California taxpayers finally win one

DANIEL WEINTRAUB
THE SACRAMENTO BEE

December 12, 2006

Revenge is sweet – in this case, for Californians who want a simpler way to file their tax returns.

State Controller Steve Westly, the former eBay executive who lost a bid for governor this year, twisted a knife into an old friend turned foe in one of his last acts as a public official. And California will be the better for it.

Intuit Corp., the Silicon Valley software giant that sells a commercial program to help people do their taxes, does not want the state to make that annual chore any easier on California residents. The harder the state makes it for taxpayers, the perverse reasoning goes, the more demand there will be for Intuit programs designed to ease that pain.

But Westly, who was once quite friendly with Intuit's CEO and was favored by the company's campaign contributions, defied the firm by urging the creation of a state program that helps people with simple taxes file their returns.

Known as ReadyReturn, the service calculates the taxes owed or refund due from the state and sends a note to the taxpayer with the completed return attached. This is not unlike what the county does when it sends a property tax bill. Except in this case, the taxpayers have the option of accepting the state's calculation and signing the return, or doing the math themselves and filing a traditional return. The service is also available via the Internet.

Surveys taken during a pilot project showed overwhelming support for the program. For some reason, taxpayers like it when the government makes their lives easier.

“This is a no-brainer,” Westly told me last week. “Why shouldn't California be a leader? Why shouldn't we make it easier for people to file their taxes?”

Intuit, however, almost smothered this baby in its cradle. When Westly and the Franchise Tax Board went to the Legislature to try to get permanent funding and authority to expand the program, Intuit used its influence to block them. Then, for good measure, the company persuaded the Legislature to add a provision to the budget killing the pilot project after the end of the 2005-06 fiscal year.

The company argued it was unfair for the government to compete with private enterprise for the business of filling out government forms.

Some in the Legislature also didn't like the idea of the state telling people how much tax they owed rather than letting them stumble their way to that number on their own.

We are talking here about low-income people with simple returns. They are not exactly the backbone of Intuit's business. And all the government is doing is matching the taxpayers' income statements with their tax status and calculating the tax. An amazing number of people screw up that math when they do it themselves. But it's not as if the state is going to get sneaky and cheat them out of a massive refund.

So Westly lost the first two rounds in the Legislature, and then he lost his race for governor in the Democratic primary. The program seemed doomed. But not wanting to take any chances, Intuit doubled down. The company contributed $1 million this fall to try to defeat Democrat John Chiang, who was running to succeed Westly and shared his predecessor's support for the program. In a political system filled with big-money influence, this was an extraordinary financial commitment by one company to change one policy that it opposed.

It was also a big mistake. Intuit's money couldn't stop Chiang, who won the election and will be the next controller. In the meantime, Chiang is a member of the Franchise Tax Board because of the position he still holds on the state Board of Equalization. Westly also sits on the Franchise Tax Board, along with the governor's director of finance.

A Westly ally obtained an opinion from the Legislature's lawyer saying that while lawmakers had killed the pilot project, they hadn't quite killed the idea. The Franchise Tax Board in its capacity as tax collector was free to help Californians file their returns. The tax board got a similar opinion from its own lawyers. So Westly last week led a 3-0 vote on the board to end the pilot program and start a new, permanent service in its place. The pilot program will lapse in 2007 – as ordered by the Legislature – but the new version will be ready for 2008.

Intuit was left sputtering. Lawsuits are a possibility. That would be a strange sight: A Silicon Valley company suing the state to stop the government from helping people deal with a burdensome government-imposed obligation.

Westly calls his former supporter's behavior “unconscionable” and says he was not about to back down. He says his commitment to revive the program was not revenge for Intuit's political opposition but simply good government.

It is good government. But it's also wonderful that the company blew $1 million trying to buy an election and instead bought itself a bigger headache. It might not have been revenge. But it was justice.

---

me@rescam.org

Under 'pretext of . . . freedom,' Iran gathers Holocaust deniers

By Nasser Karimi
ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 12, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran hosted Holocaust deniers from around the world yesterday at a conference examining whether the Nazi genocide took place, a meeting Israel's prime minister condemned as a “sick phenomenon.”

The 67 participants from 30 countries included David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader from the United States, and Holocaust skeptics who have been prosecuted by European countries for disputing that 6 million Jews were killed, or gas chambers used, by the Nazis.

“The number of victims at the Auschwitz concentration camp could be about 2,007,” Australian Frederick Toben told the conference, according to a Farsi translation of his remarks.

“The railroad to the camp did not have enough capacity to transfer large numbers of Jews,” said Toben, who was jailed in 1999 in Germany for insulting the memory of the dead.

The two-day conference was initiated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an apparent attempt to burnish his status as a tough opponent of Israel. The hard-line president has described the Holocaust as a “myth” and called for Israel to be wiped off the map. His government backed an exhibition of anti-Israel cartoons this year in a show of defiance after Danish cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad were published, raising an outcry among Muslims.

Organizers and participants called the conference a scholarly gathering aimed at discussing the Holocaust away from Western taboos and the restrictions imposed on scholars in Europe. In Germany, Austria and France, it is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened.

Duke, a former Louisiana state representative, praised Ahmadinejad for his courage in holding a conference “to offer free speech for the world's most repressed idea: Holocaust revisionism.”

Also among participants were two rabbis and four other members of the group Jews United Against Zionism, an ultra-Orthodox group that rejects the creation of Israel on the grounds that it violates Jewish law.

The gathering brought condemnation from both Israel and Germany. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called on the world to protest, terming the conference “a sick phenomenon.”

Norbert Lammert, president of the German parliament, protested in a letter to Ahmadinejad. He said the conference allowed anti-Semitic propaganda “under the pretext of scientific freedom.”

Yad Vashem, Israel's official Holocaust site that has documented the period, issued a statement saying that the Tehran conference was “an effort to mainstream Holocaust denial” and “paint (an) extremist agenda with a scholarly brush.”

Meanwhile, Iranian students staged a rare demonstration yesterday against Ahmadinejad as he delivered a speech at Amir Kabir Technical University, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

When a small group of students started chanting “Death to the dictator!,” Ahmadinejad responded calmly.

“We have resisted dictatorship for many years – from before the 1979 Islamic Revolution,” Ahmadinejad said. “Nobody can bring back a dictatorship even in the name of freedom.”

One student held up a poster that read: “Fascist president, the Polytechnic is not a place for you.” Some students set a picture of Ahmadinejad alight and a firecracker was set off.

Supporters of Ahmadinejad in the audience eventually drowned out the hecklers with their own chanting. The president then continued his speech.

No arrests were reported.

---

me@rescam.org

Under 'pretext of . . . freedom,' Iran gathers Holocaust deniers

By Nasser Karimi
ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 12, 2006

This is Orwellian. I have personally viewed photographs, originals with accompanying negatives, taken at Auschwitz just after the liberating units arrived. One photo shows emaciated bodies of men and women stacked into a mass grave the size of a football field. The hole was about 3 or 4 meters deep and nearly full. How many bodies of starved people does it take to fill that hole?

Another photo, from Birkenau, shows a mound of teeth containing dental gold which looks to be approximately 2 cubic meters. There are generally only two or three teeth in any single mouth with gold fillings, but even if whole mouths full of teeth were pulled from the bodies, how many people are needed to make that mound of teeth?

I have talked with two people, parents of a good friend in the Navy, with the serial number tattoos. They speak of losing every single known relative (more than 100 people) at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

This damnable conference in Tehran is being hosted by Ahmadinejad as simple Big Lie to lessen the people whom he has promised to "erase from the face of the Earth". Ahmadinejad knows that the Holocaust happened. Ahmadinejad is lying to further his own political aims and inflame fanatics. I am not Muslim, but everything I have learned of the faith and my readings of the Koran tell me that this evil man betrays Allah and spits on the principles of Islam. This is the man that many around the world think should have nuclear weapons because "it's only fair". What monumental fools.

---

me@rescam.org

Court and canal
Relining shouldn't take an act of Congress

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 13, 2006

While a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dithers, the Congress of the United States has made its position clear:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the date of enactment of this act, the secretary (of the Interior Department) shall, without delay, carry out the All American Canal Lining Project ...”

Once signed by the president, the secretary of the Interior will ask the appellate court to lift the stop-work order it issued four months ago after Mexican and U.S. opponents filed suit against the project. How the court will respond is a question. How it should respond is clear.

Five days before Congress' action, the court heard oral arguments in the suit. U.S. government attorneys argued correctly that, under the governing treaty signed in 1944, Mexico has no right to the Colorado River water that flows through the canal for use in Imperial County but seeps across the border from the decades-old earthen canal.

On the other hand, in a difficult but done deal, parched San Diego County has the right – the duty – to reline the canal and recapture seepage enough to supply 134,000 households a year.

Nor, the attorneys argued, are opponents correct that U.S. environmental law or the treaty compels consideration of the environmental or economic impact on Mexico or recompense for any harm done. This water is not Mexico's. It is U.S. water flowing through a U.S. canal subject to U.S. repair to permit U.S. use. Any issue of recompense should be decided diplomatically, under the U.S.-Mexico treaty, not by litigation in a U.S. court.

The issue, says San Diego County Water Authority general counsel Dan Hentschke, is analogous to a homeowner who decides to replace an old hose whose leaks have watered his neighbor's orange tree. The courts cannot force the homeowner to use the old hose. They cannot force him to poke holes in a new hose.

It shouldn't take an act of Congress to revive the relining. If it spurs the court to act quickly, however, so much the better. The injunction has set the relining project back a year, adding to the cost. Worse, it imperils the timetable for California to reduce its take of Colorado River water, in considerable part by recapturing All-American Canal water.

If that deal unravels, only environmental activists would cheer – and only because they consider new sources of water nothing but inducements to population growth and environmental degradation.

They're wrong. Natural growth in California requires more water supplies. The state's economy requires more water supplies. Congress not only recognizes that; in the new legislation it goes a step further, authorizing additional capacity, without delay, for storing Colorado River water at or near the All-American Canal.

Mexico will be adversely affected. The response, however, is continued efforts by U.S. and county officials to help Mexico better use its own Colorado River allotment, not to deprive Southern Californians of theirs.

---

me@rescam.org

The decline of American influence

ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
NEWSWEEK

December 13, 2006

With hindsight, we may see 2006 as the end of Pax Americana. Ever since World War II, the United States has used its military and economic superiority to promote a stable world order that has, on the whole, kept the peace and spread prosperity. But the United States increasingly lacks both the power and the will to play this role.

It isn't just Iraq, though Iraq has been profoundly destabilizing and demoralizing. Many other factors erode U.S. power: China's rise; probable nuclear proliferation; shrinking support for open trade; higher spending for Social Security and Medicare that squeezes the military; the weakness of traditional U.S. allies, Europe and Japan.

By objective measures, Pax Americana's legacy is enormous. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear device has been used in anger. In World War II, an estimated 60 million people died. Only three subsequent conflicts have had more than a million deaths (Vietnam, 1.9 million; Korea, 1.3 million; and China's civil war, 1.2 million).

Under the U.S. military umbrella, democracy flourished in Western Europe and Japan. It later spread to South Korea, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Prosperity has been unprecedented. Historian Angus Maddison tells us that from 1950 to 1998 the world economy expanded by a factor of six. Global trade increased 20 times. These growth rates were well beyond historic experience. Living standards exploded.

Since 1950, average incomes have multiplied about 16 times in South Korea, 11 times in Japan and six times in Spain, reports Maddison. From higher bases, the increases were nearly five times in Germany and three in the United States.

It is fatuous to think all this would have occurred spontaneously. Since the Marshall Plan, the United States has been a stabilizing influence – albeit with lapses (the Vietnam War, the 1970s inflation, now Iraq). Aside from security, it provided a global currency, the dollar. It championed lower tariffs and global investment, which transferred technology and management skills around the world. It kept its markets open.

To Americans, the lesson of World War II was that, to prevent a repetition, the United States had to promote global stability. It had to accept short-term costs and burdens to avoid larger long-term costs and burdens.

But the triumphalism following the Cold War fed overconfidence. Pax Americana would continue forever. It was “the end of history” – democracy and free markets would spread. The United States was a “hyperpower.”

The flaw in all this theorizing was to mistake strength for power. Statistically, the United States remains the world's strongest nation. Its economy is the wealthiest, triple the size of Japan's. Its all-volunteer military is the best trained and most technologically advanced. “No other state is building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, stealth fighters or unmanned aerial vehicles,” writes Max Boot, author of “War Made New.”

The trouble is that strength – measurable and impressive – does not translate directly into power. Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. Here, America is weaker.

Iraq has reminded us that religious and ethnic loyalties dim the appeal of democracy and freedom. Militarily, “asymmetrical threats” often neutralize conventional advantages, as Boot notes. Iraq has confirmed that, too.

If Iran and North Korea become permanent nuclear powers, the U.S. military edge would decline further. Any action against either country would be tempered by the possibility of a nuclear exchange. Worse, other regional powers (Japan, South Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) may decide to go nuclear to have deterrence. A black market in atomic technology would almost inevitably follow – increasing the odds of terrorists' acquiring a bomb.

The end of the Cold War probably reduced, not increased, American power. Without the Soviet threat, Europe and Japan felt less reason to follow U.S. leadership.

China's emergence is altering the world balance. In spirit, its economic policies are mercantilist. It subsidizes its exports with an artificially low exchange rate; it is seeking captive oil supplies. China's policies are for China, not a stable world order.

America won't retire from the world stage, but how active it will be is unclear. Iraq has reduced national confidence and credibility. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending are already twice defense spending. Generational attitudes are shifting. A poll of 18-to 24-year-olds finds that 72 percent don't think the United States should take the lead in solving global crises, reports Paul Starobin in National Journal.

Given the rampant anti-Americanism abroad today, the fading of Pax Americana may inspire much glee. The United States is widely regarded as an arrogant source of instability, blamed for many global woes – from greenhouse gases to Islamic militancy to unpopular globalization.

No one can know what will replace Pax Americana, but with time, the people who now celebrate its decline may conclude that its failures were mainly those of good intentions and that its successes were unwisely taken for granted.

---

me@rescam.org

European leaders condemn meeting of Holocaust deniers in Iran

By William J. Kole
ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 13, 2006

VIENNA, Austria – A gathering of Holocaust deniers in Iran touched off a firestorm of indignation yesterday across Europe, where many countries have made it a crime to publicly disavow the Nazis' systematic extermination of 6 million Jews.

The European Union's top justice official condemned the conference as “an unacceptable affront” to victims of the World War II genocide. British Prime Minister Tony Blair denounced it as “shocking beyond belief” and proof of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's extremism.

“I think it is such a symbol of sectarianism and hatred toward people of another religion. I find it just unbelievable, really,” Blair said in London.

“I mean to go and invite the former head of the Ku Klux Klan to a conference in Tehran which disputes the millions of people who died in the Holocaust. . . . What further evidence do you need that this regime is extreme?”

David Duke, a former Klan leader and former Louisiana state representative, was among those at the two-day conference. Although organizers touted it as a scholarly gathering, the meeting angered many in countries such as Austria, Germany and France, where it is illegal to deny aspects of the Nazi Holocaust.

In Washington, the White House condemned Iran for convening a conference it called “an affront to the entire civilized world.”

The conference drew especially sharp condemnation in Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel said her country repudiated it “with all our strength.”

“We absolutely reject this,” Merkel told reporters. “Germany will never accept this and will act against it with all the means that we have.”

She stood alongside visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who denounced the meeting as “unacceptable” and a “danger” to the Western world.

The Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, answering critics who contend revisionists are simply exercising their right to free speech, quoted an unidentified survivor as saying: “If the Holocaust was a myth, where is my sister?”

In Vienna, where British historian David Irving is serving a three-year sentence for denying the Holocaust and contending there were no gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp, local media reported that Moshe Ayre Friedman – a self-styled rabbi who is not recognized by Austria's Jewish community – was attending the conference.

The Austria Press Agency said Friedman allegedly maintained that the true Holocaust death toll was closer to 1 million. Gerhard Jarosch of the Vienna public prosecutor's office said officials were trying to verify Friedman's remarks.

---

me@rescam.org

UK MOTORISTS RISK JAIL FOR USING PHONES IN CAR

---

me@rescam.org

The decline of American influence

ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
NEWSWEEK

December 13, 2006

With hindsight, we may see 2006 as the end of Pax Americana. Ever since World War II, the United States has used its military and economic superiority to promote a stable world order that has, on the whole, kept the peace and spread prosperity. But the United States increasingly lacks both the power and the will to play this role.

It isn't just Iraq, though Iraq has been profoundly destabilizing and demoralizing. Many other factors erode U.S. power: China's rise; probable nuclear proliferation; shrinking support for open trade; higher spending for Social Security and Medicare that squeezes the military; the weakness of traditional U.S. allies, Europe and Japan.

By objective measures, Pax Americana's legacy is enormous. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear device has been used in anger. In World War II, an estimated 60 million people died. Only three subsequent conflicts have had more than a million deaths (Vietnam, 1.9 million; Korea, 1.3 million; and China's civil war, 1.2 million).

Under the U.S. military umbrella, democracy flourished in Western Europe and Japan. It later spread to South Korea, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Prosperity has been unprecedented. Historian Angus Maddison tells us that from 1950 to 1998 the world economy expanded by a factor of six. Global trade increased 20 times. These growth rates were well beyond historic experience. Living standards exploded.

Since 1950, average incomes have multiplied about 16 times in South Korea, 11 times in Japan and six times in Spain, reports Maddison. From higher bases, the increases were nearly five times in Germany and three in the United States.

It is fatuous to think all this would have occurred spontaneously. Since the Marshall Plan, the United States has been a stabilizing influence – albeit with lapses (the Vietnam War, the 1970s inflation, now Iraq). Aside from security, it provided a global currency, the dollar. It championed lower tariffs and global investment, which transferred technology and management skills around the world. It kept its markets open.

To Americans, the lesson of World War II was that, to prevent a repetition, the United States had to promote global stability. It had to accept short-term costs and burdens to avoid larger long-term costs and burdens.

But the triumphalism following the Cold War fed overconfidence. Pax Americana would continue forever. It was “the end of history” – democracy and free markets would spread. The United States was a “hyperpower.”

The flaw in all this theorizing was to mistake strength for power. Statistically, the United States remains the world's strongest nation. Its economy is the wealthiest, triple the size of Japan's. Its all-volunteer military is the best trained and most technologically advanced. “No other state is building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, stealth fighters or unmanned aerial vehicles,” writes Max Boot, author of “War Made New.”

The trouble is that strength – measurable and impressive – does not translate directly into power. Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. Here, America is weaker.

Iraq has reminded us that religious and ethnic loyalties dim the appeal of democracy and freedom. Militarily, “asymmetrical threats” often neutralize conventional advantages, as Boot notes. Iraq has confirmed that, too.

If Iran and North Korea become permanent nuclear powers, the U.S. military edge would decline further. Any action against either country would be tempered by the possibility of a nuclear exchange. Worse, other regional powers (Japan, South Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) may decide to go nuclear to have deterrence. A black market in atomic technology would almost inevitably follow – increasing the odds of terrorists' acquiring a bomb.

The end of the Cold War probably reduced, not increased, American power. Without the Soviet threat, Europe and Japan felt less reason to follow U.S. leadership.

China's emergence is altering the world balance. In spirit, its economic policies are mercantilist. It subsidizes its exports with an artificially low exchange rate; it is seeking captive oil supplies. China's policies are for China, not a stable world order.

America won't retire from the world stage, but how active it will be is unclear. Iraq has reduced national confidence and credibility. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending are already twice defense spending. Generational attitudes are shifting. A poll of 18-to 24-year-olds finds that 72 percent don't think the United States should take the lead in solving global crises, reports Paul Starobin in National Journal.

Given the rampant anti-Americanism abroad today, the fading of Pax Americana may inspire much glee. The United States is widely regarded as an arrogant source of instability, blamed for many global woes – from greenhouse gases to Islamic militancy to unpopular globalization.

No one can know what will replace Pax Americana, but with time, the people who now celebrate its decline may conclude that its failures were mainly those of good intentions and that its successes were unwisely taken for granted.

Here I only can say, having good intentions doesn't automatically mean making good decisions. Most failures in every day live and in politics came from good intentions instead of good decisions or good deeds.
In the example of USA, the main failure is to show their strength mainly on a military level rather than on welfare or other levels. So it's clear that their power will decline because most of the other countries are absolutely fed of with military.

---

Account frozen...

In the example of USA, the main failure is to show their strength mainly on a military level rather than on welfare or other levels.

In 2005 the US government foreign aid was more than $18 billion and the US private sector foreign aid exceeded $62 billion. This figure has already been topped in the year to date figures for 2006, without considering the enhanced private sector givin that occurs during the Christmas season.

The next closest country, Japan, gave less than half of that total. Do not attempt to tell me that the US has not shown strength on "welfare or other levels".

In the example of USA, the main failure is to show their strength mainly on a military level rather than on welfare or other levels.

In 2005 the US government foreign aid was more than $18 billion and the US private sector foreign aid exceeded $62 billion. This figure has already been topped in the year to date figures for 2006, without considering the enhanced private sector givin that occurs during the Christmas season.

The next closest country, Japan, gave less than half of that total. Do not attempt to tell me that the US has not shown strength on "welfare or other levels".

I know about the private sector foreign aid (like CARE etc.) But wouldn't it been better if the US government were known as a peaceful one than as a war government? I mean there were only a few Presidents who had no war during their time of duty. Mostly to "protect democracy" what ever it was in the view of the actual President, to be the "world's sheriff" - and this is why the other countries refuse to join in. IMHO the States are too much relying on their own strength no matter what others are saying. The citizens themselves are much more aware of the real needs of the poor than the government, so there are much more spendings by the private than by the government. And - those 18 billion $ of government aid - how much is it compared to the costs for military purposes? 10%? 5%? Less? To look only on the total amount does not say a thing if you don't compare it with other factors. Japan for example has much less inhabitants than the US, so this total sum is naturally less. But seeing it in comparison to the number of citizens (or to the GNP) could this "less than half of that total" be probably even more than the USA had spent. Like the "two mites" of the widow in the Bible, which was for her "all that she had", while the others had spend just a part of their abundance. (see St. Mark 12:41-44)

---

Account frozen...

In the example of USA, the main failure is to show their strength mainly on a military level rather than on welfare or other levels.

In 2005 the US government foreign aid was more than $18 billion and the US private sector foreign aid exceeded $62 billion. This figure has already been topped in the year to date figures for 2006, without considering the enhanced private sector givin that occurs during the Christmas season.

The next closest country, Japan, gave less than half of that total. Do not attempt to tell me that the US has not shown strength on "welfare or other levels".

I know about the private sector foreign aid (like CARE etc.) But wouldn't it been better if the US government were known as a peaceful one than as a war government? I mean there were only a few Presidents who had no war during their time of duty. Mostly to "protect democracy" what ever it was in the view of the actual President, to be the "world's sheriff" - and this is why the other countries refuse to join in. IMHO the States are too much relying on their own strength no matter what others are saying. The citizens themselves are much more aware of the real needs of the poor than the government, so there are much more spendings by the private than by the government. And - those 18 billion $ of government aid - how much is it compared to the costs for military purposes? 10%? 5%? Less? To look only on the total amount does not say a thing if you don't compare it with other factors. Japan for example has much less inhabitants than the US, so this total sum is naturally less. But seeing it in comparison to the number of citizens (or to the GNP) could this "less than half of that total" be probably even more than the USA had spent. Like the "two mites" of the widow in the Bible, which was for her "all that she had", while the others had spend just a part of their abundance. (see St. Mark 12:41-44)

The "percentage" argument is specious. No "other factors" mitigate the fact that the total amount from the US is far greater in absolute terms than any other country. Especially in the realm of private sector charity and especially when immediate relief from disaster is needed. Whenever a disaster occurs, wherever it occurs, the US is expected to be there to help. And we are always there.

If one of your friends had received emergency aid from you and said, "You give me more than any three others, but I want more because the others are giving me a higher percentage of their money.", what would you think? Such a comment would be ungrateful, to say the least, and show a distinct lack of that humility you speak so highly of.

You're right, BillHyland. To remark this seems to be ungrateful.

But unfortunately the US government is known to spend much more money for killing people than for their charity: $410 billion alone were spent for the DoD in 2006, and $439.3 billion are planned for 2007 according to the official US budget
"each B-2 bomber costs approximately $2.2 billion, while each F-117 fighter costs approximately $45 million; the U.S. fields 21 B-2s and 54 F-117s." (source: answers.com)
Or that F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program which is about to cost $256 billion! How much help would be able to give with this amount of money being spent for an IMHO totally unneeded thing.
The Iraq War has cost approximately 350 billion dollars until now - for that money they could have provided almost 17 million students four-year scholarships at public universities, or could have hired about 7 million additional teachers! Or have could have provided medical help or re-building in a lot of places and ways. So when you see this (and everyone in the world can see this, at least by searching the internet), is it still so ungrateful to say "Hey there is so much money you're throwing away, so why do you spend only a small part of it for good reasons? Throwing away that amount of money shows you are able to spend much more for Charity instead!"?

---

Account frozen...

You're right, BillHyland. To remark this seems to be ungrateful.

But unfortunately the US government is known to spend much more money for killing people than for their charity: $410 billion alone were spent for the DoD in 2006, and $439.3 billion are planned for 2007 according to the official US budget
"each B-2 bomber costs approximately $2.2 billion, while each F-117 fighter costs approximately $45 million; the U.S. fields 21 B-2s and 54 F-117s." (source: answers.com)
Or that F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program which is about to cost $256 billion! How much help would be able to give with this amount of money being spent for an IMHO totally unneeded thing.
The Iraq War has cost approximately 350 billion dollars until now - for that money they could have provided almost 17 million students four-year scholarships at public universities, or could have hired about 7 million additional teachers! Or have could have provided medical help or re-building in a lot of places and ways. So when you see this (and everyone in the world can see this, at least by searching the internet), is it still so ungrateful to say "Hey there is so much money you're throwing away, so why do you spend only a small part of it for good reasons? Throwing away that amount of money shows you are able to spend much more for Charity instead!"?

None of which invalidates my point. And furthermore, it is our business where we place our national resources.

If you wish to modify the manner in which the US government spends money you have a way to do it. Simply emigrate to the US, become a US citizen and either run for office on your own merits or vote into office those you believe will hold to policies you accept.

If you wish to do this, I would be happy to sponsor you and your family for US citizenship. This is not a trivial offer, nor is it made lightly.

You're right, BillHyland. To remark this seems to be ungrateful.

But unfortunately the US government is known to spend much more money for killing people than for their charity: $410 billion alone were spent for the DoD in 2006, and $439.3 billion are planned for 2007 according to the official US budget
"each B-2 bomber costs approximately $2.2 billion, while each F-117 fighter costs approximately $45 million; the U.S. fields 21 B-2s and 54 F-117s." (source: answers.com)
Or that F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program which is about to cost $256 billion! How much help would be able to give with this amount of money being spent for an IMHO totally unneeded thing.
The Iraq War has cost approximately 350 billion dollars until now - for that money they could have provided almost 17 million students four-year scholarships at public universities, or could have hired about 7 million additional teachers! Or have could have provided medical help or re-building in a lot of places and ways. So when you see this (and everyone in the world can see this, at least by searching the internet), is it still so ungrateful to say "Hey there is so much money you're throwing away, so why do you spend only a small part of it for good reasons? Throwing away that amount of money shows you are able to spend much more for Charity instead!"?

None of which invalidates my point. And furthermore, it is our business where we place our national resources.

If you wish to modify the manner in which the US government spends money you have a way to do it. Simply emigrate to the US, become a US citizen and either run for office on your own merits or vote into office those you believe will hold to policies you accept.

If you wish to do this, I would be happy to sponsor you and your family for US citizenship. This is not a trivial offer, nor is it made lightly.

You, Mr. Hyland, are a Truly Remarkable Individual . . . (seriously)

You're right, BillHyland. To remark this seems to be ungrateful.

But unfortunately the US government is known to spend much more money for killing people than for their charity: $410 billion alone were spent for the DoD in 2006, and $439.3 billion are planned for 2007 according to the official US budget
"each B-2 bomber costs approximately $2.2 billion, while each F-117 fighter costs approximately $45 million; the U.S. fields 21 B-2s and 54 F-117s." (source: answers.com)
Or that F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program which is about to cost $256 billion! How much help would be able to give with this amount of money being spent for an IMHO totally unneeded thing.
The Iraq War has cost approximately 350 billion dollars until now - for that money they could have provided almost 17 million students four-year scholarships at public universities, or could have hired about 7 million additional teachers! Or have could have provided medical help or re-building in a lot of places and ways. So when you see this (and everyone in the world can see this, at least by searching the internet), is it still so ungrateful to say "Hey there is so much money you're throwing away, so why do you spend only a small part of it for good reasons? Throwing away that amount of money shows you are able to spend much more for Charity instead!"?

None of which invalidates my point. And furthermore, it is our business where we place our national resources.

If you wish to modify the manner in which the US government spends money you have a way to do it. Simply emigrate to the US, become a US citizen and either run for office on your own merits or vote into office those you believe will hold to policies you accept.

If you wish to do this, I would be happy to sponsor you and your family for US citizenship. This is not a trivial offer, nor is it made lightly.

Thank you very much for this offer. Believe it or not: I already have applied for a Green Card in the beginning of this year.

---

Account frozen...

I miss Kofi already...

---

---

me@rescam.org

No free pass
Employers should not escape sweeps

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 14, 2006

There are those in America who don't think workplace sweeps – along with the apprehension and deportation of illegal immigrants – should even be part of U.S. immigration policy.

These people are wrong. Workplace raids of the sort that occurred this week at Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in six states – Colorado, Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa and Utah – are a legitimate and necessary tool in cracking down on illegal immigration. If people are in the United States illegally, and if they are breaking more laws by using phony Social Security numbers, they ought to be arrested and deported. The government agency in charge of doing that, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, must be careful not to ensnare U.S.-born Hispanics and others who have every right to live and work in the United States.

But with that caveat, we see no problem with workplace raids. Those who are in the country illegally take their chances every day when they go to and from work, and, on the day that their luck runs out and they're finally picked up and sent home, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Having said that, we are profoundly troubled that no officials at Swift & Co. were arrested or charged. It seems these officials had no idea that so many of their plants were hiring so many illegal immigrants and, under current law, in order to be charged with a crime, an employer must knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Well, know this: You can't have immigration enforcement without trust in our institutions and, as long as everyone from multimillion-dollar companies to soccer moms can hire illegal immigrants without fear of arrest or penalty or prosecution, no one will ever have confidence in this system or those who run it. And, all the while, we'll continue to have illegal immigrants in our country, because people will continue to hire them.

Why? Why, because they can.

---

me@rescam.org

This may be the best time for Obama

GEORGE F. WILL
THE WASHINGTON POST

December 14, 2006

New Hampshire was recently brightened by the presence of Barack Obama, 45, who, calling the fuss about him “baffling,” made his first trip in 45 years to that state, and not under duress. Because he is young, is just two years distant from a brief career as a state legislator and has negligible national security experience, an Obama presidential candidacy could have a porcelain brittleness. But if he wants to be president – it will not be a moral failing if he decides that he does not, at least not now – this is the time for him to reach for the brass ring. There are four reasons why.

First, one can only be an intriguing novelty once. If he waits to run, the last half-century suggests the wait could be for eight years (see reason four, below). In 2016, he will be only 55, but there will be many fresher faces.

Second, if you get the girl up on her tiptoes, you should kiss her. The electorate is on its tiptoes because Obama has collaborated with the creation of a tsunami of excitement about him. He is nearing the point when a decision against running would brand him as a tease who ungallantly toyed with the electorate's affections.

Third, he has, in Hillary Clinton, the optimal opponent. The contrast is stark: He is soothing; she is not. Many Democrats who are desperate to win are queasy about depending on her. For a nation with jangled nerves, and repelled by political snarling, he offers a tone of sweet reasonableness.

What people see in him reveals more about them than about him. Some of his public utterances have the spunginess of Polonius' bromides for Laertes (“neither a borrower nor a lender be . . . to thine own self be true”). In 2005, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO rated his voting record a perfect 100. The nonpartisan National Journal gave him a 82.5 liberalism rating, making him more liberal than Clinton (79.8). He dutifully decries “ideological” politics, but just as dutifully conforms to most of liberalism's catechism, from “universal” health care, whatever that might mean, to combating global warming, whatever that might involve, and including the sacred injunction Thou Shalt Execrate Wal-Mart – an obligatory genuflection to organized labor.

The nation, which so far is oblivious to his orthodoxy, might not mind it if it is dispensed by someone with Obama's “Can't we all just get along?” manner. Ronald Reagan, after all, demonstrated the importance of congeniality to the selling of conservatism.

Fourth, the odds favor the Democratic nominee in 2008 because for 50 years it has been rare for a presidential nominee to extend his party's hold on the presidency beyond eight years. Nixon in 1960 came agonizingly close to doing so (he lost the popular vote by 118,574 – less than a vote per precinct – and a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and 24,129 in Texas would have elected him), but failed. As did Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (he lost by 510,314 out of 73,211,875 votes cast), Gerald Ford in 1976 (if 5,559 votes had switched in Ohio and 7,232 votes had switched in Mississippi, he would have won) and Al Gore in 2000 (537 Florida votes). Only the first President Bush, in 1988, succeeded, perhaps because the country desired a third term for the incumbent, which will not be the case in 2008. So the odds favor a Democrat winning in 2008 and, if he or she is re-elected, the Democrat nominated in 2016 losing.

Furthermore, remember the metrics of success that just two years ago caused conservatives to think the future was unfolding in their favor: Bush carried 97 of the 100 most rapidly growing counties; the center of the nation's population, now southwest of St. Louis, is moving south and west at a rate of two feet an hour; only two Democratic presidents have been elected in the last 38 years; and in the 15 elections since World War II, only twice has a Democrat received 50 percent of the vote. Two years later, these facts do not seem so impressive.

In 2000 and 2004, Bush twice carried 29 states that now have 274 electoral votes; Gore and Kerry carried 18 that now have 248. Not much needs to change in politics in order for a lot to change in governance. And Obama, like the rest of us, has been warned, by William Butler Yeats: All life is a preparation for something that probably will never happen.

Unless you make it happen.

---

me@rescam.org