Sorry, Right Number

Source: The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 29, 2004


Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, George Tenet was asked why the C.I.A. never picked up the trail of Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who crashed Flight 175 into the south tower on 9/11.

Thirty months earlier, German intelligence had passed on a hot tip to the C.I.A. — the Al Qaeda terrorist's first name and phone number.

"The Germans gave us a name, Marwan — that's it — and a phone number," the director of central intelligence replied, adding: "They didn't give us a first and a last name until after 9/11, with then additional data."

For crying out loud. As one guy I know put it: "I've tracked down women across the country with a lot less information than that."

Mr. Tenet is not in any trouble for that sorry answer, of course, just as he hasn't had to pay any penalty for building up the phantom arsenal that Saddam only dreamed he had.

The catchphrase du jour is Donald Trump's snappy, "You're fired." But no one has lost a job over the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 or the war that was trumped up and velcroed to 9/11. In fact, the only people the president and vice president are trying to put out of business are the members of the commission charged with figuring out how 9/11 happened and how to prevent another one.

The White House seems more worried about the public's finding out how much it knew and how little it did before 9/11 than it does about identifying and fixing security weaknesses.

After trying to kill the commission and then trying to put Dr. Strangelove-Kissinger in charge, President Bush and Dick Cheney have done their best to hamper the panel that's the best hope of the 9/11 widows, widowers and orphans to get justice.

"This is not no-fault government," said Lorie Van Auken, a 9/11 widow. "You don't just let people go on doing what they're doing wrong."

It is a triumph of chutzpah for Mr. Bush to thwart the investigation into 9/11 at the same time he seeks re-election by promoting his handling of 9/11 and scaring us with the specter of more terrorism. He's even using 9/11 memorials as the backdrop for his convention in New York.

Last week, the president played it sly, acting as though he was willing to extend the commission's deadline to finish the work that was taking longer because the administration was stonewalling. But the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, was clearly helping out the White House, answering the "who will rid me of this meddlesome panel?" call.

Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, who helped create the commission, played hardball, threatening highway funds and federal jobs if the commission didn't get two extra months. Mr. Hastert caved.

Mr. McCain said he's expecting the same administration "obfuscation and delay" when he sits on Mr. Bush's hand-picked intelligence review board. "That's why I made sure I got subpoena power," he said. "No bureaucracy will willingly give you information that may be embarrassing to them."

Especially not such a secretive, paranoid and high-handed administration. Bush officials act as though they own 9/11, even while refusing to own up to any 9/11 mistakes.

Because of 9/11, they think they can suspend the Constitution, blow off investigators, attack nations pre-emptively, and keep Americans afraid by waging a war against terrorism that can never be won.

As Bob Kerrey, a frustrated member of the 9/11 commission, told Chris Matthews, the U.S. should have declared war on Osama as soon as it became apparent that he had an army with a "tremendous, sophisticated capability" and an ideology that dictated killing Americans.

"To declare war on terrorism, it seems to me to have the target wrong," he said. "It would be like after the 7th of December, 1941, declaring war on Japanese planes. We declared war on Japan. We didn't declare war on their tactic. . . . Terrorism is a tactic."

A Bush 41 official agreed: "You can't fight terrorism conventionally like a war. Any 16-year-old kid can strap on dynamite and take down any building. It must be fought clandestinely, dealing with the underlying causes and taking security measures in our own country."

Here's a hot tip: If you think the White House should be more cooperative with the 9/11 commission, call George at (202) 456-1111.

I'm sure everyone outside the C.I.A. can take it from there.

War Casualties by U.S. State

Click here to view list of names...

Voters' Job Jitters Raise Anxiety Level For Bush Campaign

Source: CAPITAL JOURNAL
By GERALD F. SEIB

Tuesday was a day to be nervous at President Bush's re-election campaign headquarters.

Not because of more problems in Iraq, or because of some new story about the president's National Guard service, or even because of the controversy that will be generated by the president's endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Rather, the source of anxiety lies in news that will get less attention: a new reading on Americans' confidence in the economy.

The Conference Board, the premier authority on this question, said its index of consumer confidence dropped sharply in February, to 87.3 from 96.4 in January. That is a glaring sign that voters are worried about where the economy is headed -- a worry surely attributable in part to rising concerns about jobs disappearing. Worse for the president, the number doesn't appear to be an aberration; earlier this month, the University of Michigan's similar survey of consumer sentiment fell just as sharply.

Why is this so significant? It has been unclear for months whether the economic attitudes of voters this year will be shaped by the overall performance of the economy, which is pretty good, or by underlying insecurities that might persist despite decent economic performance. The consumer-confidence numbers suggest that insecurity might well be trumping performance as a political indicator in this election cycle.

"I always thought the [economic] growth rate was the key," says Scott Reed, a Republican activist who ran Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. "If you were over 4%, you'd be over the hurdle because you'd have enough job growth." And indeed, the economy is forecast to grow about 4.2% this year. But now, Mr. Reed says, "consumer confidence may be a better barometer this cycle."

The most important question political pros ask themselves about any presidential election is very basic: What is this election going to be about? The answer isn't always as obvious as it may seem. This year, exit polls taken after primary elections suggest there are three giant issues: Iraq, health care and the economy.

That creates a fascinating political backdrop for the campaign, and one that suggests a close and hard-fought battle in which economic satisfaction may well tip the balance. To see why, look inside the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

On health care, Americans give the Democrats a huge edge. When asked which party they think does a better job handling health issues, 48% of Americans surveyed last month named the Democrats and 22% named the Republicans -- a giant, 26-point edge for Democrats. (The remainder named both parties, or neither.)

When asked which party they trusted more to handle Iraq, Americans said -- despite all the Bush administration's woes in coping with the violence and expense of the Iraq occupation -- that they trusted the Republicans more, 48% to 23%. That's a 25-point Republican edge on Iraq, almost mirroring the Democrats' edge on health care.

Which leaves the economy. When asked which party they thought did a better job handling it, those surveyed split right down the middle -- 36% citing Democrats, 36% citing Republicans. The conclusion seems clear: Despite all the focus on Iraq, the economy still may be ground zero in deciding this year's presidential election. And neither side has any significant advantage going into the general-election campaign that lies just ahead.

In that environment, if worries about job security trump the actual performance of the economy, Mr. Bush has a problem. The specific danger for the president is that the outsourcing of jobs abroad may be turning into the premier metaphor for economic performance, eclipsing solid growth rates, low interest rates and a robust stock market, all of which ought to be producing confidence.

A look at Ohio illustrates the president's problem. It is one of six states Mr. Bush won by five percentage points or less in 2000. It also is the largest of those six states, and the only one of the big industrial states in the Midwest with a Republican governor. In short, Ohio is a state Mr. Bush should and probably needs to hang on to, if the general election is going to be anywhere near as close as the 2000 election was. But the unemployment rate in Ohio is 6%, according to the latest figures, above the 5.6% national average and up significantly from 3.9% when Mr. Bush took office.

Such numbers produce the insecurity reflected in consumer-confidence numbers. Not coincidentally, Mr. Bush's Ohio job-approval rating just went below 50% for the first time in the Ohio Poll, sponsored by the University of Cincinnati (See text of the poll). Mr. Bush and his team face two similar but distinct tasks. One is to create jobs. The second -- and perhaps more difficult -- is to convince wary voters that jobs actually are being created fast enough.

ABOUT GERALD SEIB
Gerald Seib is the Washington bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal. He also writes the paper's "Capital Journal" column on a periodic basis and continues as a regular commentator on Washington affairs for CNBC, cable television.

Before assuming his current position in March 2002, Mr. Seib had been the Journal's deputy bureau chief in Washington since September 1997. He had written the weekly "Capital Journal" column, appearing on the Journal's Politics & Policy page since the spring of 1993 and had responsibility for The Wall Street Journal/NBC News Polls.

Mr. Seib joined the Dallas bureau of the Journal as a reporter in 1978. He transferred to the Journal's Washington bureau in 1980 and covered the Pentagon and the State Department. In 1985, he and his wife, Journal reporter Barbara Rosewicz, were transferred to Cairo to cover the Middle East. They returned to the Washington bureau in 1987 where he has covered the White House and reported on diplomacy and foreign policy. In December 1992, he became a news editor responsible for the Journal's national political coverage from Washington and around the country.

In 1988, Mr. Seib won the Merriman Smith award, which honors coverage of the presidency under deadline, and the Aldo Beckman award for coverage of the White House and the presidency, and in 1990, he received the Gerald R. Ford Foundation prize for distinguished reporting on the presidency. In 1992, the Georgetown University Institute of Diplomacy awarded him the Weintal Prize for his coverage of the Gulf War. He received honorable mention in the Edwin Hood Prize for diplomatic reporting from the National Press Club in 1998.

Mr. Seib earned a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Kansas. He and his wife have three sons and live in Washington, D.C.

Write to him at jerry.seib@wsj.com

Calif. Court Refuses to Stop Gay Weddings

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - In yet another setback to conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court declined a request to immediately stop San Francisco from marrying gay couples and to nullify the weddings already performed.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the justices Friday to intervene in the debate while they consider the legality of the marriages. More than 3,400 couples have tied the knot since San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses two weeks ago under the directive of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Lockyer told the justices it was a matter for the courts, not the mayor, to decide. He did not take a position on whether same-sex marriages should be deemed constitutional.

"The genius of our legal system is in the orderly way our laws can be changed, by the Legislature or by a vote of the people through the initiative process, to reflect current wisdom or societal values," he wrote.

The justices told the city and a conservative group that also asked the court to block gay marriages to file new legal briefs by March 5.

Regardless of the order, the San Francisco-based court did not indicate whether it would decide the issue. The seven justices usually are reluctant to decide cases until they work their way up through the lower courts, which this case has not.

Also Friday, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer refused a request for an injunction against gay weddings performed in the village of New Paltz, N.Y., noting that such a measure should be a last resort. He did not issue an opinion on whether the marriages were legal.

Twenty-five gay couples exchanged wedding vows Friday on the steps of the New Paltz village hall.

"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation," said New Paltz' Green Party mayor, Jason West.

More than 30 gay couples in Iowa City, Iowa, were denied marriage licenses Friday by an openly lesbian county official who said she must uphold the law.

Earlier this month, a county clerk in New Mexico issued 26 licenses before the state attorney general declared them invalid.

This month's gay marriage push is rooted in a November decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated that state's constitution. The court reaffirmed the decision this month, clearing the way for full-fledged gay marriages by mid-May.

The issue has sparked intense debate nationwide and spilled into the presidential race. President Bush (news - web sites), citing the Massachusetts decision and the parade of weddings in San Francisco, backed a federal constitutional amendment Tuesday to bar such marriages.

In statehouses nationwide, lawmakers are taking a closer look at their constitutions to see if they could be construed to permit same-sex marriages, even in states where laws now bar them. Massachusetts is one of many states where lawmakers are considering a constitutional amendment to bar the marriages.

The San Francisco mayor sued the state last week on grounds that California's marriage laws violate the state constitution's equal-protection clause. Pressure on Lockyer to act intensified when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) directed him to "take immediate steps" to halt San Francisco's marriage march.

Supporters of the marriages have criticized Lockyer for rushing the issue to the state's highest court, while gay marriage opponents have criticized Lockyer for not acting sooner.

The California Supreme Court has a history of addressing marriage and gay rights cases. It was the first state high court in the nation to legalize interracial marriage 56 years ago. Twenty-five years ago, the court upheld gay rights by saying businesses could not arbitrarily discriminate against homosexuals.

Meanwhile, Republican activists who helped mount the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) last year have announced plans to seek the removal of Lockyer, who they say has "neglected his duty" to enforce state marriage laws.

In another development related to the weddings, the Social Security Administration (news - web sites) has told its offices nationwide not to accept marriage certificates from San Francisco as proof of identification for newlyweds looking to make name changes on Social Security (news - web sites) cards.

Another Scalia trip coincided with court cases

By Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage,
Source: Los Angeles Times, 2/27/2004

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the guest of a Kansas law school two years ago and went pheasant hunting on a trip arranged by the school's dean, all within weeks of hearing two cases in which the dean was a lead attorney.

The cases involved issues of public policy important to Kansas officials. Accompanying Scalia on the November 2001 hunting trip were the Kansas governor and recently retired state Senate president, who flew with Scalia to the hunting camp aboard a state plane.

Two weeks before the trip, University of Kansas School of Law Dean Stephen R. McAllister, along with the state's attorney general, had appeared before the Supreme Court to defend a Kansas law to confine sex offenders after they complete their prison terms.

Two weeks after the trip, the dean led the state's defense before the Supreme Court of a Kansas prison program for treating sex offenders.

Scalia was hosted by McAllister, who also served as Kansas state solicitor, when he visited the law school to speak to students. At Scalia's request, McAllister arranged for the justice to go pheasant hunting after the law school event. The dean enlisted then-governor Bill Graves and former state Senate President Dick Bond, both Republicans, to go as well.

During the weekend of hunting in north central Kansas, Graves and Bond said in separate interviews recently, they did not talk about the cases with Scalia, nor did they view the trip as a way to win his favor.

Scalia later sided with the state in both cases. In a statement, Scalia wrote: "I do not think that spending time at a law school in which the counsel in pending cases was the dean could reasonably cause my impartiality to be questioned. Nor could spending time with the governor of a state that had matters before the court."

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times reported that Scalia had been a guest of Vice President Dick Cheney on Air Force Two when they went duck hunting in southern Louisiana. That trip took place shortly after the Supreme Court had agreed to hear Cheney's appeal seeking to keep secret the workings of his national energy policy task force.

The details of the Louisiana hunting trip, coupled with the visit to Kansas, provide a rare look at a Supreme Court justice who has socialized with government officials at times when legal matters important to them were before the Supreme Court.

Federal law says that "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned." By tradition and court policy, justices are free to determine for themselves what constitutes a conflict.

Specialists in legal ethics differed on whether the Kansas trip presented a conflict of interest for Scalia.

"When a case is on the docket before a judge, the coziness of meeting privately with a lawyer is questionable," said Chicago lawyer Robert P. Cummins, who formerly headed an Illinois board on judicial ethics. "It would seem the better part of judgment to avoid those situations."

Added Monroe Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra University: "A reasonable person might question this, and that's the problem." He said Scalia "should have rescheduled the trip until after" the cases were over.

Other experts noted, however, that no one who met Scalia in Kansas was a named litigant in the two cases, in contrast to the trip with Cheney, who is the appealing party in the upcoming energy task force case.

"I'm not troubled by this because of the law school setting," said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who also said he saw no problems with the hunting trip. He added: "The dean was an advocate, not the litigant."

Scalia said that if Supreme Court justices were prohibited from taking such a trip, then they "would be permanently barred from social contact with all governors, since at any given point in time virtually all states have matters pending before us."

Since the two cases in 2001, the state of Kansas has not had any matters argued before the Supreme Court.

In January 2002, the Supreme Court said in a 7-2 ruling in Kansas vs. Crane that state officials could hold sex criminals beyond their prison terms if they prove the convicts have a "serious difficulty" in controlling their behavior. Scalia dissented, but not because he opposed the Kansas law. The court, he said, should have given the state even greater freedom to hold sex offenders.

In the second Kansas case, the court in a 5-4 ruling said state prison authorities could compel inmates to confess to past crimes as part of a treatment program, and they could take away privileges from those who refused.

The lawyers who lost the two cases said that while they were curious about the law school visit and the hunting trip, they never expected to win Scalia's vote in the first place.

"I trust that Justice Scalia would have stepped aside had his ability to rule been compromised by his hunting trip in the state," attorney Matthew J. Wiltanger said.

Bush in 41.2 seconds

Click to view video: http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm

Source: Salon.com
by Mark Spittle
Jan. 16, 2004

When I called President Bush "assfaced" I knew I was pushing buttons. Profanity, so rarely used in polite conversation, is typically used even less in its opposite: political discourse. So when I created the short ad called "Bush in 41.2 Seconds" for Liberal Oasis -- which starts off as a typical anti-Bush political ad and devolves into a string of words that cannot be reprinted here -- I knew there would be a rumble or two. Hell, that's the intent of any form of satire.

What I hadn't expected was the speed at which the ad would circulate through the blogosphere, nor the intense reaction it would invoke in conservatives. As the accidental creator of a meme ("Don't be an Asshole, Vote Democratic"), I accept responsibility for the monster getting out of the lab, even if I admit to enjoying watching it wreak havoc on the village. But it's still scary seeing the creature shamble about.

Liberal Oasis is one of the better liberal blogs, its aim being to provide some analysis and direction for Democrats on the left of the party. Their straight material, written by Bill Scher, has been praised by Joe Conason, Eric Alterman and others as an important part of the Internet's political voice. It's serious stuff -- with the exception of my side of the page, which I share with two other humorists, Alexander Pierre Luboknovich and John Cougarstein.

"Bush in 41.2 Seconds" was done as a parody of the MoveOn.org ads. The intent was to say what a lot of liberals are thinking ("Bush lied"), but to do it in a manner that was so over-the-top it would be funny as much as ludicrous. Because it parodied both MoveOn and the idea of homespun political ads -- two liberal-minded ideals -- it was risky to run on Liberal Oasis. Still, Scher got the joke and the piece went up.

At first there was no reaction, but then the dam burst: Within three days the movie had been viewed over 70,000 times. The piece ranked No. 1 on a variety of blog indices such as Popdex, with traffic being driven largely by cross-linking through the liberal blogs and forums. After a few more days traffic reports showed the piece was being hit from random locations, meaning it was being distributed via e-mail, in true "meme" fashion.

Then hit counts notched up further courtesy of angry conservatives who, through no fault of their own, didn't understand the context and really thought the DNC had stooped to calling President Bush "a lying sack of horseshit." A million downloads in the next month or so is likely.

Like "all your base are belong to us," the phrase "Don't be an Asshole, Vote Democratic" is now part of the Internet lexicon. McAuliffe can thank me later.

You know you've got yourself a meme when the big boys load their guns with your ammo. Mainstream conservative pundits such as the National Review's Jonah Goldberg are now attempting to tie the piece in with the current conservative meme of "liberal hate speech." Conservatives do well at ignoring their own hate speech, such as Anne Coulter's goal to implement government flogging of children, or G. Gordon Liddy musing about shooting federal agents, or Bill O'Reilly's dreamy fantasies of inserting a bullet into Al Franken's head by way of quaint six-shooter. That's to be expected; conservatives are not typically an introspective bunch. This is why the current attempt to paint liberals as fascist, hate-mongering animals is so ironic, especially given that on any other day the old tag "bleeding hearts" is still tossed around like a well-worn, favorite hacky sack. Conservatives aren't decrying hate speech, mind you; they're justifying it by saying, "Look, the other guy is doing it, too!"

But turning a satire piece into Exhibit A of liberal seriousness is just downright loopy. At first glance Goldberg's accusation that Liberal Oasis "uses excessive potty mouth [sic] and extreme stupidity" under the heading "Ahh Liberalism, Thy Name is Nuanced Persuasion" looks like the usual unfair, lazy journalism. But by voluntarily divesting himself of his sense of humor, Goldberg reveals that he's not engaged in satire or critique, or (more accurately) critique of satire. No, he's engaged in serious, partisan spewcraft. After all, Liberal Oasis has been in operation since early 2002, and yet has never garnered the attention, much less the ire, of the mainstream conservative press. Only now do the righteous pundits bow low to point their fingers of judgment at the site, even if to do so they must strip the work of context to fit their talking points, and paint the entire Democratic Party with a brush that hadn't existed only a week ago.

Now all of liberal history is summed up by one guy calling President Bush a "flatulent pusbag."

According to the New Right, Democrats are disallowed from using humor; instead, the limits of expressed opinion are firmly fixed: Only factual presentations, complete with vision and healthy, optimistic presentation, are allowed. This, coming from the party that had subliminal "RATS" in their national ads, and whose radio spokesman regularly calls the Democratic front-runner "Nikita Dean." There's been no mention that an over the-top conservative ad calling Dean supporters a "freak show" was actually professionally produced and aired by their side.

Aw, heck, we know it's not supposed to be fair. This is all about pole position. But at least "Bush in 41.2 Seconds" is open about its lunacy. (It's run under a "humor" banner, after all.) Unless the National Review's editors are giggling in their offices at the massive joke they've foisted on everyone, their insanity is worsened by its gravitas.

I now have a bit of insight into what Al Franken must have felt when called "shrill" by Fox. I also know that meme-making, however accidental, brings with it a certain level of responsibility. For these reasons I hereby promise to be more thoughtful and considerate when I next call the president a dickhead.

Ohio gay GOP official turns Democrat

Source: Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
by Tom Musbach
February 26, 2004

Saying he can't stomach President Bush's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a gay Republican leader in Ohio announced on Thursday he is becoming a Democrat.

In a letter to the chair of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County, John Farina, a former official in the county's party organization and former president of the Cleveland chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, ended his 20-year association with the GOP. He also withdrew his candidacy for the Board of Elections' central committee in the March 2 primary.

Farina, 35, said in the letter that the president's announcement on Tuesday forced his decision.

"Quite frankly I'm sick over it," Farina wrote. "It is an insult to me as a lifelong Republican and it does nothing to strengthen marriage. It is an obviously political move that will do nothing but divide the nation even further. So much for Mr. Bush being a uniter."

Farina is not alone. Bush's announcement of support for the FMA presented a unique challenge for gay Republicans, many of whom vow to fight their party's leader on the issue.

Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the nation's leading gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans, said the group was "more determined than ever to fight the anti-family constitutional amendment with all our resources."

More than 1 million gay and lesbian Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2000, according to Log Cabin, but some of those votes are in jeopardy this year.

Farina said he knows of one other gay Republican, who wishes to remain anonymous, who quit the party since Tuesday. GOP desertions have also begun to register on the site of conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan.

"You can only feel the love of people and institutions who fend you off with a barge pole for so long. Today I changed my registration from Republican to independent," read one letter posted on andrewsullivan.com.

John Marble, spokesman for the National Stonewall Democrats, said he thinks the anger driving some gay voters to consider switching affiliations is the "fallout" of President Bush's "divisive politics."

"Both my straight and gay Republican friends feel betrayed by the president and by the national GOP," Marble said. "By embracing the constitutional amendment, President Bush is telling our families that he believes that we can never fully belong in our own country, and certainly not in his party."

Ohio is considered a key state for Bush in the 2004 election, and Farina said he is ready to work for the president's defeat there.

"I will use my role as the state liaison for the Gill Foundation's Democracy Project to get more GLBT folks registered and to the polls," Farina told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "I will work with the Stonewall Democrats and the Ohio Democrats to get out the anti-Bush vote."

WMD Quotes by the Bush Admistration

No more news of weapons of mass destruction...imagine that? (...though someone was kind enough to list their lies for us in the link below):

http://lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx

Our kids vs. Bush campaign contributors

Source: MoveOn.Org, February 25, 2004

Under energy industry pressure, President Bush's EPA plans to defer controls on mercury emissions by power plants for at least a decade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 4.9 million women of childbearing age in the U.S. -- that's 8 percent -- have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. The people hit hardest will be new-born infants -- everyy year over 630,000 infants are born with levels of mercury in their blood so high they can cause brain damage.

From a public health standpoint, the EPA's new policy is a disaster. But for Bush's energy industry allies, who are responsible for most mercury pollution, it's yet another bonanza. Increased pollution levels will allow these companies to save millions, while their top managers keep writing big campaign checks to support George W. Bush -- it's a pretty sick cycle.

On January 30th, the EPA announced its intention to weaken its own earlier proposal that would have required a 90 percent reduction in mercury pollution by power plants by 2008. The new proposal doesn't force every power plant to limit mercury pollution, leaving many communities vulnerable. It would also delay implementation of even these weaker requirements until 2018, leaving a whole new generation of kids needlessly at risk.

The first responsibility of the Bush administration and the EPA is to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Time and again, we've seen the Bush administration try to weaken environmental protections, starting with its proposal to roll back stricter limits on arsenic in our drinking water. We must boost the visibility of the mercury issue so that, as with arsenic, the Bush administration is shamed into adopting a more rigorous standard.

Please join our effort to protect our environment and our children from the debilitating effects of mercury poisoning. Your comments will bolster the efforts of MoveOn members and other concerned people who are showing up today at public hearings on this issue in Chicago, Philadelphia and Raleigh.

Tell the Bush administration to protect children's health by reducing power plant mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2008 and ensuring that these reductions occur at each and every power plant, by clicking here:

http://www.moveon.org/mercury/?id=2397-1473641-mV7xer1kVE3sA6Tjg8QjXA

Los Angeles City Introduces Resolution to Oppose Constitutional Amendment

Garcetti, Weiss, Villaraigosa Oppose Marriage Amendment

LOS ANGELES - Councilmembers Eric Garcetti, Jack Weiss and Antonio Villaraigosa introduced a resolution today that would formally state the city's opposition to a Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage by same-sex couples and enshrine discrimination against a class of Americans into the Constitution.

"We started this country with a declaration that 'all men have inalienable rights'," said Councilmember Garcetti, "and our proudest moments have been those when rights were recognized for more and more of our nation's people. I don't want this generation to be the first to see an Amendment added to the Constitution that takes rights away."

"Justice, fairness, and equality for all people are our most basic American values. The Bush Administration's Constitutional amendment would undermine those values and encourage discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans," said Councilmember Weiss. "Our country should instead address the real threats to stable marriages and strong families, such as the lack of successful schools, affordable health care, quality child care, and good jobs."

California and Massachusetts have recently seen disputes over the legality of same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and the constitutionality of measures that prohibit such unions. At the same time, conservative groups and elected officials have sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and deny "the incidences thereof" to same-sex couples. The President of the United States recently vowed to support such an amendment.

"Many gays and lesbians in California have established life partnerships and won benefits like visitation, adoption and pension rights that typically accompany marriages," added Councilmember Antonio Villaraigosa. "The Federal Marriage Amendment not only establishes a bigoted definition of marriage, but it also threatens the rights that Californians and Americans in other states have won for themselves."

The resolution was introduced today and was signed by seven Councilmembers, the legal maximum number. Introduced under Rule 16, it will be heard in Council in one week.

Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association

Source: American Anthropological Association (website)
2200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201
February 25, 2004, Contact: Ghita Levine
703 528-1902, ext. 3039

Arlington, Virginia; The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, releases the following statement in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

Media may contact either of the names below:

To discuss the AAA Statement please contact: Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, AAA President (847) 491-4564, office.

To discuss anthropological research on marriage and family please contact: Roger Lancaster, Anthropologist, author, The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture , 2003 (202) 285-4241 cellular

The Junk Science of George W. Bush

Source: The Nation, February 19, 2004
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Jesuit schoolboys studying world history we learned that Copernicus and Galileo self-censored for many decades their proofs that the earth revolved around the sun and that a less restrained heliocentrist, Giordano Bruno, was burned alive in 1600 for the crime of sound science. With the encouragement of our professor, Father Joyce, we marveled at the capacity of human leaders to corrupt noble institutions. Lust for power had caused the Catholic hierarchy to subvert the church's most central purpose--the search for existential truths.

Today, flat-earthers within the Bush Administration--aided by right-wing allies who have produced assorted hired guns and conservative think tanks to further their goals--are engaged in a campaign to suppress science that is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition. Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda. Indeed, so extreme is this campaign that more than sixty scientists, including Nobel laureates and medical experts, released a statement on February 18 that accuses the Bush Administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact "for partisan political ends."

I've had my own experiences with Torquemada's modern successors, both personal and related to my work as an environmental lawyer and advocate working for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Waterkeeper Alliance.

At the time of the World Trade Center catastrophe on September 11, 2001, I had just opened an office at 115 Broadway, cater-corner from the World Trade Center and within the official security zone to which access was, afterward, restricted for several months. Upon returning to the office in October my partner, Kevin Madonna, suffered a burning throat, nausea and a headache that was still pounding twenty-four hours after he left the building. Despite the Environmental Protection Agency's claims that air quality was safe, Kevin refused to return and we closed the office. Many workers did not have that option; their employers relied on the EPA's nine press releases between September and December of 2001 reassuring the public about the wholesome air quality downtown. We have since learned that the government was lying to us. An Inspector General's report released last August revealed that the EPA's data did not support those assurances and that its press releases were being drafted or doctored by White House officials intent on reopening Wall Street.

On September 13, just two days after the terror attack, the EPA announced that asbestos dust in the area was "very low" or entirely absent. On September 18 the agency said the air was "safe to breathe." In fact, more than 25 percent of the samples collected by the EPA before September 18 showed presence of asbestos above the 1 percent safety benchmark. Among outside studies, one performed by scientists at the University of California, Davis, found particulates at levels never before seen in more than 7,000 similar tests worldwide. A study being performed by Mt. Sinai School of Medicine has found that 78 percent of rescue workers suffered lung ailments and 88 percent had ear, nose and throat problems in the months following the attack and that about half still had persistent lung and respiratory illnesses nine months to a year later.

Dan Tishman, whose company was involved in the reconstruction at 140 West Street, required his crews to wear respirators but recalls seeing many rescue and construction workers laboring unprotected--no doubt relying on the government's assurances. "The frustrating thing is that everyone just counts on the EPA to be the watchdog of public health," he says. "When that role is compromised, people can get hurt."

I also recall the case of Dr. James Zahn, a nationally respected microbiologist with the Agriculture Department's research service, who accepted my invitation to speak to an April 2002 conference of more than 1,000 family farm advocates and environmental and civic leaders in Clear Lake, Iowa. In a rigorous taxpayer-funded study, Zahn had identified bacteria that can make people sick--and that are resistant to antibiotics--in the air surrounding industrial-style hog farms. His studies proved that billions of these "superbugs" were traveling across property lines daily, endangering the health of neighbors and their herds. I was shocked when Zahn canceled his appearance on the day of the conference under orders from the Agriculture Department in Washington. I later uncovered a fax trail proving the order was prompted by lobbyists from the National Pork Producers Council. Zahn told me that his supervisor at the USDA, under pressure from the hog industry, had ordered him not to publish his study and that he had been forced to cancel more than a dozen public appearances at local planning boards and county health commissions seeking information about health impacts of industry mega-farms. Soon after my conference, Zahn resigned from the government in disgust.

Ignoring Bad News

The Bush Administration's first instinct when it comes to science has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn't like. Probably the best-known case is global warming. Over the past two years the Administration has done this to a dozen major government studies on global warming, as well as to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its own efforts to stall action to control industrial emissions. The list also includes major long-term studies by the federal government's National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences, and by scientific teams at the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, and a 2002 collaborative report by scientists at all three of those agencies.

The Administration has taken special pains to shield Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, which is part of an industry that has contributed $58 million to Republicans since 2000. Halliburton is the leading practitioner of a process used in extracting oil and gas known as hydraulic fracturing, in which benzene is injected into underground formations. EPA scientists studying the process in 2002 found that it could contaminate ground-water supplies in excess of federal drinking water standards. A week after reporting their findings to Congressional staff members, however, they revised the data to indicate that benzene levels would not exceed government standards. In a letter to Representative Henry Waxman, EPA officials said the change was made based on "industry feedback."

As a favor to utility and coal industries, America's largest mercury dischargers, the EPA sat for nine months on a report exposing the catastrophic impact on children's health of mercury, finally releasing it in February 2003. Among the findings of the report: The bloodstream of one in twelve US women is saturated with enough mercury to cause neurological damage, permanent IQ loss and a grim inventory of other diseases in their unborn children.

The list goes on. In October 2001 Interior Secretary Gale Norton, responding to a Senate committee inquiry on the effects of oil drilling on caribou in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, falsely claimed that the caribou would not be affected, because they calve outside the area targeted for drilling. She later explained that she somehow substituted "outside" for "inside." She also substituted findings from a study financed by an oil company for some of the ones that the Fish and Wildlife Service had prepared for her. In another case, according to the Wall Street Journal, Norton and White House political adviser Karl Rove pressed for changes that would allow diversion of substantial amounts of water from the Klamath River to benefit local supporters and agribusiness contributors. Some 34,000 endangered salmon were killed after National Marine Fisheries scientists altered their findings on the amount of water the salmon required. Environmentalists describe it as the largest fish kill in the history of the West. Mike Kelly, the fisheries biologist on the Klamath who drafted the biological opinion, told me that under the current plan coho salmon are probably headed for extinction. According to Kelly, "The morale is very low among scientists here. We are under pressure to get the right results. This Administration is putting the species at risk for political gain. And not just in the Klamath."

Roger Kennedy, former director of the National Park Service, told me that the alteration and deletion of scientific information is now standard procedure at Interior. "It's hard to decide what is more demoralizing about the Administration's politicization of the scientific process," he said, "its disdain for professional scientists working for our government or its willingness to deceive the American public."

Getting the Right Answer

But suppressing or altering science can be a tricky business; the Bush Administration has found it easier at times simply to arrange to get the results it wants. A case in point is the decision in July by the EPA's regional office overseeing the western Everglades to accept a study financed predominantly by developers, which concludes that wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb. There was no peer review or public comment. With its approval, the EPA is giving developers credit for improving water quality by replacing natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments.

The study was financed by the Water Enhancement and Restoration Committee, which was formed primarily by local developers and chaired by Rick Barber, the consultant for a golf course development for which the EPA had denied a permit because it would pollute surrounding waters and destroy wetlands. The study contradicts everything known about wetlands functioning, including a determination by more than twenty-five scientists and managers at the Tampa Bay Estuary Program that, on balance, wetlands do not generate nitrogen pollution. Bruce Boler, a biologist and water-quality specialist working for the EPA office, resigned in protest. Boler says the developers massaged the data to support their theory by evaluating samples collected near roads and bridges, where developments discharge pollutants. "It was like the politics trumped the science," he told us.

In a similar case, last November the EPA cut a private deal with a pesticide manufacturer to take over federal studies of a pesticide it manufactures. Atrazine is the most heavily utilized weedkiller in America. First approved in 1958, by the 1980s it had been identified as a potential carcinogen associated with high incidences of prostate cancer among workers at manufacturing facilities. Testing by the US Geological Survey regularly finds alarming concentrations of Atrazine in drinking water across the corn belt. Even worse, last year scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, found that Atrazine at one-thirtieth the government's "safe" 3 parts per billion level causes grotesque deformities in frogs, including multiple sets of organs. And this year epidemiologists from the University of Missouri found reproductive consequences in humans associated with Atrazine, including male semen counts in farm communities that are 50 percent below normal. Iowa scientists are finding similar results in a current study.

The Bush Administration reacted to the frightening findings not by banning this dangerous chemical, as the European Union has, but by taking the studies away from EPA scientists and, in an unprecedented move, giving the chemical's manufacturer, Switzerland-based Syngenta, control over federal research. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sherry Ford, a spokesperson for Syngenta, praised without irony the advantages of having the company monitor its own product. "This is one way we can ensure it's not presenting any risk to the environment."

In a dramatic expansion of this disturbing strategy, the Bush Administration now plans to systematically turn government science over to private industry by contracting out thousands of science jobs to compliant consultants already in the habit of massaging data to support corporate profits. The National Park Service is preparing a first phase of contracting reviews, involving about 1,800 positions, including biologists, archeologists and environmental specialists. Later phases may entail replacement of 11,000 employees, more than two-thirds of the service's permanent work force.

At least federal employees enjoy civil service and whistleblower protection intended to allow them to operate professionally and independently. Private contractors don't enjoy the same level of protection. "You can shop for the right contractor to give you the kind of result you want," says Frank Buono, a retired Park Service veteran who now serves on the board of a nonprofit whistleblower protection organization.

As a Last Resort, Fire the Messenger

Most federal employees have gone along with the Bush Administration's wishes, but a few have tried to stand up for sound science. The results are predictable. When a team of government biologists indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers was violating the Endangered Species Act in managing the flow of the Missouri River, the group was quickly replaced by an industry-friendly panel. (In an unexpected--and fortunate--development, the new panel ultimately declined to adopt the White House's pro-barge-industry position and upheld the decision to manage the river to protect imperiled species.) Similarly, last April the EPA suddenly dismantled an advisory panel that had spent nearly twenty-one months developing rules for stringent regulation of industrial emissions of mercury [see Alterman and Green, page 14].

Or consider the case of Tony Oppegard and Jack Spadaro, members of a team of federal geodesic engineers selected to investigate the collapse of barriers that held back a coal slurry pond in Kentucky containing toxic wastes from mountaintop strip-mining. The 300-million-gallon spill was the largest in American history and, according to the EPA, the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of the Eastern United States. Black lava-like toxic sludge containing sixty poisonous chemicals choked and sterilized up to 100 miles of rivers and creeks and poisoned the drinking water in seventeen communities. Unlike in other slurry disasters, no one died, but hundreds of residents were sickened by contact with contaminated water.

The investigation had broad implications for the viability of mountaintop mining, which involves literally lopping off mountaintops to get access to the underlying coal. It is a process beloved by coal barons because it practically dispenses with the need for human labor and thus increases industry profits. Spadaro, the nation's leading expert on slurry spills, recalls, "We were geotechnical engineers determined to find the truth. We simply wanted to get to the heart of the matter--find out what happened and why, and to prevent it from happening again. But all that was thwarted at the top of the agency by Bush appointees who obstructed professionals trying to do their jobs."

The Bush Administration appointees all had coal industry pedigrees. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao (the wife of Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate's biggest recipient of industry largesse) appointed Dave Lauriski, a former executive with Energy West Mining, as the new director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which oversaw the investigation. His deputy assistant secretary was John Caylor, an Anamax Mining alumnus. His other deputy assistant, John Correll, had worked for both Amax and Peabody Coal.

Oppegard, the leader of the federal team, was fired on the day Bush was inaugurated in 2001. All eight members of the team except Spadaro signed off on a whitewashed investigation report. Spadaro, like the others, was harassed but flat-out refused to sign. In April of 2001 Spadaro resigned from the team and filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Labor Department. Last June 4 he was placed on administrative leave--a prelude to getting fired.

Bush Administration officials accuse Spadaro of "abusing his authority" for allowing a handicapped instructor to have free room and board at a training academy he oversees, an arrangement approved by his superiors. An internal report vindicated Spadaro's criticisms of the investigation, but the Administration is still going after his job. "I've been regulating mining since 1966," Spadaro told me. "This is the most lawless administration I've encountered. They have no regard for protecting miners or the people in mining communities. They are without scruples."

Science, like theology, reveals transcendent truths about a changing world. At their best, scientists are moral individuals whose business is to seek the truth. Over the past two decades industry and conservative think tanks have invested millions of dollars to corrupt science. They distort the truth about tobacco, pesticides, ozone depletion, dioxin, acid rain and global warming. In their attempt to undermine the credible basis for public action (by positing that all opinions are politically driven and therefore any one is as true as any other), they also undermine belief in the integrity of the scientific process.

Now Congress and this White House have used federal power for the same purpose. Led by the President, the Republicans have gutted scientific research budgets and politicized science within the federal agencies. The very leaders who so often condemn the trend toward moral relativism are fostering and encouraging the trend toward scientific relativism. The very ideologues who derided Bill Clinton as a liar have now institutionalized dishonesty and made it the reigning culture of America's federal agencies.

The Bush Administration has so violated and corrupted the institutional culture of government agencies charged with scientific research that it could take a generation for them to recover their integrity even if Bush is defeated this fall. Says Princeton University scientist Michael Oppenheimer, "If you believe in a rational universe, in enlightenment, in knowledge and in a search for the truth, this White House is an absolute disaster."

About Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, is working on a book about President Bush's environmental policies, Crimes Against Nature, to be published this spring by HarperCollins.

Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
Feb. 25, 2004
Yahoo News

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) urged Congress on Wednesday to deal with the country's escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security (news - web sites) retirees. Without action, he warned, long-term interest rates would rise, seriously harming the economy.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with a projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the baby boom generation starts becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years.

He said the prospect of the retirement of 77 million baby boomers will radically change the mix of people working and paying into the Social Security retirement fund and those drawing benefits from the fund.

"This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation's resources — demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken," Greenspan said. "For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible."

President Bush (news - web sites) said he had not seen Greenspan's comments, nor spoken to him, and declined to respond directly to a reporter's question about them.

Bush said that "my position on Social Security benefits is, those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement."

He renewed his call for personal savings accounts for younger workers that he said "would make sure those younger workers receive benefits equal to or greater than that which is expected." And Bush repeated his promise to cut the deficit in half over five years.

While Greenspan urged urgency, Congress is unlikely to take up the controversial issue of cutting Social Security benefits in an election year.

Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, said that the benefits now received by current retirees should not be touched but he suggested trimming benefits for future retirees and doing it soon enough so that they could begin making adjustments to their own finances to better prepare for retirement.

Greenspan did not rule out using tax increases to deal with the looming crisis in Social Security, but he said that tax hikes should only be considered after every effort had been made to trim benefits.

"I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," Greenspan said in response to committee questions. "It is important that we tell people who are about to retire what it is they will have." He warned that the government should not "promise more than we are able to deliver."

While the country is currently enjoying the lowest interest rates in more than four-decades, Greenspan warned that this situation will not last forever. He said financial markets will begin pushing long-term interest rates higher if investors do not see progress being made in dealing with the projected huge deficits that will occur once the baby boomers begin retiring.

"We are going to be confronted ... in a few years with an upward ratcheting of long-term interest rates which will be very debilitating for long-term growth," Greenspan told the committee if the deficit problem is not addressed.

Greenspan suggested two ways that benefits could be trimmed. He said that the annual cost-of-living adjustments for those receiving benefits could be made using a new version of the Consumer Price Index (news - web sites) called the chain-weighted index, which gives lower readings on inflation.

He also said that the age for retirement should be indexed in some way to take into account longer lifespans. He noted that presently the age for being able to get full Social Security benefits is rising from 65 to 67 as one of the changes Congress adopted in the mid-1980s, based on recommendations of a commission Greenspan chaired. In his testimony, Greenspan said Congress should go further and index the retirement age so that it will keep rising.

As he has in the past, Greenspan called on Congress to reinstitute rules that require any future tax cuts to be paid for either by spending cuts or increases in other taxes.

While that would erect a high hurdle to Bush's call for making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over a decade, Greenspan again repeated his belief that spending cuts rather than tax increases were the best way to deal with the exploding deficit.

While not ruling out totally the use of tax increases to deal with at least part of the looming surge in spending on Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Greenspan urged caution in increasing taxes.

"Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base," Greenspan said. "The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side."

Key turns in fight over unions for same-sex couples

1989
Denmark becomes the first nation to legally recognize same-sex unions, offering "the same legal effects as the contracting of marriage." Half a dozen European countries begin moving in the same direction.

1996
A court in Hawaii overrules a previous state ban on gay marriage, sparking a national debate on the subject.

1996
The U.S. House and Senate overwhelmingly pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a bill denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving states the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses from other states and deny benefits associated with marriage. President Bill Clinton signs the bill. Some 38 states have since adopted similar state legislation.

2000
Vermont creates a new legal relationship status called a "civil union," allowing same-sex couples to obtain all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits available through marriage within the state of Vermont, becoming the first state to do so.

April, 2001
Netherlands: Gay and lesbian couples who are Dutch are allowed to marry and adopt with the full privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The law offers the most sweeping rights to same sex couples in the world. By 2002, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, France and Switzerland have all adopted laws allowing registration of same-sex unions, with most or all of the rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.

May, 2003
Rep Marilyn Musgrave, (R-Colo.) and five cosponsors introduce HJ Resolution 56, the Federal Marriage Amendment, a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The Senate follows suit with its own resolution in November. The amendments state that no state or federal law "shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

June 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Texas law prohibiting same-sex sodomy. By removing criminal implications for private consensual sexual acts, the ruling changed the legal landscape for an array issues concerning same-sex couples, including the right to marry.

June-July, 2003
The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia begin allowing same-sex couples to marry, and obtain full rights of marriage under Canadian law, following a court decision that the law on traditional marriage is unconstitutional.

November, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that it is a violation of the state constitution to bar same-sex couples from marriage. The first legal marriages for same-sex couples are due to take place in May.

February, 2004
Massachusetts lawmakers debate amending the state constitution to define marriage as a union only between a man and woman. This amendment, if passed by lawmakers, could only appear on a ballot for voter approval in 2006. By the start of this debate, 21 states had introduced or were expected to introduce similar state constitutional amendments.

On Feb. 12, 2003, San Francisco's newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsome allows the distribution of marriage licenses to same sex couples, prompting the state attorney general to file a constitutional challenge with the state Supreme Court. Thousands of gay and lesbian couples descent on City Hall for wedding ceremonies.

NCEC 2004 Election Update

Source: NCEC 2004 January-February ELECTION UPDATE Newsletter

A look at the current political profile of the American electorate, tells us that the presidential election in 2004 could produce a result as razor thin as in 2000. (To read more and/or view charts as well as political maps that break out state partisan votes and undetermined votes, click here for the rest of this newsletter -- formatted as an Adobe Acrobat .pdf file)

What Is He Smoking?

Ralph Nader thinks there's no difference between the two parties. Is he nuts?

Source: MotherJones.com
February 24, 2004

An egotist. A narcissist. A hypocrite. These are some of the more flattering epithets being tossed around in connection with Ralph Nader since he announced his run for president.

And the vitriol isn't coming just from mainstream Democrats, but from progressives, Greens, lefties -- erstwhile supporters.

Nader explained his decision to run on NBC’s "Meet the Press" on Sunday:

"Washington is still corporate-occupied territory, and the two parties are ferociously competing to see who's going to go to the White House and take orders from their corporate paymasters. So they may be different in their mind, they may be different in their attention, they may be different in their rhetoric, but in the actual performance these corporate interests and their political allies are taking America down."

The problem with this line of argument is that it's total B.S. The past four years have emphatically demonstrated the idiocy of Nader's contention, which wasn't even true four years ago, that there's no daylight between the two parties.

The Nation wrote an open letter to Ralph Nader at the end of January begging him not run:

[W]hen devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons--opposition to the war, Bush's assault on the Constitution, his crony capitalism, frustration with the overcautious and indentured approach of inside-the-Beltway Democrats--there is a level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party not seen since 1968.

The context for an independent presidential bid is completely altered from 2000, when there was a real base for a protest candidate. The overwhelming mass of voters with progressive values--who are essential to all efforts to build a force that can change the direction of the country--have only one focus this year: to beat Bush. Any candidacy seen as distracting from that goal will be excoriated by the entire spectrum of potentially progressive voters. If you run, you will separate yourself, probably irrevocably, from any ongoing relationship with this energized mass of activists. Look around: Almost no one, including former strong supporters, is calling for you to run, compared with past years when many veteran organizers urged you on. …

Ralph, please think of the long term. Don't run."

Rodger Schlickeisen of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, told Motherjones.com that on environmental policy, for example, there are crucial differences between the Bush administration and just about any Democrat who has a chance at the presidency:

"I can't imagine how someone could make a statement that there's not much difference between the two parties, when its not true on many progressive issues, but especially environmental issues. It's very aggravating to us. No one who cares deeply about environmental issues should even contemplate giving Nader a vote; it's like giving a vote to Bush."

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, who personally urged Nader not to run, called the decision "unfortunate" on CBS’ "Face the Nation": "You know, he's had a whole distinguished career, fighting for working families, and I would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush."

Sure you would, Terry. And you'd hate to be out on your ass in November.

Chances are that this time Nader's run won't matter so much to the Democrats. As an independent, lacking the Green Party infrastructure, Nader will have trouble garnering close to the 2.7 percent of the vote he won in 2000; it won’t be easy to get on all 50 state ballots without the backing of an established party or major financial resources.

Ballot access experts say an independent needs a total of about 700,000 signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states, a prospect Nader likened to "climbing a cliff with a slippery rope."

John Nichols of The Nation discusses the very likely possibility that Nader’s run won’t effect the two mainstream parties this year, because people just won’t vote for him:

For Nader to intrude into that choice in a meaningful way, it is necessary to imagine that substantial numbers of voters will go to the polls absolutely determined to remove the president from office -- grumbling all the way about the occupation of Iraq, war profiteering, assaults on civil liberties and tax breaks for the rich -- and then vote for Nader rather than a Democrat who could actually beat Bush. That's not a very likely prospect; and if it ever became one, Democrats would be particularly well positioned to counter it. Even as Nader objects, Democrats can and wlll argue that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and they will have many more buyers for that line than in 2000.

Some are arguing that Nader is running out of pure egotism. But his real motivation may be something even less attractive. Matthew Continetti writes for the Weekly Standard:

"Indeed, Nader's palpable animosity toward the liberals who no longer support him was the subject of most his ire on Sunday. The "liberal intelligentsia," he said, has "let their party become captive to special interests" over the last 25 years. Democrats are now a "corporate paymaster minion." He says he's running for president because "We can't just sit back like the Nation magazine and betray its own traditions and the liberal intelligentsia and once again settle for the least-worst [alternatives]." "It was enough to make you forget, for a moment, about tax cuts and Iraq and health care and judges and all the substantive issues at the center of the 2004 presidential campaign. Instead, Nader 2004 may be a presidential campaign run entirely out of spite."

Corresponding with one of my republican relatives...

(who shall remain nameless)

From my relative to me: (February 24, 2004)

If you are so busy, how do you find the time to research? I sure don't. I can't even do spell check. Hell, I work 34 hrs a week, three kids with homework, baseball tonight (3x a week) plus dinner and another child my husband! I don't have time to read. Are you kidding? Plus we all didn't go around the world to perfect our grammar. Just remember where we come from, a third world country. Don't forget to capitalize the first letter of your sentence if you want to be critical.

Basically all these political issues, so be it. Me, you and anyone else for that matter cannot control this world we live in. So why make the wave. We cannot make this perfect. It will never be how you want it to be.

Bottom line we just have to make the best of it. Our kids will deal with these issues on their own time. Just like we are dealing with this now.

[You should] think vacation, it's much better.

Don't forget to vote for Bush.

My reply:

i do the research, and i find the time, because - believe it or not - i actually care not only for MY generation, but for YOUR children's generation as well as future generations. how dare we leave them a wasteland. the truth is, YES, we can make a change. god forbid we sit around and do nothing. the very act of discussion and debate enables the ideas to spread and influence the minds, actions and lives of others. i cannot imagine why you would ever encourage in a passive way a disinterest in "reading". my goodness, why bother sending any kids to school? (and for that matter, why bother making a better life for yourself knowing that the country from which you came was one of the poorest in the world.) what's the point anymore if you've lost your desire to make this a better world? by the way, if our forefathers thought the way you suggest, we wouldn't have this great country as we know it. there WON'T be a future for your kids or the kids of america if the current political tide is not stopped. you have a president who takes pre-emptive strikes on nations w/out a conscience for death, destruction, and ironically, the use of weapons of mass destruction. he could give a flying fuck so long as he makes money for his rich buddies. last time i checked, neither one of us (nor 98% of the u.s. population) is a rich buddy of his. don't shoot yourself in the foot by voting bush. i really wish one day you make the time to read and be aware of the world around you for your own sake and preservation, because "apathy" never got anyone anywhere. cheers, me

From my relative to me: (February 25, 2004)

First letss fix our own backyard. You are taking this way too seriously.

God forbid the democrats sit around and let the government do it for them. Then nothing will get done! Have you researched how many democrats who do not work? And waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Don't forget that Clinton was in office for 8 years. What did he fix? Maybe make the military much stronger, perhaps? The economy has been going downhill since his last day in office. He hung out with all the rich people, so go figure. HE ruined the country! Look at Gov. Davis, what did he do? Let's not blame who's cleaning up their mess.

That's what's wrong with people today. No one wants to accept their faults but to blame someone else. I myself would like for everyone to accept their faults but I will not preach. On occasion I will blurt out to friends and make them realize to look at yourself before blaming someone else. (food for thought).

Who says no one cares? Everyone has their own opinion. You have yours and the rest of the world has theirs.

Remember, we vote for our beliefs and not others. So you vote for who you think will do the best job cause at the end it will work out. Think positive, I know you just want to be heard.

My reply:

It's a waste of time to correspond any further along these lines until and/or unless you substantiate any of your claims with real FACTS (not just republican propaganda, ideologies and hearsay that you might have gotten from a right-wing email, the radio, or another ill-informed republican who is ready to lie in order to take your vote with your eyes and ears closed). I expect you might actually do some real homework. It's not that difficult, because the public has access to government documentation as well as economic statistics of real facts regardless of party politics. When you can do this, we can have a real conversation and discussion about politics, politicians, the economy and their effect on society, the environment, war and foreign affairs. Forgive me for attempting to enlighten you with the reality of the current political situation. I can go on with Clinton's record, but because you have no bearing on the facts, it would mean nothing to you (particularly since your own refusal to "read" or "research" is evidence in itself of your own inability to learn the truth). It's a shame you refuse to know the truth (yes, it has to be heard...so that we all might do something to change the direction in which this country is going).

Politics aside, I adore you and your family. Naturally. Have a great day!

# # #

Same-Sex Marriages: Justice Is in Our Hands

(Letter Published in the Los Angeles Times)

Protection of marriage? I don't understand it. Returning to biblical values and historical paradigms? Where does this ignorance come from? The Bible sanctions polygamy, and history has perverted equality. For thousands of years, marriage was not about equality between husband and wife. It was about property.

But we have progressed. There is no official asking a woman to "love and obey" her husband anymore. There is no law prohibiting interracial marriage anymore. And there certainly must not be a ruling that denies holiness to two consenting adults. In the Bible, if a law was unfair, Moses would argue with God. And the laws would change. It is in our hands to pursue justice. And we remember that "justice delayed is justice denied."

Rabbi Zachary R. Shapiro
University Synagogue

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters...

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

INSTEAD OF ADMITTING ECONOMIC TRUTH, BUSH RESORTS TO STATISTICAL MANIPULATION

Source: The Daily Misleader (www.misleader.org)

President Bush, attempting to obscure his record as the worst economic steward since Herbert Hoover, has become so desperate that he is exploring ways to manipulate statistics. Just days after Bush reneged on his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs and said with a straight face that "5.6% unemployment is a good national number," the New York Times uncovered a White House report showing that the president is considering re-classifying low-paid fast food jobs as "manufacturing jobs" as a way to hide the massive manufacturing job losses that have occurred during his term.

As CBS News reports, "Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs." But if the president enacts the statistical change he is considering, this number would be purposely obscured because lower-paying fast-food jobs would be added to make the real manufacturing losses look smaller. Of course, fast-food jobs typically pay much less and have fewer benefits than real manufacturing jobs, meaning the statistical change would also obscure the fact that, under Bush, "in 48 of the 50 states, jobs in higher-paying industries have given way to jobs in lower-paying industries." All told, jobs in growing industries like lower-paid service sector/fast food jobs are paying 21% less than contracting industries like real manufacturing.

The president's efforts to manipulate statistics and mislead Americans is also getting a boost from his allies on Capitol Hill. Earlier this month, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK) was pointing to an optimistic "household" jobs survey as proof that "we're at an all-time high in employment" and that "the employment situation has improved rather substantially.'' The problem is that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said definitively that "payroll data" - not the household survey - "is the series which you have to follow" in order to be accurate. The payroll data shows "a loss of more than two million jobs since 2001."

RESUME - GEORGE W. BUSH
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE

(Source: www.Crikey.com.au) Mark Latham has famously described George W Bush as "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory."

LAW ENFORCEMENT:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

MILITARY:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became president after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron. My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.--this is true.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.--actually what happened is the World Court is changing into the International Criminal Court--because the US wants to be a part of the court, but not be open to having the US have charges brought up against them, they have temporarily ceased negotiating with the countries involved in and taking part in the establishment of the ICC. So, in other words, the US wants to be able to establish the laws within the ICC, practice those laws within the ICC, but not have those laws applied to our country.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.--Guantanomo Bay.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.

After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most disliked country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world
history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families - in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

-----------------------------------------------------

Feedback:

A Crikey reader explains the Ivy League system:

Crikey,

I just read your attempt to amuse readers with George Bush's resume. What is very interesting to me was not the stuff that was included in his resume, but rather the stuff which was left out that a lot of Australian readers would not be aware.

Bush is the holder of two degrees from what most Americans would regard (and probably most people in the world who are aware of tertiary education) the two best and most prestigious universities in the world. His undergraduate degree was from Yale and he later obtained an MBA from Harvard University.

Gaining entry to Yale is difficult to say the least. All prospective students are required to sit for their SAT's, which are a form of aptitude tests and comprise a verbal and numeric examination. Each test is out of 800 and therefore a perfect score is 1600. In addition to the SAT's prospects need to do well in the last 2/3 years of their high school studies, receive numerous recommendations from teachers and eminent people. Prospects are also hauled up for an interview and need to write an essay which answers the reason Yale would be a good match. Bush scored a very credible 1330/ 1600 for his SAT's and would not have got into Yale unless he filled the other rigorous requirements which need to be met.

To get into Harvard MBA school a student prospect also needs to demonstrate a certain mental capacity for higher level problem solving and sit for another aptitude test.

As you can see, all in all these requirements are quite rigorous. I know this because, although we live in Melbourne, we are hoping to get our son into an Ivy league school next year. Just so you understand things a little better, Bush's SAT score would in fact translate into an IQ of about 135. Gore's SAT score were in fact lower than Bush's and he did not complete either a J school or law degree. He flunked out of both course as far a as I know.

This tired old hard left crap about Bush being a dumb fuck is really getting very stale.

JC
Melbourne, VIC

CRIKEY: Apparently Dubya's faux CV has been doing the rounds of the internet for some time now. It was sent into Crikey by a subscriber and we published it as an amusing juxtaposition to Mark Latham's line that George W. Bush was "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory." Most dangerous maybe, but clearly not the most stupid.


Some information about GWBs entry into Yale:

An SAT of 1330 is not, in fact, a brilliant SAT score. It's above average, but not by a huge margin (the average in 2003 was 1026. I can't find any data for the average back in 1963/4). Remember, though, that the fact he took the SAT at all places him in a relatively select group.

Not that Bush got 1330. His Verbal SAT score was 566, and his Maths SAT score was 640 - a total of only 1206.

And he didn't beat Gore, either. Gore scored a total SAT of 1355:

Bush/Gore Grades and SAT Scores
CNN - How affirmative action helped George W.

The second of those two references also points out that Bush's SAT score was by no means sufficient to get him into Yale, especially given his previous high school record. The inference presented (with some support) is that his family connections got him there. His academic record while at Yale suggests a similar conclusion.

GWB is likely intelligent - at least more-so than an "average" person with an IQ of 100. He is, however, no genius, and the rest of his resume pretty much speaks for itself - what he has, he seems to have wasted.

Shane
Sydney, NSW

Feedback from the US

To Whom it May Concern:

I think it's great that you published the Bush CV on your site. Here in the States we are counting on your support to get this fool out of office! Now I think the Melbourne resident who wrote explaining the SAT process had a good point; simply calling Bush a moron gets us nowhere.

However this person clearly does not understand the education system here in America. Here, if you have the rudest, most violent, disobedient, inane child in the world they can still attend an Ivy league school. The answer is money my dears, and that's what makes America go!

There have been numerous instances of people buying entire schools just so their child could have a degree from somewhere. It is sad; there was a time being a Harvard grad meant something. Now people are immediately suspicious.

Anyway, I just wanted to make a point about SAT scores in the 1960s. Back then, the only people who took the SATs were people who were expected to attend University. So the roster of test-takers was made up of white, upper-middle to upper-upper class males.

The national SAT average is way down from back then, and understandably so now that millions of Americans--white, black, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, poor, rich, etc.--take the test each year. Bush's SAT score of 1206 is commendable, but for the 1960s it isn't really that great. I have an IQ of 148 and scored 1150 after three attempts...and believe me, I'm no dummy.

Thank you for your time.

AJ in America