A Department of Defense decision to renege on war-time promises to pay bonuses to more than a dozen re-enlisting Washington National Guardsmen has sparked outrage from prominent elected officials and state National Guard officers working to rectify the situation.

According to a state Guard spokesman, Maj. Phil Osterli, at least 15 Washington National Guardsmen and women signed re-enlistment forms promising them a tax-free $15,000 bonus in return. Many of them were stationed in Iraq at the time, he said.

But Pentagon officials have said in published reports that the bonuses were canceled because they duplicated other programs and were prohibited.

Sgt. 1st Class Carl Latson is one of those in the Washington National Guard directly affected. The Spanaway man, a 13-year military veteran who said he has served both in Operation Desert Storm and in the current Iraq war, re-enlisted in January for another six-year term, which would have taken him close to retirement from the service.

Latson, 35, said Friday that the bonus was a big incentive to re-enlist. At the time it was offered, he was serving in Iraq as an enlisted aide for a general at the Balad Army base near Baghdad.

He signed a re-enlistment form Jan. 17, just after he took the oath from his commanding officer. "For a 6 year reenlistment/extension I will receive a total bonus of $15,000," reads the official Army National Guard form.

After serving two years active duty with the Navy and the last 11 years with the National Guard, Latson said, "I re-enlisted because the opportunity was there to finally get a bonus."
[snip]

"It has made a significant impact on my life," said Latson. "For them to offer a bonus when we're at war, when we're risking our lives, and then to turn around and not pay it when we return is the wrong message to send to me, to any soldier. It's not fair."

Anyway, The New Yorker introduces a 1996 novel called The Apprentice by none other than recently indicted scumbag, Scooter Libby, as another in a series of questionable novels by prominent conservatives, and notes:

Like his predecessors, Libby does not shy from the scatological. The narrative makes generous mention of lice, snot, drunkenness, bad breath, torture, urine, “turds,” armpits, arm hair, neck hair, pubic hair, pus, boils, and blood (regular and menstrual). One passage goes, “At length he walked around to the deer’s head and, reaching into his pants, struggled for a moment and then pulled out his penis. He began to piss in the snow just in front of the deer’s nostrils.”

Eugh. And it gets worse. The passage “He asked if they should fuck the deer.” is quoted, to which, The New Yorker notes, “The answer, reader, is yes.” And then there are the old stand-bys of conservative fiction writers:

Homoeroticism and incest also figure as themes. The main female character, Yukiko, draws hair on the “mound” of a little girl. The brothers of a dead samurai have sex with his daughter. Many things glisten (mouths, hair, evergreens), quiver (a “pink underlip,” arm muscles, legs), and are sniffed (floorboards, sheets, fingers).

Perhaps the most disturbing, however, is this passage:

At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest.

House Republicans are pushing to cut tens of thousands of legal immigrants off food stamps, partially reversing President Bush's efforts to win Latino votes by restoring similar cuts made in the 1990s.

The food stamp measure is just one of several provisions in an expansive congressional budget-cutting package that critics say unfairly targets the poor and disadvantaged, especially poor children.

The food stamp cuts in the House measure would knock nearly 300,000 people off nutritional assistance programs, including 70,000 legal immigrants, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Those immigrants would lose their benefits because the House measure would require legal immigrants to live in the United States for seven years before becoming eligible to receive food stamps, rather than the current five years.

About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunches, the CBO estimated.

The food stamp cuts, if approved, will especially affect 11 states, including Maryland, that used the changes in the food stamp law -- approved with Bush's support in 2002 -- to expand eligibility and to simplify the application process. Under the House measure, eligibility for food stamps would be tightened to exclude some recipients who qualify for nutritional support simply because they qualify for other anti-poverty programs funded by the federal welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the head of the federal agency that oversees most government broadcasts to foreign countries, including the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, is the subject of an inquiry into accusations of misuse of federal money and the use of phantom or unqualified employees, officials involved in that examination said on Friday.

Mr. Tomlinson was ousted from the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on Thursday after its inspector general concluded an investigation that was critical of him. That examination looked at his efforts as chairman of the corporation to seek more conservative programs on public radio and television.

[snip]

People involved in the inquiry said that investigators had already interviewed a significant number of officials at the agency and that, if the accusations were substantiated, they could involve criminal violations.

Last July, the inspector general at the State Department opened an inquiry into Mr. Tomlinson's work at the board of governors after Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, forwarded accusations of misuse of money.

The lawmakers requested the inquiry after Mr. Berman received complaints about Mr. Tomlinson from at least one employee at the board, officials said. People involved in the inquiry said it involved accusations that Mr. Tomlinson was spending federal money for personal purposes, using board money for corporation activities, using board employees to do corporation work and hiring ghost employees or improperly qualified employees.

The latest follow-up report on lung function in New York City firefighters shows that firefighters who served in rescue efforts in the World Trade Center collapse are showing "accelerated pulmonary function decline."

The data were presented here Wednesday at CHEST 2005, the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Dr. David Pezant of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and deputy chief medical officer of the New York City Department of Firefighters was lead author of the report involving 12,079 firefighters who worked at the site before, during and after September 11, 2001, as well as those who were never exposed.

The cohort has been classified into groups according to exposure to particulate matter associated with the disaster site: those exposed acutely to particulate matter during the towers' collapse; those exposed over the next 48 hours; those exposed after 48 hours; and those who were not exposed.

The firefighters underwent lung function testing two to three times a year prior to 9/11 and once annually since then. Spirometry measures of lung function correlated linearly with arrival time at the disaster site, Pezant announced.

"Pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second, or FEV1) decline was about 20 to 30 mL a year prior to the attack, which you would expect with the normal aging process," Pezant told Reuters Health.

"Instead, what we found was figures 12 times higher than that."

Lung function dropped the most for firefighters exposed during the collapse, followed by those who arrived over the next 48 hours, followed those who were exposed after that. Decline in lung function was around 50 percent greater in those with late exposure compared with those who were never exposed, he noted.

Pezant pointed out that the long-term course of lung function decline is uncertain.

The decline in pulmonary function appears to correlate with respiratory symptoms, he added. He also said: "I can tell you anecdotally that while there is some improvement in those who are treated, treatment does not eliminate the drop in pulmonary function entirely."

"As we continue to monitor drinking water in and around New York City, and as EPA gets more comprehensive analysis of this monitoring data, I am relieved to be able to reassure New York and New Jersey residents that a host of potential contaminants are either not detectable or are below the Agency's concern levels...Results we have just received on drinking water quality show that not only is asbestos not detectable, but also we can not detect any bacterial contamination, PCBs or pesticides."

When an injustice is about to be done, when an outrage is about to be perpetrated, I become infused with the spirit of Emile Zola and raise my fist in protest.

Therefore I cannot remain silent over the impending removal of Marc Maron from Air America's Morning Sedition.

I have followed Marc's comedy career for years. I saw him bravely take on a clubful of bridge-and-tunnel yahoos one night on the upper East Side, snapping his oneliners like a lion tamer and silencing their obnoxious drunken hubbub. I sat rapt during his one-man show The Jerusalem Syndrome, a tour de force worthy of Philip Roth. I have long admired the lengths to which he explores his own hypochondria, that minefield of neurosis and physical paranoia best captured in the title of fellow hypochondriac Albert Goldman's article "Doctor, What's This Bump on My Nose?" And, of course, I have been a devoted listener of and an occasional guest on Morning Sedition, which he co-pilots with the unflappable and easy-pouring Mark Riley.

[snip]

But now, due to dunderheaded mismanagement on the part of Air America, Marc is being forced to pack his parachute and prepare to jump. His contract option was not renewed and he has only a few more weeks on the air.

The problem? Word is that Air America major supremo Danny Goldberg doesn't like the show, doesn't like Marc as an on-air personality, doesn't "get" Marc's or the show's humor, and wants to crumple the program up into a wastepaper ball and chuck it into the basket.

Now Danny Goldberg may have many fine qualities. I sort of liked the book he did a bit back about how the Democrats had lost youth appeal. But he's not a radio guy, and if he can't find the funny in Marc, Lawton Smalls, and Sammy the Stem Cell, he needs to hire a psychic detective to locate his missing sense of humor.

Can anything be done to keep Morning Sedition going and prevent Marc from being pushed into the cold wintry streets of a town without pity?

Well, you can always write to Danny Goldberg at dannyg@airamericaradio.com

Or to the person I'm informed is the big mover on the AA board, Rob Glaser of Real Network. His email address is rglaser@real.com

Should you decide to petition these gentlemen in support of Marc, Mark and Morning Sedition, be concise, polite, and positive. Don't go wailing like a bunch of Freepers. Love-bomb them with eloquence and enthusiasm.

Because a world without Sammy the Stem Cell is a world that might as well stop revolving.

On almost every key measure of presidential character and performance, the survey found that Bush has never been less popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 60 percent disapprove of his performance in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in Post-ABC polls.

[snip]

...Bush has always retained majority support on his handling of the U.S. campaign against terrorism -- until now, when 51 percent have registered disapproval.

The CIA leak case has apparently contributed to a withering decline in how Americans view Bush personally. The survey found that 40 percent now view him as honest and trustworthy -- a 13 percentage point drop in the past 18 months. Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- said they have doubts about Bush's honesty, the first time in his presidency that more than half the country has questioned his personal integrity.

The indictment Friday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, in the CIA leak case added to the burden of an administration already reeling from a failed Supreme Court nomination, public dissatisfaction with the economy and continued bloodshed in Iraq. According to the survey, 52 percent say the charges against Libby signal the presence of deeper ethical wrongdoing in the administration. Half believe White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, the president's top political hand, also did something wrong in the case -- about 6 in 10 say Rove should resign.

Beyond the leak case, Americans give the administration low scores on ethics, according to the survey, with 67 percent rating the administration negatively on handling ethical matters, while just 32 percent give the administration positive marks. Four in 10 -- 43 percent -- say the level of ethics and honesty in the federal government has fallen during Bush's presidency, while 17 percent say it has risen.

Faced with its cascade of recent setbacks, the White House is hoping the latest court nomination can rally disaffected conservatives and score the president a victory akin to the one he enjoyed in the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Alito begins the confirmation process with the support of 49 percent of the public, while 29 percent say he should not be confirmed, the poll found. One in 5 Americans -- 22 percent -- did not yet know enough about him to make a judgment.

The dissatisfaction with Bush flows in part out of broad concerns about the overall direction of the country. Nearly 7 in 10 -- 68 percent -- believe the country is seriously off course, while only 30 percent are optimistic, the lowest level in more than nine years. Only 3 in 10 express high levels of confidence in Bush, while half say they have little or no confidence in this administration.

Just 35 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as either excellent or good, with 65 percent describing it as not so good or poor. Although the government reported last week that gross domestic product rose 3.8 percent in the last quarter, despite the effects of Hurricane Katrina, 29 percent of those surveyed said they regard the economy as poor, the highest recorded during Bush's presidency.

I am going to start every encounter with everyone I know with the following exchange, "I believe Joseph Wilson, I know the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were fixed, if we don't know where Osama is we don't know where our own asses are, Iraq intelligence was cooked, and if you don't agree with me, you can kiss my own ass. Now what the fuck do you want?"

Statement by Senator Reid
Troops and Security First

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false.
The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.”

The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

o How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
o Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
o How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
o What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
o How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions?
o Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.

Judge Alito's two colleagues, Judges Walter K. Stapleton and Collins J. Seitz, surmised that Justice O'Connor, casting the controlling vote on the Supreme Court, would find this provision unconstitutional.

They noted that most women seeking abortions were unmarried, and thus unaffected by the provision, and that among married women, most chose to involve their husbands in the abortion decision. But for those married women who feared the consequences of telling their husbands, the two judges said, the burden was indeed severe and failed to meet the test.

Judge Alito disagreed. The number of women who would be adversely affected by the provision, admittedly small, was unknown, he said, and the evidence of likely impact was insufficient to provide for striking down a new law on its face, before its impact could be tested and demonstrated. "I cannot believe that a state statute may be held facially unconstitutional simply because one expert testifies that in her opinion the provision would harm a completely unknown number of women," he wrote.

Judge Alito's dissenting opinion went on to note that "needless to say, the plight of any women, no matter how few, who may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this provision is a matter of grave concern." But the Pennsylvania legislature took that concern into account, he said, in writing into the law an exception for a woman who "has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her." Further, he said, the law would be "difficult to enforce and easy to evade," because it required no proof beyond a woman's word that she had notified her husband.

A lot has been said this morning about Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, and his impeccable legal resume. Well, here's one portion of his resume we hope gets some very, very close scrutiny over the next few weeks, before his confirmation hearings.

Where were you in '72?

Specifically, what were the circumstances of Alito getting a coveted slot in the Army Reserves that year, while the Vietnam War was still raging? Is Alito yet another "chickenhawk" who avoided the war and now will be deciding on life-or-death cases involving our young men and women fighting in Iraq and elsewhere today?

We don't know the answer -- it's only been about four hours since Bush nominated Altio to replace Sandra Day O'Connor -- but it's a question that needs to be asked, especially in light over the controversies over how Bush and Dick Cheney avoided Vietnam.

Alito was born on April Fool's Day -- April 1, 1950. He entered Princeton University as an undergrad in 1968, the year of the Tet Offensive, at a time when there was still a college deferment for the draft. That meant that full-time students working toward a degree were not in jeopardy of being sent to Vietnam.

However, in 1971 Congress voted to essentially end the college deferment, and by then the U.S. Selective Service had switched to a draft lottery -- the higher your number, based upon your birthday, the more likely that you would be drafted.

In February 1972, the service held its draft lottery for 1973 inductions -- and Alito, in essence, lost. His birthday, April 1, came up as No. 12 that year, a certain ticket to induction, or so it seemed.

In fact, the draft class of 1973 would never be called. The U.S. involvement in Vietnam was substantially winding down in 1972, to just 49,000 troops from a high in the 1960s of more than half a million. But as Richard Nixon's Christmas bombings that year showed, no one had a crystal ball to predict the final American withdrawal at the start of 1973.

By then, young Sam Alito -- who was graduating Princeton on his way to Yale Law School -- was already in the Army Reserves, which, as this article notes, "became a haven for those avoiding service in Vietnam." The future judge served in the reserves until 1980 and left with the rank of captain.

How did he get that coveted slot? The judge's father, Sam Alito Sr., was the director of New Jersey's Office of Legislative Services in 1972, so he surely knew some powerful politicians. Did someone make a phone call? We're curious.

I think it would've been quite nice if Judge Alito had stopped by to pay respects to Rosa Parks... yesterday. The idea that they're going to parade him in front of her casket after his nomination is truly demented, especially given Alito's dissent in Bray v. Marriot Hotels which , as explained in the majority opinion:

The dissent's position would immunize an employer
from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the "best" candidate, was the result of conscious racial bias. Thus, the issue here, is not merely whether Marriott was seeking the "best" candidate but whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Bray was not deemed the best because she is Black. Indeed, Title VII would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where the dissent suggests.

(1) a woman seeking an abortion must give her informed consent prior to the procedure and be given state-provided information concerning her decision 24 hours before the abortion is performed
2) a minor seeking an abortion is required to obtain the informed consent of one parent or guardian, but has an option of judicial bypass
(3) a married woman is required to sign a statement indicating that she notified her husband of her intended abortion
(4) exemptions can be made in the event of a medical emergency
(5) facilities providing abortion services are required to keep records of the events

Three years ago Alito drew conflict-of-interest accusations after he upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against the Vanguard Group. Alito had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested with the mutual fund company at the time. He denied doing anything improper but recused himself from further involvement in the case.

A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.

The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.

In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.

The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority -- 55 percent -- said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics.

[snip]

The ethics findings may be particularly upsetting to a president who came to office in 2000 vowing to restore integrity and honor to a White House that he said had been tainted by the recurring scandals of the Clinton years.