Big oil companies spared tax hikes

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

(Original AP story here)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a $32 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been financed mostly by new taxes on major oil companies.

Democrats came three votes short of overcoming a threatened GOP filibuster that was keeping the measure from being attached to a broader energy bill. Republican senators argued that the nearly $29 billion in additional taxes on major oil companies would have led to reduced production and higher gasoline prices.

Because of Republican opposition, Democrats needed 60 votes to allow the package to come up for a vote, but fell short, 57-36. With a number of senators not voting, Democrats could resurrect the measure later, though there was no immediate indication of that.

The tax proposal had some bipartisan support, but also attracted sharp criticism from many Republican senators who lined up against it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he intends to proceed with consideration of the energy legislation with or without the tax measures. "There are still good things in the bill," he told reporters before the floor vote.

The Senate later voted 61-32 to proceed further with the energy legislation.

Senators hoped later in the day to take up a proposal to increase automobile fuel economy, which has been the focus of intense closed-door discussions in an effort to fashion a compromise that would garner enough votes to overcome strong opposition from the auto industry.

The massive tax measure marked a sharp turn from longtime congressional support of the oil industry to promoting alternative energy development and moving toward energy sources that would help deal with the growing concerns over global warming.

But Republicans complained that it was too harsh on the oil industry and could lead to oil companies reducing investments in new oil refineries and production. They also said that it could lead to higher prices for consumers.

"When you put a tax on a business it gets passed on to consumers," argued Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz. "Instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill is going to add to the cost of gasoline."

Kyl had earlier sought to sidetrack the tax measure, but that effort failed.

The bill's supporters dismissed suggestions that the new taxes on an industry that has had record profits in recent years would cause either less oil production or lead to higher prices at the pump.

Oil companies earned $111 billion in profits last year and at that rate stand to earn $1 trillion over the 10 years covered by the tax package, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., rejecting suggestions that "this is an undue burden" on oil companies.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose Finance Committee crafted the tax package, said the incentives for renewable and alternative fuels "will help wean ourselves away from OPEC ... from these very high gas prices."

The tax changes would have channeled $11 billion over 10 years into development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and power from wind turbines. It provides an additional $18 billion in other tax breaks - from tax credits to clean and renewable energy bonds - to support improvements in energy efficiency, clean coal technology, development of gas-electric hybrid cars that could be plugged into the national power grid and other alternative energy programs.

Major oil companies would have paid most of the tab.

For example, the measure would have rescind a tax break given oil companies in 2004 which was primarily aimed at helping domestic manufacturing; increase taxes paid under an oil spill liability law; and eliminate existing tax credits involving foreign oil production.

Another measure also would have imposes a new excise tax on oil produced from the Gulf of Mexico to recoup $10.7 billion in royalties that the government has been unable to retrieve because of flawed oil leasing contracts issued in 1998-99.

This is ridiculous. Big Oil has too much influence in Washington. The arguments made by those in congress that blocked this bill are unfounded and in my opinion manipulated entirely by oil companies. Big Oil = Evil, in no uncertain terms. It will be a glorious day when the world's dependence on petroleum is over.

EU plans direct Palestinian aid

The EU has said it will resume direct aid to the Palestinian Authority to support the new Fatah-led government.

The decision came after Israel and the US both publicly backed the new emergency cabinet, set up after Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip.

Israel says it will release tax revenues frozen since Hamas won elections in January 2006.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has spoken to US President George W Bush, urging him to push for new peace talks.

Mr Bush called the Palestinian Authority president to offer his support for the new government, said Mr Abbas's office.

Mr Abbas reportedly told the US leader that without Hamas in government, the time was now right for a new peace effort.

Israeli leaders offered strong public support for Mr Abbas' new government.

Speaking in New York, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would consider the new Palestinian government as a "genuine partner".

------------------

The EU and US imposed an embargo on the previous government after Hamas won a surprise election victory 18 months ago.

Speaking in Luxembourg, Mr Solana said the EU would be prepared to make some direct payments to the government of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, in the future.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6762777.stm


Maybe now things will begin to move in the right direction. I understand fully the hesitation to provide foreign aid to violent groups, but I think it is important to remember that with such a significant amount of the PA's operating budget coming from foreign aid, the suspension of such aid means that trash goes uncollected, schools close, hospitals run short on supplies, police officers go without pay, and everything deteriorates even further. And when the state doesn't provide those goods and services, who steps in to fill the void--groups like Hamas and Hezbolla. The worse things get the more support extremists receive.

Secret UN report condemns US for Middle East failures

The highest ranking UN official in Israel has warned that American pressure has "pummelled into submission" the UN's role as an impartial Middle East negotiator in a damning confidential report.

The 53-page "End of Mission Report" by Alvaro de Soto, the UN's Middle East envoy, obtained by the Guardian, presents a devastating account of failed diplomacy and condemns the sweeping boycott of the Palestinian government. It is dated May 5 this year, just before Mr de Soto stepped down.

The revelations from inside the UN come after another day of escalating violence in Gaza, when at least 26 Palestinians were killed after Hamas fighters launched a major assault. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the rival Fatah group, warned he was facing an attempted coup.

Mr de Soto condemns Israel for setting unachievable preconditions for talks and the Palestinians for their violence. Western-led peace negotiations have become largely irrelevant, he says.

Source: The Guardian. Full story available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2101677,00.html

There was a time when we at least put serious efforts into peace in the Middle East. While the US has always looked to its own interests first--as do most nations--we have moved from subtle acts of imperialism meant to shore up our position of hegemony and to advance our "policy goals" to more overt acts of Empire building, particularly in this region. Sad. We had so much opportunity to do good at the end of the Cold War, yet we have squandered our potential on self-serving policies, imperialism, and profiteering.

Sex bomb, sex bomb....

(CBS 5) BERKELEY A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsequently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistibly attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviewing the documents.

"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.

"The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who indicated that the "gay bomb" idea was quickly dismissed.

However, Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged.

"The truth of the matter is it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned.

Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the notion of a "gay bomb" both offensive and almost laughable at the same time.

"Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff Kors of Equality California. "So, it's just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And its absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed."

This perhaps needs no comment. A simple "What the.....?" will suffice.

Studies say death penalty deters crime

There are a few interesting studies that were recently talked about in an AP story on capital punishment as a deterrent (click here to read the full article). Here are excerpts from the article:

- Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

- The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

- Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

There wasn't a link to the actual studies themselves, so I do not know exactly how these studies were carried out. For instance, did it take into account the economic background's (or difference in economic background) affect on the convicted? Or the change in economic conditions in a given area? The ratio of those who were convicted versus those found innocent? To tell you the truth, I am wondering how they conducted their information gathering techniques. I mean, are they taking the word of convicted murderers or potential murderers?

Regardless, I think these studies are an interesting starting point for a discussion on capital punishment.

Chris Dodd writes the Pope

Dear (my name),

America doesn't start wars - we end them.

We don't turn away from the world - we lead it.

And we don't commit torture - we condemn it.

All of this was true until the current administration, and we shouldn't wait until we elect a new President before we stand up to the mistakes made by this one.

There is no doubt that we live in dangerous times and that America has real enemies, but the actions of this Administration have made us more vulnerable as nation, not less.

That is why I intend to do everything within my power to bring a bill I introduced earlier this year, the "Restoring the Constitution Act," to a vote in the United States Senate.

But today I need your help. Watch my video discussing the bill and upload your own explaining why you believe America is most secure when we draw strength from our highest ideals, not our worst fears.

http://www.restore-habeas.org

During last weekend's debate, I was asked what a top priority for the Dodd Administration would be during my first 100 days in office. My answer was clear, "I would try to restore the Constitutional rights in this country" and I wouldn't need one hundred days to do it.

Indeed, we must restore habeas corpus, but to regain our moral standing in the world requires more than that alone.

That is why the "Restoring the Constitution Act" would also prevent the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion, limit the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and make that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight, and narrow the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in a zone of active combat against the United States, and individuals who participated in attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Watch the video explaining the "Restoring the Constitution Act," upload your own, and sign on as a citizen co-sponsor.

http://www.restore-habeas.org

In removing habeas corpus protections, the Military Commissions Act affirmed vengeance as a tool in fighting terrorism – discarding sixty years of precedent and respect for the rule of law.

The subjugation of habeas and the use of torture make us weaker as a nation, not stronger. It's time we stand up and say once and for all that the choice between vengeance and security is a false choice – that American leadership ought to draw strength from not our worst fears but our highest ideals.

Please take a moment to learn about the "Restoring the Constitution Act" and get involved in its passage.

http://www.restore-habeas.org

Justice Jackson said of the Nuremberg Trials, "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

If we fail to rise to this moment, I fear we will be drinking from that chalice for many years to come. In the end, by restoring our fundamental principles we serve not only the interest of justice, but also the long term interests of the United States.

Chris Dodd

I like what Dodd has to say here. It's a good thing he is trying to do. Oh course that has nothing to do with my questions, but I thought I would share it anyway.

Obama answers one of the four questions in an Email reply finally

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I traveled to the Middle East in January 2006, where I met with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, as well as ordinary citizens in both communities. This visit increased my understanding of the challenges that confront the people who live in the region and our diplomatic efforts there, but also my resolve to make a difference.

The best solution to this difficult conflict is two states living side-by-side in peace and security. I believe the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians support this outcome. What is needed is a far more vigorous U.S. diplomatic effort to help them achieve it. But the current Administration has sat on the sidelines for far too long. As President, I would make a personal commitment to this effort.

Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East, and we are obligated to help ensure its security. A negotiated peace with the Palestinians would make Israel more secure and allow the Palestinians to achieve their goal of an independent state. We should be doing more to strengthen Palestinian leaders who support a two-state solution, isolate those who seek Israel's destruction, and help the two sides reach negotiated solutions to all outstanding issues.

An agreement that fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples is the only path to peace, and I will continue to work toward this end. Thank you again for contacting me on this issue.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama


Does that really say anything? I mean, couldn't that have been written by anyone running for president? Well, at least he did answer one of the four questions in some way, that's something at least.

Obama writes the Pope a second time

Dear (my name),

When we launched this campaign, we decided not to take the easy money offered by Washington lobbyists and special interest political action committees.

Instead, we put our faith in you, and we couldn't have made a better choice.

I'll be meeting four of you for dinner sometime soon, but what's happening across this country is bigger than me, or my candidacy.

Together we're re-shaping the political process based on the idea that a movement of people who care about the common future of all Americans can be more powerful than any special interest.

Below is the dinner invitation David sent out yesterday. I hope you'll take a minute to make a donation, and perhaps we'll be seeing each other soon.

http://my.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive

Thank you,

Barack

Wow, actually from "Barack" this time. You'd think if he had time to write me this, he could have answered my questions...hmmmm...

Obama's response to the Pope's questions

Alright, well Obama's campaign did not write back with any answers to my questions, but they did invite me to donate some money (big surprise) and perhaps have dinner with Barack. Honestly, answers to my questions would have been much better in my book. Here's the email for you to read anyway:

Dear (my name),

Most political fundraisers are hosted by lobbyists and filled with representatives of special interests.

But our campaign is different.

Our funding comes from a movement of Americans giving whatever they can afford, even $5, and Barack wants to sit down with supporters like you.

If you've ever thought about making a donation to join our campaign, now is the time. In the next week, four supporters will be selected for a new kind of fundraising dinner. We're reserving two of those seats for new donors like you.

If you make a donation in any amount between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Wednesday, June 13, you could join Barack and three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five.

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive

Our movement is changing the way campaigns are funded. We’re not taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees.

More than 100,000 individual donors have demonstrated that this choice is about more than an election. It’s about each of us having a personal stake in the future of American politics.

The dinner for five is an opportunity for you to sit down with Barack and your fellow supporters and talk about what matters to you.

Get the kind of treatment other politicians reserve for special interests. Make a donation in the next week, and you could share your story and your ideas with Barack in person:

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive

With every single donation, we’re building a movement to change American politics. And this is just the beginning.

Thanks for your support,
David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Take a moment to remember a great man.

“We all struggle to transcend the cruelties and the follies of mankind. That struggle will not be won by standing aloof and pointing a finger; it will be won by action, by men who commit their every resource of mind and body to the education and improvement and help of their fellow man.”
–Robert F. Kennedy, 1966 South Africa

Today is the anniversary of the assassination of one of the most important men of the 20th century. Take just a moment to allow the spirit of RFK to speak to you and maybe take a few minutes to read a little about him if you don't know much.

Robert F. Kennedy

GOP Debates Show Some Surprising Wit and Intellect--Media Ignores It

When I navigated to the CNN stories about the debates this mornings I was not surprised to find that the major topics of conversation were 1) Giuliani's interruption by lightning; 2) Tancredo's rejection of Bush ever playing a role in his (unlikely) administration ; 3) McCain's rather impassioned defense of his immigration bill; and 4) Mitt Romney's hair. This is pretty much business as usual. Major media outlets have already cast their lots with the candidates, made their predictions, and now must do all they can to reinforce the notion that they can "pick 'em" by maneuvering conversation, debate, and attention toward those few candidates (same with the Democrats by the way). Candidates like McCain and Giuliani started out with lots of name recognition and deep pockets, so they were early front runners and grabbed the spotlight. Romney, slick and conservative, has been the religious voters choice it seems and so he has successfully improved his standing despite the table scraps the media fed him initially. At this point he is almost a viable candidate in the eyes of pundits , media analysts, and "journalists." But what of the other candidates? Almost totally ignored.

And here is the rub: In last night's debate Ron Paul, the (way) outsider candidate among Republicans showed wit and intellect, expressed knowledge and comprehension of the issues, and articulated clear and informed policy prescriptions based on a coherent platform of open market ideology and deference to the constitution--he is a stalwart libertarian. I very much disagree with Paul a number of issues, not least of which is the supposed benevolence and benefits of unrestricted capitalism, but I do respect many of his positions. Chief among these was his position on preemptive war. I must say I was very impressed with his response to the question "What is America's most pressing moral issue?" While the other candidates were falling all over each other to talk about abortion, Paul flatly stated that the doctrine of preemptive war adopted by the current administration was the most pressing issue because of the damage it has done to US standing in the world, our alliances, our security, and to innocent people overseas. He may have even mentioned international law, but I can't exactly recall.

While I disagree with him on lots of issues--but let's face it, I don't support anybody who was up there--I thought that his performance was head an shoulders above the rest. CNN, however, as well as almost all other major US media outlets and their pundits, failed to give any notable mention to Paul. Rather, they gorged themselves on the inane rhetoric of the rest of the pack. This would seem to put CNN and the others out of touch with viewers and voters, though, as respondents to the (non-scientific) CNN.com poll showed a clear victory for Paul. As of 8 am 54% of voters (out of 10,500) on the site chose Paul as the clear victor. Moreover, he received the most votes in 4 other categories.

The point is, if candidates like Paul can generate support among voters, and if viewers respond so favorably to them in debates, why do media outlets tend to ignore them? Why have CNN, MSNBC, and FOX virtually edited Paul out of their coverage of not only the debate, but the campaign in general. Does he even show up on most polls? At least the BBC noticed...sort of (thanks Pope): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6725393.stm

Kucinich.us writes the Pope back

Thank you for your interest, (my name). The only information
I have is what you see on the website. I am in Iowa. I
never see Dennis or his peopple.

http://kucinich.us/issues

In hope and peace,

Gail Heyn
Volunteer
Kucinich for President 2008

After receiving the response yesterday from Ron Paul, I decided to write a few more campaigns and make some inquiries. I asked 4 questions (the same ones I wrote to multiple candidates): one on Eminent Domain, one on technological safeguards, one on Israel and Palestine, and the final one on privacy rights. I'll inform you when I hear from each candidate I wrote. Aside from the above, I have only received form responses from a few campaign... those don't count :-)

Cheney on Libby, inappropriate?

"Speaking as friends, we hope that our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man," is what Cheney said about the recent sentencing of "Scooter" Libby.

John Barrett, former Iran-Contra prosecutor said, "It's a disappointment whenever a person who occupies a high office and takes an oath doesn't respond to a demonstrated serious criminal event in a serious governmental way."

"It's an adversary process and I understand the personal dimension, but the United States is the side of the case that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are on. Those are their jobs," Barrett now a law professor at St. John's University in New York City said.

(To read some now on this, click here for the AP article)

I think this bring up an interesting question: Were VP Cheney's comment inappropriate for someone in his position? Exactly where should the lines of personal feelings and political integrity be drawn?

Ron Paul writes the Pope

So today I wrote the Ron Paul campaign, because he is the Republican who most interests me. He's a states rights guy with a Libertarian background who is interested in some of the same issues I am (one of the major ones is Eminent Domain, I find the recent Supreme Court's decisions on it terrifying - also he is interested in privacy rights and was against the Iraq War from the get-go). Click here for the "issues" page on his website. My biggest issue is I didn't know where he stood on abortion and gay marriage. Well within 2 hours his campaign had written me back with the answers. I thought I would share it with you all.

Sir,

Thanks for your interest in my campaign!

As an OBGYN, I delivered over 4,000 babies, and I cherish the sanctity of life. A society's worth can be measured by how well it treats the dignity of human life. The right to life of an unborn child is consistent with American ideals of liberty. My record on abortion speaks to my commitment to pro-life principles.

In Congress, I voted to ban partial-birth abortion, and pro-abortion NARAL gave me a 0% rating. I also authored legislation, HR 1094, that seeks to define life as beginning at conception. Equally important to me is defending federalism. Abortion is a state issue, as there is no explicit mentioning of it in the Constitution. This is why I support overturning Roe v. Wade, which improperly gave the federal government oversight powers with regard to abortion. As dictated by the Constitution, the states should be free to set their own abortion policies without federal interference.

It is important that we as a society protect innocent human life, but if we undermine the federalist principles on which this nation was built, we threaten the very system built to safeguard life. I will always work to protect the liberty of every human life, but it is important to balance pro-life values within our system of federalism, which delegates very few specific responsibilities to the federal government, abortion not among them.

On marriage issues, I opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment even though I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. My opposition stemed from the fact that, again, the federal government should not be interfereing with the marriage licensing policies of the states.

Thanks for contacting us,
Ron Paul 2008 PCC

Even though we don't see eye-to-eye on these issues, I still think he is the best of the Republican pool.

I used to like McCain best back in 2000. He seemed to stand for integrity and "straight-talk". But over the last 8 years, he's buddied up with the christian right and his continued support of the War in Iraq doesn't speak well for him either.

All things considered, I believe I am supposed to like Rudy Giuliani. Hmmm... I just can't. He seems fake in some way. He's just riding 9/11 to the nomination. I just have not been impressed by him so far at all.

Amnesty International Report on Israel -Palestine calls for Mid-East Watchdog

A human rights group has called for the creation of an international monitoring body to address human rights violations by Israel and the Palestinians.

Amnesty International says the body must have a mandate to investigate and prosecute offenders.

It also denounced the barrier Israel is building in the West Bank and called on Palestinians to end militant attacks.

The report marks 40 years since the Mid-East war which led to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Amnesty's UK director Kate Allen said Israel could not justify its behaviour in the West Bank under security grounds.

"Legitimate security concerns are no excuse for... the mistreatment of thousands of Palestinians in a massive programme of collective punishment," she said.

In response to the report, Israel's government defended its observance of international law, and Palestinian rights activists said what was needed was a peacekeeping force - not more monitors with no mandate to intervene.

....................................................

Amnesty says that since September 2000, Israeli forces have killed some 4,000 Palestinians, most of them unarmed civilians and including about 800 children.

Palestinian armed groups have killed more than 1,100 Israelis, some 750 of them civilians and including 120 children.

About a third of the Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian armed groups were settlers in the occupied territories.

Amnesty stressed that the settlers are civilians who should never be targeted.

The group said human rights violations by both sides highlighted the need for an effective international watchdog.

"This must be backed up with a commitment to investigate and prosecute, through the exercise of universal jurisdiction, those who commit war crimes or other crimes under international law."

Excerpted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6718283.stm

I would love to see this implemented, but sadly I am not sure what good it might actually do. Much of the world, including the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and a host of other NGOs and IGOs have taken Israel to task on the its heavy-handed, bordering on brutal, security policies (as well as calling on groups like Hamas and Islamic Jyhad to stop attacks on civilians). But it seems like not much ever changes. Maybe, as many Palestinian activists have suggested, a peace keeping force with the mandate to intervene to protect civilians would make a difference, but monitoring seems to do little. And honestly, nothing is likely to change at all so long as the US gives nearly blind support to Israeli policies--which also will prevent a force with any mandate for intervention from ever coming into existence. I am not suggesting that the US should completely withdraw support for Israel, but it seems hard for us to call on other nations to support international human rights laws (or even to shame China for its close financial dealings with the Sudan) when we constantly turn a blind eye to the abuses committed by Israel. Just take a look at the numbers presented above: Israeli forces have killed 5 times as many Palestinian civilians as Palestinian factions have killed Israeli civilians; and the numbers for children are more staggering, coming in at almost 7 to 1. One word: Repugnant.

Democratic Debate 3/04/07

Did anyone else out there watch the CNN dem debate last night. I know that it was a big TV night, what with the Sopranos and the MTV something awards (with the beautiful Sarah Silverman), but should you have watched them, I would like to hear your opinions. Did you like the format? Who seemed like a big winner? big loser? Was it a fair setup and execution? Anyone surprise you?

I thought that Dennis Kucinich gave a strong showing, of course his views are most in line with my own. He actually got applause, I was so proud of DK. Though I think that CNN tried to make him look bad from the beginning. In the very first shot, you could see ol' Denny standing on a box... *sigh*... most rational, yet doomed by the media.

Richardson, who isn't a bad candidate especially considering his foreign policy experience, was extremely overshadowed. He was the candidate who seemed to lose the most in the debate. He didn't come off as strong or a leader or even a straight-talker, all qualities I always admired him for.

Dodd tried to make a good showing, but didn't really make ripples to me. Gravel, though he makes great points, comes across as either perpetually angry or a badly-drawn cartoon. Biden was full of passion and seemed to have a rational thoughtful position on most things, but some of it came off as fake which is tragic cause it might have been real.


The big three: Clinton and Obama both have such a sizable lead in the polls that they could and did skid by without saying anything. These two had the most face time and the least substance. But let's not forget that polls means very little, just ask Howard Dean. Edwards seemed like a
winner in the debate last night, he got to challenge the top two a few times. Edwards also got to talk some about healthcare, a strong issue for him, but to me I wished he would have talked more about wage disparity in the US.

This debate seemed most successful for Edwards. Though I think that we might see Kucinich rise to maybe 3 or 5 percent soon.

People You Should Know: Felipe Calderon

Felipe Calderón

- President of Mexico, elected for one six-year term that will end in 2012 without possibility for re-election
- a devout Roman Catholic, Calderón opposesabortion, euthanasia, contraception and gay marriage.
- supports balanced fiscal policies, flat taxes, and lower taxes and free trade.
- has also stated that the challenge is not between the political left or right, but a choice between "the past and the future". In his interpretation, moving "towards the past" would mean nationalizations, expropriations, state control of the economy, and authoritarianism while "the future" would represent the contrary: privatizations, liberalization, market control of the economy, and political freedoms.

Woman Sues EHarmony for Discrimination

(This story is from the AP but I read it in the Chicago Tribune, click here for article.)

By Associated Press
Published June 1, 2007, 6:17 AM CDT

LOS ANGELES -- A Northern California woman sued the online dating service eHarmony on Thursday, alleging it discriminates against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Linda Carlson said she tried to use the Internet site in February to meet a woman but could not based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the company refused to change its policy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The lawsuit claims that by only offering to find a compatible match for men seeking women or women seeking men, the company was violating state law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," Carlson said in a statement.

The lawsuit names Pasadena-based eHarmony.com Inc., company founder Neil Clark Warren and his wife Marylyn, the company's former vice president, as defendants. It seeks class-action status, a jury trial and unspecified damages.

The company, which conducts extensive personality profiling before introducing couples with matching values and interests, denied the allegation.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," a company statement said. "Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future, it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."

Warren is a clinical psychologist who has written several books about dating and relationships.

Copyright © 2007, The Associated Press

They took us for a ride

Remember the kidney donor contest we were discussing. The whole thing was a hoax (click here for the article).

Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea

WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea. "The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.

Source: Reuters
Full text available: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30416213.htm

It doesn't really surprise me that the Bush administration has a plan like this; in fact, I assume that this has been the plan all along. But I can't imagine this is going to be very popular with most of America. The administration is having a hard enough time convincing voters to be patient for a few more months, let alone for the foreseeable future.