Will be Away for a few days.

I'm off travelling and will be back on Sunday. Need to give the old back a rest and some needed sunshine!

Wonder Drug Inspires Deep, Unwavering Love Of Pharmaceutical Companies

Wonder Drug Inspires Deep, Unwavering Love Of Pharmaceutical Companies

March 6, 2006

NEW YORK—The Food and Drug Administration today approved the sale of the drug PharmAmorin, a prescription tablet developed by Pfizer to treat chronic distrust of large prescription-drug manufacturers.

Pfizer executives characterized the FDA's approval as a "godsend" for sufferers of independent-thinking-related mental-health disorders.
Image

PharmAmorin, now relieving distrust of large pharmaceutical conglomerates in pharmacies nationwide.

"Many individuals today lack the deep, abiding affection for drug makers that is found in healthy people, such as myself," Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell said. "These tragic disorders are reaching epidemic levels, and as a company dedicated to promoting the health, well-being, and long life of our company's public image, it was imperative that we did something to combat them."

Although many psychotropic drugs impart a generalized feeling of well-being, PharmAmorin is the first to induce and focus intense feelings of affection externally, toward for-profit drug makers. Pfizer representatives say that, if taken regularly, PharmAmorin can increase affection for and trust in its developers by as much as 96.5 percent.

"Out of a test group of 180, 172 study participants reported a dramatic rise in their passion for pharmaceutical companies," said Pfizer director of clinical research Suzanne Frost. "And 167 asked their doctors about a variety of prescription medications they had seen on TV."

Frost said a small percentage of test subjects showed an interest in becoming lobbyists for one of the top five pharmaceutical companies, and several browsed eBay for drug-company apparel.

PharmAmorin, available in 100-, 200-, and 400-mg tablets, is classified as a critical-thinking inhibitor, a family of drugs that holds great promise for the estimated 20 million Americans who suffer from Free-Thinking Disorder.

Pfizer will also promote PharmAmorin in an aggressive, $34.6 million print and televised ad campaign.

One TV ad, set to debut during next Sunday's 60 Minutes telecast, shows a woman relaxing in her living room and reading a newspaper headlined "Newest Drug Company Scandal Undermines Public Trust." The camera zooms into the tangled neural matter of her brain, revealing a sticky black substance and a purplish gas.

The narrator says, "She may show no symptoms, but in her brain, irrational fear and dislike of global pharmaceutical manufacturers is overwhelming her very peace of mind."

After a brief summary of PharmAmorin's benefits, the commercial concludes with the woman flying a kite across a sunny green meadow, the Pfizer headquarters gleaming in the background.

PharmAmorin is the first drug of its kind, but Pfizer will soon face competition from rival pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb. The company is developing its own pro-pharmaceutical-company medication, Brismysquibicin, which will induce warm feelings not just for drug corporations in general, but solely for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

"A PharmAmorin user could find himself gravitating toward the products of a GlaxoSmithKline or Eli Lilly," BMS spokesman Andrew Fike said. "This could seriously impede the patient's prescription-drug-market acceptance, or worse, Pfizer's profits in the long run."

"Brismysquibicin will be cheaper to produce and therefore far more affordable to those on fixed incomes," Fike added.

The news of an affordable skepticism-inhibitor was welcomed by New York physician Christine Blake-Mann, who runs a free clinic in Spanish Harlem.

"A lot of my patients are very leery of the medical establishment," Blake-Mann said. "This will help them feel better about it, and save money at the same time."

PharmAmorin's side effects include nausea, upset stomach, and ignoring the side effects of prescription drug medication.

The Truthiness Taliban

When Americans turn off the TV and pay attention to real matters, we seem eager to forget the facts and embrace the 'truthiness.'





By Arianna Huffington



When it comes to our desire for the truth, Americans couldn't be more conflicted.

On the one hand, we're obsessed with forensic TV shows dedicated to the search for an utterly objective, scientifically immutable truth. "CSI," "CSI: Miami," "CSI: NY," "NCIS," "Cold Case," "Numb3rs," "Bones."

When Bill Petersen or David Caruso break the facts down to the level of DNA and sub-microscopic particles, they always get their perp. Wiggle room dies a rapid death in their labs. And we love getting to the truth. But when we turn off the TV and turn our attention to far weightier matters, we seem willing -- indeed eager -- to forget about the facts and throw our arms around truthiness.

As Stephen Colbert, the godfather of truthiness puts it: "I'm not a fan of facts. You see, facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are." Or, as the "Colbert Report's" mocking caption writer summed it up: "Heart good, head bad."

Of course, while Colbert uses the concept of truthiness to satirize our collective embrace of what we wish were true -- even when it's not, George Bush, Karl Rove and the spinmeisters of the GOP message machine use it as their primary mode of communication. Trust us. It's true because we say it is. What are you going to believe, your eyes or our soundbytes?

It's how they sold us the invasion of Iraq (Saddam-unleashed mushroom clouds could be the logo for the Truthiness Society). And it's how they are trying to sell us the consequences of that invasion as something other than an unmitigated disaster.

You'd think that only a satirist would try to spin the horrors of the last week in Iraq as a sign of progress. But it wasn't Colbert who surveyed the bloody sectarian violence pushing Iraq to the precipice of all-out civil war and declared that the bombing of the Golden Mosque would "likely" turn out to have been a good thing. It was Rove. And it wasn't the irreverent caption writer of Colbert's "The Word" who put up chyrons asking "'Upside' to Civil War?" and "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could it Be a Good Thing?". It was Fox News.

And it was George Bush, the walking, talking, swaggering, shoot-from-the-gut embodiment of truthiness, who went in front of the American Legion -- as the death toll in Iraq was hitting 130 in the previous 48 hours -- and said, "I'm optimistic… Out of negotiations now taking place in Iraq, a free government will emerge that will represent the will of the Iraqi people, instead of a cruel dictator, and that will help us keep the peace."

Jesus may be the president's favorite philosopher, but when it comes to spinning the facts, Bush seems to be asking himself WWCS? (What Would Colbert Say?). The truthiness will set you free. Indeed, the Truthiness Taliban scored anther coup against facts, truth, and reality with the announcement that Halliburton would be getting almost the entire $250 million in disputed charges the Pentagon's top auditors had identified as potentially excessive or unjustified.

The auditors had looked at the facts and decided that Halliburton subsidiary KBR had charged, in some instances, "nearly triple what others were charging to do the same job" -- as a result of which the cost of the $2.41 billion no-bid contract had skyrocketed.

And it's a fact that over the last three years, in cases involving thousands of military contracts, the military usually followed the recommendations of the Pentagon auditors. According to the New York Times: "In 2003, the agency's figures show, the military withheld an average of 66.4 percent of what the auditors had recommended, while in 2004 the figure was 75.2 percent and in 2005 it was 56.4 percent." But with this audit, the Army decided to withhold just 3.8 percent of what the auditors recommended.

Those are the facts. But, for some reason, the Army decided that, given how hard it is to do things during a war and all, it would cut Halliburton some slack. "The contractor is not required to perform perfectly to be entitled to reimbursement," explained an Army spokeswoman.

How very early-James-Frey Oprah of them. The cut-the-crap late-James-Frey Oprah would have said, "That's a lie" and withheld all the money.

Responding to the Army's decision, Halliburton watchdog Rep. Henry Waxman said: "Halliburton gouged the taxpayer, government auditors caught the company red-handed, but the Pentagon ignored the auditors and paid Halliburton hundreds of millions of dollars and a huge bonus." It's truthiness as government policy.

Right now, Stephen Colbert is smiling. The rest of us should be outraged.

Only The Christian Right Loves Bush

Only The Christian Right Loves Bush

Bush’s approval numbers are down to 34%.

Don’t look for them to go much lower because in that 34% who still back him lay the Christian Right.

This group will stand behind him despite all the corruption and scandals.
This is the “Anti-Choice” crowd that insists that a woman have her father’s baby or her rapist's.

Yet these same fine upstanding Christians have no problem with Bush lying us into war.

He trumped up the non-existing evidence of WMD. When Bush had the chance to serve his country he went AWOL. Bush is himself responsible for the abortion of 2,300 of our troops, and another 100,000 Iraqi civilians because of his lies. His lies were designed to reward war profiteers who were also huge campaign donors. The Christian Right needs to ask itself, whom would Jesus bomb?

Would Jesus lie about WMD? Would Jesus wait 5 full days before sending in federal aid to New Orleans?

Hundreds are still missing in New Orleans. What did Jesus say about what you do unto the least of these?

Elderly people drowned 4 full days after the storm hit. Babies died of thirst waiting for Bush to send help.

The federal government, and specifically the Defense Dept. is the only agency with the resources necessary to deal with a catastrophe of this magnitude. That agency is controlled directly by Rumsfeld and Bush.
Did they respond? No, because it was the incompetence stupid.

This is when America finally woke up to the fact that our country is being run by an 8th grader.

The Christian Right is the last one standing in defense of Bush.
Now America sees just what hypocrites they truly are.

"Bush speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him."

Welcome to South Dakota

I agree with the Governor of South Dakota when he says,
"The true test of a civilization is how well people treat
the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society."

What I don't agree with is that a fetus is a member of society.




The legislature of South Dakota is insincere and is acting out a fetus fetish to make themselves feel morally superior rather than focusing their scarce resources on child care for working mothers, education, and medical care for children.

The worst kind of morality is faked morality and I am wholly unimpressed. Religious people who merely pose as moral to make themselves feel self-important is what drives people away from religion.

God Speaks Through Me

The new Zogby poll has drawn attention mostly because it finds that 72 percent believe Bush
should withdraw from Iraq in a year or less and only 23 percent favor Bush's plan to "stay the course."

But the poll also illustrates the power of propaganda.

Shockingly, 85 percent of the troops questioned believe they are fighting in Iraq "to retaliate for 9-11"
- one of the key Iraq War myths built by Bush's frequent juxtaposition of references to Osama and Saddam.

This subliminal message has stuck with the vast majority of U.S. troops even though Bush eventually
acknowledged publicly that there is no evidence linking Saddam to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

In other words, more than eight in 10 of the U.S. soldiers in Iraq think they are there avenging Sept. 11,
even though the U.S. government lacks evidence of the connection.


Shockingly?
Only if you buy into the notion that voters are smart.

Truth is, voters are incredibly stupid and naive, that's why the Law #1 is
"Never tell the truth in a political campaign.

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, (R-Whore) linked to a campaign finance scandal,

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, (R-Whore) linked to a campaign finance scandal, is turning away even routine requests to provide funding for special interests.

Harris has taken pride in going after pork barrel spending, but on Thursday she stayed away
from meetings with special interests, including executives from Florida's university system.

Among the reasons for her absence was a meeting with lawyer Ben Ginsberg, whom she hired as a "precaution," Harris spokeswoman Kara Borie said.

On the sixth day after she was identified as a recipient of illegal campaign contributions, the Republican slut stayed behind closed doors. She issued a statement in which she denied knowing that contributions made to her by defense contractor Mitchell Wade had been illegal.

The Dire Problem of Dildos in Tennessee

Rep. Eric Swafford

Tennessee House of Representatives

Sunday, March 05, 2006
Lawmakers (R) Seek to Outlaw Dildos


The Dire Problem of Dildos in Tennessee


Apparently, lawmakers in this impoverished red state can't find enough serious problems to address, so they've turned their minds to sex, specifically sex toys.

For unknown reasons, State Senator Charlotte Burks (DINO) and State Rep. Eric Swafford (R) have been thinking a lot about the activities going on your bedroom. They have come to the conclusion that Tennessee will be a better place to live if the state regulates your bedroom by outlawing dildos.

Dildos today, mandatory missionary position tomorrow. We think it's high time the Republican party considers a name change. We suggest the Victorian Party, along with a campaign slogan of: Vote for a Victorian, and Say Hello to the Peeping Tom State in Your Bedroom.

It's true that Burks calls herself a Democrat, but in this state the Democratic party is over-run with Republicans.

If the Victorians have their way, it will soon become a crime to sell, advertise, publish, or exhibit dildos in this red state. Presumably "exhibit" is what happens when more than one person is caught in the vicinity of a dildo. The lawmakers are willing to permit some exceptions, such as the study of dildos by college students and professors. Were you looking for a subject for your Master's thesis? Interviewing lawmakers on this touchy subject could prove highly stimulating.

HB3798 and SB3794
Abstract: Obscenity and Pornography - Creates Class A misdemeanor offenses of distributing unlawful sexual devices and wholesale distributing of unlawful sexual devices.

If you'd like to better understand this important issue of the day, email your Victorian lawmakers to find out everything you ever wanted to know about the dire problem of dildos in Tennessee:

Sen. Charlotte Burks
Rep. Eric Swafford

Dear Rep Swafford,

I applaud you for sponsoring a bill banning the sale of certain appliances. You know what I mean, the vibrating things that sometimes look like a man's little soldier. I call them toy soldiers.

As much as I like your bill, I'm certain it will anger feminists and those who believe the heresy that the government has no business regulating a woman's lady-parts. Expect these femislamists to attack you viciously.

No doubt they'll be aided and abetted by a media feeling empowered after bringing about our nation's defeat in Iraq. You'll need to be prepared for them.

That's where I come in. I've prepared a few talking points to help you manage their interviews:

• Sexual devices cause women to have unreal expectations about men.

* Some of these devices are 4 inches or longer in length and over an inch in diameter.

* These devices stay hard all of the time, even when wrestling isn't on the TV.

* These devices seldom cause a woman to cry or vomit.

• This bill is not targeted at Bill O'Reilly.

* Bill O'Reilly will always be welcome to visit Tennessee.

* Nothing in this bill prevents Bill O'Reilly from bringing his ReamMaster 5000 into the state as long as it is for his own personal use.

* Although Mr. O'Reilly will be unable to buy a sexual device in Tennessee, there is nothing in the bill that bars him from buying batteries for any device he brings with him.

• I am considering amending the bill.

* I'm working on language to allow Alpha Gamma Rho fraternities in the state to purchase one AlphaGoat with the Vibra-Bleat® option prior to pledge week each year.

* I'm adding a clause that will allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

I hope you find these talking points useful

"Bush is not competent to be president. If another 9/11 is being planned right now, we are dead with Bush in charge. It is time that Republicans joined Democrats in figuring out what to do about this man, because he is putting all of our lives in danger."

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.

Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.

Gov. Matt Blunt's office was contacted to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond.

Missouri legislators considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.

Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups,
began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.

"I don't really think a woman should be forced to have her rapist's baby and

I don't really think a minor child should be forced to have herfather's baby,

but I'll damn sure sign that bill into law to please the religiously insane right."

-- Haley Barbour (R-Whore), in effect, to the women of Mississoppi

JACKSON (AP) - Republican Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday that he likely would sign a bill to ban most abortions in Mississippi if it's approved by lawmakers.

The state already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation. The bill that passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

South Dakota lawmakers passed a similar bill last week that was intended to provoke a court showdown over the legality of abortion.

Responding to questions about whether he'd sign a bill with no exceptions for rape or incest, Barbour said: “It hasn't gotten to my desk yet. When one gets there, we'll find out, and I suspect I'll sign it. But I would certainly rather it come to my desk with an exception for rape and incest. I think that's consistent with the opinion of the vast majority of Mississippians and Americans.”

The bill goes to the full House, which could vote next week. Speaker Billy McCoy, D-Rienzi, said he believes it will pass the House and move to the Senate.

McCoy told The Associated Press that although he opposes abortion, he always has been willing to make an exception for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

“As I live longer and longer, the harder and harder it has become for me to accept abortion, period,” McCoy said.

He said he'll listen to arguments on both sides of the issue. He said not allowing exceptions for rape or incest would be “pretty tough.”

“It's also for those of us who don't believe in abortion to think about the taking of a human life, regardless of how it got started to be on this earth,” McCoy said.

Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck, a Republican, said she hasn't had a chance to read the House proposal.

“I think this body will look very strongly on pro-life issues,” said Tuck, who presides over the Senate.

The lawmaker who introduced the near-ban, House Public Health Committee Chairman Steve Holland said he acted because he was tired of piecemeal attempts to add new abortion restrictions each year.

Holland, D-Plantersville, said he has voted for some abortion restrictions and against others in the past.

Mississippi already requires a 24-hour waiting period and counseling for all abortions, plus the consent of both parents for minors who seek the procedure.

The state has one abortion clinic, in Jackson, and its leaders plan to fight if more restrictions are imposed.

Also, Nsombi Lambright, executive director of the American Civil Liberties in Mississippi, said her office had been contacted Wednesday by other abortion-rights groups that might sue Mississippi if the new restrictions become law.

“That's more of the state's legal resources going to something that didn't' have to happen,” Lambright said.

Terri Herring, president of Pro-Life Mississippi, said she hopes the state will outlaw abortion, but she's not certain whether there's a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing the right to an abortion.

“We feel like we are still one justice short of being able to overturn Roe,” Herring said.

The South Dakota legislation went to Republican Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday, and he has 15 days to act. Rounds has said he's inclined to sign the bill into law.

The bill is Senate Bill 2922.

Priests Purify Shrine After Bush Visit

Priests Purify Shrine After Bush Visit


Hindu priests who look after the memorial of Indian independence leader Mohandas Gandhi conducted a purification ceremony at the shrine after a visit from President Bush.

The memorial was cleansed with water brought from the Ganges river, which Hindus consider holy, the Hindustan Times newspaper reported Sunday.

Bush visited the memorial on Thursday during his three day visit to India. The site, where pacifist icon Gandhi was cremated, is considered sacred and all visitors, including Bush and his wife Laura, removed their shoes before going in.

Proof Condi should lay off the crack...............

NYT finds it would take Iran a decade of intense processing to achieve nuke power -- and then only if it produced 100 centrifuges a week. Don't believe the neocons.


March 5, 2006
As Crisis Brews, Iran Hits Bumps in Atomic Path
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

When Iran defiantly cut the locks and seals on its nuclear enrichment plants in January and restarted its effort to manufacture atomic fuel, it forced the world to confront a momentous question: How long will it be before Tehran has the ability to produce a bomb that would alter the balance of power in the Middle East?

Iran's claims that it is racing forward with enrichment have created an air of crisis as the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency prepares to meet tomorrow in Vienna before the United Nations Security Council takes up the Iran file for possible penalties.

Yet behind the sense of immediate alarm lies a more complex picture of Iran's nuclear potential. Interviews with many of the world's leading nuclear analysts and a review of technical assessments show that Iran continues to wrestle with serious problems that have slowed its nuclear ambitions for more than two decades.

Obstacles, the experts say, remain at virtually every step on the atomic road. The most significant, they add, involve the two most technically challenging aspects of the process — converting uranium ore to a toxic gas and, especially, spinning that gas into enriched atomic fuel.

According to the analysts, the Iranians need to do repairs and build new machines at a prototype plant before they can begin enriching even modest quantities of uranium. And then, for a decade, they would have to mass produce 100 centrifuges a week to fill the cavernous industrial enrichment halls at Natanz. What is more, the gas meant to feed those machines is plagued by impurities.

The perception gap was underscored in February when Tehran issued a stark warning. By late this year, Iranian officials said, they would begin installing nearly 3,000 centrifuges at the giant Natanz plant, buried deep underground to withstand attack. That many centrifuges, international inspectors knew, could make fuel for up to 10 nuclear warheads every year.

In Washington and Europe, the announcement was dismissed as an empty boast. "Maybe they can move that fast," said a senior American official who tracks Iran's program but who declined to be named because it is an intelligence matter. "But they would need lots of help, luck and prayer."

Tehran maintains that it has every right to master the atomic basics in pursuit of a peaceful program of nuclear power. But more and more countries have come to view that as a cover story.

Estimates of just when Iran might acquire a nuclear weapon range from alarmist views of only a few months to roughly 15 years. American intelligence agencies say it will take 5 to 10 years for Iran to manufacture the fuel for its first atomic bomb. Most forecasters acknowledge that secret Iranian advances or black market purchases could produce a technological surprise.

Conservative forecasts often take into account not only the technical difficulties but also a political judgment: that Tehran will run for the finish line — making its first bomb — only when it can rapidly produce a large arsenal.

A further uncertainty is defining the exact point at which Iran's nuclear program would become an unstoppable threat. While most analysts identify the greatest danger as when Iran can produce nuclear fuel — the hardest part of the bomb venture, far more difficult than designing a warhead — others, particularly the Israelis, say the tipping point may come earlier, when Tehran has accumulated a critical mass of atomic knowledge.

For all the bluster and anxiety of the moment, Iran's atomic history is a conundrum of delay: given its wealth of atomic scientists and oil revenues, why was Tehran unable to succeed years ago?

After all, it took only three years for the United States to build the world's first atom bomb. It took Pakistan and North Korea, poor by Western standards, roughly a decade to get enough material for their first nuclear devices. Iran, by most estimates, has been moving toward the same objective for at least two decades.

Some of Iran's nuclear troubles can be traced to wavering political commitment by mullahs more interested in creating a theocracy than unlocking the secrets of the atom. And many top scientists fled after the Islamic revolution of 1979.

But the United States created other obstacles. In the 1990's, it pressured Russia, China and other nations to end deals that would have given the Iranian program a jump-start. Some of those maneuvers were covert; some played out in the press.

"In retrospect, we impeded a lot more of their progress than we knew," said Robert J. Einhorn, a central player in nuclear diplomacy in the Clinton administration and the early days of the Bush administration.

In Washington and around the world, assessments of Iran's technological maturity have driven deliberations over what to do. American and Israeli planners have quietly debated the possibility and the risks of military strikes, including whether they would be more effective soon or only after Iran has built a much larger infrastructure.

At least publicly, though, the Bush administration has followed a different strategy than it did with Iraq. After the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction there, President Bush has never argued that Iran poses an imminent threat, and his aides have called for diplomacy.

"There are still certain techniques and pieces of know-how that we do not believe that they have," Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said in February.

Most experts focus on uranium and ignore Iran's work on plutonium, another bomb fuel, judging it as even further from fruition. Still, nuclear analysts warn against complacency.

"They do have serious problems," said Mohammad Sahimi, a chemical engineer at the University of Southern California who left Iran in 1978. "But we've made mistakes in underestimating the strength of science in Iran and the ingenuity they show in working with whatever crude design they get their hands on."

Centrifuges and Uranium

By all accounts, the oldest and most daunting problem involves centrifuges — temperamental machines whose rotors can spin extraordinarily fast to enrich uranium. After two decades of effort, Iran seems barely out of the starting gate.

All uranium is not equal. One form, uranium 235, easily splits in two, or fissions, in bursts of atomic energy that power nuclear reactors and bombs. Its slightly heavier cousin, uranium 238, does not.

But since uranium 235 accounts for less than 1 percent of all uranium, engineers use centrifuges to separate the two and concentrate the rare form. Uranium enriched to about 4 percent uranium 235 can fuel most reactors; to 90 percent, atom bombs.

In 1987, the Iranians secretly began buying drawings and parts for centrifuges from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear expert who operated the world's biggest nuclear black market. International inspectors say the deals eventually included parts for about 500 primitive used centrifuges.

Tehran, apparently unhappy with their quality, turned to Moscow. In early 1995, it made a secret deal to buy an entire plant of centrifuges — typically tens of thousands of the spinning machines linked together to slowly increase the level of enrichment.

But after the Clinton administration persuaded Moscow to back out, Iran accelerated its secret drive to copy Dr. Khan's centrifuges. It also started building the huge enrichment plant near Natanz, in central Iran. The pilot factory there was to house 1,000 centrifuges; the main plant would shelter 50,000 machines underground.

In August 2002, Iranian dissidents revealed the existence of the Natanz site, beginning the current confrontation with the West. The next year, Iran agreed to suspend work while negotiating with Europe over the program's fate.

But when operators shut down an experimental cascade of 164 centrifuges at Natanz, about 50 of them broke or crashed, according to a January report by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington.

Now, the report said, Iran must replace and repair the broken machines and prepare the cascade for operation. Then comes the really hard part: if all goes well, the Iranians must mass-produce thousands of centrifuges and learn to run them in concert, like a large orchestra.

Iran is also struggling to turn concentrated uranium ore, or yellowcake, into uranium hexafluoride, the toxic gas fed into the centrifuges for enrichment. Such conversion is done at a site on the outskirts of Isfahan.

Iran began the conversion effort in the early 1990's, asking China to help build the complex. But in 1997, the Clinton administration persuaded Beijing to stop the deal. The Iranians got blueprints but little else. So they started building on their own.

"From what I saw, everything looked like local manufacturing except for some gauges," said Gary S. Samore, who ran the National Security Council's nonproliferation office during the Clinton administration and who traveled to Isfahan in 2005.

Iran, which tried to hide most of its nuclear sites, voluntarily revealed Isfahan to international inspectors in 2000. But the plant encountered problems during its first runs in early 2004, its output laced with impurities, in particular molybdenum, a silvery element often found in uranium ore.

The contamination, experts say, can ruin delicate centrifuges, reducing their efficiency and cutting short their lifetimes.

The Iranians are working hard to solve the problem. Mark Hibbs of Nuclear Fuel, an industry publication, who broke the molybdenum story, said most experts believed that the Iranians would ultimately succeed. British intelligence, he said, put the time needed at a year and a half, Israeli analysts at two or three months.

Houston G. Wood III, a centrifuge expert at the University of Virginia, said the Iranians might simply learn to cope. "If you're smart enough," he said, "you could probably get by, maybe with decreased efficiency."

Western officials worry that the conversion has a secret side run by a military group seeking to integrate the nuclear program with the design of missiles that could deliver a weapon. In a Jan. 31 report, the I.A.E.A. revealed that it had documentary evidence of a shadowy operation, the Green Salt Project. Tehran dismissed the charge of a hidden military effort as baseless and later called the documents forgeries.

Estimating a Bomb's Birth

Atomic forecasts are driven largely by assessments of technological maturity, sometimes colored by judgments of the risks of guessing wrong.

That may explain the gulf between Israel's claim that the world has as little as six months before the "point of no return" and estimates that an Iranian warhead is many years away.

"We live within Iranian missile range," said a senior Israeli official who has worked on the country's estimates. "Our survival depends on understanding the worst-case scenario." Thus, in the Israeli view, it would be a huge mistake to let the Iranians figure out how to clean up and enrich their uranium.

Israel cites studies like one published in October by the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran." Its timeline is short, one to four years. Iran, it asserted, "lacks for nothing technologically or materially to produce it, and seems dead set on securing an option to do so."

Henry Sokolski, an editor of the report, said neither he nor anyone else could actually produce a truly accurate forecast. "A lot of people are fraudulent, making it sound like a science," he said. "It's not."

He nonetheless defended the report's estimate as reasonable, pointing to Iran's long nuclear history.

Analysts like Mr. Albright and Ms. Hinderstein of the Institute for Science and International Security put the earliest date Iran might produce a weapon at 2009.

To date, the most comprehensive public estimate is by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London. "If Iran threw caution to the wind," John Chipman, the institute's director, said, it might be able to make fuel for a single nuclear weapon by 2010.

Dr. Samore, who edited that report and is now at the MacArthur Foundation, said the Iranians might see political advantage in a more deliberate approach, doing nothing provocative until after 2015 or even 2020.

In his view, he said, Iran would complete the main Natanz plant, installing 50,000 centrifuges and learning to operate them. If successful, it could then enrich uranium to the low levels needed for a nuclear reactor and so comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Then it could rush ahead and produce enough highly enriched fuel for a nuclear arsenal in weeks or months. At full tilt, the report concluded, Natanz could annually churn out material for up to 180 warheads.

Such a "breakout" chain of events worries experts because it leaves the world little or no time to react.

Seeking a Global Strategy

The Bush administration has concluded that even if Iran stops short of assembling a weapon, its ability to produce one on short order would change the politics of the Middle East. So it has been trying, with mixed success, to devise a broader atomic blockade that would turn the unilateral, often clandestine efforts of the past into a far more global effort involving not only Europe but India, China and Russia. In theory, the meeting this week in Vienna is a step in that direction.

But administration officials are also trying to make headway on their own. They have persuaded several of Iran's neighbors — they will not say which ones — to block Iranian cargo flights that appear headed toward North Korea or other potential nuclear suppliers. Last year, that strategy appeared to succeed in at least one case, when China intervened.

In a little-noted speech in February, Robert Joseph, an under secretary of state and one of the administration's leading hawks on Iran, described the tools of denial he was employing, from cracking down on Tehran's finances to depriving Iran of crucial technologies.

But administration officials readily acknowledge that it is next to impossible to build a leak-proof wall. In his speech, Mr. Joseph warned of the "wild card" that Iran could obtain nuclear fuel for a bomb from an outside supplier.

As much as anything, officials worry about the unknown. They note that the United States missed signs that a country was about to go nuclear with the Soviets in the 1940's, the Chinese in the 1960's, India in the 1970's and Pakistan in the 1990's.

"People always surprise us," said a senior nuclear intelligence official who was not authorized to speak publicly. "They're always a little more cunning and capable than we give them credit for."

Quitt Bothering People Till You Grow a Pair

If you wants people to act, then you show me your party has the resolve to fight.

Show up on television and take the fight to the media.

If you can't even do that, the I'd be wasting my time and money trying to help you.
It would also help if you removed the Republicans from your party (like Lieberman for example).

The day you guys seriously work to rid us of the Diebold voting machines, or the day when you all
stand up and walk out of a senate hearing in protest because the douchebag republican you let win the leadership (you nominated KERRY for chrissake) refuses to swear them in, that will be the day

Then maybe people will support your sorry asses. You know mainstream America if far to the left of your party platform. Stop trying to get the wacked out fundies to vote for you.

They swore in Clinton to discuss his sex life, for crying out loud!
If you can't fight aggressively to attempt to force testimony on National Security-related issues
to be under oath, then you can't count on me to be motivated to help you in any way.

Your party needs to grow a pair.
Contact me when you can show me examples of this taking place.

Thousands of Federal Defendants' Cases Kept Secret, Despite Guarantee of Public Trials

Thousands of Federal Defendants' Cases Kept Secret, Despite Guarantee of Public Trials





By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writers
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials, nearly all records are being kept secret for more than 5,000 defendants who completed their journey through the federal courts over the last three years.

Instances of such secrecy more than doubled from 2003 to 2005.

An Associated Press investigation found, and court observers agree, that most of these defendants are cooperating government witnesses, but the secrecy surrounding their records prevents the public from knowing details of their plea bargains with the government.

Most of these defendants are involved in drug gangs, though lately a very small number come from terrorism cases. Some of these cooperating witnesses are among the most unsavory characters in America's courts multiple murderers and drug dealers but the public cannot learn whether their testimony against confederates won them drastically reduced prison sentences or even freedom.

In the nation's capital, which has had a serious problem with drug gangs murdering government witnesses, the secrecy has reached another level the use of secret dockets. For hundreds of such defendants over the past few years in this city, should someone acquire the actual case number for them and enter it in the U.S. District Court's computerized record system, the computer will falsely reply, "no such case" rather than acknowledging that it is a sealed case.

At the request of the AP, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts conducted its first tally of secrecy in federal criminal cases. The nationwide data it provided the AP showed 5,116 defendants whose cases were completed in 2003, 2004 and 2005, but the bulk of their records remain secret.

"The constitutional presumption is for openness in the courts, but we have to ask whether we are really honoring that," said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and now law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "What are the reasons for so many cases remaining under seal?"

"What makes the American criminal justice system different from so many others in the world is our willingness to cast some sunshine on the process, but if you can't see it, you can't really criticize it," Levenson said.

The courts' administrative office and the Justice Department declined to comment on the numbers.

The data show a sharp increase in secret case files over time as the Bush administration's well-documented reliance on secrecy in the executive branch has crept into the federal courts through the war on drugs, anti-terrorism efforts and other criminal matters.

"This follows the pattern of this administration," said John Wesley Hall, an Arkansas defense attorney and second vice president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "I am astonished and shocked that this many criminal proceedings in federal court escape public scrutiny or become buried."

The percentage of defendants who have reached verdicts and been sentenced but still have most of their records sealed has more than doubled in the last three years, the court office's tally shows.

Of nearly 85,000 defendants whose cases were closed in 2003, the records of 952 or 1.1 percent remain mostly sealed. Of more than 82,000 defendants with cases closed in 2004, records for 1,774 or 2.2 percent remain mostly secret. And of more than 87,000 defendants closed out in 2005, court records for 2,390 or 2.7 percent remain mostly closed to the public.

The court office also found a sharp increase in defendants whose case records were partly sealed for a limited time. Among newly charged defendants, the numbers in this category grew from 9,999 or 10.9 percent of all defendants charged in 2003 to 11,508 or 12.6 percent of those charged in 2005.

But the AP investigation found, and court observers agree, that the overwhelming number of these cases sealed for a limited time involve a use of secrecy that draws no criticism: the sealing of an indictment only until the defendant is arrested.

AP's investigation found a large concentration of both kinds of secrecy at the U.S. District Court here: limited sealing of records and extensive sealing that continues even after the courts are done with a defendant.

"When the sentences are sealed, that's a con on the community," said Lexi Christ, a Washington defense lawyer for a man acquitted in a crack cocaine case.

In that case, all the defendants' names became public when the indictment was unsealed. But all other records for six defendants who pleaded guilty remained sealed more than two years after the public trial in which two of the drug dealers were convicted.

One of the cooperating witnesses admitted to seven murders and testified in open court against co-defendants who had committed fewer, Christ said. But like the others who pleaded guilty and cooperated, that witness' plea deal and sentence were sealed.

"Cooperating witnesses are pleading guilty to six or seven murders, and the jury doesn't know they'll be sitting on the Metro (subway) next to them a year later. It's a really, really ugly system," Christ said.

Prosecutors argue that plea agreements must be sealed to protect witnesses and their families from violent retaliation. But Christ said that makes no sense after the trial when the defendants know who testified.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press found the U.S. District Court here has 469 criminal cases, from 2001-2005, that are listed by this court's electronic docket as "no such case." An AP survey over a shorter period found similar numbers here and got oral acknowledgment from the clerk's office that the missing electronic docket numbers corresponded to sealed cases. However, these figures include an unknown number of sealed indictments that will be made public if arrests are made.

"That's horrifying," said Loyola's Levenson. "When I was a prosecutor from 1981 to 1989, I never heard of secret dockets."

No matter how few turn out to be almost totally sealed after the defendant's case was completed, "it's still significant," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee and a pioneer in campaigning against court secrecy.

"The Supreme Court has said that criminal proceedings are public," Dalglish added. "In this country, we don't prosecute and lock up convicts and have no public track record of how we got there. That violates the defendants' rights not to mention the public's right to know what it's court system is doing."

Although Justice Department does not keep comprehensive nationwide statistics on secrecy in federal prosecutions, it does track how often prosecutors ask permission from headquarters to hold a secret court proceeding, like an arraignment, hearing, trial or sentencing.

The department estimates it got 100 such requests from October 2000 though October 2004, Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said. Another 100 arrived during the 12 months that ended October 2005, he said.

Sierra said the large recent increase occurred because the department sent a memo to all federal prosecutors in 2004 reminding them they need Washington's approval before requesting or agreeing to secret courtroom proceedings. Filing of secret papers in cases doesn't require such permission.

On the Net:

Reporters Committee: http://www.rcfp.org/

Have you ever looked at the top margins on the King James Bible?

It provoked cognitive dissonance in me as a child to read "Christ's love for His church" in the top margin of the page featuring the Song of Songs. "My tongue shall cleave to the roof of thy mouth"??? Oookay.

After I grew up I simply thought, "Who did they think they were kidding when they added that comment?"

My misunderstanding of some of the rougher stuff I just had to attribute to my difficulties reading King James' English. Never learned what an emerod was until I was an adult, and never could figure out why being stricken with emerods was a punishment for something or other. (They're hemorrhoids.) I don't remember what I thought of the daughters being put out the front door to be raped by strangers, but again, reading that the men "knew" them probably went over my head.

It was very puzzling for a book that was supposed to be so holy -- and undoubtedly not the best reading for an eight-year-old. I suppose I was lucky I didn't have the New English Bible on hand...

As for the children's book about penguins, extreme fundies are pretty conflicted about expressions of love, although they're very good with hellfire and brimstone. It's probably why they see dark shadows everywhere. How sad for their children, and what a pain in the ass for the rest of us.

My pet goat is more acceptable to fundies. It's about a republican type goat who is greedy as hell and eats every thing up, leaving nothing for any one else. Just as the father of the house is about to hold a BBQ, the goat saves his red Beamer from a terrarist (see 911) and holds same at bay. The goat then becomes a close friend and ally and is allowed to continue consumming every thing in sight. GW Bush, in fact, is now using this book as a homeland security training guide for Terra control, and the search for a pet goat ended with halliburton and UAE, but Osama is still missing.

Parents Complain About Book's Undertones (fundies gone crazy again)

March 4, 2006
Parents Complain About Book's Undertones
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:22 p.m. ET

SAVANNAH, Mo. (AP) -- A children's book about two male penguins that raise a baby penguin has been moved to the nonfiction section of two public library branches after parents complained it had homosexual undertones.

The illustrated book, ''And Tango Makes Three,'' is based on a true story of two male penguins, named Roy and Silo, who adopted an abandoned egg at New York City's Central Park Zoo in the late 1990s.

The book, written by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, was moved from the children's section at two Rolling Hills' Consolidated Library's branches in Savannah and St. Joseph in northwest Missouri.

Two parents had expressed concerns about the book last month.

Barbara Read, the Rolling Hills' director, said experts report that adoptions aren't unusual in the penguin world. However, moving the book to the nonfiction section would decrease the chance that it would ''blindside'' readers, she said.