[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by poochee

Unbelievable...From the article it sounds like the person taking the application is the problem. This Muslim thing gets more irritating each day!

Spot on. The Post Office isn't the issuing authority, the UK Passport Service is & they make the rules. The Post Office does an application checking service, in this case the clerk in question was clearly out to lunch/having a bad day/whatever.

FWIW, a UK passport must show full face, even for Muslim women.

[xico]

The restriction of bare shoulders seems reasonable considering that Muslim countries would find it offensive. The Italians were highly offended by American tourists who were going to church in shorts. Americans are quite liberal in their attiitudes towards dress, but I'm sure we have our limits too.


Ex-Paraguayan Dictator Alfredo Stroessner Dies at 93
And finally in Paraguay, former dictator Alfredo Stroessner has died at the age of 93. Stroessner seized power in 1954 and ruled for thirty five years. He provided a haven to several Nazi war criminals, including Dr. Josef Mengele, known as "The Angel of Death" at Auschwitz. Stroessner was a stanch ally of the US government.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../08/17/1335202

Hmmmm. Curiously, perhaps, Stroessner didn't see any contradiction between his Nazi pals and his US Government pals. I guess it's just a case of one hand washing the other.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by xico

The restriction of bare shoulders seems reasonable considering that Muslim countries would find it offensive. The Italians were highly offended by American tourists who were going to church in shorts. Americans are quite liberal in their attiitudes towards dress, but I'm sure we have our limits too.

If I read correctly, they were going to the South of France (where it is not offensive) not to a Muslim country. Actually, if the country of origin doesn't ban this for their passport, why should it offend another country?

Wearing shorts to church is unacceptable dress.

I have a friend who was a docent with the zoo and they would take trips to Africa. On one trip they were to visit an Arab villiage. The women were told in advance to bring along a longer skirt and a blouse with long sleeves so as not to be offensive to the Arabs. Which they did.

[xico]

Must have misread it. Thought they were going to Muslim countries.

[xico]

This is an interesting chapter of non-history.


http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

[xico]

ABA Rating for 5th Circuit Nominee Angers Specter

T.R. Goldman
Legal Times
August 24, 2006

The American Bar Association's unanimous "not qualified" rating for Michael Wallace, the Mississippi lawyer nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has sent Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., into a tizzy.

In an Aug. 7 letter, Specter demanded that the ABA "immediately revoke its 'Not Qualified' rating ... and begin a new review process." Such unanimous "not qualified" ratings are extremely rare, but the ABA, in a written summary of its decision, noted that it arrived at its conclusion after interviewing 69 lawyers and judges.

While applauding Wallace's professional credentials -- Harvard College, the University of Virginia School of Law, clerk to then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist -- and his integrity, the ABA assailed his judicial temperament, including allegations of racial bias.

Click here for the rest of the article.

Seems to me that this shows Specter's colors. Very white

[xico]

PSEUDO-SECRETS:
A Freedom of Information Audit of
the U.S. Government's Policies on
Sensitive Unclassified Information


Entire Report in PDF

Press Release

Executive Summary

Recommendations

Methodology

Appendix 1
Chart: Card Memorandum FOIA Requests, Summary of Agency Processing

Appendix 2
Chart: Impact of Card Memorandum, By Agency

Appendix 3
Chart: Sensitive Unclassified Information FOIA Requests, Summary of Agency Processing

Appendix 4
Chart: Sensitive Unclassified Information, Policies by Agency

Appendix 5
Chart: Sensitive Unclassified Information, Distinct Policies

Appendix 6
Glossary of Acronyms

Related Links

FOIA Audit Phase 1: The Ashcroft Memo, March 14, 2003

FOIA Audit Phase 2: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: The Ten Oldest Pending FOIA Requests, November 13, 2003

A FOIA Request Celebrates Its 17th Birthday: National Security Archive Audit Identifies
"10 OLDEST" Requests in U.S. Federal Government, March 12, 2006

CIA Wins 2006 "Rosemary Award"
for Worst Freedom of Information Performance by a Federal Agency, March 13, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For more information contact:
Kristin Adair, Freedom of Information Associate
Meredith Fuchs, Archive General Counsel
Thomas Blanton, Archive Director
202/994-7000

Washington D.C., March 14, 2006 - The first-ever government-wide audit of the ways that federal agencies mark and protect information that is unclassified but sensitive for security reasons has found 28 different and uncoordinated policies, none of which include effective oversight or monitoring of how many records are marked and withheld, by whom, or for how long.

The audit began in February 2005 with Freedom of Information requests from the National Security Archive at George Washington University, to more than 40 agencies, for copies of their policies and guidelines on "sensitive unclassified information." The Archive released its Audit today at a Congressional hearing held by the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats (chaired by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-CT.), U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform.

Titled "Pseudo-Secrets: A Freedom of Information Audit of the U.S. Government's Policies on Sensitive Unclassified Information," the audit found:

No agency monitors or reports on the use or impact of sensitive unclassified information policies.
Only 8 agencies have policies that are authorized by statute and implemented by regulation.
No challenge or appeals mechanism for questioning the markings exists in any of the policies.
Only one policy contains a "sunset" provision for the sensitive unclassified markings - at the Agriculture Department - but the maximum duration of 10 years is the same as for Top Secret information in the classification system.
8 agencies effectively allow any employee to slap protective markings on records, including the largest single department other than Defense, Homeland Security (more than 180,000 employees).
Only 7 policies include cautions or qualifiers against using the markings to conceal embarrassing, illegal or inefficient agency actions (in the classified system, this is an explicit prohibition).
11 agencies report no policy on sensitive unclassified information (these agencies may use "official use only" and similar markings, but not - apparently - to protect information that is sensitive because of its security implications, which was the focus of the Archive's Audit).
Archive director Thomas Blanton testified to the Subcommittee today that "We believe the diversity of policies, the ambiguous and incomplete guidelines, the lack of monitoring, and the decentralized administration of information controls on sensitive unclassified information - all of which is evident in our Audit results - means that neither the Congress nor the public can really tell whether these sensitive unclassified information policies are actually working to safeguard our security, or are being abused for administrative convenience or coverup."


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB183/press.htm

This is an example of bad government, or inexcusable organization, that goes all the way back to Truman. Looks like some poignant questions were being asked. It only took some 60 years to ask the questions! LOL But at least they are being asked.

[poochee]

This is something to keep an eye on!

Social Security Lays Out the Funding Consequences

By Stephen Barr
Thursday, September 14, 2006; Page D04

The Social Security Administration would be forced to send employees home without pay and shut offices 10 days next year if Congress does not increase its funding in fiscal 2007, the agency has told Congress.

"Fewer resources mean fewer people to serve the public in all areas of SSA's operations," Jo Anne B. Barnhart , the Social Security commissioner, said in a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee. "Because these budget reductions will affect all employees, they will result in major service disruptions across all workloads."

If the agency resorts to furloughs, the Social Security network of 1,300 field offices would close, probably a day at a time over a five- to six-month period. On those days, the public would not be able to apply for Social Security numbers, replace Social Security cards, file for retirement or disability benefits or obtain decisions on pending disability claims and appeals.

In 2006, nearly 49 million Americans will receive approximately $539 billion in Social Security benefits.

"For an agency like ours, it is kind of a shock," said Richard Warsinskey , president of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations.

Warsinskey said he understands that companies lay off and furlough employees in bad economic times, "but this is a public service issue." He said, "We don't want to take a well-run agency and make it mediocre because we don't get enough money."

Mark Lassiter , the Social Security press officer, said no decisions on furloughs have been made. The House and Senate have not finished work on the agency's budget and Barnhart "remains hopeful that the president's budget request will be approved by Congress," he said.

The Senate bill would provide about $9 billion for the agency -- about $400 million less than the president's request and about $54 million less than what the agency received for this year's budget. The House proposal would leave Social Security about $200 million short of what the White House is seeking.

The agency's budget may not be resolved until after the November elections, congressional aides said. A spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee said House and Senate negotiators would review the agency's funding and staffing levels later this year. Many agencies are likely to face budget squeezes next year, in part because Congress faces tough decisions on financing the Iraq war and homeland security.

In her letter, Barnhart indicated that the Senate's proposal to provide $400 million less than in the president's budget would require a hiring freeze, overtime reductions and other overhead cuts in addition to a 10-day furlough of staff.

Warsinskey said the agency is scouring its budget for ways to save money. "SSA has never been faced with this before," he said, referring to the prospect of a furlough.

Rest at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...referrer=email

[poochee]

Liberal evangelicals begin campaign
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 6:22 pm PDT Monday, September 18, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) - Liberal evangelicals, weary of a Republican-centric image, launched a campaign Monday to promote Christian values beyond the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.

Red Letter Christians, a project of Sojurners/Call to Renewal, announced plans to establish a grass-roots network of 7,000 moderate and progressive clergy members.

"A debate on moral issues should be central to American politics, but how should we define religious values?" said Jim Wallis, an activist and executive director of the Christian ministry, which also publishes the liberal Sojourners Magazine.

The project's name comes from the color of some Bible's type, with words directly attributed to Jesus appearing in red.

Wallis said Christian conservatives have limited the discussion to abortion and same-sex marriage, two fears that mobilized voters in 2004, and that voters care about more than two the issues.

"We must insist that the ethics of war - and whether we tell the truth about going to war - these are moral values issues too," Wallis said. Democrats have pinned part of their midterm strategy on voters' restlessness with the war in Iraq.

The Red Letter Christians campaign plans to use voter guides for congregants and briefings for their leaders to argue education, poverty and the environment are all evangelical issues. Wallis also launched a new blog this week at BeliefNet.com, debating with former Christian Coalition head and failed Republican Georgia lieutenant governor candidate Ralph Reed.

The faith-based group also hired a full-time coordinator in Ohio, where conservative Ken Blackwell is running against Rep. Ted Strickland, a former Methodist pastor. Another coordinator is soon to arrive in Pennsylvania, where Sen. Rick Santorum faces a tough re-election bid.

Wallis said the Christian conservatives have lost their independence with too-cozy ties to the Republican Party. He also is quick to note his group is not an extension of the Democratic Party. He is openly critical of Democratic politicians and titled his best-selling book "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."

Rest of article at:
http://dwb.sacbee.com/24hour/politic...12419386c.html

[xico]

Secret CIA Prisons in Your Backyard

By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, Truthdig. Posted September 22, 2006.


The largest covert CIA operation since the Cold War is run not only by shadowy government contractors in the darkest corners of Afghanistan, but also by unassuming Americans in places like Dedham, Mass.

When U.S. civilian airplanes were spotted in late 2002 taking trips to and from Andrews Air Force Base, and making stops in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, journalists and plane-spotters wondered what was going on. It soon became clear that these planes were part of the largest covert operation since the Cold War era. Called extraordinary rendition, the practice involves CIA officials or contractors kidnapping people and sending them to secret prisons around the world where they are held and often tortured, either at the hands of the host-country's government or by CIA personnel themselves.

On Sept. 6, after a long period of official no-comments, President Bush acknowledged the program's existence. But the extent of its operations has yet to be publicly disclosed.

How extensive is it? Trevor Paglen, an expert in clandestine military installations, and A.C. Thompson, an award-winning journalist for S.F. Weekly, spent months tracking the CIA flights and the businesses behind them. What they found was a startlingly broad network of planes (including the Gulfstream jet belonging to Boston Red Sox co-owner Phillip Morse), shell companies, and secret prisons around the world. Perhaps the most disturbing revelation of their new book Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights is the collusion of everyday Americans in this massive CIA program. From family lawyers who bolster the shell companies, to an entire town in Smithfield, N.C., that hosts CIA planes and pilots, Torture Taxi is the story of the broad reach of extraordinary rendition, and, as Hannah Arendt coined the phrase, the banality of evil.

Trevor and A.C. joined me by phone to explain how they managed to follow a paper trail that led to some of the most critical unknowns about the extraordinary rendition program.

Onnesha Roychoudhuri: How did the idea for the book come about?

Trevor Paglen: I research military secrecy at Berkeley and there is a community there trying to figure out what military programs are. At some point, this hobbyist community became aware that there were these civilian planes flying around, acting as if they were working in military black programs. These people started tracking the planes and repeatedly seeing them in places like Libya and Guantanamo Bay. It became pretty clear that this was a CIA thing and that these were planes that were involved in the extraordinary rendition program.

Roychoudhuri: When did the pieces start to come together?

Paglen: Late last year, there was a big uproar about secret prisons in Eastern Europe. Dana Priest at the Washington Post broke the story and Human Rights Watch put out a press release. At that moment the pieces started making sense and we could start explaining what was going on. By that time I had collected a number of files on this just as a curiosity. I brought them over to A.C.'s job, where he has access to some tools to do investigative journalism.

A.C. Thompson: Trevor had this aviation and military expertise and all this information when he came to my office. I've been doing corporate research for years and when we started looking at these possible CIA front companies associated with the planes, it immediately became very apparent that we were looking at phony companies.

Roychoudhuri: How did you track the extraordinary rendition program?

Click here for the rest of this article. Quite upsetting. Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But I guess some people don't mind the government whisking people off the streets and into black holes as long as it doesn't interfere with their pleasure zones and their greed . . . which, eventually, will happen. What happened to my country? Or rather, what happened to my government? Is this Cheney's 1% Doctrine in play? Yeah, I think so.

[xico]

Thank you for writing your senators to tell them to stand firm against impunity for war crimes. But that's just the first step. To be sure your voice is heard, tell your friends and family so they can write a letter too. If Senators' inboxes are filling with letters, they will pay attention.

Ask your friends to write their senators by going here:

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia...paign_KEY=5218

The White House is pressuring senators and representatives to vote to weaken the War Crimes Act. The War Crimes Act makes it illegal to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions protect the human rights of prisoners of war. American soldiers rely on them when they are captured abroad. If the US stopped observing them, other countries probably would as well.

If you want more information on the subject, check out this web site: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/warcrimes.html

Thank you for taking the time to write a letter on this really important issue.

Take action now at http://www.democracyinaction.org/jus...gn_KEY=5218&t=


I got this in an email, so there's no link except the ones in the email.

[poochee]

Social Security benefits to rise in 2007
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
Last Updated 4:03 pm PDT Wednesday, October 18, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) - Social Security checks for nearly 49 million retirees are going up by 3.3 percent next year - an average increase of $33 per month, though rising health care costs will take a bite out of the gain.
The monthly benefit for the typical retiree will rise to $1,044 from an average of $1,011 this year.

The cost of living adjustment announced Wednesday by the Social Security Administration will go to more than 53 million people. Nearly 49 million receive Social Security benefits and the rest Supplemental Security Income payments aimed at the poor.

The 3.3 percent increase compares with a 4.1 percent benefit rise in for 2006, which had been the biggest increase in 15 years.

Benefit payments, which have been tied to inflation since 1975, surged by double-digit amounts in the high-inflation years of 1980 and 1981 but increases have been more moderate in recent years as the Federal Reserve has had more success keeping inflation under control.

The COLA amount is based on the change in the Consumer Price Index from the July-September quarter of this year compared with the same quarter in 2005.

Last year, prices surged in September, reflecting a big spike in energy costs after Hurricane Katrina.

But this year, energy prices, which initially leaped because of rising Mideast tensions, have been falling since late summer. Those declines helped pull consumer prices down by 0.5 percent in September, the biggest drop in 10 months.

Falling energy prices should help retirees deal with winter heating bills, which for the first time in a number of years are expected to be lower this winter.

The average retired couple, both receiving Social Security benefits, will see their monthly check go from $1,658 to $1,713.

The standard SSI payment will go from $603 to $623 per month for an individual, and from $904 to $934 for a couple.

The average monthly check for a disabled worker will rise from $947 to $979.

Eleven million taxpayers will pay higher taxes next year because the maximum amount of Social Security earnings subject to the payroll tax will rise from $94,200 to $97,500. In all, an estimated 163 million workers will pay Social Security taxes in 2007.

The $33 per month average monthly increase for Social Security retirees in 2007 compares with a $39 rise for 2006.

Part of the 2007 gain will be eaten up by a $5 increase in the payments retirees must make for Medicare Part B insurance, which pays for their doctors' visits and other outpatient care.

The increase will push the monthly premium for most Medicare recipients to $93.50, a rise of 5.6 percent. But that is down from the double-digit increases over the past three years when health care costs far outpaced overall inflation.

About 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries, those making more than $80,000 annually, will pay an additional $12.50 to $68.60 per month above the $93.50 premium. As part of the 2003 drug benefit law, higher-income Medicare patients for the first time will face a larger premium based on a sliding scale.

"Seniors are being asked to foot more and more of the bill while the larger issue of controlling runaway health care costs languishes largely ignored in Washington," said Barbara Kennelly, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The administration has said the monthly premium for prescription drug coverage, known as Part D, should average $24 next year, the same as this year, a forecast Democrats contend is misleading. They estimate that the bulk of Medicare recipients are in drug plans which will increase on average by about $5 per month.

Rest at:
http://dwb.sacbee.com/24hour/politic...12489206c.html

[bill.aam]

DOW CLOSES ABOVE 12,000 FOR FIRST TIME...



12011.73

[poochee]

'Hear, Hear!' -- Here?
Briton Would Like to Import a Loud Parliamentary Tradition

By Anushka Asthana
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A19

P.J. Johnston, the British government's spokesman in the United States, describes the scene as "verbal jousting." Every Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair has to explain and defend his policies in front of a taunting mob of politicians in Parliament. The televised battle is a British tradition.

Johnston, who has worked in the United States for eight years, thinks Americans would like to have a similar show. "There is a great passion in this country for that combative element of British politics that is known as 'Prime Minister's Questions,' " he said in an interview at the British Embassy in Washington.

Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, speaks in the House of Commons on Wednesday during his weekly question-and-answer session with lawmakers. (Associated Press)

Johnson is in a better position than most to talk about the differences between the two governments. He has worked closely with both Downing Street and the White House, especially during meetings between Blair and President Bush, and has learned a huge amount about the U.S. government.

Johnston began working for the British government in 1989 when he joined the Northern Ireland Office. His efforts led to being awarded an Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II for his contribution to the peace process.

He recalled one example from his years in Britain to illustrate just how different the atmosphere in Parliament is from that in Congress. When he was private secretary to then-Security Minister John Wheeler, his boss took him into the House of Commons chamber, where Blair faces questions, and showed him two red lines marking where the government and the opposition sat.

"He explained that the distance between the two red lines is two sword lengths away. If they could not sort it out through debating, they took it outside," Johnston said, laughing. "The verbal jousting you see represents another age of combative politics."

The closest parallel in the United States is the pre-election series of presidential debates, Johnson thinks. "With the exception of set pieces like the State of the Union, the president does not have to actually face Congress," he said.

Bush is treated with more respect than Blair by politicians, the public and the media, Johnston said. While he called the U.S. media "dogged" and the opposition "robust," he said they are also "respectful of the position of being the president of the United States," a courtesy not always afforded to Bush's British counterpart.

Johnston has a theory about this attitude: "The president straddles the role of Tony Blair as head of government on one side and the queen as head of state on the other. The element of being respectful of questioning him relates to the queen element."

But Blair, Johnston said, has the benefit of being able to get his decisions implemented more quickly. The U.S. government has a very "healthy" system of making decisions that starts with a "huge inter-agency debate," he said. Once the president agrees on something, he has to work with Congress to pass it. In Britain, the prime minister is always the leading politician of the party that has a parliamentary majority, so he largely has "the ability to carry a decision through."

Rest at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...referrer=email

[katonca]

Originally Posted by poochee

Wearing shorts to church is unacceptable dress.

katonca's seal of approval {{{}}}

Hi poochee