ChoicePoint Data Theft Fallout Spreads to 145,000

internetnews.com
ChoicePoint Data Theft Fallout Spreads to 145,000
By Tim Gray

Responding to pressure amid a growing PR mess after the breach of sensitive consumer data, credit-check company ChoicePoint (Quote, Chart) is notifying 145,000 people to be on the guard for identity theft.

The latest notices come after the company recently disclosed that an ID theft ring gained access to the company's vital credit information. Law enforcement officials have discovered some 750 people who have been victims of identity theft as a result of the operation, ChoicePoint said.

Chuck Jones, a spokesman for the Georgia-based data aggregating firm, said the company already alerted 35,000 Californians whose information, including credit reports, addresses and social security numbers, were compromised after the crime ring duped company officers into handing over valuable information. Now it is expanding its notices to another 110,000 Americans, bringing to 145,000 the number of citizens whose data may be at risk of being abused by identity thieves.

The con men posed as businessmen looking to do background checks on its own customers. The company is now in the process of notifying the remaining individuals.

"Anyone who does not receive a notice can be reasonably assured they have not been impacted by this fraud," Jones told internetnews.com.

ChoicePoint is a service used by landlords and merchants to conduct background checks on potential tenants and customers. It also has several law enforcement and government agencies as clients.

"There is a certain irony there," said Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. "They're not doing the thing they claim their service enables their customers to do," such as conduct background checks.

The information about the data theft came to light after ChoicePoint recently notified 35,000 residents of California that their information was compromised, in accordance with state law.

However, a chorus of attorneys general leaned on ChoicePoint to alert consumers in other states whose information may have been obtained by the thieves.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, along with 18 other state attorneys general, contacted the company and urged it to expand its notification plans.

"Identity theft threatens a consumer's financial health, credit rating and peace of mind," Madigan said in a statement. "I will work to help make sure that ChoicePoint does the right thing by informing Illinoisans of any financial or identity theft risks they may face."

Bruce Schneier, founder and chief technology officer for Counterpane Internet Security, said it was important for ChoicePoint to immediately come clean with everyone involved.

"My advice to ChoicePoint is simple: you realize that the people whose data has been stolen are not your customers, and it's smart business not to care in the least about their problem. But by not treating this as an opportunity for good public relations, you're inviting Congress to regulate you. And you're not going to like that."

The scam began last fall when the con men posed as businessmen looking to join the ChoicePoint service. They allegedly opened about 50 fraudulent accounts.

The offline data theft case comes amid a dramatic growth in identity theft cases overall, but especially online. According to Gartner (Quote, Chart), 9.4 million online U.S. adults were victimized by identity theft between April 2003 and April 2004. The losses amounted to $11.7 billion.

Security experts said there are many ways consumers and businesses can protect themselves from this type of "social engineering" scheme without passing new laws or legislation, starting with more vigilance and common sense about protecting vital information.

"We may need to look at the way we interact with other people and exactly who has access to our data," said former U.S. cyber-security czar Howard Schmidt, who is now president and CEO of R&H Security Consulting in Washington state. Schmidt said society's awareness of the importance of information, especially personal information, is growing. "Knowledge is the most important tool," he added.

The ring leader of the operation, Olatunji Oluwatosin, 41, was sentenced in Los Angeles County Court to 16 months in federal prison on Thursday, according to several published reports.

In a statement, ChoicePoint said it has "acted quickly to address the circumstances that led to the unauthorized access. We are continually updating our processes and procedures to ensure the integrity of our systems and the information they contain."

originally published February 18, 2005

Read More...

Summary only...

Kansas on My Mind

The New York Times
February 25, 2005

Kansas on My Mind
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Call it "What's the Matter With Kansas - The Cartoon Version."

The slime campaign has begun against AARP, which opposes Social Security privatization. There's no hard evidence that the people involved - some of them also responsible for the "Swift Boat" election smear - are taking orders from the White House. So you're free to believe that this is an independent venture. You're also free to believe in the tooth fairy.

Their first foray - an ad accusing the seniors' organization of being against the troops and for gay marriage - was notably inept. But they'll be back, and it's important to understand what they're up to.

The answer lies in "What's the Matter With Kansas?," Thomas Frank's meditation on how right-wingers, whose economic policies harm working Americans, nonetheless get so many of those working Americans to vote for them.

People like myself - members of what one scornful Bush aide called the "reality-based community" - tend to attribute the right's electoral victories to its success at spreading policy disinformation. And the campaign against Social Security certainly involves a lot of disinformation, both about how the current system works and about the consequences of privatization.

But if that were all there is to it, Social Security should be safe, because this particular disinformation campaign isn't going at all well. In fact, there's a sense of wonderment among defenders of Social Security about the other side's lack of preparation. The Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation have spent decades campaigning for privatization. Yet they weren't ready to answer even the most obvious questions about how it would work - like how benefits could be maintained for older Americans without a dangerous increase in debt.

Privatizers are even having a hard time pretending that they want to strengthen Social Security, not dismantle it. At one of Senator Rick Santorum's recent town-hall meetings promoting privatization, college Republicans began chanting, "Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security's got to go."

But before the anti-privatization forces assume that winning the rational arguments is enough, they need to read Mr. Frank.

The message of Mr. Frank's book is that the right has been able to win elections, despite the fact that its economic policies hurt workers, by portraying itself as the defender of mainstream values against a malevolent cultural elite. The right "mobilizes voters with explosive social issues, summoning public outrage ... which it then marries to pro-business economic policies. Cultural anger is marshaled to achieve economic ends."

In Mr. Frank's view, this is a confidence trick: politicians like Mr. Santorum trumpet their defense of traditional values, but their true loyalty is to elitist economic policies. "Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. ... Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization." But it keeps working.

And this week we saw Mr. Frank's thesis acted out so crudely that it was as if someone had deliberately staged it. The right wants to dismantle Social Security, a successful program that is a pillar of stability for working Americans. AARP stands in the way. So without a moment's hesitation, the usual suspects declared that this organization of staid seniors is actually an anti-soldier, pro-gay-marriage leftist front.

It's tempting to dismiss this as an exceptional case in which right-wingers, unable to come up with a real cultural grievance to exploit, fabricated one out of thin air. But such fabrications are the rule, not the exception.

For example, for much of December viewers of Fox News were treated to a series of ominous warnings about "Christmas under siege" - the plot by secular humanists to take Christ out of America's favorite holiday. The evidence for such a plot consisted largely of occasions when someone in an official capacity said, "Happy holidays," instead of, "Merry Christmas."

So it doesn't matter that Social Security is a pro-family program that was created by and for America's greatest generation - and that it is especially crucial in poor but conservative states like Alabama and Arkansas, where it's the only thing keeping a majority of seniors above the poverty line. Right-wingers will still find ways to claim that anyone who opposes privatization supports terrorists and hates family values.

Their first attack may have missed the mark, but it's the shape of smears to come.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Read More...

Summary only...

GREATEST PRESIDENT? HINT: HE WAS FIRST

yahoo news!

GREATEST PRESIDENT? HINT: HE WAS FIRST

Fri Feb 25, 7:59 PM ET

By Richard Reeves

LOS ANGELES -- Newspapers around the country celebrated Presidents Day by publishing a couple of new surveys designed to choose America's greatest president. One poll, done for Washington College, selected the old favorite, Abraham Lincoln. Another done by the Gallup Organization for CNN and USA Today chose a new champion, Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), with Bill Clinton (news - web sites) in second place.

Amazing! Reagan and Clinton? Proof positive, I assumed, that Americans have short attention spans and/or just don't know enough about history. That was the reason, I thought, that John F. Kennedy was ranked first in so many polls in recent decades.

To test that theory, I asked my class in "Politics and Media" at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California to rank the top five presidents. I fully expected them -- and any other group of bright young people -- to name Reagan and Clinton, pretty much depending on their own personal politics.

I thought wrong. This was the result, purely unscientific: Lincoln, 27 points; George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Clinton, 18; Kennedy, 15; Theodore Roosevelt, 9; Reagan, 7; Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson, 3; James Madison, 2. John Adams and Lyndon Johnson each got one fifth-place vote. (The LBJ voter added a caveat: "Before Vietnam.")

It's a fascinating game, but one I have always declined to play because I know nothing about most 19th-century presidents -- except that I think James K. Polk is the most underrated, a tough guy who decided to take the West to make the United States a continental country. Manifest Destiny and all that.

Such rankings apparently began in the Nov. 1, 1948, issue of Life magazine. That journal, the television of its day, commissioned Arthur Schlesinger of Harvard (the father of the one still writing interesting history) to rank our chief executives, and he came up with a list of "The Great ... Near Great ... Average ... Below Average ... Failures." The great ones, rated by 55 historians, were the men who served at great turning points in history: Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Wilson, Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

To put that into perspective, the same issue, which hit the newsstands a week before the election that pitted New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey against President Harry S. Truman, ran a two-page photograph of Dewey captioned: "The Next President Travels by Ferry Boat Over the Broad Waters of San Francisco Bay."

In thinking about this, I came across a couple of surveys that make you think you don't know what to think.

Who were the most successful modern presidents in terms of preserving or improving the national economy? The best, according to an index created by Forbes magazine, which is the professional home of would-be Republican nominee Steve Forbes (news - web sites), was none other than ... Bill Clinton! Yep. If you crunch the numbers of gross domestic product growth, per capita income growth, employment gains, unemployment rate reduction, inflation reduction and federal deficit reduction, you come up with the man the Republicans wanted to impeach. In second place, it's Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy is third. Liberals all.

In fourth place, according to Forbes, comes Ronald Reagan, who had a great economy during his second term after a nasty recession in his first. But he always blamed the bad times on Jimmy Carter, who, Forbes adds, had the greatest job growth record of any president in history -- unfortunately he also broke records for inflation and interest-rate growth.

Finally, there are the rankings of ConservativeTruth.org, which advertises itself as "The Antidote to the Liberal News Media." Bruce Walker of that organization ranks the five best presidents this way: 1. Washington; 2. Jefferson; 3. Reagan; 4. Lincoln; 5. George W. Bush.

Walker should have quit while he was ahead. He downgrades Lincoln, not without reason, for accomplishing his goals by bloodshed, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, and for choosing a vice president, Andrew Johnson, who became one of the worst presidents in American history. Interesting.

I suppose I could be the antidote to Walker, but, in fact, I agree with him and his reasoning on George Washington. Says Walker: "Not just the father of his country, but in many ways the father of limited and representative government, Washington changed political history forever and for the better."

The greatest political event in our history, perhaps all history, was Washington's rejection of monarchy or of a presidency for life. His decision to go home in 1797 was what made our democracy and others possible. There was a man!

Read More...

Summary only...

Lieberman's bond with Bush angers some liberal Democrats

The Advocate
greenwichtime.com

Lieberman's bond with Bush angers some liberal Democrats

By Neil Vigdor
Staff Writer

February 25, 2005

Many Democrats know it simply as "the kiss."

But when U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., exchanged a public display of affection with President Bush after this month's State of the Union address, the gesture signaled a long kiss goodbye for some liberal Democrats in the senator's home state.

Predominantly anti-war in their beliefs, Lieberman's critics say the senator has alienated himself from the party's liberal wing with his alliances with Bush on issues such as Iraq and Cabinet nominations, and should be challenged in next year's Democratic primary.

"I think Senator Lieberman has been behaving much more like a Republican than a Democrat, and I think he needs to take another look at his constituents," said Kim Hynes, a Democrat from Lieberman's hometown of Stamford. "We live in a blue state and most people are opposed to the current administration."

Aides to Lieberman, who celebrated his 63rd birthday yesterday by adding another $100,000 to his campaign war chest, defended the third-term senator's record and said he is committed to representing the people of Connecticut.

"He tries to do what he thinks is right for Connecticut and the country," Lieberman spokeswoman Casey Aden-Wansbury said. "That sometimes means making decisions that others on the right and left are going to disagree with."

Key party stalwarts continue to back Lieberman, including state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy and Nancy DiNardo, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party.

Hynes, who ran unsuccessfully for the General Assembly last year, is not alone, however.

"I think it would be a very healthy thing for Lieberman to be challenged in a Democratic primary," said Mary Sullivan, a former Democratic National Committee member from Riverside. "It might make him more accountable or responsive to the sentiment of Democratic voters in the state."

Sullivan, like Hynes and several other Lieberman critics, volunteered for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's failed White House bid last year.

Dean, who endeared himself

to liberals with his hard-line opposition to the war and founding of the grass-roots political organization Dem-ocracy for America, became chairman of the Democratic National Committee earlier this month.

Following the blueprint of Democracy for America, some of Lieberman's critics are trying to use the Internet to bolster support for their cause, which has been informally named, "Dump Joe."

"Are the Dean people unhappy with Joe? You bet," said Ed Anderson, a Democrat from New Haven, where Lieberman currently resides. "I'm not voting for Joe again."

From Lieberman's vote to authorize the president to go to war to his endorsement of Alberto Gonzales for U.S. attorney general despite questions about his advice to the White House on prisoners of war, Anderson criticized the senator's positions on a number of issues, as well as his appearance on conservative television programs.

"If he were to forswear Fox News and was to start talking as critically about the Republicans as he does our own party, I might give him a second chance," said Anderson, who volunteered for Dean and is a member of Democracy for America.

Lieberman's critics spoke optimistically about mounting a challenge within their party in the August 2006 primary, but polls and the incumbent's fund-raising paint a much different picture.

A challenger would have to submit signatures of at least 2 percent of registered party members statewide -- about 12,600 people -- to petition his or her way onto the ballot against Lieberman.

Those numbers contrast with Lieberman's 69 percent ap-proval rating in a Feb. 18 Quinnipiac University poll -- a survey not limited to Democrats -- and $432,059 cash the senator had on hand for his re-election campaign as of a Dec. 31, according to the Federal Elec-tion Commission.

On the eve of his birthday, Lieberman added $100,000 to his campaign war chest at a private fund-raiser at the Greenwich home of dermatologist Andy Bronin.

Among the attendees were Blumenthal and Greenwich Democratic Town Committee Chairman Jim Himes.

"He may not always be in the safest position politically, but he charts a course and he does what he thinks is right," said Blumenthal, a Greenwich resident. "I can't say I always agree with him 100 percent of the time, but I admire him tremendously and support him."

Himes also pledged his support for Lieberman.

"I think he's an interesting guy to watch," Himes said. "He's been very forward on security issues and a lot of times that has him aligned with the president. I think the possibility of a primary is not out of the question. I think the notion of the guy not being the candidate is."

Former Greenwich First Selectman Richard Bergstresser, Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell and Stamford's Malloy, all Democrats, also defended Lieberman.

"I have friends in the party who think Joe is too conservative on cultural issues, and some other people may disagree with him on Middle East policy, (but) I haven't found a whole lot of people that are saying disagreements are such that we need a new senator," Malloy said.

Lieberman also received a major vote of confidence from DiNardo, who recently became chairwoman of the state's Democratic Party.

"He takes a lot of time making any decisions that he makes," DiNardo said. "He does not take his job lightly."

But what about "the kiss?"

Lieberman's aides and supporters made light of the exchange, in which Bush pecked Lieberman on the cheek after a brief embrace.

For the senator's critics, however, the moment will live in infamy.

"I'm not upset with the

kiss at the State of the Union," said Nathan Karnes, a member of the New Haven Democratic Town Committee and Democracy for America. "It's exactly what we needed. It's symbolic of why Joe Lieberman needs to be challenged."

Read More...

Summary only...

Senator Schumer's Social Security Calculator

Senator Schumer's Social Security Calculator

Use this calculator to see how much your social security will be under the current plan vs Bush's plan:

http://schumer.senate.gov/calc/index.html

Read More...

Summary only...

Don't Give Gannon A Pass

progressreport.org
2/24/2005

Don't Give Gannon A Pass

By now, almost everyone's heard of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. He's the
fake reporter with a false name given all-too-real press credentials by
the White House. He's known for asking biased, leading questions during
press briefings before finally being exposed a month ago as a
right-wing operative with no journalism experience, a fake name, and a shady
past. There are some serious ethical, professional and national security
issues at stake. Now, "Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) is circulating a
letter among his colleagues that asks President Bush to launch an
investigation
(http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000816326)
" into how Gannon gained access to White House press briefings without
any journalistic qualifications. Durbin and other concerned lawmakers
are adding their voices to a previous investigation request by Sen.
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), as well as a subpoena request by two leaders of
the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Louise
Slaughter (D-NY), who want federal prosecutors to gain access to a
record Gannon kept of his time over the past two years. Here are some basic
questions that must be answered by the White House:

HOW LONG CAN JOURNALISTS GAIN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT AN FBI
BACKGROUND CHECK? Most White House journalists have what is called a
"hard pass," a permanent pass obtained after undergoing a rigorous FBI
background check
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/15/guckert/print.html) .
Gannon skipped over that step. Instead, as Salon's Eric Boehlert explains,
"the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years
using what's called a day pass." Now, day passes are special exceptions
that are "designed for temporary use by out-of-town reporters who need
access to the White House, not for indefinite use
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/print.html)
by reporters." If the background check is necessary for reporters with
extended access to the White House, why were the rules circumvented for
Gannon? Is there a limit to how long a reporter can slide on "day"
passes, as Gannon did for years?

HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS
SUPPOSED PUBLICATION EVEN EXISTED? Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan
admitted the White House gave Gannon his first day press pass in February
2003
(http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000808705)
. The problem: His "publication," Talon News, didn't exist until April
2003.

BY WHAT CRITERIA DID THE WHITE HOUSE EVALUATE TALON NEWS? Talon News
is the brainchild (http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280006) of a
Republican activist from Texas, Bobby Eberle. Eberle, who runs the aptly
named "GOPUSA," told the New York Times he created Talon News because he
wanted to quietly construct a news service with a conservative slant:
"if someone were to see 'GOPUSA,' there's an instant built-in bias
(http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000808705)
there." In denying Gannon a pass, the congressional press office
pointed out Gannon was unable to show that "Talon News has any paid
subscribers
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/print.html) ."
They also found that while actual working reporters can show their
principal income comes from reporting stories for publication in actual
news services, Talon's "paying a single reporter a 'stipend' does not meet
the intent of the rule." As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank put it,
Gannon was "representing a phony media company
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html) that doesn't
really have any such thing as circulation or readership."

HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS UNDER A FAKE NAME? Jeff
Gannon's real name is James Guckert. (He told Wolf Blitzer that he changed
his name because "Jeff Gannon" was easier to pronounce.) Although all
applications for White House press passes are supposed to be thoroughly
vetted, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said he was
unaware (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html) that Gannon was
using an alias. His predecessor, Ari Fleischer, also pleads ignorance
(http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000807754)
. Gannon signed in to the White House each day as "Jeff Guckert,"
(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/10/wbr.01.html) a name
which did not match his pass -- yet no one seemed to thing that was
strange. In fact, no one at the White House seems overly concerned with what
amounts to a stunning national security breach.

WHAT IS GANNON'S CONNECTION TO THE VALERIE PLAME CASE? Jeff Gannon has
been interviewed by FBI agents who are investigating another security
breach in the White House, namely, the leaking of CIA agent Valerie
Plame's name to the press. So far, Gannon has been coy, giving "
conflicting signals
(http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000816326)
, over many months, concerning whether he saw a secret document or
merely knew about it from other sources." Today he says he never really saw
the memo, he'd only read about it in the Wall Street Journal. Reps.
Conyers and Slaughter are asking Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor
in the Plame investigation, to subpoena the journal Gannon kept over the
past two years to find out what Gannon actually knew, and when.

Read More...

Summary only...

"resist the temptation" to use "facts and figures"

progressreport.org
2/24/2005

DAILY OUTRAGE

In his 160-page playbook
(http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/3/luntz.zip) (ZIP file) on how to
spin the right-wing agenda, Frank Luntz tells conservatives to "resist
the temptation" to use "facts and figures" about the economy. He
advises preying on people's emotions surrounding the terrorist attacks of
9/11 instead: "Much of the public anger [over the state of the economy]
can be immediately pacified if they are reminded that we would not be in
this situation today if 9/11 had not happened." For more on Luntz's
attempt to manipulate public emotions, check out ThinkProgress.org
(http://www.thinkprogress.org/) .

Read More...

Summary only...

SOCIAL SECURITY -- HOUSE PRIVATIZATION LEADER A WALL ST. LUSH

progressreport.org
2/24/2005

SOCIAL SECURITY -- HOUSE PRIVATIZATION LEADER A WALL ST. LUSH: The
Republican chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, Louisiana
Rep. Jim McCrery, has accepted nearly $200,000 in contributions over four
years from the very same Wall Street firms that would likely reap
billions if President Bush's privatization scheme is made law. Campaign for
America's Future
(http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/accountablecongress/mccrery_home.cfm)
, a progressive advocacy group, yesterday accused McCrery of a severe
conflict of interest
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/politics/24social.html?ei=5088&en=bc733e3fbe5cae11&ex=1266987600&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print&position=)
, and announced plans to run "newspaper advertisements against Mr.
McCrery under the headline ' Who Does This Man Work For?
(http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/accountablecongress/mccrery_home.cfm)
' in his hometown, Shreveport," the New York Times reports. McCrery
responded by attacking the group's "extreme liberal bias," while ignoring
the substantive charges.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush Budget Hits South Hard

progressreport.org
2/24/2005

Bush Budget Hits South Hard

Recent studies (http://www.cbpp.org/2-22-05bud-tables.pdf) by budget
and policy groups shed new light on how President Bush's new budget
could devastate state economies. According to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, one-third of President Bush's proposed $5.9 billion cut
in overall domestic discretionary funding in 2006 would come from cuts
to programs that provide funding to states and localities. But many
states " are ill-prepared to absorb such cuts
(http://www.cbpp.org/2-22-05bud.htm) ." For example, 26 states already
facing 2006 budget deficits would be forced to absorb $32 billion worth
of additional budget shortfalls. Many of the hardest hit states would
be in the American South, the focus of a major conference
(http://www.newsouthernstrategies.org/) -- co-hosted by the Center for
American Progress -- beginning tonight in Chapel Hill. The conference
will focus on critical issues facing the South and include progressive
leaders (http://www.newsouthernstrategies.org/agenda.htm) from several
states that could be hit hard by the president's budget. Look for
updates from the conference on Think Progress
(http://www.thinkprogress.org/) .

NORTH CAROLINA: In North Carolina, where the conference on Southern
progress will be held, President Bush's budget proposal includes cuts of
$198.8 million (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/impact05/nc.pdf) for
discretionary grants to state and local governments. North Carolina is
already facing a projected $1.2 billion shortfall
(http://www.ncjustice.org/btc/2005/budbriefshortfall21505.pdf) in
revenue and struggling to finance hurricane relief. President Bush has
responded by slashing federal money for railroads, police programs and
Medicaid, as well as endorsing massive cuts in funds for community
development grants used to "rehabilitate older homes, pay for after-school
programs and provide housing for people in unsafe homes
(http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/10843386.htm?1c) ." He
also wants to eliminate a key public housing program, HOPE VI
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=157) , which enabled the state to
rebuild public housing complexes
(http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2100108p-8480166c.html) in
Raleigh and Durham. According to the Charlotte Observer, the cuts will
force local governments to " cut services or raise taxes
(http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/10843386.htm) ."

GEORGIA: On Friday, Georgia State Senator Sam Zamarripa will address
the Southern Conference. His state would also be hit hard by Bush's
proposed budget cuts. Georgia would lose $297.6 million
(http://www.nationalpriorities.org/impact05/ga.pdf) in discretionary
grants, with education funding hit especially hard. State programs
connected to No Child Left Behind would be underfunded by $366.8 million
(http://www.cbpp.org/2-22-05bud-tables.pdf) and Georgia would be one of
eleven states to lose 75 percent or more
(http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=43433) of its federal
adult education funding. Included in that cut would be the Even Start
family literacy program -- Bush said it was " abundantly clear
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050208-3.html) " the
program wasn't working, but education officials in Georgia say that's "
simply not true
(http://onlineathens.com/stories/021705/new_20050217073.shtml) ." The
program "doubles young readers' chance of success in Georgia and has
helped parents improve their job skills."

TENNESSEE: Another Southern state, Tennessee, could be among the
hardest hit by the president's proposed budget. The state is slated to lose
$303.9 million (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/impact05/tn.pdf) in
discretionary grants, including $37.3 million for community and
economic development and $3.2 million for low-income home energy assistance
(LIHEAP). Health care and public housing were hit hard in the Volunteer
State. According to FamiliesUSA, the budget would cost Tennessee $1.2
billion over 10 years in Medicaid funding, affecting " thousands of
Tennessee children and senior citizens
(http://www.tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/05/01/65374673.shtml)
." In Memphis, local officials are concerned that "huge cuts" to HOPE VI
and other federal housing programs will " severely curtail
(http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/cda/article_print/0,1983,MCA_440_3530324_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html)
" plans to rehabilitate several older and decrepit neighborhoods.

Read More...

Summary only...

CIVIL LIBERTIES -- JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED

progressreport.org
2/24/2005

CIVIL LIBERTIES -- JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED:
A government study of crime labs
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=693&e=10&u=/ap/20050224/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/crime_labs)
nationwide has revealed that "outdated facilities and a shortage of
employees led to a backlog of hundreds of thousand of criminal cases."
Over the course of a year, the investigated crime labs -- all of them
publicly funded facilities -- suffered a 70 percent increase in unfilled
requests; such an "overload threatened to delay justice for suspects and
victims" who must sit in limbo (or prison cells) until such cases are
handled. Furthermore, one of the co-authors of the study had this to say
about the cases that actually do get processed: "Labs are just trying
to process cases as fast as they can, get them out the door. That
becomes the prime objective, and sometimes a very necessary component of labs
-- ensuring accuracy and quality -- takes a back seat to just getting
the case done."

Read More...

Summary only...

PENTAGON -- PUSHING FOR MILITARY OPS, SKIPPING DELIBERATION

progressreport.org
2/24/2005

PENTAGON -- PUSHING FOR MILITARY OPS, SKIPPING DELIBERATION: Against
the wishes of the State Department and the CIA, the Pentagon continues to
pursue its latest revision to global counterterrorism operations: a
"plan that would allow Special Operations forces
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48522-2005Feb23.html)
to enter a foreign country to conduct military operations without
explicit concurrence from the U.S. ambassador there." If the plan were
enacted, such special missions would be conducted in secret, undermining the
"chief of mission" status of U.S. ambassadors as well as CIA station
chiefs worldwide. As "the president's top representative in a foreign
country," the authority of U.S. ambassadors has always been respected;
they have always weighed in with "political and diplomatic considerations"
before granting personnel entry. Need an example of why the State
Department and CIA want to maintain authority over Special Forces acting in
foreign countries? In a situation in Pakistan, the ambassador had to
order Special Forces soldiers out of the country for reckless behavior:
"We had SF [Special Forces] guys in civilian clothes running around a
hotel with grenades in their pockets."

Read More...

Summary only...

STEM CELLS -- CALIF. CONSERVATIVES SUE TO HALT RESEARCH

progressreport.org
2/24/2005

STEM CELLS -- CALIF. CONSERVATIVES SUE TO HALT RESEARCH: Finally, some
truly frivolous lawsuits. Two conservative groups have filed suits
"seeking to invalidate the $3 billion stem cell research
(http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2005/02/22/ap1842947.html) funding
institution" that California voters enthusiastically approved last
November. A spokeswoman for the institute brushed off the charges, saying
the "proposition's passage demonstrated that a majority of voters 'felt
comfortable that there was ample oversight and accountability,'" the
Associate Press reports. It's no wonder the suits aren't being taken
seriously. One, for instance, says the proposition illegally exempts
institute members of conflict-of-interest laws since "it allows members to
vote on awarding research grants that directly address diseases they or
their family members may have," the AP notes. "At least three members
have debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's disease and multiple
sclerosis."

Read More...

Summary only...

IN GERMANY, BUSH PLAYS BUBBLE BOY

progressreport.org
2/24/2005

ADMINISTRATION -- IN GERMANY, BUSH PLAYS BUBBLE BOY: The White House
brought its sealed, dissent-free road show
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=258) to Germany this week,
scrapping an open "town-hall"-style event with average Germans for a meeting
featuring " carefully screened 'young leaders,'
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/international/europe/24germany.html?)
" the New York Times reports. The town-hall gathering was expected to
be the "main highlight" of the president's trip -- that is, until the
German government said it was " unwilling to permit a scripted event with
questions approved in advance
(http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,druck-343281,00.html)
" (like the one Secretary Rice held recently in France
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=202) ). Germans eager to see a
U.S. president weren't always required to undergo ideological vetting; in
1989, the first President Bush addressed an "enthusiastic audience" of
3,500 Germans during his visit. This time around, President Bush was
"entirely sealed off from Germans," who protested his events and
overwhelmingly oppose (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148318,00.html)
his foreign policy goals.

Read More...

Summary only...

ENVIRO -- OPPOSE 'CLEAR SKIES'? TAX RETURNS, PLEASE

progressreport.org
2/23/2005

ENVIRO -- OPPOSE 'CLEAR SKIES'? TAX RETURNS, PLEASE: Environmental
regulator John Paul, a long-time Republican who voted for President Bush in
2000 and 2004, recently told a Senate environmental committee the
president's "Clear Skies" initiative "fails on every one of our
associations' core principals," is "far too lenient" on polluters and would
undermine "states' abilities to protect air quality." After the testimony,
several senators sent a letter to Paul with follow-up questions; Sen.
James Inhofe (R-OK) the chairman of the committee and also the lead sponsor
of "Clear Skies," took a different route. Inhofe asked Paul to
immediately submit the financial statements, membership lists and tax returns
for the last six years
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clear19feb19,1,7326617,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)
for both regulatory associations he represents. Rep. Henry Waxman
(D-CA) called the move "a blatant attempt at intimidation and bullying so
that experts will be afraid to speak out about a bill that rolls back air
pollution protections for all Americans." Inhofe has since delayed a
vote on the bill "after he determined that he did not have the numbers to
send it to the full Senate," the Los Angeles Times reports.

Read More...

Summary only...

VALUES -- THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT GETS IT WRONG AGAIN

progressreport.org
2/23/2005

VALUES -- THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT GETS IT WRONG AGAIN: What is it with
Christian fundamentalists and cartoon characters? First there was Rev.
Jerry Falwell's "outing"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/276677.stm) of Tinky Winky.
Then Focus on the Family's leader James Dobson decided to attack
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/politics/20sponge.html?ex=1109307600&en=3934353b562b7492&ei=5070)
what he saw as a pro-gay message behind SpongeBob SquarePants. The
newest make-believe figure under fire from the religious right? Shrek.
That's right. The uber-right Traditional Values Coalition is warning
parents
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050221/ca_pr_on_en/film_gay_animation_1)
about the cross-dressing and transgender subtext in the movie about the
beloved green ogre. The group is promoting "family values" by deciding
to ignore the overall theme of Shrek -- a "general message of tolerance
-- that outward appearances don't matter and that it's what's
underneath that counts" -- and instead focus on a line in the movie in which
Pinocchio is teased about wearing a thong. It's time for these groups to
relinquish the remote.

Read More...

Summary only...

MILITARY -- SEND IN THE UNDERTRAINED

progressreport.org
2/23/2005

MILITARY -- SEND IN THE UNDERTRAINED: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
isn't working hard enough
(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=269200)
to ensure that our troops are properly equipped; now he's trying to
rush them to war without sufficient training either. In a Jan. 31 memo,
Rumsfeld "asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide
options for cutting back
(http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050222-111908-6911r.htm) military
officer education during 'stress periods.'" Rumsfeld is exploring this
option in order "to allow greater numbers [of troops] to be available
for deployment," yet another sign that the Army is understaffed for
waging the dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while also training for
unforeseen conflicts. The proposal has some uniformed military outraged, with
one senior Army official commenting, "We're so good because of our
professional education, and you can't eliminate it, postpone it or reduce
it if you want a professional military." Unfortunately, Rumsfeld's plan
is already being tested out; "the Army's 4th Infantry division has
decided to pull 29 officers out of [their training] early to send them to
Iraq."

Read More...

Summary only...

O'REILLY'S LATEST RAMPAGE

progressreport.org

2/23/2005

O'REILLY'S RAMPAGE: Fox News host Bill O'Reilly is on the
rampage again, this time against imaginary government-funded breast
reduction surgeries for men. MediaMatters reports that O'Reilly falsely
accused California's state government of financing "'breast reduction
surgery for men,' 'transgendered surgeries,' and cosmetic surgeries like
facelifts and nose jobs." (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230002) In
reality, the San Jose Mercury News set the record straight last June,
reporting, "A state prison inmate who was reported to have had
breast-reduction surgery at taxpayer expense was instead operated on to remove
a tumor
(http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/8826055.htm)
." O'Reilly was taking issue with an effort by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and other California legislators to lobby for more federal funding,
particularly homeland security money, of which the state receives less
per capita than Wyoming
(http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=419375)
. "[W]hy should we give him [Schwarzenegger] our money when the Golden
State has lost control of spending?" O'Reilly asked. Yet, as
MediaMatters states, "California is one of 18 states that paid more in federal
taxes
(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-budget15feb15,1,4286500.story?coll=la-news-politics-california)
in fiscal year 2003 than it received in funding, [meaning]
Schwarzenegger would first have to receive his state's own money back before he
could begin to target 'our money.'"

Read More...

Summary only...

AFGHANISTAN - The Ignored War

progressreport.org
2/23/2005

AFGHANISTAN
The Ignored War

It's the forgotten war. But no news is sometimes bad news, and even
though it's not making the front pages, Afghanistan today is a country on
the brink of
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/international/asia/22afghanistan.html)
chaos. A new U.N. report, "National Human Development Report: Security
With a Human Face," ranked development in the war-shattered country
173rd out of 178 countries surveyed. (Only the sub-Saharan nations of
Burundi, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Sierra Leone rated worse.) Here's a
snapshot of life in today's Afghanistan: The average life expectancy in
Afghanistan is 44.5 years, 20 years lower than in neighboring
countries. A fifth of the rural population is going hungry. Twenty percent of
kids die before the age of 5, "80 percent of them from preventable
diseases, one of the worst rates in the world." Part of that is due to the
fact that three quarters of the population lacks access to clean drinking
water. Unless the situation is turned around, the report warned,
Afghanistan could revert to anarchy as "the fragile nation could easily
tumble back into chaos."

NARCOTIC STRANGLEHOLD: Last month, a report by the International
Monetary Fund expressed concern that Afghanistan's mushrooming opium trade
(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2773101.htm) was undermining
its stability as a nation. Today, three years after U.S. forces
arrived, Afghanistan is responsible "for about 87 percent of the world's opium
supply." Drug trafficking brings in almost $3 billion a year, an amount
equal to about 60 percent of Afghanistan's legitimate gross domestic
product. Experts believe that "roughly 10 percent of Afghanistan's
population of about 25 million is directly involved in poppy cultivation.
Many more are believed to work in processing, trafficking and other
illicit activities." Read more
(http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/ROADTORUIN.PDF)
about the impact of narcotics in Afghanistan.

ELECTION CHALLENGES: Afghanistan's first free election last October was
a victory for the country. Even more important, however, will be the
upcoming elections to decide upon the country's Parliament members. That
election is facing a rocky road
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36693-2005Feb18.html) .
Originally scheduled to take place in April or May of this year, the
deadline is being pushed back. According to Afghan law, President Karzai
has to announce the boundaries of the electoral districts a full 120
days before the election. The team updating the land surveys and
population figures has yet to report back, and even if Karzai were to announce
the boundaries tomorrow, that means the elections couldn't be held
until at least June. Second, the Afghan government has to raise $130
million to pay for the elections. Ballots for the 400+ races have to be
printed and distributed, the 4,000 candidates need to be vetted and voters
have to be educated. Making matters even more difficult, most of the
election officials involved are brand new; most international election
workers left the country after the October vote.

THE MEDIA VACUUM: So why isn't there more being reported about the
challenges still faced in Afghanistan? One reason: the journalists have all
gone home. Afghanistan is still a hot spot in the war against al Qaeda;
the country is still facing important elections this spring. However,
according to the American Journalism Review " only three news
organizations (http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3815) -- Newsweek, Associated Press
and the Washington Post -- have full-time reporters stationed in Kabul,
the capital."

Read More...

Summary only...

UNCLE BUCKY (and other Iraq news)

progressreport.org

2/23/2005

IRAQ

If You Can't Find Something Nice To Say...

In a "highly unusual" shift from past practice, the White House has
excised a full chapter on Iraq's economy
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45323-2005Feb22.html)
from last week's Economic Report of the President, "reasoning in part
that the 'feel good' tone of the writing would ring hollow against the
backdrop of...suicide bombings, assassinations, sabotage and mile-long
gasoline lines." The decision to delete a completed chapter from the
report, says the Washington Post, is unprecedented, heightening concern the
administration "does not value lengthy, reasoned analyses of its
policies." Moreover, the omission underscored the administration's concerns
about continuing violence and bloodshed in Iraq. Despite winning modest
commitments from NATO this week, President Bush still faces daunting
challenges in the country, including corruption and a political
environment unfriendly to White House aims.

WHO IS JAFARI?: Ibrahim Jafari is poised to become Iraq's new prime
minister. Jafari, a devout Shiite, lived in Iran for years as an exile,
then in London until 2003. His political party, the Dawa Party, has close
ties to Iran. Jafari "refuses to shake the hands of women and was
behind a move last year to make Islamic law Iraq's legal basis for dealing
with issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritances." As the LA Times
points out, now "the U.S. faces the prospect of dealing with a
government whose views may be closer to Tehran's than to Washington's
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-assess23feb23,0,1184555.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
." It may be a far cry from the Bush administration's visions of "a
pro-U.S. regime that would support American military bases, embrace U.S.
businesses and serve as a model for democracy in the region," leaving
the U.S. in the "position of providing its armed forces to protect a
government led by an Islamist with ties to Iran
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-shiites23feb23,0,2966698.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
."

CHALABI'S POWER PLAY: Yesterday, news sources reported that the
power-hungry former Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi withdrew his disruptive
challenge to become the next prime minister of Iraq. Remember: with Chalabi,
there's always an angle. Today, there are reports the former White House
darling may have been bribed into withdrawing his name with an offer
for another top position. The Christian Science Monitor reports the
leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), one
of the most powerful blocs in the Shiite alliance, met with Chalabi and
"offered to make him the top financial overseer in Iraq
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0222/p06s02-woiq.html) , responsible for
the oil, trade, and finance ministries in exchange for him
withdrawing." Chalabi's aides
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-22-al-jaafari_x.htm)
confirmed that offer.

SYMBOLIC COMMITMENTS: President Bush was "all smiles" on Tuesday when
he received a pledge from NATO that all 26 member nations will
contribute support to Iraq. NATO's gift, however, "looks smaller when
unwrapped." Reports indicate the contributions will be "modest [and] largely
symbolic." France, for instance, will be contributing " one officer to the
Iraq training mission
(http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/10964467.htm) --
in Brussels. He'll be stationed at NATO headquarters 'validating
equipment provisions.'" Belgium is sending 10 driving instructors... to the
German-led mission in the United Arab Emirates. " In a sign of lingering
differences
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-nato23feb23,1,3937066.story?coll=la-iraq-complete)
," France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Greece are still refusing
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-nato23feb23,1,3937066.story?coll=la-iraq-complete)
to send any actual personnel to Iraq.

UNCLE BUCKY: It's not bad news for everyone in Iraq, however. Just ask
William H.T. Bush, or, as President George W. Bush calls him, Uncle
Bucky
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-bucky23feb23,0,2285985.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
. Bucky Bush just made a cool $450,000 in war profits from Iraq through
the St. Louis-based defense contractor Engineered Support Systems Inc.
Uncle Bucky, who sits on the company's board, cashed out a half-million
of the company's stock options last month. ESSI's stock prices
skyrocketed "to record heights" with Uncle Bucky's nephew's decision to invade
Iraq. ESSI raked in millions from contracts to refit military vehicles
with extra armor, build $19 million worth of its protective shelters
for chemical and biological weapons (despite the fact that no biological
or chemical weapons have been found in Iraq), and provide
communications support services to the Coalition Provisional Authority. Of course,
the company hasn't been without its share of trouble, even with a family
member in the White House: some of ESSI's sole-source contracts (with a
value of $158 million) are now under investigation by the Pentagon.
(Share your views on Uncle Bucky at ThinkProgress.org
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=303) )

Read More...

Summary only...

Dollar drops on reserves concerns

BBC NEWS

Dollar drops on reserves concerns

The US dollar has dropped against major currencies on concerns that central banks may cut the amount of dollars they hold in their foreign reserves.

Comments by South Korea's central bank at the end of last week have sparked the recent round of dollar declines.

South Korea, which has about $200bn in foreign reserves, said it plans instead to boost holdings of currencies such as the Australian and Canadian dollar.

Analysts reckon that other nations may follow suit and now ditch the dollar.

At 1930 GMT, one euro was worth $1.325, up 1.46% on the day.

The British pound had added 0.76% to reach $1.91, while the dollar had fallen by 1.25% against the Japanese yen to trade at 104.2 yen.

Change in mood

At the start of the year, the US currency, which had lost 7% against the euro in the final three months of 2004 and had fallen to record lows, staged something of a recovery.

The comments from Korea come at a time when sentiment towards the dollar was already softening
Ian Gunner, Mellon Financial

Analysts, however, pointed to the dollar's inability recently to extend that rally despite positive economic and corporate data, and highlighted the fact that many of the US's economic problems had not disappeared.

The focus once again has been on the country's massive trade and budget deficits, with predictions of more dollar weakness to come.

"The comments from Korea came at a time when sentiment towards the dollar was already softening," said Ian Gunner, a trader at Mellon Financial.

On Tuesday, traders in Asia said that both South Korea and Taiwan had withdrawn their bids to buy dollars at the start of the session.

Mansoor Mohi-Uddin, chief currency strategist at UBS, said that there was a sentiment in the market that "central banks from Asia and the Middle East are buying euros".

A report last month already showed that the dollar was losing its allure as a currency that offered rock-steady returns and stability.

Compiled by Central Banking Publications and sponsored by the UK's Royal Bank of Scotland, the survey found 39 nations out of 65 questioned were increasing their euro holdings, with 29 cutting back on the US dollar.

Published: 2005/02/22 19:35:09 GMT

Read More...

Summary only...