Thursday, May 26, 2005

FBI memo reports Guantanamo guards flushing Koran

Yahoo! News
FBI memo reports Guantanamo guards flushing Koran

Wed May 25, 7:58 PM ET

An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.

The Pentagon said the allegation was not credible.

The declassified document's release came the week after the Bush administration denounced as wrong a May 9 Newsweek article that stated U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down a toilet to try to make detainees talk. The magazine retracted the article, which had triggered protests in Afghanistan in which 16 people died.

The newly released document, dated Aug. 1, 2002, contained a summary of statements made days earlier by a detainee, whose name was redacted, in two interviews with an FBI special agent, whose name also was withheld, at the Guantanamo prison for foreign terrorism suspects.

The American Civil Liberties Union released the memo and other FBI documents it obtained from the government under court order through the Freedom of Information Act.

"Personally, he has nothing against the United States. The guards in the detention facility do not treat him well. Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet," the FBI agent wrote.


"It's not credible," chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said of the allegation regarding a Koran in a toilet.

Di Rita said the U.S. military questioned the detainee on May 14, and that the man was "very cooperative and answered the questions but did not corroborate the allegation recorded on Aug. 1, 2002." Di Rita said he did not know whether the man actually recanted the allegation.

"These kind of, sort of, fantastic charges about our guys doing something willfully heinous to a Koran for the purposes of rattling detainees are not credible on their face," Di Rita told reporters.

HOLY BOOK

The documents indicated that detainees were making allegations that they had been abused and that the Muslim holy book had been mishandled as early as April 2002, about three months after the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo.

In other documents, FBI agents stated that Guantanamo detainees also accused U.S. personnel of kicking the Koran and throwing it to the floor, and described beatings by guards. But one document cited a detainee who accused a guard of dropping a Koran, prompting an "uprising" by prisoners, when it was the prisoner himself who dropped it.

"Unfortunately, one thing we've learned over the last couple of years is that detainee statements about their treatment at Guantanamo and other detention centers sometimes have turned out to be more credible than U.S. government statements," said ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer.

Former detainees and a lawyer for current prisoners previously have stated that U.S. personnel at Guantanamo had placed the Koran in a toilet, but the Pentagon has said it also does not view those allegations as credible.

In document written in April 2003, an FBI agent related a detainee's account of an incident involving a female U.S. interrogator.

"While the guards held him, she removed her blouse, embraced the detainee from behind and put her hand on his genitals. The interrogator was on her menstrual period and she wiped blood from her body on his face and head," the memo stated.

A similar incident was described in a recent book written by a former Guantanamo interrogator.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan last week said Newsweek "got the facts wrong" and Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called the article "demonstrably false." Di Rita said last week the Pentagon had received "no credible and specific allegations" that U.S. personnel had put a Koran in the toilet.

Read More...

Republican senator urges vote against Bolton

Yahoo! News
Republican senator urges vote against Bolton

A Republican senator tried to convince his colleagues on Wednesday to reject John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as the Senate headed toward a vote on President Bush's contentious pick.

Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, the one Republican to openly oppose Bolton, urged senators not to vote for him simply out of loyalty to the president. Voinovich said they should consider whether he had shown a record of abusive, erratic behavior that should disqualify him for the sensitive diplomatic job.

Other Republicans rose to Bolton's defense, and the White House said it was confident he would be confirmed.

"Opponents have argued that Secretary Bolton's personality will prevent him from being effective at the U.N., but his diplomatic successes over the last four years belie that expectation," said Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Republicans aimed for a vote on Thursday on Bolton, currently the top U.S. diplomat for arms control, and expected he would be confirmed largely along party lines.

But at Democrats' insistence, the Senate was slated to hold a procedural vote on Thursday that could delay his confirmation until after Congress' Memorial Day recess next week.



If they fail to get the 41 votes out of 100 required to extend the debate on the nomination, Democrats agreed to go immediately to a vote on Bolton on Thursday.

Democrats wanted time to make a last demand the administration turn over documents they said would shed more light on whether Bolton tried to tamper with intelligence assessments.

If the Senate fails to insist on the information, "We weaken the ability of this place to do its job. And that's really what's at stake in the debate here," said Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd.

Democrats, joined by Voinovich, contend Bolton is a hard-line conservative ideologue and a bully who tried to pressure intelligence officials into making their findings support his political views.

Dodd and Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Foreign Relations Committee Democrat, said they did not intend to block the nomination with the procedural hurdle known as a filibuster, but wanted to take a stand on the Senate's right to information on a nominee.

Voinovich said in a floor speech he feared Bolton would be an impediment to getting reforms at the United Nations. He expressed concern some U.N. members "will use Mr. Bolton as part of their agenda to further question the integrity and credibility of the United States of America and to reinforce their negative U.S. propaganda."

'THE RIGHT PERSON'

Bush has conducted a high-profile defense of his embattled nominee, whom he calls the right choice to press for reforms at the United Nations.

"We're confident that John Bolton will be confirmed and there are many in the Senate who believe that he is the right person for this position," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Biden said the administration documents would provide insights into whether Bolton tried to influence intelligence assessments of Syria and whether he reviewed communications intercepted by the National Security Agency to exact retribution on his opponents.

The White House and most Republicans have said senators had seen more than enough information to decide on Bolton, and accused Democrats of deliberately stalling the nomination.

Read More...

CIA Overseeing 3-Day War Game on Internet

Yahoo! News
CIA Overseeing 3-Day War Game on Internet

By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer

The CIA is conducting a war game this week to simulate an unprecedented, Sept. 11-like electronic assault against the United States. The three-day exercise, known as "Silent Horizon," is meant to test the ability of government and industry to respond to escalating Internet disruptions over many months, according to participants.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the CIA asked them not to disclose details of the sensitive exercise taking place in Charlottesville, Va., about two hours southwest of Washington.

The simulated attacks were carried out five years in the future by a fictional new alliance of anti-American organizations that included anti-globalization hackers. The most serious damage was expected to be inflicted in the closing hours of the war game Thursday.

The national security simulation was significant because its premise — a devastating cyberattack that affects government and parts of the economy on the scale of the 2001 suicide hijackings — contradicts assurances by U.S. counterterrorism experts that such effects from a cyberattack are highly unlikely.

"You hear less and less about the digital Pearl Harbor," said Dennis McGrath, who has helped run three similar exercises for the Institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth College. "What people call cyberterrorism, it's just not at the top of the list."


The CIA's little-known Information Operations Center, which evaluates threats to U.S. computer systems from foreign governments, criminal organizations and hackers, was running the war game. About 75 people, mostly from the CIA, along with other current and former U.S. officials, gathered in conference rooms and pretended to react to signs of mock computer attacks.

The government remains most concerned about terrorists using explosions, radiation and biological threats. FBI Director Robert Mueller warned earlier this year that terrorists increasingly are recruiting computer scientists but said most hackers "do not have the resources or motivation to attack the U.S. critical information infrastructures."

The government's most recent intelligence assessment of future threats through the year 2020 said cyberattacks are expected but terrorists "will continue to primarily employ conventional weapons." Authorities have expressed concerns about terrorists combining physical attacks such as bombings with hacker attacks to disrupt rescue efforts, known as hybrid or "swarming" attacks.

"One of the things the intelligence community was accused of was a lack of imagination," said Dorothy Denning of the Naval Postgraduate School, an expert on Internet threats who was invited by the CIA to participate but declined. "You want to think about not just what you think may affect you but about scenarios that might seem unlikely."

An earlier cyberterrorism exercise called "Livewire" for the Homeland Security Department and other federal agencies concluded there were serious questions over government's role during a cyberattack depending on who was identified as the culprit — terrorists, a foreign government or bored teenagers.

It also questioned whether the U.S. government would be able to detect the early stages of such an attack without significant help from private technology companies.

Read More...

Documents Say Detainees Cited Abuse of Koran by Guards

The New York Times
May 26, 2005
Documents Say Detainees Cited Abuse of Koran by Guards
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, May 25 - Newly released documents show that detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, complained repeatedly to F.B.I. agents about disrespectful handling of the Koran by military personnel and, in one case in 2002, said they had flushed a Koran down a toilet.

The prisoners' accounts are described by the agents in detailed summaries of interrogations at Guantánamo in 2002 and 2003. The documents were among more than 300 pages turned over by the F.B.I. to the American Civil Liberties Union in recent days and publicly disclosed Wednesday.


Unlike F.B.I. documents previously disclosed in a lawsuit brought by the civil liberties union, in which agents reported that they had witnessed harsh and possibly illegal interrogation techniques, the new documents do not say the F.B.I. agents witnessed the episodes themselves. Rather, they are accounts of unsubstantiated accusations made by the prisoners during interrogation.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon dismissed the reports as containing no new evidence that abuses of the Koran had actually occurred and said that on May 14 military investigators had interviewed the prisoner who mentioned the toilet episode to the F.B.I. and that he was not able to substantiate the charge.

The accusation that soldiers had put a Koran in a toilet, which has been made by former and current inmates over the past two years, stirred violence this month that killed at least 17 people in Muslim countries after Newsweek magazine reported that a military investigation was expected to confirm that the incident had in fact occurred.

Newsweek retracted the report last week, saying it had relied on an American government official who had incomplete knowledge of the situation.

None of the documents released Wednesday indicate any such confirmation that the incident took place.

One document released Wednesday is an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from an agent whose name is deleted that recounts a pair of interviews the previous month with a prisoner whose name is also deleted.

The prisoner said that "the guards in the detention facility do not treat him well," the agent wrote. "Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet. The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things." The document does not indicate whether the agent believed the account.

The documents include several other accounts of detainees' complaints about disrespectful handling of the Koran, but none describe its being flushed in a toilet.

Bryan Whitman, the deputy Pentagon spokesman, said Wednesday that the newly released document, a summary of an interrogation, "does not include any new allegations, nor does it include any new sources for previous allegations." Mr. Whitman said the source of the accusation "is an enemy combatant."

Since the Newsweek article was published, the Pentagon has been reviewing records, but "we still have found no credible allegations that a Koran was flushed down a toilet at Guantánamo," Mr. Whitman said.

Until the new batch of documents was released, no previously released F.B.I. documents were known to have mentioned abuse of the Koran of the type Newsweek reported.

Earlier complaints came in statements of inmates after they were released from custody or, more recently, in statements of current inmates to their lawyers.

Another memo released Wednesday, dated March 18, 2003, is an account by an agent whose name is deleted who writes that another detainee told him of purposely disrespectful handling of the Koran. The detainee acknowledged, according to the memo, that he did not witness any of the incidents he had discussed.

The agent reports that the detainee said the use of the Koran as a tool in interrogation had been a mistake. "Interrogators who had taken the Koran from individual detainees as a reprisal or incentive to cooperate had failed," the detainee said, adding that the only result would be "the damage caused to the reputation of the United States once what had occurred was released to the world."

Jameel Jaffer, a senior lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union who is coordinating the review of documents obtained in the group's civil suit against the military, said the documents were part of more than 300 new pages received last Thursday from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He said staff members spent days reviewing the documents.

Ken Weine, a spokesman for Newsweek, said the magazine would have no comment on the disclosures.

The disclosures Wednesday did not support the specific assertions in the original Newsweek item that military investigators concluded that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet. They do, however, reinforce the contentions of human rights advocates and lawyers for detainees that accusations of purposeful mishandling of the Koran were common.

A former interrogator told The New York Times in a recent interview that friction over handling of the Koran began with guards' regular searches of the cells. "Some of it was just ignorance," the former interrogator said, insisting on anonymity because soldiers are barred from discussing camp operations. "They didn't realize you shouldn't handle the book roughly."

Though complaints about the handling of the Koran were routine, the former interrogator said, the situation eventually escalated. "It was two things that brought the desecration issue to a higher level," the former interrogator said. "The rumor spread among detainees that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet and that some interrogators brought Korans to the interrogation sessions and stood on them, kicked them around." The former interrogator had not witnessed those occurrences.

Erik Saar, co-author of "Inside the Wire" (Penguin Press, 2005) and an Arabic language translator in 2003 in Guantánamo said in a recent interview that "the detainees actually liked to complain about how the Koran was handled because they viewed it as a cause to rally around" and one that would get the attention of the camp's authorities.

Mr. Jaffer of the A.C.L.U. said the errors in the Newsweek report had been improperly used to discredit other information about abusive practices at Guantánamo "that were not based on anonymous sources, but government documents, reports written by F.B.I. agents."

The new documents and 30,000 pages previously released were disclosed as part of a suit brought by the A.C.L.U. and other groups trying to learn whether and what kinds of coercive tactics were used at Guantánamo.

The earlier release of reports in which bureau agents recounted witnessing harsh interrogations resulted in an investigation by an Air Force general of interrogation practices. That report, which was completed at the end of March, has not yet been released by the Pentagon.

Read More...

Online Congressional Hearing on the United Airlines Pension Crisis

BROKEN PROMISES: THE UNITED AIRLINES PENSION CRISIS
An Online Hearing sponsored by Congressman George Miller

Statements will be accepted throughout the weeklong hearing, from Monday, May 23, through Friday, May 27.

All United Airlines employees and retirees are invited to submit statements on how the potential termination of their pension plan personally would impact their lives and families. Appropriate statements regarding this personal impact may be posted on this online hearing page and shared with Members of Congress.

Get all the details at:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/unitedhearing.html



This is the first Online Congressional Hearing – using technology to allow expert witnesses, affected Americans and Members of Congress to discuss a high priority issue without the delay, expense and time restrictions of a traditional hearing.

Read More...

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Bachus vs Maher

I've combined two items here so you can get the whole picture.
First, Bill Maher's response posted today in The Huffington Post.
Then, the article about Congressman Bachus and his comments.

---

The Huffington Post

Fruit
Bill Maher

First, I had never heard of Congressman Bachus before this. Now lots of people have heard of him. You're welcome, Congressman, glad I could help get your Q rating up.

By the way, are we sure he's really a Congressman? Maybe he's just a guy with a fax machine. You know how fact checking goes these days.

I could go on and on, but this is too ridiculous, so I'll just say this: I'm not a congressman, I'm a comedian. There's nothing I can really do to help or hurt our troops (although anyone who's watched my shows or read my books in the last twelve years knows I'm a pretty ardent supporter of the military).

But a congressman, there's someone who can actually DO SOMETHING to help our troops. In fact, a case could be made that it's a lot more treasonous for someone in his position to be wasting his time yelling at a comedian. Shouldn't he be training his outrage at such problems as troops not having enough armor? Wouldn't that ACTUALLY support our troops more? And citizens of this country who claim to support our troops should write this man and tell him GET BACK TO WORK! DO SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO SOLDIERS IN IRAQ!

And by the way, these "comments" were part of a longer, scripted comedy piece in the modest proposal tradition. I can see why administration supporters would want to deflect attention away from the gist of the piece, which was this: now that we can't meet our recruiting goals, maybe it's the people who were so gung ho for this war to begin with who should step up and go fight it. But of course it's always easier to distract people.

Finally, I would direct the Congressman to chapter 3 of my book "When You Ride Alone, You Ride with bin Laden." The accompanying poster shows a soldier, a cop, a fireman, and a teacher, and says, "We Say They're Our Heroes...But We Pay Them Like Chumps."

Maybe that's something else he could look into when he gets done with me.


Yahoo! News
Congressman Slams Maher Over Army Remark

By JEFFREY McMURRAY, Associated Press Writer

A congressman says comedian Bill Maher's comment that the U.S. military has already recruited all the "low-lying fruit" is possibly treasonous and at least grounds to cancel the show.

Rep. Spencer Bachus (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala., takes issue with remarks on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, first aired May 13, in which Maher points out the Army missed its recruiting goal by 42 percent in April.

"More people joined the Michael Jackson fan club," Maher said. "We've done picked all the low-lying Lynndie England fruit, and now we need warm bodies."

Army Reserve Pfc. England was accused of abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"I think it borders on treason," Bachus said. "In treason, one definition is to undermine the effort or national security of our country."

In a statement released Monday night, Maher defended his support for the American armed forces.

"Anyone who knows anything about my views and has watched my show knows that I have nothing but the highest regard for the men and women serving this country around the world," Maher said in the statement.

Bachus said he was appalled after watching a rerun of the show shortly after returning from a visit to Germany, in which he met with a paralyzed American soldier in the hospital. He has since written to Time Warner, HBO's parent company.

"I don't want (Maher) prosecuted," Bachus said. "I want him off the air."

Read More...

Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power

web.amnesty.org
Amnesty International

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power

I used to think that America had respect for human rights when it came to prison.
Mohammed Nechle, extrajudicially removed from Bosnia and Herzegovina by US agents(1)

My husband is a tall man with black hair and black eyes…He is now imprisoned in Guantánamo. We don’t know why.
Wife of Mohammed Nechle, Algerian national, 2004(2)

1. Summary: The pursuit of unfettered executive power

It seems rather contrary to an idea of a Constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check.
US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, 20 April 2004(3)

In late December 2001, a memorandum was sent from the United States Justice Department to the Department of Defense.(4) It advised the Pentagon that no US District Court could "properly entertain" appeals from "enemy aliens" detained at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Because Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty" over Guantánamo, the memorandum asserted, US Supreme Court jurisprudence meant that a foreign national in custody in the naval base should not have access to the US courts. The first "war on terror" detainees were transferred to the base two weeks later. The memorandum remained secret until it was leaked to the media in mid-2004 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

Not long after this leak, on 28 June 2004, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that the federal courts in fact do have jurisdiction to hear appeals from foreign nationals detained in Guantánamo Bay.(5) Yet almost a year later, none of the more than 500 detainees of some 35 nationalities still held in the base – believed to include at least three people, from Canada, Chad and Saudi Arabia, who were minors at the time of being taken into custody – has had the lawfulness of his detention judicially reviewed. The US administration continues to argue in the courts to block any judicial review of the detentions or to keep any such review as limited as possible and as far from a judicial process as possible. Its actions are ensuring that the detainees are kept in their legal limbo, denied a right that serves as a basic safeguard against arbitrary detention, "disappearance" and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Amnesty International believes, as explained in Section 3, that all those currently held in Guantánamo are arbitrarily and unlawfully detained.


Read the full report here:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005

Read More...

Two spyware bills pass U.S. House

infoworld.com
Two spyware bills pass U.S. House
Spy Act and I-Spy Act seek to protect personal information

By Grant Gross, IDG News Service
May 24, 2005

WASHINGTON - Two bills focusing on spyware overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives late Monday, including one that requires many software programs collecting personal information to get permission before doing so.

The Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act, or Spy Act, also would outlaw the act of taking over a computer in order to send unauthorized information or code, and diverting a Web browser without the permission of the computer owner. The bill, which passed the House by a vote of 393-4, prohibits Web advertising that computer users cannot close "without undue effort" or without shutting down the computer, and it prohibits collecting personal information through keystroke logging.

A second bill, the Internet Spyware Prevention Act, or I-Spy Act, sets jail terms of up to five years for a person who uses spyware to access a computer without authorization and uses the computer to commit another federal crime. The I-Spy Act also would allow a jail term of up to two years for a person who uses spyware to obtain someone else's personal information or to defeat security protections on a computer with the intent of defrauding or injuring the computer owner.

The I-Spy Act, sponsored by Virginia Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte, passed the House by a vote of 395-1. Both bills would have to pass the U.S. Senate and be signed by President George Bush to become law. Both bills passed the House in October, but failed to make it through the Senate.

The Spy Act, sponsored by California Republican Representative Mary Bono, would allow fines of up to $3 million for spyware-like activity such as delivering unauthorized software to a computer or hijacking a Web browser. Security software updates are exempted from the Spy Act.

Unlike an older Bono bill, this version of the Spy Act doesn't attempt to define spyware, but outlaws several actions commonly associated with spyware.


An earlier Bono spyware bill, introduced in July 2003, broadly prohibited and defined spyware. Some software vendors, including those that market antivirus update software, objected that the definition was overly broad and could subject their services to fines.

Microsoft issued a statement praising both new bills as providing "important tools in the battle against spyware and other deceptive software." But Microsoft (Profile, Products, Articles) also called for the Senate to include language that would protect vendors of antispyware software from lawsuits by companies distributing spyware. Two antispyware companies have been sued by firms asking that their software not be removed from users' computers, with Claria, a distributor of pop-up advertising formerly known as Gator, filing a lawsuit against PC Pitstop in September 2003. This year, Claria also asked Computer Associates (Profile, Products, Articles) International to stop its PestPatrol software from deleting Claria ad-targeting software, but CA refused.

Microsoft released its own Windows AntiSpyware software in January. "In its current form, these bills leave companies that are responding to consumer demand for strong antispyware tools vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits brought by the very companies responsible for the proliferation of spyware and other deceptive software," Jack Krumholtz, managing director of federal government affairs for Microsoft, said in a statement.

Others, including the libertarian think-tank Cato Institute, have opposed the spyware legislation, saying it's unneeded because the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) already has the authority to seek fines for deceptive business practices.

The new version of the Bono bill requires that creators of software that collects personal information get permission from computer users before installing the software. The consent requirement, however, has an exemption for Web sites tracking their own pages visited. The bill also gives the FTC authority to allow some software vendors to ask for permission only once, not every time their programs access a computer.

Bono's bill would also preempt any state spyware laws.

"As this nation continues to push towards a global e-commerce marketplace, spyware stands to undermine the security and integrity of e-commerce and data security," Bono said in a statement. "Daily web activities by consumers have become stalking grounds for computer hackers through spyware. Consumers have a right to know and have a right to decide who has access to their highly personal information that spyware can collect."

Read More...

Outsourcing to grow in fresh field

ZDNet News
Outsourcing to grow in fresh field
By Ed Frauenheim, CNET News.com

The next wave of outsourcing will be in product engineering, according to an AMR Research analyst.

Citing an AMR survey of business processing outsourcing in 2004, analyst Lance Travis said on Tuesday that outsourcing engineering services is "a small but growing offering from outsourcing service providers."

The study found that last year, 15 percent of manufacturing companies hired outside companies to handle parts of their research and engineering activities. Another 10 percent of manufacturing companies had plans to do the same by the end of 2005.

AMR also reported that 13 percent of the outsourced engineering work is being done in India, and 19 percent is being done in other Asian countries, including China.

"The market for outsourced engineering services is expanding globally," Travis wrote in a research note.

The report comes amid growing concern that the United States may be losing its edge when it comes to technological leadership, as countries including China and India ramp up their abilities.


Outsourcing refers to farming out tasks to a separate company, whose operations might be in a lower-wage nation. Product engineering arguably represents a higher level of work than has traditionally been outsourced, as earlier contracts focused on tasks such as running human resources departments or information technology operations.

"Companies considering outsourcing product engineering are looking for benefits similar to companies outsourcing IT functions and other business processes: reduced costs, improved capabilities and added flexibility to their internal workforce," Travis wrote. "To date, outsourcing engineering services is more effective at delivering staffing flexibility."

In AMR's 2004 survey, the companies naming staff flexibility as a benefit outnumbered those reporting cost savings or skills benefits two-to-one.

As evidence that the market for outsourced engineering services will continue to grow at a healthy rate, AMR cited a recent agreement between IBM and Nortel Networks to set up a joint development center.

"This represents one of the first major contracts for IBM's 1,200-person engineering services group," Travis wrote.

He argued that over five years, the deal could save Nortel $2 billion.

Read More...

Fox News report on Uzbekistan neglected to mention evidence of U.S. rendition policy there

mediamatters.org
Hume's report on Uzbekistan neglected to mention evidence of U.S. rendition policy there

Fox News devoted a full segment of the May 23 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume to political repression and human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, but failed to mention that the United States regularly sends terrorism suspects to Uzbekistan for interrogation, in a practice called rendition, according to news reports. The Central Intelligence Agency has rendered dozens of U.S.-held detainees to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation despite world condemnation of the government's torture of prisoners.


In an interview with Columbia University professor Steven Sestanovich, a former ambassador and State Department official, host Brit Hume noted that, although the United States would like to condemn Uzbek President Islam Karimov, "The problem for the U.S. is that he has been a strategic ally in the war on terror, and the U.S. has a military base there." But neither Hume nor Sestanovich mentioned one crucial form of assistance that Karimov has reportedly provided: allowing the CIA to render detainees to Uzbekistan for interrogations that would likely be illegal for U.S. interrogators to perform.

Despite "little high-level contact" between the U.S. and Uzbek governments prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, growing evidence demonstrates that the United States has rendered "dozens" of detainees to Uzbekistan for interrogations since then, "even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department," according to a May 1 article in The New York Times. When asked about the practice at an April press conference, President Bush stated: "We seek assurances that nobody will be tortured when we render a person back to their home country."

A May 18 Washington Post report gave a similar account of U.S. renderings to Uzbekistan: "The United States has also transported suspected terrorists to Uzbekistan as part of its 'rendition' program, despite documented torture by the government." On the March 7 edition of ABC's World News Tonight, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray stated that the CIA knew that the Uzbeks were torturing prisoners, including one case in which he received photos of a prisoner who was boiled alive. When his deputy confronted the CIA station chief about the practices, he was told "Yes, it [information] probably was obtained under torture."

Read More...

Ignoring Deal, Frist to File for Cloture on Myers

thinkprogress.org
Ignoring Deal, Frist to File for Cloture on Myers

In the deal struck yesterday evening, negotiators agreed that two judicial nominees - William G. Myers and Henry Saad - "will be filibustered or withdrawn."

Last night, Frist indicated he would abide by the agreement:

Mr. President, a lot has been said about the uniqueness of this body. And, indeed, our Senate is unique. And we all, as individuals and collectively as a body, have a role to play in ensuring its cherished nature remains intact.

And, indeed, as demonstrated by tonight’s agreement and by the ultimate implementation of that agreement, we have done just that.

But Congress Daily PM reports that Frist has other ideas for later in the week:


Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks.

That didn’t take long.

Read More...

FBI computer upgrade not ready

USA TODAY

Mueller: FBI computer upgrade not ready

WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers Tuesday he still doesn't know how much it will cost to complete the bureau's computer overhaul, already well over budget and behind schedule.

He also refused to state publicly the cost of the initial phase of the Sentinel system, the planned successor to a failed project that was supposed to greatly improve management of terrorism and other criminal cases.

"There are certain sensitivities involved," Mueller told the Senate Appropriations Committee's Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee, explaining that the FBI soon would invite contractors to compete for the work.

The FBI has yet to estimate Sentinel's total cost, he said.

The explanation did little to mollify skeptical senators who have severely criticized the FBI's computer problems. "I'd suggest stonewalling the staff up here is not the way to do it," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.


Mueller had said a cost estimate would be ready in early spring for a new system to replace the Virtual Case File, which has cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Virtual Case File was to have been the final piece of the FBI's upgrade of its antiquated computer system, an instantaneous and paperless way for agents and analysts to manage all types of investigations.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mueller made improvement of the agency's computer systems a priority. Members of Congress and the independent Sept. 11 commission said the overhaul was critical to enabling the FBI and intelligence agencies to "connect the dots" in preventing attacks.

The first two phases of the "Trilogy" project — deployment of a high-speed, secure FBI computer network and 30,000 new desktop computers — have been completed.

But the upgrade already is 2{ years behind schedule and, at nearly $600 million, more than 25% over its initial budget. The Sentinel system will not be done until at least 2008, Mueller has said.

__=

On the Net:

FBI: http://www.fbi.gov

Senate Appropriations Committee: http://appropriations.senate.gov

Read More...

Right wing bloggers howl over Senate deal

salon.com
Right wing bloggers howl over Senate deal

Speaking at the press conference yesterday that announced the
compromise to avert a filibuster showdown, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.,
conceded some conservatives would be angry at him for not helping to
push the nuclear button. That's putting it mildly. If the right-wing
bloggers are any indication, hardcore conservatives think the GOP gave
away the store and delivered a key victory to Democrats.

Captain's Quarters

complained, "This, in short, has been a clear victory for the Democrats
and a massive failure for the GOP and the White House. The GOP just
endorsed the filibuster, and will have no intellectual capacity to
argue against its use later on."


The Buzz Blog
mocked the negotiating skills of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: "The Senate
Leadership and President Bush have been sold down the river by these
seven Republicans. This so called "deal" was a retreat from earlier
claims that Democrats were willing to approve five of the seven
filibustered nominees. Talk about bad negotiating tactics -- McCain and
company actually lost ground when the GOP held all the cards. This is a
sad day for the Republic."

Powerline called the
compromise a fiasco for the GOP: "What a hideous deal! Someone explain
to me why the Republicans haven't been rolled once again. To me, it
looks like a pathetic collapse on the part of the Republicans--not the
leadership, but Senators like McCain who sold out their party."

And Michelle Malkin
complained, "The GOP parade of pusillanimity marches on. With this
pathetic cave-in, the Republicans have sealed their fate as a Majority
in Name Only."

But not all conservatives would blame moderates who reached a deal. At
Redstate.org, Josh Trevino wrote that the whole controversy was a
Republican black eye: "Historians will look back with no small amount
of wonder at this bizarre episode, wherein a majority seized with a
maximalist vision of its own power and mission, and facilitated by the
personal ambitions of one man, decided to sweep away the institutional
checks upon which it itself so recently relied to stymie its
opposition's plans."

Read More...

Feingold also disses Senate deal

salon.com
Feingold also disses Senate deal

Conservatives weren't the only ones who expressed deep disappointment
with yesterday's last-minute filibuster deal. Liberal Wisconsin senator
Russ Feingold also thought it was unacceptable, saying it would allow
for more judicial nominees "who lack the judicial temperament or record
to serve in these lifetime positions."


Here's the statement
:

"This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American
people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the
bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as
they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming
unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush
administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament
or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many
traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to
forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an
important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when
necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end
this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this
deal."

Read More...

Mixing science with creationism

salon.com
Mixing science with creationism

A new museum presents evolution from a biblical perspective, showing
Adam and Eve living in harmony with dinosaurs.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Paul Harris

May 24, 2005 | EUREKA SPRINGS, Ark. -- The razor-toothed
Tyrannosaurus rex, jaws agape, loomed ominously over the gentle
Thescelosaurus, looking for plants to eat. Admiring the museum diorama
were old and young visitors, listening on headphones to a stentorian
voice describing the primeval scene. But the Museum of Earth History is
a museum with a controversial difference. To one side, peering through
the bushes, are Adam and Eve. The display is not an image of the
Cretaceous. It is Paradise. "They lived together without fear, for
there was no death yet," the voice intoned about man and dinosaur.


Nestled deep in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas, in the heart of
America's Bible Belt, this is the first dinosaur museum to take a
creationist perspective. Already thousands of people have flocked to
its top-quality exhibits, which mix high science with fundamentalist
theology that few serious scientists accept.

The museum is riding a wave of creationist influence in America.
Creationism, which holds that the Earth is just a few thousand years
old and that the biblical account of Genesis is fact, is central to a
rash of furious arguments across America. From school boards in Kansas
to elections in Pennsylvania, the "debate" between creationism and
evolution has become a political hot potato.


Even as America's scientists make advances in paleontology, astronomy
and physics that appear to disprove creationism, Gallup surveys have
shown that about 45 percent of Americans believe the Earth was created
by God within the past 10,000 years. It's not just creationism, either.
Last week, NBC's "Dateline" program investigated some miracles and
concluded some could be real. It is hard to imagine Jeremy Paxman on
BBC's "Newsnight" taking this stance.

That wellspring of popular belief, and the political clout that comes
with it, are the inspiration behind the museum. It is not interested in
debating with mainstream science. It simply wants to represent the view
of a significant slice of America. "We want people to see that finally
they have something that addresses their beliefs, to show that we do
have a voice," said Thomas Sharp, business director of Creation Truth,
the religious group that co-founded the museum.

No expense was spared. The fossil casts, which range from a Triceratops
skull to an 18-foot-long Albertosaurus (a relative to T. rex), could
easily grace London's Natural History Museum. Plans for a much bigger
museum in Dallas are being considered. And "we would love to open in
the United Kingdom if the right partner showed up," Sharp said.

The museum forms part of a Bible-based theme park in Eureka Springs.
The parking lot is full of cars and coaches from all over the country.
To enter the museum is to explore a surrealistic parallel world.
Biblical quotes appear on displays. The first has dinosaurs, alongside
Adam and Eve, living in harmony. The ferociously fanged T. rex is
likely to be a vegetarian. Then comes the "Fall of Man" and an ugly
world where dinosaurs prey on one another and the first extinctions
occur. The destruction of the dinosaurs is explained, not by a comet
striking the Earth 65 million years ago, but by the Flood. This, the
museum says, wiped out most of the dinosaurs still alive and created
the Grand Canyon and huge layers of sedimentary rock seen around the
world.

Some dinosaurs survived on Noah's Ark. One poster explains that Noah
would have chosen juvenile dinosaurs to save space. An illustration
shows two green sauropods in the ark alongside more conventional
elephants and lions. The final exhibit depicts the Ice Age, where the
last dinosaurs existed with woolly mammoths until the cold and hunting
by cavemen caused them to die out.

Scientists dismiss such claims as on a par with believing in Atlantis.
Yet the museum is unlikely to be seen as a major threat to mainstream
science. It was put in the heart of an area where Christian attractions
are a mainstay of the local economy.

It was built in cooperation with the "New Holy Land" theme park, which
re-creates the biblical Middle East in the Ozarks. A huge statue of
Christ, the largest in North America, looms over Eureka Springs. The
site is the setting for "The Great Passion Play," where each night, in
a 4,500-strong arena, the last days of Christ are acted out. The play
has attracted more than 7.2 million people.

But creationism is seeking to become more influential in other parts of
the country. In Kansas the state school board recently held public
hearings on the validity of evolution and the teaching of "intelligent
design" in classrooms. The hearings were boycotted by scientists who
believed they were rigged against evolutionists. The theory of
intelligent design holds that the world is so complex it must have been
created, and has been dubbed "creationism lite" by its critics. Kansas
is now expected to recommend that schools include
intelligent-design-friendly material in its science courses this
summer.

In Pennsylvania, the issue dominated an election in the town of Dover
after the school board decided to include mention of intelligent design
in its science classes. A vote last week between anti-evolution and
pro-evolution candidates ended in an electoral tie.

Creationism has found one high-level voice. President George W. Bush
famously proclaimed: "The jury is still out on evolution." And a CBS
survey late last year showed that 45 percent of Bush voters wanted
creationism taught in schools instead of evolution, compared with 24
percent of voters for John Kerry. "Under the Bush presidency, we are
clearly able to get a lot more done," Sharp said.

The Museum of Earth History may be the first dinosaur museum of its
kind. It is not likely to be the last.

Read More...

The No-Nuke Deal

thenation.com
The No-Nuke Deal
David Corn

The Senate will not be nuked. As the doomsday clock ticked down, seven so-called moderates from each party concocted a deal that was more of a win for the Republicans than the Democrats.

Under this brokered arrangement, three of Bush's right-wing nominees for appellate courts--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor Jr.--will not be filibustered. In return--so to speak--the filibuster will remain a weapon the Democrats can use in the future against other judicial nominees but only "under extraordinary circumstances." What qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances"? That was not defined.

What does all this mean? At issue were five judicial nominees. The Republicans ended up with concrete gains: three conservatives (including one--Rogers Brown--who has declared that government is the enemy of civilization) will presumably be confirmed. What happens to the others--Henry Saad and William Myers--is uncertain. Saad's nomination is already in trouble (perhaps because of allegations within his FBI file). Myers could be a candidate for a filibuster. But the Democrats did not walk out of the room with a hard-and-fast right to resort to a filibuster. With this compromise, they are only able to wield a judicial filibuster if seven Republican senators agree the situation is "extraordinary." In essence, a small band of moderate GOPers will now have veto power over the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster.


Democrats and their allies in the judicial wars can point to the fact that one or two of the Bush nominees may be stopped and that the filibuster might be available in the future. But what they got out of this deal is more iffy than what the Republicans pocketed. True, they prevented Senate majority leader Bill Frist from pushing the button. But Ralph Neas, the head of People for the American Way, is overstating the case when he says, "This is a major defeat for the radical right." What has the radical right lost in concrete terms? One or two conservative judges.

The future of the judicial filibuster remains unclear. Some opponents of Bush's nominees are suggesting the filibuster has been saved for the coming titanic battles over Supreme Court vacancies. "Our members fought hard to preserve the filibuster, which will now live to see another day," says Eli Pariser of MoveOn PAC. "The only way the 'nuclear option' comes back is if the Republicans break their agreement." Yes and no. If George W. Bush were to nominate, say, Priscilla Owen to the Supreme Court, would the GOP half of the Gang of 14 buck the leader of their party and attest that such an action was "extraordinary" and open to a filibuster? After all, how "extraordinary" would it be for a president to nominate to the highest court a jurist who served on both a state Supreme Court and a federal appellate court and who was previously confirmed by a majority of the Senate?

Frist and the Republican right had aimed to eliminate the judicial filibuster, and they did fail in that mission. But they succeeded in dramatically weakening the filibuster--possibly to the point of rendering it inoperable. Social conservative leader James Dobson decried the compromise as a loss for the Republicans. But undermining the filibuster is certainly more of a gain than a defeat for the GOP.

Read More...

Bad Deal on Judges

thenation.com
Bad Deal on Judges
John Nichols

As the showdown on the so-called "nuclear option" approached, polls showed that the American people opposed scheming on the part of Senate GOP leaders to eliminate judicial filibusters by an overwhelming 2-to-1 margin.

Even among grassroots Republicans, there was broad discomfort with the idea of creating a tyranny-of-the-majority scenario in which the minority party in the Senate would no longer be consulted regarding lifetime appointments to the federal courts.

So there were plenty Republican senators who were looking for a way out of the corner into which Senate majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had maneuvered them. Democrats simply needed to hold the line, while attracting Republicans who were uncomfortable with Frist's machinations, and they could have secured the will of the people.

Unfortunately, the Democrats buckled. So Republicans will get the votes they want on at least three federal appeals court nominees who should not be allowed on the bench.

Under a compromise worked out by moderate Republicans and Democrats, the "nuclear option" has been averted for the time being -- and perhaps permanently.

But in return for that concession by the Republicans, the Democrats have agreed to allow confirmation votes on three judicial nominations that had been blocked: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor Jr. and Priscilla Owen. The trio were among the ten appeals court nominees whose records of judicial activism, ideological rigidity and ethical misdeeds were so troubling that a substantial number of senators felt they ought not be given lifetime tenures on key appellate court benches.


It now appears that confirmation is all but certain for the nominees: That's bad news for Americans in general and, in particular, for low-income citizens, people of color and women who look to the nation's highest courts for a measure of protection against discrimination and other forms of government-sanctioned abuse.

Brown, who has been nominated to serve on the powerful US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has condemned the New Deal, which gave the United States Social Security, the minimum wage and fair labor laws. She has expressed doubts about whether age discrimination laws are a good idea. And she has made it clear that she is no fan of affirmative action or other programs designed to help minorities and women overcome centuries of oppression.

Pryor, while serving as attorney general of Alabama, fought to undermine the authority of Congress to prohibit discrimination and to protect the environment, to maintain separation of church and state, to protect reproductive freedom and to guarantee equal protection under the law for gay men and lesbians. He has been nominated to serve on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Owen, who has been nominated to serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, established a record on the Texas Supreme Court of unswerving loyalty to corporate interests. She has, in addition, adopted such extreme antiabortion rights stances that even her fellow conservatives, including Alberto Gonzalez, who was then a Supreme Court justice but now servers as US Attorney General, have distanced themselves from her.

All three nominees have drawn broad opposition from civil rights, women's rights, public interest, religious, environmental and labor groups. None of them should ever be allowed anywhere near an appeals court bench. Yet it is likely that, as a result of the deal worked out by the moderate senators, all three will soon be donning the robes of the federal judiciary.

This "compromise" may have averted the "nuclear option" for a time. But it will saddle the federal bench with more bad judges.

That's a bad deal, especially when there is such overwhelming public sentiment for maintaining the right of senators to block inappropriate judicial nominees. Democrats were right to oppose Brown, Pryor and Owen. They will come to regret cutting the deal to let these unacceptable nominees -- and the others who are now sure to be nominated by the Bush Administration -- to be approved.

Read More...

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

The New Profile of the Long-Term Unemployed

The New York Times
May 24, 2005
The New Profile of the Long-Term Unemployed
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

After three years of unemployment, Allen Gruenhut finally landed a job as director of human resources for a company in the stone business on Long Island. His age, 53, worked against him in his long hunt for work, he contends, and so did the six-figure salary he earned at his last job, in banking.

"They would not take me seriously at job interviews when I said I would be happy with a lower salary," Mr. Gruenhut said.

Jackie Ellenwood, 31, is still without a job. She worked for three travel agencies over 13 years, until her last job, in Allen Park, Mich., ended in a layoff nine months ago. The industry is shrinking in response to more Internet bookings and cutbacks in corporate travel so Ms. Ellenwood is looking for work elsewhere and studying to become a nurse, confident that health care will continue to expand in an aging America.

"I'm going to stick to my nursing courses," Ms. Ellenwood said, "even if I get a job."

The experiences of Mr. Gruenhut and Ms. Ellenwood help to explain why many of the nation's unemployed are still struggling to get back to work. Not since World War II has long-term joblessness - the percentage of the unemployed out of work for six months or more - been so high for so long after a recession has ended.


The current trouble falls most heavily on people trapped by the shifting sands of the economy. Today, the unemployment rate is relatively low at 5.2 percent and overall hiring has started to pick up again, particularly for younger workers coming out of college and professional schools. But the presence of middle-aged women and better educated white-collar workers among the long-term unemployed has increased.

"There are just not new jobs being created in the things these people did before," said Andrew Stettner, a policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project and co-author of a study of long-term unemployment. "We are firing fewer people than we did in 2001 and 2002, but we are not hiring many people either, and that cuts off the exit route out of unemployment."

At the same time, the incidence of long-term unemployment among the usual victims of earlier eras - less educated blue-collar workers who often lost their jobs in production cutbacks - has fallen.

Several factors seem to be contributing to the rise in long-term unemployment. The swelling cost of company-paid health insurance is "inducing business to be less aggressive in its hiring," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, a research group based outside Philadelphia.

The baby boomer bulge working its way through the labor force also plays a role; as this large group of workers ages it becomes harder for some who lose their jobs to find new work suited to their skills. And the bursting of the high-tech bubble stranded thousands of workers who are finding it difficult to shift quickly to other fields.

While job creation has accelerated lately, to an average of 240,000 additional jobs a month since February, it remains well below the pace of previous recoveries.

"It looks like employers are very hesitant about the future of the economy," said Lawrence F. Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. "It may be that we will fall into another weak economic period before we get a good recovery and really robust hiring."

After World War II, when traditional industries dominated the economy, the usual pattern was for long-term unemployment to surge during recessions and die away quickly as recoveries took hold. That changed during the early 1990's and is even more evident in the current recovery, which began in November 2001.

Rather than subside as growth resumed, long-term unemployment as a share of total joblessness continued to rise, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It peaked 17 months ago at 23.3 percent and has only gradually tapered off since then, to 21.2 percent in April.

Structural changes in the economy and productivity improvements, reflecting the ability of companies to achieve higher output with fewer or the same number of workers, mean that even growing businesses no longer need to dip as much into the pool of displaced workers.

For example, Toyota Motors of North America, whose sales are rising more rapidly than other automakers in the United States, is holding back on hiring although its plants are operating flat-out. Its payroll, said Dennis Cuneo, a senior vice president, has grown by only 600 jobs this year - all of them at newly opened plants - to a total of just over 32,000 employees.

Existing factories continue on two shifts a day. Overtime and reconfigured work schedules help to squeeze out more production, without adding third shifts and the hiring that the additional shifts would require.

"We are reluctant to bring people on immediately," Mr. Cuneo said. "We are going to wait and see what we can still get from improvements in productivity. If the demand is sustained, there will come a point where you have to add a shift."

Other concerns play a role in the reluctance to hire, which in addition to driving up the long-term unemployment rate, drives down the number of people willing to actively seek a job and thus participate in the labor force. Sixty-six percent of the working age population was in the labor force in April, down from 66.7 percent at the start of the recovery. That is 1.6 million missing people, enough to raise the unemployment rate to 6.2 percent from its present 5.2 percent - if they all showed up.

Many of those who have stayed in the labor force, seeking work, may be people who were laid off for a long time before they were willing to accept a new job that pays less. Employers, on the other hand, are reluctant to hire those who once earned a higher salary. The fear is they will shift to better jobs at the first opportunity.

That is the story of Mr. Gruenhut, who earned a six-figure salary as senior vice president for human resources at Crédit Agricole Indosuez in New York, until his job there ended in 2002.

In subsequent job interviews, Mr. Gruenhut said: "They thought that even though I said I would be happy with a lower salary, I would be out the door as soon as there was an uptick in the job market. That happened at least a dozen times. I couldn't convince them."

Mr. Gruenhut, who has an M.B.A. from New York University and lives in East Meadow, spent 30 years in banking. But the "implosion in financial services," as he puts it, dried up jobs, forcing him to look elsewhere.

As he branched out, his age worked against him. "I did not get face time for plum jobs," he said. And when he did get interviews, his weight sometimes worked against him.

Finally, an acquaintance told him about an opening for a chief of human resources at the Innovative Companies, which is based in Hauppauge and sells marble and granite for construction. He clicked with the chief executive, Mr. Gruenhut said, and he went to work at a six-figure salary that was "considerably lower" than the one he had earned at Crédit Agricole. By that time, he had lost 46 pounds, to just under 200.

"If you think about it," Mr. Gruenhut said, "if you have age and over-weight and silver hair, which people were telling me to dye, those are blockades to landing the job that you want."

Ms. Ellenwood had none of these issues, nor Mr. Gruenhut's education. Right after graduating from high school, in 1992, she went to work for a travel agency, booking hotel reservations and airline tickets for corporate clients. By the time she lost her most recent job, at GET Travel last August, she was earning $670 a week. She spent months trying to land similar work at another agency without success.

"Until the spring of 2004," she said, "we were very busy. It was really stressful, call after call, and then the calls went down to pretty much nothing. We would sit in the office for an hour or two without the phone ringing."

Her unemployment benefits ran out after six months, but she is living in Dearborn with her fiancé, an employed engineer, and that has given her the means to pursue a nursing degree at a community college. While she studies, she hunts for work.

"My bottom line is that I don't want to work in fast food," she said. But even that vow could be broken, she added, if that is finally necessary "to pay the bills."

Read More...

Approval slips for Bush and Congress

USA TODAY

Approval slips for Bush and Congress
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. (Related item: Poll results: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2005-05-23-poll.htm )

Congress doesn't fare much better. Solid majorities of those surveyed say congressional leaders in both parties, heading toward a Senate showdown today over the confirmation of judicial nominees, are "acting like spoiled children," not responsible adults.

The survey shows a public that is more focused on the debate over stem cell research and more concerned about the price of gas than the dispute over Democrats filibustering Bush's judicial picks that has transfixed Washington.

On the filibuster debate, by 48%-40% those surveyed said they favor the Democrats over the Republicans. But they seem to see merit in the arguments by both sides. A 53% majority say the filibuster — the ability of at least 41 senators to continue debate and delay a vote — should be preserved. But 69% want the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on judicial nominees.

By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since Republicans won control in 1994.


In the survey sample, 36% called themselves Democrats, 29% Republicans. Including those who "lean" toward a party, 51% were Democrats, 40% Republicans.

Bush's overall job approval rating was 46%, down 4 percentage points since early May but higher than the 45% low he held in March. On specific issues, 40% approved of the job Bush is doing on handling Iraq and the economy; 33% approved of him on Social Security.

By a record 57%-40%, respondents say they disagree with Bush on the issues that matter most to them. The proportion who say Bush has "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have" sank to 52%, his lowest ever.

"There's no good news," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. "Iraq is not going particularly well. The public is not pleased with the economy. And I think both his failures with respect to Social Security and even (Terri) Schiavo got him off on the wrong foot this year with the public." Bush and congressional Republicans sought to intervene in March in the dispute over treatment for Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Bush is losing ground on defining issues: "On Social Security, he's moved from being the person offering interesting ideas to the guy who wants to cut benefits."

Read More...

Banks Notify Customers of Data Theft

Yahoo! News
Banks Notify Customers of Data Theft

By PAUL NOWELL, AP Business Writer

More than 100,000 customers of Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp. have been notified that their financial records may have been stolen by bank employees and sold to collection agencies.

In all, nearly 700,000 customers of four banks may be affected, according to police in Hackensack, N.J., where the investigation was centered.

So far, Bank of America has alerted about 60,000 customers whose names were included on computer disks discovered by police, bank spokeswoman Alex Liftman said Monday.

"We are trying to communicate with our customers as promptly as possible," she said. "So far, we have no evidence that any of our customer information has been used for account fraud or identity theft."

Wachovia said it has identified 48,000 current and former account holders whose accounts may have been breached.

"The numbers have increased as we continue to receive additional names from police," Wachovia spokeswoman Christy Phillips said Monday.

Both banks are providing the affected customers with free credit reporting services.

In a separate case with the potential for identity theft, a laptop containing the names and Social Security numbers of 16,500 current and former MCI Inc. employees was stolen last month from the car of an MCI financial analyst in Colorado, said company spokeswoman Linda Laughlin.

The car was parked in the analyst's home garage and the computer was password-protected, she said. MCI would not comment on whether the data was encrypted.

The bank record theft was exposed April 28 when police in Hackensack charged nine people, including seven bank workers, in an alleged plot to steal financial records of thousands of bank customers.


The bank employees accessed records for customers of Cherry Hill, N.J.-based Commerce Bank, PNC Bank of Pittsburgh, and Charlotte-based banks Wachovia and Bank of America, according to Hackensack Police Chief Ken Zisa.

Repeated calls seeking comment were not returned by Commerce Bank officials, while PNC officials declined to estimate how many of their customers' accounts may have been breached.

"We have no evidence that any of these accounts have been compromised at all. We continue to work with law enforcement officials," said Pat McMahon, a spokesman for PNC.

New Jersey authorities found 12 names and Social Security numbers belonging to PNC customers but the bank found no suspicious activity in the accounts, he said.

Collection agent Orazio Lembo Jr., 35, of Hackensack made millions of dollars through the scheme, Zisa has said.

Authorities said they discovered the plot after they executed a search warrant at Lembo's apartment in February as part of a separate investigation. They seized 13 computers which contained details about the plan, Zisa said.

Lembo received lists of people sought for debt collection and turned that information over to the seven bank workers, who would compare those names to their client lists. The bank workers were paid $10 for each account they turned over to Lembo, Zisa said.

In New Jersey, continued scrutiny of computer discs seized from Lembo's offices was yielding more names. Investigators have now identified nearly 700,000 potential victims, Hackensack police Capt. Frank Lomia said Monday.

Read More...