Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. Pnorny!
He is reachable at:
littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

tBlog Mirror

Some fun links:
Little Miss Attila - polar opposite and origin of LMM.

Critical Sites:
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
UserFriendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

For those generous in spirit, heart, and wallet:

White House Ducks Prewar Intel Questions

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The White House sought to deflect politically charged questions Wednesday about President Bush's use of prewar intelligence in
Iraq, saying Democrats, too, had concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat.

"If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they've made," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He said the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats "used the intelligence to come to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a threat."

Funny though, I don't remember any evidence from the Clinton Administration saying that Hussein was an immediate threat. They did say that terrorism, specifically Osama bin Laden, was a threat. This, Bush ignored, and still Osama runs free because Bush moved the bulk of our troops from the chase in Afghanistan over to Iraq.

$300 billion and counting. Your tax dollars disappearing into the Bush Black Hole.

So now, in addition to email, I have to review all comments for such garbage or leave them intact. Sure, I could restrict comments to users og Blogger or tBlog but it's more fun to have the blogs open. Plus I get more readers.

I could retaliate and spam these people back but they're so pathetic, it doesn't seem like it'd be fun. Any ideas what to do?

It shouldn't take this long to nail the Bush Administration for gross violation of something! Their blatant mishandling of funds, lies and ethical distortions, cronyism, should easily give an ambitious reporter or two plenty to investigate.

But how about that oil? Only now is anyone questioning why the oil companies are reaping obscene profits. Maybe, perhaps, the oil companies are jacking up prices because they have a tacit government approval to do so. Let's see...invade Iraq but not for oil. Jack up prices claiming (1) rare refinery repairs, (2) hurricanes, (3) terrorists. Yet, the oil companies are making massive profits.

And Bush has the gall to suggest government help for those who can't afford heating oil for the coming winter. Screw us at the pumps, screw us through pro-oil legislation, and screw us again through taxes. Yo Georgy, why not tell your buds to reduce the price of gas?

Does anyone other than the oil billionaires and the fanatical Jesus-jumpers think Bush is a decent President? Please tell me why? Bush's incompetencies are beyond scary.

Life's Building Blocks 'Abundant in Space'

Bjorn Carey
Staff Writer
SPACE.com Tue Oct 18,12:00 PM ET

The idea that comets and meteorites seeded an early Earth with the tools to make life has gained momentum from recent observations of some of these building blocks floating throughout the cosmos.

Scientists scanning a galaxy 12 million light-years away with
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope detected copious amounts of nitrogen containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), molecules critical to all known forms of life.

PAHs carry information for DNA and RNA and are an important component of hemoglobin, the molecule that transports oxygen through the body. They also make chlorophyll, the main molecule responsible for photosynthesis in plants, and – perhaps most importantly – they're the main ingredient in caffeine and chocolate.

"There once was a time that the assumption was that the origin of life, everything from building simple compounds up to complex life, had to happen here on Earth," said study leader Doug Hudgins of Ames Research Center. "We've discovered that some very biologically interesting molecules can be formed outside our earthly environment and delivered here."

Wherever there's a planet ...

While organic compounds have been discovered in meteorites that have landed on Earth, this is the first direct evidence for the presence of complex, important biogenic compounds in space. So far evidence suggests that PAHs are formed in the winds of dying stars and spread all over interstellar space.

"This stuff contains the building blocks of life, and now we can say they're abundant in space," Hudgins said. "And wherever there's a planet out there, we know that these things are going to be raining down on it. It did here and it does elsewhere."

Using the Spitzer Space Telescope, Hudgins and his colleagues detected the familiar chemical signature of regular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the spiral galaxy M81, as well as a similar, but unknown signature.

"There were a few anomalies in the spectrum that we couldn't explain," Hudgins told SPACE.com. The researchers compared their readings to the infrared signatures of similar molecules, finally settling on nitrogen containing PAHs because their data showed there was nitrogen in the regions they were investigating.

"When we did that, we found that by putting a little nitrogen in these molecules explained the troubling molecules," Hudgins said. "This discovery takes this reservoir of molecules that we didn't think were interesting and transforms all this stuff into something of biologic interest."

The chicken wire of life

PAHs are flat, chicken-wire shaped molecules made up of carbon and hydrogen, interesting to scientists because life on Earth is carbon-based. However, PAHs are not used in human biochemistry. In fact, they're better known as cancer-causing carcinogens and environmental pollutants.

But swap a carbon atom with a nitrogen and a PAH becomes a PANH, a class of molecules critical to humans. Without nitrogen, it would be impossible to build amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA, hemoglobin, and many other important molecules.

Here on Earth, Nitrogen makes up 78 percent of the atmosphere and is a key member of CHNOPS – carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur – the group of ingredients most important for making life and staples of organic chemistry.

It's also the main component of ammonia, which is used in fertilizers and explosives on Earth, but has also been detected in Jupiter's atmosphere and possibly in Titan's icy lakes.

PAHs aren't the first of life's building blocks to be discovered in space – amino acids, the nuts and bolts of proteins, have also been found in the tails of comets. Meteorites that have landed in Australia and Antarctica also contain amino acids and PAHs.

"This tells us that these things that we see out in space can survive interstellar space and successfully be delivered to the surface of a planet," Hudgins said.

Does not mean life

Some scientists even think that a Martian meteorite found in Antarctica shows signs of extraterrestrial bacteria and that sugar-loaded asteroids may have fed early life on our planet.

While PAHs are abundant in interstellar space, Hudgins says this doesn't prove that terrestrial life has extra-terrestrial origins. But, to paraphrase Occam's Razor, given two equally likely theories, choose the simpler.

"This isn't proof that they were used, but a likely suggestion," Hudgins said. "They were present in abundance at the dawn of time and could have been useful in creating the first life form."

OK, you've pooh-poohed that off with a wave of your self-righteous hand but if you would indulge me a bit more.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

The first sentence of the most famous book in the world and arguably in our history. To many people it's the Truth, a fact: undeniable and indispustable. But that one sentence raises some questions and if any of the more religious of my readers would please answer them I'd be grateful.

1) Who created God?

2) What did God do before creating the heaven and earth?

3) How long did God wait before creating the heaven and earth?

That's all. Just three simple questions. Thanks.

Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq, Afghanistan: BBC

LONDON (AFP) - US
President George W. Bush allegedly said God told him to invade Iraq and
Afghanistan, a new BBC documentary will reveal, according to details.

Bush made the claim when he met Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and then foreign minister Nabil Shaath in June 2003, the ministers told the documentary series to be broadcast in Britain later this month.

The US leader also told them he had been ordered by God to create a Palestinian state, the ministers said.

Shaath, now the Palestinian information minister, said: "
President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God.

'God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan'.'

"And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq...' And I did.

"'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God I'm gonna do it'," said Shaath.

Abbas, who was also at the meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, recalled how the president told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation.

"So I will get you a Palestinian state."

A BBC spokesman said the content of the programme had been put to the White House but it had refused to comment on a private conversation.

The three-part series, "Elusive Peace:
Israel and the Arabs", charts the attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from former US president
Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000 to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza strip.

The programme speaks to presidents and prime ministers, their generals and ministers, about what happened behind closed doors as the peace talks failed and the intifada grew.

C'mon people, this is our President! So much for keeping church and state separate. Bush wasn't joking when he commented that he was on a crusade. The man is a freaking religious fanatic and is no different than the religious fanatics that he's fighting. Well, a few differences. Instead of boom-boom vests Bush has nukes at his disposal. Instead of a few million dollars like bin Laden, Bush has BILLIONS of our taxpayer money to spend. Instead of a ragtag yet determined bunch of muslim followers, he has a well-disciplined military.

You should be extremely scared, especially if you're not a follower of Bush for he has said repeatedly that if you're not with him then you're against him and therefore a terrorist. This is OUR President, circa 1391.

But it wasn't. Reagan said we were at war again, this time with DRUGS. Boo hiss! And because of this war certain civil liberties (like privacy) had to be curtailed. Mind you, this war was pervasive, nebulous, and with no end plan. It was an ongoing war. We sank billions of dollars in this war. Remember "Just say no!"? And as far as I know this war is still on.

But the war on drugs had a problem. It wasn't sexy. There wasn't a Big Evil to point to.

Then came bin Laden and the War on Terrorism. The Big Evil but Bush let him slip away into the hills of Afghanistan because Bush wanted Hussein to be the Big Evil. And certainly Hussein was a Big Evil but the reasons for taking him on and out weren't quite, shall we say, legitimate.

So now we have two vague, neverending wars: Drugs and Terrorism.

Neither of which is sexy. No, America is best when it has a Big Evil that it can point to on a map. And we have one - a Big Evil that we're cultivating and holding in the sidelines to when the people stop caring about the War on Terrorism, which was about a year ago.

No, it's not North Korea or Iran. It's China. Yep, they will be our next Big Evil. They will atack us economically, technologically, and finally militarily. Frankly, there may not be much we can do about it. But it will serve if anything to show the world that the U.S. is like any other country: open and vulnerable, and that it's better to work with other countries than to systematically alienate them. Bush did our country a great disservice but acting like the Big Bubba, Big American Tough Guy who does things His Way and the rest of the World be damned.

Don't believe me? Better brush up on your Chinese.

Bush: Militants Seek to Intimidate World

WASHINGTON - President Bush, trying to reverse a slide in public support for the war in Iraq, said Thursday that Islamic radicals are seeking to "enslave whole nations and intimidate the world," and called that a prime reason not to cut and run in Iraq. "There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder," he said, seeking to address calls from anti-war activists for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

More Bush Cronyism
It's kind of scary.

I'm reading histories of both Hitler and Stalin. The two were quite similar in that they surrounded themselves with cronies and "Yes"-men. They refused to consider other opinions and refused to accept that they could be wrong.

Not to imply that Bush is among those Elite of Dictatorial Bastards but he could be on the way. Considering that the branches of the Government no longer enjoy "checks and balances" and are under the mercy of the Presidency bears witness that our Democracy is nearing an end. That Bush could appoint Bolton by simply waiting out Congress, that Bush plans to get Miers on the Supreme Court without releasing records of her abilitiies, that no-bid contracts are still being given out to "friendly corporations, that the Iraq Scandal is back at the pig trough for more money, that Bush went out of his way to make sure Texas was ready for a hurricane but New Orleans...well, oops.

What will it take to wake America up that Bush may be the singularly worst President ever?

But I find I keep thinking about the future of New Orleans (and the other affected areas) and the future of the poor people who used to live there. Simply put, will they return? On TV - I forget which channel - the reporters were interviewing a poor black man who claimed that he heard "them" blowing up the levees to purposely flood the poor neighborhoods. This way the poor would be moved out of New Orleans.

The Mayor of New Orleans (black but rich) denied that hypothesis and I tend to agree. Storms have no agenda.

But people do, and it's is interesting that the massive amounts of Federal money to New Orleans for various levee improvements over the years kind of, well, vanished. Funny that Federal money has that awful habit of disappearing into various corporate accounts without much too show.

Back to the point. So the poor parts of New Orleans are shot to hell and the poor have been re-located. What next? Will the poor be allowed back to their homes to reclaim anything they can find?

After rebuilding, will the poor be allowed back to their old homesites? What about those who can't afford to rebuild?

I think what may happen is that the rebuilding of New Orleans will take a conveniently long time. The levees will be strengthened properly. The slums will be razed, fumigated, and rebuilt. New Orleans will become a straight Middle-to-Upper class enclave with pristine new shopping areas. Tourists wil find big new hotels. Think Las Vegas without the 120 degree summers. The Saints will have fans who can afford to see them.

And the poor? By then, the poor will have settled somewhere else. They'll be welcome to visit the New "New Orleans" but they won't be able to visit for long. And to those poor folks who need a place to stay I suggest Crawford, Texas. Plenty of ranches, plenty of room and some nice friendly folks live there. They'll gladly give you a job in the Government. Just say "terrorist" and you'll be hired.

The Bush Administration acts as if communication is still shy of the pony express, slow to spread. They think that we won't remember that the Iraq Invasion was, according to them, due to Hussein about to use WMDs against us and they gave us PROOF. Except the proof was wrong but this was after the invasion. Fait accompli and all that. THey said that Hussein had WMDs but that changed to "tried to get" and that changed to "wanted".

They said that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda but that changed to "supported" al Qaeda and that changed to "approved of" al Qaeda when connections weren't found.

They said our troops would be welcome with open arms. They were and even today our troops are killed with bombs and arms.

They said Iraq's oil would pay for the country's reconstruction but little of the money has gone to that cause. Instead, corruption and theft are rampant. The oil money and billions of our dollars are unaccounted for.

Bush preached that Hussein had to go because Hussein was such an evil guy, killing many of his people. But, with Abu Ghraib and an unknown number of civilian deaths, we've shown that our standards aren't so high either. With Rumsfeld, Rove, and ultimately Bush, we find accountability and responsibility are only words.

Yes, the Bush Administration would dearly love for us to forget, to be God-fearing, loyal, unquestioning Americans but he's finding our memories are a bit longer than his. He's finding that we do remember and that his attempts to distort what has happended and is happening in Iraq are being regularly questioned.

We're seeing the Bush Administration in panic, that if one strategy to fool us doesn't work then try another - clearly an active demonstration of Evolution. For when you mention the Bush Administration, there is obviously no support for Intelligent Design.

But, I thought, is there any way Iraq is a win for us whether we leave now or later? Am I so jaded against Bush that I can't see anything positive about his actions?

A few more moments of reflection and I concluded that a win-win picture could be painted though it's a stretch, and, yes, I am jaded against Bush because he deserves no less for what he and his cronies have done and are doing to our great country.

We win in Iraq by pulling out now because we save American lives, and cut our costs and losses. We went in to remove Hussein and install a new government. Both are done and done. If the new government has a few rough edges, that's their problem not ours. Get out now!

We win if we pull out later because we'll help stabilize the country, saving more lives overall, plus we can help fine-tune their government. Sure, it's an investment on our part but that's what it is - an investment. Get out later!

No matter which path we choose, Bush and his Boyz will paint the cheeriest picture possible. With the trial of Hussein coming up, rest assured the propaganda machines will be running in full force. But keep an eye out for major events sneaking by and being conveniently covered over by "pressing news" from the trial.

Which brings me to my final thought of this entry. Bush had us invade Iraq because supposedly Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the U.S. so...why is Hussein being brought up on charges completely unrelated to the invasion? If Hussein posed such a threat that we invaded and toppled him, if Hussein is going to be brought to trial, it should be on charges that he (Hussein) posed a threat with WMDs to U.S. security - plain and simple. But, we know, that won't happen because - smoke and mirrors - we'd lose and then what? - put Hussein back in power with a back slap and a "My bad!" Not in the Bush League. Bush wants a trial to make it look like Justice is being served but he can't put Hussein on trial for the reasons put above. Can' t and won't.

It used to be "lies, damn lies, and statistics", now it's "lies, damn lies, and Bush lies".

Crap, it's been a full month since the last update. Damn Sloth!

In the news, more idiocy from our beloved Government. Roberts doesn't remember an important meeting that he attended and so left mentioning it off an application. Same goes for Bolton. Folks in D.C. sure have poor memories.

Bush appoints Bolton by bypassing the Senate. So much for Checks and Balances. Why bother then with the Senate at all if the President can just wait things out and appoint at will?

More violence as expected. Imagine what a better world we'd have right now if only Bush had followed through in pursuing bin Laden with the same kind of gusto that he's shown for invading Iraq. One would almost suspect that the ties between the Bushes and bin Ladens might have something to with the George W.'s lack of effort in going after Terrorist #1.

About a month ago in the news, an American General mentioned that they have a darn good idea of where bin Laden is hiding but they can't go after him because of political reasons. I took that to mean that Pakistan is hiding bin Laden but that we're trying to make nice-nice with Pakistan so we're letting them "handle" it. Yet, wasn't it Bush who declared, before invading Afghanistan, that any country harboring terrorists had a choice of helping the U.S. get them or risk the consequences. So much for Bush bravdao.

Iraq is still a mess. Sure, they have the making of a constitution but one that doesn't quite play equal with all the humans in the country. So when do we leave? After they ratify the document? After the Iraqi Government asks us to leave? When the oil runs out? In case you haven't noticed, Iraq is still one mother of a corrupt crazy country. All we did was change the people getting the kickbacks with *YOUR* tax dollars.

If that's annoying enough, Iraq is simply a lose-lose situation for us. If we pull out now it will be seen by all involved as a demonstration of a weak America. If we pull out later we continue to feed the terrorist agenda, continue to drop billions of dollars into nothingness, and continue to watch our soldiers die for a cause that is arguably less than noble.

Bush refuses to admit any mistakes. Cheney refuses to see any problems. Rumsfeld and Rove won't accept any responsibilties. This is not a Government of responsible Americans. It is a collection of addle-pated misfits who live in their own world and are attempting to shape our country to support their perverse vision. Their vision, though, is not one of equality, justice, and freedom but instead of control and power.

Sadly, I don't see the Democrats offering a solution. They're running around making issues out of stupid little things like sex being hidden in the ultra-violent "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" and not tackling real issues like "was Iraq necessary?" Democrats need to go on the offensive aggressively and ruthlessly against Bush and his ilk.

But they won't because they are licked. They're whipped. They' see the power wielded by the other side and they are in awe, afraid to go up against it.

And so we suffer under what is a one-party system that sees no ethical or moral dilemmas in their illegal actions to maintain their power.

AMERICA WAKE UP!!!

Wow, I didn't even gripe about the further crumbling of the separation between Church and State thanks to Bush's implied support for "Intelligent Design". As I posted many moons ago, let's just get rid of all Science. All of it. After all, if God is behind everything, what more explanation do we need? Johnny doesn't need to know how to read or add or think. Johnny just needs to go to work, pay his taxes, and vote Bush, like a good mindless American.

Lee Greenwood's patriotic anthem blared over the loud speackers last night. We were at a fireworks show sponsored by a church on a hill above the San Fernando Valley. It's a good show and has quickly become popular and crowded over the years.

But over the years the 4th has evolved. It used to be a celebration of America's birthday. Now it's seemingly usurped Memorial Day and quickly becoming a political marketing device. Instead of "Happy Birthday America" it was a constant call for support of our troops against terrorism.

Which brings me back to Lee Greenwood's anthem. It's wrong. It's almost anti-American. Besides the blatant disregard for separation of Church and State, there's a subtler statement which completely undermines what America is all about yet is precisely what the Government what you to believe. Find it yet?

"And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me."

How can any people be truly free if they must be beholden to a Government for the right? The song has it completely backwards. Our Government does not give us the right to be free. We did not give our Government our rights. We are free because we choose to be and with that we granted our Government whatever power we choose to give it.

That's the theory.

In reality, our Government is taking our rights under a variety of "reasons" - terrorism - and is quickly becoming what the Soviet Union was during Stalin - a police state where increased "security" comes with severely dminished human rights. where dissenters to the system are labelled as traitors ("You're either with us or for the terrorists" - Bush) and disappear to gulags or Gitmo.

So last night at the fireworks show I was torn between the messages being broadcast and what our country has become. I am proud to be an American but we need to remind our Government that it exists for us.

Still More Bushit
Having run out of excuses for the invasion of Iraq, Bush and the neocons have resorted to variations of "better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than here" and "Iraq will be the start of democracy in the Middle East".

And the conservatives - sheep they are - have picked up this new mantra and are bleating it as the real reasons we're still in Iraq.

Except like most of the garbage coming out of the Bush Administration the logic isn't there.

Win or lose, fighting the insurgents in Iraq in no way guarantees that we won't have further terrorists acts in the U.S. and it's naive to think otherwise. Further, Bush tries to make it sound like ALL the terrorists are in Iraq fighting us and once eliminated that'll be that. Not true. Iraq has become a training ground. Likely, terrorist groups are rotating people in to give them hands-on experience learning how we wage war, then pulling some out. It's common news that the number of fighters has increased in Iraq, who says they're staying there? Iraq has become a training school but ask yourself, where do the graduates go?

Iraq is about Islam-based terrorism. Yet, the war in Iraq diverts attention from other types of terrorism, such as anti-abortionists who bomb clinics or animal activists who destroy labs. And yet...I don't get worked up over these types either.

Terrorism comes out of frustration, a feeling of powerlessness against an overwhelming system, tempered by fanaticism.

I'm not worried about terrorism as much as I am about what our Government has done in light of terrorism. The lying and manipulations, the distortions of facts. The corruption by religious and business factions. That disturbs me far more.

As a citizen living in Los Angeles, I'm not worried about terrorists blowing up Disneyland, I'm worried about gang violence. I'm not worried about terrorists poisoning the water supply, I'm worried more that I can't see the mountains half a mile away for all the smog.

The threat of Terrorism just doesn't justify all that has happened to counter the threat. Heck, with the Bush Administraion so neatly dividing the country, expect more home grown displays of disgust. Expect these displays, whether nonviolent or otherwise, to be labelled as pro-terrorist.

But Bush isn't done. Iraq will be the stepping stone to bring Democracy to the Middle East. Maybe. Does anyone reading this honestly believe that *IF* Iraq manages to become democratic and stay democratic, that - lo and behold! - all the other Arab countries will "see the light" and convert?

Very unlikely, especially with the Saudi ruling family sitting there with all that oil. Why are we building so many military bases in Iraq? Because Bush knows that Democracy won't magically spread in the Middle East and after Iraq comes, perhaps, Iran. You thought that Iraq was it? You ain't seen nothing yet.

It's not about Democracy. It's about power, it's politics and business. If it's the Middle East, it's about oil too. (Remember Bush is an oilman.) Reshaping the Middle East is about reshaping it for the U.S. and - by George! - nothing will stop us.

Except maybe...China.

Mr & Mrs Smith was the first film I saw. The audience consisted of young males with their gameboys and manga and "senior" women. Not too hard to figure out why they were there. And the film? It was fun, mindless fun. Mindless, action-filled fun. With Angelina and Brad. And they did have a chemistry that worked. Even better was that the film ended with a nice premise for a sequel, namely to get back at their bosses who wanted them both dead. I'd give the film a B+ for fun and Angelina.

Land of the Dead was the second film I saw and I enjoyed it too. I've likd all of George Romero's zombie films because he doesn't try to scare you out of your seat. Yes, there's tremendous gore but the scare, especially in the earlier films, is that the zombies just keep coming. With this film, he's setting up the ideas that the zombies aren't goin away so you better start to learn to live with them and that the zombies are able to learn. So I'm wondering if the next zombie film will focus on a world where the living and the dead have kind of figured out how to co-habitate. WIll the living use the dead as free labor? What about zombie rights? There could be a camp classic in the making here. I give this film a B. No Angelina, no +.

The final film, one I finished seeing about 15 minutes ago, was Spielberg's War of the Worlds. I'll say this: Tom Cruise has improved as an actor. Dakota Fanning did a great job as the screaming terrified kid. The effects were tremendous and after 20 minutes or so in to the film, you begin to fear the aliens. This film scared me more than Land of the Dead. If there were problems with the film one was the predictable ending - happy, happy - and that the destruction of the aliens wasn't due to Tom Cruise's character. You're just along for the ride. Cruise is a hero but not THE hero, not a Stallone saves the world hero. Still I give this film a solid B+ and if I never see those tripods again...

More Bushit
The past three weeks has had me in awe, amazement, and helplessness with what's going on with our government.

First, more and more evidence piles up clearly showing that Bush and the neocons wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and used lies and distortions to do so. More, amazing is that we heard this early on from people resigning from the Administration. They said consistently that Bush and the Boyz were manipulating facts to justify an invasion. The Downing memos are only the latest. Consider this: there is more proof - testimony and memos - that Bush and the neocons lied about the facts surrounding the invasion of Iraq than there is proof about Iraq's WMDs and support for al Qaeda. Last night, bush went on TV and pretty much told us that we're in for more of the same: same lies repeated as justifications, same policy about there being no withdrawal policy but that we're spreading Democracy so THAT justifies the dead and investments. But what really irks me about the Neocons is their whole philosophy about spreading Demeocracy is precisely the same philosophy for spreading any kind of government.


Remember: Bush and the neocons said that we were invading Iraq becuase Hussein had WMDs and was threatening America. Wait, they changed the reasons to: spreading Democracy in the MIddle East and protection from terrorism. But these justifications can be used by any government against any other government. Canada could attack us saying that we were a threat to them and that they were spreading their brand of gorvernment. Democracy is a good form of government but it's not perfect. The American form is - right now - far from perfect. It's been corrupted by business and religion.


As for Iraq, what a waste. What a pity.

Second, the Supreme Court ruled about eminent domain, that cities can take your home if it's for economic growth of the city. Translation: individuals and individual rights are less important than the business welfare of communities. What next - take your home for the religious welfare of communities?

Third, the Supreme Court send back to lower courts the clash between peer-to-peer software makers (Grokster) and the Entertainment Industry. The sent the case back down with the strong suggestion that they side with business, that Grokster (and other P2P makers) are liable if people download copyrighted material using these programs. By this logic, gun, ammunition, knife, alcohol, and automobile manufactureres should also be held liable because people can easily break laws using their products.

Fourth, the Supreme Court decided to waffle on the separation between church and state by saying that religious displays can be put on governmental property if the intention is to show the legal heritage of America. Huh? And who will decide these things? Will there be warnings saying that these religious statues are there for non-religious reasons?

The Supreme Court has shown itself as corrupt and cowardly. They had a chance to strengthen the separation between church and state but instead opened the door for abuse. Justice Suitor said something real smart like "we have God in the Pledge so..." as justification for destroying the Wall. What most people don't understand about the separation between church and state is that the separation doesn't mean the state supports Atheism, Pagaism, Communism, or any other -ism as a result. It means simply that the Government doesn't endorse ANY religion - period! It keeps out! The only people who have a problem with that are those that seek to use the Government for their own religious purposes and THAT is NOT American!!!

Finally, I'm sick of Bush and the Neocons making the following words synonymous: Terrorists, Insurgents, Democrats, Liberals. This is their way. They said it early on and they've said it repeatedly: You're either with them or against them.

If you're against them, you might want to clean off your arm for your ID tattoo...

But the evidence...showed that, at the very least, Michael could have been found contributing to the deliquency of a minor - easily!

Long Time
It's been ages since my last post but a lot has happened - mainly losing my job due to layoffs. Such fun! The last two weeks have been spent working on the resume and getting the damn thing into everyone's job databases. Now comes the brutal part - networking, fighting for notice, maybe getting an interview.

Luckily, my wife and I have been through this before and so we were prepared, having some savings in the bank and a variety of options to explore. Absolut worse case, we sell the house for a profit and get the hell out of Los Angeles. But we'll see what happens.

A job change like this is scary - yes! - but kind of exciting. What new skills will I learn? What new people will I meet? Fun, fun, fun.

Still no sign of bin Laden or those blessed WMDs as we quickly approach one-third TRILLION dollars in Iraq with little accountability and dubious results.

Some history. Remeber Comdex? That was THE computer convention on the West Coast. Many, many moons ago Comdex would be jammed (JAMMED!) with people and had sections for entertainment (both naughty and nice). Then E3 kicked in and siphoned off the gaming audience. Then AdultDex took care of the rest of entertainment. Comdex got boring. The crowds left and Comdex died.

E3 started in L.A, moved to Atlanta for 3 years, saw attendance plummet, and came back to L.A. where it belongs (next to Hollywood). I've missed only a handful of E3s, including last years so I looked forward to going this year.

Shades of Comdex! It was jammed, JAMMED! E3 is supposed to be for industry and for those over 18. I suspect that rule was broken quite a bit. E3, as expected, was loud and very painful to these old ears. Having the sound up so high that all you get is distortion serves no one.

I went to see what the latest trends were and to see if I could find any jewels in upcoming games.

One immediate trend was that near everyone carried a Gameboy (and a cellphone). Can't blame them. They play them while waiting in the insanely long lines. There was a certain irony to seeing a bazillion people in line to see the latest Playstation stuff while playing Gameboys. I didn't see any PSPs other than displays. And something called Gizmondo had a nice corner to themselves. Gizmondo looks like Gameboys baby brother. Good luck to them but I saw no reason to carry yet another portable device.

If there's a winner to E3, I'd give it to Playstation. They had the nicest selection of upcoming games and the Playstation 3 looks formidable. The PSP may end up a winner (at least for me). But the greatest travesty also belonged to Playstation. Amongst all the first-person shooters, and other derivative games, buried in Segasoft was a single demo PC devoted to what is arguably the greatest sports simulation of our times. Football Manager 2005 may not be a familiar game name to American but to the rest of the world, it means quality - the best soccer/football sim out there. The game, the series used to be called "Championship Manager" when it was with Eidos but the devlopers had a falling out with Eidos and switched publishers. Eidos kept the name and even released a new game but it's not the same. Don't be fooled. The latest "Championship Manager" is not near the quality of the old version. Anyway. Sega had a single machine showing off this great game. One machine! Sure, the graphics aren't 3D snazzy but they don't need to be - what you have is an extremely detailed simulation. Unlike other sports sims, these folks are to the point where they're working on detailed player personalities plus expanded managers otpions for dealing with such. To top it off, they're working on a PSP version. For me, that's an incentive to get a PSP.

If there's a loser to E3, I'd give it to all those people developing MMOs (Massive Multiplayer Online). *Everyone* was working on MMOs and I can't blame them. If you get a decent MMO, you're looking at a nice chunk of revenue every month. But there's so much glut, that I suspect next years E3 will not see many of the current developers. Personally, I'd think twice before going up against Everquest, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars but that's the risk.

That said, E3 was all eye-candy. Near every game was graphics, graphics, graphics and long game play - anything to keep your eyes involved in their product. Games have stopped being short diversions and have mutated in to life styles, demanding hundreds of hours of involvement. Not necessarily a bad thing for some but I saw few original ideas. One company showed three pirate games, essentially three variations of the same engine. Snooze. With such a glut of games, people - kids in particular - just don't have time to play everything. Overload. Overload. Overload. Where are we going? Will anyone be able to think without a screen in front of them?

Star Wars VI
Or is it III. Whatever! Took my two oldest kids to see the latest and greatest this past weekend. I had never seen the first two episodes in this last trilogy and it seems I didn't miss much.

In this latest episode, the graphics were stunning in a good way. The plot was stunning in a cool way. The acting was stunning in a bad way.

The visuals were overwhelming: massive battle scenes; beautiful planetscapes; lava - just magnificent and breathtaking. But I expected nothing less from Lucas.

The plot took a while to get going. It pretty much caught its steam about the second half but it gave the audience what they wanted: the links to the original Star Wars. The making (literally) of Darth Vader - to loud applause from the audience. The births of Luke and Leia and how they ended up going to different households. The exile of Yoda. The last few minutes of the film were most of this takes place left me with shivers.

The acting and dialogue were utter crap. To have Yoda act better than most everyone else is shameful. In particular, the beginning of the film with Anakin and Obiwan taking on a vast horde of enemies with the smart-ass, buddy-buddy wisecracks was too painful. It was like watching Butch and Sundance but without the cleverness or fine acting. Achhh, bad George!

But, the kids loved it. I'd give it a B for being the last of the trilogy and for fulfilling expectations. If it had better lines and deliverance it'd get an A.

The Piracy Price Wars

By Don Lee, Times Staff Writer

Last fall Time Warner Inc. quietly began selling cut-rate DVDs in China to better compete with cheap bootleg copies of its movies. But the bootleggers were already a step ahead.

Even before Warner Home Video got its low-priced movies on the market, merchants along Wenmiao Road — a hot spot here for pirated goods — started peddling DVDs that compress four or five movies onto a single disc.

Although their picture quality is far from perfect, they are watchable. And priced at 5 yuan — or 60 cents — a disc, they are helping steer buyers away from the cheapest legitimate alternatives on the market, including DVD movies from Warner, which start at $2.65.

Wow! $2.65 for a DVD. Why I can go to my local Best Buy and get the latest DVDs for $18-$20. I've said it before - we are getting ripped when it comes to DVD pricing. That Time Warner can put out DVDs in China for $3 and make a profit on the sales means they can do the same here. A long time ago I suggested that $8 per DVD is a better price since that's how much discs cost in those multi-disc sets. But perhaps $5 per disc is a more accurate price point.

Get a clue DVD Producers! You want sales, lower the damn prices. Don't whine that you're losing money to pirates. You're not making money because the high prices keep buyers away. If you can compete in China, you can compete here.

Get another clue. Maybe people are willing to buy lower quality DVDs with multiple movies on them. The pirates aren't producing top quality but have a market. How about a two tier system. High quality DVDs for $5 or lower quality for much less. The lower quality ones could be downloaded from your web sites...hint, hint.

Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents
# Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein.

By John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writer

LONDON — Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain.

But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy.

The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing for the Sunday Times of London, include a memo of the minutes of a meeting July 23, 2002, between Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs; a briefing paper for that meeting and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before an April 2002 summit between Blair and Bush in Texas.

The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government convinced of the U.S. desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to several specific conditions.

Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office has not disputed the documents' authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant to the much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war.

"At the end of the day, nobody pushed the diplomatic route harder than the British government…. So the circumstances of this July discussion very quickly became out of date," said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified.

The leaked minutes sum up the July 23 meeting, at which Blair, top security advisors and his attorney general discussed Britain's role in Washington's plan to oust Hussein. The minutes, written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide, indicate general thoughts among the participants about how to create a political and legal basis for war. The case for military action at the time was "thin," Foreign Minister Jack Straw was characterized as saying, and Hussein's government posed little threat.

Labeled "secret and strictly personal — U.K. eyes only," the minutes begin with the head of the British intelligence service, MI6, who is identified as "C," saying he had returned from Washington, where there had been a "perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy."

Straw agreed that Bush seemed determined to act militarily, although the timing was not certain.

"But the case was thin," the minutes say. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Straw then proposed to "work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam" to permit United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq. "This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force," he said, according to the minutes.

Blair said, according to the memo, "that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," Blair said. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."

In addition to the minutes, the Sunday Times report referred to a Cabinet briefing paper that was given to participants before the July 23 meeting. It stated that Blair had already promised Bush cooperation earlier, at the April summit in Texas.

"The U.K. would support military action to bring about regime change," the Sunday Times quoted the briefing as saying.

Excerpts from the paper, which Smith provided to the Los Angeles Times, said Blair had listed conditions for war, including that "efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine crisis was quiescent," and options to "eliminate Iraq's WMD through the U.N. weapons inspectors" had been exhausted.

The briefing paper said the British government should get the U.S. to put its military plans in a "political framework."

"This is particularly important for the U.K. because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action," it says.

In a letter to Bush last week, 89 House Democrats expressed shock over the documents. They asked if the papers were authentic and, if so, whether they proved that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking Congress' OK.

"If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own administration," the letter says.

Translation: Bush wanted to invade Iraq but not for the reasons he told us and the World. He had an agenda and skewed reality to justify his actions. This is impeachable.

Still don't think so? Please continue reading.

Bush Signs Bill on War Funds for Iraq, Afghanistan
From Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Bush signed legislation Wednesday that would provide more funding this year to the U.S. military for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House said.

The administration had been pushing Congress to approve the $82 billion spending bill.

The Pentagon contended it would run out of funding for some war accounts by the middle of this month without the legislation.

Of the total amount, about $76 billion would go to the Pentagon to buy armor for soldiers and combat vehicles, ammunition, missiles and other war materials. The legislation also increased death benefits for families of soldiers killed in combat.

Democrats unanimously supported the measure but had complained that Bush had failed to give Congress long-range estimates of the cost of the Iraq war.

The White House has argued that future war costs and troop strength will depend on unpredictable conditions in Iraq.

Much of this money has disappeared, untraced, unaccountable. Remember that Bush said - REPEATEDLY! - that Iraq oil would help pay for the costs of the invasion. Fine, how much has it paid? Very little, if any. The Iraq Invasion has cost us dearly and will continue to cost us because there's no end planned. Bush has never mentioned a definitive withdrawal plan and the "Iraqi Government" doesn't want us to leave BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING THEM BILLIONS. Folks, we've wasted a third of a freaking TRILLION dollars in Iraq. How do you think that money could have helped, say, the "Social Security Crisis" or the Health Crisis or Education? Let me repeat that. A third of a TRILLION dollars.

You should be beyond outraged. We need to remove Bush and his ilk from Office. We can't afford his kind. We don't want his kind. We're America dammit and we can do better than Bush!!!

The quote below is from a report regarding a speech Bush delivered in Georgia (not the U.S. Georgia).

...But Bush stopped short of offering concrete help in getting Russia to withdraw two military bases and said the United States cannot impose a solution on the separatist issue. He also hinted at the difficult tasks ahead, warning his Georgian hosts that "building a free society is the work of generations."

So we can't impose on Georgia in the name of Democracy but we can on Iraq. In the name of Iraqi Democracy, Bush can lie about the motivations for invasion, spend one-third TRILLION (that's TRILLION) dollars without accountability, condemn our troops to a presence for an indefinite period of time, hold political prisoners for an indefinite period of time, and likely end up killing far more Americans than from 9/11.

Bush-style Democracy is a bitch!

Jacko Gets Off
Giving odds here. 3-1 that Jacko is found innocent. You think a civil suit will follow?

Evolution Isn't a Natural Selection Here

By P.J. Huffstutter, Times Staff Writer

CLAY CENTER, Kan. — In this rural swath of northern Kansas, where the grass rolls thick and green to the horizon, a white cross dominates the landscape.

Kathy Martin, a member of the state board of education, and her family built it on their farm this spring, gathering weathered chunks of limestone from the horse pasture and laying them on a hillside.

The cross is a proud expression of Martin's faith. And as hearings challenging the role of evolution in the state's school science curriculum began Thursday, that cross left little doubt about where she stood in the debate.

"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them…. We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."

Reading Kathy Martin's quote above demonstrates, to me, how scarily narrow-minded this country is becoming. With the ultra-religious Rightwing on a Crusade to destroy American ingenuity and critical thinking, it's only a matter of time before we lapse into becoming a third-rate nation with a first-rate nuclear capability run by zealots with itchy trigger fingers. In short, we're becoming the very terrorist enemy we're fighting against.

But back to Martin's quote. Every statement of hers is either flat-out wrong or shows a complete lack of logic.

"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," - Evolution - the natural process like gravity - is fact and one well documented, researched, and validated. The Theory of Evolution - the explanation of the process - is near perfect but is still subject to the scientific process and therefore open to revision. But, it's beyond a hypothesis. It's gained enough scientific support through experimentation that the hypothesis is considered a theory. Martin and like-minded folks can't grasp that science doesn't put forth facts as explanations of natural processes, that theories are the top echelon of explanation. Martin etc. think theories aren't good enough. They want black and white - fact or fraud. Sadly, the bible thumpers can't even see the gray in their own dogma.

"There are alternatives." - Sure, there are, as many as there are people in this world. *BUT* the Theory of Evolution is the best supported description of the process of Evolution. Other alternatives, including Creationism, have failed the scientific rigor to grow beyond hypotheses. Or, to put it another way, even if Evolution were severely flawed doesn't validate other hypotheses. You can't say that Intelligent Design (I.D.) is right because Evolution is wrong. Science doesn't work that way. Intelligent Design has to pass its own muster. The problem with I.D. is that there's nothing to test, nothing to predict, nothing to replicate. It's simply "God did it" and that's it. Well, there is one thing to test. Show that God exists and do so beyond spewing quotes from the Bible... But how can Science show that God exists when Philosophy has yet to do it. God is a concept, not a testable entity or process.

"Children need to hear them..." like children need to hear about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Sure, it's cute and fun as a kid to believe in such myths and fairy tales but at some point you have to grow up. I've said this before, children are born scientists. They test the environment, make hypotheses, and learn from their experiments. As parents, we try to instill what we've learned from our life's experiments into our kids, if anything, to keep them from harming themselves. Crap like Creationism, Intelligent Design, or whatever it's being called this week, bypasses critical thinking. It tells our kids: "Don't think, just believe!" Well, sure, we could teach our kids that the answer to everything is simply God but our civilization would return to the Dark Ages with superstition and the High Priests ruling our lives. It'd be a step backwards.

"We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science." - What?!? Our nation is not based on Christianity. Our Constitution makes no mention of Christianity and, more importantly, specifically mentions that there should be a gap between Church and State. Again, Martin and her ilk are confusing the personal beliefs of our Founders with their public stance, like saying that the film studio MGM was founded by a Jew therefore the film studio is Jewish. It's not true! More importantly this statement of hers clearly shows that Martin and the like want to destroy Science, plain and simple. They want to convert our public schools into Christian schools, turn our nation of many into a Christian nation of only those who believe.

Creationism, Intelligent Design - however it's called - is religion and has no place in Science classes. These hypotheses don't and can't pass scientific rigor, which doesn't give them a free pass into our science classes!

America is already suffering from poor education. Classes are getting larger. Education dollars are shrinking. Kids aren't learning how to think and as a result America is no longer the great bastion of invention. The Religious Right wants control. If they gain oversight of our kids education, we'll end up a nation of Christian goosesteppers willing to go forth and convert the heathen even if it means strapping on the boom-boom vests, for when it comes to converting the heathen those who perish in the attempt are surely going to heaven...

Another thought: Since God is responsible for everything, he must also be responsible for Evolution. Therefore Evolution should be taught in all religious classes as a valid alternative to the biblical explanation...

U.S. Can't Account for $100M Spent in Iraq

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer 49 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - U.S. government mismanagement of assets in
Iraq, from the lack of proper documentation on nearly $100 million in cash to millions of dollars worth of unaccounted-for equipment, are setting back efforts to fight corruption in the fledgling democracy, auditors and critics say.

Iraq became awash in billions of dollars in cash after the U.S. invasion two years ago, often with few or no controls over how that money was spent and accounted for. From the $8.8 billion provided to Iraq's interim government to millions provided to U.S. contractors, investigations have detailed a system ripe for abuse.

And I'll bet there's plenty more abuse, missing money, and unaccountability. Re-read the above news next time Bush calls on Congress to approve billions more for Iraq, and ask who's really getting rich off this.

And, as for Abu Ghraib, you think there's some major ass-covering going on? Rumsfeld won't get touched, that's for sure.

Let's see what happening in politics...looks like acts of terrorism is down or up whether you side with the Bushies or not. Georgy is taking a page out of Hollywood accounting and is fudging with the numbers. You see, the number of terrorist acts has risen dramatically since the invasion of Iraq but Georgy & Co. have said that any acts occurring in Iraq are part of the insurgence and don't count. So, they say, the number of terrorist acts is down. That and the War in Iraq is over, except for this small sweep-up problem.

And since God has yet to see fit to show him/her/itself in an obvious, non-interpretable-by-dumbshit-mortals way, his emissaries (preachers and fanatics all) keep the blood and gore going. All these rightwing loonies saying that the troubles in our times are caused by not enough religion - bullshit! - quite the reverse. Remove religion from politics, put it back in the home, and things will start to improve. Remove it entirely and we can, as a world civilization, start to figure things out as an equal global people.

Gah! I'm such a Liberal. Where's my tree to hug?

Which got me thinking about Michael Jackson. Here's a forty-something guy who claims that he's just a big kid at heart and simply loves children. He loves to have kids visit at his Neverland Ranch, and have them play freely. For a few, he invites them to sleep over, share his bed while he sleeps on the floor, play, and run rampant.

All harmless he claims.

Except I've yet to hear of a single case where he invited young girls to sleep over. It's always been young boys. Always!

Even Peter Pan had Wendy to go with Michael.

Is he guilty as charged? I'd be more surprised if he weren't but I expect he'll get off (like O.J.).

The Republican Borg
Some dingle posted a letter to the L.A. Times talking about how not all Christians aren't Republicans. In fact, this person was a Christian and a Democrat and felt that the Democratic Party would do so much better if it got rid of the Atheists and other problem people.

And my reaction was: Crap! Is this the next phase of turning America into a Rightwing Christian Fortress?

It'd be pretty clever. The Republicans are pretty much 0wn3d by the UberRight. The Government is nearly 0wn3d by the Republicans, nearly except for a few final gasps of life from Democrats. What can the Republicans do? They can either "fight" the Democrats, marginalze them, or absorb them. "Fighting" is ugly and may end up scaring some of your own followers away, plus it legitimizes the opponent. Marginalizing the Democrats is also dangerous as they may roar back to life. No, the best way to remove the Democrats is to absorb them, to have the Democrats become the party for "Mainstream" Christian which would, of course, kowtow to the UberRight.

It would force the minorities - Gays, Atheists, Jews, etc. - to the fringe where matters can be neatly watched by those in Power.

You know, this country used to be about protecting the Minority from the Majority. It used to be about Fairplay and intelligent debate, about giving everyone a shot. Now, it's about business and profits, and business about prophets.

Here's a question someone should ask Bush: Would his country allow Atheists to live? That is, if the UberRight Republicans got everything their way, what would happen to the Atheists and the Gays and the Jews and the Hindus and other minorities?

Maps.google
If you haven't played with Maps.Google.Com then you're missing a perverse pleasure. I've been looking up aerial views of racetracks I've been to and yet to visit. You can quickly switch between map and photograph view. So it's super easy to use the map view to find a placename, zoom in, then switch to pictures. And it's fairly fast.

See if you can find Area 51. Although I didn't find a closeup of Fort Knox, I think I found Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch. Clue, find Santa Ynez Valley north and west of Santa Barbara. Then find "Figueroa Mountain Road" leaving the city. As it's winds upwards, scroll upwards-left occassionally. You should see eventually a strange development that looks like a merry-go-round surrounded by other things. I could be wrong though...good luck!

U.S. to Require Passports at Border Entry Points

Wed Apr 6, 7:55 AM ET

By Paul Richter Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — In a move intended to counter terrorism, the U.S. will require by 2008 that Americans show passports or other specialized documents to reenter the country from Mexico and Canada, federal officials said Tuesday.

Under the restrictions, recommended by the Sept. 11 commission, Americans no longer would be allowed to show only a driver's license or a government-issued photo identification card, officials said. Similarly, Canadians, who have been able to enter the United States with a driver's license, would need a passport.

Some in the travel industry have opposed the changes, which would make it harder for travelers to take spur-of-the-moment trips. Critics have contended that it would bring an end to a long relationship between the U.S. and Canada that allowed casual cross-border travel as a part of daily life.

But U.S. officials point out that the Algerian man who was convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in late 1999 was admitted from Canada without a passport.

U.S. officials decided to tighten the borders to keep out "people who want to hurt us," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Under the planned rules, Americans returning from Panama and Bermuda also would need to show passports or secure documents, officials said. Currently, Americans returning from Mexico, Panama or Bermuda need only show a government-issued ID card, plus proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or a naturalization certificate.

In addition to passports, American travelers would be able to use the secure "border crossing card" also known as a laser visa. Some Mexicans traveling frequently to the United States use the laser ID in place of a passport and visa.

Officials said travelers probably would be able to obtain secure ID cards issued under several other federal programs, such as those for frequent travelers and shippers.

The new rules would be phased in. The passport rule would be imposed on air and sea travel from the Caribbean, Bermuda and Central and South America on Dec. 31 of this year. It would be extended to air and sea travel from Canada and Mexico on Dec. 31, 2006. A year later it would apply to land crossings.

The changes are required under the intelligence reform law approved by Congress and signed by President Bush last year. In implementing the law's requirements, State Department officials said there would be a 60-day period for public comment. The rules could undergo changes based on the comments before becoming final this fall.

"We recognize the implications this might have for industry, business and the general public, as well as our neighboring countries, and they are important partners in this initiative," said Maura Harty, assistant secretary of State for consular affairs.

She said the advance notice of the proposed requirements would allow those affected "to voice concern and provide ideas for [alternative] documents acceptable under the law."

Elaine Dezenski, an acting assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said the changes would make travel within the Western Hemisphere more like other foreign trips.

"We want folks to think about their travel to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda as equivalent to taking a trip to Europe or Asia," Dezenski said.

Even with the new rules, Canadians would be exempt from fingerprinting requirements that would apply to other foreign visitors to the U.S., officials said.

Some Canadians have voiced criticism about U.S. border concerns. In reaction, one Canadian official said, his country might begin requiring Americans to show their passports before crossing into Canada.

"We will review our requirements for American citizens, and we're going to do that in collaboration with the United States," Canadian Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan said outside the House of Commons in Ottawa.

Maryscott "Scotty" Greenwood, executive director of the Canadian American Business Council in Washington, said that for traffic to continue to flow smoothly with the new rules, governments would have to provide sufficient resources at the border and would have to make people in border communities fully aware of the new requirements.

"Implementation will be crucial," she said.

Border security has been a leading concern among U.S. policymakers since the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sept. 11 commission report warned last year that "the current system enables non-U.S. citizens to gain entry by showing minimal identification. The 9/11 experience shows that terrorists study and exploit America's vulnerabilities."

It said that "Americans should not be exempt from carrying biometric passports or otherwise enabling their identities to be securely verified when they enter the United States; nor should Canadians or Mexicans."

The stupidity and hypocrisy in this act is overwhelming: