February 28, 2005

How Safe Are We?

by Ralph Nader from nader.org

George W. Bush often says that the safety of all Americans is his highest priority. He doesn't mean advancing vigorously the implementation of laws he has sworn to enforce against occupational disease and trauma, traffic injuries, air pollution, medical malpractice and other unsafe conditions that are taking the lives of many tens of thousands of Americans annually. What he means is commanding the "war on terrorism."

So let's evaluate him at his narrowest definition of safety. First, it is clear that the budget of the Department of Homeland Security ‚ a huge amalgam of government agencies proud to defend their turf even after their consolidation ‚ is out of control.

There are no cost-benefit criteria in operation about how to spend the burgeoning monies Congress and Bush are throwing at this Department. One of its arms is the Transportation Security Agency. You know, the agency that makes you take your shoes off or pats you down at airports. Its money is flying around as well.

Back in 2002, the Office of Management and Budget's chief, Mitch Daniels, told us that his office essentially has no control over the ways Homeland Security spends its budget. He agreed, in a series of meetings with me and our economist, James Love, to file a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comments about the best ways to place the Department under a cost-benefit regime.

The comments were duly received and analyzed by OMB staff and the General Services Administration. But in June 2003, Mr. Daniels resigned his post to run for the Governorship of Indiana. He won. His successor, Josh Bolten, a White House political appointee, has shown no interest, thus far, in continuing his successor's mission.

Just calling any expenditure "homeland security" defers most members of Congress from exercising any real oversight. So dollars are easy to waste because the symbol is nearly untouchable. But Mr. Bolten, who does not return our calls or respond to letters requesting a meeting, is the man who is supposed to be in charge of a tough OMB seeking prudent uses of tax dollars (with the help of several little-noticed Government Acountability Office (GAO) reports).

Click here for all of it

February 26, 2005

TEA maneuver cuts number of failing campuses but may endanger federal funding

By Jason Spencer / Houston Chronicle

Faced with the prospect of tagging nearly half of the state's school districts with failing grades under the federal accountability system, Texas Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley instead changed the rules to reduce the number of failing schools sixfold.

The move, described by some as a direct challenge to the U.S. Department of Education's enforcement of the controversial No Child Left Behind Act, sets up a potential showdown between Neeley and the Bush administration.

National education observers said Neeley's move makes Texas the first state to outright refuse to follow the law's requirements.

Texas receives more than $1 billion in federal money tied to compliance with No Child Left Behind. Some of that money could be in jeopardy, depending on how federal officials react to Neeley's decision. The TEA released grades Friday.

"It sets up, obviously, a rather interesting situation between the U.S. Department of Education and the state of Texas and you could see administrative funding cuts due to noncompliance," said Scott Young, a senior policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Click here for all of it.

February 25, 2005

Suicides in Marine Corps Rise by 29%; Fast Pace of Operations Are Believed to Contribute

By Ann Scott Tyson / Washington Post

The Marine Corps suffered a 29 percent spike in suicides last year, reaching the highest number in at least a decade, with the demanding pace of military operations likely contributing to the deaths, the top-ranking U.S. Marine said yesterday.

Thirty-one Marines committed suicide in 2004, all of them enlisted men, not commissioned officers. The majority were younger than 25 and took their lives with gunshot wounds, according to Marine statistics. Another 83 Marines attempted suicide. There were 24 suicides in 2003, and there have not been more than 29 in any year in the last 10.

Although last year's suicide rate rose, it was still below the national average for a comparable civilian group, in keeping with an established pattern of suicide being lower in the U.S. military than in the civilian population.

Marine commanders say the rise in suicides continues a worrisome three-year trend that is likely linked to stress from the sharply increased pace of war-zone rotations. At the same time, they said the increase in suicides is not directly related to service in Iraq or Afghanistan; since 2001 24 percent of the suicides have been committed by Marines who have been deployed there, the statistics show.

click here for the rest

Didn't Hitler kill himself too?

February 24, 2005

Report Faults Bush Initiative on Education

By Sam Dillon / New York Times

Concluding a yearlong study on the effectiveness of President Bush's sweeping education law, No Child Left Behind, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers drawn from many states yesterday pronounced it a flawed, convoluted and unconstitutional education reform initiative that had usurped state and local control of public schools.

The report, based on hearings in six cities, praised the law's goal of ending the gap in scholastic achievement between white and minority students. But most of the 77-page report, which the Education Department rebutted yesterday, was devoted to a detailed inventory and discussion of its flaws.

It said the law's accountability system, which punishes schools whose students fail to improve steadily on standardized tests, undermined school improvement efforts already under way in many states and relied on the wrong indicators. The report said that the law's rules for educating disabled students conflicted with another federal law, and that it presented bureaucratic requirements that failed to recognize the tapestry of educational challenges faced by teachers in the nation's 15,000 school districts.

click here for the rest

February 23, 2005

Iran to Bush: Don't Meddle wit our Independence

From yahoo news

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Bush (
news - web sites) should be aware that the United States would pay a heavier price than Iran if it tried to encroach on the Islamic state's independence, President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites) said Wednesday.

"America does not like an independent Iran, the question is how far they can (take away Iran's independence), and ... what price they would have to pay to achieve that end," he told a news conference after a weekly cabinet meeting.


Tehran and Washington, enemies since the 1979 Islamic revolution, have been engaged in a fierce war of words in recent weeks.

Bush has accused Iran's clerical leaders of sponsoring terrorism, trampling on human rights and secretly building nuclear arms, although he stressed during a visit to Germany on Wednesday that diplomatic efforts to resolve the differences were only just beginning.

Iran dismisses the U.S. charges as propaganda and accuses the United States of conducting arrogant and destructive policies in the Middle East in support of its ally, Israel.

"I believe that if he (Bush) has any sense he should know they can't (overturn Iran's independence), and if they can, the price they will pay is far heavier than we would," Khatami said.

Iranian officials consider regaining independence in foreign and domestic affairs as one of the most notable successes of the revolution which toppled the U.S.-backed shah.


Speaking in Brussels Tuesday, Bush said the idea he was preparing to bomb Iran was "ridiculous" but did not rule out the possibility of using military action in future.

"The difference in his comments this time was that he denied the military option with stress, although he said all options are on the table," Khatami said.

February 22, 2005

North Korea

Yeah, I'm kinda back. Sorry this is old news. This is from my website thedrafted.tk.

"Look at North Korea, braggin' and a boastin' 'bout their weapons of mass destruction. Thats just great, there's no doubt in our minds that the words they say are true, THEY GOT NUKES! NORTH KOREA NORTH KOREA! Now look at Iraq, we've got their country beat up for a so called reason. They are supposed to have big weapons, just like the one of the country forementioned..."-from "North Korea", by The Drafted


Kim Jung il has formally admitted that North Korea has a nuclear weapons program. He ain't negotiatin' either. So what should we do? A big ol' bunch of people down in Washington probably think we should tear 'em up. Here's my opinion:


Since they claim to have developed nukes from fear of U.S. aggression, we should get rid of our own.


It seems naive, but you really can't blame them for being affraid of us. George Bush is a freakin' moron and the world hates him. We're not helping ourselves by telling everyone they can't have nukes while we have more than anyone else, it only generates more hatred toward the U.S. Destroying our nuclear weapons will set a good example for other nuclear nations and would most likely have positive effects. If we use the destruction of our own nukes as a negotion tactic, we could save many more lives than if we took the war to Korea. Kim Jung il is not a new Hitler; Hitler laid out exactly what he was going to do in Mein Kampf, then pretended to negotiate with Britain and the Soviet Union. Kim Jung il says he developed the nuke program to protect North Korea from America and will not talk about destroying them. I think our first move should be to leave him the hell alone, giving him less reasons to want to use his weapons on us. North Korea...has no capability of doing what Germany did to cause World War II, so why waste our time on them? However, if he does try to invade South Korea or something, we SHOULD help stop him, since we're responsible for there being a North and South Korea in the first place (remember the Korean war?). But we should not use nuclear weapons on them or anyone else. We have plenty of non-nuclear weapons that will do just fine.


The Republicans: "Okay, Okay, FINE, we want to go to war with North Korea so we can LIBERATE its people from their horrible, insane, rutheless, opressive dictator. If you're against LIBERATIN' then you HATE FREEDOM!


Lemme give you an example of another country whose people are killed and grossly mistreated by their leaders besides pre-war Iraq and North Korea: Saudi Arabia. Now, why hasn't anyone talked about going to war with Saudi Arabia? Here's a hint, they have billions of dollars invested in our banks, if we piss them off they could put us into another depression. This shows that we only beat up on countries who don't help us economically, which shows that we're a huge bully, a bully with nukes, which scares the hell out of the rest of the world. Saudi Arabia likes us, in fact. The Bush family is actually quite close to the Saudi royal family. Being on the good side of an opressive dictatorship is something Bush is used to.


Besides, if we leave him alone and he nukes us anyway, we won't be around to regret it. I know that sounds awful, but sometimes awful is just what the truth is.