One of the more interesting Iraq contracts the Center uncovered involves a tiny firm called Sullivan Haave Associates. Sullivan Haave is actually a one-man shop run by a government consultant named Terry Sullivan. Sullivan says his firm was hired as a subcontractor by Science Applications International Corp., one of the most successful and best politically connected government contractors doing work in Iraq....

Sullivan has a much more intimate relationship with the Pentagon than his competitors, however. He happens to be married to Carol Haave, who, since November 2001, has been deputy assistant secretary of defense for security and information operations. And yes, Haave is the same person who appears in the name Sullivan Haave Associates.

Haave seemed surprised when contacted by the Center for Public Integrity at her Pentagon office about the contract.

She said she was no longer associated with the company in any way. She then said she had no knowledge of any work the company might be doing in Iraq.

There's more, including a list of contractors by contribution total which you can compare to the list of contractors by total earnings. (Surprisingly, on visual inspection, there appears to be some correlation! But remember, it's not kickback money, it's free speech.) Also, there's a history of how much government has shifted money to the private sector.

Under cost-reimbursement contracts—which one former Washington government lawyer jokingly referred to as "defraud me please" contracts—companies decide how much a service will cost to perform. These contracts are also known as "cost-plus" contracts because the contractor's profit comes from fees paid by the government beyond the cost of the service, which are calculated using one of several fee arrangements. One common arrangement is award fees, in which the contractor receives a base fee plus an additional fee based on performance. The additional fee is often calculated as a percentage—typically less than 10 percent, according to Schooner—of the service's cost. Critics say this structure gives contractors an incentive to bill the government at a premium so that they will make a correspondingly fat fee.

Good, good stuff.

The character of our military through history -- the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies -- is fully present in this generation. When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength and kindness and goodwill. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country, and I'm honored to be your Commander-in-Chief....

Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and bring liberty to others. All of you -- all in this generation of our military -- have taken up the highest calling of history. You're defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope -- a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, 'come out,' -- and to those in darkness, 'be free.'"

But the prophet Isaiah, nor Normandy nor Iwo Jima, were evoked in the President's press conference on Tuesday. Rather, a disarming joke ("it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way"), then a statement that may not have been lie, but neither was it the truth: "But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work."

Well, no. The speech was basically one of the most overripe displays of vainglory ever uttered by a president. As to recognizing the dangerous work ahead, there was but a single qualifier in the whole thing: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

This is exactly the pattern of the President's communication strategy since he arrived in Washington. Dwell in the nebulous by giving impressions. Use backdrops with slogans, dress the part, speak in a broken, befuddled (and seemingly authentic) voice, use the language of populism, and always say things in vague, nonspecific terms. If a thing is implied, it can be disavowed. If a message is sent through production values, not declarative sentences, it can be denied. If an impression can be created in the absence of the truth to which you might be accountable, create the impression. After all, as this episode demonstrates, it's easier to deny that apologize.

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from staff. They weren't that ingenious, by the way.

Already the White House is dissembling:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

Well, maybe. On the other hand, as Jess Berney points out, very little was left up to the Navy. Digging around in the Times archives, he found this:

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

I'm not really sure if this should be a big deal--it's a petty lie about the pettiest of Presidential PR promotions. On the other hand, the man lied about the rationale for going to war. That last one isn't likely to be proven (it's probably unprovable), but the "Mission Accomplished" lie is much clearer. I wouldn't be surprised to see evidence in the next couple days that details how the White House planned and paid for the banner. Then we'll see what happens. Maybe it's not the big lies that get you.

"Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country."

Dean wants to be a national candidate and to rise above the usual game of divisive politics. Sharpton's antics aside, this is a huge step toward that end. If he can build support among black voters, he might even be able to make gains in South Carolina. A second or third place showing after wins in New Hampshire and Iowa would be regarded as a win for Dean. Finishing above candidates who must win South Carolina to gain traction--Joe, Edwards, Clark--would effectively knock them out of the campaign.

(The one danger with this is that other black leaders will join Sharpton and come out against Dean, turning his candidacy into a referendum on race. That would be devastating.)

MAdGE (Mothers Against Genetic Engineering in Food and the Environment) today launched a highly controversial billboard campaign in Auckland and Wellington to provoke public debate about the social and cultural ethics of genetic engineering in New Zealand.

The billboards depict a naked, genetically engineered woman with four breasts being milked by a milking machine, and GE branded on her rump.

No, you won't find the photo on this website--I like to think it's a classy outfit. Not, however, so classy I won't point you here, were you can see it.

After decades of oppression and brutality in Iraq and Afghanistan, reconstruction is difficult, and freedom still has its enemies in both of those countries. These terrorists are targeting the very success and freedom we're providing to the Iraqi people. Their desperate attacks on innocent civilians will not intimidate us, or the brave Iraqis and Afghans who are joining in their own defense and who are moving toward self-government.

Coalition forces aided by Afghan and Iraqi police and military are striking the enemy with force and precision. Our coalition is growing in members and growing in strength. Our purpose is clear and certain: Iraq and Afghanistan will be stable, independent nations and their people will live in freedom.

As to the terror strikes in Iraq, the President had very clear talking points, and he repeated them whenever someone broached the subject. Essentially, he was replaying the "terrorists bad, America good" card, trying to re-assert his pre-war cowboy clarity:

Basically, what they're trying to do is cause people to run. They want to kill and create chaos. That's the nature of a terrorist, that's what terrorists do. They commit suicide acts against innocent people and then expect people to say, well, gosh, we better -- better not try to fight you anymore.

The rabble, however, were a bit testy. Here are a couple of amusing exchanges.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You recently put Condoleezza Rice, your National Security Advisor, in charge of the management of the administration's Iraq policy. What has effectively changed since she's been in charge? And the second question, can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: The second question is a trick question, so I won't answer it.

----

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, your policies on the Middle East seem, so far, to have produced pretty meager results as the violence between Israelis and Palestinians --

THE PRESIDENT: Major or meager?

Q Meager.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, okay.

Q Meager.

THE PRESIDENT: Meager.

Other notes
Jargon introduced: "suiciders" - suicide bombers. "Actionable intelligence" - intelligence gathered in the field upon which the military can immediately act (as opposed to the "darn good" intelligence that wasn't, and got us into this mess in the first place).

Odd repetition: "gathering threat/danger" - he used it three times, apparently unaware of the irony that the gathering threat in Iraq has been caused by his own poor policy, not the dictator he deposed when first uttering that phrase.

Best quote of the night: "Saddam Hussein is a man who hid programs and weapons for years. He's a master at hiding things. And so David Kay will continue his search. But one of the things that he first found was that there is clear violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. Material breach, they call it in the diplomatic circles. Casus belli, it means a -- that would have been a cause for a war. In other words, he said, it's dangerous.

And we were right to enforce U.N. resolutions, as well. It's important for the U.N. to be a credible organization. You're not credible if you issue resolutions and then nothing happens. Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and then it does happen. And in order to keep the peace, it's important for there to be credibility in this world, credibility on the side of freedom and hope."

You heard him say it, folks "Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and then it does happen."

First, a bit of technical background. Most major websites include a text file named robots.txt that tells search engines which directories not to include in search results. (Here's an example: the Democrats.org robots.txt file lists folders with content — like images — that search engines can't index.) By adding a directory to robots.txt, you ensure that nothing in that folder will ever show up in a Google search and — more important for this discussion — never be archived by sites like Google.

Sometime between April 2003 and October 2003, someone at the White House added virtually all of the directories with "Iraq" in them to its robots.txt file, meaning that search engines would no longer list those pages in results or archive them.

What's this mean? Mainly that if the White House wants to shift a few facts, it doesn't want people having access to the pre-shifted accurate record. It's scrubbing the record.

It's easy enough to understand the reasoning if you look at past White House actions. Earlier this year, the White House revised pages on its website claiming that "combat" was over in Iraq, changing them to say "major combat."

One of the reasons some alert readers noticed the change — and were able to prove it — was that Google had archived the pages before the change occurred. Now that all of the White House pages about Iraq are no longer archived by Google, such historical revisionism will be harder to catch.

This is probably legal. I'm not sure if the administration is beholden to put anything on the web, nor if it represents a record of events. But even if there is no legal issue, one can reasonably ask the question: if George is so damn proud of his record, why is he selectively changing it and trying to hide the change?

I don't know how often you all read the DNC blog, but it's becoming one I check daily (despite criticism I have of the DNC itself). It is a booster for the Democrats, but no more than many indies; moreover, content like this is indispensable.

Don Rumsfeld, writing in yesterday's Washington Post:

Terrorists have a sizable advantage. A terrorist can attack at any time, in any place, using virtually any technique. And it is not possible to defend every potential target at all times in every place against every form of attack. That being the case, the way to defeat terrorists is to take the war to them -- to go after them where they live and plan and hide, and to make clear to states that sponsor and harbor them that such actions will have consequences.

News from the front in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Suicide bombers struck the Red Cross headquarters and three police stations across Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 35 people and injuring more than 200 in a coordinated terror spree that stunned the Iraqi capital on the first day of the Islamic holy month of fasting, Ramadan.

Rumsfeld

That is what President Bush is doing in the global war on terrorism. When our nation was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, the president immediately recognized that what had happened was an act of war and must be treated as such; that weakness can invite aggression; and that simply standing in a defensive posture and absorbing blows is not an effective way to counter it.

Iraq, yesterday

It also appeared to be a dramatic escalation in tactics, suggesting a level of organization that U.S. officials had doubted the resistance possessed. In past weeks, bombers have carried out heavy suicide bombings but in single strikes....

Sitting next to civilian U.S. Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer in the Oval Office, Bush said he remains "even more determined to work with the Iraqi people'' to restore peace and civility to the wartorn nation.

Rumsfeld

That is why the president is using all elements of national power: military, financial, diplomatic, law enforcement, intelligence and public diplomacy. Because to live as free people in the 21st century, we cannot live behind concrete barriers and wire mesh. We cannot live in fear and remain free people. The task is to stop terrorists before they can terrorize. And even better, we must lean forward and stop them from becoming terrorists in the first place. That is a lesson we learned two decades ago in Beirut.

Iraq

The bombings came hours after clashes around Baghdad killed three U.S. soldiers overnight, and a day after insurgents hit a hotel full of U.S. occupation officials with a barrage of rockets, killing a U.S. colonel and wounding 18 other people. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in the hotel, but was unhurt.

"We feel helpless when see this,'' a distraught Iraqi doctor said at the devastated Red Cross offices. The Red Cross said 12 Iraqis were killed at its office, including two employees.

Rumsfeld

That is why our country and our 90-nation coalition is at war today. That is why we have forces risking their lives at this moment, fighting terrorist adversaries in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere across the world. It is also why it is critical that our country recognize that the war on terrorism will be long, difficult and dangerous -- and that as we deal with immediate terrorist threats, we also need to find ways to stop the next generation of terrorists from forming. For every terrorist whom coalition forces capture, kill, dissuade or deter, others are being trained. To win the war on terror, we must also win the war of ideas -- the battle for the minds of those who are being recruited by terrorist networks across the globe.

Iraq

The rocket attack Sunday struck the Al-Rasheed Hotel, where Wolfowitz was staying at the end of a three-day Iraq visit. The deputy defense secretary said afterward that attack "will not deter us from completing our mission'' in Iraq.

But the bold blow at the heart of the U.S. presence here clearly rattled U.S. confidence that it is defeating Iraq's shadowy insurgents.

Mr. Zavala said the contractor that he and Eunice, his wife, worked for paid them $400 a week each for working 56 hours. That would come to $6.25 an hour if time and a half overtime is included for all hours worked in excess of 40.

Abusing its employees is nothing new for Wal-Mart. I don't think many Americans were surprised by these new allegations. But the effect of this worker abuse is particularly obvious now--as supermarkets in California cite Wal-Mart's prices as a main reason they can't "afford" to pay for worker health care.

I tell you what, it's time for consumers--who are themselves workers--to strike back at these companies. Here's my pledge: until Wal-Mart unionizes, I'm not setting foot in the place.

"This will be an ongoing policy in this administration to bill for any kind of overtime costs associated with political fund-raising events that are not open to the general public, that are clearly not part of an official's official duties....

Like most cities across the nation we are facing budget shortfalls that threaten our ability to deliver effective municipal services to the community. In order to minimize cutbacks in essential services, it is incumbent on us to reduce or eliminate some of the largest discretionary demands on our budget."

It isn't the first time the city has billed politicians for fundraising. Last year it billed Republican Senator Gordon Smith when the President came to raise money for his campaign. The city also billed his opponent, Bill Bradbury, when Clinton and Daschle came to fundraise for his campaign (Bradbury paid, Smith did not).

Are other cities doing this, too? Interesting issue.

We present an algorithm for determining the winners of United States presidential elections, based on the previous experience of the major party candidates for President and Vice President. The algorithm correctly determines the winner of each of the 54 U.S. presidential elections between 1789 and 2000. Our algorithm predicts that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney will win the 2004 election unless:

1) the Democratic nominee for President is Howard B. Dean,

2) the Democratic nominee for President is Wesley K. Clark and the Democratic nominee for Vice President has been Vice President for at least two years, a governor for at least five years, or a U.S. Representative for at least five years,

3) the Democratic nominee for President is Richard A. Gephardt and the Democratic nominee for Vice President is a banker, a college or university chancellor or president, or the child of a U.S. Senator, or

4) the Democratic nominee for Vice President is Albert A. Gore, Jr. or John D. Rockefeller, IV, and the Democratic nominee for President has not been divorced, has not been a special prosecutor, and is a Protestant, Deist, or Catholic.

Although any of the currently declared Democratic candidates for President could, in theory, win in 2004 if they carefully choose their vice presidential candidates, in practice it would be difficult for many of them to find candidates for Vice President with the right combination of governmental and non-governmental experience.

Oh come on, they're probably more reliable than George Will. (Thanks to JGS.)

"[W]here the government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

People for the American Way describe her as "right of Scalia and Thomas." All of this has the usual level of shock and awe (for any of us who still have nerves to be shocked), but her nomination is especially timely given the whole Boykin affair: she thinks the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Particularly, she thinks First Amendment "establishment clause" ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") doesn't apply, and one of her personal campaigns is to open state houses to Christianity. In 1999, she gave a speech titled "Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square." From the LA Times article:

The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy," Brown said in her Pepperdine speech. "The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming'' that the 14th Amendment failed to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Of course, Orrin Hatch immediately started singing that old familiar tune: "There is a real difference between giving speeches and doing what is right on the bench. You have followed the law, and that's the important thing." In other words: please don't judge this political appointment on politics.

But that's exactly what Democrats should start doing. It seems that with each new nominee, Bush becomes more agressive with his pro-Christian agenda. Already the GOP is dominated fundamentalist and conservative Christians who see the First Amendment as an impediment toward establishing their faith as a state religion. The judiciary, as interpreters of the Constitution, stand between them and this goal. The founders saw fit to make process of judicial appointment a political one--and Democrats should no longer be cowed by the full reality of where this political process is leading.

Oh, and by the way, Janice Rogers Brown is black. Because I'm cynical, I expect Republicans to play the race card. Which is, of course, enormously cynical and itself racist (the only reason to oppose a black woman is because she's black). But I'll save that tirade for when the card is actually played.

People close to the president say that his conversion to evangelical Methodism, after a life of aimless carousing, markedly informs his policies, both foreign and domestic. In the soon-to-be-published The Faith of George W. Bush (Tarcher/Penguin), a sympathetic account of this religious journey, author Stephen Mansfield writes (in the advance proofs) that in the election year 2000, Bush told Texas preacher James Robison, one of his spiritual mentors: "I feel like God wants me to run for president. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. . . . I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

Mansfield also reports: "Aides found him face down on the floor in prayer in the Oval Office. It became known that he refused to eat sweets while American troops were in Iraq, a partial fast seldom reported of an American president. And he framed America's challenges in nearly biblical language. Saddam Hussein is an evildoer. He has to go." The author concludes: " . . . the Bush administration does deeply reflect its leader, and this means that policy, even in military matters, will be processed in terms of the personal, in terms of the moral, and in terms of a sense of divine purpose that propels the present to meet the challenges of its time."

| link |

Also, interesting commentary on the author of that forthcoming book in the comments thread.

George W. Bush
Total: $50 million
Less than $200: 12%
More than $2000: 69%

Howard Dean
Total: $14.8 million
Less than $200: 61%
More than $2000: 6%

John Kerry
Total:$4 million
Less than $200: 19%
More than $2000: 36%

Dick Gephardt
Total: $3.8 million
Less than $200: 15%
More than $2000: 39%

Joe Lieberman
Total $3.6 million
Less than $200: 11%
More than $2000: 36%

Wesley Clark
Total $3.5 million
Less than $200: 38%
More than $2000: 26%

John Edwards
Total $2.1 million
Less than $200: 17%
More than $2000: 38%

Dennis Kucinich
Total $1.7 million
Less than $200: 68%
More than $2000: 5%

Carol Mosely Braun
Total $125,000
Less than $200: 31%
More than $2000: 14%

Al Sharpton
Total $121,000
Less than $200: 7%
More than $2000: 59%

"[Impeachment's] certainly not for something that is in the president's prerogative, such as waging war, for example."

She is obviously no authority on the Consititution, however.

"Today's budget numbers reinforce the indications we have seen for some months now: that the economy is well on the path to recovery,'' Treasury Secretary John Snow said.

Yes, in bizarro world, you can call catastrophes success. This is, in fact, essentially the MO of the Bush playbook. Recall back when he debated Gore? The only way he could have lost the debate was to openly drool and confuse Texas and Mexico. In the first debate, he declared that the US ought to let the Russians take the lead in Kosovo. Result? Victory.

He took office in the midst of a recession and speedily worsened it. Surpluses became deficits, employment became unemployment, deflation loomed. Result? Victory--imagine how much worse it would have been worse without the tax cuts! New York was bombed, and he went on a personal crusade to "smoke out" Osama bin Laden. After invading Afghanistan, Osama mocked him. Result? Victory--the Taliban is vanquished. Then Iraq, the new big bad on the block. We commit tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to invade and discover that Iraq's threat was roughly as serious as Nepal's. Result? Victory--the Iraqi people have been liberated from a brutal dictator.

I knew the second I heard the news about the lower-than-expected catastrophic deficits that the Bushies would declare victory. But fortunately, not everyone was taken in this time. Despite the spin, the headlines aren't, as they would have been three years ago, "Economy Rebounding Despite Deficits." Instead, they mostly seem to be of the "Federal Deficit at Record High" variety.

Even more encouraging, the Democrats seem to have found their spine. Kent Conrad of North Dakota noted dryly, "I'm somewhat amused to see them say they thought that was good news." They're even starting to understand how it works in bizarro world: SC Senator Hollings thinks the OMB has been playing with the numbers just so the White House can claim a victory when record deficits arrive. Now they've got their thinking caps on.

Still, I greet this fascinating news with ambivalence. Five days in my no-cynicism zone was mighty refreshing. I wish somehow it wasn't the same old crap--no matter how fascinating--the second I get back. Ah well.

"That's interesting, folks, because if you look at his actual statement - not what the liberal media say he said, but what he really said - you get a different take on it. First, he says he's got back problems. So he's blaming it on that. Then he says he had surgery, but the surgery wasn't successful. So he's blaming it on the doctors. Then he says the pain medication was addictive. So he's blaming it on the pharmaceutical companies. Folks, he blames it on everybody but himself! But as long as he puts in that obligatory line about taking responsibility, that's what the liberal media are going to grab: Clinton takes full responsibility!"

Go read the full article--it's amazing. Then via Atrios, we have quotes from Rush on three occasions when he went after drug users. I'll excerpt from two here:

1. (1993) What he's saying is that if there's a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it. And I don't know how--how to do it, but if I was going to do it, I'd do it. If there were a gun here, it wouldn't fire itself. I've got to reach for it and--and pull the trigger. And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we're blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they're weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we're going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn't. It's not our responsibility.

2. (1996) In fact, I'm reminded--I had this story about three weeks ag--maybe it was before Christmas, maybe it was as far back as November--but there were a couple of drug convictions out in--I think it was a Colorado court. And these guys had--had done some really bad stuff, and there were mandated federal sentences for the crimes they had committed. And the judge apologized to the criminals while sentencing them because he thought it was too severe. He apologized and the com--the community was outraged. So we've gone from a judge sentencing a mother who makes her child beg six months in jail, to judges apologizing for getting dope dealers and crack dealers and drug salesmen off the streets with too severe a sentence.

All right, done with the noodles, done with this post.

Incidence of medical care benefits: 1980 - 97%; 1997 - 76%
Incidence of paid vactions: 1979 - 100%; 1997 - 95%
Incidence of paid sick leave: 1980 - 62%; 1997 - 56%
Incidence of defined benefit pension: 1980 - 84%; 1997 - 50%
Average number of paid holidays: 1980 - 10.1%; 1997 - 9.3%
Incidence of paid holidays: 1980 - 99%; 1997 - 89%

All right then, what about wages? The Census Bureau shows that wages have been kept down for lower-income earners relative to middle and upper. I attempted to insert a handy table here, but my brain is too wee for such antics (or at least the technical part of it). So bear with the following stats. Based on wages calculated in 2001 dollars, we can see how much growth each percentile of the income distribution experienced over a 32-year period.

The bottom 20th Percent
(Year, top income in the bracket, percent growth over last interval)
1967 - 13,474
1977 - 14,986, 11%
1987 - 16,094, 7%
1999 - 18,161, 13%
total growth between '67-'99: 35%

Median income (50th percentile)
1967 - 32,081, 9%
1977 - 34,989, 11%
1987 - 38,835, 11%
1999 - 43,107, 34%
total growth between '67-'99: 34%

80th percentile
1967 - 53,181
1977 - 62,130, 17%
1987 - 72,069, 16%
1999 - 83,830, 16%
total growth between '67-'99: 58%

95th percentile
1967 - 85,334
1977 - 100,441, 18%
1987 - 120,597, 20%
1999 - 149,992, 24%
total growth between '67-'99: 76%

I don't have time to look into hours worked, hours worked per household, and household incomes, but I bet we'd find that these indices also show it's harder and harder for families to get by. If anyone else wants to dig around for those data, I'll be happy to add them here.

The administration, which has taken a hard stand against the state laws, argued that public heath -- not the First Amendment free-speech rights of doctors or patients -- was at stake.

This is scary stuff folks. Everyone in the country should feel a cold shiver after reading this news--irrespective of political stripe.

"Every aspect of our culture, whether it be art or music, to law and politics, owes something to the influence of Italian Americans. You can take special pride in the deep tradition of service to this country. People of Italian descent oftentimes hear the call to serve something greater than themselves. Twenty-four Italian Americans have won the Congressional Medal of Honor, that's high service to something greater than yourself."

That, of course, is our President, celebrating Columbus. (I don't think there's any truth to that rumor he thought Columbus was English because his first name is "Christopher," either....) The comic relief part of the speech, really--right before he went on a cyncial ode to soldiers to try to aggrandize his own vanity in sacrificing hundreds of American lives and billions of dollars to sack a country no more threatening than Iowa.

Yes, George, you are indeed the equal of FDR!