The Statue of Liberty, America's ubiquitous symbol for freedom is now symbolically free from fossil fuels. The Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island and several other federal facilities in northern New Jersey owned by U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) will run on 100% renewable power.
Pepco Energy Services, a supplier of renewable electricity in the mid-Atlantic region, will provide the green power credits in a three-year contract. The energy will be generated from wind turbines.
Pepco will supply an estimated 27 million kWh of electricity generated from 100% renewable resources to the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island and the Ellis Island Immigration Museum on Ellis Island; both landmarks are operated by the National Park Service.
More
I'm a big believer in opting in to renewable energy certificates. 4% of America's electricity is produced by petroleum based artificial coal ( That's twelve million people's energy) so its a good way for an individual to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce funds to countries that support terrorism while supporting an emerging American industry.
Your local electric company's web site should have information on their program which will cost anywhere from 0$ to 3$ a month to offset 10 to 20% of your homes energy consumption. If not, you can sign up at Windcurrent for 5$ a month billed quarterly to offset 20% of your homes energy consumption. For the record Windcurrent's president Jim McGuire is a really nice church going guy and not a bad fella to swap emails with.
Also you can offset any costs for the program by picking up a pack of GE flourescent bulbs at Sam's Club (8 bulbs for 12$). I switched the whole house over and lowered my electric bill by 10%.
For the record though only buy GE or Sylvania bulbs otherwise you will most likely get crappy mauve or blue colored light. I tried several brands and only GE and Sylvania got the Crapomatic Seal of Approval.
Remember folks,"If its not Crapomatic, its crap!"
Trackbacks:
Basil's Blog
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Lady Liberty Goes Green
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
North Korean ICBM Bombs
N. Korea Fires Long-Range Missile, Others
Tuesday, July 4, 2006; 6:37 PM
North Korea today defied strong warnings from Washington and test-launched its long-range ballistic missile, which fizzled less than a minute after lift-off, according to Pentagon and State Department officials.
The Taepodong-2 test followed the launch of a short-range SCUD-type missile and a medium-range Nodong missile, according to first reports, which officials at the Pentagon and State Department cautioned may still change. U.S. surveillance craft observed all three tests, said the Pentagon official, who asked not to be named.
The Taepodong, which has an estimated range that gives it the potential of striking parts of the United States, has provoked heightened tensions with the rest of the world recently. Today, though, diplomatic and military officials played down any imminent threat. "None posed a threat," the Pentagon spokesman said in an e-mail account of the incident, and "no action [was] required." The missile failed after about 35 seconds, he confirmed.
Now the real question is are they trying to help us celebrate Independence Day or trying to shoot down the space shuttle ?In all seriousness the US couldn't have asked for a better launch result. However you know that N Korea has to be pissed that Iran gets a multinational gift basket for developing a nuclear program while N Korea receives sanctions. Kim Jong-il must be feeling extra ronery about now.
I'm sure Southpark creators Matt Stone and Trey Fisher are breathing a sigh of relief today. (Its a running joke folks see here and here)
Captain's Quarters has an interesting breakdown on this story:
One has to wonder at the sudden and early failure of all three rockets. After all, the Kim regime has successfully launched the Nodong before. It seems a little strange that all three missiles failed so quickly after their launch. Besides sheer incompetence, two explanations could apply. On one hand, the North Koreans may have launched them because they could not safely defuel them; they could have aborted the missiles shortly after launch to ensure that they did not fly long enough to provoke an American response. If that were the case, though, one would expect that they would have notified at least the Chinese in order to ensure that we did not overreact to the launches.
Happy Birthday America!
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....Monday, July 03, 2006
Unity 08
If you haven't heard already there is a new third party forming called Unity '08 :
Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.
For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups – with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.
We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system – and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.
As a result, most Americans have not been enthusiastic about the choices for President in recent elections, the key issues they ran on, or the manner in which the campaigns were conducted.
Therefore Unity08 will act to assure that an alternative ticket is presented to the American voters in 2008.
- Goal One is the election of a Unity Ticket for President and Vice-President of the United States in 2008 – headed by a woman and/or man from each major party or by an independent who presents a Unity Team from both parties.
- Goal Two is for the people themselves to pick that Unity Ticket in the first half of 2008 – via a virtual and secure online convention in which all American voters will be qualified to vote.
- Goal Three, our minimum goal, is to effect major change and reform in the 2008 national elections by influencing the major parties to adopt the core features of our national agenda. With a group of voters who comprise at least 20% of the national electorate, we feel confident that our voters will decide the 2008 election.
'Unity '08' Seeks Third Party Path
Doug Bailey
Unity '08 Founders Council
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; 12:00 PM
Doug Bailey , a member of the Unity '08 Founders Council, was online Tuesday, June 27, at noon ET to discuss the group's goal of a third party option in the 2008 presidential elections. Unity '08 is comprised of political consultants, both Democrat and Republican, who feel that neither party is providing adequate leadership for the country. The group hopes to put forth a presidential ticket with one candidate from each side of the partisan divide.
Bailey is also founder of The Hotline, a political newsletter, and former political media consultant to President Gerald Ford .
The transcript follows.____________________
Harrisburg, Pa.: It is my understanding that you intend to put up two independent candidates to appeal to people disappointed in their respective parties. Does this mean you will promise to run a candidate from an unrepresented faction of both parties? For instance, it would not be fair should you nominate two similar candidates from one side and two diverse candidates from another side such that one side is disadvantaged.
Doug Bailey: the Unity08 online convention will nominate one R and one D, in whatever order for a Unity Ticket. they will run for the nomination as a team and they will be nominated by the convention as a team (just the way we vote for the two top slots with one vote in November). Independents may also run if they present a unity team that includes member of both parties.
_______________________
St. Mary's City, Md.: As an independent voter, I hope Unity can get some traction. My big concern is that one of the Big Two has been hijacked by religious conservatives who are using that party to push a reactionary agenda.
Do you see Unity as luring classic small-government conservatives away from the GOP? Or would Unity serve as a moderating influence on both parties, helping to marginalize the extremists?
Doug Bailey: Unity08 will draw on members of both the big parties who have been alienated by their leadership. We want everybody. We feel that only about 25% of the electorate is really satisfied with either of the two big parties.
_______________________
Houston, Tex.: Our Libertarian friends would argue that there's already a third party, and it's them. Are there any efforts to bring Libertarians into the Unity fold?
Doug Bailey: No one has to leave his/her party to join us at Unity08. Just come to Unity08.com and sign up. We want independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, vegetarians et al.
Also please take the time to drop by their site to read up and sign onboard.
UN: Darfur Peace Deal on Brink of Collapse
Sunday, July 2, 2006; 5:43 AM
CAIRO, Egypt -- The head of the United Nations mission in Sudan said on his personal blog that the Darfur peace agreement "does not resonate with the people" and is in danger of collapse.
But Jan Pronk also wrote last week that the pact was still salvageable if revisions were made, calling it "a good text, an honest compromise." And he urged its quick implementation, saying, "it meets more and more resistance" as time passes.
The deal aimed at ending three years of bloodshed in the western Sudan region was signed May 5 by the Sudanese government and the main rebel group in Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Movement, though a dissident SLM leader and another rebel group refused to sign.
It calls for a complete cease-fire between rebels and government forces _ including a pro-government militia of Arab nomads known as the janjaweed that is blamed for most of the atrocities against ethnic African villagers.
"So far, nothing has been done. None of the deadlines agreed in the text of the agreement has been met," Pronk wrote on his blog Wednesday.
"It is no wonder that the people in Darfur get the idea that the DPA is just another text without substance, like earlier cease fire agreements, and is not meant to be kept," he said. "It is not yet too late to start implementation, but we seem to be running out of time."
Pronk said that without the peace agreement's implementation, the humanitarian situation in Darfur was worsening.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Hamdan SCOTUS Decision Roundup
A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed
Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A01
For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.
Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.
For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.
Bush came to office intent on expanding executive power even before Sept. 11, 2001, encouraged in particular by Vice President Cheney, who has long been convinced that presidential authority was improperly diminished after Watergate.
The decision to create military commissions to try terrorism suspects, instead of using civilian courts or courts-martial, represented one of the first steps by the administration after the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington to create a new legal architecture for handling terrorism cases.
As described by the New Yorker this week, the executive order establishing military commissions was issued without consultations with then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice after a concerted push by Cheney's legal adviser, David S. Addington, now his chief of staff.
"Rather than push so many extreme arguments about the president's commander-in-chief powers, the Bush administration would have been better served to work something out with Congress sooner rather than later -- I mean 2002, rather than 2006," said A. John Radsan, a former CIA lawyer who now teaches at William Mitchell College of Law.
The administration relied on the same expansive view of its power in detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants, denying prisoners access to lawyers or courts, rejecting the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in some instances, employing harsh interrogation techniques and establishing secret CIA prisons for terrorism suspects in foreign countries. Only its telephone and e-mail surveillance program, which is operated by the National Security Agency, stirred much protest in Congress.
The administration often fended off criticism by arguing that the commander in chief should not be second-guessed. "The Bush administration has been very successful in defining the debate as one of patriotism or cowardice," said Andrew Rudalevige, author of "The New Imperial Presidency" and a Dickinson College professor. "And this is not about that. This is about whether in fighting the war we're true to our constitutional values."
In some ways, the ruling replicates a pattern in American history where presidents have acted aggressively in wartime, only to be reined in by courts or Congress. Even some Bush supporters said yesterday that it may be appropriate now to revisit decisions made ad hoc in a crisis atmosphere, when a president's natural instinct is to do whatever he thinks necessary to guard the nation against attack.
"That's what presidents do, and I say thank goodness for that," said George J. Terwilliger III, deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. "But once you get past that point . . . both as a matter of law and a matter of culture, a more systemic approach to the use of authority is appropriate."
The news networks are proclaiming that the Supreme Court handed the President a "strong rebuke" in the Hamdan case by declaring the proposed Gitmo trials are illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.
Oh, really?
The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment....
This view of unbridled executive power is what was disemboweled by the Hamdan ruling. But will the administration adjust its behavior? Somehow, I doubt it. Look for them to continue seeking forgiveness rather than permission, and force each and every action to be challenged by lawsuits before they conform to the narrow ruling in each case....
I’m familiar with a saying that goes, “if you can keep your head, while everyone around you is losing theirs, then clearly, you don’t understand the situation.”When it comes to Hamdan, that is certainly the case for me.
Quite frankly, I’ve never been sure about the military tribunal route for terrorism suspects captured overseas. To me it either makes sense to try them as criminals in a federal court, hold them until hostilities were over (if we deem the Geneva Conventions apply), or execute them like rabid dogs (if we deem the Geneva Conventions don’t apply). The tribunal route just seemed odd to my sensibilities.
So, give non-US citizens, who are also not members of a legitimate government, the same rights as US citizens.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.
Just absurd, that terrorists are protected the same as American citizens. People who are part of the group that attacked and killed Americans multiple times, culminating in 9/11, as well as the people who sheltered and supported them. Sickening.
Darfur: Sudan to Lobby Rwanda on UN
From the New Times courtesy of The Coalition for Darfur
The Sudanese government is planning to send a delegation to Rwanda in its efforts to seek support from African countries in a bid to block a United Nations peacekeeping force from going to Darfur.
Speaking to The New Times, Ismail Dahab Mohamed, the Sudanese Deputy Head of Mission in Kampala said his government is opposed to replacing the African Union troops with those of the United Nations.
"Rwanda and Burundi are good countries and are near us. We shall also go there to seek for their support against the proposal to replace the African Union peacekeeping forces with those of the United Nations. We shall go there like we are doing to other countries so that we can be supported in our efforts to block these troops from coming to Darfur," he said.
Dahab said that the AU peacekeeping forces only need logistical and financial support to bring about stability in the area.
"As Sudan, we do not think that by taking the UN forces there, the problem will be solved, but we think that the AU mandate should be supported because they can contain the situation," he said.
Dahab also revealed that the African leaders are to meet at the end of this month in the Sudan to discuss Darfur problems and also come up with possible solutions.
"We are committed to ending this problem and we want support from our friends in Africa. We hope that we can resolve the problems as Africans under our organisational structures. At the end of this month, we hope to meet many other African leaders and we discuss matters of the Sudan peace processes. We shall also discuss the issue of UN forces coming to Sudan. We want support from Africa so that we can resolve the matter and head toward peace in the region," he said. Efforts to contact the foreign affairs minister Dr. Charles Murigande on phone by press time yesterday, were fruitless.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
SCOTUS Scraps Military Tribunals for GITMO Guests
Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo War Crimes Trials
In 5-3 Decision Justices Rebuke Bush's Anti-Terror Policy
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 29, 2006; 1:22 PM
The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners.
In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by any act of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.
The ruling, which overturned a federal appeals court decision in which Roberts had participated, represented a defeat for President Bush, who had ordered military trials for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. About 450 detainees captured in the war on terrorism are currently held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Trying them before military commissions would place them under greater restrictions and afford them fewer rights than they would get in federal courts or regular military courts.
The ruling does not mean that the United States must close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility or free any of its detainees...
Additionally this ruling affords the detainees the protection of the Geneva Conventions which I found surprising. According to SCOTUS Blog:
"Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.
This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes)." (All emphasis in the last paragraph was added by yours truly.)
That certainly opens up a whole new can of worms, doesn't it?
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Report: Voting Machines NOT Tamper Proof
A Single Person Could Swing an Election
Electronic Systems' Weaknesses May Be Countered With Audits, Report Suggests
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; Page A07
To determine what it would take to hack a U.S. election, a team of cybersecurity experts turned to a fictional battleground state called Pennasota and a fictional gubernatorial race between Tom Jefferson and Johnny Adams. It's the year 2007, and the state uses electronic voting machines.
Jefferson was forecast to win the race by about 80,000 votes, or 2.3 percent of the vote. Adams's conspirators thought, "How easily can we manipulate the election results?"
The experts thought about all the ways to do it. And they concluded in a report issued yesterday that it would take only one person, with a sophisticated technical knowledge and timely access to the software that runs the voting machines, to change the outcome.
The report, which was unveiled at a Capitol Hill news conference by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice and billed as the most authoritative to date, tackles some of the most contentious questions about the security of electronic voting.
It's not a question of 'if,' it's a question of 'when,' " Davis said of an attempt to manipulate election results.
more
SCOTUS Upholds Texas Redistricting (mostly)
Justices Uphold Most of Texas Redistricting Map
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; 5:06 PM
The Supreme Court today upheld most of a Republican-engineered redrawing of congressional boundaries in Texas at the instigation of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), but it threw out part of the new map that it said discriminated against Latino voters.
In another of a series of fractured rulings -- this one produced six separate opinions -- the high court found nothing inherently wrong with drawing new congressional districts in mid-decade. While the 2003 Texas redistricting plan had partisan motives of increasing the Republicans' congressional majority, the court said, it did not amount to unconstitutional political gerrymandering.
On the issue of whether part of the new map was drawn with the effect of disenfranchising minority voters in south and west Texas in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the court ruled 5-4 that such a violation occurred and ordered that it be remedied.More
Not exactly what I had hoped for. Considering that Texas Dems had previously redistricted Texas to their benefit the ruling wasn't unexpected. However thats one more house seat for the Democrats although I doubt that district will be redrawn in time for the November elections.
Another Blogger for Kinky
While I was away fellow Teddy Roosevelt admirer The Bull Moose decided to endorse Kinky Friedman for Governor of Texas. He even bought a Kinky Friedman action figure. I'm jealous.
Sam Houston Smiles
The Moose congratulates the Kinkster.
Good news from the Lone Star State! Kinky Friedman has been certified to appear on the November ballot as a candidate for Governor.
At least in Texas, voters will have a real choice for their Chief Executive. Texians will be able to select either the Republican or Democrat or from two independent candidates. That's political diversity.
full post
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Flag Burning on the Rise?!
By Dana Milbank
The Citizens Flag Alliance, a group pushing for the Senate this week to pass a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, just reported an alarming, 33 percent increase in the number of flag-desecration incidents this year.
The number has increased to four, from three.
The naive among us may have trouble appreciating how four flag-burning episodes would constitute a constitutional crisis. But the men and women of the Senate, ever alert to emerging threats, are on the case.
Ya know, I don't think I've ever met anyone who was pro-flag burning. But I have met many people who were against limiting freedom of expression including flag burning.
I've heard a lot of people say things similiar to "Burning the flag dishonours those that fought for it." but it seems to me that eroding the rights and principles that they fought to protect dishonours their sacrifices and memory far more.
No soldier died for the flag in the same way no Christian fed to the lions died for two intersecting pieces of wood.
Isn't the symbol less important than what it represents? Then why erode what the symbol stands for in order to protect the symbol?
I was watching CSpan's morning show the other day and they were taking calls about the issue and they had two people call in on the Republican line that both espoused a viewpoint that I hadn't heard before or thought of which kinda went like this, "I am opposed to a constitutional ammendment on flag burning because its idolatry."
another two, from the same phone line, shared this opinion," I think we should ban burning of the flag as long as the flag was made in America. 97% of all American flags are made in China shouldn't American's be making American flags?"
And you know they both have really good points.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Sudan: No U.N. Troops Will Be Allowed In Darfur
From the NY Times:
Leader Won't Allow U.N. Force in Darfur
President Omar Hassan al-Bashir voiced strong opposition to the deployment of Western troops in Darfur, vowing his country would not be "recolonized," the state news media reported. "I swear that there will not be any international military intervention in Darfur as long as I am in power," Mr. Bashir was quoted as telling a meeting of his party. "Sudan, which was the first country south of the Sahara to gain independence, cannot now be the first country to be recolonized." The United Nations wants to replace an under-equipped contingent of African troops in Darfur with its own peacekeepers. Article
What a fat load of crap.
To stay current on the crisis in Darfur please visit Sudan Watch (which is updated several times a day)
Monday, June 19, 2006
Rice Warns N. Korea Not to Test Missile
Monday, June 19, 2006; 4:56 PM
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned today it would be "a very serious matter and indeed a provocative act" if North Korea launched a long-range ballistic missile.
Rice's remarks, made at a news conference this afternoon with the Spanish foreign minister, are the latest in a series of warnings to the reclusive Pyongyang government not to end a moratorium on missile testing it agreed to in 1999.
Because of cloud cover and high altitude wind patterns, officials believe the earliest day for a potential missile launch would be Tuesday evening in Washington. North Korea is 14 hours ahead of Washington, and officials expect the North Koreans would launch a missile during daylight hours.
South Park creators Mat Stone and Trey Fisher could not be reached for comment although sources not even remotely associated with either of them inform us that Mat Stone is currently in Washington D.C. but Trey Fisher has been moved to an undisclosed secure location.
Related Post:
North Korea Ready to Test ICBM
North Korea Ready to Test ICBM
North Korea fuels missile, readies launch, U.S. officials say
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- North Korea is believed to have completed fueling a missile capable of reaching Alaska, raising the probability of an imminent test launch, U.S. officials said on Sunday.
The United States plans to join Japan in a sharp response if the test goes ahead.
Washington has warned Pyongyang against the launch in a message passed to North Korean diplomats at the United Nations but there was no response, American officials said.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Pyongyang could still decide to scrap the launch, but that was unlikely given the complexity of siphoning fuel back out of a missile prepared for launch.
The test is expected to involve a Taepodong-2 missile with an estimated range of 2,175 to 2,670 miles (3,500 to 4,300 kilometers). At that range, parts of Alaska in the United States would be within reach as well as Asia and Russia.
North Korea lacks an operational missile that can hit the continental United States, the California-based Center for Nonproliferation Studies said in a recent report.
Just when you thought it was safe to leave the bomb shelter. Of course it could just be part of Kim Jong-il's plan to thank South Park creators Mat Stone and Trey Fisher for their portrayal of him in Team America: World Police.Sunday, June 18, 2006
Emergency Bill Includes Darfur Money
Thursday, June 15, 2006; 1:33 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Thursday allocated $60 million toward launching a U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Darfur region of Sudan.
The money to help stem the brutality and chaos in Darfur is part of the $94.5 billion emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and aid to Gulf Coast hurricane victims. President Bush has said he will sign it into law.
The Darfur money was included in an amendment sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. To pay for the proposed peacekeeping mission, funding for a huge U.S. embassy project in Baghdad was cut.
To keep up to date on the Crisis in Darfur visit The Coalition for Darfur
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Iran: Let the Haggling Begin
Iran Says Will Offer Nuke Package Changes
Saturday, June 17, 2006; 10:50 AM
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's foreign minister said Saturday the government likely would suggest amendments to a Western package of incentives meant to persuade the Islamic republic to give up its uranium enrichment program.
Manouchehr Mottaki would not give any timing for Iran's response. The Tehran regime previously has said some parts of the package were acceptable while others needed to be changed, and the central issue of uranium enrichment needed clarification.
"It is a step forward," he said.
Mottaki said Iran would come up with its own amendments to the package.
"In the end, we will present our proposals. It's a two-way street," he told reporters at a joint news conference with Iraqi politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who heads that country's largest Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Ok, they're going to send back a proposal that the U.S. and The EU will reject and make a counter offer to. Then the diplomatic wrangling (aka haggling) really begins. What will be telling is how long it takes them to come up with each counter offer. If they continually counter offer quickly, it means that they are actually willing to cut a deal. If their counter offers take months, then they are stalling for time and we'll have a real problem unless satellite intelligence shows that they are demolishing installations between offers.Friday, June 16, 2006
Today in Partisans Behaving Badly
Partisan Fight Over Iraq War Erupts on Hill
WASHINGTON, June 15 — The House and the Senate engaged in angry, intensely partisan debate on Thursday over the war in Iraq, as Republicans sought to rally support for the Bush administration's policies and exploit Democratic divisions in an election year shadowed by unease over the war.
It was one of the sharpest legislative clashes yet over the three-year-old conflict, and it came after three days in which President Bush and his aides had sought to portray Iraq as moving gradually toward a stable, functioning democracy, and to portray Democrats as lacking the will to see the conflict through to victory.
In the House, lawmakers moved toward a vote Friday after more than 11 hours of debate on a Republican resolution promising to "complete the mission" in Iraq, prevail in the global fight against terrorism and oppose any "arbitrary date for withdrawal." In the Senate, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to shelve an amendment calling on the United States to withdraw most troops by the end of this year, although Democrats vowed to revisit the debate next week.more
This really strikes me as a publicity stunt pulled off at the tax payers expense. 11 hours equals roughly 873$ per representative ( $165,200 divided by 52 weeks then divided by 40 hours) times 435 reps equals $379,755 spent arguing about a non binding resolution of no real import. Can we dock their pay?
The only real purpose of this that I see is to get certain vocal Democrats on the record so they can later be quoted by their opposition and to allow certain Republicans a chance to grandstand.
I mean they could have been doing something much more important like, oh I don't know, passing legislation requiring people to have a license in order to wear a speedo in public. They could have even given it an important sounding name like "The Blindness Prevention and Public Decency Act". Which would have been a lot more fun to blog about.
Iraqi Insurgencies Strength Waning?
Papers show 'gloomy' state of insurgency A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran was among a "huge treasure" of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday. The document, purporting to reflect al-Qaida policy and its cooperation with groups loyal to ousted President Saddam Hussein, also appear to show that the insurgency in Iraq was weakening. The al-Qaida in Iraq document was translated and released by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie. There was no way to independently confirm the authenticity of the information attributed to al-Qaida. Although the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the document was found in al-Zarqawi's hideout following a June 7 airstrike that killed him, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the document had in fact been found in a previous raid as part of an ongoing three-week operation to track al-Zarqawi. "We can verify that this information did come off some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location," he said. "This was prior to the al-Zarqawi safe house."
By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press WriterThu Jun 15, 5:52 PM ET