Donle’s Daily Dispatches

Volume 1 Issue 142             Today’s News and Views         Friday, May 19, 2006

Donle's Daily Dispatches RSS News Feeds

Latest news and opinion headlines from NPR, BBC, NY Times, etc.

See the cost in your community

Update of US Casualties in Iraq: 2454

Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 295

Figures provided by the Iraq Coalition Causality website

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Today's News and Views

Meltdown fear as Arctic ice cover falls to record winter low

David Adam, environment correspondent
Monday May 15, 2006

Guardian

Record amounts of the Arctic ocean failed to freeze during the recent winter, new figures show, spelling disaster for wildlife and strengthening concerns that the region is locked into a destructive cycle of irreversible climate change.

Satellite measurements show the area covered by Arctic winter sea ice reached an all-time low in March, down some 300,000 square kilometres on last year -an area bigger than the UK.

Scientists say the decline highlights an alarming new trend, with recovery of the ice in winter no longer sufficient to compensate for increased melting in the summer. If the cycle continues, the Arctic ocean could lose all of its ice much earlier than expected, possibly by 2030.

Walt Meier, a researcher at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, which collected the figures, said: "It's a pretty stark drop. In the winter the ice tends to be pretty stable, so the last three years, with this steady decline, really stick out."

Experts are worried because a long-term slow decline of ice around the north pole seems to have sharply accelerated since 2003, raising fears that the region may have passed one of the "tipping points" in global warming. In this scenario, warmer weather melts ice and drives temperatures higher because the dark water beneath absorbs more of the sun's radiation. This could make global warming quickly run out of control.

Dr Meier said there was "a good chance" the Arctic tipping point has been reached. "People have tried to think of ways we could get back to where we were. We keep going further and further into the hole, and it's getting harder and harder to get out of it."

The Arctic is rapidly becoming the clearest demonstration of the effects of mankind's impact on the global climate. The temperature is rising twice as fast as the rest of the planet and the region is expected to warm by a further 4C-7C by 2100. The summer and winter ice levels are the lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and almost certainly the lowest since local people began keeping records around 1900. The pace of decline since 2003, if continued, would see the Arctic totally ice-free in summer within 30 years - though few scientists would stake their reputations on a long-term trend drawn from only three years.

Experts at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California think the situation could be even worse. They are about to publish the results of computer simulations that show the current rate of melting, combined with increased access for warmer Pacific water, could make the summertime Arctic ice-free within a decade. Dr Meier said: "For 800,000 to a million years, at least some of the Arctic has been covered by ice throughout the year. That's an indication that, if we are heading for an ice-free Arctic, it's a really dramatic change and something that is unprecedented almost within the entire record of human species."

The winter ice has declined all around the region - bad news for polar bears, which spend summer on land before returning to the ice in spring to catch food.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Religious right Republicans attack Laura Bush, call her "tragic"
by John in DC - 5/17/2006 06:16:00 PM

Picking on the first lady because she doesn't think bashing gays should be an issue Republicans exploit in the fall elections. This should be interesting. And from the American Family Association, no less.

Then again, it has to suck for the American Family Association to finally see all of Mary Cheney's inside influence coming home to roost. You don't invite an avowed lesbian activist, which Mary very much was once upon a time (she wasn't just the gay liaision for Coors, she was also on the board of a gay-straight activist group), into the inner most circles of Republican power and NOT expect her openly-gay presence and rather strong-willed views to influence those around her.

Pick up Mary's book, folks (but please don't buy it, it's really not worth it, just browse at a bookstore). In the book Mary makes clear that lots and lots and LOTS of Republican aides came into her office, closed the door, and told her how awful they thought this anti-gay constitutional amendment was. Mary was their friend, and they didn't want to do ANYTHING to hurt their friend. Does anyone in the religious right REALLY think ANY of those staffers are pulling the extra hours to help make gay-bashing a high priority in the Mary Cheney White House? I don't think so.

And you just saw Mary's influence on Laura Bush. Does anyone really believe that it's a coincidence that Laura Bush is speaking out rather unfavorably on the religious right gay-bashing agenda the same week that Mary Cheney's "I'm a lesbian and dad thinks it's okay" book comes out? Please.

The lesson here for Republicans and corporate America is that whether you're a big American company (Ford) or the president of the United States (Bush), if you get in bed with these people they WILL burn you. They know no loyalty, no limits, and have no sense of politics other than threatening to destroy you unless you agree with 110% of their agenda. To hell with gas prices going through roof, seniors getting threatened with Medicare cut-offs, the war in Iraq getting worse every day. The religious right Republicans will demand that you focus on THEIR extreme fringe agenda, even if it shoots you in the foot, or you're dead.

You created Frankenbigot, my Republican friends, now you get to live with it.

Copyright 2005 - John Aravosis

Mo. Town Denies Unmarried Couple Permit

Wed May 17, 11:34 AM ET

The city council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's planning and zoning commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the city council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc

Robertson has come under intense criticism in recent months for suggesting that U.S. agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press.

© 2006, WFTV.

TAPPED

WHY DID VERIZON AND BELLSOUTH ISSUE DENIALS AFTER THE STORY BROKE? Here's another thing about the denials that doesn't quite add up. As we've seen, both Verizon and Bellsouth have more or less denied the USA Today story saying that the NSA has been secretly collecting their phone records. USA Today appears to be sticking to the story, though the paper's statement seems to carefully avoid a total commitment to it, instead saying that the paper's "confident" in its reporting.

But something doesn't quite make sense. Why are Verizon and Bellsouth only denying these allegations after the story broke? The USA Today reporters who did the initial story contacted the companies before publishing it. We know this because it contains statements from both companies, each of which declined to comment.

So why didn't the companies deny the story then? I can already hear your answer: "classification" issues. Classification issues do come into play -- though not how you'd expect. And they don't account for this initial failure to deny the story.

Take a close look at the post-story denials. Verizon said that since "the NSA program" is "highly-classified," the company "cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to it." But it also says the assertion that Verizon "entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data" is "false." Those seem to contradict each other, don't they?

Either Verizon has some sort of arrangement with the NSA or it doesn't. Did the company get approached by the NSA and decide not to participate, but wanted to keep what they'd learned secret? They seem to say they weren't approached. The statement says "Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide" the records from "any" of its businesses. So if Verizon doesn't have any relationship to the NSA or the program, there would have been nothing about itself that it would need to keep classified. They would have been perfectly free to deny the story before publication. They could have said, "Verizon has no relationship to such a program, should one exist." But they didn't. Why? More to the point, why isn't Verizon now perfectly free to fully deny its own non-relationship to the program, rather than refuse to confirm or deny any relationship, as it has done?

Verizon has done neither of these. From that I think we can infer that the company does have some sort of relationship to the program. What about Bellsouth?

The Bellsouth post-story denials are a bit more troubling for defenders of the NSA/phone records story. Its company spokesman said, "From the review we conducted, we cannot establish any link between BellSouth and the NSA." He also said, "We are not providing any information to the NSA, period." That's a flat statement that there's no relationship whatsoever. So again, there was nothing about itself to keep classified. So why didn't the company deny it initially?

One possibility: Buried in the USA Today story about Bellsouth's denial is this: "The night before the story was published, USA TODAY described the story in detail to Bellsouth, and the company did not challenge the newspaper's account." I have to say that "the night before" seems to be awfully short notice for a story of this magnitude. It's possible the company simply didn't have enough time to do the requisite internal check, though it's also quite possible that a few calls to the company's top execs would have sufficed, and there would have been enough time for that.

Bottom line: The Bellsouth denial remains somewhat troubling, but nonetheless inconclusive. Meanwhile, we can reasonably assume -- based on Verizon's own statements -- that Verizon has some sort of relationship with the NSA. Otherwise, as I said, they'd have nothing to keep secret.

--Greg Sargent

Posted by Greg Sargent on May 17, 2006 12:43 PM

DERRICK Z. JACKSON

Anti-immigrant flag follies

By Derrick Z. Jackson  |  May 14, 2006

GIVEN A career of hostile histrionics, Trent Lott received a stunning free pass from the media during the spring immigration rallies.

The Republican senator from Mississippi castigated the marches as ''intimidation and extortion." He said he was ''highly offended" how demonstrators ''take jobs illegally and then protest and wave foreign flags." He said, ''When they act out like that, they lose me."

To CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Lott said, ''These big demonstrations are counterproductive, and they hurt a guy like me, who is trying to look at this in a way that is responsible. . . . if they're waving foreign flags, I take offense to that."

Blitzer's follow-up was: ''Let's move on to some other issues quickly."

That sums it up on how reporters let Lott froth at the mouth for two months about Mexican flags without reminding him that he lost his position as Senate majority leader by glorifying treason, civil war, intimidation, lynching, extortion, segregation, and stealing of millions of black livelihoods in the name of the Confederate flag.

In a Nexis search, the only media effort that nailed Lott's flag hypocrisy was a column by the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman. Chapman recently wrote, ''The complaint about 'foreign flags' is especially nervy coming from Lott, who as a cheerleader at the University of Mississippi used to carry a Confederate battle flag onto the football field. Unlike the architects of the Confederacy, those people waving flags from Mexico or Honduras never tried to tear this country asunder."

The nervy Lott demands a media with nerve. For the extremely short of memory, Lott spent most of his life destroying his credibility on racial and ethnic matters with everyone except racists. Lott supported segregation at the University of Mississippi in the 1960s. In the 1990s, Lott gave three speeches to the Council of Conservative Citizens, an offshoot of the anti-integration citizens councils. In one speech, Lott said the CCC stood for ''the right principles and the right philosophy."

Twice, in 1980 and in 2002, Lott praised the late Senator Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign. In the 2002 incident, Lott said, ''I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

Just as Lott played to racists as it pertained to black people, his recent comments mesh nicely with the anti-immigration sentiments of the Council of Conservative Citizens and other romantics of the Confederacy. The CCC's website has headlines such as: ''Hispanic births are skyrocketing," ''Hispanics chase jobs to middle America," ''Illegal aliens growing bolder by the day," and ''More photos of Hispanic extremism at Los Angeles march."

A photo album of a CCC-sponsored anti-immigration rally in Greenville, S.C., showed several Confederate flags flying among American flags. Confederate flags have been displayed at other anti-immigration demonstrations around the nation.

The anti-immigration rallies have been tiny compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who have marched for fairness around the nation. But the toxin cannot be ignored. The Anti-Defamation League published a report last month that says violent anti-immigrant rhetoric on white supremacist websites has reached ''a level unprecedented in recent years." Half of ethnic hate crimes in 2004, according to the FBI, happened to Latinos.

Lott may have thought he was joking when The New York Times quoted him wishfully thinking about deporting immigrants waving Mexican flags. ''We had them all in a bunch; you know what I mean?" But a leader of Aryan Nations takes that one step further, saying, ''this infestation of cockroaches need deportation or extermination!"

On his Senate website, Lott wrote columns to his constituents saying, ''Many illegal immigrants don't see America through some bright prism as a fertile crossroads but see us through sinister cross hairs. . . . even the fraction of a percent who don't could bring death and destruction to our shores . . . time is ticking, no pun intended."

That is little different than a headline in a CCC newsletter: ''Mass Immigration: Weapon of Mass Destruction." The next time Lott opens his mouth about the time bomb of immigration, the media should remind him that he never had much to say about the mass destruction inspired by the Confederate flag. Too many people waving that flag still have people of color in their cross hairs.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com

© Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

May 16, 9:24 PM EDT

7 House Members Arrested at Sudan Embassy

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Seven members of the Congressional Black Caucus were arrested at the Embassy of Sudan on Tuesday while protesting conditions in the nation's Darfur region.

"We will not tolerate genocide," said Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., the caucus chairman. "We are saying to Sudan this has got to stop."

The seven were taken away in Secret Service cars after blocking the entrance to an embassy. They were released a short time later after paying $50 fines.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., wore a green T-shirt that read, "End the Darfur Genocide."

Lee said she visited the Darfur region, where "I saw the desperation in the eyes of the people."

The Sudanese government and main Darfur rebel group signed an agreement on May 5 to end Darfur's three-year civil war, which has killed at least 180,000 and displaced some 2 million people. But there have been several attacks since the signing, U.N. officials said.

Khidir Haroun Ahmed, Sudan's ambassador to the United States, called the protest "unfortunate."

"We think the effort should be exerted toward persuading the other two rebel movements to sign the peace agreement," he said. A splinter faction of the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement and the rebel Justice and Equality Movement have resisted pressure to join the agreement.

Tuesday's protesters said they want an end to the violence; accountability for those responsible; U.N. peacekeepers; distribution of food to help prevent starvation; and full implementation of the peace agreement.

"Enough is enough," said Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. "We must do all we can to stop the violence."

The other lawmakers arrested Tuesday were Reps. Al Green, D-Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, Gwen Moore, D-Wis., and District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat.

The lawmakers held the rally on the steps of the embassy with the intention of getting arrested. The Secret Service was given advance notice, and let the lawmakers take questions for several minutes before arresting them. Last month, five other House members were arrested after a similar protest at the embassy.

Darfur has been torn by violence since rebel groups made up of ethnic Africans rose up against the Arab-led Khartoum government in 2003. The government is accused of responding by unleashing Arab militias known as the Janjaweed who have been accused of some of the war's worst atrocities. Khartoum denies backing the Janjaweed but has said it will try to rein them in since the deal was signed.

© 2006 The Associated Press.

© 2004 Daily News, L.P.

Bush's big border problem

Clarence Page

May 18, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush hates leaks, unless he authorizes them. And the White House leaked like a sieve days before Bush delivered his prime-time immigration speech from the Oval Office on Monday. The scoop: He wants to beef up our borders with National Guard troops.

Why bother to give the speech at all? Because in the TV age, a president's speech is not delivered to make news as much as the news of it is used as hype. In fact, Bush probably hopes his immigration speech will help boost his approval ratings, which have been in the cellar of late.

By pegging his speech to the theme that "we do not yet have full control of the border" between the United States and Mexico, he was acknowledging a rising consensus on the volatile issue of immigration.

And if we Americans are to agree on anything about immigration, it appears to be regarding our need to have secure borders and some semblance of order on the number of immigrants admitted into the U.S. annually.

Many of us, including me, detest the sight of walls or fences between nations or tribes of people. Yet, even fence-haters have a hard time arguing against the fundamental right of every country to protect its borders. Mexico's President Vicente Fox may feel miffed by the growing network of fences, walls and border patrols along America's southern border. But his government similarly guards Mexico's southern border, holding back a potential flood of Central American immigrants for whom Mexico would be an economic bonanza-land.

But border control is only the first leg of this debate on immigration. Even if we sealed off all 2,000 miles of our border with Mexico with two parallel 15-foot walls separated by large Florida alligators, it would not stop more than half of the current growth of illegal immigrants. The rest, according to government studies, come from all over the world with student, tourist or some other temporary visa and just simply overstay their visit.

Contrary to the wishes of some extremists, there's little chance that the federal government is going to launch a national roundup of illegal immigrants who are otherwise obeying laws, working jobs, buying cars, buying homes and paying taxes.

With that in mind, I was gratified to hear Bush change the course of his usual rhetoric. His proposed "temporary-worker program," he said, would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for "jobs Americans are not doing."

That's a switch. In the past he has referred to such jobs as "jobs Americans won't do," which implies that Americans are just too lazy or snobbish to work the sort of jobs that our immigrant or enslaved ancestors worked.

Yet Bush avoided any specifics on how he will make sure that those taking advantage of his proposed temporary-worker program will actually leave the U.S. when their work visas expire. Nor did he offer any details on the touchy topic of sanctions against employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. Plugging up the holes in the border is one thing. Reducing the attraction of employers seeking cheap, compliant labor is quite another.

And even though the White House has labeled the temporary-worker jobs as "jobs Americans are not doing," the description is not necessarily evidence of an unwillingness of Americans to work. Quite the contrary, there's no job that Americans would not do, if the job paid well enough.

Ask legal workers why they are not doing the jobs employers hope guest-workers will fill and you probably will hear something about how the jobs don't pay enough to compensate for the hours or hazards.

During past labor shortages, some innovative employers were known to raise pay without passing on crippling costs to consumers. Some have been known to improve working conditions and even provide carpools to shuttle workers from job-poor neighborhoods to work in job-rich suburbs.

That's the kind of immigration debate I'd like to see. After all, the real issue is not just about immigration. It's also about jobs.

Clarence Page is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: cptime@aol.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

When two poor countries reclaimed oilfields, why did just one spark uproar?

The outcry over Bolivia's renationalisation and the silence over Chad's betrays the hypocrisy of the critics

George Monbiot
Tuesday May 16, 2006
The Guardian

Civilisation has a new enemy. He is a former coca grower called Evo Morales, who is currently the president of Bolivia. Yesterday he stood before the European parliament to explain why he had sent troops to regain control of his country's gas and oil fields. Bolivia's resources, he says, have been "looted by foreign companies", and he is reclaiming them for the benefit of his people. Last week, he told the summit of Latin American and European leaders in Vienna that the corporations which have been extracting the country's fossil fuels would not be compensated for these seizures.

You can probably guess how this has gone down. Tony Blair urged him to use his power responsibly, which is like Mark Oaten lecturing the Pope on sexual continence. Condoleezza Rice accused him of "demagoguery". The Economist announced that Bolivia was "moving backwards". The Times, in a marvellously haughty leader, called Morales "petulant", "xenophobic" and "capricious", and labelled his seizure of the gas fields "a gesture as childish as it is eye-catching".

Never mind that the privatisation of Bolivia's gas and oil in the 1990s was almost certainly illegal, as it took place without the consent of congress. Never mind that - until now - its natural wealth has only impoverished its people. Never mind that Morales had promised to regain national control of Bolivia's natural resources before he became president, and that the policy has massive support among Bolivians. It can't be long before Donald Rumsfeld calls him the new Hitler and Bush makes another speech about freedom and democracy being threatened by freedom and democracy.

This huffing and puffing is dressed up as concern for the people of Bolivia. The Financial Times fretted about the potential for "mismanagement and corruption". The Economist warned that while the government "may get richer, its people are likely to grow even poorer". The Times lamented that Morales had "set back Bolivia's development by 10 years or so ... the most vulnerable groups will find that an economic lifeline is soon removed from their reach". All this is humbug.

Four days before Morales seized the gas fields - on May 1 - an even bigger expropriation took place in an even poorer country: the African republic of Chad. When the Chadian government reasserted control over its oil revenues, not only did it ensure that an intended lifeline for the poor really was removed from their reach, but it also brought the World Bank's claims to be using oil as a social welfare programme crashing down in flames. So how did all those bold critics of Morales respond? They didn't. The whole hypocritical horde of them looked the other way.

The World Bank decided to fund Chad's massive oil scheme in 2000, after extracting a promise from the government of Idriss Deby - which has a terrible human rights record - that the profits would be used for the benefit of the country's people. Deby's administration passed a law allocating 85% of the government's oil revenues to education, health and development, and placing 10% "in trust for future generations". This, the bank said, amounted to "an unprecedented system of safeguards to ensure that these revenues would be used to finance development in Chad".

Without the World Bank, the project could not have gone ahead. It was asked to participate by Exxon, the leading partner in the project, to provide insurance against political risk. The bank's different lending arms stumped up a total of $333m, and the European Investment Bank threw in another $120m. The oil companies (Exxon, Petronas and Chevron) started drilling 300 wells in the south of the country, and building a pipeline to a port in Cameroon, which opened in 2003.

Environmentalists predicted that the pipeline would damage the rainforests of Cameroon and displace the indigenous people who lived there; that the oil companies would consume much of Chad's scarce water and that an influx of oil workers would be accompanied by an influx of Aids. They also argued that subsidising oil companies in the name of social welfare was a radical reinterpretation of the bank's mandate. As long ago as 1997, the Environmental Defence Fund warned that the government of Chad would not keep its promises to use the money for alleviating poverty. In 1999, researchers from Harvard Law School examined the law the government had passed, and predicted that the authorities "have little intention of allowing it to affect local practice".

In 2000, the oil companies gave the government of Chad a "signing bonus" of $4.5m, which it immediately spent on arms. Then, at the beginning of 2006, it simply tore up the law it had passed in 1998. It redefined the development budget to include security, seized the fund set aside for future generations, and diverted 30% of the total revenues into "general spending", which, in Chad, is another term for guns. The World Bank, embarrassed by the fulfilment of all the predictions its critics had made, froze the revenues the government had deposited in London and suspended the remainder of its loans. The Chadian government responded by warning that it would simply shut down the oil wells. The corporations ran to daddy (the US government) and, on April 27, the bank caved in. Its new agreement with Chad entitles Deby to pretty well everything he has already taken.

The World Bank's attempts to save face are almost funny. Last year, it said that the scheme was "a pioneering and collaborative effort ... to demonstrate that large-scale crude oil projects can significantly improve prospects for sustainable long-term development". In other words, it was a model for oil-producing countries to follow. Now it tells us that the project in Chad was "less a model for all oil-producing countries than a unique solution to a unique challenge". But, however much it wriggles, it cannot disguise the fact that the government's reassertion of control is a disaster both for the bank and for the impoverished people it claimed to be helping. Since the project began, Chad has fallen from 167th to 173rd on the UN's human development index, and life expectancy there has dropped from 44.7 to 43.6 years. If, by contrast, Morales does as he has promised and uses the extra revenues from Bolivia's gas fields in the same way as Hugo Chávez has used the money from Venezuela's oil, the result is likely to be a major improvement in his people's welfare.

So, on the one hand, you have a man who has kept his promises by regaining control over the money from the hydrocarbon industry, in order to use it to help the poor. On the other, you have a man who has broken his promises by regaining control over the money from the hydrocarbon industry, in order to buy guns. The first man is vilified as irresponsible, childish and capricious. The second man is left to get on with it. Why? Well, Deby's actions don't hurt the oil companies. Morales's do. When Blair and Rice and the Times and all the other apologists for undemocratic power say "the people", they mean the corporations. The reason they hate Morales is that when he says "the people", he means the people.

· The references for this and all George Monbiot's recent columns can be found at www.monbiot.com

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006.