Scandals and cronyism now engulfing the Air Force

I found this off Shakespeare's Sister, so I had to go to the original Reuters source:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force's highest-ranking officer and his predecessor are the subjects of an FBI investigation into the handling of a $49.9 million dollar contract for the Thunderbirds, an air demonstration squadron, ABC News reported on Thursday.

The network quoted law enforcement officials as saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating allegations that Gen. Michael Moseley and Gen. John Jumper helped to steer a Thunderbird contract to a friend, retired Air Force Gen. Hal Hornburg.

The Air Force, responding to the report, said Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne had referred a protest involving the contract to the Defense Department's chief internal inspector.

"Unfortunately, because of the ongoing litigation and investigation it is inappropriate to address specifics concerning the issue," an Air Force statement said.

ABC said Hornburg, whose command included the Thunderbirds, became a partner in the company that won the contract six months after he retired from the military.

The FBI investigation began after complaints from Air Force insiders and a rival company whose bid was for half the amount, the network said.

Yes, our tax dollars at work defending our country against all enemies--foreign and domestic!

Do you still feel safe now?

Friday Fun Stuff--Top Ten Signs The Government Is Spying On You

This is from The Late Show with David Letterman:

Top Ten Signs The Government Is Spying On You

10. Post office wall has several photos of you sleeping

9. Your houseplant occasionally sneezes

8. Domino's keeps delivering to unmarked van parked across the street

7. Birthday card from your mom has several words blacked out

6. You get nominated for "Outstanding Lead Performance in an NSA Surveillance Video"

5. Your dishwasher functions are "Wash," "Rinse" and "Record"

4. Local news only reporting things that happen in your living room

3. Every time you say goodbye on the phone, you hear a strange voice say, "Roger that, Chico"

2. You googled a recipe for humus and the FBI raided your house

1. Suddenly discover there's an antenna bolted to your ass

Shooting closes border crossing

A car sits empty near the border after its driver was shot and killed by a U.S. law enforcement officer Thursday. From CNN.Com.

Well, here is one good way to control the border. From CNN.Com:

SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Authorities shut down a busy U.S-Mexico border crossing Thursday after U.S. authorities shot and killed the driver of a car headed for Mexico, officials said.

The shooting occurred on southbound Interstate 5 around 3:30 p.m. about 50 feet north of the San Ysidro Port of Entry, the world's busiest border crossing, which links Tijuana, Mexico with San Diego.

The driver, who not immediately identified, was pronounced dead at the scene with multiple gunshot wounds, said Maurice Luque, a spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department.

Footage from TV news helicopters showed a black sport-utility vehicle in the middle of the road with a shattered driver's side window.

There were no immediate reports of any other injuries.

Details about what might have prompted the shooting were not immediately available.

The California Highway Patrol sealed off southbound access to the border and rush-hour traffic backed up for more than a mile.

Wait a minute--the guy was was heading towards Mexico before U.S. authorities shot him? I'm not sure I know what to say about this story, except that the details are so sketchy here. Was the guy in the black SUV armed, and did he fire on U.S. authorities? Or is it now the policy of U.S. border guards to shoot first at vehicles in the U.S. that are approaching the Mexican border, and then ask questions later?

Oh, and by the way--don't you feel safer now that President Bush wants to send 6,000 National Guard troops to watch the US-Mexican border?

BellSouth to USA Today: NSA story is bogus

This is off CNN.Com:

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- The company has already denied it. Now, BellSouth is demanding that the newspaper that accused it of providing private phone records to the National Security Agency retract its article.

The telecommunications giant sent a letter to USA Today on Thursday asking it to retract last week's story that BellSouth and two other companies helped the NSA compile a massive database of records on domestic phone calls.

BellSouth faxed the letter to the attention of Craig Moon, the newspaper's president and publisher, and its general counsel, said BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher. The letter calls for the paper to retract the "false and unsubstantiated statements the paper made regarding BellSouth."

USA Today has not yet responded to the letter. It said earlier this week it stands by its story, but that it would investigate the denials issued by BellSouth and Verizon.

AT&T, the third company named in the article, has not denied the story outright, but said it would not provide such information without legal authorization.

USA Today reported that the NSA doesn't record or listen to conversations. Rather, the article said, the agency uses the data -- including phone numbers, times and locations -- to look for patterns that might suggest terrorist activity.

The Bush administration has neither confirmed nor denied the existence of such a program.

My question to BellSouth is this: Why are you just now demanding a retraction of the USA Today story? In the original USA Today story, BellSouth--along with AT&T and Verizon--was asked to comment on their involvement in providing these private phone records to the NSA. Here is what the three telecom companies said in the original story:

AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."

In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."

Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."

The simple fact here is that all three of these telecom companies have gotten caught in bed with the NSA. The three telecom companies happily provided phone records to the NSA without asking for court orders. And what is more, the NSA was willing to pay the telecom companies for these phone records. Consider this in the original USA Today story:

The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.

The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.

With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.

The telecoms never expected their involvement to be publicly revealed, nor did they expect a major backlash by American consumers. All they saw were dollar signs of government contracts to pad their profit margins--money was more important to them than American citizens' basic rights.

So what has happened to cause BellSouth to go on the attack against USA Today? The answer is money. According to this CNN.Com story, Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth have been named in a class-action lawsuit, alleging the companies participated in an illegal NSA domestic spying program:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- BellSouth and AT&T were added to a class-action lawsuit against Verizon Communications that alleges the companies illegally participated in a National Security Agency domestic surveillance program.

The complaint, filed in Manhattan District Court, is asking that the companies pay $200 billion in fines to their 200 million subscribers.

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran said that since the lawsuit was filed Friday they have been overwhelmed with calls from people wanting to join the suit.

"They are violating federal law, which mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000 for every person whose records have been disclosed," Afran said, adding that many who have called his office are "outraged" by the government's and phone companies' actions.

This class-action lawsuit is a threat to the telecom profits--and BellSouth knows it. That is why they are trying to attack USA Today, and to force the retraction of the story. If they can force USA Today to retract the story, then BellSouth can claim they never violated any federal or privacy laws, and force this lawsuit to be dismissed.

One final little detail to this story. Both Verizon and BellSouth have now denied that they even gave the NSA customer phone records. AT&T has refused to comment on the story.

I am amazed at the hypocrisy of these three companies.

Michigan Farm Subject of Hoffa Search

Unidentified workers dig near a barn at a horse farm in Milford Township, Mich., where FBI agents investigating Jimmy Hoffa's 1975 disappearance were investigating for a second day Thursday, May 18, 2006. The Teamsters leader had vanished from a restaurant in Oakland County's Bloomfield Township, about 20 miles away. Asked if they were looking for Hoffa's remains, FBI Agent Dawn Clenney said, 'Could be,' and declined to comment further on the agents' presence. A law enforcement official in Washington said the search was based on information developed several years ago and verified more recently. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Well, this is interesting. From Yahoo News:

MILFORD TOWNSHIP, Mich. - In one of the most intensive searches for Jimmy Hoffa in decades, the FBI summoned archaeologists and anthropologists and brought in heavy equipment to scour a horse farm Thursday for the body of the former Teamsters boss who vanished in 1975.

Daniel Roberts, agent in charge of the Detroit FBI field office, would not disclose what led agents to the farm, but said: "This is probably a fairly credible lead. You can gather that from the number of people out here."

Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa is shown June 3, 1974 in Washington. The Teamsters leader was last seen in July 1975 at a restaurant in Oakland County's Bloomfield Township. (AP Photo)

No trace of Hoffa has ever been found, and no one has ever been charged in the case. But investigators have long suspected that he was killed by the mob to keep him from reclaiming the Teamsters presidency after he got out of prison for corruption.

The farm, just outside Detroit, used to be owned by a Teamsters official. And mob figures used to meet at a barn there before Hoffa's disappearance, authorities said.

Federal Bureau of Investigation evidence recovery team members and Michigan State University anthropologists and archaeologists search outside a horse farm in Milford Township, Mich., where federal agents are digging in search of the body of former Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa Thursday, May 18, 2006. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Investigators began combing the area Wednesday, and the search continued Thursday and included the use of heavy construction equipment. Roberts said it would probably involve the removal of a barn.

Authorities also led cadaver dogs across the property, and the FBI called in anthropologists and archaeologists from Michigan State University.

Roberts said he expects the search to go on for at least a couple of weeks.

After all this time, I wonder if the FBI is finally going to be able to find Jimmy Hoffa?

And I always thought he was buried under Giant's stadium.

Giuliani Headlines Ralph Reed Fundraiser

I have just one question to ask here--why is Rudy Giuliani kissing Ralph Reed's ass? And not only is Giuliani kissing Reed's ass, but he is also kissing up to the Religious Right Wing-nut's collective asses? This is from Yahoo News:

ATLANTA - Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor considered a potential 2008 candidate for president, headlined a fundraiser Thursday for former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed in his run for Georgia lieutenant governor.

The two politicians were effusive in their praise for one another as they entered the Atlanta fundraiser just before noon.

"I just want to say I believe Rudy Giuliani is one of the finest leaders in not only the Republican Party but in either party," Reed said.

Giuliani responded: "We're here to get you elected. It would be a great thing for Georgia."

You've got to love the Republican Party--they certainly know how to kiss ass to their extremists.

Dow Ends Down 77, Nasdaq Closes Down 15

Looks like we're having a bad week on the stock market. From Yahoo News:

NEW YORK - Wall Street extended its losses Thursday, a day after an inflation scare sent the Dow Jones industrial average on its biggest one-day drop in three years and put the Nasdaq composite index in the red for 2006.

Stocks drifted in a narrow range through most of the session but took a sharp turn lower in the last hour of trading, when a market already nervous about interest rates was unsettled by comments from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President William Poole. Poole, who is not a voting member of the Fed's policy-making Federal Open Market Committee, reiterated the central bank's assessment that future rate hikes will depend on how the economy fares.

Concerns that rising inflation would send rates higher propelled the stock market sharply lower Wednesday, carrying the Dow down 214 points in the process.

"This market is just scared right now," said Ryan Larson, an equity trader at Voyageur Asset Management. "People are taking money off the table and no bets are being made because no one knows what to do right now."

According to preliminary calculations, the Dow dropped 77.32, or 0.69 percent, to 11,128.29. On Wednesday, the Dow had its worst session since sinking 307 points on March 24, 2003.

Broader stock indicators also declined. The Standard & Poor's 500 index lost 8.51, or 0.67 percent, to 1,261.81, and the Nasdaq sank 15.48, or 0.7 percent, to 2,180.32.

The more I look at this, the more worried I am that we're heading towards a period of high inflation and a slowing US economy--stagflation!

So more fun on Hayden

This is just so funny. From CNN.Com:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's pick to head the CIA said Thursday that if the government's phone-tapping program were in place before 9/11, at least two hijackers would likely have been identified.

Gen. Michael Hayden told his Senate confirmation hearing that the controversial National Security Agency wiretapping program he helped institute would have caught two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego, California, before they carried out their mission.

"Had this been in place prior to the attacks, the two hijackers who were in San Diego, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, almost certainly would have been identified as who they were, what they were and, most importantly, where they were," Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I am so at a loss of words. I don't know how to respond to this blatant claim, that if we give up all our rights and freedoms, the government could have caught these two hijackers?

I hope you will enjoy living in Nazi America. Because that is both George Bush's and Michael Hayden's vision of America.

Bush Says Border Fencing Makes Sense

U.S. President George W. Bush (2nd R), Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (2nd L), receive a tour from Chief of Yuma Sector Ron Colburn (L) and Chief of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Border Patrol David Aguilar (R) as they tour the International Border with Mexico (fence) from the Yuma Sector Border on the United States side in San Luis, Arizona, May 18, 2006. REUTERS/Larry Downing

How about some Bush White House / immigration non-news? This is from Yahoo Non-News:

YUMA, Ariz. - President Bush said Thursday it makes sense to put up fencing along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border but not to block off the entire 2,000-mile length to keep out illegal immigrants.

During a visit to one of the busiest crossing sectors, Bush did not declare his support for either of two competing proposals in Congress — one approved by the House that would build 700 miles of fencing and one in the Senate that would build half that. Instead, he said the Border Patrol should guide the decisions.

"Right here we're at a place where we're using fencing," Bush told Fox News in an interview with a Border Patrol truck and fencing in the background.

"And it makes sense to use fencing here. It doesn't make sense to use fencing in other parts of the border. And the best people to help us design the program are those who are in charge of enforcing the border."

Earlier, Bush spokesman Tony Snow told reporters that the White House supported the Senate measure, which would build 370 miles of fence in areas "most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens" as determined by federal officials.

"We don't think you fence off the entire border," Snow said aboard Air Force One en route to the inspection visit. But, he added, "there are places when fences are appropriate."

Bush's visit to the border was designed to build support for the immigration plan he outlined Monday night in a nationally televised address. It came as he sent Congress a $1.9 billion request to pay for, among other things, temporary deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops to help increase security at the border.

So now we're suppose to build a 370-mile fence in areas that are most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens? Mr. President, did it ever occur to you that once you build this 370-mile boondoggle, the smugglers and illegal aliens will go to other parts of the US-Mexican border where the fence is not as secure? And please tell me Mr. President, what are you going to do about American businesses and big corporations that are happily hiring these illegal immigrants at below minimum wages? The Republican Party's "War on Immigration" is looking more like the Republican Party's War on Drugs--build more fences, hire more police, and try to stop the supply from coming across the border, while ignoring both the demand for drugs, and for cheap, immigrant labor that exists inside the United States. This policy hasn't stopped the War on Drugs, and certainly isn't going to stop the War on Immigration.

Hayden Insists NSA Surveillance Is Legal

President Bush's CIA nominee, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, listens to a question during his Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington Thursday, May 18, 2006. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Well, I can tell you that Hayden will be confirmed by a rubber-stamping Senate, along the usual party-line vote. Reading this Yahoo News story, shows that the Bush administration is using the same political strategy of having the nominee answer the question by not answering the question. It is even giving me a headache:

WASHINGTON - CIA nominee Gen. Michael Hayden insisted on Thursday that the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program was legal and that it was designed to ensnare terrorists--not spy on ordinary people.

"Clearly the privacy of American citizens is a concern constantly," the four-star Air Force general told the Senate Intelligence Committee at his confirmation hearing. "We always balance privacy and security."

This is just the start of the spinning, but it is the same type of spin from this Bush White House for the past five months. But it gets better. Because now Hayden is introducing a new term in this warrantless spying program--probable cause! This is fun:

Hayden said he decided to go ahead with the then-covert surveillance program, which has been confirmed by Bush, believing it to be legal and necessary.

"When I had to make this personal decision in October 2001 ... the math was pretty straightforward. I could not not do this," Hayden said.

He said the surveillance program used a "probable cause" standard that made it unlikely that information about average Americans would be scrutinized.

The domestic spying program used a "probable cause" standard that made it unlikely that information about average Americans would be scrutinized? I looked up the definition of probable cause in Wikipedia:

In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer may make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search or obtain a warrant. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -- 4th Amendment

So in order to search a person's property, papers, effects, law enforcement officials must obtain a warrant based on some type of evidence that a crime has been committed. They need to have something to give to a judge for a warrant, rather than just have a suspicion of a crime committed. However, I think the Bush administration is using an even looser definition of probable cause here. In the same Wikipedia article, I found this:

The most widely held common definition would be "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed" and that the person is linked to the crime with the same degree of certainty. An alternative definition has been proposed, "reason to believe that an injury had criminal cause", which is claimed to be more protective of individual rights as was intended by the authors of the Bill of Rights. See the critique below.

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)." "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is supported by other evidence.

In other words, the Bush administration is basing their warrantless domestic spying programs on their own definition of "probable cause," by saying it is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and that a person is linked to a crime. Therefore, that person can be spied upon using these NSA spying programs, without asking a judge for a search warrant. Finally, the Bush administration is claiming that the details of the NSA spying program are classified, so that the extent of the program is not revealed to the American public. We don't know how far this program goes, or how many people have been spied upon by this program, or even if this program is used for other results than fighting terrorism. Continuing with the Yahoo story:

But he [Hayden] declined to openly discuss reports that the NSA was engaged in even broader surveillance, including a story in USA Today that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone-call records of tens of millions of U.S. citizens.

Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, Hayden said he would only talk about the part of the program the president had confirmed.

"Is that the whole program?" asked Levin.

"I'm not at liberty to talk about that in open session," Hayden said. A closed-door session was planned for later in the day.

There is so many more end-run arounds in this first day of confirmation hearings, that you might as well watch it, sitting on your old "Sit-And-Spin" toy. Consider how Hayden responded to the inquiry that another military man would be heading up another spy agency, thus bringing together all of the nation's spy agencies under the Pentagon:

Some critics have suggested that Hayden, 61, who remains an active general, is too closely aligned with the Pentagon to objectively run the civilian CIA.

Asked whether he is considering retiring from the military to take the CIA post, Hayden, dressed in his Air Force uniform bearing a host of medals, told the panel: "The fact that I have to decide what tie to put on in the morning doesn't change who I am."

Or how about U.S. intelligence in Iran:

Asked about U.S. intelligence on Iran, Hayden said, "Iran is a difficult problem."

Or how about the perennial favorite--Iraqi WMDs:

He [Hayden] suggested U.S. intelligence-gathering on Iran's weapons program was more complex and detailed than that done on Iraq.

Hayden said questions raised included, "How are decisions made in that country? Who are making those decisions? What are their real objectives?

Hayden acknowledged a series of intelligence failures in the run-up to the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and promised to take steps to guard against a repeat of such errors.

"We just took too much for granted. We didn't challenge our basic assumptions," he told the Senate Intelligence Committee at his confirmation hearing.

Look at that sidestep! Intelligence gathering for Iranian WMDs are more complex than Iraqi WMDs, with Hayden answering senator's questions with his own questions, while promising the sun, moon, and sky, in future intelligence-gathering missions. Yes, we've made some mistakes, but we've corrected them. How? By raising new questions on how intelligence decisions are made.

And now I can't leave this posting without including this one final little Hayden remark:

Hayden declined to answer a string of questions by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., saying he would answer them later in a closed-door session.

They included whether he believed that "waterboarding," in which prisoners are strapped to a plank and dunked in water until nearly drowning, was an acceptable form of interrogation. He also declined to say publicly how long he believed the United States could hold terror suspects without a trial.

"He didn't answer any of them," Feinstein said into an open mike as the hearing recessed for lunch.

So now Hayden's a surfer dude! RIGHT ON!

Stocks Up Slightly Day After Sharp Selloff

Traders work the main floor of the New York Stock Exchange, May 18, 2006. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)

This is from Yahoo News:

NEW YORK - Wall Street rebounded slightly Thursday, a day after inflation jitters prompted a selloff that saw the Dow Jones industrial average suffer its biggest one-day loss in three years and the Nasdaq composite index turn negative for 2006.

Traders seemed to be grouping after Wednesday's session, which saw the Dow plunge 214 points. They had little reaction to an unexpected drop in the Conference Board's index of leading indicators, although the reading supported views that economic growth is moderating. An upswing in jobless claims also had a minimal impact on the market's mood.

The catalyst for the previous day's furious selling was a stronger-than-forecast jump in consumer prices that ignited concerns that the Federal Reserve might keep boosting interest rates.

"I think investors are trying to figure out how much damage the Fed may need to do to growth for inflation pressures to be arrested," said Stuart Schweitzer, global markets strategist for JPMorgan Asset Management. "It's possible that the Fed has already done enough, but it's looking increasingly unlikely."

I love how the MSM spins this story as a good news story for business after the Dow had a 214-point loss yesterday. Stocks have rebounded, so gee....Everything's back to hunky-dory now. Did it ever occur to any of these business reporters that stocks have rebounded after this sharp loss because bottom feeders are picking up undervalued stocks that investors impulsively sold off yesterday?

The problem here is that the mainstream press is either burying, or overlooking, some of the deeper, underlying issues of this economy. Inflation jitters is one of the biggest underlying issues here. High energy costs have caused the CPI to rise even higher than estimated:

The Labor Department said the consumer price index rose 0.6 percent in April, while the core index, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, rose 0.3 percent for a second consecutive month.

Wall Street economists had expected consumer prices to rise 0.5 percent last month, with core prices up just 0.2 percent.

Over the past 12 months, the core consumer price index has risen 2.3 percent, accelerating from the 2.1 percent gain registered in the period through March.

In the first four months of this year, core prices have risen at a swifter 3 percent annual rate, which could raise eyebrows at the Federal Reserve.

Headline inflation has moved up even quicker due to big gains in energy costs. Overall consumer prices have risen 3.5 percent in the past 12 months and are up at a 5.1 percent annual pace since the start of the year.

Energy prices climbed 3.9 percent in April, building on a 1.3 percent March gain. Gasoline prices rose 8.8 percent in April and fuel oil costs increased 5.2 percent. Natural gas prices, however, slid 5.2 percent.

The big jump in energy prices over the last year has largely eroded whatever pay gains U.S. workers have managed to win. Over the past year, inflation-adjusted hourly earnings are up just 0.1 percent -- the first gain since last June.

This jump in energy prices would have first been absorbed by producers on a temporary basis. But as energy prices have continued to remain high over the long term, the producers would have to pass on their costs to consumers in the form of higher prices. And these high energy prices are causing a shock throughout the U.S. economy--from the acquisition of raw materials, manufacturing of products, shipping and transportation, and thus down to the retail and consumer level.

What worries me here isn't the link between inflation and high energy prices, but rather it is a link that starts with the continuing U.S. quagmire in the Iraq war, causing fears of a disruption of Persian Gulf oil supplies in a tightening oil market to result in high energy prices, which has forced prices, and possibly inflation, to increase in the U.S. economy. There is a secondary link between the Bush administration's tax cuts, and the increased government spending in the Iraq war. Looking at these current events, I'm still reminded of Lyndon Johnson's administration funding both their Great Society programs the U.S. war in Vietnam, by printing out dollar bills, rather than raising taxes. The same thing is happening here with the Bush administration--only this time the Bush administration is funding their tax cuts for corporations and rich elites, while also fighting their war in Iraq, by printing out dollar bills. We've been down this road before in the 1970s. And we seem to be heading down that same road again.

Is Al Gore Running for President Again?

Former Vice-President Al Gore is shown in a scene of 'An Inconvenient Truth' in this undated studio handout photo. (CP PHOTO/HO, Paramount Classics - Eric Lee)

Looks like we've got another speculation story on Al Gore running for president. This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Al Gore is running to California, New York, Utah, Washington, France and points in between to promote "An Inconvenient Truth," a film chronicling his elaborate slide shows to educate people about global warming.

But is the former vice president running for president again?

The answer, he says, is no. Some Democrats are not so sure.

"I'm a recovering politician on about Step 9," Gore told The Associated Press. "But I'm on a different kind of campaign now — to persuade people to take action to solve the climate crisis, and it's always easier when you're focused on one thing."

While Al Gore may say he's not running for president, the truth is that he is the strongest Democratic contendor to the White House, at this time. Hillary Clinton is still too controversial for the Republicans to swallow. Russ Feingold is too much of an unknown in Middle America. John Edwards has been out of politics, and out of the media spotlight. Joe Lieberman has aligned himself too closely to Bush.

But Al Gore is still strong. He has been in the media spotlight--especially with his speeches criticizing the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq. He is now in the media, promoting his film on global warming. And he has generated a lot of buzz in the liberal and progressive blogs. With President Bush's approval numbers falling to 29 percent, and the country on the verge of a Bush scandal, war, and cronyism fatigue, Al Gore is in a sweet position to take the 2008 presidency--if he wants it. Continuing on:

For most of his adult life, Gore was focused on the presidency. He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in 1988 and served as vice president under President Clinton from 1993-2001. He narrowly lost the 2000 presidential campaign to George W. Bush, despite collecting more popular votes than the Texas Republican.

He's a richer man for his loss--literally. Gore is a senior adviser to Google Inc., a member of the Apple Computer Inc., board and co-founder and chairman of an investment firm.

Gore is a longtime opponent of the Iraq war, which makes him a favorite of liberal Internet-savvy Democrats who dominate the party's emerging "netroots." And with his advocacy of climate change awareness, Gore is the leading voice on an issue that Republicans and Democrats alike say is gaining prominence among voters.

It's an issue that inspires passion in Gore, something his fellow Democrats say he lacked in 2000.

"If he's the guy we see today, I think he'd be formidable," said Joe Trippi, a Democratic consultant who helped run Howard Dean's Internet-fueled presidential campaign in 2004.

"I think the real danger is if he were to run as an independent. If he did that, he would wreak havoc on the race in 2008," Trippi said. "He could say, 'I've been out of the system and we have to do it in a different way. I want to lead the way.'"

Kathleen Sullivan, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said Gore looks better each day Bush is president.

"For some people, it took six years of George Bush to wake up and realize that Al Gore was the real deal," Sullivan said.

We will have to see what happens in 2008.

Cell-Phone-Only Crowd May Alter Polling

Graphic shows the percentage of U.S. households with only a wireless phone. (AP Graphic)

I've seen this, but I haven't had the chance to comment on it yet. This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Justin Globus is part of a fast-growing group-- approaching one in 10 Americans-- who have given up traditional telephones and depend only on their cell phones. That trend is making pollsters uneasy.

For Globus, a 25-year-old salesman from New York, "It was a fiscal decision--— a matter of chopping down to one bill."

But the rapid growth of the cell-only crowd isn't so simple for pollsters. Their survey research depends on contacting random samples of households with landline phones. They worry that if the trend continues they could miss a significant number of people and that could undermine their ability to accurately measure public opinion. There could be implications for politics, government policy, academia, business and journalism.

This is an interesting problem here. Cell phone use has certainly been growing rapidly in the United States--especially now that you have a convergence of cell phones, MP3 music players, Blackberries, GPS, PDAs, email, text messaging, and even internet web surfing from the comfort of your own phone. With all of these options that you can add to your cell phone--and don't forget the convenience and portability of taking your cell phone with you anywhere you go--is it no wonder that the land line is slowly disappearing? In fact, the land line is even changing its role in American communications. Instead of being used as a phone, the land line is actually adapting its role as a communications portal for computers to be connected to the internet either through a modem, or through a high speed connection such as DSL. This change in technology is certainly going to cause a problem for the pollsters. Since pollsters are currently using the land lines to gather their samples, their sample sets could be skewered towards individuals who continue to use land lines, while not accurately reflecting the views of those individuals who have switched over to cell phones. Thus, the conclusions would also be skewered, and would not accurately reflect the political views of this country. This could be a big problem over time, since it is the younger generation of Americans who are embracing the cell phone technology, and the political views of younger Americans would probably be more liberal than their older counterparts. Continuing on:

So far, the differences aren't so great and the cell-only group isn't large enough to affect survey accuracy, according to an AP-AOL-Pew study, one of the most extensive news surveys of cell phone users yet.

Currently, 7.8 percent of adults live in households that have only a cell phone, according to research released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. And that group is growing at about 1 percentage point every six months.

Those who only have cell phones are significantly different in many ways--— typically younger, less affluent, more likely to be single, and more liberal on many political issues-- from those who can be reached by landline, an AP-AOL-Pew survey finds.

For example, 51 percent of the cell-phone-only group believes gay marriage should be allowed, while 37 percent of a standard polling sample felt that way. And 53 percent of the cell phone only sample said they would vote for the Democratic Party's candidate, while 47 percent of a standard sample said they would vote Democratic, the poll found. Those differences virtually disappeared once the cell-phone-only sample was blended into the total.

About a fourth of the people who use landlines say they are at least somewhat likely to give up their landline and switch to cell phone only, the poll found.

"If it wasn't for our computer, I would have done it already," said 39-year-old Kathy Sharkey of Troy, Texas, married and the mother of three. "I rarely use my home phone. Since I use my cell phone anyway, why pay the extra money?"

Landline surveys may minimize the effect of missing cell-only people like Globus through industry-standard statistical adjustments. Results from a random sample typically are weighted to known demographic parameters of the population, like age, race and sex data collected by the Census Bureau. Since younger people are harder to reach in landline phone surveys, responses from that age group tend to get weighted up.

Blending the opinions of cell-only respondents into a poll of all adults changed the findings on various political questions in the AP-AOL-Pew survey by 1 percentage point at the most.

"Today we're doing pretty well in dealing with the cell phone issue," said Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "The problem is that the number is growing and at a pretty substantial clip."

The AP-AOL-Pew poll of 1,503 adults included 1,286 cell phone users and was conducted March 8-28. Half the interviews, 752, were conducted by landlines and 751 by dialing cell phones — including 200 adults who had only cell phones.

There certainly are ways to address this issue of cell phones in polling. The simplest way is to conduct more phone interviews to cell phones, rather than land lines. Of course, conducting too many interviews to cell phones could also skewer the sample set, and conclusions, towards the more younger and liberal cell phone users over that of the land line users. The pollsters will need to be more careful in generating a sample set that balances out the number of land line users, verses the number of cell phone users. The pollsters will need to create new accurate, demographic data sets that will show not just how many Americans are switching over from land lines to cell phones, but also age, income, sex, geographical, and whatever other criteria they will need to create their samples.

And for the record, I do have a land line which I use simply as a DSL Internet connection. If I need to call someone, I will use my cell phone.

Memorandum To Tony Snow On The Use Of The Term ‘Tar Baby’

This is off Think Progress. Apparently, the new White House press secretary Tony Snow had made two references to the racial slur "tar baby" in his first press conference:

SNOW: Having said that, I don'’t want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program, the alleged program, the existence of which I can neither confirm nor deny.

QUESTION: What are your personal goals? What do you hope to achieve here? Will you continue to televise these briefings? And would you put into English the phrase (OFF-MIKE) the tarbaby?

SNOW: Well, I believe hug the tarbaby, we could trace that back to American lore.

Crooks and Liars has the video link here.

Good Lord--what a racist slur! "Tar Baby" came from a series of Uncle Remus stories that were based on the African-American folklore in the South. According to Wikipedia:

The tar baby was a trap -- a human figure made of tar -- used to capture Br'er Rabbit in a story which is part of American plantation folklore. Br'er Fox played on Br'er Rabbit's vanity and gullibility to goad him into attacking the fake and becoming stuck. A similar tale from African folklore in Ghana has the trickster Anansi in the role of Br'er Rabbit.

In Southern black speech in the 19th century, the word "baby" referred to both a baby and a child's "doll." Thus, the expression "tar baby" meant a tar doll or tar mannequin.

The story was originally published in Harper's Weekly by Robert Roosevelt of Sayville, New York.

Years later Joel Chandler Harris wrote of the tar baby in his Uncle Remus stories.

The problem here isn't that the stories themselves are racist due to their referencing the African-American folklore here. The problem is that when the folklore was adapted into the Uncle Remus stories, they were told in the Deep South dialect of African-American slaves. According to Wikipedia:

The stories are told in Harris' version of a Deep South slave dialect. The genre of stories are the trickster tale, which has roots in West Africa. The term "uncle" was a patronizing, familiar and often racist title reserved by whites for elderly black men in the South, which is considered pejorative and offensive. At the time of Harris' publication, his work was praised for its ability to capture plantation negro dialect.

The stories were the subject of a Walt Disney movie in 1946, Song of the South (now uncirculated and little known in the US).

The animal stories are not overtly racist and had considerable popular appeal, but by the Civil Rights era of the 1960s the dialect and the "old Uncle" stereotype of the narrator, long considered demeaning by many blacks, as well as Harris' racist and patronizing attitudes toward blacks and his defense of slavery in his foreword, made the book indefensible. Without much controversy the book and movie simply disappeared from American popular culture. Few children born after 1970 have heard of them.

And the new White House press secretary Tony Snow picked up on this racist dialect, and used it in his first press conference.

Incredible.

Rove: People Like Bush, but Not Iraq War

Talk about the White House spin machine. This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Presidential adviser Karl Rove blamed the war in
Iraq on Monday for dragging down President Bush's job approval ratings in public opinion polls. "People like this president," Rove said. "They're just sour right now on the war."

Rove said that Bush's likeability ratings are far higher than his approval ratings. "There is a disconnect" because of the Iraq conflict, Rove told the American Enterprise Institute.

"I think the war looms over everything. There's no doubt about it," Rove said during a question-and-answer session after a speech on the economy at the conservative think tank.

Presidential Adviser Karl Rove speaks at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington Monday, May 15, 2006. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

People like this president, but they don't like the war? A disconnect because of the Iraq conflict? It is more than just the Iraq conflict--it is the arrogance of this Bush White House that has disconnected itself from the American people. This is an administration that believes itself to be above the law. This is an administration that believes the interests of corporations and rich elites take precedent over that of the American people. This is an administration that believes in extreme nationalism and imperialism regarding foreign affairs, rather than internationalism and coalition-building. This is an administration that believes in destroying both The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, believes in destroying the system of checks and balances for that of a totalitarian dictatorship. This is an administration that believes in the government's ignoring of the poor, the helpless, the displaced, and the distressed, while using that same government to further their own cronyism. People no longer like President Bush because he has taken the basic principles of government serving for the interests of its people, and twisted it into a government that serves the interests of those who govern at the expense of its people. The more that President Bush panders towards this extremist views, the greater his poll ratings are going to suffer.

Some comments on yesterday's stories....

I was a little busy setting up a big birthday party from my four-year-old niece, so I wasn't able to get on the blog to check out the stories. And there were some big ones here. So I'm going to make some generalized comments on some of yesterday's stories here.

The first one I want to talk about is from the ABC News blog, titled Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling. It is essentially a major news story where the government is keeping track of phone numbers and records of calls of major news reporters and organizations. The government is keeping track of phone records of reporters working at ABC News, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, as a means to track down government leaks in the Valerie Plame scandal, the secret NSA wiretapping of domestic Americans, the secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, and even the recent USA Today story of the NSA getting phone records from the telecom companies.

The logo of the National Security Agency hangs at the Threat Operations Center at Fort Meade, Maryland, (AFP/File/Paul J. Richards).

The Bush administration is spying on mainstream press. I can't even comprehend the social and political damage this country will face as a result of this action. We no longer have any sort of watchdog against an abusive government here. American citizens will no longer have a means to determine if government is accountable to its people, rather than unto itself. That is the importance of a free press--to expose these excesses of government to the American people, to reveal the secret CIA prisons, the illegal domestic spying programs, and the use of torture on prisoners. Without a free press to watch over the government, American citizens will be forced to view state-sponsored news and government propaganda--does anyone still remember the old Soviet propaganda machine, and the ridiculous lies they repeatedly told to the Soviet people?

But that is not the worst of that story. The comments are even more frightening. Consider some of these comments from the posting of this article--spelling mistakes are by the authors of these comments:

Good! I hope they do find out who is leaking national security info to the press. I'm tired of the press helping our enemies. Maybe you guys should start trying to "FOR the USA" instead of "AGAINST the USA" ALL THE TIME. I hope the FBI nails lots of idiots who are out to destroy the intelligence agencies and cost us more soldiers and spys!

"'Bout time you guys are roped in."

"Excellent the Media needs looking after, Traitors most of them......."

"good, you seditionist creeps deserve what you get. who knows how many serviceman have died because of your 'right to know'"

"I hope the information they gain allows them to catch the scum that leak information, and helps them arrest the communist scum who publish it."

"well maybe ABC news better stop leaking classified information. This only helps our enemies and right now I believe ABC news is an enemy of the US."

"I am a journalism graduate, UNC-Chapel Hill. I am also a veteran.
I hope they catch every government leaker of classified secret information and put them in prison for life. And any reporter publishing known classified secret information should be shot. It is called treason, not first amendment rights."

"I think that this is very good news. Something has to be done to investigate the main-stream media as the MSM has obviously declared war against the President in regards to the war on terror and and the liberation of Iraq. It is outrageous how they are working to leak classified information and to undermine our security at every turn with their reporting. It is also outrageous how they fabricate stories against the President or in a timely fashion recycle old stories as if they were new. I personally no longer trust the MSM at all and feel extremely threatened by their agenda."

"I am tired of thae news media leaking secret information in order to hurt PREDIDENT BUSH. I would prosucute the news media leakers for treason like LINCOLN did. We are at WAR with a enemy who whants to take over the world by force or kill all of us."

"You commit treason and expose classified national securtiy information - the goverment is going to come after you - as they should."

These were just some of the comments supporting this spying program and the Bush administration. Reading them is especially chilling--these people are so willing to give up their rights and freedoms for "security?" It is incredible.

There were certainly a large number of comments that criticized the Bush administration and this program of government spying on journalists. But I found one comment that I think really sums up this entire story:

"We used to make fun of the Soviets for this sort of thing. Now, it's us."

The second big story that occurred yesterday was President Bush's speech on illegal immigration. No big surprise there. I will say that Bush gave a number as to how many National Guard troops should watch the border--Bush will deploy 6,000 National Guard troops. These troops will be armed. In his prime time address, President Bush said, "[W]e do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that."

US President George W Bush sits in the Oval Office of the White House after addressing the nation on television in Washington, DC. Bush ordered up to 6,000 National Guard soldiers to reinforce the border with Mexico against illegal immigrants.(AFP/Brendan Smialowski)

Unfortunately, President Bush will fail on the immigration issue. Sending 6,000 armed National Guard troops will not control the border. President Bush is executing a simplified political solution to solve a complex policy issue--again, politics over policy. I've already written extensively on this issue of deploying National Guard troops to the Mexican border on a May 13th 2005 posting here.

The real reason for this televised Oval Office address was to show the Republican base that President Bush is a strong leader, and that he is solving this immigration debate. The reason the immigration issue has come to the forefront is because of the strong protests by Hispanic Americans for immigration reform over this past month. This issue of illegal immigration has been going on for the past 25 years--perhaps even longer. Does anyone remember the Charles Bronson movie Borderline? It was a cheesy action movie, where Chuck Bronson plays a border patrol agent who takes down a sophisticated illegal alien smuggling ring. Borderline came out in 1980. Two years later, Jack Nicholson plays an El Paso border agent who accepts payoffs to allow illegal immigrants to enter the country in the film The Border. I know it is silly to list these two movies as examples of the longevity issue of illegal immigration into the United States, but Hollywood has a way of capturing the imagination of the American public, when that public is confronted with new issues, ideas, or events. The issue of illegal immigration existed back in 1980--just as it exists today. And yet, with the president dropping to 29 percent approval ratings, we get this cheap political solution as a means to pander to the Republican base, and hopefully maintain Republican Party control of Congress, over that of any real policy reform.

Politics before policy.

Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S. Border

I don't like this. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Once again the Bush administration is turning to the military to help solve a domestic problem. But instead of hurricane aid or preparations to cope with avian flu, the Pentagon is being asked to possibly provide thousands of National Guard troops to shore up the U.S. border with Mexico, as part of President Bush's effort to gather support for an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.

According to senior administration officials, Bush is considering plans to use federal funds to pay for National Guard troops deployed along the southern border.

One defense official said military leaders believe the number of troops required could range from 3,500 to perhaps 10,000, depending on the final plan. Another administration official cautioned that the 10,000 figure was too high.

The officials insisted on anonymity since no decision has been announced.

The president was expected to reveal his plans in an address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. It will be the first time he has used the Oval Office for a domestic policy speech--a gesture intended to underscore the importance he places on the divisive immigration issue.

The key questions Friday were exactly how many National Guard troops might be deployed, for how long and at what cost to federal taxpayers--as well as the problem of possible disruption of upcoming deployments to
Iraq and elsewhere overseas.

This is frickin' insane! So what are those guard troops going to do when they see the illegals crossing the border--shoot them?

National Guard troops were created for basically two reasons. First, they serve as an emergency backup force in case the country is under an attack. The National Guard is basically the equivalent of the old state militias. So when the country needs an emergency reserve of forces during times of war, the National Guard is ready to fill in that need. They are reserve forces trained to fight in a war.

But the National Guard also performs a secondary duty as well. As a state militia, they can also be called up by the governor of the state to perform various duties when the state is faced with an emergency or crisis. So when a state experiences an emergency, such as a national disaster, or civil insurrection, the state can call up National Guard forces to perform whatever labor tasks are needed to cope with this disaster. So when hurricanes strike the Gulf Coast states, the National Guard troops are usually the first on the scene to provide search and rescue, relief work, law enforcement, and transportation of emergency supplies into the region.

The problem here is that I don't see the National Guard as being equipped or trained to do border control. These troops were never trained to perform immigration or border control tasks--they were trained to fight a war, or perform emergency services. I certainly don't see illegal immigrants crossing the border as a part of a larger "war on immigration," nor do I see deploying these troops in response to an emergency crisis. We've had this border control problem with Mexico for decades, and only now is the president calling this issue an emergency? The second problem I have is that our National Guard forces have also been stretched thin with deployments of Guard troops into Iraq and Afghanistan. And now we're told that we may have to deploy 10,000 Guard forces to the Mexican border? How about taking the money we're going to spend having these Guard troops sitting on the border, and instead spend it hiring and training new border control agents? Third, I don't like the idea of militarizing our southern border with Mexico--feels too "Stalinistic" for a country that likes to present itself as a beacon of liberty and freedom. Having U.S. National Guard troops guarding the Mexican border reminds me of the East German army guarding their border along West Germany and Berlin--so when are we going to start placing guard towers with machine guns, mines, and barbed wire along the border? Fourth, you start placing 10,000 National Guard forces on the border with Mexico, how do you think Mexico is going to respond? Do you think Mexico is going to start bringing their military forces up to the border to watch our military forces?

There is a way to solve this problem with illegal immigration, but it requires a multi-policy approach to the issue. To solve this immigration problem requires both reducing the demand for cheap, illegal immigration labor by American companies, and stopping the supply of illegal immigrants by controlling the borders. To reduce the demand for cheap, illegal immigration labor requires the federal government to crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants in industries such as agriculture, construction, food processing, retail, and hospitality. It requires the federal government to pass both strong immigration labor laws, with strong penalties, and to enforce those immigration laws against companies that violate them. The Bush administration refuses to undertake any task that will reduce the demand for illegal immigration, or harm corporate and business interests. The second approach is certainly to control the border, of which the Bush administration enthusiastically supports. However to control the border, the U.S. needs to take a long term approach in funding and expanding its border control office. The U.S. needs to hire and train more border control agents. What we're getting from the Bush administration is this "feel good" dirty fix of placing military forces on the border. This will not solve the border control problem. Finally, the federal government needs to develop a comprehensive program of amnesty and citizenship for those long-term illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. The immigrants who have resided here in the U.S. for years, have pretty much assimilated themselves into American society. We need to complete the assimilation by developing a program to convert their illegal status to a legal status of residency. This will both allow them to become responsible members of society, and it may help reduce the demand of cheap illegal immigrant labor that American companies would love to exploit.

One final thought on this militarization of the border. Not only is the Bush administration's lame idea of deploying military forces on the US-Mexican border both a "feel good" and quick-and-dirty fix to a complex immigration problem, but it is also a political solution to a policy problem. By deploying National Guard troops on the Mexican border, Bush can then go to his neoconservatives and hard-lined Republicans to claim he's doing something to stop both the flow of illegal immigration into this country, but also to stop the influx of Hispanic and Mexican culture into American cultural society. I mean--we don't want no stinkin' multiculturalism, or illegal Mexicans to degrade the good values of our White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, American culture. Why, The Star Spangled Banner should be sung in English--NOT Spanish! I know this is a racist message, but it is a racist message that appeals to the neo-Nazis, Klu Klux Klan, and other right wing-nut wacko extremists that exist on the extremist wing of the Republican Party. And it is pretty much these extremists that are joining The Minutemen, who are taking up their own vigilante border control positions. These are the folks that will listen to and support Bush's extremist political policy. And if President Bush can get these Guard troops down to the border, he can use this as an election year issue to try to rally the hard-liners to vote Republican during the midterm elections, and to prop up his own falling poll ratings. So this proposal is really designed to address a political issue--not the issue of immigration--during an election year.

Once again, the Bush administration places politics before policy.

Thousands Flee Rumbling Indonesia Volcano

Molten lava slides down the side of Indonesia's Mount Merapi. The alert status of the volcano has been upgraded to its highest level, an official said, meaning some 34,000 people living in its danger zone face mandatory evacuation.(AFP/Bay Ismoyo)

This is incredible. From Yahoo News:

YOGYAKARTA, Indonesia - Indonesia ordered the immediate evacuation Saturday of thousands of people from the slopes of Mount Merapi volcano, warning of an imminent eruption as the mountain oozed fiery lava and belched clouds of black ash.

Hundreds of women, children and elderly were taken in buses and trucks to relocation centers set up at local schools and government buildings.

Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla, right, talks with refugees at an evacuation place at Purwobinangun Pakem village in Yogyakarta, central Java, Thursday, May 11, 2006. Although the level of volcanic activity measured by scientists has remained at level 3, the second highest level, the volcano has been spewing huge clouds of gasses and ash, and a giant lava dome has formed on the southern side of the crater. (AP Photo)


Authorities put the region on highest alert after they observed two days of steady lava flow from the 9,700-foot peak on the island of Java.

"Because there have been constant lava flows that cause hot gases, we have raised the status to the highest level," said Bambang Dwiyanto, head of the region's volcanology center.

Many people had been evacuated from homes closest to the crater prior to Saturday, but thousands who live further down the fertile slopes refused to leave behind precious livestock and crops. Officials have said as many as 7,000 people still needed to go.

Refugees from near the Mount Merapi sleep in the local government office in Kemalang village about 10 kilometers (6 miles) from Merapi early Saturday, May 6, 2006 in Central Java, Indonesia. Red-hot lava has been intermittently flowing from the rumbling volcano since Thursday and continues to be classified as phase three, the second highest level of volcanic activity. (AP Photo/Bayu Pamungkas)

On Saturday, experts recorded 27 volcanic tremors as burning lava oozed from the crater and reached nearly a mile down its slopes, said Dr. Ratdomo Purbo, who heads an observation post at Merapi. He said the mountain, about 250 miles southeast of Indonesia's capital, Jakarta, had spewed hot ash clouds at least 14 times on Saturday.

Lava is spilling from Mount Merapi in this photo taken from Bebeng villages in Yogyakarta, central java, Indonesia, Saturday, May 13 2006. Indonesia on Saturday raised the alert at the Merapi volcano to the highest level, meaning an eruption may be imminent, an official said. (AP Photo/ Purwowiyoto)

I don't think I've ever seen a volcanic eruption where actual lava was spilling out from a perfectly-shaped cone. Incredible.

Three Challenge Harris in Fla. Primary

President Bush, right, talks with Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla., left, as Rep. Adam H. Putman, R-Fla., looks on during his arrival at MacDill Air Force Base, Tuesday, May 9, 2006 in Tampa, Fla. Bush's Florida travels put him smack in the middle of a political brouhaha involving his brother and the woman who helped the president win the White House. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Monday that Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla., can't win her campaign to unseat Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Now this is interesting. From Yahoo News:

TAMPA, Fla. - Three relatively unknown candidates qualified Friday to challenge U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris (news, bio, voting record) in the race to win Florida Republicans' nomination for U.S. Senate.

Gov. Jeb Bush and other Republican leaders have been looking for someone to take on Harris because she trails incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record) by about 30 percentage points in public opinion polls. Bush said earlier this week that he didn't believe Harris could beat Nelson.

So the Bushies believe that Katherine Harris can't beat Bill Nelson for the Florida Senate seat. At first, the Republicans were trying to enlist Florida's House Speaker Allan Bense to run against Harris, however Bense refused. In fact, Governor Jeb Bush pleaded with Bense to run for the nomination.

So what do we get now? How about three unknown candidates running against Harris:

The new candidates are LeRoy Collins Jr., son of former Florida Gov. LeRoy Collins; Peter Monroe, a Pinellas County developer; and Windermere businessman William McBride.

Calls to the new candidates were not immediately returned Friday.

Harris would have preferred to have an uncontested primary but is confident she can win, campaign spokesman Chris Ingram said.

Now this is going to get interesting.

CIA Official's Home, Office Searched

This doesn't look good for Dusty Foggo. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Law enforcement officials executed search warrants Friday on the house and office of the CIA's outgoing executive director, theFBI said.

The agency's third ranking official, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, has been under investigation by the FBI, IRS, Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the CIA's inspector general, said FBI spokeswoman April Langwell in San Diego.

Under a sealed warrant, officials searched Foggo's Virginia home and his office at the CIA's Langley, Va., campus, Langwell said. She could provide no other details.

The FBI and other agencies have been investigating whether Foggo improperly intervened in the award of contracts to a San Diego businessman and personal friend, Brent Wilkes, who has been implicated in a congressional bribery scandal.

In a statement, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck also confirmed the searches of his home and office on Friday morning.

"The agency is cooperating fully with the Department of Justice and the FBI," she said. "Agency leaders outside of the (inspector general's office) were informed just prior to the execution of the search warrants, in keeping with standard law enforcement procedures."

I'm not sure what the FBI is going to find, but the fact that they are searching Foggo's home and office is not good. This is going beyond the Duke Cunningham scandal of bribery for congressional favors. This is even going beyond the HookerGate scandal, of congressmen and government officials playing poker and cavorting with hookers in the Watergate Hotel. This has become another example of the "culture of corruption" within this Republican Party-controlled government, where legislative and government favors, business deals, and no-bid contracts are traded in such cavalier fashion. It is incredible.

And now it is imploding upon themselves. I wonder what the FBI is going to find in their search?