data fields and
report formats and recommend policies, procedures and systems for the
delivery of electronic reports of use of sound recordings to SoundExchange
sufficient to permit SoundExchange, beginning in 2005, to distribute the
royalties paid by Noncommercial Webcasters to those copyright owners and
performers whose sound recordings are used by Noncommercial Webcasters
based on data reported by or on behalf of Noncommercial Webcasters. In the
absence of agreement among the Noncommercial Webcasters concerning the
membership of such task force, each Noncommercial Webcaster shall be
obligated to use reasonable efforts to do the foregoing.

8. Default

A Noncommercial Webcaster shall comply with all the requirements of these
Rates and Terms. If it fails to do so, SoundExchange may give written
notice to the Noncommercial Webcaster that, unless the breach is remedied
within thirty days from the date of notice and not repeated, the
Noncommercial Webcaster's authorization to make public performances and
ephemeral reproductions under these Rates and Terms will be automatically
terminated. Such termination renders any public performances and ephemeral
reproductions as to which the breach relates actionable as acts of
infringement under 17 U.S.C. 501 and fully subject to the remedies
provided by 17 U.S.C. 502-506 and 509.

9. Definitions

As used in these Rates and Terms, the following terms shall have the
following meanings:

(a) The term "Aggregate Tuning Hours" means the total hours of programming
that a Noncommercial Webcaster has transmitted during the relevant period
to all listeners within the United States over the relevant channels or
stations, and from any archived programs, that provide audio programming
consisting, in whole or in part, of eligible nonsubscription
transmissions, less the actual running time of any sound recordings for
which the Noncommercial Webcaster has obtained direct licenses apart from
17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2) or which do not require a license under United States
copyright law. By way of example, if a Noncommercial Webcaster transmitted
one hour of programming to 10 simultaneous listeners, the Noncommercial
Webcaster's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 10. If three minutes of
that hour consisted of transmission of a directly licensed recording, the
Noncommercial Webcaster's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 9 hours and
30 minutes. As an additional example, if one listener listened to a
Noncommercial Webcaster for 10 hours (and none of the recordings
transmitted during that time was directly licensed), the Noncommercial
Webcaster's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 10.

(b) A "Broadcaster Simulcast" is a simultaneous Internet transmission or
retransmission of an over-the-air terrestrial AM or FM radio broadcast,
including one with previously broadcast programming substituted for
programming for which requisite licenses or clearances to transmit over
the Internet have not been obtained and one with substitute
advertisements, where such Internet transmission or retransmission is made
by a Noncommercial Webcaster that owns or operates the over-the-air radio
station making the AM or FM broadcast.

(1) makes no more than incidental use of sound recordings including, but
not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of commercials or
program segments, brief performances during news, talk, sports and
business programming, brief background performances during disk jockey
announcements, brief performances during commercials of sixty seconds or
less in duration, or brief performances during sporting or other public
events; and

(2) other than ambient music that is background at a public event, does
not contain an entire sound recording and does not feature a particular
sound recording of more than thirty seconds (as a sound recording used as
a theme song is featured).

(d) An "NEE" or "Noncommercial Educational Entity" is a Noncommercial
Webcaster that is directly operated by, or is affiliated with and
officially sanctioned by, and the digital audio transmission operations of
which are, during the course of the year, staffed substantially by
students enrolled at, a domestically accredited primary or secondary
school, college, university or other post-secondary degree-granting
educational institution, but that is not a "public broadcasting entity"
(as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(g)) qualified to receive funding from the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting pursuant to the criteria set forth in
47 U.S.C. 396.

(e) The term "Noncommercial Webcaster" shall have the meaning given in 17
U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(E)(i) (as added by the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of
2002).

(f) A "Performance" is each instance in which any portion of a sound
recording is publicly performed to a listener by means of a digital audio
transmission or retransmission (e.g., the delivery of any portion of a
single track from a compact disc to one listener) but excluding the
following:

(1) a performance of a sound recording that does not require a license
(e.g., the sound recording is not copyrighted);

(2) a performance of a sound recording for which the Noncommercial
Webcaster has previously obtained a license from the copyright owner of
such sound recording; and

(3) an Incidental Performance.

Posted by Lisa at 12:15 PM

FCC Vote In: We Lose

CC Vote In: We Lose 3 to 2 - Media Diversity Loses Straight Across The Board

Hey guys. We know that we all worked really hard on this, and at least we made our voices heard, even if it turns out that they just don't care what we think.

We should be used to that by now from this regime. Michael Powell is, of course, another arm of the Shrub Regime that believes that the wealth of our nation belongs in the hands of a few select individuals that "know best" for everyone else.

Well you can bet that this isn't over yet. It just means War. War on media conglomerates that don't care about their responsibilities to the public as broadcasters. If these companies are going to be in charge of everything we see and hear over television and radio, it's going to be up to us to keep watchful eye over them. And I don't mean a friendly, understanding watchful eye, I mean more like a watchful eye that they have to contend with on a regular basis in order to conduct business in a profitable manner.

To my knowledge, there are still some requirements that stations have to meet in order to fulfill their public interest requirements as broadcasters. Let's determine exactly what those requirements are and start organizing inspection teams that travel from station to station checking their public records and sending the inevitable violations to the FCC.

"Like weapons inspectors?" a friend said to me when I told him this idea.

"Yeah, very much like weapons inspections." I replied. "This is War, isn't it?"

Here's a link to the real video of today's meeting at the FCC.

Here's a story by Frank Ahrens for the Washing Post with more details:
FCC Votes to Ease Media Ownership Rules

An ideologically fractured Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines today to relax or eliminate some key media ownership rules, allowing a newspaper to own a television station in the same city and broadcast networks to buy more stations at the national and local levels...

The vote has engendered public opposition by lawmakers, consumer and advocacy groups and unaligned citizens who fear that further media consolidation will make it more difficult for those with minority viewpoints to get their message out. On Friday, the FCC's voice- and e-mail systems were temporarily shut down by a deluge of public comments. The agency has received more than 500,000 e-mails and postcards opposing the changes...

For better or worse, the proposed regulations are to be known as the "Powell Rules."

"I have had to make peace with myself, to know with every fiber of my being and intellect and faith with the law that this is the right answer, at least in the short term," Powell said. "Though it's not the popular answer."

Others think the answer is both unpopular and wrong.

"I'm glad they won't be remembered as the Copps rules," said Copps, who has opposed Powell's attempts to relax media ownership rules at nearly every turn. "They will take the media and the country into very perilous waters. I think we are damaging localism, diversity and competition, making it harder for alternative viewpoints and information to see the light of day."

Copps and Adelstein suggested several edits to the proposed rules changes, such as requiring merged media properties to spell out what public service programming they would produce and holding them accountable. Their modifications were rejected by the Republican majority, which said the suggestions came late in the process and were based on flimsy legal justification.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3076-2003Jun2.html?nav=hptop_tb

FCC Votes to Ease Media Ownership Rules

By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 2, 2003; 2:14 PM

An ideologically fractured Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines today to relax or eliminate some key media ownership rules, allowing a newspaper to own a television station in the same city and broadcast networks to buy more stations at the national and local levels.

FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell joined fellow Republican commissioners Kathleen Q. Abernathy and Kevin J. Martin in approving the changes, while Democrats Jonathan S. Adelstein and Michael J. Copps voted against the changes.

The vote has engendered public opposition by lawmakers, consumer and advocacy groups and unaligned citizens who fear that further media consolidation will make it more difficult for those with minority viewpoints to get their message out. On Friday, the FCC's voice- and e-mail systems were temporarily shut down by a deluge of public comments. The agency has received more than 500,000 e-mails and postcards opposing the changes.

Powell, who has called the controversy "one of the toughest things I've ever faced," said earlier that the current rules fail to take into account the growing influence of Internet and paid television programming, and have been broadly questioned by the courts. Five of the agency's most recent media rules have been thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

Powell said in an interview yesterday: "If I did exactly what I am being urged to do," which is to let the current rules stand, "the result would be disastrous," meaning the rules would be tossed out by the court, leading to an unpoliced environment of unfettered consolidation.

Few issues are likely to define Powell's six-year tenure at the regulatory agency like the outcome of today's vote, FCC commissioners and industry members said.

For better or worse, the proposed regulations are to be known as the "Powell Rules."

"I have had to make peace with myself, to know with every fiber of my being and intellect and faith with the law that this is the right answer, at least in the short term," Powell said. "Though it's not the popular answer."

Others think the answer is both unpopular and wrong.

"I'm glad they won't be remembered as the Copps rules," said Copps, who has opposed Powell's attempts to relax media ownership rules at nearly every turn. "They will take the media and the country into very perilous waters. I think we are damaging localism, diversity and competition, making it harder for alternative viewpoints and information to see the light of day."

FCC staff members recommended lifting the 28-year-old ban prohibiting a newspaper from owning a television station or radio station in the same city, except in the smallest cities. The staff also favored relaxing older rules on television station ownership, allowing broadcast networks and other companies to buy more stations at the national and local levels. The staff members have recommended tightening radio ownership rules that led to widespread consolidation in recent years.

No issue has so deeply divided the commission along partisan lines in some time, say former FCC officials and industry lawyers.

Each side has accused the other of politicizing the process and being intransigent. "This thing has gotten very rough; unnecessarily rough," Powell said. "I would be naive and probably wrong to suggest that it's only business and tomorrow we'll go back to business. Some things [fellow commissioners] have said have crossed the line of civility and respectful discourse."

Copps and Adelstein suggested several edits to the proposed rules changes, such as requiring merged media properties to spell out what public service programming they would produce and holding them accountable. Their modifications were rejected by the Republican majority, which said the suggestions came late in the process and were based on flimsy legal justification.

Posted by Lisa at 11:22 AM

June 01, 2003

Alan Korn At Clear Channel Protest - San Francisco, May 29, 2003

Alan Korn spoke at Thursday's Clear Channel protest in San Francisco. Alan was Stephen Dunifer's counsel in the Free Radio Berkeley case (Decision, Amicus Brief) that went on from 1994-2000 here in California.

Alan's main point was that this fight will be far from over after Monday. Even if the vote takes place and we lose on its outcome, there are other actions we can take in the days and weeks and months to come to fight back against Clear Channel.

He also mentioned how contacting your representatives was still very important and that letters to Senator Barbara Boxer are particularly useful because she's on the Commerce Committee.

Alan likened this situation to the 1920's when people spoke out to protect the environment and brought the issue to the attention of the Federal Government. Cases where people had been arrested committing acts of civil disobedience had to work their way up through the courts before the First Amendment was actually recognized by the Supreme Court. (Can anyone help me find links on this?)

He also explained how citizens can file a "Petition to Deny" with the FCC against Clear Channel radio stations when their licenses are up for renewal. (KSJO in San Joses license is up this year, for example.)

Another thing that citizens can do at any Clear Channel station nationwide during 9-5 on any business day is to show up at their offices and demand to inspect their public files. Stations are supposed to keep certain records about meeting their public interest requirements. (More on this later!)

If stations are violating the rules by exceeding the number of stations allowed for a particular market, it's apparently up to us to collect the proper documentation and inform the FCC about it. Clear Channel, for instance, owns 9 radio stations in San Francisco (only 8 are allowed per market) and 10 radio stations in San Diego, because it keeps two of them across the border in Tijuana.

Alan Korn - Highlights (Small - 7 MB)
Alan Korn - Complete (Small - 13 MB)
No Hi-res yet, coming soon...email me if you need this NOW.

Audio - Alan Korn - Complete (MP3 - 5 MB)

This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)

Posted by Lisa at 04:57 PM

Medea Benjamin At Clear Channel Protest - San Francisco, May 29, 2003

Medea Benjamin, Founding Director of Global Exchange and co-founder of Code Pink, explained to the crowd how the United States probably have one of the most undemocratic media in the world right now.

Medea discussed how public support of the war in Iraq was largely caused by the steady stream of disinformation that was being broadcast over the popular media. How ironic, she said, that our troops are over on the other side of the world supposedly bringing democracy to another country while we are rapidly losing our own democratic freedoms here at home.

Benjamin goes on to explain that, according to an FCC commissioner that she heard on the radio program "Democracy Now" Thursday morning (May 29, 2003), the FCC has received over 428,000 (four hundred twenty-eight thousand) comments regarding this issue, and that 98% of those were against further relaxation of the FCC's media ownership rules.

Medea Benjamin - Highlights (Small - 6 MB)
Medea Benjamin - Near Complete (Small - 13 MB)
No Hi-res yet, coming soon...email me if you need this NOW.

Audio - Medea Benjamin - Near Complete (MP3 - 6 MB)

This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)

Posted by Lisa at 01:20 PM