MediaCynic.com

Archives
Homepage
Linking to Us
Recent Headlines




Add to MyYahoo

Add to MyMSN

Add to Bloglines

Add to NewsGator



Add to Pluck



Categories

2008 Election
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Economy
John Edwards
Entertainment
Environment
Al Gore
Health Care
Immigration
International
Iraq
John Kerry
Media
Middle East
Miscellaneous
Plamegate
Politics
Polls
Religion
Condoleezza Rice
Donald Rumsfeld
Scandals
Science
Social security
Supreme Court
Taxes
Technology




March, 2006 Archives


Las Vegas Residents Have Some Surprises In Store For Them

A Senior Defense official announced that the U.S. military is going to detonate a 700 ton explosive charge in a test called "Divine Strake." The test will result in a large mushroom cloud forming over Las Vegas.
"I don't want to sound glib here but it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," said James Tegnelia, head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Tegnelia said the test was part of a U.S. effort to develop weapons capable of destroying deeply-buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

"We have several very large penetrators we're developing," he told defense reporters. "We also have - are you ready for this - a 700-ton explosively formed charge that we're going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada," he said. "And that represents to U.S. the largest single explosive that we could imagine doing conventionally to solve that problem," he said. The aim is to measure the effect of the blast on hard granite structures, he said.

*****

He said the Russians have been notified of the test, which is scheduled for the first week of June at the Nevada test range. "We're also making sure that Las Vegas understands," Tegnelia said.
So, let's see. The Bush Administration is enacting Operation Divine Strake in which it looks as if Sodom and Gomorrah Las Vegas has been destroyed by angry, divine intervention. Subtle.

In any event, they're going to need someone with excellent communicaton and organizational skills to get the word out to the Las Vegas populace beforehand, so everybody doesn't totally freak out when a mushroom cloud appears over the city after everyone hears a deafening "BOOM." Maybe Andy Card has some free time on his hands.

Posted on March 30, 2006
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati

More Americans Now Call Themselves Democrats

A new Gallup poll shows that more Americans now consider themselves Democrats than Republicans, with 33% considering themselves Democrats. 32% consider themselves Republicans and 34% consider themselves Independents.
Republicans had gained the upper hand in recent years, but 33% of Americans, in the latest Gallup poll, now call themselves Democrats, with those favoring the GOP one point behind. But Gallup says this widens a bit more "once the leanings of Independents are taken into account."

Independents now make up 34% of the population. When asked if they lean in a certain direction, their answers pushed the Democrat numbers to 49% with Republicans at 42%. One year ago, the parties were dead even at 46% each. This shift indicates, Gallup says, why its polls show Democrats leading in this year's congressional races. The latest poll was taken from January to March 2006, with a national sample of about 1,000 adults.
Ten years ago, almost no one called himself an Independent. This is a direct result of the hijacking of the Republican party by the religious right. Most people originally joined the Republican party because they oppose big government, deficits, government interference in private matters, and burdensome taxes on small business and the middle class.

As Governor Christine Todd Whitman notes in her recent book, It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America, the religious right has turned the GOP into the party that wants a theocracy in which the government dictates policy on social and health issues, while running the largest deficits in American history. The result is a flight to the ideological middle and the creation of a large voting block of Independent voters who don't have party loyalty in the least: all they care about is a candidate's stance on the issues that matter to them.

Now we'll see if anyone in 2008 can turn that voting block into a political base.

Posted on March 29, 2006
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati



Fed Raises Interest Rates

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Fed raised interest rates again and signaled that this may be only the beginning of another series of interest rate hikes.
The Fed raised its target for the federal-funds rate, charged on overnight loans between banks, to 4.75% from 4.5%. In a statement released after the two-day meeting ended Tuesday, the Fed said: "Some further policy firming may be needed to keep" the risks to both growth and inflation "roughly in balance," identical to language in the statement released after Mr. Greenspan's last meeting, on Jan. 31.

Bond and stock prices declined on the announcement, reflecting investors' increased certainty that more rate increases lie ahead. It was the Fed's 15th consecutive quarter-point rate increase since it began to raise rates from a then-46 year low of 1% in June, 2004.

Mr. Bernanke was sworn in as chairman Feb. 1 and Tuesday was the first meeting of the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee that he chaired. In his confirmation hearings he pledged "continuity" with Mr. Greenspan's policies, and the similarity of the FOMC's actions and words to those on Jan. 31 may have in part reflected that priority.

"Economic growth has rebounded strongly in the current quarter but appears likely to moderate to a more sustainable pace," the statement said in its most notable difference from Jan. 31. The inclusion of the Fed's view of where growth is going may reflect Mr. Bernanke's desire to more clearly demonstrate how the forecast is influencing monetary policy.
This is great news for anyone who has a jumbo CD they're about to roll over, but not such good news for Americans with credit card debt. It's also not such good news for the housing market, which is starting to show some signs of a slowdown.

Another reason that the Fed is signaling more interest rate hikes may the fear that China will move its reserve of American dollars into euros. The UAE has already said that it will move 10% of its dollar reserves into euros, because it's unhappy with the American resistance to the Dubai Ports deal. Raising interest rates will help prop up the dollar, which may be part of what's really going on here.

Posted on March 28, 2006
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati

The Immigration Issue Moves to the Front Burner

After James Sensenbrenner got his bill through the House of Representatives, the Latino community (with some "unofficial" help from the Mexican government) organized a series of protests across the nation this past weekend. In Los Angeles, 500,000 protestors hit the streets waving Mexican flags and signs which read "If you think I'm illegal because I'm a Mexican, learn the true history because I'm in my homeland" and "This is stolen land." These people are marching in our country, waving the flag of a foreign government and demanding rights. News flash: rights are for citizens and those who are in the country legally. Woe betide any large group of Americans who tried to pull the same stunt in a foreign country. They'd be arrested and deported on the spot.

So what are they talking about, anyway? Well, you certainly won't find out by reading The Los Angeles Times, which has now removed the reference to the demonstrators' Mexican flags from its story. What these signs are talking about is "Reconquista" or the Aztlan movement. The theory is this: the Chicanos were here before us, they own Texas, California and most of the Southwest and it's time that they reconquered this land for Mexico. Perhaps the Native Americans might have something to say about this.

Polls consistently show that Americans do not object to legal immigration, but are extremely concerned about illegal immigration. People who follow the rules and who are willing to integrate into American society are welcome. But to reward those who commit a crime by coming here illegally is repugnant to most Americans. We play by the rules and if you want to be a citizen you have to play by the rules too. Sensenbrenner's proposal was doomed from the beginning because it would send an ER doctor to jail for treating an illegal alien and a priest to jail for feeding an illegal single mother and her child. It's an absurd proposal, and unconstitutional at that. But that doesn't mean that he's wrong about tightening up immigraion laws.

The borders must be strengthened. And it's time to get tough with Mexico. Mexico actually hands out maps and helpful guides to illegals wanting to cross into the U.S. Instead of cleaning up its own corrupt, bloated government and reforming its policies, it has decided to move its poverty to the U.S. This is unacceptable. It's time for Mexico to pay its workers a living wage: they now only earn $1.87 an hour. Guest worker programs create a permanent underclass of people who then are forced to leave here after 6 years or so. And in the meantime, they have bought homes, gotten married and had children. The children are citizens and now the parents must go back to Mexico. It's unworkable, it's not fair to the immigrants and most of all it's unfair to the Americans living in poverty who would be happy to take those unskilled jobs rather than be unemployed.

President Bush says that illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans won't do. That's nonsense. They do the jobs that poorer and more unskilled Americans would be happy to do if only they could get hired.

Posted on March 27, 2006
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati



Moussaoui Trial Reveals Pre-9/11 FBI Bungling

Testimony by two FBI agents in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial was supposed to prove to the jury that if Moussaoui had not lied to the FBI, the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. But the prosecution's case was dealt a blow when the agents' testimony showed nothing of the kind. Instead, the testimony revealed how missteps by the FBI allowed 9/11 to happen.
The first witness, Harry Samit, an F.B.I. agent in Minnesota who questioned Mr. Moussaoui at his arrest, firmly asserted that had he been given the truth "we would have several new leads to investigate," and the plot might have been thwarted. Instead, he said, Mr. Moussaoui's answers sent investigators on "wild goose chases."

Under cross-examination by Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a court-appointed lawyer for Mr. Moussaoui, Mr. Samit acknowledged that after the attacks he had written strongly worded reports saying his superiors had improperly blocked his efforts to investigate Mr. Moussaoui. He added that he was convinced that Mr. Moussaoui was a terrorist involved in an imminent hijacking plot.

That senior bureau officials dragged their feet on investigating Mr. Moussaoui by seeking search warrants from a special intelligence court or a more routine criminal search warrant was not new. But it had never been presented so vividly as a reluctant Mr. Samit was obliged to do under cross-examination.

He offered a devastating comment from a supervisor who said pressing too hard to obtain a warrant for Mr. Moussaoui would hurt his career. Mr. Samit also wrote that his superiors did not act because they were guilty of "criminal negligence" and they were gambling that Mr. Moussaoui had little to offer. The lost wager, Mr. Samit said, was paid in many lives. Mr. Samit was followed to the witness stand by Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. counterterrorism supervisor who similarly recited a list of actions that the bureau could have taken if Mr. Moussaoui had told them about Qaeda plans to take over planes with knives and fly into buildings.

But when Mr. MacMahon began reading from a document detailing many suspicions about Mr. Moussaoui's intentions, Mr. Rolince interrupted, "Can I ask what document that's coming from?" Mr. MacMahon obliged, noting that it was an urgent memorandum written by Mr. Samit on Aug. 18, 2001, hoping to attract the attention of headquarters. Mr. Rolince had inadvertently underlined that the agent's suspicions had never risen to his attention.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the 9/11 investigation is the revelation that numerous FBI agents in the field had clues about the 9/11 hijackers which were routinely reported to their superiors. These superiors, for whatever reason, refused to take action on the agents' reports. Journalist Peter Lance (who testified during the 9/11 Commission hearings) outlined the actions of these brave FBI agents in his book 1000 Years For Revenge, and in an interview in which he discussed other clues that were missed by the FBI.

The field agents who pushed their superiors to investigate these potential terrorists were either transferred to remote FBI offices or threatened with their jobs if they didn't back off the case. FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley testified about the attitude and institutional malaise which pervaded the agency during this time period. But the 9/11 Commission Report never satisfactorily explained why these lapses occurred, nor has anyone at the FBI ever been held accountable for dismissing the reports of seasoned, reliable agents: reports that could perhaps have prevented 9/11. And that is very strange indeed.

Posted on March 24, 2006
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati

Dick Cheney's Traveling Requirements

The Smoking Gun has obtained a copy of the official list of demands from Dick Cheney when he travels. All performers have riders to their contracts which detail exactly how their dressing rooms and hotels rooms must be equipped, and some of the demand lists are pretty funny to read.

Dick Cheney's demands for his "Downtime Suite" (where the VP hangs out whem he's not giving a speech or showing up for whatever event he's attending) include:

  • All the lights must be turned on in the room
  • All televisions must be tuned into Fox News Channel
  • The room temperature must be set to a cozy 68 degrees
  • Decaf coffee must be freshly brewed for his arrival
  • Four cans of caffeine-free Diet Sprite must be waiting
  • He must have Calistoga or Perrier bottled water if his wife Lynne is with him.
  • Newspapers must be waiting for him: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the local paper and USA Today.
  • A hotel menu must be faxed to the advance team before the trip, and said menu should be waiting for the VP when he arrives.
  • There must be a microwave in the room.
  • Extra lamps must be placed in the room.
  • There must be a desk and chair and a private bathroom. The VP does not share a bathroom with anyone.

    All stations must be tuned to Fox News Channel? Well, that makes sense. No one wants to hear unpleasant news or commentary when traveling. Especially if said unpleasant commentary might be critical of one's fabulous self.

    Posted on March 23, 2006
    Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati



  • Whiny Kids Grow Up to Be Conservatives

    A new study concludes that whiny, paranoid, insecure kids who crave authority grow up to be conservatives. Children who were confident, resilient and self-reliant grew up to be liberals. This is the second study that has concluded that adults' political leanings may have more to do with a genetically-programmed personality type than with the type of family the adult grew up in.
    The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding. But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

    A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

    Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial. In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

    Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias. Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions.
    "Waaa, waaah, waaaaaaaaaaa! Mommy, those bad judges are letting people make their own medical decisions -- to have a choice! Make him stooooooooooopp!" Sounds like Bill Frist discussing the Terry Schiavo case on Hardball.

    Posted on March 22, 2006
    Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati

    The UAE's Shopping List

    The apparently inexhaustible geyser of money from the UAE has erupted once again. The next items on the shopping list of the Emir and his pals are some casinos.
    The Dubai oil sheiks who tried to buy New York's ports now want to snap up the popular Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut and the glitzy Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas. The oil-money crowd from the United Arab Emirates is joining deep-pocketed New York developer Steve Ross of The Related Companies, along with high-powered real estate funds Whitehall Street, Colony Capital and Providence Equity Partners to buy up casino mogul Sol Kerzner's empire.

    Kerzner has erected gargantuan resorts around the world, including Sun City off the southern tip of Africa and a 60-acre water park in the desert of Dubai. The group said it will buy out Kerzner's publicly traded company for about $3.6 billion - and allow Kerzner and his son Butch to run it with a stake of about 25 percent. Shares of Kerzner International Ltd. soared 13 percent to $79.43, up $9.07. The company manages the Mohegan Sun and built the $1 billion Atlantis resort with its spectacular 34-acre aquarium. The same Dubai firm that touched off a firestorm of protest at trying to acquire management business at America's major ports - Istithmar - is behind the Kerzner deal.

    Kerzner and his partners would take their offshore company private and away from the scrutiny of public investors and regulatory agencies. The group would pay $76 a share, and assume $599 million of debt. Istithmar, a Dubai investment bank, is operated by the United Arab Emirates government holding company, called The Corporate Office, or TCO. TCO also owns Dubai Ports World, which in turn took over the firm that manages U.S. ports - Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. - for $6.8 billion.
    It's starting to look like these guys have a serious compulsive spending problem. Maybe it's time to invite them to Las Vegas for "billion dollar a hand" poker night. We might just reduce the trade deficit.

    Posted on March 21, 2006
    Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati

    Yet Another Dubai Deal

    Those who were saddened by the demise of the Dubai Ports deal can take heart: apparently yet another Dubai-based company is now poised to take over another U.K. company that provides crucial products for the U.S. This company makes military equipment for the U.S. military. The company is now complaining about the fact that American citizens will no doubt want closer scrutiny of this deal, as well.
    Dubai, which agreed this month to sell its interest in U.S. ports, said its $1.2 billion takeover of a U.K. company with U.S. plants that make military equipment is delayed while the authorities investigate security concerns. Dubai International Capital LLC, which is owned by the government of the Persian Gulf emirate, and Doncasters Group Ltd. agreed to delay the transaction by as many as two months from March 31 while government agencies review the purchase, Sameer Al Ansari, Dubai International's chief executive, said in an interview today.

    "After what happened with Dubai Ports, the government is looking at this deal more closely," Al Ansari said after a press conference in Dubai announcing an agreement with HSBC Holdings Plc. Dubai's bid may ignite a political debate in the U.S. similar to that caused last month by the emirate's $6.8 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. DP World had to agree to sell interests in six U.S. terminals. Revenue from Doncasters' nine U.S. plants, which make parts for tanks and military aircraft, account for about 40 percent of total sales.

    "If this deal isn't approved by the U.S., it wouldn't proceed," said Angus Blair, chief executive of Mena Financial, a London-based company which advises foreign companies about doing business in the Middle East.

    *****

    The Committee on Foreign Investment, a federal body which considers the sale of U.S. assets to foreign companies, started a detailed 45-day investigation into the Doncasters agreement at the end of February, said Al Ansari. Al Ansari declined to comment on whether the transaction will go through.

    *****

    Kuwait's state-controlled PWC Logistics, which won a U.S. military contract last year worth as much as $14 billion to feed troops in Iraq, agreed in July to buy Santa Ana, California-based GeoLogistics Corp. for $454 million. GeoLogistics is an international freight management company with operations in more than 100 countries, according to its Web site.
    Apparently, the Dubai Ports deal was just the tip of the iceberg. Dubai-based companies appear to be embarking on a spending spree to purchase companies that provide crucial services and material to the United States. It's time for a full Congressional review of the procedures and rules under which foreign companies and foreign governments can purchase and/or control essential U.S. assets and services.

    Posted on March 20, 2006
    Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati

    Debt Ceiling? What Debt Ceiling?

    Congress blew the lid off of the spending cap Thursday by voting to allow President Bush to borrow $781 billion in order to keep the government going.
    The Senate, on a 52-48 vote, sent to President Bush a bill raising the ceiling on the national debt to nearly $9 trillion and preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes. When the government reaches the new ceiling, expected sometime next year, the debt will represent $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

    The House avoided an election-year vote on raising the debt limit by automatically sending the bill to the Senate when it passed a budget last year. The bill passed the Senate just hours before the House was expected to approve another $91 billion to fund the war in Iraq and provide more aid to hurricane victims. The partisan vote also came as the Senate continued debate on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year, beginning Oct. 1, that would produce a $359 billion deficit.

    In twin setbacks for GOP leaders, the Senate voted 51-49 to add $3 billion to the budget for heating subsidies for the poor and 73-27 to add $7 billion for education, health and worker safety accounts. The moves broke through President Bush's overall "cap" on agency budgets to be funded later in the year through appropriations bills. Congress has now increased the debt ceiling four times by a total of $3 trillion since Bush took office five years ago.

    *****

    Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to office when the government was running record surpluses. "When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records," said Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "The three largest deficits in our nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch."
    This is a national disgrace. The core concepts of fiscal conservatism have been thrown out the window, and been replaced by gluttonous spending coupled with medieval social policies which are designed to strip away the gains made by women in the past hundred years. This administration has been liberal where it should have been conservative, and conservative where it should have been liberal. The results are a disaster.

    Posted on March 18, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    You Know Your Poll Numbers Are Bad When....

    A new Pew Research Center poll shows President Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low.
    Deep doubts about the Iraq war and pessimism about America's future have shattered public confidence in President George W. Bush and helped drive his approval ratings to their lowest level ever, pollsters say. As Bush launched a series of speeches to drum up support for the war, a new round of opinion polls found growing skepticism about Iraq and distrust of Bush. His image declined sharply, with one poll finding "incompetent" to be the most frequent description of his leadership.

    Bush's approval rating dipped as low as 33 percent in one recent poll after a string of bad news for the White House, including uproars over a now-dead Arab port deal, a secret eavesdropping program, a series of ethics scandals involving high-profile Republicans and a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. The political storm has left Bush's second-term legislative agenda in tatters, threatened Republican control of the U.S. Congress in November's elections and shredded his personal image as an effective leader.

    "His strong points as a president were being seen as personally credible, as a strong leader. That has all but disappeared," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, whose latest independent poll found a dramatic decline in Bush's credibility. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe Bush is "out of touch," the poll found. When asked for a one-word description of Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by "good," "idiot" and "liar." In February 2005, the most frequent reply was "honest." "The transformation from being seen as honest to being seen as incompetent is an extraordinary indicator of how far he has fallen," Kohut said.

    *****

    A recent CBS poll found 66 percent of the public believed the country was headed down the wrong track, while a Harris Interactive poll put the number at 60 percent. Views on Iraq and the war on terrorism were equally pessimistic, with 67 percent of respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll saying Bush did not have a clear plan for handling Iraq. Independent pollster Dick Bennett of American Research Group said Bush's failure to acknowledge public anxieties added to his troubles. "The biggest problem the White House faces is reconnecting with people. People simply aren't buying it anymore," Bennett said. "People can see for themselves that things actually are not fine."
    You know your poll numbers are bad when even pop star Jessica Simpson turns you down for dinner. Now that's embarassing.

    Posted on March 17, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    The Other Dubai Deal

    Time magazine reports on another Dubai deal that most Americans don't know about: a Dubai firm has landed a huge contract with the U.S. Navy.
    Yet while one Dubai company may be giving up on U.S. ports, another one shows no signs of quitting the U.S.—or of giving up a contract with the Navy to provide shore services for vessels in the Middle East. The firm, Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS), is an old British company that last January was sold to a Dubai government investment vehicle for $285 million. ISS has more than 200 offices around the world and provides services to clients ranging from cruise ship operators to oil tankers to commercial cargo vessels. In the U.S., the company operates out of more than a dozen port cities, including Houston, Miami and New Orleans, arranging pilots, tugs, linesmen and stevedores, among other things. The firm is also a defense contractor which has long worked for Britain’s Royal Navy. And last June, the U.S. Navy signed on too, awarding ISS a $50 million contract to be the "husbanding agent" for vessels in most Southwest Asia ports, including those in the Middle East, according to an unclassified Navy logistics manual for the Fifth Fleet and a press release from ISS.

    *****

    No question, the husbanding contract provides the potential for mischief. Husbanding agents arrange everything from fuel to spare parts to fresh vegetables for vessels at ports of call. More critically, they often provide security, like erecting concrete barriers and what the military calls "force protection." Husbanding agents often learn weeks in advance of a ship’s schedule so as to be prepared when the vessel arrives, information that the Navy keeps closely guarded since it could be invaluable in the hands of terrorists. The suicide bombing of the Cole, for instance, occurred less than three hours after the ship had completed mooring in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. "It would have been much more difficult for the bombers to execute the attack without some previous knowledge of the ship's schedule and its intent to pull into Aden," says a former Navy officer.

    Contacted by TIME, a spokesman for ISS confirmed the existence of the contract, but said that confidentiality terms prevented him from discussing it. A statement issued by the firm declared that "ISS has undergone rigorous external security checks" and has "comprehensive internal policies on security." Regarding its U.S. port operations, the company states that all port staff "are fully vetted and cleared and undergo a background check to enable them to work within the port limits."

    *****

    ISS, in fact, isn’t the only Dubai company that has won big business with the Pentagon. In December 2004, another such firm, Seven Seas Shipchandlers, won a $700 million contract to be the prime vendor for maintenance and repair operations for troops in the U.S. Central Command region, which includes the Middle East. Seven Seas has also provided food supplies to U.S. troops in Iraq. Another Dubai-based firm, MAC International, is under contract to deliver $67.2 million worth of police trucks to the Army.
    So far, Time magazine is the only media outlet reporting on this latest Dubai deal. Isn't it time we had a comprehensive policy regarding which U.S. assets should and which should not be allowed to be owned or controlled by foreign governments? The Emir of the UAE has so much money that he's been building islands to amuse himself. One island is shaped like a giant pineapple and others replicate a map of the world. The ocean keeps trying to reclaim these offshore islands, so the Emir has giant machines constantly building back up the sand that is eroded each day by the waves. We get it: the UAE is really wealthy. Clearly, the royal family is in need of some good investment opportunities where they can park all that extra cash. In the reality of the global economy, it is not logical to assert that no foreign governments can ever be allowed to invest in the United States.

    But what is wildly illogical is for the White House to tell Americans that we are such imminent danger of being attacked by extremist Muslim groups that we must give up our rights to privacy via the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping, yet at the same time to turn over our ports and essential Navy services to a foreign government which routinely facilitates banking transactions for the same terrorists that want to kill us. The American people won't stand for it. And if Congress doesn't realize that fact very quickly, many lawmakers may find themselves out of a job in November.

    Posted on March 15, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    The Ports Deal is Over...Or Is It?

    DP World of the UAE has announced that it is withdrawing from the deal in which it would take over a number of U.S. ports. In an odd move, Senator John Warner (R- WA) made the announcement on behalf of the UAE. It was a very vaguely worded statement which said that DP World will transfer "operations" of the U.S. ports to an American company.

    But what company? For how much money? Will DP Ports still be an investor? An owner? What does "operations" mean? What's really going on here? And why does an American Senator now speak on the Senate floor for a foreign government?
    "Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship ... DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," Edward H. Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer, said in a statement. The announcement did not specify which U.S. company would be involved.

    *****

    A source involved in talks between the White House, Congress and DP World said the exact meaning of the UAE firm's statement is unclear, in part because the details of the transaction have not been worked out. "The next steps are very hard to predict at this point, either in terms of who they'll actually sell to and in terms of what it means for U.S. relations in the region," the source said. A source told CNN that the White House believes DP World's American assets would be sold to a U.S. firm.

    *****

    Because of sparse information about the transaction, Senate Democrats reacted cautiously to the company's announcement and continued to press for a Senate vote that would kill the deal.

    "If the U.S. operations are fully independent in every way, that could, indeed, be promising," said Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. "If, on the other hand, there is still ultimate control exercised by DP World, I don't think our goals would be accomplished, and obviously, we'll need to study this agreement carefully."
    You got that right, Senator Schumer.

    Posted on March 10, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    Senate Considers Bill Which Will Gut Women's Healthcare Coverage

    Lynn Harris of Salon drops this little bombshell today: the Senate is considering a bill that's going to override all state law protections that require insurance companies to cover prescriptions for women's medical issues and which protect pregnant women.
    "Today the United States Senate is considering a bill that would have a serious and damaging impact on health coverage for women across the United States. The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act (HIMMAA), introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), would allow insurance companies to ignore nearly all state laws that require insurance coverage for certain treatments or conditions, such as laws that require them to include contraceptives in their prescription plans. [Emphasis added by irate Broadsheet poster.]

    "This federal legislation would raze hundreds of state laws that ensure patients can get the medical care they need and would

    "-- not allow women to designate their ob/gyns as primary care providers

    "-- not allow women to seek care directly from their ob/gyns, but would force them to be screened by their primary care doctors first

    "-- dismantle coverage for contraception

    "-- dismantle coverage for annual cervical cancer exams

    "-- not allow women to stay with the same doctor throughout a pregnancy, if that doctor was dropped from the insurance provider."

    In short: "Under HIMMAA women will lose contraceptive-equity protections currently guaranteed by state law."
    The arrogance of these lawmakers is simply breathtaking. Women have fought for years for these protections, such as not being forced to change doctors mid-pregnancy just because her doctor is dropped from her insurance plan. If insurance doesn't cover screenings for routine cervical cancer exams, many women won't have them. Most women use their OB/GYN as their primary doctor, relying her to get the correct care and screenings for everything from cancer to osteoporosis: women will have to go to another gateway doctor first before they can get to their OB/GYN under most insurance plans. And the law is so broadly written that many more procedures won't be required to be covered.

    What's next? Excluding newborn children from coverage under the mother's policy? It wouldn't surprise me a bit. This is a blatant payoff to the insurance industry by corrupt lawmakers at the expense of the health and safety of American women.

    Posted on March 8, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    Jon Stewart's Stellar Oscar Performance

    Jon Stewart did an excellent job hosting the Oscars last night. It's a thankless task, really (other than the nice paycheck, of course). Hollywood stars don't really like to be made fun of (think Chris Rock's disastrous performance as host, for example), the show is entirely too long with all the absurd montages about film noir and movies that "really should be seen on the big screen." But Stewart managed to pull it off. Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper gave Stewart two thumbs up, noting that he reminded them of the best Oscar host ever: Johnny Carson. I quite agree. Here were some of the best bits of the night:
    • The opening short film in which the previous Oscar hosts all turned down the job. The first scene showed Chris Rock and Billy Crystal peeking out of a Brokeback Mountain tent saying they were "too busy" to host the show. Whoopi Goldberg closed the door on the producers answering ("Oh, Hell no!"), David Letterman and Steve Martin both declined so they could spend more time with Martin's (fictional) children "so they won't grow up weird," Mr. Moviephone was "unavailable." Mel Gibson turned the job down while speaking in the ancient Mayan dialect that he's using in his new film.
    • Stewart's jab at the media: while discussing best picture nominee Capote, Stewart said, "Capote, of course, addressed similar themes to Good Night, and Good Luck. Both films are about determined journalists defying obstacles in a relentless pursuit of truth. Needless to say, both are period pieces."
    • The one Dick Cheney joke: "Björk couldn't be here tonight," Stewart said, referring to the singer's infamous swan dress. "She was trying on her dress and Dick Cheney shot her."
    • The series of Swift Boat Veteran-style political attack ads for the feuding Best Actress Nominees, created by Stewart and The Daily Show team and narrated by Stephen Colbert. In one ad, British ladies each discussed why Dame Judi Dench shouldn't win: "She once punched me in the eye during a bar fight," one confided. Keira Knightly looked completely confused during her own fictional campaign ad against Charlize Theron in which she accused Theron of simply "hagging it up" in movies to win. Perhaps they don't have political attack ads in England, where Keira Knightly grew up...but somehow that seems unlikely. The ads were quite clever; on the last screen each ad said "Paid for by the candidate's mother" or by some shadowy organization.
    • Looking over his shoulder at a giant, 40' Oscar statue, Stewart wondered "If we pulled that statue down, do you think democracy would flourish in Hollywood? Maybe James Caan could then hit Oscar in the face with a shoe."
    • Returning from a commercial break, the camera catches Stewart ranting to the audience: "And that is why I think Scientology is right, not just for this city, but for the country" before he realizes that the show is live again. The Scientologists in the audience may not have thought that was funny, but I thought it was absolutely hilarious.
    Other than the time-wasting montages, the most irritating thing this year was the Bill Conti orchestra playing music while the winners were giving their acceptance speeches. Crazy acceptance speeches are what make the Oscars entertaining! Let them cry, give bizarre shout-outs and rave about political issues. And please invite Jon Stewart back next year.

    Posted on March 6, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    Joy in Corporate America: RIM and Blackbery Reach Settlement

    The millions of Blackberry users have been terrified that a mean judge was going to take their favorite toys away from them -- and with good reason. The small Canadian company NTP, Inc. has been judged to be the owner of the technology that powers Blackberry handheld devices, and that Research In Motion, Inc. ("RIM") stole said technology. After that ruling, NTP demanded that RIM's Blackberry operations be shut down, which was within its rights. But joy reigned this afternoon as the two companies made peace and the naughty thieving corporate pirates at RIM reached a settlement in which they will pay NTP $612.5 million for licensing its technology.

    The little guy wins and gets money. Millions of Blackberry users get to keep their favorite gadget. Everyone wins. Don't you just love a happy ending?

    Posted on March 3, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    Poll Numbers Roll In

    Some polling numbers have been rolling in, giving us a taste of what other Americans are thinking. The troops think it's time to get out of Iraq, civilians think that handing our ports over to the UAE is a stupid idea and most everyone is displeased with President Bush. And don't even ask about Dick Cheney's poll numbers: they're abysmal with only 18% of Americans approving of the job he is doing. Here are the actual numbers:
    • A Zogby poll reports that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately,
    • A CBS poll puts President Bush at a 34% approval rating. The same poll reported that 70% of Americans (including 58% of Republicans) do not want U.S. ports turned over to Dubai World Ports. This poll is the one that put Dick Cheney's approval rating at a bargain basemet 18%, which surely has to be some kind of record for a sitting vice-president. Although Spiro Agnew may have given Cheney a run for his money.
    • A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll puts President Bush at a 39% approval rating. 59% said President Bush can no longer manage the government effectively, which is hardly a vote of confidence. That same poll revealed that only 9% of Americans think the United States should take military action against Iran; 68% favor diplomatic and economic action to keep Iran away from atomic weapons.
    As far as the Dubai ports deal goes, there was a bit of shocking news today: the economic minister of the UAE threatened the U.S., saying that if the ports deal doesn't go through the UAE is going to stop investing in the U.S. -- and hinted that other Arab countries might do the same.

    Great. Now they're threatening financial sanctions against U.S. companies if they don't get their their hands on our ports? Why am I reminded of the films The Godfather and Goodfellas?

    Posted on March 2, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    Technorati's New Favorites Feature

    Technorati has launched a favorites feature which helps you keep track of up to fifty of your favorite blogs. You can add this blog to your favorites list by clicking here. More about Technorati's favorites feature can be found here on BloggersBlog.com.

    Posted on March 1, 2006
    Permanent link to this entry.

    Our Blogs

    Bloggers Blog
    Book Blog
    Crafters Craft
    Drivers Drive
    Fantasy SF Blog
    Gamers Game
    Health News Blog
    HowToWeb.com
    The IWJ Blog
    Lovers Love
    Media Cynic
    Petosphere
    Pleasant Morning Buzz
    Science News Blog
    Shopping Blog
    Singers Sing
    Surfers Surf
    Traders Trade
    Video Nacho
    Watchers Watch
    Workers Work
    The Write News
    Writer's Blog


    Text Ads




    www.mediacynic.com
    Copyright © 2003-2007 by Writers Write, Inc. All Rights Reserved.