I would just like to extend CONGRATULATIONS to George W. Bush [snip]

Don't forget to append this standard disclaimer:

Disclaimer: This web page is really intended for humor and information only and does not advocate the support of any candidate for any office and is sure as heck not in anyway connected to any political campaign or party. We believe in our First Amendment right of free speech - so put that in your pipe and smoke it!.

I would hate to see you wind up in room 101 for your thought crimes... ;)

Thank you for your concern Jeffrey. I wonder if the US can extradite from Canada?

---

DONATE TO SETI

Thank you for your concern Jeffrey. I wonder if the US can extradite from Canada?

We have already "appropriated" Niagra Falls. That is more than enough for now.

---

me@rescam.org

Thank you for your concern Jeffrey. I wonder if the US can extradite from Canada?

We have already "appropriated" Niagra Falls. That is more than enough for now.

But you guys have the teeny tiny side.

---

DONATE TO SETI

Rest assured, our system is working

JIM HOAGLAND
THE WASHINGTON POST

March 19, 2007

Funny that he doesn't mention the protege of Senator Chuck Schumer in the DC US Attorney's office. Also, it's interesting to note that nowhere in the article does he note that the US Attorney's are political appointees, employees of the Executive Branch and, as such, work for & at the behest of the President and his designated representatives. Nowhere in the article does he mention that the history of the position of US Attorney is replete with such hirings and firings. Nowhere does he note which several of the US Attorney's actually in question terminated at their own behest. Funny thing about that.

Nor does he mention how many Bill Clinton fired when he took office! I believe Clinton had all 192 of them up for review! A whole bunch got fired, or left as the case may be. MOST people will quit, given the choice of quitting or being fired! Maybe that says something about those that did get fired in this case?

I also have heard that Jimmy Carter had a attorney or federal prosecutor fired during his term that actually was in the process of investigating some Democrat.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

In defense of Alberto Gonzales

RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.
THE UNION-TRIBUNE

March 21, 2007

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales shouldn't go quietly. In fact, he shouldn't go at all.

Not when the evidence suggests that most of the folks who might have acted inappropriately in the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys work not at the Justice Department, but at the White House. And not when many of those who are now clamoring for Gonzales to leave office are clear that they never wanted him there in the first place.

Consider the Latino activist, a Democrat, who told me last week that Gonzales should resign.

“Why is that?” I asked. I wondered if the activist knew something I didn't concerning the fired U.S. attorneys, because little of what I've seen or heard on the matter suggests that Gonzales should step down.

I'm not the only one with doubts. Americans are split over Gonzales. In a recent Newsweek poll, 35 percent of respondents said that the attorney general should quit. But 32 percent said he should stay, and another third was undecided.

As part of the 35 percent who think Gonzales should go, my activist acquaintance said that what he was most angry about was the attorney general's “shameful record with human rights and death sentences” dating back to when Gonzales was a legal adviser to Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

So should Gonzales be run out of the federal government because of the legal advice he gave to Bush on a state's death penalty cases a decade ago?

Sure, why not? Such reasoning is no better or worse than any other I've heard lately. The controversy over the U.S. attorneys is like a Christmas tree on which Gonzales' critics can hang whatever grievances they've been carrying around for years.

Some liberal bloggers think Gonzales should resign for giving the green light to the administration's detainee policy and use of wiretaps to eavesdrop on Americans. For others, it's his close relationship with Bush and a perceived lack of independence that disqualifies him for the job.

The overeager New York Times jumped the gun 10 days ago with an editorial calling on Gonzales to step down. That was even before the attorney general had declared that “mistakes were made” over the sackings and before a single e-mail was released by the Justice Department. A couple of days later, The Washington Post began on its Web site the blog equivalent of a deathwatch, titled “The Case Against Alberto Gonzales.” The blog promised a multipart series and tossed in a list of possible successors.

Gonzales certainly should not allow himself to be run out of Washington by newspaper editorial boards, columnists or network pundits who have assured us, early and often, that his goose is cooked. In fact, these opinion-shapers have been so emphatic in making this point that they haven't gotten around to explaining just why this is the case. They seem more interested in advancing their view than in learning what really happened.

Nor should Gonzales give in to pressure from Senate Democrats such as Charles Schumer of New York, who also opposed Gonzales' confirmation and was among the first to call for his resignation.

This week, the Justice Department released 3,000 pages of documents related to the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys, and offered to make department officials available for interviews and hearings.

It may yet turn out that Gonzales' big mistake in this tempest was in trusting his former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and delegating to him full responsibility for putting together the list of U.S. attorneys to be fired. And it may be that the real ethical breach occurred at the White House, where the chief political adviser, Karl Rove, sought to meddle in personnel matters and may have found a willing accomplice in Sampson.

If that is what happened, then Gonzales made an error in judgment by taking Sampson's recommendations at face value. But it need not be fatal. At least that's the view of one of the fired U.S. attorneys – Bud Cummins, who headed the Eastern District of Arkansas. On “Fox News Sunday,” Cummins – who was ousted to make room for a Rove pal – described Gonzales as “a good, fair man” who need not step down and that “out here in Arkansas, we don't necessarily put a bullet in everybody that makes a mistake like they seem to do in Washington.”

That's almost right. Even in Washington, not everyone gets a bullet – just those for whom folks have been gunning for a while.

---

me@rescam.org

Thank you for not smoking at UC

By John Moores

Moores is a regent at the University of California. He was appointed by Gov. Gray Davis in 1999.

March 21, 2007

The University of California, almost certainly the world's greatest public institution of higher education, has a problematic partner which, according to the World Health Organization, was responsible for 100 million deaths in the 20th century. WHO projects the death count will rise to 1 billion in this century.

UC's partner, of course, is Big Tobacco, which in 2007 will fund about $15 million for research at UC. Few are naive enough to believe that the tobacco industry is merely interested in improving the health of Americans, 430,000 of whom die annually from tobacco use, according to the U.S. surgeon general. WHO reports that a person dies worldwide every 10 seconds due to smoking-related diseases and that tobacco is the “biggest killer, much bigger – than all other forms of pollution.”

Several of the UC regents, including Chairman Richard Blum and myself, oppose the university's allowing its vaunted medical research capability to be associated with the tobacco industry. Nevertheless, some faculty argue that, to preserve academic freedom, each faculty member should be solely responsible for dealing with moral and ethical issues about tobacco industry funding. Many faculty members, however, are quite troubled by the lack of a system-wide policy and want to kick tobacco money off UC's campuses.

The prestige of the University of California is attractive to tobacco companies. Formerly secret tobacco cartel papers reveal that the tobacco industry sought, through careful selection of research projects and, sometimes, researchers who were “friendly” with the industry, to prolong public uncertainty about any link between disease and tobacco use.

Because there is considerable stigma associated with research performed directly for a tobacco company, the tobacco industry infamously and secretly established in 1988 the Center for Indoor Air Research, which sought to trivialize the impact of secondhand tobacco smoke. (In 1992, focusing on the financial bottom line, Philip Morris found that employees in a smoke-free workplace quit smoking at an 84 percent increased rate.)

This notorious “Center,” which was disbanded as a requirement of a 1998 agreement with 46 state attorneys general, funded a researcher at UCLA, who concluded that the dangers of “environmental tobacco” were exaggerated and not supported by the data he reviewed. The American Cancer Society furiously disagreed, noting that the UCLA report had been cited many times by tobacco lobbyists when communities considered establishing smoke-free laws.

This is not new information to UC's powerful Academic Senate, a parliamentary body representing the faculty. The Senate, which expressed its “deep disapproval” of at least some tobacco-funded medical research, still may prefer to leave research funding decisions with the conscience of each of the university's 60,000 academics. This spring, however, the University of California will finally decide if it wants to continue accepting tobacco money for research.

The university can find guidance in its deliberations from many highly regarded sources in addition to WHO and the U.S. surgeon general. Numerous universities already have decided that they can do their world-class research without the tobacco industry's money. Various UC departments reached the same conclusion, only to be overruled by the Academic Senate. The American Medical Association recently urged UC to stop accepting research funding from the tobacco industry. The CEO of the American Cancer Society similarly wrote to the UC regents, rejecting the UCLA researcher's conclusions about secondhand smoke.

Moreover, a distinguished federal judge recently concluded that defendant tobacco companies were guilty of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, because of the tobacco industry's fraudulent actions and its dishonest relationship with research institutions. The judge's opinion specifically cited the tobacco-funded research at UCLA.

UC's regents, who clearly respect UC's stellar faculty, are reluctant to establish any policy that does not sit well with the Academic Senate. However, the regents almost certainly will make a decision that makes sense for California if the Senate does not act soon.

It is unlikely that a UC restriction on tobacco funding would work much hardship on research because worthy science is routinely funded in our society. Equally important, ridding UC of tainted tobacco money will protect the academic integrity of California's great public university.

---

me@rescam.org

McCain Warns Against Spread of Socialism

By CURT ANDERSON
Associated Press Writer

March 21, 2007

MIAMI (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain warned on Wednesday against the spread of socialism in Latin America and pledged to give the region renewed U.S. attention if elected.

Appearing in Little Havana, McCain carefully avoided criticism of President Bush but said the Iraq war "has diverted attention from our hemisphere and we have paid a penalty for that" in the form of a growing leftism embodied by leaders Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia.

In a speech to veterans of the ill-fated, CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, McCain said his first trip if elected to the White House in 2008 would be to Mexico, Canada and Latin America "to reaffirm my commitment to our hemisphere and the importance of relations within our hemisphere."

The Arizona senator said that "everyone should understand the connections" between Chavez, Morales and communist Cuban President Fidel Castro.

"They inspire each other. They assist each other. They get ideas from each other," McCain said. "It's very disturbing."

Cuban-Americans are a key voting bloc in electoral-rich Florida and typically cast their ballots for Republicans.

As president, McCain said he would work on political, diplomatic and economic fronts to counter the rise of socialism, including efforts to spread free trade. Yet the United States must also stress the advantages of capitalism and democracy to win "a war of ideas" in the region, he said.

McCain had a clearly receptive audience among the aging Bay of Pigs veterans, who consider him a hero for the years he spent as a prisoner of war in what was then communist North Vietnam. The group's president, former CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, noted McCain's years in captivity in his introduction and said: "It's a distinct honor to have you."

McCain was presented with a copy of the book "Against All Hope" by former Cuban political prisoner Armando Valladares, who was frequently tortured during his 22 years in a Cuban prison. McCain said that while he was in Hanoi, a Cuban agent came to show his Vietnamese captors "some new interrogation techniques" and he later discovered that the same agent had also tortured Valladares.

"Anything that I and my friends might have experienced is nothing—nothing—compared with what the men in this room went through," McCain said.

McCain said all the right things about Cuba for this audience, where a half-dozen men talked politics in Spanish and smoked morning cigars before the senator arrived. McCain told them he wouldn't support lifting the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba until there were free elections, human rights and release of all political prisoners.

---

me@rescam.org

Political meddling alleged in tobacco trial

THE WASHINGTON POST

March 22, 2007

WASHINGTON – The former leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to the nation's smokers.

Eubanks said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop arguments that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. The supervisor and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony, and ordered her to read verbatim from a closing argument they rewrote for her, she said.

“The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said,” Eubanks said. “And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public.”

Eubanks, who served for 22 years as a Justice Department lawyer, said three political appointees were responsible for the last-minute shifts in the government's tobacco case in June 2005: then-Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum, then-Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and his deputy at the time, Dan Meron.

News reports on the strategy changes at the time caused an uproar in Congress and sparked an inquiry by the Justice Department. Government witnesses said they had been asked to change testimony, and one expert withdrew from the case. Government lawyers also announced that they were scaling back a proposed penalty against the industry from $130 billion to $10 billion.

High-ranking Justice Department officials said there was no political meddling in the case, and the department's Office of Professional Responsibility concurred after an investigation.

Eubanks, who retired in December 2005, said she is coming forward now because she is concerned about what she called the “overwhelming politicization” of the department demonstrated by the controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Lawyers from the department's civil rights division have made similar claims about being overruled by supervisors in the past.

Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

“Political interference is happening at Justice across the department,” she said. “When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window.”

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in August that tobacco companies violated civil racketeering laws by conspiring for decades to deceive the public about the dangers of their product and ordered the companies to make major changes in the way cigarettes are marketed. But Kessler said she could not order the monetary penalties proposed by the government.

---

me@rescam.org

New approach needed on organ donations

San Diego Union-Tribune editorial

March 22, 2007

For years, the U.S. government has done strikingly little clear thinking about organ donation and how to encourage it. Transplant surgery has become routine, but few healthy organs are available. Yet this deadly supply problem is considered a taboo public policy issue, primarily because of fears that giving incentives to people to donate organs will spawn a ghoulish black market and prompt the destitute to risk their health to pay the rent.

Fortunately, we're finally seeing some progress. The House of Representatives recently approved a measure that legalizes paired kidney donations. Many people with failing kidneys have family members or friends willing to donate a kidney, but their organs are a bad match because of conflicting blood or tissue type. Setting up a kidney exchange program – in which willing donors can be paired up with suitable recipients in a reciprocal arrangement – is a highly promising approach that could significantly reduce the 4,000 or so Americans who die each year waiting on a new kidney.

Unfortunately, such deals have been interpreted as running afoul of the flat federal ban on people benefiting from donating an organ. This is crazy, so we're heartened that the Senate seems strongly inclined to pass the House bill and promote this clever approach. In anticipation of that day, a database of California residents with failing kidneys and willing but incompatible donors should be established right away.

Still, this is only a very modest start. The U.S. kidney waiting list has more than doubled in the past decade – there are more than 15,000 on California's list alone – and this trend is sure to continue in coming years as baby boomers age. Other organ waiting lists are also long, thanks to a widespread reluctance by Americans to agree to donate their organs upon death.

It's time to address these problems with basic incentives. Their power has been documented in, of all places, Iran. Under a 19-year-old government program, individuals who can safely donate a kidney are paid up to $4,000 and provided with after-surgery care and health insurance. Since 1999, Iran has been the only nation on Earth without a kidney-transplant waiting list.

Without going to such a crude arrangement, it is easy to see how the United States could achieve similar results. Why not give a substantial tax credit or prefunded health savings accounts to individuals who can – without endangering their own well-being – donate a kidney? Why not give individuals who agree to organ donation upon death an estate-tax credit or contributions to their children's or grandchildren's educational savings accounts?

Relying on altruism hasn't worked. It's time we started giving people a more compelling reason to help their fellow man.

Want to learn more? For more information on organ donation, check out these Web sites:

http://www.lifesharing.org

http://www.organdonor.gov

http://www.shareyourlife.org

http://www.unos.org

---

me@rescam.org

This:

The U.S. kidney waiting list has more than doubled in the past decade and this trend is sure to continue in coming years as baby boomers age.

Coupled with this:

The national debt is increasing at an average of 1.9 billion per day and is about to break a new all time record of 9 trillion dollars...

...Is enough to make me want to remove my name from the list of organ donors... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Relying on altruism hasn't worked. It's time we started giving people a more compelling reason to help their fellow man.

Pfffft. Let people sell their organs. The problem will end overnight.

Everyone else in the chain profits.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Relying on altruism hasn't worked. It's time we started giving people a more compelling reason to help their fellow man.

Pfffft. Let people sell their organs. The problem will end overnight.

Everyone else in the chain profits.

Yay..another way to exploit the poor. Good thinking.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Yay..another way to exploit the poor. Good thinking.

Will some poor people be "exploited" as you use that word there? Sure. Of course. They always are. So what? Looking at the few options open to the poor and the taking away the one they chose isn't helping them...

Orders of magnitude more people will make conscious decisions to sell, thus saving and bettering the lives of others. Simple cost/benefit analysis.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yay..another way to exploit the poor. Good thinking.

Will some poor people be "exploited" as you use that word there? Sure. Of course. They always are. So what? Looking at the few options open to the poor and the taking away the one they chose isn't helping them...

Orders of magnitude more people will make conscious decisions to sell, thus saving and bettering the lives of others. Simple cost/benefit analysis.

How is encouraging poor people to sell their organs to the rich helping them? Are you crazy?

---

Reality Internet Personality

This:

The U.S. kidney waiting list has more than doubled in the past decade and this trend is sure to continue in coming years as baby boomers age.

Coupled with this:
The national debt is increasing at an average of 1.9 billion per day and is about to break a new all time record of 9 trillion dollars...
...Is enough to make me want to remove my name from the list of organ donors...

Jeffrey I have the missed the meaning and connection, would you please spell it out for me? I see the US Government going on its merry path wasting and spending and you equating that with refusing to help your fellow man. I KNOW I am missing something!

---

[quote]The national debt is increasing at an average of 1.9 billion per day and is about to break a new all time record of 9 trillion dollars...[quote]
Term limits will solve alot fo these problems! Kick the old so and so's out and put in people that actually will change things. Politics has become so anti newbie that unless you are personally very rich you cannot afford to run, let alone think of winning! Over time so many "favors" are owed to some many other politicians that no-one actually proposes any ways to slow down spending because their "buddies" State will get hurt by it. There are STILL monies paid to Scottish farmers to raise special sheep, just in case the US Navy wants to go back to wool clothing! There is STILL money in the budget to store Helium in caves in case the US ever wants to float barrage balloons over its cities! We STILL pay farmers NOT to grow crops! There are interstate hi-ways in West Virginia that start and end at dirt roads!! Why, because Senator Byrd wants money for his State and he has a ton of "favors' owed him because of his seniority! Ted Kennedy is the same! And NO Democrats are NOT alone in this abuse of power!!! I say bring on term limits and put in people with the ideas to actually make changes that are better for everyone, not just better for your State! The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is in the midst of being replaced. Federal Taxes are paying for over half of it! Why because people in Oregon, and every other State, may want to use it to go between Maryland and Virginia! Tysons Corner Virginia is going to be getting a Metro, subway, extension thru that area leading to Dulles Airport. Guess who is paying..yup you guessed it, you and I! Federal Taxes monies will be used to pay for over half of it! And why will the Feds pay, that little guy in Oregon again! Way to go dude!!!!

---

Yay..another way to exploit the poor. Good thinking.

Will some poor people be "exploited" as you use that word there? Sure. Of course. They always are. So what? Looking at the few options open to the poor and the taking away the one they chose isn't helping them...

Orders of magnitude more people will make conscious decisions to sell, thus saving and bettering the lives of others. Simple cost/benefit analysis.

How is encouraging poor people to sell their organs to the rich helping them? Are you crazy?

What the hell are you talking about? It's a transaction just like anything else, no matter what you happen to feel about it.

An organ saves a life on one side and maybe puts a child through skool on the other. Maybe a poor family pools their resources and buys a beloved grandmother a better life. Who are you to decide whether they feel exploited or not? I think most people would love the opportunity to save people they care about. Right now, they just get to watch them die. Sorta like the NHS.

Better yet, dead bodies could yield THOUSANDS for the family. But that's not allowed either.

The point is very simple: if you can understand why someone (anyone) would be encouraged to sell an organ, you can understand that there is a market and why. Right now people simply just die, because of your feelings that some people may be exploited. In other words, it's more important that you feel good about the organ exchange system, than it actually making people's lives better.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yay..another way to exploit the poor. Good thinking.

Will some poor people be "exploited" as you use that word there? Sure. Of course. They always are. So what? Looking at the few options open to the poor and the taking away the one they chose isn't helping them...
Orders of magnitude more people will make conscious decisions to sell, thus saving and bettering the lives of others. Simple cost/benefit analysis.

How is encouraging poor people to sell their organs to the rich helping them? Are you crazy?

What the hell are you talking about? It's a transaction just like anything else, no matter what you happen to feel about it.
An organ saves a life on one side and maybe puts a child through skool on the other. Maybe a poor family pools their resources and buys a beloved grandmother a better life. Who are you to decide whether they feel exploited or now?
Better yet, dead bodies could yield THOUSANDS for the family. But that's not allowed either.
The point is very simple: if you can understand why someone (anyone) would be encouraged to sell an organ, you can understand that there is a market and why. Right now people simply just die, because of your feelings that some people may be exploited. In other words, it's more important that you feel good about the organ exchange system, than it actually making people's lives better.

I don't think she was disagreeing with you in principle, just as it is now being done. Right now, if it were to be allowed, anyone could go in and say I will sell my liver, or whatever, and be given the surgery and the money. If someone were to do that that was down on their luck and wanted a better life, I say go for it! BUT if that same person was just a drunk and wanted the money to buy more drugs or alcohol, obviously not the liver involved then, should they be allowed to do it? I say no! I think that is what Esme is saying too. She can speak for herself, but that is the meaning I got from what she said.

So I guess that I agree with your idea, just would like to know more of the details on how you are planning to prevent the possible abuses, before I sign up. And no we cannot just let the Doctors handle it! The Medical Community has a Law in Florida, USA that says that "anyone" with a Medical License can perform surgery. Fine on the surface, but did you ever think Podiatrists would be performing plastic surgery, or breast augmentation? They are, LEGALLY!!! They have a Medical License and the Law cannot stop them! So Doctors making the decision for your transplants is not an option! The money is there and the Law is so vague they are taking advantage of the situation! Doctors do not ALWAYS make the best decisions for the patient!

---

Send in the IRS

Washington dreams of tax crackdown

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

March 24, 2007

Fairy tales often turn gruesome, with wolves eating grandmother and such. So it goes with the latest yarn in Washington, in which Congress and President Bush sick the Internal Revenue Service on Americans and find a treasure for more spending.

Lawmakers are working hard to close the “tax gap,” which is the difference between what taxpayers owe and the government actually collects. An IRS study pegged the gap at $290 billion in 2001.

Give the IRS more money and power for enforcement operations, the thinking goes, and cash will tumble into the Treasury. Under “pay as you go,” the Democratic majority has promised to match new spending with revenues. Any windfall could push a tax increase beyond the 2008 elections.

Meanwhile, Bush wants to extract transaction data from credit-card processors and eBay to root out undeclared income. So if you made money selling that old collection of PEZ dispensers, watch out.

By Washington standards, the logic is flawless: Spending restraint requires political will, so let's instead spin a myth about tax cheats and a painless surge in revenues.

Yet reality intrudes. An estimated 84 percent of all taxpayers send the correct amount to the IRS each year. Of the rest who either underpay or overdeduct, 94 percent make honest mistakes as they struggle with the 17,000-page tax code, according to Nina Olsen, the government's National Taxpayer Advocate.

Other experts say tax simplification would generate far more revenue. As a bonus, taxpayers could pocket the $275 billion they spend on accountants and lawyers to comply each year.

But this would make sense. Washington would rather launch an IRS crackdown, thus boosting compliance costs and badgering the innocent.

---

me@rescam.org