House bill would increase U.S. forces

USA TODAY
House bill would increase U.S. forces

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon would be permitted to add thousands of ground troops under a House bill, reflecting lawmakers' long-standing concerns that U.S. forces must be increased, particularly during wartime.

The provision is part of a massive measure the House Armed Services Committee planned to approve on Wednesday. The bill sets Defense Department policy and spending levels of roughly $510 billion for the military for next year, including $50 billion to cover the first portion of next year's costs for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just six months before voters elect a new Congress, lawmakers shaped the bill to address concerns arising from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, including plans for more generous recruitment incentives, pay raises and combatting roadside bombs. Actual money for specific programs is provided in separate, later legislation.

It is likely senators will reflect similar priorities when the Senate Armed Services Committee passes its version of the bill by Friday, given a desire across Capitol Hill to be perceived as supporting troops and their families during wartime — particularly in an election year.

Overall, the House bill "reflects our committee's strong and continuing support for the brave men and women of the United States armed services," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee's chairman.

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the lead Democrat on the House committee, said the bill addresses two priorities — "demands of the present and preparations that must be made to ensure we continue to have the best prepared, trained and equipped force in the world."

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved $368 billion for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and global efforts against terrorism, including defense, foreign aid and veterans' costs, according to the Congressional Research Service, the research arm for lawmakers.

The bill plans increased spending beyond the administration's request for operations, training and maintenance, while lowering the money the Pentagon can spend on some major weapons systems still being developed, such as the Future Combat Systems, the Army's key weapons program.

Also, the House bill continues the committee's push to encourage the Pentagon to expand the number of U.S. military ground forces.

In recent weeks, several retired generals have stepped forward to argue that the planning for the war in Iraq — including troop levels — was not sufficient. And, in recent interviews, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he told Rumsfeld and Bush that he was worried that U.S. did not have enough troops to complete the mission.

As in previous years, the bill permits the Army to increase the number of active-duty soldiers by 30,000 — or 6% beyond what President Bush requested — to a maximum target of 512,400. It also requires the Army to maintain an active-duty force of at least 504,400, roughly 2,000 more soldiers than the current level.

Additionally, the bill allows the Marine Corps to add 5,000 troops — or 3% more than Bush sought — to reach a force of 180,000 Marines.

The bill also authorizes the Army National Guard to have 350,000 troops, the same number allowed last year, and increases the number of Army National Guard full-time support personnel by nearly 2,300.

With recruitment and retention of soldiers a concern of lawmakers while the country is at war, the House bill would institute higher incentives to help keep the ranks filled.

It would authorize an additional $100 million for Army recruiting and retention bonuses; $100 million for the Army Reserve to fund Army-wide basic officer courses; and $59 million for Air National Guard bonuses.

To protect U.S. troops in Iraq, the bill plans $209.7 million for devices to prevent roadside bomb explosions in Iraq and for aircraft to patrol above roads to look for the bombs, a leading killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The House bill also calls for $300 million to fund a 2.7% military pay raise. The raise would be 0.5 percentage points more than what the president proposed.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-03-congress-defense_x.htm

Read More...

Summary only...

FBI Sought Data on Thousands in '05

washingtonpost.com
FBI Sought Data on Thousands in '05
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer

The FBI sought personal information on thousands of Americans last year from banks, Internet service providers and other companies without having to seek approval from a court, according to new data released by the Justice Department.

In a report to the top leaders of both parties in the House, the department disclosed that the FBI had issued more than 9,200 "national security letters," or NSLs, seeking detailed information about more than 3,500 U.S. citizens or legal residents in 2005.

The report, released late Friday, represents the first official count of NSL use. It was required under legislation that extended the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law.

The count does not include other such letters that are issued by the FBI to obtain more limited subscriber information from companies, such as a person's name, address or other identifying data, according to the report. Sources have said that would include thousands of additional letters and may be the largest category of NSLs issued. The Washington Post reported in November that the FBI now issues more than 30,000 NSLs each year, including subscriber requests.

The Justice Department report also outlined a continued increase in the use of secret warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The secret court that oversees the law approved a record 2,072 orders for clandestine searches or surveillance in 2005 -- an 18 percent increase from the year before.

The new statistics provide the latest measure of the government's rapidly expanding anti-terrorism activities, which include a wide range of secret warrants and powers aimed at monitoring suspicious behavior and preventing attacks.

Many of the tactics have come under criticism from civil liberties groups as intrusive and lacking in proper oversight. National security letters, for example, are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued by scores of FBI managers around the country.

"This tells us why they didn't want to tell us in the past how many of these they were actually using," said Caroline Fredrickson, Washington legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea that this kind of power resides in the hands of so many people at the FBI with no court oversight is very troubling."

The government previously has declined to reveal how many NSLs have been issued by the FBI and criticized the Post report as inaccurate. A Justice Department official said yesterday that the department would not comment on how many more NSLs have been issued for subscriber data only.

At the FISA court, the number of warrants for clandestine searches and surveillance has more than doubled in the past five years, according to government figures. The court -- which historically has refused only a handful of warrant applications -- did not reject any of the government's requests last year, although two cases were withdrawn by Justice before a ruling was issued, the report said.

The Justice official said part of the increase in 2005 can be attributed to an expansion of the office that submits FISA cases.

The FBI also used a controversial section of the Patriot Act to obtain business-related records 155 times in 2005. But most of that activity was the result of temporary technical problems with an earlier statute, and the number is expected to fall dramatically this year, according to the report to Congress.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Politics of Leaking

washingtonpost.com
The Politics of Leaking
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer

We seem to have argued our way into a debate over good leaks and bad leaks.

Some conservatives are mighty upset over the leaks involved in two Pulitzer-winning stories, the NYT's domestic surveillance scoop and The WP's disclosure of the secret CIA prisons. So we're getting an earful about the suspect motives of leakers and how newspapers are damaging national security and maybe even that reporters who publish classified material should go to jail.

I don't recall these folks being exercised about the gusher of Ken Starr leaks during the Clinton investigations. Those didn't involve national security, but they did involve grand jury secrets, the disclosure of which is illegal. In those years, the Wall Street Journal editorial page was so appalled at President Bill Clinton that the question of who was dishing to reporters got short shrift.

Let's face it: There's a principle here, that journalists should have the right to ferret out information they deem to be in the public interest, even if it's against the law for sources to provide that information. But to be equally candid, people--even including journalists--applaud the leaks they like and denounce the leaks they detest. Thus, some news organizations demanded a special prosecutor after senior administration officials disclosed Valerie Plame's CIA employment to Robert Novak, and were appalled at what appeared to be a case of political retaliation against Joe Wilson.

That, said the WSJ in this editorial , which I quoted the other day, is a "preposterous double standard. . . . It would appear that the only relevant difference here is whose political ox is being gored, and whether a liberal or conservative journalist was the beneficiary of the leak. That the press sought to hound Robert Novak out of polite society for the Plame disclosure and then rewards [Dana] Priest and [James] Risen with Pulitzers proves the worst that any critic has ever said about media bias."

But doesn't everyone make distinctions between, say, Deep Throat leaking information about Watergate corruption vs. leaks about Clinton's sex life vs. leaks about the Iraq war authorized by George W. Bush himself? Even the information about why CIA officer Mary McCarthy was fired--supposedly for leaking classified information to The Post, which she has denied--was conveyed in the form of not-for-attribution leaks.

The latest to join the argument, in a big way, is Bill Keller. In a response to the WSJ slam, the New York Times executive editor writes:

"Your editorial posits a conspiracy between journalists and 'a cabal of partisan bureaucrats' to undermine President Bush by sabotaging the war on terror. Among the suspects swept up and summarily convicted in your argument are: a) government officials who have disclosed secret doings of the government (with the exception of President Bush, whose leak-authorizing somehow escapes your notice); b) reporters and editors at the New York Times and Washington Post for reporting on these secret doings--notably the detention of terror suspects in CIA facilities in Europe and eavesdropping on Americans without warrants; and c) the Pulitzer Board, which honored both of those journalistic exploits last week.

"I leave to others, including the court of public opinion, whether the government officials who spoke to reporters about secrets that troubled them were partisan evildoers, as the Journal contends, or conscientious public servants, or something more complicated. Since most of them, including the nearly a dozen who were cited in the first warrantless eavesdropping story, have not been publicly identified, it's hard to know how the Journal is so certain of their motives. . . .

"To believe that aggressive journalism is driven by liberal partisanship requires an awfully selective memory. (Ask Bill Clinton. Ask Congressman Mollohan.) The role of journalism on our side of the news/opinion divide, at least as we aspire to perform it, is not to be advocates for or against any president or any party or any cause. It is not to tell our readers what we think or what they should think, but to provide information and analysis that enables them to make up their own minds. We are sometimes too credulous, sometimes too cynical--in other words, we are human--but I think we get the balance right most of the time, and when we don't we feel an obligation to correct it.

"In addition to fair treatment in the news pages, presidents are entitled to a respectful and attentive hearing, particularly when they make claims based on the safety of the country. In the case of the eavesdropping story, President Bush and other figures in his administration were given abundant opportunities to explain why they felt our information should not be published. We considered the evidence presented to us, agonized over it, delayed publication because of it. In the end, their case did not stand up to the evidence our reporters amassed, and we judged that the responsible course was to publish what we knew and let readers assess it themselves. You are welcome to question that judgment, but you have presented no basis for challenging it, let alone for attributing it to bad faith or animus toward the president."

Read More...

Summary only...

Red States, Blue States: New Labels for Long-Running Differences

The New York Times
Red States, Blue States: New Labels for Long-Running Differences
By HAL R. VARIAN

THE red state-blue state division has captured the pundits' imaginations, leading to much armchair theorizing about how political constituencies in the United States are evolving.

According to some, the country is splitting into two opposing camps, with political divisions becoming more polarized and more spatially segregated than they have been in the past.

A recent working paper, "Myths and Realities of American Political Geography," by two Harvard University economists, Edward L. Glaeser and Bryce A. Ward, challenges this conventional wisdom. The paper can be downloaded from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=874977.

The economists examined a number of contemporary and historical data sources on cultural, religious, economic and political attitudes and compared these responses across states.

They found that differences in political attitudes across states are nothing new: the Civil War and Roaring Twenties had much larger geographic variation in political views than we do today. Though dispersion in political attitudes has generally declined over the last 60 years, the last four years have brought a small uptick.

Though views have become somewhat less associated with geography in the 20th century, they still show strong differences. The fraction of the voters in a given area who vote Republican correlates well with the fraction who voted Republican in the last election.

Furthermore, America is not becoming more polarized. Of course, Republicans have a more positive view of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, and vice versa, but attitudes have hardly changed since 1978. It is fair to point out, though, that attitudes seem to have become somewhat more partisan in the last few years.

The most remarkable phenomenon is the rise of religion in politics. Thirty years ago, income was a better prediction of party affiliation than church attendance, but this is no longer true. Religion also played a big role in politics a century ago, so we may well be returning to the historical norm.

Cultural and religious attitudes play a big role in voting behavior. For example, the fraction of the population who agreed with the statement "AIDS is God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior" was highly correlated with whether the state was red or blue, according to surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. The differences in religious attitudes between Vermont and Mississippi are huge.

These cultural divisions have been around for a long time. In the 1936-37 Gallup poll, residents of New England and the Middle Atlantic states were far more likely than citizens elsewhere to support federally financed health measures aimed at venereal disease, to support a free press and to be willing to vote for Catholic or Jewish candidates.

Consumption patterns seem to be correlated with cultural attitudes. For example, the states with the largest level of wine consumption per capita also tend to have the most liberal political and social attitudes. In vino veritas?

Another peculiar connection is the strong correlation between religiosity and militarism. Respondents to Pew's survey who agree that "prayer is an important part of my daily life" also agree that the "best way to ensure peace is through military strength."

So why are these cultural and political divisions so persistent? The authors offer both some simple correlations and some more elaborate theories. It turns out that the degree of industrialization 85 years ago is an "astonishingly good predictor of Democratic support" among today's voters, as is the fraction of the population that is foreign-born.

But the biggest effect seems to be the correlation between religion and Republicanism. Among white voters who attend religious services at least once a week, 71 percent voted Republican in the last election, according to the Pew survey.

Republicans have traditionally appealed to those with higher incomes. The genius of Republicans, beginning with Ronald Reagan and continuing with Karl Rove, was to bring the religious vote into their party, forming a winning coalition of Main Street businessmen, the very wealthy and evangelical Christians. Strange bedfellows, to be sure, but they win elections.

Mr. Glaeser and Mr. Ward offer some speculation about why religion is such an attractive theme for politicians. According to their theory, direct appeals to voters on issues like abortion are tricky, because strong positions inspire groups on both sides of the issue, who then cancel each other out in votes. The trick is to send "coded messages" to different groups of voters. Strong opponents of abortion, for example, may react positively to certain religious allusions that appear innocuous to mainstream voters.

The Economist magazine characterizes American politics as a contest between the incompetence of Republicans and the incoherence of the Democrats. But there is a reason for the Democrats' incoherence: they are feverishly trying to assemble their own collection of strange bedfellows, and no one quite knows what it is.

Ultimately, both parties face the same challenge: how to keep the support of their cultural and political extremists without giving them so much power that they alienate the middle-of-the-road voters.

In this sort of game, the incumbents tend to have an advantage, unless they are perceived as having messed up so badly that even their most fervent supporters desert them. Hey, maybe the Democrats have a chance after all.

Hal R. Varian is a professor of business, economics and information management at the University of California, Berkeley.

Read More...

Summary only...

Suicide bomber kills at least 18 in Iraq

Reuters
Suicide bomber kills at least 18 in Iraq
By Fadil al-Badrani

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - A suicide bomber blew himself up among a crowd of men waiting to sign up to join the police in the Iraqi city of Falluja on Wednesday, killing at least 18 people, doctors said.

Violence has flared in mainly Sunni Arab Anbar province, with U.S. and Iraqi forces killing over 100 insurgents over the past week in the capital Ramadi and a suicide car bomber killing 10 in an attempt to assassinate the governor on Tuesday.

Parliament, which will soon vote on forming a government of national unity -- seen as the best hope for ending the bloodshed -- began its first normal business session since being elected in December.

But speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani postponed what was to have been the most important task, the selection of a committee to review and amend the constitution, until after a new government is formed and approved by parliament.

"I suggest waiting to form the constitutional committee until the forming of the next government and the situation stabilizes because it is an important issue and needs more negotiation among the blocs," he said.

The once-dominant Sunni minority is more fully represented since abandoning its boycott of the U.S.-backed political process by voting in December. Parliament, beginning a first full four-year term since the fall of Saddam Hussein, is due to sit again next Wednesday.

Shi'ite Prime Minister-designate Nuri al-Maliki has said he could have a cabinet line-up ready soon.

RAINBOW CABINET

Sunni Arabs say the constitution gives too much power to the majority Shi'ites and want it changed, demanding they head the review committee.

Maliki has said he hopes to announce a rainbow coalition to embrace Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds, a step seen as vital to quelling the Sunni insurgency and mounting sectarian bloodshed involving guerrillas on all sides.

He has 30 days from April 22 to present a list to the 275-member parliament for its approval.

Politicians involved in the negotiations say agreement may be emerging on the top five ministries -- interior, defense, finance, foreign affairs and oil.

Political blocs say they are using a complex points system based primarily on results from December's election to determine how many ministries are allocated to each grouping.

"The deadline to form the government is May 22, but Nuri al-Maliki has set himself a target of May 9," said Khudheyir al- Khuzai, a member of Maliki's dominant Shi'ite Alliance.

"We are willing to work 20 hours a day to achieve this."

The U.S. military says attacks on civilians have doubled since a Shi'ite mosque was bombed in February and senior Iraqi officials say at least 100,000 have fled their homes.

In what has become a regular occurrence, the bodies of 14 men, with bullet holes and showing signs of torture, were found in Baghdad on Wednesday, police said.

The victims were blindfolded and bound. Twenty such bodies were found in the city on Tuesday, police said.

In Falluja, 60 km (40 miles) west of the capital, doctor Bilal Mahmoud said most of the 20 people wounded in the attack on the police recruits were in a critical condition.

The insurgents have been shifting their focus from U.S. and other foreign troops to Iraq's new army and police force, although American soldiers are still dying at a rate of close to two a day.

The large crowds drawn to recruiting centers are a common target. More than 80 people were killed in an attack on a police recruiting center in Ramadi in January.

The government is keen to expand recruitment in Sunni areas, to reduce perceptions that the army and police are offshoots of the original Shi'ite and Kurdish-led interim government.

In addition to tackling the violence, Maliki's other major task will be to revive an economy shattered by three years of war and insurgency.

Pivotal to that will be the oil industry, losing billions of dollars a year from rebel attacks, corruption and smuggling.

Oil Minister Hashem al-Hashemi told reporters on Wednesday Iraq aimed to increase oil exports to about 2 million barrels per day (bpd) by the end of the year from about 1.5 bpd now and compared with about 1.7 bpd before the U.S.-led 2003 invasion.

Iraq has the world's third-largest oil reserves, but sabotage attacks against pipelines and installations cost it $7 billion in 2005 and $6 billion in 2004.

(Additional reporting by Michael Georgy in Baghdad)

Read More...

Summary only...

Republicans scramble for pump price solution

Reuters
Republicans scramble for pump price solution
By Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in Congress scrambled on Wednesday to find a new way to deal with soaring gasoline pump prices after a plan to hand out $100 checks to consumers fell flat.

The House of Representatives rejected a plan to boost U.S. refinery capacity by revamping state and federal permitting schemes and encouraging building on abandoned military base sites.

A handful of House and Senate lawmakers went to the White House for a "brainstorming session" on energy proposals, after prominent Republican lawmakers including House Majority Leader John Boehner dismissed the $100 check proposal as "insulting" to consumers.

President George W. Bush said proposals ranged from building better battery-powered gasoline-electric hybrid cars, to producing more motor fuel from sources like corn and building new refineries.

Republicans, fighting to hold on to their majority in Congress, were struggling to find new ideas at the meeting.

"I don't think there were any proposals that have not been kicked around," said Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. The New Mexico Republican said there are no quick fixes to bring down energy prices so conservation will need to be more of a focus.

Sen. Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who also met with Bush, said "there was an air of seriousness" and urgency in dealing with the problem because of risks to the economy.

With gasoline prices above $3 a gallon in many U.S. cities, pump prices have been the main topic of discussion of both parties in Congress as lawmakers fretted that voters will vent their rage in the upcoming November elections.

Nationwide gasoline pump prices averaged $2.92 a gallon last week, according to government figures, just short of the record $3.07 hit last September after Hurricane Katrina walloped Gulf Coast oil installations.

One way to solve the crunch, Republicans say, would be to speed up permits to build new refineries.

House leaders fast-tracked a proposal by Republican Reps. Joe Barton of Texas and Charles Bass of New Hampshire that would tap the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate siting, permitting and approving of refineries.

The vote on the bill was 237 to 188, far short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass fast-tracked bills.

Some 185 Democrats voted against the bill, spurring House Majority Whip Roy Blunt to accuse them of obstructionist tactics.

"If we want to help consumers at the pump, we need to address refining capacity," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "Unfortunately, there are some Democrats who don't want to do that."

Barton said he would bring the refinery plan up for another vote next week where it could pass with a simple majority.

Many Democrats say the bill would have short-circuited state permitting powers, and said it gives oil refiners incentives that they don't need.

U.S. refiners don't want to build because "the dirty secret is they're not going to make any money off of that," said Rep. Hilda Solis, California Democrat.

The United States uses about 21 million barrels per day of gasoline, jet fuel and other refined petroleum products, but domestic refineries only churn out about 17 million bpd, Barton said.

That means that industry will have to spend $40 billion to $60 billion on new capacity to fill the gap, Barton said.

The House also passed a measure that would make it a federal crime for companies to profiteer on pricing gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, heating oil and biofuel. Criminal penalties would be up to $150 million and two years in jail at the wholesale level and $2 million and similar jail time for retail violations.

Barton said he also sent "a fairly strongly worded letter" to big U.S. oil company executives asking them to detail how they will reinvest their record profits in expanding refineries and other energy infrastructure. Barton said he planned to call oil CEOs to participate in an energy panel hearing.

Senate Democrats on Thursday will introduce legislation to limit U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports.

(additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Caren Bohan)

Read More...

Summary only...

House passes bill it calls ethics-reform - but is it really?

Reuters
House passes ethics-reform bill
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rattled by corruption scandals, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a package of ethics reforms on Wednesday that Democrats decried as a "sham, which would do little to clean up Congress.

The House voted 217 to 213, largely along party lines, to require greater disclosure of political lobbying activities and highlight special-interest "earmarks" hidden in some large spending bills.

Only eight Democrats voted for the bill, while 20 Republicans voted against it.

The bill, supported by the White House, must be reconciled with a separate reform bill passed by the Senate in March.

A string of corruption cases have cast a spotlight on the cozy relationship between lawmakers and Washington's $2 billion lobbying industry, and with congressional elections scheduled for November Republican leaders have made lobbying reform a priority.

"This bill will fulfill the public's right to know who is seeking to influence their Congress," said the bill's sponsor, California Rep. David Dreier. "It will not permit business as usual, it will not perpetuate the status quo."

Democrats, who have made corruption a central theme of their campaign to recapture a control of Congress, said the bill is only designed to create the illusion of reform and does nothing to curb the influence of money in politics.

"This bill is a sham and by promoting it as a real reform measure Republicans are lying to the American people," said New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter.

DISCLOSURE

The bill would require lobbyists to file disclosure forms electronically four times a year, instead of twice a year.

Lawmakers would need prior approval from colleagues on the ethics committee before flying on corporate jets or taking privately funded trips.

Earmarks -- a spending measure that devotes funds for a specific purpose, often to help a lawmaker's own district or pet project -- will have to listed along with the lawmaker who sponsors them, in each of the sprawling spending bills that keep the government running.

Republican leaders have promised to broaden the earmark provision to apply to other spending bills as well when they reconcile it with the Senate's ethics bill.

Unlike the Senate bill, the House version does not prevent lobbyists from buying lawmakers gifts or meals worth less than $50, and it does not extend the current one-year "cooling off" period a lawmaker must wait before lobbying his former colleagues.

Corruption has cast a shadow over the House in recent months.

Former California Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is serving an eight-year prison sentence for accepting $2.4 million in bribes, while two former staffers of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay have pleaded guilty to corruption in another scandal centered around former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

On the Democratic side, Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson is under investigation for taking bribes in a Nigerian telecommunications venture, while West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan recently stepped down from the ethics committee amid questions about his real-estate holdings.

Read More...

Summary only...

I Spent 6 Years In The White House And All I Got ...

Read More...

Summary only...

Across USA, wave of anger building over gas prices

USA TODAY
Across USA, wave of anger building over gas prices
By the staff of USA TODAY

FRONT ROYAL, Va. — The sunrise turns the night sky pink Tuesday as four travelers meet at the Park 'N Ride lot off Interstate 66 on the eastern edge of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

A nightmare has brought them together: the price of gasoline, which lists at $2.84 for regular, $2.94 for medium and $3.04 for supreme at the Shell and Exxon stations down the street. Their blue Kia van is bound for Washington, 60 miles away. Today, the one-way trip will cost $10.

Jennifer Sperry, 32, works at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Her mother, Linda Burnett, 51, is bound for the same agency. Regina Sommers, 39, works at a law firm. And Pete Williams, 53, is building manager at the Reagan federal building.

Two weeks ago they faced the inevitable and formed this carpool, which saves them each more than $300 a month and costs them autonomy, convenience and privacy. Sperry and her mother used to drive in together, just the two of them, free to dish and divulge as they pleased. They don't see each other on weekends; that was their time together.

So begins Tuesday, May 2, another day in the great gasoline price spike of 2006. Across the nation, it will be another day of debating, bemoaning, analyzing, comparing and predicting the cost of a liquid vital to the nation's economy, mobility and sanity. Another day when the price of gas will seem as fundamental as the weather.

Everyone will be affected by it, many will complain about it, and a few will do something about it. But almost no one will disagree that Tuesday was like almost every other day of late. Gas prices are driving us to distraction — minute by minute, mile by mile, cent by cent, from sunrise to sunset, ET.

In Lake Tahoe, Nev., prices at some gas pumps are approaching $3.50 for regular. Record highs are being posted statewide in California, according to a new American Automobile Association survey.

A motorist pulled into the Bradley's Food Mart in Aurora, Colo. Monday, and paid his bill with $34 in change — quarters, nickels and dimes — which took the attendant five minutes to count out.

But at Grand Central Terminal in New York City, some early morning rail commuters quietly relish the prices they don't have to pay. Roby Muntoni, a Bank of America employee, ditched her SUV 18 months ago when she moved from North Carolina: "I couldn't even tell you what prices are right now."

On New York's West Side, cabbie Alvin Adams doesn't feel like he's facing a crisis. His Toyota taxi consumes so much less gas than the standard 4-door, 8-cylinder Fords that he saves $30 a shift. He expects the city's taxi commission to approve a dollar surcharge soon to compensate for the high prices; he says more people are ditching their cars and taking cabs.

7 a.m. Acworth, Ga., Regular: $2.74

The QuikTrip convenience store on U.S. 41 is locked in a price war with a Raceway station across the street. They had the third-lowest gas prices in the Atlanta area on Monday, according to the website gasbuddy.com.

Among those attracted by the warfare:

Bill Marcus, 46. He likes the battle. "These guys can afford to sell gas 15 cents lower than everybody else in town because they're in a gas war. ...Why can't everybody lower their prices that much?"

Raymond Gossett, 37, no longer fills up occasionally with premium gas to clean the fuel injectors in his Honda. Today, he pumps just $7 worth of regular because that's all he has; it's payday.

Belia Lara, 54, who supports herself reselling odds and ends at a flea market, says she sometimes begs strangers for gas money so she can drive her 15-year-old son to therapy for a spinal injury. "I say 'please, please give me some money for gasoline' Sometimes, they give me $5 or $10." She offers her patrons something from her trunk, like a baseball cap. "But they say, 'no, no, it's okay.' "

8 a.m., Melbourne, Fla. Regular: $2.89-$2.95

In the Misty Creek subdivision outside Melbourne, Fla., three crewmembers from M&M Lawn Maintenance steer a fleet of roaring Kubota riding mowers around neat rows of palm trees. Three other workers swing gas-powered edge trimmers, scattering blades of rubbery St. Augustine grass.

M&M co-owner Steve Rose oversees 18 such crews that burn through more than 1,300 gallons of gasoline a month. Rose's fuel bill is now $18,000-$20,000 per month, compared with $14,000-$15,000 late last year. But because of yearly contracts, lawn services like M&M can't easily pass their costs on to consumers. And the business is so competitive, services keep margins low to win those contracts.

Rising gas prices have forced Rose to craft new plans to save gas and maintain profits. For example, he used to send one crew over a five-day period to mow a 900-home subdivision in Port Orange, an hour's drive north. He now sends up three crews to get the job done in one long, hard day. That saves his fleet 280 vehicle miles per week, he says.

Rose is eager to try gas alternatives such as biodiesel fuel. But he doesn't foresee changes coming soon. "The people who have the power to do something about it are the people who are making money from it today."

8:09 a.m. (7:09 a.m CT), Chicago Regular: $2.99

Chris Franczyk, 39, arrives for work in downtown Chicago, having finished another 25-mile commute from the suburbs while watching his gas gauge sink and calculating how soon he'll have to pay another $40 to fill his Saturn Ion.

He's annoyed by the very thought of gas prices ("what I really think about them you can't write down"). He's shopping for a new car that gets better mileage — his gets 23 miles a gallon — but he thinks hybrids are too expensive. And he knows whom to blame for the prices. "Oil companies. Billions of dollars in profits for Mobil Oil? Come on. It's them."

Across the prairie in Iowa, Raymond Repp would be planting corn and soybeans on any other May morning. But recent rains have left his 3,300 acres too wet. That gives the 58-year-old farmer more time to plot ways to combat rising fuel prices, which makes everything more expensive, from fertilizing crops to hauling them to market.

This year, he and his cousin decided to cultivate fewer fields before planting, thus saving about a half gallon of diesel fuel per acre.

Repp bought a 7,500-gallon tank full of diesel in February, paying about $2 a gallon. Now he'd pay $2.80. So he's considering selling grain closer to home, even though the price he gets would be less.

"Does it keep me up at night? No," says Repp, whose family has farmed south of Perry since 1869. "Do I think about it a lot? Yes."

Meanwhile, the business day begins. In Dallas, Remington Oil & Gas Corp. says higher oil and gas prices and strong production drove first-quarter profit up sharply. In New York, oil and gas producer Noble Energy Inc. says its quarterly profit doubled.

10:55 a.m. (9:55 a.m. CT), Madison, Wis. Regular: $2.89

Jen Richter, 21, arrives for class at the University of Wisconsin driving a Honda Aero moped. Richter, who drives all week on less than $2, feels no gas price squeeze. In crowded Madison, she says, parking is a bigger problem.

About 20 minutes later, Jamie Dillon, 23, a student at a Madison technical college, drives up in an aging Buick Century that now costs about $42 to fill up. So Dillon has cut back on groceries, and he plans to move closer to school. And soon, he says, "I'm going to get rid of this, and get a bike."

Outside Denver, Gwen Sterner has an even better idea. She's feeling a bit morally superior as she fills her 2001 Toyota Prius hybrid with $29.59 regular — "the most I've ever paid for gasoline." But she'll drive 650 miles before refueling. "I still can't believe all these people driving these hunkers," Sterner, 60, says of SUVs. "I look at these guys and say, 'You're stupid!' "

By that logic, you might expect sales of gas-guzzlers to be slow at Mount Kisco Chevrolet, Cadillac, Hummer outside New York City. You'd be wrong.

SUVs such as the Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe sell well, as does the Cadillac Escalade. And the tank-like Hummer? The smaller, more economical H3 "has been gigantic since its introduction last June," says Patrick Holden, a confident 25-year-old salesman. The larger H2, estimated to get about 15 miles per gallon, sells to a niche market pretty much unaffected by gas prices.

"We've had the best March and April that we've had in a long time," says Holden. "People look at the sticker and see what the EPA rating is, but they've been doing that for decades. We're doing great with models that you might think wouldn't be doing so well. We have the blessing of affluence around here."

Liz Kato is not so blessed.

The 41-year-old unemployed receptionist is searching for work in Aurora, Colo. But this morning she's almost run out of gas while driving around looking unsuccessfully for the office of a potential employer.

She pulls into a Sinclair Bradley station to put a mere $10 in the tank of her old SUV. "I hate to think that's the way it's going to stay," she sighs, referring to the price on the pump. She pulls away to continue her search for work.

11:45 a.m. (10:45 a.m. CT), Elmhurst, Ill.

Lunch deliveries are just starting, and the driver for the Red Dragon Chinese Restaurant pays for his own gas. Owner Bob Choi says that, so far, the driver hasn't complained about soaring costs at the pump. But Choi, 54, has plenty of his own concerns: He pays more these days for vegetable and meat deliveries, and his gas bill is up to $800-$900 a month.

"Gas price affects everything," he says. The biggest culprits are the gas jets used in the kitchen to cook the food he serves. "They eat gas like it is water," he says.

Choi, in the restaurant business for 23 years, worries about the impact of rising costs on his bottom line and wonders if he might have to increase what he charges customers. "Raising prices," he says, "is not a good idea."

1:15 p.m. (11:15 a.m. MT), Sand Springs, Mont. Regular: $2.97

The few travelers along the 75-mile stretch of Route 200 between Winnett and Jordan in Eastern Montana pass hundreds of Black Angus cattle, dozens of pronghorn antelope and one gas pump.

Diana Thomas, 52, is in town for the day to work as an elections judge at the one-room schoolhouse. She spends $32.90 on 11 gallons to fill her Chevy Lumina, and wishes she'd done it a day earlier — when the price was 20 cents cheaper. "I don't really have a choice," said Thomas. "It's too far to walk."

Sand Springs consists of Sand Springs Store and Post Office, the Ecumenical Sand Springs Community Church, and the school, which has seven children in kindergarten through eighth grade. The nearest real town is Jordan, where everybody does their shopping. It's 32 miles away. Public transit consists of catching a ride with a neighbor.

Calvin Thomas, 54, a farmer, isn't buying Tuesday. He's driven in on his four-wheel Yamaha Rhino buggy to pick up his mail. He's using the all-terrain vehicle, rather than his Chevy half-ton pickup, more these days to get around the farm.

"Everything we do here takes us 100 miles," he says. "It's a 65-mile round trip just to buy milk."

2 p.m. (1 p.m. CT), Interstate 90 rest area, S.D.-Minn. border

Sitting in his truck with a good cigar and his dog, Hershey, Randy Kostiz appears unconcerned about the gas price crisis. Here's the key:

"I'm old," says Kostiz, 61. "You've still got to live your life. There's no sense fighting windmills."

From home in Forest Ranch, Calif., he and his wife are driving with an RV trailer to visit friends in Hutchinson, Minn., a 2,000-mile trip. No problem, he says: "You've just got to do what you gotta do and not worry about everything else."

4:30 p.m., New York City

Gine Romano, a young, stay-at-home mom from Philadelphia visiting family in New York, opted to travel by Greyhound bus, even though it means toting a stroller, luggage and 1-year-old through the Port Authority Bus Terminal, one of the nation's busiest.

"We used to go out just to go out, (but) now it's only for important errands," says Romano, who shares a car with her mother. Leisure trips have been reduced from four to six times a week to one to three. "Instead of driving to the mall, now we walk to the park," she says. "Things are just getting more and more expensive. I can't even think about what it's going to be like 15 years from now, when my baby is grown up."

5:20 p.m. (2:30 PT), Bermuda Dunes, Calif. Regular: $3.33

George Stock steels himself for the commute home. But instead of opening his wallet to pay for gas, he opens a saddlebag on the 30-year-old 10-speed he rides to and from work.

"These you have to have," says Stock, holding up two miniature bungee cords from the collection he uses to secure items on the bike. He says he can carry everything he needs, from school papers to a 50-pound bag of mortar.

Stock, 63, a substitute teacher, has navigated traffic, desert heat and a stiff breeze to ride about 14 miles between his home and three area schools. Although he's been riding since gas was less than a buck a gallon, the gas price hike has renewed his optimism that more people will trade four wheels for two. "I'm no Lance Armstrong. If I can do it, anybody who is reasonably physically healthy can do it."

6 p.m., Wintersville, Ohio

Step right up, the Bates Brothers carnival is open for thrills and chills. And step quickly, because the rides are open for just four hours — thanks to fuel prices.

Eric Bates, 57, owner of Bates Brothers Amusement Co., says that until recently, the Mardi Gras fun house, The Screamer and The Yo-Yo would run until midnight or longer — as long as people wanted to ride.

On this night, they'll stop in four hours — at 10 p.m. sharp.

Fuel prices are testing Bates' business skills. "It hurts to write a check for $7,000 to keep one generator going for a week," he says.

His company consumes up to 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel a week. Fuel has replaced insurance as his company's second-biggest expense, behind labor costs. So Bates is adjusting that over which he has control: operating hours.

6:10 p.m., Front Royal, Va. Regular: $2.81

The commuters in the blue Kia van pull back into the Park 'N Ride about 75 minutes after leaving Washington.

That business about mother and daughter losing their private time on the road? The mom, Linda Burnett, says she doesn't really miss it.

For one thing, they eat lunch together every day. For another, when it was just the two of them with Jennifer driving, "I never felt like I could sleep, in case it would make her sleepy," Burnett says.

Now, with two others to keep the driver company, Burnett can get her rest. And when neither mother nor daughter are driving, Jennifer can join her. Gas prices may be a nightmare, but for the Burnetts, carpooling works like a dream.

Contributing: Rick Hampson, Martha T. Moore and Mary Pilon in New York; Judy Keen in Chicago, Joliet and Elmhurst, Ill.; Patrick O'Driscoll in Aurora, Colo.; Laura Parker in Front Royal, Va.; Dennis Cauchon in Columbus, Ohio; Larry Copeland in Acworth, Ga.; Matt Reed of Florida Today in Melbourne; Ken Fuson of the The Des Moines Register in Perry, Iowa; Ben Jones of The (Appleton, Wis.) Post-Crescent in Madison; Gary Stern of The (Westchester County, N.Y.) News Journal in Mount Kisco; Gwen Florio of the Great Falls (Mont.) Tribune in Sand Springs; Stu Whitney of the Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader in Sioux Falls and Beaver Creek, Minn.; Ben Spillman of the Palm Springs, Calif., Desert Sun in Bermuda Dunes.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-02-gas-prices-cover_x.htm

Read More...

Summary only...

Brook trout on decline in eastern USA, study finds

USA TODAY
Brook trout on decline in eastern USA, study finds
By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY

A three-year study of brook trout populations concludes that the popular sport fish has disappeared or markedly declined in nearly half of the eastern U.S. areas where it once thrived.

The plight of the small, olive green trout is detailed in a report to be released today by a coalition of conservation groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, fish and game departments from 17 states, and universities.

"Brook trout are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to water quality," said Gary Berti of Trout Unlimited in a statement. "Declining brook trout populations can provide an early warning that the health of an entire stream, lake or river is at risk."

Once plentiful in streams and rivers from Maine to South Carolina, brook trout — or "brookies," as they're known to anglers — have been greatly reduced by development in the eastern USA. Large populations remain in just 5% of the areas they inhabited before colonization of the United States, notably in Maine and the mountains of Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.

The detailed report will be used to guide future recovery and conservation efforts aimed at keeping brook trout off the endangered species list, said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation programs for Trout Unlimited.

"The overall intent is to avoid what's happened in the West," where many salmon and trout species are on the endangered list, Wood said.

The assessment is the first project by a coalition of state and federal wildlife agencies and conservation groups that joined in 2001 to protect and restore streams and rivers for fish.

The National Fish Habitat Action Plan is patterned on a similar effort for ducks and other waterfowl begun in the 1980s.

The brook trout study found that the fish have been eliminated from 19% of the territory they once occupied and greatly reduced in an additional 27%.

Brook trout require cold, clean water to survive and are extremely sensitive to water temperatures above 68 degrees, conditions that often occur when stream and river areas are developed or lose shade.

States where brook trout have declined the most include Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina and New Jersey. The report assessed habitat used by both native fish and the offspring of hatchery bred fish stocked in streams.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-03-brook-trout_x.htm

Read More...

Summary only...

Secret Service to Release Logs on Abramoff Visits

washingtonpost.com
Secret Service to Release Logs on Abramoff Visits
Associated Press

The Secret Service has agreed to turn over White House visitor logs that will show how often Jack Abramoff, the convicted former lobbyist, met with Bush administration officials -- and with whom he met.

U.S. District Judge John Garrett Penn approved an agreement last Tuesday between the Secret Service and Judicial Watch, a public interest group, that requires the agency to produce records of Abramoff's visits from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

Judicial Watch filed suit in February after the Secret Service did not respond to its request under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Abramoff once was one of the city's most successful lobbyists. He represented Indian tribes in their dealings with Washington politicians.

He pleaded guilty in January in Washington to federal charges stemming from an investigation into his ties with members of Congress and the Bush administration. He also pleaded guilty to fraud charges in Miami concerning a multimillion-dollar purchase of the SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet in 2000.

Administration officials have refused to say how many times Abramoff, who raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's reelection, has been to the White House. Bush has said he does not know Abramoff.

The visitor logs are to be delivered to Judicial Watch by May 10.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell Wins GOP Nomination for Ohio Governor

ABC News
Blackwell Wins GOP Nod for Ohio Governor
Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell Wins GOP Nomination for Ohio Governor
By JULIE CARR
The Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell won the GOP nomination for governor Tuesday after campaigning as the best candidate to deliver his party from a year of political scandals and infighting.

With more than half of precincts reporting, Blackwell had 257,531 votes, or 55 percent, compared with 208,481, or 45 percent, for Attorney General Jim Petro.

The gubernatorial primary was seen as a test of voter dissatisfaction that could foreshadow the party's prospects in November.

"The Republicans have a problem," said Carl Rullmann, a GOP voter who said he supported Blackwell.

Two other states also held primaries Tuesday, including North Carolina, where the district attorney prosecuting the Duke University rape case fought off two challengers, and Indiana, where congressional incumbents easily won their party nominations.

Blackwell's prominence as a leading black voice in the GOP could be pivotal to Republicans. He is the first black candidate to run for governor in Ohio. His ads sought to taint Petro with connections to the state's investment in rare coins that went awry and to tie him to Gov. Bob Taft, who pleaded no contest to four ethics violations last year involving a failure to report free golf outings and gifts.

Petro hammered Blackwell as a hypocrite who opposes abortion and gambling even though some of his multimillion-dollar stock portfolio is invested in those interests.

The GOP disunity may have turned off some voters.

"I saw a lot of backstabbing, name-calling, character assassination. I don't go for that kind of stuff," said James Martin, 66, leaving a polling place in the Cleveland suburb of Strongsville. He said the negative campaigning influenced his choice in the Republican primary, but he would not say who that was.

The Ohio scandals also emboldened Democrats who hope to end the Republicans' 15-year hold on the governor's office.

The winner of the primary will face Democratic U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland in November. Strickland is viewed as the Democrats' best chance to regain some control over a state government where Republicans control all three branches, as well as statewide offices and a majority of congressional seats.

Strickland handily defeated a former state legislator for the nomination. With 60 percent of precincts reporting, he had 331,823 votes, or 78 percent.

Republicans targeted the House seat Strickland leaves open as one of its best shots nationally to gain a Democratic congressional spot. They have been helped by the fact the Democrats' leading candidate must run as a write-in due to a filing mistake. National Democrats and Republicans have spent roughly $1 million in the race, more than they have for any primary in the past decade.

Ohio's U.S. Senate race will also be closely watched in the fall, but incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine and his Democratic rival, U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown, easily emerged from the primary.

In North Carolina, the allegations against Duke athletes turned what might have been a low-key election into a referendum on Mike Nifong's performance.

In unofficial results, Nifong had 45 percent of the vote, with challenger Freda Black close behind with about 42 percent. There are no Republicans running in the general election, and Nifong needed only 40 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff.

In Indiana, all nine congressional incumbents advanced to the November election. Most challengers were short on money and party support. Sen. Richard Lugar, one of the most popular politicians in state history, had no Republican opposition.

Read More...

Summary only...

Federal Study Finds Accord on Warming

The New York Times
Federal Study Finds Accord on Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

A scientific study commissioned by the Bush administration concluded yesterday that the lower atmosphere was indeed growing warmer and that there was "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."

The finding eliminates a significant area of uncertainty in the debate over global warming, one that the administration has long cited as a rationale for proceeding cautiously on what it says would be costly limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases.

But White House officials noted that this was just the first of 21 assessments planned by the federal Climate Change Science Program, which was created by the administration in 2002 to address what it called unresolved questions. The officials said that while the new finding was important, the administration's policy remained focused on studying the remaining questions and using voluntary means to slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

The focus of the new federal study was conflicting records of atmospheric temperature trends.

For more than a decade, scientists using different methods had come up with differing rates of warming at Earth's surface and in the midsection of the atmosphere, called the troposphere. These disparities had been cited by a small group of scientists, and by the administration and its allies, to question a growing consensus among climatologists that warming from heat-trapping gases could dangerously heat Earth.

The new study found that "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere," in the words of a news release issued by the Commerce Department and approved by the White House. The report was published yesterday online at climatescience.gov.

The report's authors all agreed that their review of the data showed that the atmosphere was, in fact, warming in ways that generally meshed with computer simulations. The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.

All other industrial powers except Australia have accepted mandatory restrictions on such gases under the Kyoto Protocol, but efforts to extend and expand that treaty face hurdles.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that conducts an exhaustive periodic review of causes and impacts of warming, has just finished reviewing drafts of its next assessment, to be published next year.

Scientists involved in that effort, while refusing to comment on specific findings, said that research since the last assessment, in 2001, had generated much greater certainty that humans are the main force behind recent warming, and that much more warming is in store unless emissions are curtailed.

Michele St. Martin, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said, "We welcome today's report" and added that it showed that President Bush's decision to focus nearly $2 billion a year on climate monitoring and research was "working."

Thomas Karl, the director of the National Climatic Data Center in the Commerce Department and the lead editor of the report, said it was not simply a review of existing work but also, by forcing scientists with differing views to meet repeatedly, resulted in breakthroughs.

"The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases," Dr. Karl said.

John R. Christy, an author of the new report whose analysis of satellite temperature records long showed little warming above Earth's surface, said he endorsed the conclusion that "part of what has happened over the last 50 years has clearly been caused by humans."

But Dr. Christy, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said the report also noted that computer simulations of the climate system, while good at replicating the globally averaged temperature changes, still strayed in projecting details, particularly in the tropics.

This implied that the models remained laden with uncertainties when used to study future trends, he said.

Dr. Christy also said that even given what the models projected, it would be impossible to slow warming noticeably in the coming decades. Countries would be wise to seek ways to adapt to warming, he added, even as they seek new sources of energy that do not emit heat-trapping gases.

Read More...

Summary only...

10 Country Poll: Fox, BBC, Al Jazeera most trusted

Reuters
Fox, BBC, Al Jazeera most trusted: poll
By Jeffrey Goldfarb

LONDON (Reuters) - One-quarter of consumers abandoned a news source over the past year because they lost trust in its reporting, according to a new survey that also found the BBC, Fox News and Al Jazeera the most trusted brands in their respective home regions.

Results of a poll of more than 10,000 adults in 10 countries by the British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters Group Plc and The Media Center were released on Wednesday, with an additional finding that media worldwide were trusted by an average of 61 percent of respondents compared with 52 percent who said they trusted their governments.

"National TV is still the most trusted news source by a wide margin, although the Internet is gaining ground among the young," said Doug Miller, president of London-based research firm GlobeScan, which conducted the polling.

"The jury is still out on blogs," he added. "Just as many people distrust them as trust them."

The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.

Seventy-two percent of all respondents said they followed the news closely, including 67 percent of those 18 to 24 years old.

Asked to name the news source they most trusted, without any prompting, 59 percent of Egyptians said Al Jazeera, 52 percent of Brazilians said Rede Globo, 32 percent of Britons said the BBC, 22 percent of Germans said ARD and 11 percent of Americans said Fox News, each leading their respective nations.

The most trusted news brands globally were the BBC, Britain's publicly funded broadcaster, and CNN, which is owned by the world's biggest media conglomerate, Time Warner Inc..

Three Internet portals -- Google, Yahoo and Microsoft/MSN -- received the next highest trust ratings across the 10 countries, when respondents were prompted with 16 different brand names.

Although trust in media has grown in most countries over the past four years, the survey found, 28 percent of people across the 10 countries either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the statement: "In the past year I have stopped using a specific media source because it lost my trust."

Germans were unique in the survey for naming newspapers more than TV as their most important news source, by a margin of 45 percent to 30 percent.

Among South Koreans, who have a comparatively low trust of media in general, 34 percent said the Internet was their most important source of news compared with 9 percent worldwide.

More than 1,000 people were surveyed in March and April in each of the United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia and South Korea.

Reuters is a global news and information provider and The Media Center is a nonprofit think tank that researches media-related issues.

Read More...

Summary only...

US finance sector puts Web pricing in crosshairs

Reuters
US finance sector puts Web pricing in crosshairs
By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. financial sector, a powerful force in Washington, may be gearing up to jump into a Capitol Hill fight over the future of the Internet and stop an effort it says could add billions in costs just to maintain current offerings.

The issue is "net neutrality" -- a battle so far contained between high-speed Internet broadband operators and companies with online product offerings, such as Amazon.com.

Broadband providers such as AT&T Inc., BellSouth Corp. and Verizon Communications want to expand from flat pricing and also sell tiers of service based on the speed, reliability and security of the bandwidth used.

While those providers have said they would not block access to the open Internet, companies that sell products or services online want Congress to adopt stricter safeguards to ensure they are not pushed into a slower lane of the Internet if they do not pay more for dedicated network service.

For the financial services sector, which is expected to spend $117 billion on information technology this year, tiered pricing could add billions more in expenses to maintain online banking services and other Web offerings, according to a memo circulating among financial services lobbyists. Those costs could hit the bottom line or be passed on to customers.

But it's a fight the financial sector almost missed.

"Net neutrality is an issue that (financial services) firms ignore at their peril," Philip Corwin, a partner at Washington law firm Butera & Andrews, wrote in the memo.

"If the industry does not engage quickly, it may find that the matter has been decided without its input and that the fallout will affect the industry's cost structure and customer relations for years to come," he added.

The net neutrality issue is embedded in a debate over legislation aimed at easing the path for phone carriers to get into the video business and compete with cable companies.

Legislation has been proposed in the House and Senate, and is being considered in commerce, but not banking, committees.

A Senate measure would require further study of the issue.

A Republican-led bill moving through the House would preserve the ability to surf on the open Internet, but it does not specifically bar Internet service providers from charging new fees to assure reliable service to business users.

Corwin argues that would give Internet service providers a green light to impose big new fees on financial companies.

But phone companies on Tuesday told Reuters the issue has nothing to do with financial services, and action by Congress could hurt consumers and deter investment in new networks.

"If anything is going to halt necessary investments in next generation networks it will be Congress dictating business models to companies," said AT&T spokeswoman Claudia Jones.

"The finance community should be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing who are attempting to codify the status quo to their own benefit and to the detriment of consumers everywhere."

LATE-STAGE STRATEGY

Many in the financial services sector seem to have awakened late to the issue and are now trying to catch up.

"I think it caught a lot of people off guard, honestly," said one bank lobbyist.

The House is expected to consider its bill next week and the Senate Commerce Committee plans to mark up its legislation next month, but large differences between the bills could prevent any legislation from passing this year.

The Corwin memo urged the financial industry to get the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee involved, which could slow the progress of legislation.

It also said the industry should prepare bills and push their introduction to assure the continuation of flat high-speed Internet pricing for online financial services.

While the financial industry has plenty of muscle, it may be too late for that strategy, some lobbyists said.

Instead, they may wait for legislation to get to conference, where House and Senate negotiators work out their differences. In that environment of closed-door bargaining, banks and credit unions might be able to secure the net neutrality language they seek, lobbyists said.

The National Association of Federal Credit Unions, America's Community Bankers, American Bankers Association and Independent Community Bankers of America, among other financial lobbyists, say they are monitoring the issue.

But telephone carriers rejected the concerns. They said the legislation is about allowing phone companies to offer video and moving to tiered pricing so those who use little bandwidth do not subsidize those who use a lot.

"Net neutrality is not about being neutral, it is about companies that benefit from selling video on the Internet and their potential advertisers looking to have the cost of the bandwidth they use paid by the consumer," said Bill McCloskey, BellSouth spokesman.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky)

Read More...

Summary only...

US unveils strategy to combat terrorist travel

Reuters
US unveils strategy to combat terrorist travel
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration does not have enough intelligence analysts to track the movements of terrorists and lacks the ability to distribute classified data about suspicious travelers to U.S. customs and immigration officials, a government report released on Tuesday shows.

The 45-page unclassified report, entitled National Strategy to Combat Terrorist Travel, provides an overview of U.S. efforts to control terrorist movements around the world and prescribes steps to further improve travel security both at home and abroad.

The National Counterterrorism Center, which wrote the strategy, submitted a classified version to Congress in February as a part of congressionally mandated intelligence reforms enacted in 2004.

More than four years after the September 11 attacks, the strategy document said the Bush administration still needs to ensure that "an appropriate number of intelligence analysts" are dedicated to the problem of global terrorist mobility.

It said greater analytical capability was needed to provide the Department of Homeland Security and FBI with more "actionable leads" from government immigration systems designed to identify suspect travelers before they reach the United States.

The Bush administration is facing a general shortage of intelligence analysts. The problem has been most acute among analysts with counterterrorism experience because of increasing demand from several agencies including the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Counterterrorism Center, which is the U.S. clearinghouse for terrorism-related intelligence.

The document called specifically for more resources for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, an obscure agency that conducts analysis of clandestine terrorism travel and helps to coordinate U.S. government efforts to counter terrorist movements.

The strategy report also urged the administration to grant "appropriate security clearances" to customs, immigration, border patrol and consular officials so they can receive classified information on travelers with potential ties to terrorism. The government needed to "establish the required technical infrastructure" to support the data flow, it said.

"We've really got to increase the intelligence gathering and information sharing about terrorist traveling and terrorist mobility ... both in the United States and overseas," said Army Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, who is the National Counterterrorism Center's operational planning director.

He declined to speak in detail.

The report also underscored Washington's need to persuade foreign countries to tighten immigration laws and join international efforts to crack down on passport forgery and illicit travel networks used by terrorists.

Read More...

Summary only...

How Many More?

ReadTheOpEdPage.com
How Many More?
Richard Kuper

On May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished," 140 brave US Citizens had given their lives in the invasion of Iraq.

Three years later, the mission is clearly not accomplished, and now more that 2,400 brave US Citizens have given their lives in the invasion of Iraq.

On June 28, 2005, George W. Bush said: "The Sacrifice in Iraq has been worth it."

Has it really?

How many more must die because of this mistake?

Saddam Hussein did not attack the US on 9/11/01. Osama bin Laden was behind that attack.

It has been 1,688 days (more than 4 1/2 years) since George W. Bush said he would catch Osama bin Laden "Dead or Alive!"

When will the war on terrorism actually begin?

Read More...

Summary only...

Mission Accomplished

Huffington Post
Mission Accomplished
Joseph A. Palermo

Karl Rove once said that he ran television campaigns as if the people watching had the sound turned off on their TV monitors. In other words, only the visuals matter. Three years ago, on May 1, 2003, the Bush production company devoured some of America's most powerful national and cultural signifiers, not just for crass political gain, but to inspire and enthrall the populi.

It was a circus without the bread. Here are a few examples:

1). The aircraft carrier. This mighty vessel evokes the surrender of the Japanese on September 14, 1945 to General Douglas MacArthur. The USS Abraham Lincoln is named after the first GOP president, and Bush sought to capture some of the earthy glow of the Great Emancipator. (The USS John F. Kennedy need not apply.) The enormous ship is also a symbol of America's projection of power in the world, with its connotations of conquering oceans, tackling the frontier, and technological innovation.

2). The flight suit. Bush donned the one-piece jump suit instead of the business suit he normally wears to symbolize adventure, danger, "Top Gun," masculinity, and virility. Benito Mussolini wore similar get ups for the same effect. The helmet and the codpiece, the parachute and the dog tags, cast Bush in a Bonapartist light: the General who mixes with his troops, inspiring them with his charismatic leadership. Past presidents who began their careers in the military, such as the Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, made it a point never to wear their uniforms out of respect for the civilian nature of the presidency.

3). Bush as the flier. As the pilot (or co-pilot) Bush is part of the mission, risking his life for the cause. It's tricky business landing a jet aircraft on such a thin floating platform filled with explosive ordnance. He's our military commander. The costume evokes the patriot, helmet stuffed under his arm, returning from a dangerous mission. He's in charge. He's the Commander-in-Chief. Il Duce also flew planes. This spectacle was not Michael Dukakis in a tank!

4). The jet aircraft. This technological marvel harkens back to the Wright Brothers, and fulfills the dream of flight humans had pondered for centuries. Our leader was soaring like a bird in the sky with the help of American technological know-how. He conquered the air. Most people don't get the opportunity to do that; he must be a hero, a risk-taker. After all, the flyboys are the most glamorous in all of the U.S. military.

5). The adoring crowd. The smiling, waving, hugging, ethnically and racially diverse U.S. sailors aboard the aircraft carrier told America: "Our brave men and women protecting our nation obviously adore Bush, so should we!" Team Bush used these military personnel as cheesy, but effective, stage props.

6). The "Mission Accomplished" banner. Spelling out "Mission Accomplished" behind the President gave America what it loves most: Winners! Bush declared himself a winner. He was a winner over the Congress, over the weak-kneed Democrats, over the "liberal" media, over his doubters from the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Islamic Conference, the Arab League, the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Nations, China, Russia, Germany, France, Pope John Paul, and 15 million protesters worldwide. Bush Wins! We are Winners!

(Later, when we learned the "mission" was not "accomplished," the Bush spinmeisters claimed that it was those stupid, over-excited sailors who were responsible for putting up the banner. The White House subsequently rescinded this false story, but not before the passing of several news cycles.)

7). The deep blue sea background. The watery horizon stretched out over the distance on a stunning California day. The cameras faced out to sea so viewers wouldn't see the San Diego coastline. Adventure and danger loom out in the vast oceans. It takes a strong, courageous man to explore them. (Even though the ship was only about ten nautical miles away from the shore.) "There's our Leader out at sea with the boys!"

8). The invocation of great war presidents of the past. Bush declared: "In the battle for Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." He claimed his "preventive" war on Iraq was akin to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War Two, and that it "affirmed" Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, "asserted" the Truman Doctrine, and evoked "Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire." Not only had the Bush TV producers hijacked the nation's dominant symbols of patriotic duty and sacrifice, but they also wrapped them up in a semiotic package with moments of presidential greatness from our history. The implication was clear: Bush embodied Roosevelt, Truman, and Reagan.

9). The linkage of everything back to 9-11. In his "Mission Accomplished" speech, Bush exploited, as he always does, the trauma the nation experienced with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He tapped into the memory of this generation's Pearl Harbor and the solidarity Americans felt following that day of infamy.

10). The control of images. The event itself had more planning than a Superbowl half-time show. The former ABC television producer, Andrew Sforza, who had become Bush's Leni Riefenstahl, arranged all of the details: the multiple camera angles, the lighting, the staging of the sailors, the direction of each shot, the mise en scène, nothing was left to chance. Sforza had a team of nearly one hundred production technicians on the ship preparing (or "advancing") for the President's triumphal landing. Sforza, who is famous for contracting expensive lighting rigs from Europe set on barges that bathed the Statue of Liberty in light as a backdrop for one of Bush's photo-ops, hired associate producers, set builders, grips, lighting and sound specialists, assistant directors, and managers who worked with the major television networks to provide direct feeds and other accommodations. Sforza's set designers dictated the specific colors each of the lines of sailors would wear, the colors of the air deck smoke that was used, the monumental music played. They also made sure there were plenty of black, Latino, and female faces in the frame.

Naturally, the corporate media swooned over their leader's performance. Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball held forth breathless fawning commentary of the event while the caption shot across the screen: "Why are the Democrats raining on Bush's parade?" Said Matthews: "We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as a president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical . . . Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president." Matthews' comments were consistent with other media commentators' enthusiasm across the board. The astute political observer, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, referred to Bush as "a great man" a half dozen times during the aircraft carrier stunt. Wolf Blitzer, Brian Williams, Bob Schieffer, Joe Klein, David Sanger, and the other dominant voices of the esteemed worlds of mainstream journalism and punditry fell over themselves to honor our hero-leader, Bush the Younger, (Bush the Magnificent!), in his most heroic hour.

I leave you with a quotation from Joe Scarborough that captures the élan of those heady days so long ago when the Iraq war smelled like victory to the mightiest minds of our political discourse. On April 10, 2003, the day after the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Firdos Square, Scarborough remarked: "I'm waiting to hear the words, 'I was wrong,' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types. . . . Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like [Tom] Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."

Read More...

Summary only...

Sour news for GOP in poll

USA TODAY
Sour news for GOP in poll
By David Jackson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Six months before Republicans try to hold on to control of Congress in the fall elections, a new poll shows President Bush has slid to the lowest approval rating of his presidency, and a majority of voters say they'll vote for Democrats in November.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found Bush's approval rating at 34%, two points under his previous low. He also received the lowest ratings of his presidency on his handling of the economy, energy and foreign affairs. He tied his previous low on Iraq: 32%.

The poll showed Democrats leading 54%-39% among registered voters who were asked which party they would prefer in a congressional race.

POLL RESULTS:Text of all questions, responses

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president is not focused on polls but "on achieving results for the American people."

A spokesman for the House Republicans' campaign committee, Carl Forti, said unhappiness with Bush doesn't doom the GOP's 29-seat House majority because "President Bush is not on the ballot."

Forti also noted that the poll showed 59% of respondents said their own representative deserves to be re-elected. However, poll data show that's the lowest percentage since 1994, when Republicans won control of Congress from the Democrats.

Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said voters are linking Bush's problems to his GOP colleagues: "The American people want change."

Since 1950, there have been six times when presidents had Gallup approval ratings below 50% in the spring as their party sought to keep control of Congress. The president's party lost House seats in all six years, ranging from five in 1968 to 54 in 1994.

A 15-seat switch in November would give the Democrats a majority in the House. A six-seat switch would give Democrats control of the Senate.

The poll comes as the Iraq war and a sharp increase in gasoline prices have contributed to public uneasiness.

Bush has repeatedly said he does not pay attention to opinion polls. At a fundraiser last week for Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., he said he wants congressional colleagues "who don't listen to polls and focus groups but stand strong for what they think we're doing right."

Contributing: Jim Drinkard



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-01-gallup-poll_x.htm

Read More...

Summary only...

Around the World, Warmer Temperatures Mean More Infections; Malaria, Lyme Disease and Even Rare Shellfish Disease Spreading

ABC News
Around the World, Warmer Temperatures Mean More Infections
Malaria, Lyme Disease and Even Rare Shellfish Disease Spreading
By JOY VICTORY

April 25, 2006 — - At first glance, an outbreak of diarrhea among passengers on board a cruise ship in Alaskan waters in the summer of 2004 seemed to be relatively harmless.

Health officials theorized it might be the Norwalk virus, a bug that often affects people living in close quarters, such as in nursing homes, hospitals and cruise ships. While certainly annoying, Norwalk usually doesn't cause serious illness.

But then the lab reports started trickling in, and it showed that indeed a more serious problem was at hand -- many of the afflicted the passengers had eaten raw oysters raised in Alaska that were infected with a type of cholera-like bacteria, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, that normally grows on shellfish harvested in much warmer waters.

The finding not only signaled a dangerous new risk to the Alaskan seafood industry, it also highlighted how surprisingly and directly global warming can affect human health, particularly in terms of infectious diseases, experts say.

"Depending on the warming trend that unfolds in the years ahead, we have to accept that habitats will change ... new bugs can be expected to settle in. Every organism will find a niche," said epidemiology professor Colin Soskolne, of the University of Alberta in Canada. "With the tampering of the environment, we really can't predict with much certainty exactly what those changes will be."

Not Safe for Consumption

Global warming is caused by an increase in carbon dioxide and other industrial and auto emissions, which trap heat in the atmosphere and increase air and water temperatures.

While he has personally noticed Alaska's shrinking glaciers and ice floes, global warming wasn't on the mind of Dr. Joseph McLaughlin as he investigated the cruise ship disease outbreak.

He simply wanted to know why the oysters were suddenly at risk -- before this outbreak, no seafood in Alaska had ever tested positive for Vibrio because the ocean water was simply too cold for the bacteria to multiply.

But that was no longer true: An analysis showed that Alaskan water was no longer as chilly as it once was, giving Vibrio a new home up north.

"There's a sort of threshold level, above which concentrations of Vibrio in oysters become (accumulated) enough to cause illness in humans," said McLaughlin, a medical epidemiologist with the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services in Anchorage. "That temperature is about 15 degrees Celsius. What we found was that 2004 was the first summer on record during which the temperature exceeded that."

Or as McLaughlin said in a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine last October: "Rising temperatures of ocean waters seem to have contributed to one of the largest known outbreaks of V. parahaemolyticus in the United States."

The warmer water is unlikely to go away. Buoys placed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association in 1976 have detected a steady annual increase of .4 degrees in the Gulf of Alaska, he said.

"We're not talking about a little bay in Prince William Sound," McLaughlin said.

Thankfully, the state health department got the word out about the outbreak and advised oyster farm owners to keep oysters deep enough where they would not be exposed to water any warmer than about 15 degrees C.

It is just one of the many ways that Alaskans have had to adapt to documented changes in the climate and environment, McLaughlin said. But it serves as a strong warning signal.

"We thought this was probably the best example of the potential of global warming impacting human health, as far as available evidence goes," McLaughlin said.

Mosquitoes and Ticks Spreading

Across the world, another microscopic bug, malaria, has caused havoc in the lowlands of Africa. It is transmitted by mosquitoes, which thrive in hot, damp areas near stagnant bodies of water.

Until recently, the mile-high city of Nairobi, Kenya, was relatively free of the disease.

But now Nairobi, despite its elevation and climate, is in the midst of a malaria outbreak.

And like the Alaskan bacterial outbreak, warmer temperatures are to blame, say scientists with the University of Michigan, the University of Hawaii, the University of Barcelona in Spain and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

In their report, published in last month's Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, they determined that the mosquitoes were thriving in part because it was steadily getting warmer in East Africa's higher altitudes.

This comes as no to surprise to public health researcher Dr. Paul Epstein, the associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School and a medical doctor trained in tropical public health.

Along with mosquito-borne diseases like malaria, yellow fever and West Nile virus, tick-borne diseases also are an increasing problem, he said.

When winters are milder, more deer ticks reproduce year-round, transmitting infections such as Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease cases increased from 11,700 cases in 1995 to 21,304 cases in 2005. This year could be a bad one for diseases spread by warm weather-loving insects -- 2005 was the warmest year in the last 100 years, said NASA scientists.

This not only causes more biting bugs to flourish, it also indirectly impacts humans' health in other ways. For example, when trees are weakened by drought, such as what's happening in pine forests from Alaska to Arizona, beetles eat the bark, weakening the trees even more and making them prone to wildfires, Epstein said.

And those wildfires not only release more harmful carbon dioxide and soot into the atmosphere, they trigger another major health effect of global warming: asthma.

Ragweed Loves Carbon Dioxide

For years, doctors have noted an increase in asthma and allergies.

While no one can link the increase directly to global warming, Epstein has strong evidence: When ragweed -- one of the most allergenic plants on the planet -- is grown in a carbon dioxide-rich environment, it grows 10 percent faster than normal, but produces 60 percent more pollen.

While that's good for the plants, it's bad for people. Most people are allergic to something, and often it is plant pollen. In children especially, being exposed to an allergen can trigger a dangerous asthmatic response, or inflammation of the lungs.

"As we see the seasons change and warmer weather has an earlier arrival in the spring, we're beginning to see shifts in asthma and allergies," Epstein said.

What's worse, he said, is that the tiny dust particles emitted from diesel fuel attach to plant pollens, and these diesel particles further irritate the lining of the lung.

Though there haven't been published studies showing that the rise in asthma cases is tied to global warming, Epstein said it is.

"We're seeing it and we're all experiencing it," he said.

Read More...

Summary only...

16,000 Species Said to Face Extinction

ABC News
16,000 Species Said to Face Extinction
Conservation Groups: Polar Bears, Hippos Among 16,000 Species Threatened With Extinction
By SAM CAGE
The Associated Press

GENEVA - Polar bears and hippos are among more than 16,000 species of animals and plants threatened with global extinction, the World Conservation Union said Tuesday.

According to the Swiss-based conservation group, known by its acronym IUCN, the number of species classified as being in serious danger of extinction rose from about 15,500 in its previous "Red List" report, published in 2004.

The list includes one in three amphibians, a quarter of the world's mammals and coniferous trees, and one in eight birds, according to a preview of the 2006 Red List. The full report is published later this week.

"Biodiversity loss is increasing, not slowing down," said Achim Steiner, the conservation group's director general. "The implications of this trend for the productivity and resilience of ecosystems and the lives and livelihoods of billions of people who depend on them are far-reaching."

The Red List classifies about 40,000 species according to their risk of extinction and provides a searchable online database of the results. The total number of species on the planet is unknown, with 15 million being the most widely accepted estimate. Up to 1.8 million are known today.

People are the main reason for most species' decline, mainly through habitat destruction, according to IUCN.

Polar bears are threatened by global warming and melting ice caps, because they are conditioned for the icy environment and depend on Arctic ice floes for hunting seas. They are predicted to suffer a 30 percent population decline in the next 45 years.

The hippopotamus population in war-ravaged Congo, meanwhile, has plummeted by 95 percent, mainly because of unregulated hunting for meat and ivory in their teeth.

"Regional conflicts and political instability in some African countries have created hardship for many of the region's inhabitants, and the impact on wildlife has been equally devastating," said Jeffrey McNeely, chief scientist at IUCN.

Freshwater fish have suffered some of the most dramatic population declines because of human activities that damage their habitat, like forest clearance, pollution and water extraction. In the Mediterranean, more than half of the 252 endemic species are threatened with extinction. Seven species, including two relatives of carp, are already extinct, IUCN said.

The conservation union warned that the decline in wetlands and freshwater ecosystems will also damage supplies for humans of food, clean drinking water and sanitation.

Other species threatened with extinction include desert gazelles, ocean sharks and Mediterranean flowers, IUCN said.

Some 784 are listed as extinct only a small increase from 2004 while 65 are found only in captivity. But the situation looks a little brighter for some others, such as the white-tailed eagle and Indian vultures.

"Reversing this trend is possible, as numerous conservation success stories have proven," Steiner said. "Biodiversity cannot be saved by environmentalists alone it must become the responsibility of everyone with the power and resources to act."

On the Net: http://www.iucnredlist.org

Read More...

Summary only...

10 States, in Challenge to U.S., Plan Suit to Force Better Mileage Rules for S.U.V.'s

The New York Times
10 States, in Challenge to U.S., Plan Suit to Force Better Mileage Rules for S.U.V.'s
By DANNY HAKIM

ALBANY, May 1 — Ten states, including California and New York, plan to file suit this week to force the Bush administration to toughen mileage regulations for sport utility vehicles and other trucks.

The suit, which the states are to announce on Tuesday, contends that the administration did not do a rigorous enough analysis of the environmental benefits of fuel economy regulations, as required by law, before issuing new rules last month for S.U.V.'s, pickup trucks and minivans. The suit will also claim that the government did not consider the impact of gasoline consumption on climate change when devising the new rules.

While the states have initiated a number of suits over Washington's environmental policies, the new suit is the first to take aim at federal fuel economy regulations. With gasoline reaching $3 a gallon in many parts of the country, there has been a broad outcry for action but little consensus on what to do.

Senate Republicans have proposed a $100 rebate to help taxpayers pay gas bills, a proposal that has been met with criticism even from the right, while President Bush has asked for Congressional authority to revise mileage regulations for passenger cars. He already has the authority to do so for S.U.V.'s and other trucks.

California will be lead plaintiff in the suit, which also includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, as well as New York City and the District of Columbia. Many of the same states have teamed up in other environmental suits against the administration, though with mixed success; a recent suit against the Environmental Protection Agency over power plant emissions was dismissed.

"It's disappointing when you see power exercised to benefit the auto industry rather than consumers or environmental challenges," said Bill Lockyer, the attorney general of California, discussing the Bush administration's fuel economy rules.

The attorney general of Massachusetts, Thomas F. Reilly, said in a statement, "At a time when we are all facing a gas crisis, the Bush administration is pushing for fuel economy standards that appear to be authored by the oil and auto industries."

Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said he could not comment on the suit because he had not seen it. But Mr. Tyson defended the regulations and said, "There's no question the analysis was rigorous."

Several top Democrats, and also some Republicans, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, have called for tougher mileage requirements for S.U.V.'s, which must meet less stringent fuel economy guidelines because they are classified in the same category as light trucks, instead of with passenger cars .

Late last year, the Bush administration unveiled the first broad overhaul of mileage regulations for S.U.V.'s, pickup trucks and minivans since the rules were created in the 1970's. Currently, each automaker's annual production of passenger cars must average 27.5 miles a gallon, while light trucks, which include S.U.V.'s, must average 21.6 miles a gallon in 2006 models.

The administration's new system would take the single truck category and break it up into a number of smaller categories with varying requirements. Government officials predict that overall truck fuel economy will rise to 24 miles a gallon by 2011, though it will depend on the sales mix among S.U.V.'s and other trucks.

Automakers have said the new regulations are tough enough.

Jennifer Moore, a spokeswoman for the Ford Motor Company, referred to a previous company statement that commended the traffic safety agency for creating a new regulatory system that would "pose significant challenges" but also be "more equitable to every automaker."

An overdependence on sales of large S.U.V.'s like Hummers, Chevrolet Suburbans and Ford Explorers is seen as among the reasons General Motors and Ford, the last two American-owned automakers, are suffering steep losses and closing plants.

Environmentalists say the Bush administration's new truck fuel economy system will not do enough to curb oil consumption and adds uncertainty to a complex system already characterized by loopholes.

In setting the standards, the administration "looked high gas prices, oil addiction and global warming squarely in the eye and blinked," said Daniel Becker, the director of the global warming program at the Sierra Club.

The administration is, however, closing one loophole, an exemption that has left the largest S.U.V.'s, including the Hummer H2, outside the regulatory system.

But the administration's rules are considerably less daunting than new California global warming emissions regulations that would force steeper fuel economy increases on vehicles sold there. New York is planning to pass similar air-quality rules. The industry is challenging the state rules in court, and the administration has strongly opposed the movement by states to regulate global warming emissions.

Mr. Tyson, of the traffic safety agency, said many other factors were considered in addition to the price of gas, including "the ability of industry to be able to meet the standard."

"You can't propose something that's not technically feasible for them to achieve," he added.

Read More...

Summary only...