Only a Dumbass sees such uniformity in a positive light. A Fascist dumbass!
States challenge nat'l driver's license

By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer Sun Feb 4, 10:36 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states.

The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases.

Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network.

"It's the whole privacy thing," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "A lot of legislators are concerned about privacy issues and the cost. It's an estimated $11 billion implementation cost."

The law's supporters say it is needed to prevent terrorists and illegal immigrants from getting fake identification cards.

States will have to comply by May 2008. If they do not, driver's licenses that fall short of Real ID's standards cannot be used to board an airplane or enter a federal building or open some bank accounts.

About a dozen states have active legislation against Real ID, including Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

Missouri state Rep. James Guest, a Republican, formed a coalition of lawmakers from 34 states to file bills that oppose or protest Real ID.

"This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are," Guest said in an interview Saturday. "That's going too far."

Guest filed a resolution last week opposing Real ID and said he expects it quickly to pass the Legislature. "This does nothing to stop terrorism," he said. "Don't burden the American people with this requirement to carry this ID."

Though most states oppose the law, some such as Indiana and Maryland are looking to comply with Real ID, Sundeen said.

The issue may be moot for states if Congress takes action.

Republican Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire, along with Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka (news, bio, voting record) of Hawaii, filed a bill last year to repeal the law. Sununu expects similar legislation will be introduced soon.

"The federal government should not be in charge of defining and issuing drivers' licenses," Sununu said in a statement.

Privacy advocates say a national driver's license will promote identity theft.

Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer with the
American Civil Liberties Union, said the Real ID ordered by Congress would require a digital photo and probably a fingerprint on each driver's license or state-issued ID card. That, he said, will make it more valuable to identity thieves because the ID card will be accepted as much more than a driving credential.

"It's going to be a honey pot out there that's going to be irresistible to identity thieves," Steinhardt said.

An identity thief, he said, could buy a Real ID from a rogue motor vehicle department employee with is own photo and fingerprint on it.

"The victim is never going to be able to undo this," Steinhardt said.

Other criticisms include:

_Some states will have to invest millions in new computer systems that can communicate with federal databases. That is something they probably will not accomplish by the deadline.

_It will be difficult to comply with the requirement that license applicants prove they are in the country legally. There are more than 100 different immigration statutes, Steinhardt said, which will pose problems for motor vehicle clerks unfamiliar with immigration law.

_It does not solve the problem of terrorism. Oklahoma City bomber
Timothy McVeigh and some of the hijackers from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, had legitimate driver's licenses.

_Even the requirement that applicants' full legal names appear on licenses will pose problems because some states limit the number of characters on the face of the card.

___

On the Net:

Background on Real ID Act: http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/sctran/realidsummary05.htm

Maybe if our Peresident wasn't an eleven year old, the World would be more at ease and enabled to do business together...!
Report: Russian calls U.S. 'difficult'

By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Feb 4, 7:16 PM ET

MOSCOW - Russia's foreign minister said the United States was perhaps Moscow's "most difficult" partner and urged Washington to learn from its mistakes on the world stage, according to a news report on Sunday.

Sergey Lavrov also blamed Washington for impasses in the Middle East, suggesting the U.S. approach there was too confrontational, Interfax news agency reported.

"Like any other country, we are interested in having good, smooth, clear relations with the United States" but it is "not easy," Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying in an interview on state-run television.

While Moscow and Washington have been able to "achieve mutually acceptable results" on many issues, the United States "is not an easy partner at all — probably the most difficult partner," he said.

The remarks reflected the troubled ties between the former Cold War foes, despite avowals of common aims on matters such as terrorism and weapons proliferation. Relations have been strained by disagreements over an array of international issues as well as Russia's record on democracy under President
Vladimir Putin.

Russia sharply criticized the U.S. invasion of
Iraq and has sought to counter what it has suggested are Washington's uncompromising positions on the nuclear programs of
Iran and
North Korea.

Lavrov repeated criticism he made in Washington last week, when he rebuked the Bush administration for its resistance to diplomacy with certain Middle East governments. He suggested the U.S. was being shortsighted by not engaging countries that could help resolve problems in Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The Middle East settlement has been suspended because, despite our position and the position of the
European Union, Washington has conducted policy based on the principle, 'He who is not with us is against us,'" Lavrov said.

He said the United States was isolating Iran,
Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah even though they were "key actors in solving the Middle East puzzle."

The U.S. State Department said it had not seen Lavrov's remarks and declined to comment.

Lavrov said Moscow has been frank with Washington when it questions U.S. foreign policy, and that the United States should learn from its experiences.

"Too much potential for crisis has built up in addition to Iraq and
Afghanistan," he said.

The foreign minister also said relations were far less positive at lower levels than between Putin and
President Bush.

"In spite of the mutual respect of the presidents and their readiness to accept the sovereign decisions of the other side, the situation looks entirely different at other levels of the executive branch," he said.

Call it anything you want, but don't call it Justice! Whose "Hero" he is, will be determined in the future!
Court-martial looms for war objector

By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer Sun Feb 4, 5:58 PM ET

SEATTLE - Denied a chance to debate the legality of the
Iraq war in court, an Army officer who refused to go to Iraq now goes to trial hoping to at least minimize the amount of time he could serve if convicted.

Anti-war activists consider 1st Lt. Ehren Watada a hero, but the Army accuses him of betraying his fellow soldiers.

The 28-year-old faces four years in prison if convicted on one count of missing movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. His court-martial is set to begin Monday at Fort Lewis, south of Seattle.

Watada has spoken out against U.S. military involvement in Iraq, calling it morally wrong and a breach of American law.

"As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order," Watada said in a video statement released at a June 7 news conference.

Despite having already been charged, he spoke out again in August, at a Veterans for Peace rally in Seattle.

"Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crime," Watada said then.

Watada and his Honolulu attorney, Eric Seitz, contend his comments are protected speech, but Army prosecutors argued his behavior was dangerous to the mission and morale of other soldiers.

"He betrayed his fellow soldiers who are now serving in Iraq," Capt. Dan Kuecker said at one hearing. Kuecker has not commented on the case outside of court.

Seitz unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to argue the legality of the war, saying it violated Army regulations that specify wars are to be waged in accordance with the
United Nations charter. His final attempt was quashed last month when the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, ruled Watada cannot base his defense on the war's legality. Head also rejected claims that Watada's statements were protected by the First Amendment.

The Army had subpoenaed two journalists who interviewed Watada, drawing criticism from free-press advocates, but that fell by the wayside as prosecutors dropped two of the four counts of misconduct in exchange for Watada admitting he made statements to freelance journalist Sarah Olson and Greg Kakesako of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

"This should be seen as a victory for the rights of journalists in the U.S. to gather and disseminate news free from government intervention, and for the rights of individuals to express personal, political opinions to journalists without fear of retribution or censure," Olson said in an e-mail message.

Military law experts said that, by confining themselves to the missing movement charge, prosecutors might have saved themselves from arguing some of the legal issues relating to free speech.

"It's desirable that they're abandoning the path of using reporters as witnesses," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, D.C. "It's a very toxic strategy."

Fidell wasn't surprised, however, that the government rejected a deal offered by Seitz that would have had Watada serve only three months confinement with a dishonorable discharge.

"Why should they? He missed a movement of his unit," he said. "No army can tolerate officers refusing to move with their unit."

___

On the Net:

Watada supporters: http://www.thankyoult.com/

Pope Benedict is an out of touch, nineteenth century, dogmatic dork, interested mostly in holding power, screw God!
Pope says compassion no excuse for euthanasia

Sun Feb 4, 10:23 AM ET

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) -
Pope Benedict on Sunday renewed his appeal to Catholics to reject abortion and euthanasia, saying life was God-given and could not be cut short under "the guise of human compassion."

His appeal came days after an Italian doctor who switched off the life support of a paralyzed man at the center of a euthanasia battle was cleared of wrongdoing by a medical panel.

"Life, which is the work of God, cannot be negated by anyone, neither at the very young and indefensible unborn stage, nor when grave disabilities are present," he said in his weekly address to pilgrims and tourists in St. Peter's Square.

Speaking on the Italian Catholic Church's "Day for Life," he said humanity could not legitimize euthanasia or be "fooled" into justifying it "under the guise of human compassion."

Euthanasia is a deeply divisive issue in overwhelmingly Catholic Italy, where it is illegal and carries a jail term of up to 15 years.

The issue was back in the spotlight last month when Italian doctor Mario Riccio disconnected the life support of Piergiorgio Welby, who was paralyzed for many years by muscular dystrophy and had asked to die.

If you're buying this spin from the authors of ATROCITY, you're being White Hosed: Kettle is Black, said the Pot!
White House says Iraq bombing an "atrocity"

Sat Feb 3, 2:41 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House called the suicide bombing in Baghdad that killed 135 people an "atrocity" on Saturday and pledged to help the Iraqi government bring security to the capital.

"The United States stands with the people of
Iraq. We will support the freely elected Iraqi government and its security forces, to help bring those responsible for today's atrocity to justice, and to deliver greater security to the people of Baghdad," White House press secretary Tony Snow said in a statement.

The blast, caused by explosive-laden truck, was the deadliest single bombing in Iraq since the 2003 war and took place in a mainly Shi'ite area of Baghdad.

The White House said the attack "targeted the innocent people of Iraq."

"Free nations of the world must not stand by while terrorists commit mass murder in an attempt to derail democratic progress in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East," the statement said.

Finally, from the honest man with no ego...
Nader leaves '08 door open, slams Hillary

Sun Feb 4, 5:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former presidential candidate
Ralph Nader on Sunday left the door open for another possible White House bid in 2008 and criticized Democratic front-runner
Hillary Rodham Clinton as "a panderer and a flatterer."

Asked on CNN's Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, the lawyer and consumer activist said, "It's really too early to say. ... I'll consider it later in the year."

Nader, 72, said he did not plan to vote for Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York and former first lady.

"I don't think she has the fortitude. Actually she's really a panderer and a flatterer. As she goes around the country, you'll see more of that," Nader said.

On whether he would be encouraged to run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Nader said, "It would make it more important that that be the case."

He added that Clinton may face a challenge in her own state from wealthy Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"I think her main problem may well be right in New York City, Michael Bloomberg. They're talking in the Bloomberg camp of a possible run. I'm saying he'll give more diversity, for sure, and he'll focus on urban problems. But I might say, he's got the money to do it," Nader said.

Democratic candidates Nader likes include former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep.
Dennis Kucinich, he said.

"These people have records, not just rhetoric," he said.

He also criticized focusing on campaign fund-raising to judge candidates' prospects. "The press and the polls are gravitating on cash-register politics ... who's going to raise the $100 (million) or $200 million, McCain or Obama or Hillary. That's very unhealthy. That's rancid politics," he said.

Nader ran for president as an independent in 2004 and as the Green Party candidate in 2000, when some Democrats said he siphoned away votes from former Democratic Vice President
Al Gore, helping Republican George W. Bush to win.

Everyone's differences are one the same and that is our super strength!
Ed: Here's the premise for Edwards' position...: The Most Fundamental Necessity for Democracy to exist and function, is for Taxes to be levied so that everyone is enabled toward gaining an equal footing! This requires everyone to allow that someone elsewhere in the Democracy may not be of the same persuasion or ability to contribute, but that Democracy only works when we allow that everyone's not the same and that this allowance is our super strength! Imperialists will try to reverse this truth and force the poor to pay equally with themselves, as though they are already equal, ut this subterfuge is evil and the rich who support it seek to undermine Democracy! The alternative is Fascism!

Edwards: raise taxes for healthcare

Sun Feb 4, 12:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate
John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee and former North Carolina senator said his plan would "get rid of
George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

He said the plan would also reduce healthcare costs.

"Finally we need to do a much better job of collecting the taxes that are already owed," he said, specifically targeting what he said are large amounts of unpaid capital gains taxes.

"We should have brokerage houses report the capital gains that people are incurring because we're losing billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue," Edwards said.

Offering a preview of his plan, Edwards said it aims to bring healthcare coverage to 47 million uninsured Americans, lower costs for the middle class and foster competition.

It would expand Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance plan for the needy, and offer subsidies for the uninsured. He said, "We ask employers to play a bigger role, which means they either have to have coverage or they have to buy into what we're calling health markets."

Without providing details, Edwards said his plan would create "health markets" nationwide. One choice available in the markets would be "the government plan, so people who like the idea of a single-payer health insurance plan, that is actually one of the alternatives," he said.

Edwards declared his candidacy in December calling for fewer U.S. troops in
Iraq, a restoration of U.S. world leadership and an end to poverty.

Football
I don't watch football! Nam was enough football for me.
5:54 PM. A bunch of dumbasses tearing up the turf, growling and glaring at each other, running at each other hopping to destroy each other's desire to fight, and all for the sake of stealing territory that does no belong to them, in the name of "WINNING" a game played for fun to the tune of billions of dollars a year that do not end up in the pockets of the idiots buying chips and beer!
7:02 PMOkay, I realize it is a long time until time (in your world) to chat, but I certainly am not up stairs watching a bunch of idiots throw themselves at each other for millions of dollars and enough injuries to use up most of those millions that no reasonable insurance company would cover...unless it pushes the costs off onto us, ...some of whom are NOT FOOTBALL FANS and who should NOT BE PAYING FOR WHAT CRETIN FOOTBALL FANS THINK IS ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!!

The McCain Doctrine, a Thought Process only a stereotypical
(Ed: Playing the guilt card to gain support for a failed and ultimately myopic, self-destructive policy is really low; really, really very low, far beneath any potentially serious Presidential Candidate, except a Republican one, apparently! Though they know not how to rid themselves of this scourge, most US Americans are sick of having the dumb asses who fall for this shit in charge of their lives and the lives of their children...and this goes for you, too, Hillary, though you will probably use it to WIN!)

McCain condemns anti-surge resolution

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) sought to weaken support for a resolution opposing
President Bush's
Iraq war strategy Sunday, saying proponents are intellectually dishonest.

On the eve of a possible congressional showdown on Iraq strategy, McCain contended the bipartisan proposal amounted to a demoralizing "vote of no confidence" in the U.S. military.

The measure criticizes Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops in Iraq yet offers no concrete alternatives, he said.

"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it," said McCain, top Republican on the
Senate Armed Services Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate from Arizona.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., called GOP efforts to block a vote on the resolution "obstructionism." Neither a Senate majority nor voters, she said, will tolerate such a delaying tactic.

"If we can't get this done, you can be sure a month or so down the pike, there's going to be much stronger legislation," she said.

The Senate, where Democrats hold a 51-49 working majority, has tentatively set an early test vote for Monday on the nonbinding resolution by Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va.

In a bid to attract more GOP support, Warner added a provision pledging to protect money for troops in combat.

That compromise drew the ire of some Democrats who said it leaned too far in endorsing the status quo. They want to see binding legislation to cap troop levels, force a new vote to authorize the war or begin bringing troops home.

McCain is sponsoring a resolution expressing support for a troop increase and setting benchmark goals for the Iraqi government. He sought to capitalize on some of the Democratic division.

"I do believe that if you really believe that this is doomed to failure and is going to cost American lives, then you should do what's necessary to prevent it from happening rather than a vote of 'disapproval,'" McCain said.

"This is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there," he said, noting the proposal does not seek to cut off money for troops.

A fellow Vietnam veteran, GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, disagreed with McCain's assessment. Hagel said the resolution would make clear the Senate's belief that Bush's policy is misguided.

Hagel said the proposal also lays out alternatives such as moving troops away from the sectarian violence and closer to the Iraq border to provide "territorial integrity."

"We can't change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war," said Hagel, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008.

Republican leaders are working to block a vote on Warner's resolution. They insisted that at least two other GOP proposals also be considered — McCain's and one focused on maintaining money for troops in the field. Such a strategy could dilute support for Warner's measure and make it tougher for any measure to pass.

Democrats want to limit debate to just the Warner and McCain proposals.

Two Republicans who oppose Warner's proposal, Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina and Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record) of Indiana, said Sunday they were uncertain the Warner resolution would get the support of 60 senators.

"Even if there is, it's nonbinding, and has in my judgment no consequence," Lugar said.

Hagel said Warner's resolution strikes a careful balance for a majority of senators who oppose a troop buildup but differ on the appropriate response.

He called McCain's proposal meaningless because it offers benchmarks but does not spell out what the U.S. government will do if the Iraqi officials fail to meet them.

"What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?" Hagel asked. "Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category."

The resolution debate comes as the White House and congressional Democrats prepared to square off over war spending.

Bush's new budget on Monday will ask for $100 billion more for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan this year — on top of $70 billion already approved by Congress for the current year. The budget will call for $145 billion in war spending for 2008.

The spending request covers Bush's new war strategy, including the increase in troops, White House budget director Rob Portman said Sunday.

"It's extremely important that we support our troops," Portman said. He described the requested money as the amount needed "to be sure our troops have the equipment they need, that they are taken care of well."

Hagel and McCain appeared on ABC's "This Week," Graham was on "Fox News Sunday," and Feinstein, Lugar and Portman spoke on "Late Edition" on CNN.

Google Chuck Hagel! Behaving as a "Loyal Republican" can only lead to another "Nuremberg Trial"
Hit by Friendly Fire
With his polls down, Bush takes flak on Iraq from a host of critics--including some in his own party

By Kevin Whitelaw

6/27/05
Related Links

* In Fallujah, Americans and Iraqis are brothers in arms.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

That's strikingly blunt talk from a member of the president's party, even one cast as something of a pariah in the GOP because of his early skepticism about the war. "I got beat up pretty good by my own party and the White House that I was not a loyal Republican," he says. Today, he notes, things are changing: "More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned."

Indeed, there are signs that the politics of the Iraq war are being reshaped by the continuing tide of bad news. Take this month in Iraq, with 47 U.S. troops killed in the first 15 days. That's already five more than the toll for the entire month of June last year. With the rate of insurgent attacks near an all-time high and the war's cost set to top $230 billion, more politicians on both sides of the aisle are responding to opinion polls that show a growing number of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Lindsey Graham have voiced their concerns. And two Republicans, including the congressman who brought "freedom fries" to the Capitol, even joined a pair of Democratic colleagues in sponsoring a bill calling for a troop withdrawal plan to be drawn up by year's end. "I feel confident that the opposition is going to build," says Rep. Ron Paul, the other Republican sponsor and a longtime opponent of the war.

Sagging polls. The measure is not likely to go anywhere, but Hagel calls it "a major crack in the dike." Whether or not that's so, the White House has reason to worry that the assortment of critiques of Bush's wartime performance may be approaching a tipping point. Only 41 percent of Americans now support Bush's handling of the Iraq war, the lowest mark ever in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll. And the Iraq news has combined with a lethargic economy and doubts about the president's Social Security proposals to push Bush's overall approval ratings near all-time lows. For now, most Republicans remain publicly loyal to the White House. "Why would you give your enemies a timetable?" asks House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "[Bush] doesn't fight the war on news articles or television or on polls."

Still, the Bush administration is planning to hit back, starting this week, with a renewed public-relations push by the president. Bush will host Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and has scheduled a major speech for June 28, the anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi government from U.S. authorities. But Congress's patience could wear very thin going into an election year. "If things don't start to turn around in six months, then it may be too late," says Hagel. "I think it's that serious."

Bush's exit strategy--which depends on a successful Iraqi political process--got a boost last week when Sunni and Shiite politicians ended weeks of wrangling over how to increase Sunni representation on the constitution-writing committee. Now, however, committee members have less than two months before their mid-August deadline. And given how long it took to resolve who gets to draft the document, it's hard to imagine a quick accord on the politically explosive issues they face.

Get your wing out of our territory, you damned dirty human!
Wild eagles attack paraglider

By Rob Taylor Fri Feb 2, 9:22 AM ET

CANBERRA, Feb 2 (Reuters Life!) - Britain's top female paraglider has cheated death after being attacked by a pair of "screeching" wild eagles while competition flying in Australia.

Nicky Moss, 38, watched terrified as two huge birds began tearing into her parachute canopy, one becoming tangled in her lines and clawing at her head 2,500 meters (8,200ft) in the air.

"I heard screeching behind me and a eagle flew down and attacked me, swooping down and bouncing into the side of my wing with its claws," Moss told Reuters on Friday.

"Then another one appeared and together they launched a sustained attack on my glider, tearing at the wing."

The encounter happened on Monday while Moss -- a member of the British paragliding team -- was preparing for world titles this month at Manilla in northern New South Wales state.

One of the giant wedge-tailed eagles became wrapped in the canopy lines and slid down toward Moss, lashing at her face with its talons as her paraglider plummeted toward the ground.

"It swooped in and hit me on the back of the head, then got tangled in the glider which collapsed it. So I had a very, very large bird wrapped up screeching beside me as I screamed back," Moss said.

She said she thought about dumping her parachute-style canopy and using the reserve.

"But then I would have been descending on my reserve as the birds continued shredding it, which I wasn't happy about," she said.

Wedge-tailed eagles are Australia's largest predatory birds and have a wing-span of more than two meters.

Moss said the attack ended after the second bird freed itself and the glider reached a height of only 100m from the ground, taking her outside the territory of the pair, who probably mistook her as a bird intruder.

Veteran Australian paraglider pilot Godfrey Wenness said eagle attacks were rare, but Moss had been flying in an area where the birds were not accustomed to human pilots.

"Eagles are the sharks of the air. But if you're a regular they just treat you pretty indifferently," he said.

Moss, who crashed into a gum tree in Australia last year while flying in Victoria, said her latest encounter had not put her off flying.

"I see the eagles quite often and they are incredibly beautiful, but I must say I have never been so relieved to reach the ground," she said.

from AntiWar.com...Behind The Scenes, Chuck Hagel
February 2, 2007
The Maverick
It’s Hagel
by Justin Raimondo

The Hagel boom continues. Of course, regular observers of this space know that it started here, and here, but it is really beginning to take off now that Peggy Noonan has weighed in:

"Mr. Hagel has shown courage for a long time. He voted for the war resolution in 2002 but soon after began to question how it was being waged. This was before everyone did. He also stood against the war when that was a lonely place to be. Senate Democrats sat back and watched: If the war worked, they'd change the subject; and if it didn't, they'd hang it on President Bush. Republicans did their version of inaction; they supported the president until he was unpopular, and then peeled off. This is almost not to be criticized. It's what politicians do. But it's not what Mr. Hagel did. He had guts."

Mickey Kaus snarked that Hagel was merely jumping on a bandwagon that had already been rolling, but Noonan's timeline is correct: Hagel was criticizing the war long before any on the other side of the aisle, aside from Russ Feingold, found their voices.

Hagel has seized the moment to dramatize, with his straight talk, what most Americans are now thinking and saying about this rotten, seemingly endless war. A most unpleasant term of approbation has been attached to his rising political fortunes: they're calling him "the new McCain." Now, the old McCain was bad enough, and still is, but one can't help noticing that the old one's stock is falling, along with his poll numbers, even as Hagel's rise. There's only room for one "maverick Republican" in the media's collective consciousness, and in the public mind: aside from that, however, it's all about the war.

McCain is falling in the polls, and his former supporters among independent voters are falling away, entirely due to his ultra-hawkish stance on the war. If McCain had his way, we'd have 100,000 more troops in Iraq – and we'd already be halfway to Tehran. He's always been a more-interventionist-than-thou kinda guy, but his media fan club pretended not to notice this back in his glory days because he was such good copy. However, go back through the history of U.S. interventions in the recent past, and check his stance: from Kosovo to Iraq, his solution to each and every foreign policy crisis has been "more boots on the ground." When it comes to Iran, and even Russia, McCain's default position is invariably belligerent. A more determined enemy of peace does not exist in the U.S. Senate, or in American politics.

McCain and Hagel, apart from their diametrically opposed stances on the war, have much in common. Both are Vietnam war veterans, much decorated, and are gruffly direct and unvarnished in their speech and mannerisms. The two are good friends, and Hagel supported McCain over Bush in the 2000 presidential primaries.Yet they seem to have taken away from their military experiences very different conceptions of America's role in the world.

McCain exudes the barking belligerence of a bully who goes ballistic with ease. There is about him the aura of a man who is continually engaged in a balancing act between the overwhelming demands of his enormous ego and a deep well of anger that suddenly turns his face crimson with rage. One wonders: is that steam coming out his ears?

The Senator from Nebraska, on the other hand, while emanating a gruff assurance, lacks the fanatic certainty of his Senate colleague, and, instead, seems genuinely baffled by American policy in Iraq. Rather than projecting his ego, he puts it aside, and, in place of pushing some preordained agenda, bluntly asks the questions that are on everyone's mind. In doing so, avers Noonan, Hagel has injected a fresh note into the congressional debate over the war:

"Mr. Hagel said the most serious thing that has been said in Congress in a long time. This is what we're here for. This is why we're here, to decide, to think it through and take a stand, and if we can't do that, why don't we just leave and give someone else a chance?"

In Imperial America, the Senate is increasingly irrelevant, at least when it comes to foreign policy, and yet this effort to bring to the Senate floor and pass a resolution criticizing our Iraq policy could be the beginning of a new and very welcome trend. The out of control Presidency of George W. Bush has arrogated to itself more power than any Roman emperor – including Nero and Caligula – ever dreamed of. This is a dangerous "weapon of mass destruction" that needs to be defused for the peace of the world, as well as Americans' well-being and safety. What Hagel is saying is that we're still a republic, in spite of everything, and it's not too late to change a course set for empire.

On the question of Hagel's presidential prospects, the Senator has been saying that he'll make a statement soon. There is also some intriguing news that he might be considering a third party run. An Iowa poll already has him one point below Mitt Romney, the establishment conservative candidate.

With his military background, red-state persona, and rock-ribbed conservatism, Hagel's antiwar stance is all the more credible and palatable. Good old David Boaz, over at the Cato Institute's blog, says all too many conservatives are still in thrall to big-government Bushism:

"But I'll predict that over, say, the next 12 months leading up to the Iowa caucuses, Hagel is going to look increasingly wise and prescient to Republican voters. And as they come to discover that he's a commonsense Midwestern conservative who opposed many of the Bush administration's worst ideas, he's going to look more attractive."

The Republican revolt in the House and Senate is gathering strength, and the war is being increasingly questioned in conservative circles. Back in the day, when neocon enforcer David Frum smeared right-wing opponents of the war as "Unpatriotic Conservatives," the idea was to end all discussion of the issue on the right. "We turn our backs on you," announced Frum, but he and his fellow neocons can't turn their backs on their responsibility for the disaster that has befallen the U.S. in Iraq. (Not to mention the catastrophe that has been visited on the GOP.) Their day of reckoning is coming, perhaps, in the form of an antiwar Republican presidential candidate with a credible shot at the nomination and an excellent chance of winning the general election.

The problem for Hagel's presidential prospects is that he has very little cash on hand: rumors of his retirement from the Senate were due, in part, to the paucity of money raised for his reelection campaign. It will take a real grassroots movement to give him the momentum he needs to mount a serious effort. Whether or not he announces, what this episode reveals, so far, is that there is a tremendous vacuum where American leadership ought to be. The question is whether the American people will fill it with a man of substance, like Hagel, or a pretty face, like Obama or Edwards. Can authenticity win out over hype?

Long Live Molly Ivins!
Published on Thursday, January 11, 2007 by Creators Syndicate
Stand Up Against the Surge
by Molly Ivins


AUSTIN - The purpose of this old-fashioned newspaper crusade to stop the war is not to make George W. Bush look like the dumbest president ever. People have done dumber things. What were they thinking when they bought into the Bay of Pigs fiasco? How dumb was the Egypt-Suez war? How massively stupid was the entire war in Vietnam? Even at that, the challenge with this misbegotten adventure is that WE simply cannot let it continue.

It is not a matter of whether we will lose or we are losing. We have lost. Gen. John P. Abizaid, until recently the senior commander in the Middle East, insists that the answer to our problems there is not military. "You have to internationalize the problem. You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he said.

His assessment is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who only recommend releasing forces with a clear definition of the goals for the additional troops.

Bush's call for a "surge" or "escalation" also goes against the Iraq Study Group. Talk is that the White House has planned to do anything but what the group suggested after months of investigation and proposals based on much broader strategic implications.

About the only politician out there besides Bush actively calling for a surge is Sen. John McCain. In a recent opinion piece, he wrote: "The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own -- impose its rule throughout the country. ... By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed." But with all due respect to the senator from Arizona, that ship has long since sailed.

A surge is not acceptable to the people in this country -- we have voted overwhelmingly against this war in polls (about 80 percent of the public is against escalation, and a recent Military Times poll shows only 38 percent of active military want more troops sent) and at the polls. We know this is wrong. The people understand, the people have the right to make this decision, and the people have the obligation to make sure our will is implemented.

Congress must work for the people in the resolution of this fiasco. Ted Kennedy's proposal to control the money and tighten oversight is a welcome first step. And if Republicans want to continue to rubber-stamp this administration's idiotic "plans" and go against the will of the people, they should be thrown out as soon as possible, to join their recent colleagues.

Anyone who wants to talk knowledgably about our Iraq misadventure should pick up Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." It's like reading a horror novel. You just want to put your face down and moan: How could we have let this happen? How could we have been so stupid?

As The Washington Post's review notes, Chandrasekaran's book "methodically documents the baffling ineptitude that dominated U.S. attempts to influence Iraq's fiendish politics, rebuild the electrical grid, privatize the economy, run the oil industry, recruit expert staff or instill a modicum of normalcy to the lives of Iraqis."

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on January 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"

? Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate

Bush is making Russia very nervous...!
Published on Sunday, January 28, 2007 by the Sunday Herald / Scotland
America ‘Poised to Strike at Iran’s Nuclear Sites’ from Bases in Bulgaria and Romania
Report suggest that ‘US defensive ring’ may be new front in war on terror.
by Gabriel Ronay


President Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.

"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.

The American build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.

Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror.

Sofia's news of advanced war preparations along the Black Sea is backed up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack." Novinite named Colonel Sam Gardiner, "a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of this revelation.

Curiously, the report noted that although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.

Before the end of March, 3000 US military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April,2006,an airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly, last year's bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".

Romania, the other Black Sea host to th US military, is enjoying a dollar bonanza as its Mihail Kogalniceanu base at Constanta is being transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the Iran scenario.

Last week, the Bucharest daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the Kogalniceanubase. Admiral Gheorghe Marin, Romania's chief of staff, confirmed "up to 2000 American military personnel will be temporarily stationed in Romania".

In Central Europe, the Czech Republic and Poland have also found themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-missile missile base and interceptor aircraft stationed in the country.

Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an open threat to Russia".

Sergey Ivanov, Russia's defence minister,spoke more circumspectly while emphasizing Moscow's concern. He said: "Russia is no worried. Its strategic nuclear forces can assure in any circumstance its safety. Since neither Tehran, nor Pyongyang possess intercontinental missiles capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington."

Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax Americana".

?2007 newsquest (sunday herald) limited.

Reversing the cascading damage is out of the question in time to matter!
Can Humanity Survive? Want to Bet on It?
Carl Wiens

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: January 30, 2007

Sixty ago years, a group of physicists concerned about nuclear weapons created the Doomsday Clock and set its hands at seven minutes to midnight. Now, the clock’s keepers, alarmed by new dangers like climate change, have moved the hands up to 11:55 p.m.

Can humanity survive? What are the odds? Join the discussion.
Go to TierneyLab >
Further Reading
"'Doomsday Clock'" Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan. 18, 2007.
"Our Final Hour." Martin Rees. Basic Books, 2003.
Long Bets.
"Wanna Bet?". Wired Magazine, May, 2002.
"Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat." Milton Leitenberg. Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, 2005.
"Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them." John Mueller. Free Press, 2006.

My first reaction was a sigh of relief. After all, the 1947 doomsday prediction marked the start of a golden age. Never have so many humans lived so long — and maybe never so peacefully — as during the past 60 years. The per-capita rate of violence, particularly in the West, seems remarkably low by historical standards. If the clock’s keepers are worried once again, their track record suggests we’re in for even happier days.

But there’s one novel twist that gives me pause. When the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced two weeks ago in Washington that it was adjusting the clock, it was joined in a trans-Atlantic press conference by scientists at the Royal Society in London. One of them was the society’s president, Martin Rees, a new breed of doomsayer.

Dr. Rees, a cosmologist at Cambridge and Britain’s astronomer royal, doesn’t just issue gloomy predictions. He doesn’t just move the hands of an imaginary and inscrutable clock. (Its keepers have never explained what one of their minutes equals on anyone else’s clock or calendar.)

No, Dr. Rees is braver. He gives odds on doomsday and offers to bet on disaster. In his 2003 book, “Our Final Hour,” he gives civilization no more than a 50 percent chance of surviving until 2100.

Dr. Rees is not a knee-jerk technophobe — he expects great advances as researchers around the world link their knowledge — but he fears that progress will be undone by what he calls the new global village idiots. He’s sure enough of himself to post an offer on Long Bets, a clever innovation on the Web that Stewart Brand helped start with money from Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com.

Long Bets is a nonprofit foundation that calls itself an “arena for competitive, accountable predictions.” It lets anyone make a prediction and take wagers on it, with the proceeds going to a charity named by the winner. The bets made so far are from $200 to $10,000, on topics ranging from the driving habits of Americans in 2010 to whether the universe will stop expanding. Mitchell Kapor, the software guru, is betting that in 2029 no computer will have passed the Turing test (by conversing so much like a human that you couldn’t tell the difference). The physicist Freeman Dyson’s money is on the first extraterrestrial life’s being found somewhere other than a planet or its satellite.

Five years ago, Dr. Rees posted this prediction: “By 2020, bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million casualties in a single event.” He reasoned that “by 2020 there will be thousands — even millions — of people with the capability to cause a catastrophic biological disaster. My concern is not only organized terrorist groups, but individual weirdos with the mindset of the people who now design computer viruses.”

He didn’t get any takers on LongBets.org, which seems to me a missed opportunity. So I’ve posted an offer there to bet him $200 — not a huge sum, but enough to put both our reputations on the line. I realize that betting on disaster may sound ghoulish, but neither of us will personally profit (if I win, the money goes to the International Red Cross). And I think bets like this serve a purpose.

Besides stimulating public debate, they focus the issue and discipline prophets. No matter how good their intentions, prophets face strong temptations to hype. In the current issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dr. Rees wryly describes what happened in 2003 when he turned in a manuscript titled, “Our Final Century?”

“My British publisher removed the question mark from the book’s title,” he recalls, “and the U.S. publisher changed it to ‘Our Final Hour.’ Pessimism, it seems, makes for better marketing.”

It doesn’t make for better public policy though. Heralds of the bioterror apocalypse have actually worsened the problem of bioterror, as Milton Leitenberg points out in a 2005 report for the Strategic Studies Institute of the United States Army War College.

Mr. Leitenberg is a scholar at the University of Maryland who has been studying biological weapons for decades — and debunking wild predictions. Dr. Rees is not alone. Senator Bill Frist called bioterrorism “the greatest existential threat we have in the world today” and urged a military effort that “even dwarfs the Manhattan Project.”

Such rhetoric, Mr. Leitenberg says, has had the perverse effect of encouraging terrorists to seek out biological weapons. But despite the much-publicized attempts of Al Qaeda and a Japanese group to go biological, terrorists haven’t had much luck, because it’s still quite hard for individuals or nongovernmental groups to obtain, manufacture or deploy biological weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Leitenberg says the biggest threat is of a state deploying biological weapons, and he notes the encouraging decline in the number of countries working on this technology. Meanwhile, though, America has been so spooked by the horror-movie scenarios that it’s pouring money into defense against biological weapons. Dr. Leitenberg says that’s a mistake, both because it diverts resources from more serious threats — like natural diseases and epidemics — and because it could start a new biological arms race as other countries understandably fear that the United States is doing more than just playing defense.

It’s possible, as Dr. Rees fears, that terrorists will get a lot more sophisticated at biotech in the next decade, or that researchers will make some terrible mistake. The technology is getting cheaper and spreading rapidly. But so are the tools for preventing and coping with mistakes.

Whatever happens, I don’t expect biotechnology to pose an “existential threat.” The disaster predicted by Dr. Rees would be horrific, but humanity has survived worse, like the flu epidemic of 1918 that killed tens of millions of people. I know there are fears of new microorganisms or nanobots gobbling up our species, but I’m confident we’d somehow stop the Doomsday Clock from striking midnight.

In fact, the wager I’d really like to make with Dr. Rees is that we’ll make it to 2100. I’ve posted that prediction on Long Bets, and I’d be glad to give him better odds than the 50-50 chance he gives civilization of surviving the century.

I even think one of us might survive to see the payoff, although my techno-optimism has its limits. I hope some version of me will be around in 2100, but I wouldn’t bet on it.