Stupid Motorist to be charged with Stupid Motorist Law

Stupid motorists, beware

County to invoke law, charge for Cave Creek flood rescue

Holly Johnson
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 17, 2005 12:00 AM

SCOTTSDALE - The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office will invoke the state's "stupid motorist law" for the first time, after a Cave Creek man drove around traffic barricades and tried to cross a flooded street last week in his Hummer.

The driver, Paul Zalewski, 47, reportedly ignored warnings not to enter Creek Canyon Road in Cave Creek on Friday.

But "Hummers are made to float," sheriff's spokesman Lt. Paul Chagolla said. "Other people told him not to go in there, and he did it anyway," endangering himself and six passengers, including three children.

Zalewski was cited for reckless driving. If he is found guilty of the charge in Cave Creek Municipal Court, he will be prosecuted under the state's stupid motorist law, which was passed in 1995 and requires drivers to reimburse the state for the cost of rescues.

Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Travis Anglin said the cost of the 55-minute rescue could exceed $800, based on hourly rates for fuel and maintenance of the rescue helicopter, two employees inside the aircraft, insurance and any damage sustained during rescue.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is considering charging another Cave Creek resident, Jacqueline Goodspeed, 65, for entering a flooded area near 58th Street and Desert Hills Drive despite warnings from officers.

Neither Zalewski or Goodspeed have yet been charged, but Arpaio said Wednesday that he intends to "pursue the law" if they are found guilty of reckless driving.

"We basically have people who were told not to go around barricades, and they went anyway. It's rather stupid," he said.

But that doesn't mean stranded motorists shouldn't call for help.

"It's not worth dying over the possibility of getting a ticket," Arpaio said. "We want people to use common sense." With more strong storms expected to hit this weekend, more than 600 sheriff's volunteers are on standby.

After wet weather dumped two inches of rain over the Valley over the past week, the sheriff's posses had a record-breaking number of rescues: 21 people, including 7 children, and three dogs.

Wednesday the Sheriff's Office assisted the Phoenix Fire Department in the rescue of a man from a flooded truck near 91st Avenue and Baseline Road, near the Salt River basin.

"It's a very serious situation," Arpaio said. "We're predicting more flooding in the washes and rivers, but we're proactive. We're ready to go."

Water rescues involve painstaking precision by both pilots and rescuers; helicopters fly directly over stranded vehicles and airlift victims to safety one at a time. One skid rests and balances on the vehicle, allowing rescuers to scoop up victims, while the other skid hovers above the water.

Wet, precarious surfaces and the risk of electrical shock make the task a dangerous one for rescuers, Anglin said. And "every single time it rains, somebody does this.

"And it's always the same washes. If an H2 and a tractor-trailer and a front-loader can't make it through these washes, your car isn't going to."

‘Liberal’ Media Silent About Guckert Saga

This is a great piece by Joe Conason. He outlines how different this whole Gannon-gate story would be if it were a Democrat in office, in particular Bill Clinton.
---------------------------

‘Liberal’ Media Silent About Guckert Saga

by Joe Conason



Proof that "the liberal media" is but a figment of right-wing mythology has now arrived in the person of one James Guckert, formerly known as Jeff Gannon. Were the American media truly liberal—or merely unafraid to be called liberal—the saga of Mr. Guckert’s short, strange, quasi-journalistic career would be resounding across the airwaves.

The intrinsic media interest of the Guckert/Gannon story should be obvious to anyone who has followed his tale, which touches on hot topics from the homosexual underground and the investigation into the outing of C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame to the political power of the Internet. But our supposedly liberal media becomes quite squeamish when reporting anything that might humiliate the Bush White House and the Republican Party.

Until very recently, Mr. Guckert served as the White House correspondent for Talon News, a Web site owned and operated by a group of Texas Republican activists who also run a highly partisan site called GOPUSA.com. Mr. Guckert resigned from his Talon job after liberal bloggers exposed his ties to Web sites promoting homosexual prostitution. On Valentine’s Day, AmericaBlog.org posted new evidence indicating that Mr. Guckert not only constructed those gay-play-for-pay sites, but worked as a male escort himself—and continued to do so until he got his first White House press pass in 2003.

Using his "Jeff Gannon" alias, Mr. Guckert soon became a familiar face in the briefing room, where White House press secretary Scott McClellan would call on him as "Jeff." No doubt Mr. McClellan welcomed his mushy-soft, Democrat-baiting questions.

George W. Bush called on him during his most recent press conference—a signal honor for a reporter from an obscure Internet publication, and quite a surprise to the dozens of actual reporters bypassed by Mr. Bush on Jan. 26.

Mr. Guckert’s archived writings suddenly disappeared from the Talon News Web site, but several of his greatest works have been preserved by the watchdogs at MediaMatters.org. They show that he had no journalistic purpose, let alone experience. His copy featured long passages lifted directly from White House press releases. Last year, during the Internet frenzy over Senator John Kerry’s "intern girlfriend," he falsely wrote that the young woman had "taped an interview with one of the major television networks at Christmas substantiating the alleged affair."

He also made a curious cameo appearance in the Valerie Plame controversy. In late 2003, Mr. Guckert called former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. During that interview, the Talon correspondent mentioned a C.I.A. document that supposedly showed Ms. Plame had dispatched Mr. Wilson, her husband, on a government mission to Niger to investigate rumored Iraqi uranium purchases. That allegation was meant to discredit the former ambassador, who had exposed White House intelligence abuses. Administration leaks to the press about Ms. Plame’s C.I.A. work are currently under investigation by a special prosecutor.

What Mr. Guckert seems to have been is not a journalist but a Republican dirty trickster. He was schooled at the Leadership Institute—an outfit run by veteran right-wing operative and Republican National Committee member Morton Blackwell. (It was Mr. Blackwell who distributed those cute "purple heart" Band-aids mocking Mr. Kerry’s war wounds at the Republican convention last summer.) His former employers at Talon News include leading Republican fund-raisers and former officials of the Texas Republican Party who have been active in partisan affairs for the past two decades.

How did this character obtain a coveted place in the White House? What did the White House press staff know about him? How does his story fit within the larger scandal of payola punditry, with federal funds subsidizing Republican propagandists in the press corps? Did someone in the Bush administration give him a classified document?

Such questions are evidently of little concern to our liberal media outlets, whose leading lights prefer to deliver prim lectures about the unwarranted invasion of Mr. Guckert’s private affairs and his victimization for his conservative views. In fact, everything known about him comes from material he posted on public Web sites, but that’s beside the point.

Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart—or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.

Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps—and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now.

You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.

Another Stolen Election

USCountVotes.org has released another study about the exit polls during the Nov election were correct and that there was systematic fraud, probably brought on by Bush and his crime family. Statistician after statistician have said that exit polls are not wrong, and for them to as wrong as they were is statistically impossible. To read the full report in response to the polling company click here.

-----------

A Corrupted Election

Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right

By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf

Recall the Election Day exit polls that suggested John Kerry had won a convincing victory? The media readily dismissed those polls and little has been heard about them since.

Many Americans, however, were suspicious. Although President Bush prevailed by 3 million votes in the official, tallied vote count, exit polls had projected a margin of victory of 5 million votes for Kerry. This unexplained 8 million vote discrepancy between the election night exit polls and the official count should raise a Chinese May Day of red flags.

The U.S. voting system is more vulnerable to manipulation than most Americans realize. Technologies such as electronic voting machines provide no confirmation that votes are counted as cast, and highly partisan election officials have the power to suppress votes and otherwise distort the count.

Exit polls are highly accurate. They remove most of the sources of potential polling error by identifying actual voters and asking them immediately afterward who they had voted for.

The reliability of exit polls is so generally accepted that the Bush administration helped pay for them during recent elections in Georgia, Belarus and Ukraine. Testifying before the House Committee on International Relations Dec. 7, John Tefft, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, explained that the Bush administration funded exit polls because they were one of the "ways that would help to expose large-scale fraud." Tefft pointed to the discrepancy between exit polls and the official vote count to argue that the Nov. 22 Ukraine election was stolen.

Grasping at explanations

Last November in the United States, as in Ukraine, the discrepancy between the presidential exit polls and the tallied count was far beyond the margin for error. At the time, Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, the two companies hired to do the polling for the National Election Pool (a consortium of the nation's five major broadcasters and the Associated Press), didn't provide an explanation for how this happened. They promised, however, that a full explanation would be forthcoming.

On Jan. 19, on the eve of the inauguration, Edison and Mitofsky released their report, "Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004," which generated headlines such as MSNBC's "Exit Polls Prove That Bush Won." But, the report does nothing of the sort. It restates a thesis that the pollsters previously intimated—that the discrepancy was "most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters." But the body of the report offers no data to substantiate this position. In fact, data presented in the report serve to rebut the thesis, and bolster suspicions that the official vote count was way, way off.

The report states that the difference between exit polls and official tallies was far too great to be explained by chance ("sampling error"), and that a systematic bias is implicated.

With that statement the pollsters confirm the discrepancy we initially documented. The exit polls were based on more than 70,000 confidential questionnaires completed by randomly selected voters as they exited the polling place. The overall margin of error should have been under 1 percent. But the official result deviated from the poll projections by more than 5 percent—a statistical impossibility.

The pollsters report that the precincts were appropriately chosen for sampling, in that the aggregated official results from the sampled precincts accurately reflected the official statewide ballot counts.

In saying this, Mitofsky and Edison vindicate a key piece of their methodology—the representativeness of their samples. If the fault indeed lies with the exit polls, the range of possibilities for error is therefore narrowed.

Finally, they report that the source of error is, in fact, within-precinct error (WPE), the difference between official precinct tallies and the exit poll samples from those same precincts. On average, across the country, the President did 6.5 percent better in the official vote count, relative to Kerry, than the exit polls projected.

This admission further narrows the range of possibilities. If the polling data are accurate, the only remaining possibilities are "non-response bias" (i.e., Bush voters disproportionately did not participate in the exit polls) and/or errors in the official tally.

However, having gotten to this point in their argument, Mitofsky and Edison summarily dismiss the possibility that the official count was wrong. They reject the election fraud hypothesis because, they say, "precincts with touch screen and optical voting have essentially the same error rates as those using punch-card systems."

Indeed, they do. But this fact merely suggests that all three of these systems may have been corrupted. Indeed, there is little question about problems associated with both punch card systems (recall the Florida debacle in 2000) and mechanical voting machines, which are generally unreliable, vulnerable to tinkering and leave no paper trail. That's why both systems have been slated for termination under the Helping America Vote Act of 2002.

Notably, Mitofsky and Edison unsucessfully try to explain away the fact that, according to their data, only in precincts that used old-fashioned, hand-counted paper ballots did the official count and the exit polls fall within the normal sampling margin of error.

Further, data that are underplayed in the report provide support for the hypothesis that the election was stolen.

First, the report acknowledges that the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official count was considerably greater in the critical swing states. And while that fact is consistent with allegations of fraud (if you are going to steal an election you go after votes most vigorously where they are most needed), Mitofsky and Edison suggest, without providing any data or theory to back up their claim, that this discrepancy is somehow related to media coverage.

Second, in light of the charges that the 2000 election was not legitimate, the Bush/Cheney campaign would have wanted to prevail in the popular vote. If fraud was afoot, it would make sense that the president's men would steal votes in their strongholds, where the likelihood of detection is small. Lo and behold, the report provides data that strongly bolster this theory. In those precincts that went at least 80 percent for Bush, the average within-precinct-error (WPE) was a whopping 10.0—the numerical difference between the exit poll predictions and the official count. That means that in Bush strongholds, Kerry, on average, received only about two-thirds of the votes that exit polls predicted. In contrast, in Kerry strongholds, exit polls matched the official count almost exactly (an average WPE of 0.3).

Other report data undermine the argument that Kerry voters were more likely to complete the exit poll interview than Bush voters. If this were the case, then one would expect that in precincts where Kerry voters predominated, the cooperation rate would be higher than in pro-Bush precincts. But in fact, the data suggest that Bush voters were slightly more likely to complete the survey: 56 percent of voters completed the survey in the Bush strongholds, while 53 percent cooperated in Kerry strongholds.

Corollary evidence

The exit polls themselves are a strong indicator of a corrupted election. Moreover, the exit poll discrepancy must be interpreted in the context of more than 100,000 officially logged reports of irregularities during Election Day 2004. For many Americans, if not most, mass-scale fraud in a U.S. presidential election is an unthinkable possibility. But taken together, the allegations, the subsequently documented irregularities, systematic vulnerabilities, and implausible numbers suggest a coherent story of fraud and deceit.

What's more, the exit poll disparity doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't count those voters who were disenfranchised before they even got to the polls. The voting machine shortages in Democratic districts, the fraudulent felony purges of voter rolls, the barriers to registration, and the unmailed, lost, or cavalierly rejected absentee ballots all represent distortions to the vote count above and beyond what is measured by the exit poll disparity. The exit polls, by design, sample only those voters who have already overcome these hurdles.

The thesis of the Mitofsky/Edison exit poll report and the headlines that it generated are curiously detached from the numbers in the report itself. Statisticians who have studied the exit polls find substantial evidence to support the thesis that the vote counts—not the exit polls—were inaccurate.

Apparently, the pollsters at Mitofsky and Edison have found it more expedient to provide an explanation unsupported by theory, data or precedent than to impugn the machinery of American democracy. Unfortunately, their patrons in the media find it correspondingly preferable to latch onto a non-confrontational thesis, however implausible, than to even suggest the possibility of foul play.

Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert White House planted, gay prostitute, reporter EXPOSED!!!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html

OK, this is huge! I have not really posted anything about Jeff Gannor/Jim Guckert as of yet. But John over at AmericaBLOG has done a phenomonal job at really getting into this. It turns out, not only does this guy not have any journalism education, but he is also a gay prostitute, with an active profile even as late at Feb 14, 2005. So how did a guy with no journalism experience, running gay porn sites, using a fake name, and who wrote for a fake news organization that appeared 5 days before his first press pass, pass a background check for a day pass every day for almost two years? Plus, there are clear indications that he knew of Valerie Plame before Robert Novak reported it. Obviously this guy either is another payola scandal, has connections in the White House (McClellan says the President gave the clear for Mr. Gannon), or is blackmailing someone. Whatever the reason, this clearly needs to be investigated. There is a something more here that John has not discovered as of yet, but it involves the White House that I can assure you. I suggest you go check out the link above and read the whole story about this guy.

The administration needs to be tried for more than 3,000 counts of murder

Update: This is going to be controversial. After hearing about these reports and hearing some testimony from the Hijack Command Center manager, I believe, in every bone of my body, that the Bush Administration KNEW, knew that 9/11 was going to happen. I am not sure I will go out as far as to say that they planned it, but they knew it was going to happen. And they did nothing to stop it. These documents further prove Richard Clark's testimony, which has been discredited by the White House. There is a massive cover-up by the Bush Administration. THEY COULD HAVE STOPPED THIS!!!! 9/11 NEVER would have happened, NEVER, under President Gore! I think this comes from the highest levels. I believe Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and even Powell, are behind this. This is outrageous.... I am just ill, just ill.

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

INTEL – DOZENS OF WARNINGS PRESAGED 9/11 ATTACKS: Federal aviation officials received dozens of warnings before the Sept. 11 attacks about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, including some that mentioned airline hijackings or suicide attacks, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 Commission. The report, first detailed in the New York Times, criticizes the Federal Aviation Administration for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could possibly have altered or prevented the events of 9/11. "The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months," the Times reports, "much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system."

Budget Surprises

The president's budget has now been public for four days. For months the American people knew that it would be bad: cuts to vital domestic investments and services for the middle class, unsustainable tax cuts for the wealthy, and expanding deficits were all expected. The budget release on Monday, however, brought even more bad news to light. Specifically, the White House sprung three budget surprises on the American people:

• Proposed more tax cuts for the wealthy. Americans already knew that the president wanted to make his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, an act that would cost well over $1 trillion. What they found out this week is that the president is looking for even more tax cuts—cuts that would cost $117 billion over the next ten years. Eliminating two obscure tax provisions known as "PEP" and "PEASE" would overwhelmingly benefit the well-off: ninety-seven percent of savings would go to households making more than $200,000 a year.




• Took even more money "off-budget" and rolled it into an upcoming supplemental request. For months the administration has said that it will request $80 billion in additional funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and that it will not account for the money in the budget. More recently it revealed that it will also seek supplemental funding for tsunami relief efforts and aid to the Palestinian Authority. Although few debate the merits of such funds, at a time of soaring deficits the president owes it to the American people to fully account for this money.




• Slipped unpopular policies in through the backdoor. The president—never one to shy away from trying to sneak unpopular policies through the legislative system—is up to his old tricks again in this budget. He proposes further exploration of "bunker buster" nuclear bombs and counts on funding from drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge—two policies that Congress has explicitly rejected in the past.

Daily Talking Points is a product of the American Progress Action Fund.

On the quest to make the world more democratic and safe

washingtonpost.com

N. Korea Says It Has Manufactured Nuclear Weapons

Pyongyang Indicates It Will Withdraw Indefinitely From Six-Nation Disarmament Talks

By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 10, 2005; 11:34 AM


TOKYO Feb. 10 -- North Korea on Thursday declared itself a de facto nuclear power, claiming in its strongest terms to date that it had "manufactured nuclear weapons" to defend itself from the United States and saying it would withdraw indefinitely from international disarmament talks.

Since withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ejecting weapons inspectors in a dispute with the Bush administration in late 2002, North Korea has used less specific language, both publicly and privately, to describe the development of what it has dubbed a "nuclear deterrent." But on Thursday, an official North Korean statement employed wording that analysts and several Asian diplomats saw as a virtual declaration that it has become a nuclear power. "In response to the Bush administration's increasingly hostile policy toward North Korea, we . . . have manufactured nuclear weapons for self-defense," the government said in official statement through the its Korean Central News Agency.

Without evidence of a nuclear test, considered difficult given North Korea's small size and broad border with its chief benefactor, China, North Korea's assertion remains just that -- an assertion. The statement, however, seemed in concert with U.S. intelligence officials who have privately estimated that North Korea has developed a cache of at least a couple of nuclear devices and has reprocessed 8,000 spent fuel rods into plutonium -- potentially enough to make as many as six more.

The declaration, nonetheless, raised the stakes for a quick diplomatic solution to the North Korea nuclear issue while posing new hurdles for the Bush administration as it tries to bring Pyongyang back to disarmament talks that have been stalled since last June. In recent days, administration officials have briefed Asian allies on evidence that North Korea sold nuclear material to Libya in 2001, demonstrating the urgency in bringing Pyongyang into compliance.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is winding up her weeklong diplomatic debut abroad, warned North Korea to reconsider its choice to break off disarmament talks or face deepening isolation from the rest of the world and greater suffering for its people.

In Luxembourg, Rice outlined stark alternatives if the regime of Kim Jong Il does not abandon its "unfortunate" boycott. "With our deterrent capability on the Korean peninsula . . . the United States and its allies can deal with any potential threat from North Korea. And North Korea, I think, understands that. But we are trying to give the North Koreans a different path," Rice said at a press conference with three European Union leaders.

Rice told reporters that she hopes the United States and its allies engaged in the six-party talks -- China, Russia, South Korea and Japan -- will confer again soon to resolve the standoff.

But in response to North Korea's declaration today that it has a nuclear program, Rice said the United States has assumed Pyongyang had a nuclear capability since the mid-1990s.

South Korea and Japan on Thursday called on Pyongyang to return to the disarmament talks and raised the possibility of international sanctions if it does not.

Asian diplomats had hoped that Bush's relatively conciliatory State of the Union Speech last month would do the trick. After calling North Korea a member of the "Axis of Evil" with Iran and Iraq three years ago, Bush refrained from reiterating a hard-line approach against North Korea, instead emphasizing the need for international cooperation to solve the crisis.

But in its Thursday statement, North Korea latched on to Rice's statements during her confirmation hearings, suggesting that her identification of North Korea as "an outpost of tyranny" meant U.S. policy -- demanding unilateral disarmament without economic and diplomatic incentives up front -- had not changed. North Korea outlined a rationale not only for indefinitely boycotting the six-party disarmament talks but also for increasing its nuclear arsenal.

"The Bush administration termed the DPRK" -- North Korea's official name -- "an 'outpost of tyranny,' " North Korea said in Thursday's statement. "This deprived the DPRK of any justification to participate in the six-party talks" and "compels us to take a measure to bolster our nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in the DPRK."

North Korea was seen by analysts as withholding an earlier declaration as a nuclear power in part as a bargaining chip in the talks. Many believe it had delayed a return to the table to see if Bush was re-elected, and then, what the new administration's policy might be.

Analysts concluded that North Korea's statement Thursday meant it no longer saw anything to lose given that the Bush administration, with a largely similar cast, is now entrenched for four more years.

"They are using this to try to force the U.S. to deal with them now as a nuclear-possessing country, and to escalate their demands," said Pyong Jin Il, a leading Tokyo-based North Korea expert and editor of the Korea Report. "They are going to try to force the U.S. to deal with it on an equal stand as China, Russia, India and Pakistan. They are asking the U.S. and the rest of the world to negotiate with them as a nuclear power."

Some officials on Thursday called the statement more of the North's typical brinksmanship designed to win the upper hand in negotiations. Several officials also compared it to previous missives -- particularly a statement to the press made by North Korea's vice foreign minister, Choe Su Hon, last September at the United Nations, where he said his government had "weaponized" nuclear material. North Korea has also privately told U.S. officials that it has nuclear weapons and has threatened to stage a test.

But other Asian diplomats and analysts saw the North Korean statement as significant because of its clarity, specificity and source -- an official government statement. A vital unknown factor, however, remains whether North Korea has mastered the technology to deliver such devices through its arsenal of short- and mid-range ballistic missiles. Even so, "the concern is that they have them at all," said one Asian diplomat. "They could be mounted on ships or planes and be delivered in primitive but potentially effective way."

South Korea said Thursday the North's decision to stay away from talks was "seriously regrettable." Foreign Ministry spokesman Lee Kyu Hyung said, "We again declare our stance that we will never tolerate North Korea possessing nuclear weapons."

Officials in Tokyo, as in Washington, have been looking to China -- which provides up to 80 percent of North Korea's energy and has on occasion cut off oil supplies to force it into submission -- to pressure Pyongyang. A Chinese official was reported to be planning a mission to North Korea this month, leaving Asian diplomats upbeat that at least lower level disarmament talks would soon take place. Shigeru Ishiba, Japan's influential former defense minister and a legislator in its ruling Liberal Democratic Party, said it is time "for China to do more."

If China cannot get North Korea back to the bargaining table in short order, he said, international sanctions may now be in order. "Because the situation has now come this far, I personally believe it is time that we bring this issue before the [United Nation] Security Council," he said. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, under pressure at home to impose bilateral sanction against North Korea, immediately called on Pyongyang to return to the stalled nuclear talks. "It would be better if we resumed talks soon," he told the Kyodo News service. "Just as we have until now, we will cooperate with the other countries toward this end."

A broader fear for U.S. officials is proliferation by North Korea. Besides its publicly professed plutonium program, North Korea is believed to have a second uranium enrichment program.

The standoff with North Korea began after Pyongyang privately admitted to the uranium program in Sept. 2002, U.S. officials say, a violation of North Korea's earlier agreement with the Clinton administration to abandon its nuclear weapons programs. It touched off a tense two years in which North Korea kicked out weapons inspectors and announced the reprocessing of its spent plutonium rods.

But it has steadfastly denied admitting to the second uranium program, which again became the focus of attention last week after U.S. officials reportedly told China, South Korea and Japan that North Korea provided Libya with 1.6 tons of converted uranium that could be enriched to nuclear-bomb-grade level. Libya turned the uranium hexafluoride over to the United States last year as part of its agreement to give up its program of weapons of mass destruction.

"I think certainly you have to be concerned about the potential for sales to terrorist groups, I think North Korea would sell to anyone with hard currency," Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, told reporters in Tokyo Wednesday morning before North Korea's announcement. "It's bad enough that they would sell missile technology or chemical or biological weapons capability, but the nuclear capabilities are obviously the most dangerous of all."

Staff writer Robin Wright in Luxembourg and special correspondent Akiko Yamamoto in Tokyo contributed to this report.

The American people are a little unsure about messing with Social Security

washingtonpost.com

Social Security Problems Not a Crisis, Most Say

By Richard Morin and Dale Russakoff
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page A01


Most Americans are certain Social Security will go bankrupt but are not ready to embrace changes that would shore up the system's finances, according to two surveys by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

Seven in 10 Americans agree with President Bush that Social Security eventually will go bankrupt if Congress fails to act, though most predict that the system will not do so for at least two decades. Yet while Bush has warned of a crisis in Social Security, barely one in four Americans believes that a crisis exists.

More broadly, the polls raise serious doubts about whether Americans are willing to make the choices necessary to fix the system's financial problems. Solid majorities reject both increases in payroll taxes and decreases in retirement benefits, except for the wealthy. Experts agree that without new revenue coming in or less flowing out as benefits -- or both -- the Social Security system will not be able to pay all its promised benefits, perhaps as early as 2042.

Other recent samplings of public opinion have gauged support for Bush's restructuring plan and other proposals for change, but these polls sought to measure what people knew about Social Security and how misinformation about the program is shaping policy preferences. The polls also tested how subtle changes in the way proposed changes are described can produce major shifts in public opinion.

A majority supports the president's proposal to allow Americans to invest part of their Social Security contributions in stocks or bonds, although opinions on this and other aspects of the president's plan frequently are weakly held and easily moved.

For example, Jerry Traylor, 58, a retired government worker who lives in Newell, Ala., said he supports Bush's proposal for personal accounts, asserting that "a person would have more interest in their own money and their future in retirement if they could invest in stocks."



But like nearly half of those surveyed, Traylor wrongly believed that the costs of creating personal accounts would be negligible. Told that the Bush administration estimates the government initially would have to borrow more than $700 billion to set up such a system, he was incredulous. "That seems very excessive," Traylor said. "I would be less inclined to favor it if it costs that much. That much money could serve a lot of good purposes."

That cost estimate proved to be the most effective of four arguments against Bush's proposal tested in the polls. While 56 percent said they support a plan for individual investment accounts, more than half of those said they would be less likely to do so after hearing the estimate. More than four in 10 supporters wavered when they heard that personal accounts would not, by themselves, reduce the financial problems facing Social Security.

Those opposed to Bush's plan were consistently more resistant to changing their view -- about one in four did -- when confronted with four arguments supporting his proposal.

Taken together, the polls found that the debate over Social Security reflects the sharp divisions of the presidential campaign, and that Bush enters the fight without a clear mandate on the issue. The surveys also found serious misunderstandings about Social Security that could be exploited by either side to shape opinion as the debate evolves.

Facts vs. Beliefs

Americans badly underestimate the share of the federal budget spent on Social Security, and most incorrectly believe that retirees, on average, receive less in benefits than they contributed to the system. And about half of those who support the president's plan incorrectly believe it would protect people from losing retirement money they invested from their personal account.



Perhaps most significant, about seven in 10 Americans believe that the cost of living has been rising faster than wages over the past 20 years, although the reverse is true. This belief probably shapes policy preferences: The same percentage wants to peg initial Social Security benefits to the cost of living, as Bush reportedly wants, instead of the current formula, which pegs them to wage increases. That change would result in significantly lower guaranteed benefits for future generations, according to both supporters and opponents.

Danny Burke, 49, a laid-off maintenance mechanic in Granite City, Ill., who said he struggles to make ends meet, believes based on experience that prices are rising much faster than wages. "Just go to the grocery store and look at a can of corn," he said. "I used to get four for a dollar; now it's five for $2."

But Robert Mitchell, 40, who owns a carpet-cleaning business in Nixa, Mo., correctly said wages rise faster, also based on what he sees. "My parents worked like dogs, and we had one TV and two old cars. Now every person I know has two brand-new cars and a plasma TV," he said.

At the same time, the polls found that the public has quickly become informed on many key elements of the Bush plan to create individual investment accounts.

Most already know that Bush's changes would exempt those 55 and older, and people polled understand that the accounts would be protected from use by government. They also know the plan would limit investments to a few relatively safe stock and bond funds.

To measure knowledge about Social Security and the Bush plan, The Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard conducted two national telephone surveys. The first poll of 1,236 randomly selected adults was conducted Feb. 3 to 6 and measured what people knew about Social Security and their attitudes toward restructuring.

The second survey, of 1,231 randomly selected adults conducted Feb. 4 to 6, focused on what people initially have learned about the Bush plan. Both surveys have margins of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

The polls suggest that the debate over Social Security restructuring is a battle of words -- but not necessarily the words the administration has worried about.

Americans seem not to change their views when the president's plan is characterized as a "private" rather than a "personal" investment account -- a change from earlier studies, in which the use of "private accounts" or "privatization" drove down support. Either way, a modest majority favored the proposal, the survey found.

Far more sensitive was the characterization of the way a restructuring would include a provision to recalculate initial benefits for retirees. Opposition rose from 68 percent when this change was characterized as "reducing the rate of growth in benefits" to 86 percent when described as "cutting guaranteed benefits." Both phrases accurately describe what would happen.

Deep Divisions

The polls also revealed that the fault lines of the presidential campaign are resurfacing in the Social Security debate. Those surveyed split down the middle on whether they trusted Democrats or Republicans to lead on Social Security. And they were almost equally divided on the values that lie at the heart of the current debate -- self-reliance vs. the government's obligation to protect its citizens.

Half said the overriding value is having a guaranteed minimum standard of living in retirement, even if that means the government decides how all Social Security taxes are invested. Nearly as many said the system should above all allow Americans to invest a portion of Social Security taxes as they wish, even if they end up taking risks that hurt them financially.

Six in 10 Democrats valued the guaranteed standard of living, while six in 10 Republicans valued the freedom to invest on their own. Seniors valued the minimum standard of living by 57 percent to 32 percent. Those younger than 40 valued the right to invest on their own by 53 percent to 42 percent.



Attitudes of those older than 55 often differed significantly from those of younger Americans, with strikingly little variation among those 18 to 55. For example, people younger than 55 are about twice as likely to say the system is in crisis than older adults. They are twice as likely as older people to say they expect to receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid into the system.

"I'm expecting to live on my own savings. I'm going to prepare for the worst so I don't get in trouble," said Sarah Kirby, 19, a political science and history major at Marquette University who said she believes Social Security is "outdated" because it did not anticipate the longevity of today's seniors.

Benjamin Palmer, 23, general manager of a Pizza Hut in New Brighton, Pa., also said he expects Social Security to run out before he retires. "Who cares?" Palmer said of the risk involved in stock investments. "People my age have no guarantee now that Social Security will be there for us. So it would be more than we've got now."

Stephen Davis, 55, a metal fabricator who lives in Forney, Tex., disagrees with Bush's proposal, even though he voted for him.

"I think it's dangerous, because in the stock market the amount of risk involved is just too great," Davis said. "It's kind of like, let the fleecing begin, benefiting stock insiders, stockbrokers, large corporations."

The survey also suggests that Bush begins the fight over Social Security without a majority of Americans backing him. One in five wants him to lead the way on Social Security, while a similar proportion has more confidence in congressional Republicans. More than four in 10 -- 43 percent -- say they trust congressional Democrats on the issue. Taken together, the findings suggest that about half want Democrats to handle this issue, while about half have more confidence in Republicans.

Although half of all retirees say Social Security is their major source of income, few younger Americans say they plan to rely on the system to be anything more than a supplement to their retirement incomes.

More than two-thirds of the country knows that payroll taxes paid into the Social Security trust fund are lent to the federal government and spent on other programs. But more than six in 10 of these doubt that the federal government will ever pay that money back -- one big reason the system is now in trouble, a lopsided majority says.

"Pay it back? The government?" said Margaret Abrams, 59, who owns a plumbing company in Somerville, Mass. "They're never going to pay it back. It's not on the list."

Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report.

Let's hope he runs in '08, instead

UPDATE: Franken just announced on his show that he is committed to his show and will stick with the show until the end of his contract. Therefore, he will not run in '06. He will consider running in '08 against Norm Coleman. If he does, he will move back to MN and move the show as well. When Al decides to run, I will be right there supporting his efforts and making sure he wins. We all thank you for everything you do for all of us out here, Mr. Franken.

Franken expected to make announcement on candidacy

Updated: 02/10/2005 10:43:30 AM

WASHINGTON - Just one day after U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton decided not to run for a second term, comedian Al Franken may be throwing his hat into the ring.

Last year, Franken said he wanted to run for the Senate in 2008. But last night he told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that he is now considering his candidacy for next year.

Franken, a Minnesota native, plans to make an announcement live on his national radio show in Washington D.C. 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS will be in the studio with Franken for that announcement.



The announcement is expected to come near the end of the broadcast, which will be around 1:45 p.m.

Meanwhile, former U.S. Sen Rod Grams, who lost his seat to Dayton in 2000, told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that he is running for the open seat. He said Social Security, the deficit, the budget, Medicare and Medicaid are what prompted him to enter the race.

Other Republicans who may consider a run include U.S. Reps. Mark Kennedy and Gil Gutknecht, and Minn. Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer.

On the DFL side, activist Buck Humphrey said he's not ruling out a bid for the U.S. Senate.

The grandson of the late Vice President Hubert Humphrey and the son of former state Attorney General Skip Humphrey first said he wasn't interested in joining a growing list of candidates seeking the party nomination. But Buck Humphrey said later that he wouldn't rule out running for the open Senate seat.

Other potential DFL candidates include Minneapolis lawyer Mike Ciresi, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson of Willmar, state Senator Steve Kelley of Hopkins, former Congressman Bill Luther, Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar, and former public development official Rebecca Yanisch.

State House Minority Leader Matt Entenza was considered to be a potential Senate candidate by many. However, he said Wednesday that he's not interested. During a visit to Worthington, Entenza said his interests are entirely in Minnesota.

Playing the Race Card

Playing the Race Card

February 10, 2005

In a desperate attempt to gain support for his plan to privatize Social Security, the President is taking advantage of a tragic disparity among the races—namely, that African Americans on average have shorter life spans than white Americans. Describing Social Security as "unfair" to African Americans because ''African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people,'' the president is shamelessly using every trick up his sleeve to convince Americans to support privatization. Thankfully, the public isn't buying it. Most Americans have serious doubts about the President's views on Social Security, and members of Congress--including those in the president's party—are increasingly skeptical of the Administration's plans.

• African Americans do not receive less in Social Security benefits than white Americans. As documented by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, ''careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security'' as whites. The evidence supporting the President's claims come from a Heritage Foundation report so inaccurate that the actuary raised serious questions about its methodology.




• Any reduction in Social Security benefits would badly harm the African-American community. African Americans depend heavily on Social Security benefits; according to the AARP, African Americans rely on Social Security benefits for 44 percent of the income. That number is even higher for African-American women, who rely on Social Security for 56.8 percent of their income. And according to Hillary Shelton of the NAACP, "African-American children are almost four times as likely to be lifted out of poverty by Social Security benefits than our white counterparts."




• The president needs to address the real inequities that affect African-Americans instead of exploiting them. For life expectancy of African Americans to improve, a concerted effort is needed to increase access to health care, reduce unemployment and poverty, and address the scourge of deadly youth violence. Yet, despite his claims to be a "compassionate conservative," the President's budget makes clear that he has no intention of solving these problems. His budget cuts a number of critically important programs designed to help minorities and African Americans, while preserving tax cuts for the rich and powerful.

Daily Talking Points is a product of the American Progress Action Fund.

Good grief. As if Las Vegas is not growing enough on its own

Vegas suburb in Arizona?
Developer bets on bypass to lure commuters

Mark Shaffer
Republic Flagstaff Bureau
Feb. 8, 2005 12:00 AM

WHITE HILLS - As Leonard Mardian wheels past vacant mine shafts and crumbling windmills in the Joshua tree-covered northwestern Arizona hills, his dreams are as large as anyone else rolling the dice 50 miles north in Las Vegas.

Some day, Mardian says, his wild, remote Ranch at White Hills, south of Hoover Dam, will be home to 100,000 urban refugees fleeing high prices and congestion. It will be Las Vegas' own personal Arizona suburb.

The four-lane bridge that will bypass the narrow U.S. 93 across Hoover Dam will be good to go in a little more than three years, cutting the commute time for Las Vegas-area workers to about an hour. Meanwhile, Las Vegas is becoming increasingly landlocked in all other directions.

Mohave County officials, who in December approved Mardian's master plan to build up to 34,727 homes on his nearly 40 square miles of land, say this is just one of many proposals to develop the vast, largely barren area between Kingman and Lake Mead because of the Hoover Dam bypass.

Approaches on the Arizona side of the $234 million Sugarloaf Mountain bridge project, one-fourth mile downriver from the dam, are nearly complete and the remainder of the work will focus on completing the nearly 2,000-foot bridge and approaches on the Nevada side.

Two other Las Vegas developers have bought chunks of land near White Hills. The rampant land speculation has extended another 30 miles to the south beyond the Arizona community of Dolan Springs and just north of Golden Valley, an unincorporated community between Kingman and Laughlin, Nev.

"It's just out of control," said Kevin Davidson, a Mohave County land planner. "The most amazing thing about it all is that we were still seeing land up in that White Hills area being given up for back taxes as recently as 1999."

That land now is being listed for about $20,000 an acre.

"It's still hard for me to envision why people would leave a state with no state income taxes like Nevada to go across the border," Davidson said. "I would just encourage everyone to watch out and make sure there are things like sewage (lines) and gutter (lines)."

No problem, Mardian says.

Plenty of water?

The Las Vegas developer, who has a background in hotel and warehouse construction, muses about how he can do wonders for all those casino workers blinking at the nearly $300,000 median housing price in Las Vegas.

Mardian says his water experts, one of whom even witched a couple of wells, say not to worry, that there's plenty within 900 feet of the surface, about the same level as the Colorado River. Never been touched by human lips, they say, except for wandering cowpunchers.

Paved roads, electricity and communication lines already are nearby, and he says he plans to run his own water company.

Then, there are all the innovations and perks in his project, such as a 4,600-acre renewable-energy park on the steeply graded southern part of the property that will have wind- and solar-energy production.

Also, two golf courses, guest ranches and equestrian trails interspersed with the development.

Mardian said that more than 23,000 of the residences would be centered in a core area, which would be located on less than 15 percent of the land.

But there are other bridges to cross.

The federal Bureau of Land Management still has several key 640-acre checkerboard sections that Mardian needs for his subdivisions. The federal agency in recent years also has let the trade value of land it manages rise so more land can be acquired for the public domain in land swaps.

Also, the development will require a lot of water from a largely untested subterranean water basin. Average yearly rainfall in the area is about 11.5 inches. Phoenix averages 8.29 inches.

But Mardian said he already has spent $1.5 million on water-related studies and has seen nothing to dissuade him from believing that he can build all of the nearly 35,000 homes that he intends to build. He also said he has hired a consultant with extensive knowledge of groundwater in the area.

On a recent tour of the ranch, Mardian stopped at what he said was one of 19 wells in the area.

He dropped a rock in a well casing, and it splashed into the water 20 feet below. Then he took out two metallic "water witching" sticks and demonstrated their potency at finding water beneath the surface.

The Arizona Department of Water Resources is taking a wait-and-see approach. State law requires Mardian to prove that he has a guaranteed 100-year supply of water.

"We've not received a request yet to determine if there is adequate water," said Jack Lavelle, a Department of Water Resources spokesman. "No one in the agency here has done a hydrologic examination in that area for 15 years."

Lavelle said Mardian legally can build and market the area as long as he tells prospective buyers that the state has not determined if there is an assured 100-year supply of water.

Adequate supply

A preliminary water report by Allen, Stephenson & Associates of Phoenix estimated that there are 2.5 million acre-feet of groundwater in the upper Detrital Valley, near the heart of the development, and that "this should be adequate to provide a 100-year supply."

The report indicated that the development at build-out would use about 15,000 acre-feet of water a year. An acre-foot of water is 325,851 gallons, the amount that would cover an acre to the depth of 1 foot. It would meet the needs of a family of five for a year.

Enough water or not, some residents down the road in Dolan Springs don't like the rumblings they are hearing.

"I'd rather it (the development) not happen," said Ernest Smith, who left Casa Grande and bought a ranchette three miles north of Dolan Springs two years ago. "Most people bought out here because it's nice and quiet, and that would put a stop to that."

Smith said land in the Dolan Springs area also jumped about 25 percent in value in the past two years.

"I had designs on buying a piece of land for an alcohol- and drug-recovery center, but all the inflation has put an end to that," Smith said.

Valene Taylor, who owns a construction company in Bear Lake, Idaho, and spends her winters in Dolan Springs, said the more people to the region the merrier.

"It's going to help all of our economy here and really what options are there?" Taylor asked. "The house that my sister-in-law owns in Vegas has gone up in value from $300,000 to $750,000 in the last three years, and you have people up there so desperate for homes that they are taking part in lotteries.

"What's a one-hour drive if you can afford a home?"

The President's Economic Program

President Bush's budget should really be called the president's economic program. It is a core statement of conservative values and the best blueprint for understanding the administration's overall economic agenda. Unfortunately for Americans, the president's economic program fails as both a moral statement and as a viable solution to America's long term challenges.

• The folly of conservative economics is fully exposed. The conservative strategy on the economy is clear: aggressively slash taxes for the wealthy on the faulty assumption it will stimulate job creation and wage growth; run up huge budget deficits on the premise that no one cares; and then force massive cuts in critical domestic spending to shrink the overall size of government. Add the president's $2 trillion plan to privatize Social Security to the mix, and the complete illogic and misplaced values of the conservative economic program becomes apparent. The first President Bush understood his son's economic agenda for what it is – "voodoo economics."




• Middle and lower income families shouldn't have to pay the price for the president's wrong choices and wrong priorities. One simple question for the president and his conservative chums: Why are massive tax cuts for the wealthy off the table but heating oil for the poor and veterans' health care on the table? The president's tax cuts constitute fifty percent of the entire budget deficit. The cuts in the president's budget only make up 6 percent of the deficit. At a time when the president is asking American soldiers and middle class taxpayers to sacrifice for the country, he is telling corporations and the wealthy that they owe nothing and have no obligation to pay down his deficits and support the national interest.




• A real economic program would bring together all Americans, invest in our nation's future and reward work. Progressives believe that the heart of America has always been its middle class. America should reward individual initiative, ingenuity and hard work and provide people with the economic and social opportunities to make the most of their talents and dreams. We must return to policies that spread the tax burden fairly and require those with sufficient means to pay their fair share. We should not sit by and watch as the rest of the world makes the necessary public investments to remain competitive in the global economy. Our citizens deserve and need this investment and our economy demands it.

President's Budget is Wrong for America

President's Budget is Wrong for America

February 7, 2005

President Bush will submit a 2006 budget to Congress today that cuts everything from bioterrorism protection and police funding to veterans' health care and heating assistance for the poor. Noticeably off the table in the president's search to "cut the deficit in half by 2009": massive tax cuts for the wealthy and a $2 trillion Social Security privatization scheme.

• Wrong Choices. Wrong Priorities. Conservative priorities have made the struggle of the middle class even more of a challenge: jobs are going overseas; wages are stagnant; quality health care is increasingly out of reach; and the tax system is rigged to help big corporations and the top 1 percent of earners. And what does the president want to do? He wants to make it worse. More tax cuts for the wealthy. A $2 trillion dollar plan to privatize Social Security. More foreign borrowing. And big budget cuts for the rest of us. Americans know these are the wrong choices and the wrong priorities.




• Conservatives are cutting investment in what keeps America strong. Relying on budget cuts to finance an irresponsible tax cut and a mismanaged war in Iraq short changes investment in what helps America stay strong - a vibrant and thriving middle class. Your community; your safety; your schools; your health care will be sacrificed to pay for President Bush's wrong choices. It's our veterans, seniors, kids, and the poor who will have to suffer for the president's wrong priorities. The degree to which America is fulfilling its promise as a country is measured by the health, safety, security and opportunity of the middle class. By that measure, President Bush's budget fails to invest in critical ways to keep our country strong.




• We now see who and what conservatives really value. With this budget, Americans now see what President Bush and his conservative allies really value: Wealth over work. Corporations and the wealthy over the middle class. At a time when the president is asking American soldiers and middle class taxpayers to sacrifice for the country, he is telling corporations and the wealthy that they owe nothing and have no obligation to support the national interest. He's giving them tax breaks for doing nothing. We now know who and what the president truly values. Unfortunately, it's not what Americans signed up for."

People are still having sex...Teens actually

Abstinence? No thanks, we'll have sex


With everyone from George Bush to Hillary Clinton touting the wonder-working power of abstinence education, it might be nice to know whether such programs actually work. There's news out of Texas on that front: They don't.

In a study commissioned by the Texas Department of State Health Services, researchers at Texas A&M University found that abstinence-only programs in 29 Texas high schools seemed to have absolutely no impact on whether teens engaged in sex.

As Reuters explains, the study showed that about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls reported having sex before receiving abstinence education. After receiving the education, about 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex. For boys, the increase was more dramatic. Twenty-four percent said they had sex before taking the classes, while 39 percent said they had sex after the classes were over. The increases in sexual activity mirrored trends in the state generally as teens get older, suggesting that the abstinence programs had done nothing to prevent teen sex or the unwanted pregnancies it can produce.

"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," researcher Buzz Pruitt told Reuters. "These programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that."

-- Tim Grieve