it's an economic headline mash mucking

Today we reflect on this week in the economy, as revealed in the business and political headlines:

Bush: Tax Cuts Good For Economy

Growth slowest in more than 3 years

Housing slump hits US economy growth

Q3 profit climbs to $10.49 billion

Chevron Continues Big Oil's Hot Streak

Chevron earns record profits

GDP Slows Sharply to1.6% Rate

Wall St. closes lower as growth falters

US economy falters as service sector dips

US economy losing its global dominance

Slump May Chill Asia's Hot Exporters

Global trade no longer hostage to US consumers

The rich get richer in Bush economy

Poor people die earlier: but why?

Reducing poverty will cut health bills, says research

Stakes are High for Business in Nov. Elections

Masticate Feces and Be Deceased you shriveling lunatic!

This from the most nefarious of idiots managing the US government at this time:

At the Pentagon press conference this afternoon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked what would happen if the Iraqi government failed to meet the “benchmarks.” Rumsfeld first responded that “it is not complicated,” but just seconds later said, “This is complicated stuff. It’s difficult. We’re looking out into the future. No one can predict the future with absolute certainty.” He added, “So you ought to just back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it’s complicated, it’s difficult.”

All that i can think to say is: shut the fuck up you spineless lizard of a chickenhawk! If no one can predict the future, then why in your own godheaded assbackward mind, did you promote and manipulate the US into invading Iraq in the first place??? The senility is no longer being hidden, the man is stark raving insane. He must be fired immediately, if not, then impeach the bastard.

a short pause in today's moments.

If the Repugs are able to withstand the onslaught and keep control of the House and Senate, it will be one of the crowning achievements of Karl Rove's life. It will also provide substantive evidence for something that the US military, the CIA, the NSA, and every other federal intelligence and security apparatus agency, has known for a long long time: there is a profound use of, and need for, political assasinations.

reading between the lines time again

Official disclaimer: My sister, upon receiving her Ph.D. was hired as a research nutritionist for the largest processor of tuna products in the US. This was during the mid to late-1970's, at the beginning of the focus on the Japanese experiencing large scale mercury poisoning from their seafood. Her analysis led her to warn members of her family to stay away from most seafood along the upper end of the protein food chain. She found unsafe levels of mercury, PCB's, and other contaminants in all fish brought through her lab; though the USDA, FDA, and NHS had agreed that the levels (the news ones they proposed) had not been exceeded, the levels my sister found were too high for her to accept. Now a new report from a taskforce on health and sea food suggests that we need to balance the healthy benefits with the known risks. How does this work??? Welll the following paragraph in the report certainly ought to illuminate that:

• For all seafood categories, levels of contaminants such as dioxin and PCBs in commercially obtained fish generally do not pose health risks when consumed in amounts recommended by federal agencies. These contaminants tend to be geographically specific problems. State advisories are intended to alert the public about contaminated fish and shellfish from regional and local sources. Most people can gain nutritional benefits from seafood while minimising their risk of exposure to contaminants by selecting fish and shellfish in amounts that fall within current dietary guidelines, the report says. Because seafood supplies and cultivation practices change constantly, it would be difficult for federal agencies to develop a list of "good fish" and "bad fish" that would not become obsolete in a short time.

Read that paragraph carefully again. Did you see that lovely and amazing equivocation? "Fish generally do not pose health risks" speaks volumes here. Generally is a gianormous category isn't it? Another valid way to say this would be that only in specific cases would the consumption of fish pose health risks; and that those cases include eating fish in amounts outside of those recommended by a consortium of federal agencies. However those federal agencies cannot agree on those recommendations, each suggesting different levels of exposure and quantities for safe and health eating. Then of course there is the reliance of consumers on state advisories; somehow commercial media, paid for by the largest food corporations in the US are going to provide education to the population regarding the safety and health of seafood??? I can't see that happening, any more than i can see people only eating recommended amounts. The US over eats constantly, in massive quantities. And if that isn't sufficient, then they note that bothering to actually work on these guidelines is pointless because they would have to change them constantly. So the people should rely on information that is current, but that current information isn't reliable, and no new information will be used in the recommendations, but people should pay attention to advisories. This is an objectivist libertarian's wetdream.

The rest of the report isn't really any better. Perhaps one of the most striking aspects may be that it does admit that all of our seafood is toxic at some levels. That human beings have successful polluted the oceans and rivers, lakes and seas, with massive amounts of hazardous materials should be the banner headline of this report. But they bury that information pretty deep down in there.

Seafood is the major source of human exposure to methylmercury, a contaminant that accumulates in the muscle of animals over time. Because evidence suggests that methylmercury can disrupt neurodevelopment in the foetus, the report supports current recommendations that women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant avoid consumption of lean, predatory fish such as swordfish, shark, king mackerel, and tilefish, and limit their consumption of albacore, or "white" tuna. Other potential risks associated with seafood are exposure to persistent organic pollutants such as dioxin and PCBs - though there is not clear evidence on the adverse effects associated with these compounds - and microbial infections, which are contracted mainly through the consumption of raw or undercooked fish and shellfish.

The report supports current dietary guidelines and seafood advisories. However, the committee's interpretation of the risks and benefits differs in that it consolidates information on both risks and benefits for sensitive population groups and addresses all segments of the population. And it does not support giving those with a history of heart disease advice different from that given to the general population

Among their other recommendations are these gems:

• Lean fish are good sources of protein, are low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and provide moderate amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Predatory fish with long life spans - such as swordfish, shark, and tilefish - contain levels of methylmercury that are too high for pregnant and breast-feeding women.

• Fatty fish such as salmon are good sources of protein and provide the highest amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. They also contain higher levels of saturated fat and cholesterol and can accumulate higher amounts of pollutants such as dioxin and PCB, depending upon the source. Their methylmercury burden is lower than that of many lean fish.

• Shellfish and crustaceans are good sources of protein and low in saturated fat, although some contain moderate amounts of cholesterol. They present the greatest risk of microbial infection if eaten raw.

Can you make sense of this? Eat salmon for the protein and omega-3 fatty acids; don't eat salmon because it contains some of the highest levels of toxic chemicals humans have spewed on the planet. Don't eat long-lived lean fishes (most of those sold throughout the US) because they contain the most mercury; eat long-lived lean fishes because they have good proteins and best balance of fatty acids w/ zero cholesterol. And so forth.

The problem is solved quite simply. Eat more vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, and much less seafood, and very little meat.

I demand CNN & FOX apologize immediately,

as well as all those conservative talking heads who lambasted Eason Jordan. I notice that i can't, at this time, find that either CNN nor Fox are carrying this story:

<>OXFORD (Reuters) - One of Britain's most experienced journalists was unlawfully killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, an inquest into his death ruled on Friday, prompting calls for the perpetrators to be tried for war crimes. Veteran war correspondent Terry Lloyd, 50, who worked for ITN, was killed in March 2003 in southern Iraq as he reported from the front line during the first few days of the U.S.-led invasion.

<>"He was fired on by American soldiers as a minibus carried wounded people away," Coroner Andrew Walker said at the conclusion of the inquest, which U.S. soldiers declined to attend. "I have no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire on the minibus," Walker added. He said he intended to write to the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in an effort to bring those responsible for Lloyd's death before a British court.

Louis Charalambous, the Lloyd family's lawyer, said those responsible for his death should be brought to trial for what he termed "a very serious war crime." "It was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act," he added. He said the unlawful killing verdict had been "inescapable" and had come about because "U.S. forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys"

Nearly two years ago Eason Jordan had made some comments regarding the targetting and killing of journalists by US military forces, at the World Social Forum in Davos. Shortly thereafter he was fired by CNN and was tarred and feathered by the MSM far reichstag talking pundits for merely suggesting that the US would ever do such a dastardly deed. Since then the killing has gone on, and the MSM has steadfastly avoided any mention of the stories, hoping against all hope that they would just fade away. At the time of the firing the WaPo published an essay that contained this bit:

Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?

This fiery topic became a real nightmare today for the Chief News Executive of CNN at what was an initially very mild discussion at the World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?".

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

<>Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

I am quite sure that somewhere in the Middle East, right now, his remarks are being printed up in Arab language newspapers as proof that the U.S. is an evil and corrupt nation. That is a real nightmare, because the Arab world is taking something said by a credible leader of the media (CNN!) as the gospel, or koranic truth. What is worse is that I am not really sure what Eason really meant to communicate to us, but I do know that he was quite passionate about it. Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.

To me, what was said can not be put back into the genie's bottle. So here is my request as a U.S. citizen, and really only a minor, minor player in the whole WEF scheme of things: Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, you both seem like good and honest men, and Congressman Frank especially seems like someone with a bit of courage (I'm sure Senator Dodd is brave as well). Clear up this mess, use your power and authority as elected leaders, and make transparent what really happened. You must do this to respect the 12 journalists killed and let the world know how and why. Here is another challenge, and this one is for the CNN and the BBC: What the hell happened? Is Eason right or is he wrong? Good journalism calls for digging into and revealing all of the facts (or was everything that was said in the mild part of the discussion about fair coverage and seeking the truth just verbage?).

If what Eason originally said was true, exactly what happened and why needs to become known to the American public and world at large. If it is not, it is an example of how "news" is created by the heat of the moment, without any bearing to reality. If it is true, we need to know if it was official or if it was just some random disgruntled soldiers. The dark scenario, what the rest of the world would love to believe, is that the U.S. is sinister and evil and this is just another example of Darth Bush. Is this the same U.S. that I know and love, or was this just someone accidentally becoming swept up in the anti-U.S. feeling that is all pervasive in Davos (but they love us too, especially Clinton).

Gosh, if only any of these suggestions had been followed? They were not however; what immediately transpired was the firing of the Jordan. That seemed to be the only way the US powers that be could deal with the issue. Fire the man, and make it seem that he was the "loose cannon" on the deck of a perfectly steered ship of war, rather than someone speaking truth to power. Idiots like those from the WSJ made comments like this:

If Jordan ever harbored thoughts that U.S. forces had targeted journalists, a position that could be supported by the Kurtz story, then it was his duty as a newsman to pursue the story by assigning a CNN investigative team to it. If he did, I'd love to see the results. But it's fairly obvious that he didn't. Jordan's dereliction is less a mistake than it is proof of brain rot. The supreme editor of a news organization can't expect to make unsupportable inflammatory statements and maintain the respect of his truth-seeking troops at the same time. CNN did the right thing to show him the door. I would have done the same.

Even Jordan spun a recantation because the Rovian forces of Swiftboaters had launched salvo after salvo of attacks on him. His "resignation message" offered:

This is the statement Eason Jordan released tonight around 6:00 pm EST:

After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq.

I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside.

While my CNN colleagues and my friends in the U.S. military know me well enough to know I have never stated, believed, or suspected that U.S. military forces intended to kill people they knew to be journalists, my comments on this subject in a World Economic Forum panel discussion were not as clear as they should have been.

I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise. I have great admiration and respect for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces, with whom I have worked closely and been embedded in Baghdad, Tikrit, and Mosul, in addition to my time with American soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen in Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the Arabian Gulf.

"I never meant to imply" what kind of lame ass bullshit is that? How powerful are these legions of doom that control the US government and media?? Most of us knew all along the US killed journalists. They had done so during Iran/Contra and were chastized for it until Bush I pardoned the cast and crew. But now, we have the British government asking the World Court to investigate serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions in the case of one of their own from two years before Eason made any comment whatsoever. Will these Bushco apologists fall on their swords?? Will they publicly acknowledge their complicity in their role to silence criticism of these practices??? Will they come forward and investigate and report on all the other more than 100 killed. Terry Lloyd died with two other journalists, in an ambulance shot intentionally by US troops. That is the long and short of it.

I'm the decider... see heh heh heh... see.. heh heh

From yesterday's press conference; count the number of times he claims to have made decisions (from David Corn).

THE PRESIDENT: Speaking about books, somebody ought to add up the number of pages that have been written about my administration. There's a lot of books out there -- a lot. I don't know if I've set the record, or not, but I guess it means that I've made some hard decisions and will continue to make hard decisions.

And...this is the -- this is about the fifth time I've been asked this type of question. And as you know, there are some things that I wish had happened differently -- Abu Ghraib. I believe that really hurt us. It hurt us internationally. It kind of eased us off the moral high ground. In other words, we weren't a country that was capable of, on the one hand, promoting democracy, and then treating people decently. Now the world has seen that we've held those to account who are -- who did this.

You know, there's just a lot of look-backs. Presidents don't get to look back, but I will tell you, the decision to remove Saddam was the right decision. And I would look forward to the debate where people debate whether or not Saddam should still be in power....So when it comes to that decision, which is a decision to cause a lot of people to write books, it's the right decision.

so what was that pesky question anyway?
So I'm wondering, is there anything you wish you would have done differently with regard to Iraq?

oops, nothing about any books in the question so to speak, nor was there any effort to respond to the question either. Oh well, he's the decider see, and he gets to decide what he decides to say.

Herr pResident orders us to fugedabodit

<>

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that former Rep. Mark Foley's behavior toward former congressional pages was "disgusting" but predicted that voters would care more about the economy and national security than the ex-Florida lawmaker in next month's election. "I know this Foley issue bothers a lot of people, including me, but I think when they get in that booth they are going to be thinking about how best to secure the country from attack and how best to keep the economy going," Bush said in response to a question at his Rose Garden news conference.

See it is really easy. He speaks, Fox listens, tells its constituency to act, they follow, GOP stays in power. and whatever they do, they must not think about GOP's glaring social conservative hypocrisy, nor the Iraq and Afghan war, nor the national debt, nor the failing to act on any legislation Congress, nor the crisis in health care for the vast majority of citizens, nor anything else except: that the GOP can run a better police state and give more tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens. If you look at the canned adds that the GOP Senate and Congressional candidates are running right now this is their only message. The Dems are weak on security and will raise taxes.

There is zero substance to any discourse on the issues, and mere platitudes concerning the most corrupt and now nefariously disgusting behavior of the party leadership. There is only fluff and smoke and illusion. The US is in deep shit, and put there by bushco intentionally. Yet the MSM and the GOP candidates are being told not to discuss that at all. So please remember, do only what your lead says, all else is treason.

stay the course??? mmmm..

Let's see how many courses we know have open-ended successful outcomes??

Well, the analogy must come from sailing on the oceans, as in "stay on course, mark such and such, bearing such and such, speed such and such." These types of courses have specific navigable requirements however. They go from point A to point B and so forth, with an end point necessary to facilitate the proper charting of the course in the first place. These courses, and their ever important course corrections, require prior knowledge of hazards, location of key celestial and terrestrial triangulation vertices, and capacity to change course in case of emergencies and obstacles. The only way one could endlessly stay on course would be for the watercraft to have suffered severe damage to its steering systems: broken or stuck rudder, loss of propulsion (set adrift from staying on course), loss of command and control function, and so forth.

Golf courses, have 19th holes of course. The last hole, the finishing stop, the end of the course, the goal so to speak of staying on course until the outcome is achieved. Several things can get one off the course, most important of which is threatening and bad weather (lightning, tornado, high dangerous winds, massive flooding downpours, etc.) or some other catastrophe in the capacity to actually stay on course and play (injury to self or party, loss of balls, crash of carts, dropping of clubs in lake). In each of these sorts of cases when staying on course is no longer intelligent, safe, healthy, useful, the parties choose to immediately go to the 19th hole and claim satisfaction that they arrived at the goal.

Race courses--such as auto, motorcycle, horse, and so forth--are closed looped, and thus staying on course is relatively easy in terms of knowing where the course is going. Completing each circuit represents the fine tuning of the knowledge required to stay on course, but likewise increases the chances of being taken off course. All sorts of crises make getting off course critically important for survival. Hell they shoot horses don't they???

Distance race courses for running, ride and tie, triathlons, etc. are more open-ended yet have all manner of safety and health checks, backup systems, provisions and equipment support, and so far forth. Thus if a runner/rider on the Western States Marathon, or Tevis Cup Ride and Tie, wishes to stay on course, to the finish line (ah yes, forgot to mention that these courses have finish lines where the course officially ends), that person must abide by the decisions of officials evaluating and judging that individuals capacity to stay on course. Many problems get people yanked from the course, and only those who exhibit the best strategies, tactics, equipment, and most of all training, are allowed to stay on course to compete until they reach the finish line and achieve the goal.

There are lots of other courses too: curricula, technical training, safety screenings, rudimentary skills acquisition, testing of manpower and equipment, etc. All of these have clearly defined check points, benchmarks, checks for understanding, analyses, achievement criteria, and other markers that determine if the path of the course is optimal and meeting the objectives as outlined before beginning the course. We can certainly see why Bushco is trying now to deny that they ever mentioned staying on course in the first place. It was idiotic for them to phrase it that way; they have demonstrated that they do not belong on course; they have failed to specify their desired outcomes; they simply are not on course, except possibly one that is headed for crashing on some sub-surface rocks that will destroy the ship and all aboard.

Len Hart writes today:

I suppose I should indulge a bit of Schadenfreude. For years, from obscurity, I have been yelling that the policies of George W. Bush have made terrorism worse, alienated friends, confirmed potential enemies, and, in short, made Americans less safe, despised, reviled around the world. Bush's polices were bone-headed -- misunderstanding and misstating the nature of terrorism and, worse, failing to address it. There was some hope even among liberals that Bush's invasion of Afghanistan might bring an acknowledged terrorist to justice -- hopes dashed when Bush, himself, made of our nation a rogue state with a pattern of ineffective, ham fisted, policies. Under Bush, we became a rogue state, little better -- if at all -- from terrorists themselves. Bush's body count in Iraq alone far surpasses those of either Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein -- whom Bush calls terrorist and dictator.

Among Bush's policy blunders, he arrogantly dismisses the principles of Geneva, Nuremberg and the other treaties to which the US is not merely obliged -- we helped write many of them. Bush has thus abjured the very principles which had -- until Bush -- distinguished America from the dictatorial regimes of Hussein, Pinochet, Pol Pot et al. We have -- under Bush -- become the world's number one terrorist threat.

So my question is: "When will the next superpower military force decide that it is time for regime change for the torturous evil US totalitarian Bushco government?" Seems to me we as a nation have just joined the parade of thugs and villians, hellbent on incresing the strength and might of the chosen few at the expense of the masses wellbeing, freedom, and safety. Welcome to the rest of the 21st century.