Democrats Block New Attempt to Confirm Bolton

From the Associate Press:

Senate Democrats blocked John Bolton's confirmation as U.N. ambassador for the second time Monday and President Bush left open the possibility of bypassing lawmakers and appointing the tough-talking former State Department official on his own.

The vote was 54-38, six shy of the total needed to force a final vote on Bolton, and a represented an erosion in support from last month's failed Republican effort.

This is a political trial balloon. Bush is facing some pretty stark choices here, and he's scrambling to figure out what to do. He withdraw Bolton's name and select another nominee for whom the Senate Democrats may be more accommodating. But in withdrawing Bolton's name, Bush concedes defeat in this battle--and George Bush is never going to concede defeat or compromise in this issue. Bush may accede to the Democrats demands for classified information regarding Bolton. This information is specifically a list of 36 U.S. officials names to be cross-checked against names that were initially blacked out of which Bolton requested and received from national security intercepts that he reviewed. The Democrats are especially interested in checking if Bolton may have intimidated those blacked-out names to follow the White House party line regarding the intercepts. Democrats are also interested in checking if Bolton may have misled Congress regarding Syria's weapons capabilities. If Bush relinquishes the documents as the Democrats requested, then the Democrats are certainly going to find enough smelly garbage in Bolton's State Department work that could probably be traced back to the White House--why else is Bush blacking out those names? Bush certainly can't seem to push harder for Bolton's nomination, considering that the Senate Democrats have put up a wall of opposition to Bolton's confirmation. Only three Democrats sided with the White House to end the debate on the nomination. The final option Bush has is that he can simply appoint Bolton to the U.N., after Congress recesses. However, this appointment would only last for the next one-year session of Congress. If Bush appoints Bolton to the U.N., then Bolton will serve until January 2007.

None of these options are politically appealing for the Bush White House. Bush has certainly spent a lot of political capitol on Bolton's confirmation, however he has little to show for it. If Bush backs down, this only emboldens the Senate Democrats to oppose Bush on a number of other controversial issues--the war in Iraq, Social Security, energy policy (especially the oil drilling in Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), or even the controversial Supreme Court nomination if Chief Justice William Rehnquist resigns. And the Senate Democrats have become emboldened against the White House after Bush has become vulnerable with sagging poll numbers, and an American public questioning his policies on Iraq and Social Security. The only palatable option that President Bush has is simply appointing John Bolton to the U.N., then hope that the Republicans can gain enough Senate seats in the 2006 midterm elections to break the filibuster. But even that is a risky strategy, considering that the American public may blame the Republicans for failing to solve the country's problems when they have control of both the presidency and Congress.

Bush needed to confirm Bolton to the U.N. before the end of June--if Chief Justice Rehnquist were to announce his retirement. If Rehnquist does retire at the end of this Supreme Court session in June, then the Senate will be pretty much shut down due to partisan bickering over whomever George Bush selects to the court. Bolton's nomination will go down by the wayside. If there is a Supreme Court fight in the next couple of months, then Bush may simply appoint Bolton, and any criticism over the Bolton appointment will be drowned out by the Supreme Court fight.

Either way, Bush is starting to sink into some quicksand of his own creation.

Senator Biden Says He Intends to Run for President

From The Associated Press:

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said Sunday he intends to run for president in 2008.

But Biden, who also sought the nomination in 1988, said he would give himself until the end of this year to determine if he really can raise enough money and attract enough support.

Is this the best that Democrats can do? Come on--Karl Rove would eat Biden for a breakfast appetizer! Back in the 1988 campaign, I believe Biden was accused in the press plagiarizing quotes from other politicians in his stump speeches. If he does run, the Republicans are going to pick over his speeches with a fine tooth comb. Biden is finished in the presidential race. There is no way he could win.

The Democrats are going to have to do better than that. The Democrats are going to have to find someone who is relatively unknown, but has the political and executive skills necessary for the office. They may select a well-known individual, such as Hillary. However, selecting a well-known individual, as Hillary, would also bring along that individual's record, faults, and their own political enemies, of which the Republicans can certainly exploit. The Democrats are really going to need to find another Bill Clinton-like character, without Clinton's womanizing flaws. An individual who can galvanize the country with fresh new ideas and new hopes for the country. This individual has to be ready to fight down and dirty against the Republicans, while at the same time appear to remain above the crass and political mud-slinging that will take place in 2008. This individual also needs to have sharp policy differences in issues that oppose the Republican Party's viewpoint--no more "Me too" answers regarding Iraq. This country is at a major crossroads, similar to what the country had faced in 1968, when opposition started to form against the Vietnam war. We are certainly starting to see some opposition to the war in Iraq, but the opposition is fragmented and subdued. A charismatic Democratic nominee with a sharp policy difference in Iraq, can present a clear and different pathway for the American voters.

Let's hope the Democrats can find that kind of individual.

State Lawmakers Hope to Create New York Beer Trail

From The Associated Press:

Lawmakers are encouraging residents and visitors alike to enjoy a tall, cold one. A bill making its way through the Legislature aims to create a New York state beer trail, similar to those the wine industry has successfully used to attract millions of oenophiles to Finger Lakes, Hudson Valley and eastern Long Island.

Sponsors of the legislation say it will highlight the re-emergence of breweries in New York and help brewers cash-in on the popularity of their oatmeal stouts, India pale ales, and bitters.

A state beer trail? Travel--or should I say stumble--along the trail as you're enjoying various tall cold ones with their different flavors, colors and textures? Read up on the history of the different microbreweries, see how the different ales and stouts are made, make new friends--preferably with the opposite sex. And you'd certainly would explore two other important state trails which utilize the same pathways as the state beer trail--the state peanut trail and state pretzel trail. Hey, if you're going to be tasting beer, you better have peanuts and pretzels to go along with it.

And don't forget the state beer trail's signature motto: "One hundred bottles of beer on the wall...."

FBI Admits Terror Experience Not Required for Top Jobs

This is from the Associated Press

In sworn testimony that contrasts with their promises to the public, the FBI managers who crafted the post-Sept. 11 fight against terrorism say expertise about the Mideast or terrorism was not important in choosing the agents they promoted to top jobs. And they still do not believe such experience is necessary today even as terrorist acts occur across the glob.

EXCUSE ME?Terrorist experience is not required for top FBI positions which fight against terrorism? That's like hanging out a sign saying "Doctors Needed--No Experience Necessary!"

The AP article continues saying "A bombing case is a bombing case," said Dale Watson, the FBI's terrorism chief in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001. "A crime scene in a band robbery case is the same as a crime scene, you know, across the board."

You better start stocking up on the plastic sheeting and duct tape, for the FBI has just made this country more vulnerable to terrorism. A bombing case may be a bombing case in terms of how a bomb is created. But that is not what a top FBI terrorism official has got to know. He has got to know the culture which breeds the terrorists. He has to know their religions, their norms, their mores. Since much of the terrorism is currently stemming from the Middle East, he has got to have the knowledge and expertise in Mideast languages, religions, culture, mores, and how the various sub-factions compete with each other. He has got to know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni. All of this is important so that he can understand the thinking going on within the terrorist's mind--who they are, where they are, and what they may be currently doing--so that he can concentrate his resources to either capturing the terrorists, or more importantly, to stop the terrorists from striking again at a future date. Counter-terrorism is about pro-action, not reaction. FBI officials investigating bank robberies, or kidnappings are investigating these crimes after the incident has taken place, then track backwards to who was responsible for committing the crime. That is the wrong type of individual this country need for an FBI terrorism position.

Molester Said to Leave Trail of Victims

Got this off AOL News: It has been a huge story here in San Jose.

On of the most prolific child molesters in history, Dean Arthur Schartzmiller criminal record began 35 years ago, but he never registered as a sex offender and spent just 12 years in prison. In his time on the outside, police suspect he molested as many as 36,000 children in several states, Mexico, and Brazil.

I see two problems with this story. The first is obviously the lack of sharing information and criminal intelligence between police departments in different states. San Jose Police had no clue as to what this guy was doing because they never checked up on police records in Idaho, nor did the police in Idaho checked up on records in Alaska. And I'm sure that the FBI was pretty clueless in this matter as well--it is a state police issue and we don't have any jurisdiction. There has to be a way to link the database records of child molesters of all state police departments and the FBI, so that authorities can track repeat offenders. Now I'm somewhat torn by this matter, since I am a proponent of individual rights. If a convicted child molester has served his time, is released, and remains in good standing and behavior with society (which means he is not accused or arrested for another child molestation offense), then he should live his life in society. However, if this individual keeps molesting children repeatedly, after serving multiple jail sentences for multiple convictions, then that is the kind of individual you lock up and throw away the key. That is the kind of individual you use every tool in law enforcement's disposal to keep this person off the street.

The second problem I see is that parents have got to take an active role in teaching their children the dangers of these child molesters. Child molestation is about power and secrecy. Power is in the hands of the molester, who uses it to perform his acts on the child and to control the child, by ordering the child not to tell anyone about their involvement together. Secrecy allows the molester to get away with his crimes. The molester uses his influence as an adult to order the child not to tell anyone of their acts--they did something very secret and very bad together. If the child tells their parents, or the authorities, then that child would also be very bad, be punished for what they did, and their parents won't love them for what they did. It is convoluted and sickening, but is also very effective for molesters to keep their transgressions secret. Parents have got to instruct their children that child molestation is certainly wrong--but not because of the child, but rather the molester. They have to instruct their children to avoid the situations where a molester will entice the child with candy, presents, or skateboards. And if the child is molested then they have to go to the police, the school teachers, or parents to tell of these crimes, so that the authorities can put these repeat child molesters away.

Google To Take On PayPal

This is from AOL News

Online search-engine leader Google Inc. is preparing to introduce an electronic payment system later this year in a move that would pose a financial threat to one of its biggest advertisers, Internet auctioneer eBay Inc (and eBay's popular PayPal service).

Talk about the battle of the big internet companies. It seems like everyone is trying to get their hands into the online payments system. America Online has their AOL wallet. Ebay has PayPal. Yahoo had My Billing services. Everyone wants to get their hands in the internet shopping pie, and to get the consumer's credit card numbers. What bugs me is that as these big internet service companies adopt the online payment services--of which these services will be charged to the consumer's credit cards--how secure will software and firewalls of these online payment systems be in response to computer hacking? Ironically, there is also an AOL news storyabout a computer hacker was able to steal data on 40 million credit card accounts. Now matter how much that these internet service companies may say how secure their systems are, there is always someone who can find a way to beat the system.

California Special Election Ballot has "Back to the Future" Feel

Found this off the San Jose Mercury News Website

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled his "Year of Reform" special election from his populist playbook, predicting that California voters will support his agenda because they want change in the way state government operates.

Yet several of the measures on the Nov. 8 ballot, including two of Schwarzeneggers', have that "been there, done that" feeling.

So our Governator can't seem to play ball with the legislator. And since he can't play ball, Schwarzenegger will circumvent the legislative process and push his agenda through the initiative process, in order to get everything he wants. What I find ironic is that the changes Schwarzenegger wants to make--allowing retired judges to draw up redistricting plans, or requiring public unions to get permission from its members before using their dues for political purposes--have been placed on the ballots before in California. And the voters have rejected them. Does the Governator really expect his charm and personality will convince voters to pass his initiatives--especially when he's facing fierce opposition with both the Democrats and powerful public employees unions? Once aspect is certain. Schwarzenegger is using the special election as a means to downplay voter turnout. By calling the special election in November, Schwarzenegger is hoping that his personality and his PR machine can generate enough conservative voter turnout, while the timing of the election so quickly in an off-election year will be ignored by the moderates, independents, and general public.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next five months.

Gov. Bush Demands Investigation of 911 Call in Schiavo Case

It seems that the Terri Schiavo issue just won't go away.

From the Associated Press:

Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday that a prosecutor as agreed to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, citing an alleged time gap between when her husband Michael Schiavo found her and when he called 911.

It seems that the Republican Party, Gov. Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Operation Rescue's Terry Randall, and the rest of the Religious Right, are pretty sore that they lost their battle in keeping Terri Schiavo's feeding tube connected. Since Michael Schiavo was able to win his battle against Rove, the Bush brothers, and the Religious Right, in allowing Terri Schiavo to die, now the Religious Right wants to continue to destroy Michael Schiavo by launching this investigation into an alleged "time gap" of when he saw her, and when he called 911. This is crass vilification--a revenge by conservatives against an individual who took on the Republicans and the Religious Right in an issue, and was able to beat them. What do you think is going to happen when this special prosecutor--appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of President Bush--starts digging into this time gap? He's going to start digging for dirt which will hopefully lead to purported allegations that Michael Shiavo had killed, or "murdered," his wife Terri. These allegations will then be conveniently leaked to the press. The Republican Party and the Religious Right will use those press reports in denouncing Michael Shiavo as being a murderer. Michael Shiavo murdered his wife Terri. Karl Rove and the Republicans will continue to pound this theme over and over again to the American public, until the American public--more importantly, the white, Christian evangelicals--believe it to be true. The Republicans will galvanize their evangelical Christian voters in supporting their Republican candidates, their hard-line social conservative agenda, and their corporate pro-business agenda.

With the war in Iraq continuing to go downhill, with more Americans starting to worry about jobs and the economy, with President Bush's and Congressional Republican's public opinion poll numbers starting to slide, the Republican Party is finding that their grip on power is starting to fail. The 2006 elections is only a year away. The only means that the Republican Party can maintain their control in Congress is to ratchet up the debate on social issues and hope that the American public will ignore their own deteriorating economic conditions. Thus, the Republicans have to keep Terri Schiavo in the news. They have to keep their own conservative base solidly behind them, while trying to strip away the moderates and independents who may be concerned with social issues.

That's the reason that Jeb Bush is calling for this investigation by a prosecutor. It can also be good PR for appeasing the Religious Right, if brother Jeb ever decides to run for president after brother George steps down in 2008.

It is not about Terri Schiavo.

"Exit Strategy" Is More Than A Whisper In Washington, With Lawmakers Speaking Out

This is from The New York Times:

With opinion polls showing a drop in support for the war, and a British memo asserting that the Bush administration had intended to go to war as early as the summer of 2002, the words "exit strategy" are being uttered by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The political winds are starting to shift, and whether George Bush realizes it or not, he's going to have a big problem in his hands. Bush can't keep going on saying how the United States must keep fighting the terrorists or how we're slowly winning the war in the long run. Where's the proof that the U.S. is winning? In an Associated Press article released today, insurgents killed another six U.S. troops and a suicide car bomb slammed into a truck carrying Iraqi policemen near the Baghdad airport, killing eight and wounding 25. There are two sides to this story: The daily White House PR on how the U.S. is winning the global war on terrorism in Iraq, and the rising number of insurgent attacks and mounting U.S. casualties--now at 1,714 U.S. dead. This contradiction in reports has started a new bipartisan movement in Congress to consider how to extricate the U.S. out of Iraq. This is huge. A year ago, the country was split down the line between red states and blue states. Red State Republicans voted for Bush because they thought he did an excellent job in the war in Iraq and terrorism. Blue State Democrats voted against Bush because they thought the war was wrong. The 2004 election was about the war. Now, the war has changed. The insurgents have continued their attacks with impunity. The Downing Street Memos have revealed the Bush Administration's complete intent on going to war, fixing the intelligence to market the war, and have revealed the failure of the White House to seriously consider a detailed post-war strategy after invading Iraq. All of these stories have been politically damaging to Bush, causing opinion poll numbers regarding his job performance and his policies in Iraq to have dropped sharply. This reversal is allowing certain Republicans to consider different viewpoints--especially if the war continues to sour American public opinion in 2006, when the midterm elections take place. Congressional Republicans are questioning the exit strategy as a means to distance themselves away from the White House, and a possible voter backlash against the Republican Congressional and White House support for the the war. Democrats are only happy to get on the exit strategy bandwagon for it allows them to utilize their PR machine to sharply criticize President Bush on the war. And if the Democrats can take control of one or both houses of Congress, they can take control of the committees as a means to launch their on investigations into the Bush White House.

How far will this exit strategy questioning go will depend on two things. The first is obviously how bad will the situation in Iraq deteriorate by November 2006? If the situation in Iraq continues to go downhill, you can probably expect a regime change in Congress. The second question is whether control of Congress will change hands from Republicans to Democrats. If the Democrats do gain control, you can expect more talk of an exit strategy from Iraq, especially if the Democrats do start to investigate Bush's conduct of the war. Either way, the political winds are starting to shift.

Now how hard will the storm hit us?

Bin Laden, Omar Alive and Well, Taliban Official Says.

From the Associated Press:

Osama bin Laden is alive and in good health, as is fugitive Taliban chief Mullah Mohammed Omar, a purported senior commander of the ousted militia said Wednesday in a television interview.

HE'S BACK!Just when you thought it was safe to crawl out of your chemically-sealed-with-plastic-sheeting-and-duck-tape bomb shelter, the bogeyman himself pops up to say "BOO!" to the American public. After three years with a multi-million dollar bounty on his head and thousands of "Dead or Alive" wanted posters printed by the Bush White House, Osama bin Laden is still alive and happily thumbing his nose at the United States.

Bin Laden is having the time of his life now. He's got a lovely guerrilla war taking place in the Taliban-controlled mountainous regions between the Afghan-Pakistani border, a completely bogged down U.S. military fighting a losing battle with insurgents in Iraq, and inflamed Middle Eastern population infuriated at what they see as American imperialism, and Al Qaida recruitment offices happily signing up new members to fight his holy war with the United States. Oh, and if Bin Laden is smart enough to check up on the American press, he's probably laughing at how the U.S. military's recruitment numbers have dropped.

Let's face it. The United States screwed up big time. After the World Trade Center attacks, we had the chance to go after Bin Laden with some serious force. When Bin Laden was trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora, we could have gone in there with overwhelming force, manpower, and firepower to completely destroy Bin Laden, Omar, the Taliban, and Al Qaida. Instead, we let poorly trained Afghan forces of the Northern Alliance muck everything up, while the bulk of the American military was transferred to Iraq for Bush's pet invasion (And achieve PNAC's incompetent goal of establishing Iraq to be the 51st state). We screwed up.

And now Bin Laden is laughing at us.

Schiavo Autopsy Backs Husband On Brain Damage

From the Associated Press:

An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had a massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.

Thank God. This mess is finally over.

It is ironic that, while the autopsy report vindicates all of husband's Michael Schiavo's claims that his wife was essentially brain dead, the Bush White House and the Religious Right still believed that she should have been kept alive. If anything, her autopsy provided a glimpse of her vegetative existence. Her brain weighed 615 grams--half the expected weight of a human brain. She was blind because the vision centers of her brain were dead. She could not eat or drink if given food by mouth. The videotapes showing Terri Schiavo nodding, moaning, smiling, laughing, and following the progress of a Mickey Mouse balloon were automated responses with no evidence of thought or consciousness.

Is it right for someone to live in this type of existence?

In the United States, there is not debate as to what constitutes death. Death use to be defined as once an individual's heart stops beating, that individual was declared dead. Now, once an individual's heart stops beating, medical personnel can revive the heart if it is quickly stimulated in time using electric shock. Society has to develop a new definition of what constitutes an individual's death. Is it heart stoppage? Is it brain death? We cannot simply accept science's version of what death is, any more than we can accept what the Bush administration and the Religious Right's version of death. Somehow, we have to find a common ground between the two opposing sides.

I would say that for a human, life is consciousness. Life is the mind. It is the ability to think in abstract terms of ideas, issues, values, thoughts, emotions, desires. It is everything that makes us human--both good and bad. Life is the ability to think. Life begins with the brain and the brains ability to react to its environment. Death would be the lack of consciousness. It would be the lack of any brain activity...The lack of synapses firing, or any neural activity. Death would be the complete lack of any thought. When the brain dies, the body dies.

Medical science should not be quick in defining when the brain is actually dead. Medical science should carefully and methodically test to make absolutely sure that there is no neural activity within that individual's brain. If there is any brain activity, then try different therapies in attempts to stimulate the brain activity. And if there isn't any brain activity, nor is there any hope of regaining any brain activity, then perhaps it is right for the individual to die with dignity. What is the point of living when your brain has no activity? What's the point of living when you have no mind to explore all the endless possibilities of existence? In that case, you're simply a lump of biological material, kept alive through the advances of modern medical science. That's not life.

That's the equivalent of the living dead.

A Peephole to the War Room: British Documents Shed Light on Bush Team's State of Mind

From Todd S. Purdum at The New York Times:

The disclosure of British government memorandums portraying the Bush administration as bent on war with Iraq by the summer of 2002, and insufficiently prepared for post-invasion problems, has caused a political stir on both sides of the Atlantic, in part because opponents of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair see the documents as proof that both men misled their countries into war.

But the documents are not quite so shocking. Three years ago, the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary. Plenty of people--chief among them Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state--were also warning in public and private that the Pentagon was ill prepared for prolonged occupation.

What no one knew then for certain (though some lonely voiced did predict it) is that American forces would none none of the lethal chemical or biological weapons that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said made Iraq so dangerous, or that the anti-American insurgency would be so durable and deadly. That is why the British memos' foresight--read with benefit of hindsight--rings so bittersweet for those who tried in vain to avert the war, and remain aghast at its human and material cost.

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, plans to hold an informational forum about the memos (without Republican participation) on Thursday. Blogs are awash in discussions of the memos, and full of criticism of the mainstream American media for not paying them more mind.

It is amazing how the American corporate media--even a media outlet as respected as the New York Times--can finally come out with a story accepting the existence of the Downing Street Memos, while at the same time, downplaying the contents of those memos as if saying they are no big deal. What is shocking about these memos is that they provide proof the Bush administration had every intention of going to war in Iraq and that the Bush White House was twisting the intelligence and facts to market their war to the American public. President Bush was not adapting his policy in relation to the intelligence findings. Bush was adapting the intelligence findings in relation to his policy of war. He was fixing his intelligence so that the American public would support his war in Iraq. There was nothing that Saddam could do--suffice to putting a bullet into his head--that would stop Bush from invading Iraq.

The New York Times claims that these memos are not so shocking--that there was plenty of evidence in the news reports that Bush had made up his mind in going to war. What the Times does not realize is that these memos were developed by British intelligence and presented to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair knew that Bush was twisting the intelligence to market the war to the American public. Blair knew that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction (British intelligence couldn't be as bad as American intelligence. In fact, American intelligence also knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Unfortunately, those American intelligence findings were ignored by the Bush White House). In the latest memo published by the Washington Post and The Times of London on July 21, 2002, Blair knew that the post-war occupation of Iraq would be protracted and costly. He ignored it. British Prime Minister Tony Blair ignored his own country's intelligence. He never challenged Bush on the reasons to go to war in Iraq. He could have refused to commit British troops to the invasion, citing his own country's intelligence findings and raising concerns about a costly occupation. He didn't refuse. Instead, British Prime Minister Tony Blair went happily along with Bush's invasion plan, accepting the White House PR for war, over his own country's intelligence service. In short, Tony Blair became a puppet to George Bush. The New York Times claims that these memos are not shocking in that plenty of invasion details were leaked to the corporate media. But what the Times does not realize is that these memos provide a detailed look into the marketing and PR planning the top politicians in both Washington and London were using to market this war, while ignoring the possible devastating consequences that war would bring to both the United States and Great Britain. Those consequences were ignored by both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.

We are now reaping what Bush and Blair have sowed.

Jackson Acquitted On All Accounts

From Associated Press:

A jury acquitted Michael Jackson on Monday of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor at his Neverland ranch - exonerating the pop star who insisted he was the victim of mother-and-son con artists and a prosecutor with a vendetta.

Somehow, that verdict doesn't surprise me.

Two things struck me about this trial. The first is that if you've got money, you can get away with child molestation, or murder, in our justice system. You can hire the best attorneys--along with their muscular legal staff--to plant the most outrageous doubts in the jury's minds. A mother-and-son con artist scam? Come on! Do you really think I'm going to believe that? However, when you've got the money, you can hire the biggest lawyers, and the scores of investigators to dig up whatever dirt you can to demonize and destroy your opponent. O.J. Simpson got away with murder. Michael Jackson got away with child molestation. That's the corrupting influence of money in our legal system. Had O.J. and Michael been given a public defender, do you think either would have gotten off as they did?

The second thing that struck me was the media frenzy of this trial. It became the next "Trial of the Century" where media pundits and bombastic analysts will certainly be comparing this trial with the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Both involved black celebrities. Both involved especially heinous crimes. Both exposed the American public to the extremely rich, luxurious celebrity lifestyles of Beverly Hills. Both celebrities had their eccentricities--O.J. liked to play golf at midnight on his estate, Michael Jackson is just eccentric. Did we really need to have 2000 journalists covering this trial? Did we really need to know about Jackson's missing his court appearance because of a backache? Turn on the television, and there's the latest Michael Jackson story of what he had for lunch during today's court session--simultaneously broadcasted on CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC ABC News, and Entertainment Tonight. It is totally outrageous.

But the media frenzy is also about the corporate media. The duty of the corporate media isn't to produce news that the American public needs to know. The duty of the corporate media is to produce news stories which will increase their market share, and their bottom line profits. Complicated news stories such as Iraq, the Downing Street Memo, the sputtering economy--those stories don't generate ratings. They are too complicated to explain, and the public would have to think and reflect on those stories. There's no profit in reporting those stories. So there's no reason to report them. Michael Jackson's molestation trial is big news. It is easy to report, and place in a 30-second sound and video clip. You don't have to think about complicated issues, unless you believe that Jackson's backache was complicated enough to allow him to miss his court date. It's got celebrities, sleaze, sex, and money--what more could you ask for in generating fat profits for media conglomerates?And so the Michael Jackson trial became the equivalent of eye candy for the media. It makes pretty television with sacchary-sweet fluff for news details that have no bearing to the public. It is American journalism at its absolute worst.

Republicans Seek to Turn California Into a "Red" State

From the Associated Press:

Los Olivos, CA. (June 13)-In this picturesque region outside Santa Barbara, most of the local chatter centers on the nearby Michael Jackson trial and the continuing tourist boom wrought by the hit movie "Sideways." But neither the pinot noir nor the "King of Pop" were on the agenda this weekend at a conference of the Republican activists, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the focus.

On Monday, Schwarzenegger was expected to call for a special election in November to let California voters decide whether to clamp down on spending, change the way electoral districts are drawn and make it harder for teachers to win tenure.

So, the Governator can't seem to get his way with a defiant Democratic-controlled legislature, therefore, he must spend even more millions of dollars, that California doesn't have, on a special election so he can shove his own particular program down our throats? Excuse me, Governator, have you ever heard of the term compromise? It is where you give up something of value in your program which your political party desires, in exchange for the opposition party to give up something that they value. And in return, both parties get a little something in the end--it may not be everything that each political party wants. Compromise is good for the state since it provides the benefits and incurs costs for all interest groups. Unfortunately, in our current form of government, compromise is a lost art. Each political party tries to demonize and destroy the other political party. Each tries to shove its own agenda down the other's throat. In the Bush Administration, compromise is simply another name for a rubber stamp that Congress must use in promoting the White House legislation. In Sacramento, the Republicans, with the Terminator-turned-Governator leading the way, utilized a recall election to kick out a sitting Democrat Gray Davis from the governor's office, to install King Arnold. The Republicans couldn't wait until the next election--NO, have to get rid of that demon Davis now. And now since Governator Arnold can't get his pro-business agenda through the legislature, well, let's call another special election.

The problem is that as long as you keep up with this demonizing of the opposing party, and keep trying to shove down your own extremist views down the other's throat, it is going to come back to you. The other side will start to push back harder, until you watch the opposition shove their extremist views down your throat. It will happen. Just as it is starting to happen in Washington D.C., where the Democrats in Congress were ready to force a judicial filibuster against the hard-lined conservatives that President Bush wanted to put on the federal bench. If Schwarzenegger starts pushing this special election, it will certainly galvanize the pro-labor and union groups against Schwarzenegger and his pro-business allies. Even worst would be a perception of corruption in the governor's office, where the special election would try to force another redistricting plan for California--a redistricting plan that would obviously benefit the Republicans. Of course, if Schwarzenegger can get his way with this special election, then he'll get an enormous political victory and the Republican Party will have even greater power in Sacramento. This would infuriate the Democrats, who would then seek out to terminate Schwarzenegger future political career. Tit for tat. An eye for an eye. Both parties would seek to continue to destroy each other.

I'm not saying that the Democrats in Sacramento are any better. In fact, both sides are about as crass and corrupting as ever. What we've lost in both Washington and Sacramento is the art of compromise. Where moderate members of both political parties can come together to craft laws for the good of the country. Moderation has been co-opted by extremisms take-no-prisoners / destroy-the-enemy's agenda. The Republican's have the governorship. The Democrats have the legislature. This is the best of checks-and-balances. Both political parties have to work with one another to service the needs of the state. Both parties have to seriously compromise with one-another. Unfortunately, the party leadership in both parties are dominated by the extremists. And so now we've got the Republicans under the Governator trying to push his own extreme agenda through a state-wide special election. The question for Californians is, in light of the corruption and scandals coming out against the Republicans in Washington, are they willing to give more power to the Republicans in the state?

"Something Bad Happened" to Missing Teen, Suspect Says

Associated Press:

Oranjestad, Aruba (June 11)--Police investigating the disappearance of an Alabama teenager in Aruba said one of three young men in custody has admitted "something bad happened" to her during her island visit.

Deputy Police Commissioner Gerold Dompig told Associated Press that the man was leading police late Friday to the scene. He refused to identify which of the three young men who took her to a beach the night she disappeared made the statement.

Early Saturday, police refused to say if they had discovered anything overnight to solve the mystery of what happened to Natalee Holloway, 18, who was last seen in the early hours of May 30.

Might as well admit what nobody wants to admit. Natalee Holloway is now dead--probably raped, killed and either buried somewhere near the beach, or dumped in the ocean. And it is more than likely that one of those three men--or all three--have a major part to play in the killing.

Two things strike me in this story. The first is about Natalee Holloway herself. What the heck was she doing getting drunk, and then heading off to a beach on the northern part of the island on a late night/early morning? That was a dumb mistake on her part, which unfortunately got her killed. The second is why were there only seven chaperones for the 124 classmates on this graduation trip? It would mean that each chaperone was responsible for 17 students--far too few chaperones to watch impulsive young teens ready to party hard after four years of high school--especially on an island where they are allowed to drink, gamble, and indulge in sexual pleasures. Even if there was one chaperone for one student, that probably would not have been enough if the student was able to sneak away. Perhaps had there been 12 chaperones there--giving a ratio of one chaperone per 10 students--that would have reduced the risk of having foul play occurring against a student.

When you go to these islands for a vacation, it is okay to have fun--to drink, gamble, and have wild sex. But do so in some moderation. You have to make sure you know where you are, and who you are with--especially in a foreign country, no matter how much that country says regarding their safety. When you play, you need to play in a safe manner. Natalee Holloway broke that cardinal rule of common sense. She was the perfect American--tall, thin, young, long-blond haired female--in a foreign country. What young native isn't going to try to take advantage of her? She paid for this lack of common sense with her life.

That is a waste.

Bush, Rumsfeld Signal Changes on Detainees

From the Associated Press:

The United States would rather have detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp imprisoned by their home countries, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday.

Rumsfeld spoke a day after saying he was unaware of anyone in the Bush administration discussing closing the prison in Cuba. Hours later, President Bush refused to rule out shutting the facility, saying his administration was "exploring all alternatives" for detaining the prisoners.

So the Bush Administration wants to transfer the prisoners out of Gitmo and send them to prisons in their home countries. It makes beautiful sense. By moving the prisoners out of Gitmo, not only do you save on the costs of feeding and housing the prisoners, but you also save on the criticisms the Bush Administration has been receiving lately on the mistreatment of prisoners. No prisoners in Gitmo, no more allegations of American guards mistreating the Koran. No more comparing Gitmo to gulags. No more Amnesty International reports on human rights violations against the United States. No more legal challenges from the prisoner's defense lawyers on their criminal and civil rights. Oh, and who cares if the prisoners are going to be treated in even more inhumane conditions in their "home countries" own jails--their non-citizens anyways. They have no rights. And the best thing about this new policy is that it frees up more space at Gitmo for more new prisoners, allowing American intelligence officials to think up new ways to question and torture more new prisoners for more information. The prisoners at Gitmo have already been used up. Time to get rid of them.

A Few Words on Blogging

I'm going to deviate away from my analysis of news and political events, and say a few words about blogging. I've been regularly contributing to this blog my own opinions and analysis of the events that occur daily in the world for a couple of weeks--have about 20 posts for the last two months. It is also a pleasure to watch the counter tick upwards the number of people who actually view this site--although I sort of wonder how many of those "clicks" are my own, just to check to see if the layout is okay. I would guess I must be doing something right if people are coming to my blog to read what I have to say.

Enough self-congratulations. I'm starting to realize that blogs can become a major force within the communications and printing industry. I knew nothing about blogs until I logged into Google's Blogger and developed my own site. It is so easy for people to connect into the web, and write a "Dear Diary" of whatever subject they feel like writing about--be it politics, news, music, computers, cell phones, video games, girls, boys, or even their own deepest emotional feelings and fantasies which they would write in the pages of a real diary before the advent of the computer. A blog site was responsible for exposing forged records of George Bush's national guard service which CBS News had reported, causing Dan Rather to resign. I can't say how many political blogs there are--I hate/love George Bush or I hate/love John Kerry--where each side demonizes the other, while pandering to their extremist audience, ready to devour each word in delicious ecstasy. Then there are the bogs that, in the immortal words of Jerry Sienfeld, say nothing at all. They are the blogs where the authors post entries on how they watched Batman the other day, or how they listened to a certain song on the radio, or how they argued with the local Wendy's manager, saying they ordered a chili instead of a baked potato.

You don't like soup? Then NO SOUP FOR YOU!

BusinessWeek wrote a major story on the nature of blogs last May 2. There are 9 million blogs out there, with some 40,000 being created each day. With so many blogs floating in cyberspace, and the ease of use in creating a blog, businesses are going to have to wake up and somehow adapt the blog to reflect their business operations. Businesses have been able to refine, convey, and control their message through the mass media of print, radio, and television. They have been able to target their audiences through market research surveys, determining who would buy what, then pitch to the selected markets with niche advertising. Blogs have turned the mass media upside down. Bloggers refine their own message in their blogs, then link it to other bloggers. In a way, a blog can take off like that of the Suave commercial--you'll tell your two friends about a message blog, and they'll tell their two friends, and so on, and so on. Blogs combine both the public's right of freedom of speech and press with the method of conveying that message to the widest possible audience, instantaneously.

How do companies cash into this new service? Companies can certainly use statistical software programs to track millions of blogs to see how the public may feel about their image. Google has also developed it AdSense program which pays bloggers to host Google ads on their blog sites. But companies are certainly going to have to do more. They are going to have to find a way to merge advertising and public relations into a new service which can convey knowledge and information to its customers. Companies may also develop partnerships or sponsorships with the large blog sites in conveying advertising. Or perhaps there may be new relationships forged between advertisers, the mainstream media (newspapers, magazines, television, and radio), and bloggers. Right now, the world of blogs is in a state of dynamic flux. It is both exciting, and scary.

House Ethics Chief is Tied to Lobby Figures

From the New York Times:

Newly disclosed lobbying records and other documents show that the chairman of the House ethics committee, Doc Hastings, a Washington State Republican, has had a close relationship for years with lobbyists at the Seattle-based law firm that is at the center of ethics accusations involving Tom DeLay, the House majority leader.

The records from the law firm, Preston Gates & Ellis, show that the firm's former star lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, a close friend of Mr. DeLay who is now the focus of a federal corruption investigation, boasted to a client in the mid-1990s that the firm had "excellent" ties to Mr. Hastings. The firm repeatedly billed the client for meetings and telephone conversations between Mr. Abramoff's lobbying team and Mr. Hasting's staff.

[These records]show that Preston Gates pressed Mr. Hastings and his staff several years ago for help on behalf of Mr. Abramoff's most important lobbying client at the time, the government of the Northern Mariana Islands, a small American commonwealth in the Pacific, in blocking the imposition of the federal minimum wage on the island's clothing factories; human rights groups have long described the factories as sweatshops. The records do not show any direct contact between Mr. Hastings and Mr. Abramoff, nor do they show that Mr. Hastings introduced any legislation or cast any vote requested by Preston Gates. Tom Delay's ethics investigation is centered around his ties with Mr. Abramoff, his overseas trips paid for by Preston Gates--including one to the Marianas in 1997, and his legislative work regarding the Northern Mariana Islands clothing sweatshops.

So the chairman of the House ethics committee is going to investigate Tom DeLay for his ethical ties to a Seattle lobbying group of which the chairman is also on the take from the same lobbying group. Sounds like we're going to get to the bottom of the scandal where the truth of the relationships between these individuals will publicly come out. And if you'll believe that, then you'll certainly allow the fox to guard the chicken coop. This is just another example of how power corrupts individuals in government. They start to believe that they represent corporate and lobbying groups who generously give to their campaign war chests, then will do the corporation's bidding to the detriment of society, and the constituents in their districts. Hastings and DeLay receive money from Abramoff. Abramoff and his law firm represents clothing manufacturers who want to maintain the sweatshop factories in the Northern Marianas. These manufacturers want to keep their excessive profits--they don't want federal minimum wages imposed on their operations. As payment for their contributions, Abramoff and the clothing manufacturers expect Hastings and DeLay to kill any legislation that will eliminate the sweatshop conditions, and the economic benefits these conditions provide to the manufacturers, that may be introduced into Congress.

This has always gone on in Congress--regardless of any party control. When the Democrats had control of Congress during the 1980s and mid-1990s, they were also plagued with scandals in the House banking and travel offices. Their own corruption had caused the downfall of House Speaker Jim Wright, with Newt Gingrich's Contract for America Republicans to gain control of both the House and Senate. Now, after 10 years of control, the Republicans have become corrupted by greed and power--embarking on the same scandalous perks that have undone the Democrat's control a decade before. It is a never-ending cycle of greed, lust, and power, where the party in control will attempt to hide and deflect their transgressions for as long as they can, while they continue to reap the outrageous benefits they have bestowed upon themselves. Unfortunately, they don't seem to read the history. For like the corruption of the Democratic control of Congress before them, the Republican's corruption in Congress today will be the cause of their downfall--if not in the 2006 elections, then perhaps the 2008 elections.

GM to Close Plants, Cut 25,000 Jobs.

From Associated Press:

General Motors Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner tells shareholders that the world's largest automaker wants to close plants and cut 25,000 manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by 2008.

What it means: GM, which posted a $1.1 billion first-quarter loss and has seen its U.S. market share drop to 25.4 percent from 27 percent a year ago, says the cutbacks should save the company roughly $2.5 billion a year. About one out of six GM jobs in the U.S. would be eliminated.

One out of six GM jobs in the U.S. would be eliminated. What is good for GM is good for America. The GM executives--including Rick Wagoner--have shot themselves in the you-know-what, and it is the American worker who is going to suffer and pay for it. First, instead of offering pay increases to its United Auto Workers union employees, GM instead offered one of the most generous health insurance benefits among the Big Three Automakers in lieu of raises. Those health care benefits certainly add to the cost of each car and truck GM produces, whereas the Japanese automakers such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan can undercut GM by selling higher-quality cars at lower prices. Second is that GM bet its future on big gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. The trucks and SUVs were of high-demand, high profit-margin sales for GM and the executives were just as happy cranking them out as fast as they can. Never mind about the probability that gas prices could go up, or that the American public may switch their demand to high gas mileage hybrid cars. GM never bothered to introduce hybrid models into their line-up. And just as in the 1970s, when the gas prices went up, people switched from big gas-guzzling Detroit iron to the smaller fuel efficient Japanese cars. So today, as gas prices went up, the American public switched from big gas-guzzling SUVs to the small Toyota hybrid Prius, or the newly introduced hybrid Honda Accord. GM has no hybrid vehicle to effectively compete against the Japanese. Finally, I wonder if GM is just too big of a company to compete efficiently. GM is comprised of Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn, Saab, Opel--how can a company with so many different car divisions, and each division containing their own models for SUVs, luxury, compact, and performance cars, compete with smaller car companies who can roll out newer, more improved, and restyled models faster than GM can? BusinessWeek had introduced a fascinating cover article on how GM has grown too big, and that the company must radically restructure itself in order to compete in this new market where companies have to be quick on their feet in researching for new markets, restyling new cars and models, and adapting to a quickly-changing market demand.

Is GM embarking on the right path with its chopping of 25,000 workers? I can not say. Certainly the executives are trying to stem the losses by cutting back production and laying off workers. But laying off 25,000 auto workers is not going to instill any confidence or trust between GM and the UAW employees--it may even increase UAWs hypocrisy against the GM management if the GM executives pad their own pockets with rising compensation for themselves while asking GM workers to cut back on their salaries, pensions, or health benefits. GM has to walk a tight-rope in restructuring their auto manufacturing business, while providing alternatives to its displaced auto workers in job placement, education, or job training opportunities. In a sense, General Moters has become a microcosm of the structural changes taking place within the U.S. economy.

Dean Defends Criticism of Republican Party

From the Associated Press:

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wednseday defended his recent harsh criticism of Republicans, including his observation that they are "pretty much a white, Christian party."

Dean noted that he, too, is a white Christian. But he said the GOP is too narrow in its scope and the Democratic Party is far more diverse.

Dean, while you are right about your criticisms of the Republican party, you're conveying the message the wrong way. You don't toss slurs and epithets at the Republicans. Now matter how much you may dislike them, the last thing you want to do is to get down in the slime and muck where the hard-line conservative TV talk and radio hosts have been tossing insults at the Democrats. Do that, and your reputation is lowered to the level of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Anne Coulter. You have got to refine your message where you link the Republican Party to the white Christian evangelists. You need to link the Republican Party to big corporate interests and rich elites. You have to link the Republican Party to the big corporate media. You have to show--with concrete facts--how the money contributions that the Christian evangelists, big corporations, and rich elites, have contributed to Republican Congressman and the Bush Administration, and what they have received in return for legislation being passed, or what issues President Bush and the Republicans in Congress believe. You have got to show the money link between the Republicans who passed the bankruptcy bill, the president who signed the bill, and the credit card companies and big banks who stand to gain from this bill. You have to show the link between the campaign contributions that the Christian evangelists have given to the Republicans, and the presidents selection of hard-line conservative judicial nominees to the federal bench--and more importantly, reveal the judicial nominees views of issues through their writings on past decisions. And you have to hammer these links--hard--to the public again and again and again.

That is how you win the debate. You bring the facts out in simple, easy to understand terms. And you keep reiterating those facts--keep attacking the Republicans with those facts.

Bush Performance Ratings Plumment

An ABC News poll reports that "The corrosive effects of the war in Iraq and a growing disconnect on political priorities have pushed George W. Bush's performance ratings--notably on terrorism--to among the worst of his career, casting a pall over his second term and potentially over his party's prospects ahead.

For the first time, most Americans, 55 percent, say Bush has done more to divide than to unite the country. A career-high 52 percent disapprove of his job performance overall, and, in another first, a bare majority rates him unfavorably on a personal level.

The American public may be starting to stir. There have been a number of corrosive issues that have hit Americans hard--the Iraq war, the stagnating economy, the poor job market, the high gas prices. Somehow the Bush Administration has been able to deflect the American public's anger and worry away from the White House and the Republicans. This deflection has been to divert the American public's attention away from issues which hit their pocketbooks, to social issues of stem cell research, Terry Schiavo, gay marriage, abortion or culture of life. It may be easy to deflect the public to these social issues when they are feeling good about the economy and their pocketbook, but when the economy sours, the people will turn to the government for some assistance. Bush and the Republicans in Congress have failed in providing for the public's needs. While the public seems to favor Democrats over the Republicans, it is only a slight lead of 46 percent to 41 percent. However 56 percent of Americans disapprove of the job performance of both parties in Congress. As for Iraq, the American public is now realizing the mistake of getting into the war. A record 58 percent of Americans say the war was not worth fighting. Nearly two-thirds think the U.S. has gotten bogged down in Iraq and 45 percent foresee the equivalent of another Vietnam. As more Americans start to realize the full costs of the war, the questions of how Bush sold the war to the public, or most notably the Downing Street Memo, may start to reverberate within the public and force the American public to demand more answers from the White House.

One final little note in the statistics. The ABC News poll found that "The only population groups in which majorities say he's concentrating on the issues that are important to them personally are Republicans, evangelical white Protestants, conservatives and better-off Americans, those with household incomes of $75,000 a year or more." Interestingly enough, this is one of the voting blocks which provided major support for Bush's re-election, and it is one of the foremost groups to hold enormous political power within the White House. The evangelicals have always wanted to pack the Supreme Court with hard line conservatives which will vote their way on the social issues of abortion, gay marriage, and school prayer. Now the question is how long will it be for George Bush and the evangelicals to succeed in their goals as Bush's approval ratings plummet and the 2006 midterm elections start to loom.

It is starting to get interesting now.

Bill Moyer's speech "Writing the History of the Revolution is Now Up to You."

I was listening to KGO Radio's Bernie Ward last night--he's a flaming liberal progressive who has severely criticized the Bush Administration on a number of issues, most notably Iraq. He devoted most of his program to reading a speech that was given by Bill Moyers at Take Back America: The Conference for America's Future. Bill Moyer's has been around both politics and journalism for the past 45 year or so--first a press secretary for the Johnson Administration, then as an investigative journalist for both CBS and PBS.

Moyers presented a powerful address The Campaign For America's Future for Take Back America conference. The basic premise of the speech is that the Republican Party has been embarking on a campaign of providing an ever-increasing share of the nation's wealth and power to the extremely rich, at the expense of the poor and middle class. The extremely rich and powerful have used the government--through Congress and the Presidency--to benefit themselves over that of the public good. The extreme rich and powerful have also used the Republican Party to distort and subvert the facts of their ever-increasing share of wealth and power with political ideology, while claiming at the same time that unregulated markets work better than democracy. And at the moment, the American public is still ignorant of the growing problem.

What Moyer's has basically said in his speech was that the country is involved in class warfare. The only problem is that the Republican Party is engaging in a sustained, successful offensive class war against both the Democratic Party and the American people for the benefit of their wealthy corporate elites. The Republicans have been successful as masking this class warfare by controlling the political debate using such issues as gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, gun control, terrorism--everything except for the economy. And if the issue of the economy is raised, it will be about cutting taxes or cutting regulations on the market--both of which will benefit the rich far more than the middle or poor classes. These hot-button issues resonate especially well among red-state Christian evangelists who will vote on these social issues, while their own economic status deteriorates. An article in the New York Times reports on how Moore County is growing rich with development of golf courses, country clubs, and multi-million estates, while smaller, unincorporated enclaves of Jackson Hamlet, Midway, and Waynor Road have no sewer, water, police or garbage services. And these unincorporated enclaves are predominantly black. There will never be a discussion of class inequalities--that is discrimination, as the Republicans would say. The cover article in this weeks Fortune asks Is Greed Still Good? The cover picture has none other than Michael Douglas reprising his Gordon Gekko role from Wall Street.

The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle-class is getting squeezed. When class mobility is stymied, and social-economic inequalities widen out to exteme levels, a country will become fertile ground for revolution. The uber-rich may reside in their multi-million dollar estates behind high walls, close-circuit cameras and security guards, sending their children to exclusive private schools, playing golf in their country clubs, and ignoring the plight of the rest of Americans as the social contract between the government and the people is shredded. This uber-lifestyle is built on a house of cards. In time, the American people will wake up from their slumber and realize that government is no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people." They will demand the power of government to be returned to them for the good of the public--either through the voting booth, or through the gun.

The question is when will the American people wake up?

Military Recruitment Problems

I found two interesting articles that reflect a growing problem of military recruiters enlisting volunteers to refill their ranks in light of the continuing war in Iraq. The first article is from the New York Times where parents have been opposing Army and Marine recruitment strategies within high schools. In another article from the Wall Street Journal, the Army is seeking ways to keep problem enlistees within their ranks, rather than washing them out of the service.

Both articles show the symptoms that the U.S. military has in filling its ranks with new recruits. In the Times article, the recruiters have been given major access to lists of student’s names and phone numbers provided by the schools as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Parents have the right to opt out a student name from these lists, but most parents are not informed of this right. Thus, the recruiters go into the schools, then start getting in the faces of the most vulnerable students with high pressure sales tactics, showing off some of the major equipment and recounting exciting adventures which these kids could have if they enlist. Parents are slowly realizing that the No Child Left Behind Act mandates schools to give these lists to the military in order to receive federal funds and are starting to oppose the military’s access into the high schools. Even more interesting is that these parents are from the baby boomer generation who have either served in Vietnam or have protested against the war in the 1960s and 70s. The Journal article shows a different problem with the military. With recruitment quotas dropping, the military has been facing a shortage of replacements. The Army is trying to find ways to keep current enlistees from easily washing out of the service. These enlistees are of lower-quality soldiers—former drug users, high school dropouts, pregnancies, poor fitness, and unsatisfactory performance. Instead of having battalion commanders—who command 800 soldier units--make the decisions to wash these enlistees out of the service, the battalion commanders must send the problem cases up to their brigade commanders—who commands 3,000 soldier units.

The crux of the problem isn’t that the military can find new recruits, or to keep the current enlistees within their ranks. The real problem is that the military is starting to face a growing opposition to the war, and this opposition is reflected in the reduced enlistment quotas. Parents don’t want to see their children going through the horrors of what they went through in Vietnam—either becoming exposed to the brutality of war, or seeing their own family and friends getting killed there. And as the children are starting to listen to the lessons their parent’s have learned during the last controversial war, they are taking those lessons to heart in this current controversial war. They are starting to say no to enlisting into the service. With regards to the Army’s attempts of keeping problem enlistees within the service, rather than bouncing them out, this is just another example of the military trying to stop the hemorrhaging of warm bodies out of the service. As this war in Iraq becomes more unpopular with the parents and the public, more young Americans are going to avoid enlisting into the services, causing a greater shortage of manpower—especially as the war continues to be a drain on current military manpower. There are three possible solutions to solve the military’s recruitment problem. The first solution is for the United States to get out of the war in Iraq. The second solution is for the military to continue what it is doing in its recruitment policies, possibly utilizing a more direct sales strategy in enlistments within the face of parental opposition.

The third solution is to institute a draft. Iraq will become even more like Vietnam.

Koran Abuse at Guantanamo Bay Detailed by Pentagon

From the Associated Press:

U.S. military officials say no guard at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects flushed a detainee’s Koran down the toilet, but they disclosed that a Muslim Holy book was splashed with urine. In other newly disclosed incidents, a detainee’s Koran was deliberately kicked and another’s was stepped on.

It would seem that the Newsweek story was correct.

What irks me is the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration. They certainly allowed the guards at Gitmo to desecrate the Koran. It is all about how to flaunt the Geneva Conventions, and use whatever means of torture you can on the prisoners—who the Administration feels has absolutely no civil or criminal rights. The guards were following their orders from higher-ups in the defense, and intelligence agencies, who got their orders from Rumsfeld, Cheney, and ultimately Bush. So it is okay to torture the prisoners. It is okay to desecrate the Koran as a means of breaking down the prisoners will to resist. But when Newsweek broke the story showing the Administration’s transgressions, the Administration goes back to attack a ‘liberal media’ in publishing false stories causing anti-American riots in Afghanistan. A retraction of the story by Newsweek was not enough. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan wanted Newsweek to spread the Bush Administration’s own propaganda about how the U.S. interrogators “treat the Quran with great care and respect.”

So now the real story comes out. The U.S. military have desecrated the Koran. Brig. General Jay Hood, the commander of Guantanamo Bay, issued a report admitting that nine incidents of mishandling the Koran have occurred. Hood then said that his investigation into the matter “revealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Koran dating back almost 2 ½ years.” Hood then said that he found 15 incidents of detainees mishandling their own Korans, as if this would make the Administration's own violations acceptable.

Bush and his minion still don’t get it. In war, you can perform the most brutal acts of terror against the enemy soldiers—you have to kill the bad guys before they kill you. However, when you have captured the enemy soldiers, they have become prisoners, which you must treat in accordance to the Geneva Conventions and international law. This also includes interrogations. The moment you step over the line, the moment you start torturing prisoners at Abu Gharib prison, or desecrating the Koran at Gitmo, you lose whatever international credibility you have in the court of world opinion. The Arab people are never going to trust you—whatever you say. In addition, these transgressions become recruiting slogans for more young terrorists to join. The moment you release your captives, they will tell their stories to the press, which provide more credible evidence in the average Arab citizen’s viewpoints. The war in Iraq, and quite possibly the war on terror, is lost. It is lost in the court of world opinion. It has lost the hearts and minds of the Arab and Iraqi people. It is this world opinion, and the Arab opinion, which will allow you to win or lose the war. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's military aggressions, the continuous lies about why the U.S. went to war, and the violations of prisoner's rights, have destroyed what limited world credibility the Bush Administration may have had for the war in Iraq. Thus, the war has become a lost cause. The only people who still cling to this lost cause are the current occupants of the White House, and their neo-conservative allies, who never really cared about the war on terror in the first place. The neocons strategy has always been to take over Iraq for their oil supplies and as a means of projecting American power in the Middle East from American bases in Iraq.

When will the American people wake up and realize the futility of this war?

Future of Turkey, Other Aspiring EU Members in Question After Voters Reject EU Constitution

An Associated Press article analyzes the future of Turkey and other nations attempting to join the European Union. The article asks whether the EU is willing to accept 10 new members, mostly Eastern European countries, and possibly Turkey—whose own negotiations to join the EU have been going on for 10 years. With the voters of France and the Netherlands rejecting the proposed European Union constitution, how does this rejection play out in the Turkey’s membership negotiations into the EU?

Turkey has been a wildcard of an anomaly with the European Union. The nation straddles three continents—Europe, Asia, and Africa. Throughout history, it has been a strategic link in the trade routes between Europe and Asia. The Eastern Roman Empire—The Byzantine Empire—was formed in the Middle Ages with Constantinople as its capital (Now known as modern-day Istanbul). Turkey is currently a member of NATO, and is the only Muslim nation with a democratically elected government. Turkey is probably the most “Westernized” nation in the Muslim world. Its government and foreign policy has stressed a desire to join the European Union as a means to economically expand its trade and business ties with Europe. The problem with Turkey is that it is a large, rapidly growing Second World nation with a population of 70 million that is predominantly ethnic Turkish, and Muslim. This is a hard pill for the members of the European nations to swallow, considering that as an EU member, Turkey would become the second largest nation in the EU after Germany, which has a population of 80 million. Another problem the EU has is with immigration. Almost all the nations in the EU are comprised of their own ethnicities—the French live in France, the Germans live in Germany, the Dutch live in the Netherlands. They all have their separate languages and cultures. The nations of the EU have had a deeper, xenophobic fear of allowing foreign immigrants to become naturalized citizens, who would then degrade or dilute their natural culture. So barriers and restrictions to naturalized citizenship in European nations are set at a high level. In addition, immigration into EU countries is limited as a means to keep foreigners out of the country. An EU Turkey would allow Turkish citizens to move anywhere in Europe. Finally, there is a security issue at stake. For Turkey to be admitted into the EU would cause the EU’s borders to extend into the Middle East, bordering Syria and Iraq. Such an extension of borders could allow terrorists to slip into Turkey, and thus into the EU for future planned terrorist attacks. An EU Turkey with a growing population, predominantly Muslim, ethnic, with borders on an unstable Middle East, also poses another threat to Europeans. It is a threat that French, German, and Dutch citizens would have to accept the growing power of Turkish legislators in the European Parliament to make decisions affecting their lives, or their sovereignty. All of these fears had an influence in the rejection of the constitution by both France and the Netherlands.

The European Union has got to stop toying with Turkey’s membership and start making the hard choice of whether to let Turkey join, or not. By allowing Turkey to join the EU, this expands cultural and economic ties between both Europe and Turkey, and Europe and the Middle East. It provides a model to the world where a Muslim nation can be both a major power and a democracy. Turkey can become a bridge between the First World countries of Europe and the Third World countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. If the European Union rejects Turkey, this may force Turkey to become isolated in the world—neither a part of a European block, nor a Middle Eastern block, nor a Russian or Asian block of economic trade zones. Turkey’s economic isolationism from any trade blocks could cause resentment or anger among the Turkish population against Europe. This could result in a rise of nationalism within Turkey. The worst-case scenario would be for a rise of nationalism combined with religious extremism. This combination could allow for Islamic fundamentalists to seize power in Turkey, institute a theocratic government, then exporting their fundamentalism into Europe through the Balkan Peninsula in the form of state-sponsored terrorism.

Turkey is the wildcard in the EU. The leaders of the European Union and Turkey have got to learn how to play this card correctly which would benefit both the nations in the EU and Turkey. Any other way, could become a major disaster.

Employers Hire 100,000 Fewer Jobs Than Expected

This is from the Associated Press:

Job growth slowed nearly to a crawl in May, with new hiring registering the smallest gain in almost two years. The unemployment rate dipped to a low 5.1 percent, however.

The latest employment snapshot, released by the Labor Department on Friday, kept up the recent pattern of choppy job creation. Employers boosted payrolls by just 78,000 after a hiring spurt of 274,000 in April.

This is an interesting contradiction where job creation has been anemic while the unemployment rate has been dropping. However, both statistics are related in showing the weak labor market. Employers boost and cut payrolls according to their profitability and of the supply and demand of the market. Economists were forecasting a gain of 175,000 jobs for May. Unemployment, however, is the interesting statistic. The unemployment rate is a calculated percentage of how many individuals are collecting unemployment benefits by the total labor force. If an individual has used up his unemployment benefits, or gives up looking for a job, or becomes underemployed in a lower-skilled or part-time job, then that individual is also dropped from the unemployment rolls. So in effect, the Labor Department’s report still shows a poor job market.

Of course, this report offers crass politics for both the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats will cite the weak job creation and wage growth as stagnation. The AP report states that worker’s average hourly earnings rose to $16.03 in May—which is 2.6 percent higher than the same month last year, however it is not keeping up with the pace of inflation. The Republicans will take credit in the dropping unemployment rate, saying that the economy is getting stronger, and the Bush Administrations economic policies are working.

This jobs report, by itself, cannot account for an improving economy, or an economy in recession. It is simply one of many contradictory statistics, which have puzzled economists over the recession and expansion of the last 5 years. The United States is in a vast structural change of its economy as globalization continues throughout the world, with rising industrialization occurring in China and Third World nations. Both the Republicans and Democrats have got to recognize that this structural change is going on, and produce innovative policies to help the U.S. workers adapt to these changes--and I'm not talking about the tired ideas of cutting business and payroll taxes that Republicans like, or to increase unemployment benefits that Democrats like. Unfortunately, with the hatred and rancor that both parties have to each other, this will never occur. What will happen to the U.S. as a result of this change is still a mystery.

Jurors Hear Closing Arguments in Jackson Trial

Jurors heard the closing arguments in the Michael Jackson trial yesterday, and will probably begin deliberations today. I have not done any postings for Michael Jackson, nor have I really paid much attention to the case. But I probably should add a comment, now that the trial is over. This entire trial represents the most reprehensible disgusting character of the mainstream American press. The press is no longer covering the important news issues of the day, that the American people must know. The press has become another form of entertainment, to get the latest scoop of sex, or violence, or sleaze that would shock and awe the American public for the simple task of filling the coffers of big corporations who now own the news media. Of course, the American public has become desensitized to the sex, sleaze and violence being reported by the press, but still wants to know more--did Jackson really molest that child? Did he give alcohol? What were they really doing at that sleep-in at Neverland? Are there any videotapes? Why do I care if a pop star was molesting a child? Or a President was having an affair with an intern? Or a football star killed his former wife and her male friend? Or a woman saws off a man's penis with a steak knife? Or two rich, bratty teens conspire to kill their parents? These are all trials of the centuries that a corporate news media company has spent millions of dollars of journalistic resources to attempt to scoop the story from its corporate media competitors. And yet, the corporate media will fail to investigate stories which do have a major impact on the public--what is this 'Downing Street' memo and how does it relate to the U.S. war in Iraq? That story has been all over the European press for weeks, yet it is virtually uncovered here in the U.S. "The Downing Street memo is too complicated of a story. The American people won't understand it. The memo may embarrass the Bush Administration, and we don't want that since we want we want to control more of the media and more power and more profits."

It is funny. I was exposed for a while to the inner-workings of a newspaper. I had joined the West Valley College Norseman--a small junior college paper in Saratoga--as a photographer to cover sporting events and campus events. Our little staff of students saw The Norseman as a respectable institution, and we certainly tried to get the best possible product out to our customers--the West Valley College students. In the mainstream American press, I certainly don't blame the reporters, editors, or cameramen covering these events. I have more contempt for the corporate owners and managers running these news organizations as a profit center. For as the gatekeepers of information, they are doing the American public a disservice in providing the important information needed to understand the world and its complex issues. For a democracy to thrive and prosper, its citizens must be knowledgeable and well-informed by an independent press.

We no longer have that.

Insurgent Attacks Kill 39 in Iraq

From the AP newswire:

Insurgents killed 39 people in a series of rapid-fire attacks Thursday, including three suicide car bombings within an hour and a drive-by shooting as a busy Baghdad market that ratcheted up the bloody campaign to undermine Iraq's government.

According to the AP story, Iraq's interior minister said that the Iraqi sweep in rooting out rebels in Baghdad had captured 700 suspected insurgents and killed 28 militants. While U.S. and Iraqi forces have stepped up operations, the insurgents have killed at least 814 people since Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced his cabinet five weeks ago.

A couple things strike me as interesting in this story. The first is that the Iraqi government--with the United States looking over its shoulder--has started to announce its successes in the insurgency by keeping score of the body count. This really harkens back to the good ole days of Vietnam where the U.S. government claimed it was winning the war by counting how many Viet Cong soldiers were killed. While the U.S. and South Vietnam government were counting VC bodies, the American troops were embarking on a flawed policy of pacification of South Vietnam--We have to destroy the village in order to save it! Pacification completely failed for it turned the rural villagers against brutality of the South Vietnamese Government while providing support for the VC, and North Vietnamese Army troops (Of course, the VC were no angels, since they would also force villages friendly to South Vietnam to aid and assist them). In the AP story on the Iraqi insurgent attacks, angry leaders of the Sunni Arab minority have complained that their community was being targeted in the government's crackdown on the terrorists. The Sunni Arab leaders have threatened to boycott the drafting of Iraq's new constitution. If the Sunni Arab leadership in Iraq does boycott the Iraqi constitution, there could possibly be an ethnic and religious civil war between minority Sunnis and majority Shiites--a war that would become especially rancid since the Sunni Arabs were in power during Saddam Hussein's rule and the Shiite Arabs were the ones oppressed. If civil war breaks out (and there's a good chance it already has), then the U.S. would back the Iraqi government under the Shiite Arab's control, thus forcing us into another civil war we can not win.

Vietnam was a civil war between the north and the south.

EU Regroups After Double Defeat

Another AP Story here:

European leaders may have to scrap the proposed EU Constitution after Dutch voters rejected it by a massive margin, voicing their concern over dwindling national identity in a rapidly expanding union and their distrust of increasingly powerful bureaucrats.

In simpler terms, both the French and the Dutch have voted their own cultural and national self-interest over that of the broader continent-wide Europe. People there think of themselves as French, Dutch, British, Spanish, rather than European. It is akin to Californians here thinking of the interests of California first, over that of the United States on all issues. Europe is comprised of nations--and before that, kingdoms--that have existed as separate entities for almost a thousand years with their own language, culture, and unique identity. It will be almost impossible to separate those nationalistic feelings, or to channel them into some supra-national view of being 'European.' unfortunately, the policy-makers at the EU have been trying this impossible task in selling this constitution.

The policy-makers cannot push this constitution on a population with strong ties towards their own nation and culture. What the EU should try to do is to continue to develop stronger economic ties between the nations. This could be to liberalize the trade between EU nations, improve business formulation between countries, improve intrastate regulations on trade between member states, and allow a greater freedom of travel and immigration between EU members. As an economic entity, the EU can have a greater success in providing a larger market in products and services to its EU members. However, the strong nationalistic ties in foreign policy, defense, culture, language and identity is still strong within the member nations. The EU will have to remain patient in slowly changing the nationalistic bonds between the individual and their nation-state, to a bond between the individual and 'Europe.'

Rumsfeld Defends Treatment of Prisoners. Spat over Gitmo is growing into a Feud

This is from the Associated Press:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended the military's handling of detained terror suspects Wednesday while acknowledging that some have been mistreated, "sometimes grievously.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld criticized Amnesty International, the human rights group, for calling the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "the gulag of our time." The group has urged the United States to close the prison, where about 540 men are held on suspicion of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban or the al-Qaida terror network. Some have been there for more than three years without charges.

Rumsfeld doesn't get it. The reason why Amnesty International has called Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time" is not because of the poor treatment in living conditions on the prisoners, but rather the lack of any legal rights, or due process for these prisoners. The Bush Administration and the military have captured these insurgents, locked them up and thrown away the key, allowing them to rot in jail. The Bush Administration has classified them as "enemy combatants," which became another fancy term for saying these prisoners have no legal rights as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, nor do they have any legal rights under the laws of the United States. They have become non-citizens...non-soldiers. They are never going to be tried since the government probably doesn't have much of a case against them. Most of these prisoners also probably don't have much valuable intelligence in the terror fight. And if they do, the Bush Administration is not going to try them in court or release them. The Administration is certainly not going to allow them to be released--once they're released, they'll probably go back to the Middle East where they will join the insurgency in Iraq. Or they will tell their stories of their captivity among the inhabitants of the Middle East, inciting more hatred and ant-American views among the region. To try them in court would force the government to produce evidence to the public and the accused--but the government evidence has been deemed classified and cannot be released to the accused, their legal counsel if they have any, or the public. Of course, who's to say that the government has any evidence against these prisoners, or how much of this evidence would become a greater embarrassment to the Administration war on terror or Iraq. Finally, the prisoners can't be identified as prisoners-of-war since that would force the U.S. to conform to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners during war. And these conventions specifically state how prisoners should be treated during questioning along with the outlawing of torture against the prisoners. Rumsfeld states in the AP article that while there were some instances where detainees have been mistreated, there were 370 investigations into charges of prisoner misconduct since September 11. What Rumsfeld did not mention was that the investigations resulted in 130 military personnel being punished for the misconduct. Can't have prisoners telling the Middle East on how they were tortured by their American captures.

So, Bush and Rummy will lock the prisoners up, throw away the key, and probably hope the prisoners will die quickly--opening up new spaces for new "enemy combatants."

Rumors of Bush verses Clinton 2

I'm starting to see through the news, political talk and blog sites, some interesting rumors in the 2008 Presidential election. First, there has always been the rumor of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2008. She has forminable assets--currently a senator in New York, highly respected in the Democratic Party, and universally well-known. She also has a huge liability as being the wife of former president Bill Clinton and is universally hated by conservatives and right-wingers. I also found this little Associated Press article on who would win a Laura Bush/Hillary matchup. Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne Cheney both predicted a Laura Bush win over Hillary during an interviewed for Larry King Live. Finally, to stir the pot a little more, a second Associated Press article stated that Jeb Bush would not run president in 2008 after his father, former president George Bush Senior stated he would like to see son Jeb run.

That's a lot of speculation going on for 2008. It is all dream match-ups with dream candidates between the party's faithful. It doesn't surprise me, considering 2008 is a wide open field for the elections. Both George W and brother Jeb are locked into their offices via term limits--Jeb's term as governor of Florida expires in 2007. Hillary Clinton will be up for reelection in the Senate in 2006. But if she's serious to run for President in 2008, she will have to start campaigning in 2007 in Iowa and New Hampshire. Of course, the First Lady Laura Bush's performance in her tour of the Middle East has probably become a rapturous love-fest among the conservative Republicans--especially with how she has had to deal with the foreign protests against President Bush's war in Iraq. So Laura Bush has become "presidential" in terms of television image and that she should run as a first Republican female nominee against first female Democrat Hillary. A battle of the first ladies? Or is it going to be Jeb Bush verses Hillary? A Bush dynasty verses a Clinton dynasty? Is Chelsea Clinton ready to run against the Bush twins in 2012 or 2016?

Are we there yet?

William Donaldson Announces Resignation as SEC Chairman

The New York Times reports that William Donaldson will resign as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission as the end of this month. This is another of a big, amazing story for a week that is not even half over. Donaldson replaced the embattled Harvey Pitt at the SEC, just as the SEC was becoming embroiled in the accounting and corporate scandals that were revealed to the public in 2003. Donaldson was also responsible for executing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which was suppose to clean up the corporate accounting behavior, and improve companies' financial statements and information disclosure.

It will be interesting to see who President Bush will chose to replace Donaldson at the SEC. Donaldson was chosen as someone who could clean up the accounting and financial services mess in the wake of the Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, Tyco and the various other scandals that were going on as the economy busted into its recession. Donaldson pretty much did what he had to do at the SEC at that time--especially when he had to fight off New York's Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, who was also making big inroads at cleaning up the mess on Wall Street. The economy doesn't seem to be in a good expansion, considering the American publics worry of high gas prices, a speculative housing bubble, and a weak job market. The Bush White House would like to say that the economy is getting better, causing Bush to possibly select an SEC chairman who would be especially more receptive to corporate and business interests over that of consumers and the public. And if Bush does select such a nominee, that individual may have an especially tough time getting confirmed by a Senate gripped in partisan politics and hatred. Bush will certainly try to shove his nominee down the Senate and the Democrats throat. The Democrats would never allow such a nominee to be confirmed, possibly using the filibuster in the SEC chairman confirmation hearings. It could make the John Bolton UN ambassador hearings like a children's tea party.

Cream and sugar anyone?

Tobacco Industry Studies Ways Hook Female Smokers

This is from an Associated Press report which stated that tobacco companies did elaborate research on ways to market cigarette smoking to women. Some of these marketing schemes included creating chocolate-flavored cigarettes, and cigarettes that would curb appetite so women can lose weight.

Researchers at Harvard University's School of Public Health said they examined more than 7 million documents dating from 1969 to 2000 for details on the industry's marketing plans to give women the illusion that they could have a better,
healthier' life with cigarettes. Examples included R.J. Reynolds proposals to create cigarettes with a "unique flavor that decreases a smoker's appetite, including brandy, chocolate, chocolate mint, cinnamon, spearmint, and honey."

Gee...That's not surprising. What business wouldn't try new ideas to target new markets, new customers for their products. Just about every industry examines the market in search of targeting a consumer who would buy their product. In the auto industry, you have many different types of market segments--cars for the soccer moms and families, sports cars for the performance drivers, luxury cars for the businessmen who want to make a statement on how much money they've made, hybrids for the environmentally conscious market, and even trucks and SUVs for the rugged outdoors consumer. Just about every product will have a market will be segmented to niche markets of which companies can adapt their product to sell to those individual niche markets.

And the tobacco industry? Of course they're going to target women with their own type of cigarettes. They've been doing that for years--remember Virginia Slims? I'd say that was one of the first cigarettes to be specifically targeted for women. Starting in the 1980s, I would believe, the magazines would come out with advertisements showing beautiful, slim, fashionable women--laughing and strutting next to a Virginia Slims cigarette carton with a caption saying, "You've come a long way baby!" The whole marketing campaign was to tell the successful businesswomen/supermoms that they've made it and now its time to reward themselves with a Virginia Slims smoke. Hey, you've got to find new consumers who would buy your product to replace the old consumers who are dying off due to lung cancer--got to keep that profit machine rolling. Camel was another successful marketing campaign. Although not specifically targeted towards women, Camel created some slick magazine ads showing buffed, macho camel/human figures in hip nightclubs drinking beer, playing pool, cavorting with gorgeous female camels in sexy dresses, dancing and flirting. Of course everyone in those camel ads were smoking camel cigarettes. That whole marketing campaign was targeted towards young teenagers--smoke a Camel and you can be just as cool as in the magazine ad.

I'm not saying that this marketing campaign of chocolate cigarettes which allow women to lose weight is right or wrong. It doesn't surprise me that the industry would try these different marketing campaigns for targeting women--it is all about getting the almighty dollar from these consumers. If they want to smoke and end up with health problems, that is their problem. I do find the industry to be reprehensible with their own hypocrisy and lies about creating a healthier, better lifestyle by smoking. The real problem here is that as long as people are willing to try cigarettes, then the tobacco companies are willing to sell them. It is all about supply and demand. The only way to limit demand is for government to continue anti-smoking education and to harshly regulate the tobacco industry's push in marketing and advertising (For example, stop the tobacco industry's push in increasing the exposure of smoking in the movies).

Unfortunately there's not much you can do to stop a person from lighting up on their own free will.